Value Engineering |
|---|
|
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
September 5, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52972-52977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21020]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 627
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2013-0039]
RIN 2125-AF64
Value Engineering
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is updating the existing value engineering (VE)
regulations to make them consistent with the statutory changes in the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and to make
other non-substantive changes for clarity.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Mr. Ken
Leuderalbert, FHWA Utilities and Value Engineering Program Manager,
FHWA Office of Program Administration, 317-226-5351, or via email at
ken.leuderalbert@dot.gov. For legal questions, please contact Mr.
William Winne, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1397, or via
email at william.winne@dot.gov. Office hours for the FHWA are from 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all
comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24
hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing
the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.archives.gov or the Government Printing Office's Web site at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Background
This final rule modifies the regulations that govern VE analyses in
the planning and development of highway improvement projects due to
recent changes to section 106(e) of title 23, United States Code. On
July 6, 2012, MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) was signed into law. Section
1503(a)(3) of MAP-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 106(e) by increasing the project
monetary thresholds that trigger a VE analysis; eliminating the VE
analysis requirement for design-build projects; and defining the
requirements for a State Transportation Agency (STA) to establish and
sustain a VE program.
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 directed the
Secretary to establish a program that required States to carry out a VE
analysis for all Federal-aid highway projects on the National Highway
System (NHS) costing $25 million or more. On February 14, 1997, FHWA
established the FHWA VE program and the requirement that STAs create
and sustain a VE program at title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part
627 (23 CFR 627). Section 1904 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
(Pub. L. 109-59) required that a VE analysis be conducted for bridge
projects with an estimated total cost of $20 million or more and any
other projects as determined by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 1503(a)(3) of MAP-21 amends 23 U.S.C. 106(e) to modify the
requirements for the value engineering program and raise the VE
analysis requirement threshold to $50,000,000 or more for projects on
the NHS that use Federal-aid Highway Program Funding assistance, and
$40,000,000 or more for bridge projects on the NHS that receive Federal
assistance. Section 1503(a)(3) removed the VE analysis requirement for
design-build projects. In addition, MAP-21 defined the requirements for
an STA to establish and sustain a VE program under which VE analyses
are conducted on all applicable projects, consistent with the current
regulations pertaining to STA VE Programs (as specified in 23 CFR
627.9).
[[Page 52973]]
In fiscal year 2011, STAs performed VE analyses on 378 Federal-aid
highway projects and approved and implemented a total of 1,224 VE
recommendations, resulting in a construction cost savings of $1
billion. In addition, approved construction VE change proposals
(VECPs), submitted by contractors and accepted by STAs, saved $38.3
million.
The STA VE programs, the VE analyses conducted on applicable
projects, and VECPs saved an annual average of $1.7 billion from 2002
through 2011. Additional information on STA, local authority, and FHWA
VE programs and practices is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve.
Summary Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the NPRM
On August 29, 2013, the FHWA published an NPRM at 78 FR 53380
soliciting public comments on its proposal to update the regulations.
The following presents an overview of the comments received in response
to the NPRM. Seven STAs, three transportation industry organizations,
and 26 individuals submitted comments.
The majority of comments focused on three themes: change in the
required VE analyses thresholds, elimination of the VE analysis
requirement for design-build projects, and the false perception that
justification is required for projects falling below the thresholds.
Comments Directed at Specific Sections of the Proposed Revisions to 23
CFR Part 627
Section 627.1--Purpose and Applicability
There was one comment received for this section which implied that
the proposed change in the NPRM would require additional VE analyses
and/or affect their timing. This change does neither. The change
clarified that the State VE policies and procedures shall establish the
State processes for identifying, conducting, and approving VE
recommendations.
There also appeared to be some confusion over the definition of
``approved recommendation''. For this section, ``approved
recommendation'' means those VE recommendations that were determined by
the STA to be acceptable for inclusion in the project plans.
Section 627.3--Definitions
One comment was received requesting that FHWA define the term
``Construction Manager/General Contractor'' (CM/GC) in this section.
The FHWA is in the process of preparing an NPRM for the CM/GC process.
It is more appropriate that the CM/GC process be defined through that
rulemaking.
A comment was received asking for clarification of 23 CFR 627.3
(definition of total project costs) and 627.5(a) (timing of VE
analyses). It was unclear to the commenter if these two sections, taken
together, would permit advanced utility relocations prior to the
completion of a VE study. The definition of total project costs (23 CFR
627.3) is intended to define what costs are used in determining whether
a project meets the VE analysis requirement threshold (as defined in 23
CFR 627.5(b)). The definition of total project cost is not intended to
define the timing of the VE analysis. There is nothing in this section
that would limit the timing of utility relocations.
The Tennessee DOT requested that the word ``optimizing'' replace
``improving'' in the definition of VE analysis in section 627.3. The
common meaning of the term ``optimizing'' is to improve or develop as
far as possible and/or to make the most effective use. The FHWA agrees
that the term ``optimizing'' is a better fit for this definition. The
definition for VE analysis is modified through this final rule.
Section 627.5--Applicable Projects
The Portland Cement Association agreed with the use of life cycle
cost analysis in sections 627.5 and 627.9.
The FHWA received three comments from individuals that the
definition of ``applicable project'' should not be limited to the NHS.
Their reasoning was that Federal-aid funds, whether used for projects
on or off the NHS, should require a VE analysis in order to provide the
best use of funds. Congress, through MAP-21, established when VE
analyses are required for federally funded projects. The VE
requirements of $50 million for highways and $40 million for bridges
are limited to the NHS.
The FHWA received 22 comments from individuals disagreeing with the
proposed change to increase the thresholds. The commenters stated that
projects of all sizes and scopes can benefit measurably from the
application of the value methodology. Further, they expressed a
perception that the increase in thresholds would result in missed
opportunities for value enhancements. The FHWA agrees that projects
below the MAP-21 thresholds may benefit from VE analyses. Therefore,
the regulation is modified to include language to encourage VE analyses
below the thresholds.
The FHWA received comments from two individuals and three STAs
agreeing with the proposed change to increase the thresholds. The
commenters stated that this change updates the program in accordance
with the construction cost index growth. Also, they believe that VE
concentration on higher cost projects yields better program results.
There were five comments from individuals that perceived a
requirement that STAs must first justify conducting a VE analysis for
projects falling below the thresholds of a required project. There is
no requirement to justify VE analyses on projects falling below the
thresholds. STAs have the flexibility to conduct a VE analysis on any
project.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials' Value Engineering Technical Committee requested that the
final rule clearly state that VE analyses are federally reimbursable.
Value engineering is an engineering practice and is thus eligible for
Federal reimbursement. This is made clear through the definition found
under 23 CFR 1.11(a); thus no further modifications in this regulation
is needed.
One comment was received opposing the requirement to identify in
STA policies and procedures when additional VE analyses should be
considered under 627.5(d). The commenter stated that there is no such
requirement in MAP-21. Section 106(e)(2)(C) of title 23, United States
Code, explicitly authorizes the Secretary to require additional VE
analyses as deemed appropriate. Section 627.5(d) does not require an
STA to conduct additional VE analyses, rather it encourages that the
policies and procedures consider additional VE analyses as the STA
determines appropriate. To clarify, this section has been revised to
replace ``shall'' with ``should''.
The FHWA received 11 comments from individuals disagreeing with the
proposed change to remove the VE analysis requirement for design-build
projects. The commenters stated that they have seen significant value
enhancements for design-build projects that have undergone VE analysis.
There were comments from three STAs and two associations supporting the
proposal to exclude the VE analysis requirement for design-build
projects. Congress, through MAP-21, established that VE analyses are
not required for design-build projects. However, the regulation will
encourage STAs to conduct VE analyses on design-build projects.
[[Page 52974]]
One comment was received from an individual that stated sections
627.5(e) and 627.5(b)(5) might be interpreted to conflict with each
other. The FHWA does not believe these sections are in conflict.
Section 627.5(e) states that a VE analysis is not required for projects
delivered using the design-build method of construction. Section
627.5(b)(5) states that a VE analysis may be required on any Federal-
aid highway program funded project the FHWA deems appropriate.
Accordingly, FHWA would not require a design build project excepted
from a VE analysis under section 627.5(e) to conduct a VE analysis
under section 627.5(b)(5).
Section 627.9--Conducting a VE Analysis
One comment was received from an individual regarding the timing of
VE analyses. The commenter appeared to imply that the language in the
regulation did not allow for early VE analysis during the planning or
environmental phases of a project. Section 627.9(a) provides the
greatest flexibility for an STA to conduct a VE analysis. The section
defines FHWA's intent that the VE analysis is to occur ``as early as
practicable in the planning or development of a project.'' Therefore
the VE analysis may be completed anytime during the planning,
environmental, or design phases of a project as long as there is enough
project information to conduct an effective VE analysis. The decision
on the timing of VE analyses is left to the STA's discretion as long as
the VE analysis is conducted prior to the completion of the plans,
specifications, and estimates package approval.
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
requested that FHWA develop guidance on the opportune time to conduct a
VE analysis. The FHWA has developed an order that provides more in-
depth guidance to STAs on the timing of the VE analysis. The VE Order
can be found at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/13111b.cfm. The optimum timing of a VE analysis is dependent on the
type or scope of the transportation project. Because of this, FHWA has
provided the greatest level of flexibility for the STAs to administer
their VE programs.
ARTBA and the Maine DOT commented that the CM/GC process should
also be covered under the exemption for design-build projects. Two
commenters stated CM/GC is a different contracting method than design-
build and therefore a VE analysis should be required. The CM/GC is a
different type of construction delivery method than design-build. In a
CM/GC project, the STA is responsible for the development of the design
package and the CM/GC is responsible for providing pre-construction
coordination and construction of the transportation facility. Design-
build, however, authorizes the design-build firm to design and
construct the project. Regardless, Congress provided an exemption for
design-build but did not do so for CM/GC. To maximize contractor input,
VE analysis for a CM/GC project allows the CM to be a part of the VE
analysis. The FHWA agrees that the CM/GC contracting method provides a
greater opportunity for contractor input during the design phase of a
project. Since CM/GC is fairly new to the transportation industry and
STAs are still learning the nuances of this delivery method, the
requirement for a VE analysis provides the greatest opportunity for the
designer, contractor, and owner to work together to identify value
improvement opportunities for the project. Realizing the differences in
the CM/GC contracting method, FHWA included VE analysis guidance for
CM/GC delivered projects in the VE Order.
Clarifications
Other non-substantive edits were made to clarify the regulatory
text. Such edits were made in sections 627.5(b)(4) (``construction''
was added before ``letting''); 627.5(c) (the last clause was revised to
state ``or programming multiple design or construction projects''); and
627.9(b) (added language to clarify ``the project's scope or
schedule'').
Although no comments were received regarding the definition of the
term ``project,'' we have clarified the definition in this final rule
to align with the definition of the term ``project'' as found under 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(18). Additionally, the second sentence of the definition
of a ``project'' was modified to better define the limits of a
``project.'' These clarifications do not change the scope of projects
required to be accompanied by a VE analysis.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this rule is not an economically
significant rulemaking action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and DOT regulatory policies and procedures. Additionally, this
action complies with the principles of Executive Order 13563 by
fostering the use of innovative technologies and methods while
eliminating unnecessary and costly design elements. This rule
establishes revised requirements for conducting VE analyses and it is
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be
minimal. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action
taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L.
96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this
rule on small entities. The FHWA has determined that this action does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulation addresses VE studies performed by STAs on
certain projects using Federal-aid highway funds. As such, it affects
only States, and States are not included in the definition of small
entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the RFA does not apply,
and the FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Furthermore, in
compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, FHWA
evaluated this rule to assess the effects on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. This rule does not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $140.8 million or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1532). Additionally, the definition of Federal mandate in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type
in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust
their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in
the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program
permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA determined that
this rule will not have a substantial direct
[[Page 52975]]
effect or sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of
a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rule
does not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States'
ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations.
The FHWA has determined that this rule contains a requirement for
data and information to be collected and maintained in support of
compiling the results of the VE analyses that are conducted annually.
The FHWA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register on August 29, 2013 at 78 FR 53380 which solicited public
comments regarding this information collection requirement. The FHWA
received no comments.
It will take approximately 200 burden hours to compile the results
of the VE analyses annually (400 analyses at 30 minutes each). It will
take approximately 156 burden hours to compile the results of all of
the VE analyses that are conducted annually by each State DOT, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and to submit these results to
FHWA (52 analyses at 3 hours each). The estimated total burden to
provide the additional information to attain full compliance with the
final rule is 356 hours.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The FHWA determined
that this rule will not have any effect on the quality of the human and
natural environment because it only establishes the requirements that
apply to VE analyses whenever an applicable Federal-aid highway project
is to be constructed. The promulgation of this regulation has been
determined to be a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175. The
FHWA believes that this rule does not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian Tribes; does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and does not preempt
Tribal law. This rule establishes the requirements that apply to VE
analyses whenever an applicable Federal-aid highway project is to be
constructed and does not impose any direct compliance requirements on
Indian Tribal governments, nor does it have any economic or other
impacts on the viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, a Tribal summary
impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211. The
FHWA determined that this rule does not constitute a significant energy
action under that order since it will not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, the
FHWA certifies that a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has
determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice
issues.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630. The
FHWA determined that this rule does not effect a taking of private
property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order
12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045. The
FHWA certifies that this rule does not cause an environmental risk to
health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the
heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 627
Grant programs-transportation, Highways and roads.
Issued on: August 27, 2014.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA revises 23 CFR part 627
to read as follows:
PART 627--VALUE ENGINEERING
Sec.
627.1 Purpose and applicability.
627.3 Definitions.
627.5 Applicable projects.
627.7 VE programs.
627.9 Conducting a VE analysis.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106(e), 106(g), 106(h), 112(a) and (b),
302, 315; and 49 CFR part 18.
Sec. 627.1 Purpose and applicability.
(a) The purpose of this part is to prescribe the programs, policies
and procedures for the integration of value engineering (VE) into the
planning and development of all applicable Federal-aid highway
projects.
(b) Each State transportation agency (STA) shall establish and
sustain a VE program. This program shall establish the policies and
procedures under which VE analyses are identified, conducted and
approved VE recommendations implemented on applicable projects (as
defined in Sec. 627.5 of this part). These policies and procedures
should also identify when a VE analysis is encouraged on all other
projects where there is a high potential to realize the benefits of a
VE analysis.
(c) The STAs shall establish the policies, procedures, functions,
and capacity to monitor, assess, and report on the performance of the
VE program, along with the VE analyses that are conducted and Value
Engineering
[[Page 52976]]
Change Proposals (VECP) that are accepted. The STAs shall ensure that
its sub-recipients conduct VE analyses in compliance with this part.
Sec. 627.3 Definitions.
The following terms used in this part are defined as follows:
(a) Bridge project. A bridge project shall include any project
where the primary purpose is to construct, reconstruct, rehabilitate,
resurface, or restore a bridge.
(b) Final design. Any design activities following preliminary
design and expressly includes the preparation of final construction
plans and detailed specifications for the performance of construction
work.
(c) Project. The term ``project'' means any undertaking eligible
for assistance under title 23 of the United States Code. The limits of
a project are defined as the logical termini in the environmental
document and may consist of several contracts, or phases of a project
or contract, which may be implemented over several years.
(d) Total project costs. The estimated costs of all work to be
conducted on a project including the environment, design, right-of-way,
utilities and construction phases.
(e) Value Engineering (VE) analysis. The systematic process of
reviewing and assessing a project by a multidisciplinary team not
directly involved in the planning and development phases of a specific
project that follows the VE Job Plan and is conducted to provide
recommendations for:
(1) Providing the needed functions, considering community and
environmental commitments, safety, reliability, efficiency, and overall
life-cycle cost (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 106(f)(2));
(2) Optimizing the value and quality of the project; and
(3) Reducing the time to develop and deliver the project.
(f) Value Engineering (VE) Job Plan. A systematic and structured
action plan for conducting and documenting the results of the VE
analysis. While each VE analysis shall address each phase in the VE Job
Plan, the level of analysis conducted and effort expended for each
phase may be scaled to meet the needs of each individual project. The
VE Job Plan shall include and document the following seven phases:
(1) Information Phase: Gather project information including project
commitments and constraints.
(2) Function Analysis Phase: Analyze the project to understand the
required functions.
(3) Creative Phase: Generate ideas on ways to accomplish the
required functions which improve the project's performance, enhance its
quality, and lower project costs.
(4) Evaluation Phase: Evaluate and select feasible ideas for
development.
(5) Development Phase: Develop the selected alternatives into fully
supported recommendations.
(6) Presentation Phase: Present the VE recommendation to the
project stakeholders.
(7) Resolution Phase: Evaluate, resolve, document and implement all
approved recommendations.
(g) Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP). A construction
contract change proposal submitted by the construction contractor based
on a VECP provision in the contract. These proposals may improve the
project's performance, value and/or quality, lower construction costs,
or shorten the delivery time, while considering their impacts on the
project's overall life-cycle cost and other applicable factors.
Sec. 627.5 Applicable projects.
(a) A VE analysis shall be conducted prior to the completion of
final design on each applicable project that utilizes Federal-aid
highway funding, and all approved recommendations shall be included in
the project's plans, specifications and estimates prior to authorizing
the project for construction (as specified in 23 CFR 630.205).
(b) Applicable projects requiring a VE analysis shall include the
following:
(1) Each project located on the National Highway System (NHS) (as
specified in 23 U.S.C. 103) with an estimated total project cost of $50
million or more that utilizes Federal-aid highway funding;
(2) Each bridge project located on the NHS with an estimated total
project cost of $40 million or more that utilizes Federal-aid highway
funding;
(3) Any major project (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 106(h)), located on
or off of the NHS, that utilizes Federal-aid highway funding in any
contract or phase comprising the major project;
(4) Any project where a VE analysis has not been conducted and a
change is made to the project's scope or design between the final
design and the construction letting which results in an increase in the
project's total cost exceeding the thresholds identified in paragraphs
(b)(1), (2) or (3) of this section; and
(5) Any other project FHWA determines to be appropriate that
utilizes Federal-aid highway program funding.
(c) An additional VE analysis is not required if, after conducting
a VE analysis required under this part, the project is subsequently
split into smaller projects in the design phase or the project is
programmed to be completed by the letting of multiple construction
projects. However, the STA may not avoid the requirement to conduct a
VE analysis on an applicable project by splitting the project into
smaller projects, or programming multiple design or construction
projects.
(d) The STA's VE Program's policies and procedures should identify
when VE analyses are to be considered or conducted for projects falling
below the required thresholds identified in paragraph (b) of this
section in the planning and development of transportation projects
where there is a high potential for the project to benefit from a VE
analysis. While not required, FHWA encourages STAs to consider the
following projects that may benefit from a VE analysis:
(1) Complex projects on or off the NHS that have a total project
cost of $25 million or more;
(2) Complex Bridge Projects on or off the NHS with an estimated
total project cost of $20 million or more;
(3) Design-build projects on or off the NHS with an estimated cost
of $25 million or more; and
(4) Any other complex, difficult or high cost project as determined
by the STA.
(e) A VE analysis is not required for projects delivered using the
design-build method of construction. While not required, FHWA
encourages STAs and local public authorities to conduct a VE analysis
on design-build projects that meet the requirements identified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(f) A VE analysis is required on projects delivered using the
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) method of contracting,
if the project meets the requirements identified in paragraph (b) of
this section.
Sec. 627.7 VE programs.
(a) The STA shall establish and sustain a VE program under which VE
analyses are identified, conducted and approved VE recommendations
implemented on all applicable projects (as defined in Sec. 627.5). The
STA's VE program shall:
(1) Establish and document VE program policies and procedures that
ensure the required VE analysis is conducted on all applicable
projects, and encourage conducting VE analyses on other projects that
have the potential to benefit from this analysis;
(2) Ensure the VE analysis is conducted and all approved
[[Page 52977]]
recommendations are implemented and documented in a final VE report
prior to the project being authorized to proceed to a construction
letting;
(3) Monitor and assess the VE Program, and disseminate an annual
report to the FHWA consisting of a summary of all approved
recommendations implemented on applicable projects requiring a VE
analysis, the accepted VECPs, and VE program functions and activities;
(4) Establish and document policies, procedures, and contract
provisions that identify when VECP's may be used; identify the
analysis, documentation, basis, and process for evaluating and
accepting a VECP; and determine how the net savings of each VECP may be
shared between the agency and contractor;
(5) Establish and document policies, procedures, and controls to
ensure a VE analysis is conducted and all approved recommendations are
implemented for all applicable projects administered by local public
agencies; and ensure the results of these analyses are included in the
VE program monitoring and reporting; and
(6) Provide for the review of any project where a delay occurs
between when the final plans are completed and the project advances to
a letting for construction to determine if a change has occurred to the
project's scope or design where a VE analysis would be required to be
conducted (as specified in Sec. 625.5(b)).
(b) STAs shall ensure the required VE analysis has been performed
on each applicable project including those administered by
subrecipients, and shall ensure approved recommendations are
implemented into the project's plans, specifications, and estimates
prior to the project being authorized for construction (as specified in
23 CFR 630.205).
(c) STAs shall designate a VE Program Coordinator to promote and
advance VE program activities and functions. The VE Coordinator's
responsibilities should include establishing and maintaining the STA's
VE policies and procedures; facilitating VE training; ensuring VE
analyses are conducted on applicable projects; monitoring, assessing,
and reporting on the VE analyses conducted and VE program;
participating in periodic VE program and project reviews; submitting
the required annual VE report to the FHWA; and supporting the other
elements of the VE program.
Sec. 627.9 Conducting a VE analysis.
(a) A VE analysis should be conducted as early as practicable in
the planning or development of a project, preferably before the
completion of the project's preliminary design. At a minimum, the VE
analysis shall be conducted prior to completing the project's final
design.
(b) The VE analysis should be closely coordinated with other
project development activities to minimize the impact approved
recommendations might have on previous agency, community, or
environmental commitments; the project's scope or schedule; and the use
of innovative technologies, materials, methods, plans or construction
provisions.
(c) When the STA or local public agency chooses to conduct a VE
analysis for a project utilizing the design-build project delivery
method, the VE analysis should be performed prior to the release of the
final Request for Proposals or other applicable solicitation documents.
(d) For projects delivered using the CM/GC contracting method, a VE
analysis is not required prior to the preparation and release of the
RFP for the CM/GC contract. The VE analysis is required to be completed
and approved recommendations incorporated into the project plans prior
to requesting a construction price proposal from the CM/GC contractor.
(e) STAs shall ensure the VE analysis meets the following
requirements:
(1) Uses a multidisciplinary team not directly involved in the
planning or design of the project, with at least one individual who has
training and experience with leading VE analyses;
(2) Develops and implements the VE Job Plan;
(3) Produces a formal written report outlining, at a minimum:
(i) Project information;
(ii) Identification of the VE analysis team;
(iii) Background and supporting documentation, such as information
obtained from other analyses conducted on the project (e.g.,
environmental, safety, traffic operations, constructability);
(iv) Documentation of the stages of the VE Job Plan which would
include documentation of the life-cycle costs that were analyzed;
(v) Summarization of the analysis conducted;
(vi) Documentation of the proposed recommendations and approvals
received at the time the report is finalized; and
(vii) The formal written report shall be retained for at least 3
years after the completion of the project.
(f) For bridge projects, in addition to the requirements in
subsection (e), the VE analyses shall:
(1) Include bridge substructure and superstructure requirements
that consider alternative construction materials; and
(2) Be conducted based on:
(i) An engineering and economic assessment, taking into
consideration acceptable designs for bridges; and
(ii) An analysis of life-cycle costs and duration of project
construction.
(g) STAs and local public agencies may employ qualified consultants
(as defined in 23 CFR 172.3) to conduct a VE analysis. The consultant
shall possess training and experience with leading VE analyses. A
consulting firm or individual shall not be used to conduct or support a
VE analysis if they have a conflict of interest (as specified in 23 CFR
1.33).
(h) STAs, and local public agencies are encouraged to use a VECP
clause (or other such clauses under a different name) in an applicable
project's contract, allowing the construction contractor to propose
changes to the project's plans, specifications, or other contract
documents. Whenever such clauses are used, the STA and local authority
will consider changes that could improve the project's performance,
value and quality, shorten the delivery time, or lower construction
costs, while considering impacts on the project's overall life-cycle
cost and other applicable factors. The basis for a STA or local
authority to consider a VECP is the analysis and documentation
supporting the proposed benefits that would result from implementing
the proposed change in the project's contract or project plans.
(i) Proposals to accelerate construction after the award of the
contract will not be considered a VECP and will not be eligible for
Federal-aid highway program funding participation. Where it is
necessary to accelerate construction, STAs and local public agencies
are encouraged to use the appropriate incentive or disincentive clauses
so that all proposers will take this into account when preparing their
bids or price proposals.
[FR Doc. 2014-21020 Filed 9-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P