ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design
2020 Nomination Template
Project Nomination Deadline: March 6, 2020District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:
March 10, 2020
transportation.ohio.govwww.acecohio.org
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template
o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Friday, March 6, 2020
Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture
pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-
ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is
limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.
2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Tuesday, March 10, 2020
o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
ODOT DISTRICTCAPITAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS
D-1: Robert White(419) 999-6901
D-2: Kacey Young (419) 373-4350
m i k e . gr a m za@ d o t .oh i o . gov D-3: Matthew Walter
(419) 207- [email protected]
D-4: Chad Root(330) 786-3162
[email protected]: Julie Gwinn(740) 323-5240
D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340
th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802
m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov
D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639
st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher
Pridemore(740) 774-9067
D-10: Jamie Hendershot(740) 568- 3975
[email protected]: Shane Locke
(330) [email protected]
D-12: Michael Kubek(216) 584-2127
Project Nomination Form
Project Name: POR-303-(0.70)(1.21)
Project PID: 93854
Consultant Agreement No.: 17012
County or Municipality: Portage
ODOT District: ODOT District 4
Consultant Name: S&ME, Inc.
Category for which project is being nominated Category 1: Construction Value - $0 to $5,000,000
Construction Value $2,704,356
Construction Project Number 180069
Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion
PS&E: 10/27/2017Letting: 1/25/2018Construction Completion: 10/31/2018
Name of Organization Submitting S&ME, Inc. & ODOT D04
Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,
mailing address)
Christopher Nye, P.E. Thomas J Powell, [email protected] [email protected] 216-901-1000 330-786-48348400 Sweet Valley Drive, Suite 404 2088 S Arlington
1
StreetValley View, OH 44125 Akron, OH 44306
Region Contact Person and their role Region Contact Person and their role
Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus
(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.
Thomas Powell, P.E. – ODOT District 4 – Design ManagerChristopher Nye, P.E. – S&ME – Geotechnical ConsultantBethanie Meek, P.E. – S&ME – Geotechnical Consultant
Award Ceremony Information:
Person(s) accepting award at ceremony (Name, Email, phone)
Thomas Powell, P.E. (HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]"[email protected] 330-786-4834)Christopher Nye, P.E. ([email protected] 216-901-1000)
Names to show on certificate, up to 6 persons and their
companies or roles
Thomas Powell, P.E. – ODOT District 4 – Design ManagerChristopher Nye, P.E. – S&ME – Geotechnical ConsultantBethanie Meek, P.E. – S&ME – Geotechnical Consultant
One JPG image to be used on certificate
2
3
Executive Summary:
Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology
The overall project goal was to raise the roadway profile to correct drainage and flooding issues along a section of SR 303 in the City of Streetsboro, Portage County, Ohio. This 800-foot stretch of roadway (termed the East Bowl) crossed over a peat bog and flooded multiple times per year, causing disruption and forcing vehicle and truck traffic to travel an under-sized bypass around the flooded section. The project also included replacing a nearby triple-barrel corrugated metal pipe culvert that overtopped with a 2-year rain event.
Highlight any unique aspects of the project
The design team was presented with numerous site challenges that made this a unique project. In the West Bowl, peat deposits extended to over 120 feet below the roadway, a rare fen wetland was identified that extends to the roadway shoulder, and environmental protections constrained dredging of Tinkers Creek. Ultimately these items limited feasible options to raise the roadway, so the existing culvert was replaced to improve stream flow and reduce flooding.
In the East Bowl, peat deposits in excess of 60 feet thick are present beneath SR 303 in the East Bowl. These materials exhibit a high amount of settlement, so the design included surcharging the soil with normal-weight fill, allowing it to settle during a waiting period, removing the surcharge load and constructing the final roadway embankment using lightweight (expanded shale) fill. Wick drains were installed to shorten the construction waiting period and a geogrid-reinforced aggregate mat was installed beneath the embankment to reduce differential settlement. Piezometers and settlement platforms were installed to monitor construction, and ultimately nearly 9 feet of settlement was measured during surcharging!
The final embankment is constructed with steepened side slopes to reduce the amount of imported fill and is built to a higher elevation than the long-term design elevation to accommodate expected future settlement. Additionally, fencing and wildlife crossings were incorporated into the design to protect and allow movement of the threatened spotted turtle and eastern massasauga rattlesnake.
4
5
Judging Criteria:
A. Project Development Process
1 Project development schedule maintained
a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual
The project scope changed several times during development as environmental and geotechnical restrictions were identified, so ODOT and S&ME modified the design schedule several times to accommodate these scope changes. The potential for scope changes was identified at the onset of the project, so the planned scope was performed in phases.
2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process
ODOT District 4 and S&ME worked closely together to develop a feasible technical solution as the project progressed. This included ODOT reviewing S&ME’s geotechnical reports and S&ME reviewing ODOT’s plans.
3 Cooperative and effective project management
ODOT & S&ME worked closely together to provide effective project management
4 CES Score for project CES Score for project
5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee Base Scope and Fee - $45,033 – Phase 1 work to perform
geotechnical exploration and develop alternatives to replace the culvert in the West Bowl.
b. Modifications – Scope and Fee Mod #1 - $2,056 – Assist with developing and then attending a public meeting at the City of Streestboro.Mod #2 - $88,664 – Phase 2 work to perform geotechnical exploration for raising the roadway profile in both the East and West Bowls.Mod #3 - $6,339 – Additional costs associated with encountering unexpected field conditions.Mod #4 - $39,943 – Additional engineering effort to finalize the
6
design, attend a meeting with City of Streetsboro, and review ODOT plans.Mod #5 - $16,359 – Perform additional engineering analyses per ODOT request and resulting from the challenging nature of the project.
B. Plan and Contract Quality
1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning
Project awarded at $2,406,666.41 and the Engineers Estimate was $2,287,000.00. Apprix 5.2% higher than estimate
2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on
project(s)90
b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let
80
3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.
Explain why changes were neededAdditional Work Change Orders, 25, $149,000±. These were required due to the variability in the soils
b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed
None
c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions
+61,000±
d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost
2.5%±
4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to 1
7
letting
b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda
Waterway Permit added to plan set
C. Alignment and Location Design
1 Alternativesa.
Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway
A total of nine alternatives were evaluated during the Phase 1 work, with three of these alternatives considered feasible. One of the alternatives was to relocate SR 303 along a new alignment that avoids the deep peat deposits and does not cross Tinkers Creek at this location; however, rerouting or closing SR 303 was not a feasible alternative.
2 Alignment fita.
Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.
The new construction generally occurred within the existing right-of-way and only a small ROW take was needed for the project. Additionally, the final embankment slopes were steepened to a slope of 1H:1V to reduce the amount of lightweight embankment fill needed for construction.
3 Design practicesa.
Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)
The project purpose was to raise the roadway profile to correct drainage and flooding issues along SR 303.
D. Cost-Effective Design
1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public
Safety and maintenance-related considerations.
8
2 Project Maintainability Steepending the embankment side slopes required internal soil reinforcement (i.e., geogrid). Consideration was given to limiting the length of the geogrid straps extending into the embankment so they would not interfere with buried utilities.
E. Complexity of Design
1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices
Design features that make this project unique include: wick drain installation to reduce the settlement time; constructing a geogrid-reinforced aggregate raft to serve as a construction platform and to reduce differential settlement of the roadway; surcharging the embankment; constructing the final embankment using lightweight (expanded shale) aggregate; installing piezometers and settlement platforms to monitor construction; and, incorporating fencing and wildlife crossings into the design.
2 New technology and products used No new technology or products
3 Degree of coordination and timing The embankment construction was monitored using piezometers and settlement platforms. Engineering design was engaged throughout construction to review and instrument data and provide feedback and direction to the contractor.
4 Number and type of controls governing Number and type of controls governing.
5 Number of traffic control stages 2
F. Community Sensitive Design
1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction
A narrow bypass route around the peat bog existed prior to construction, but was improved as part of the project Maintentance of Traffic.
2 Preservation of Natural Areas Construction was almost entirely performed within the existing
9
right-of-way
3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands
The Project was coordinated with the appropriate agencies to minimize the impacts to the wetlands
4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features
N/A
5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources N/A
6 Community Sensitive Design N/A
7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal The overall aesthetic appeal is typical of ODOT roadway projects.
Location Map(s)
At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)
10
11
Photographs
Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.
Typical detail showing surcharge embankment (upper) and final embankment (lower)
(photo - 12)
Typical cross section of the surcharge and final embankments
(photo - 13)
Installing geogrid reinforcement at the bottom of the embankement
(photo - 14)
Constructing the geogrid-reinforced mat
(photo - 15)
Installing wick drains
(photo - 16)
Placing lightweight (expanded shale) aggregate fill
(photo - 17)
Surcharge embankement
(photo - 18)
Constructing the final roadway embankment using lightweight (expanded shale) aggregate
(photo - 19)
Final roadway
(photo - 20)
Final roadway with fencing and wildlife crossings
(photo - 21)
