Current Practices

Construction Industry Institute (CII) defines constructibility as “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement and field operations to achieve the overall project objectives”. The basis of this concept is that experienced construction personnel need to be involved with the project from the earliest stages to ensure that the construction focus and their experience can properly influence the owners, planners, and designer, as well as material suppliers. This does not necessarily mean that the design or project objectives should be changed to meet constructibility only from a cost standpoint. Constructibility should be used as a design consideration, so that optimum results provide the best of both worlds.

It is common practice in the industrial/ commercial industry to develop a project team composed of planners, designers and a variety of construction personnel, whose sole purpose is to review design for constructibility issues. CII notes that projects that emphasize constructibility have four common characteristics.

• Design and construction managers are committed to the cost effectiveness of the whole project. They recognize the high cost influence of early project decisions.
• These managers use constructibility as a major tool in meeting project objectives concerning quality, cost and schedules.
• These managers bring construction aboard early. This means using experienced personnel who have a full understanding of how a project is planned and built.
• Designers are receptive to improving constructibility. They think constructibility, request construction input freely, and evaluate that input objectively.

The “Review” Fallacy

The early involvement of construction personnel who are providing feed-back to designers prevents the “review fallacy”. This syndrome unfortunately occurs in many organizations, particularly the public sector (CII). This happens when construction personnel are excluded from the planning process and are invited only to review completed or partially completed products from the designer. Comments usually have to be limited to minor details. Scope changes at this point are not feasible because of a variety of reasons, including:

• A significant cost has already been spent on the design. Major changes cause delays and increased expenses.
• The designer is defensive because he has committed himself publicly on drawings and he perceives that a change would affect his credibility.

NJDOT has encouraged Region participation in the pre-design phase for many years. If all parties give the Project Scoping sufficient attention during its development, a majority of the future construction problems can be reduced. Figure 1 illustrates how constructibility efforts can result in the largest payoff during the earliest stages of the project.

Identifying Barriers

As with any new concept, there are barriers to implementing a constructibility program into an organization. The most common problems that can be expected by the Department are:

• Complacency with the status quo.
• Resistance by designers, who view such efforts as an intrusion.
• Lack of construction experience both in NJDOT design and construction personnel.
• Designers perception that “we do it”.
• Lack of mutual respect between designers and construction personnel.
• Construction personnel do not respond in a timely manner, and input is too late to be of any value.

Benefits

Early constructibility efforts result in a significant payback to the project. CII research has cited cost reductions of between 6 and 23 percent, benefit/ cost ratios of up to 10:1, and large schedule reductions. The intangible benefits are as important as the quantitative benefits and must be recognized accordingly. These include; more accurate schedules, increased productivity, improved sequence of construction, enhanced quality, decreased maintenance, and a safer job.

Constructibility Versus Value Analysis

How does value analysis differ from constructibility reviews? Value analysis and constructibility can be similar in effect, but differ in both scope and manner of analysis. Value analysis overlaps constructibility since its purpose is similar, that is, to achieve the essential functions at the lowest total cost.

Value analysis focuses on function analysis and life-cycle costs, while constructibility is achieved by fully exploiting construction experience in a timely and structured fashion. Constructibility is most beneficial when performed, prior to establishment of a defined scope, during early scoping and design phases. At this time, construction knowledge and experience is least restricted by design decisions, and most capable of affecting the final project.

Implementation Goal

The New Jersey Department of Transportation has endorsed constructibility reviews in an effort to improve the total quality of our construction bid package to ensure that designs can be built. The Department will optimize the use of construction knowledge and experience in planning and design to achieve the overall project objectives.

In view of our continuing efforts to provide the highest degree of quality and cost effectiveness in our projects, it is the Department’s intent to implement constructibility to the fullest degree possible. This applies to all phases of project planning and design.

Constructibility Objectives

• Enhance Early Scoping
• Minimize Scope Changes
• Reduce Design Related Change Orders
• Improve Contractors Productivity
• Develop Construction-Friendly Specifications
• Enhance Quality
• Reduce Delays/ Meet Schedules
• Improve Public Image
• Promote Construction Safety
• Reduce Conflicts/ Disputes
• Decrease Construction/ Maintenance Costs

Philosophy

The Region Construction Representative will provide input to the scoping and design from the standpoint of project intent, constructibility, operation and maintenance. This will be accomplished through field reconnaissance with designers and reviews of design documents at various stages of development. Obtaining feedback from maintenance personnel at this point is very important, since they ultimately live with the finished product and are aware of previous construction deficiencies. The reviews will be scheduled during both the Scope Development and the Design phases.

Studies show that a majority of change orders and/or construction claims arise from plans and specification associated problems. It is extremely important that a concerted effort be made by the Region Construction Representative, to conceptualize the project, understand its problems, and provide thoughtful feedback to the designers. Constructibility issues concerning scope and design should be recognized and addressed up front, so that a quality set of plans and specifications are produced. The early active involvement of the Region Construction Representatives will also provide them insight into the design intent. This knowledge will be beneficial during the latter construction stage when “minor” field changes are requested by the contractor.

Each project has been assigned a Project Manager in accordance with NJDOT’s “Project Delivery Process”. The Team size will vary, depending on the construction work complexity. The organizational chart below shows a basic project team, with help as needed, from other in-house personnel. The chart also allows the option of utilizing “construction specialists” for difficult tasks. These experts could be obtained from a list, composed of people who are experienced in the contracting industry on specific construction operations.

The project team should meet to discuss constructibility issues throughout the planning/ design process. During the development of the Project Scoping, a concerted effort should be made to identify specific constructibility items and determine their impact on the conceptual design. The Department appointed Project Manager’s role is to assure that constructibility issues have been given adequate attention and are resolved. This can be accomplished by holding one or more constructibility review sessions, chaired by the Field Manager. The team should attend the “kick off meeting” held at the start of the design stage.

Follow up meetings can be held at the 60% design phase of the plans. Special emphasis should be given to the 60% stage, since it involves both the Office and Field Review with the Region. Additionally, this may be the last opportunity that any constructibility design changes can be considered without major negative impact to the project. The Project Manager determines the amount of time necessary for this constructibility review, and whether final review is necessary at the 95% stage.

The formal Department procedures for team development and review will be provided at a future date.

Lessons Learned

It is important to record the changes made and “lessons learned” during the scoping, design and construction of the project. Easy reference to this collection of ideas, and/or solutions to problems becomes a valuable tool for future projects. Specific lessons learned should be documented at the time they occur, rather than wait until the end of the design or construction stage. Sources of information at the conclusion of the project may be obtained through; change order, Final Plans and Specification Review, Construction Partnering Closeouts, and personal interviews.

Information regarding these issues should be submitted in writing. Within the recommended solution, an assessment of the following factors should be addressed; cost schedule, quality, safety, and whether any changes of the standard specifications are required. Either construction or design personnel can submit a constructibility suggestion. These issues may be summarized and entered into a Continuous Improvement Opportunities data base to be maintained in Quality Management Services.

Construction Concepts

General

1. Are areas available for; stockpiling processed materials, form laydown and fabrication yards, equipment parking, temporary field offices, personnel parking, and purchased material storage? If areas can be secured without excessive cost during the planning stages, efficiency during construction will be improved.
2. Will double handling of materials be involved? Is there sufficient space on the project for temporary stockpiling?
3. Are relocated utilities shown in their new location on the plans or referenced documents? Are they referenced to the same vertical and horizontal control that will be used by the project?
4. When local city plans for utility extensions etc. are included within the NJDOT plans set, do they coordinate with the construction operations, is the stationing compatible with the NJDOT plans, and are they understandable?
5. Are the pay items in the bid tabulation apparent in the specifications and on the plans? If items are combined for payment is it clear in the specifications? Conversely, do pay items cover all of the required work?
6. Are work areas accessible for personnel, material delivery or equipment operation? Difficult access for personnel can negatively impact productivity. In addition, difficult access routes frequently present unsafe working conditions. High volume haul routes with constricted openings or bottlenecks can adversely impact cost and schedule. Does trucking have a free flow through the site, and can it merge safely into traffic?
7. The consideration for accessibility can be critical. Is access available through other properties?

Earthwork and Grading

1. Is there heavy brush or light clearing? If there are a substantial amount of trees, can they be sold as merchantable timber? Is there a site where tree stumps can be buried?
2. If project is located within federal land, a National Park, State Forests or land, Wildlife Refuges - Indian reservations, check local requirements. Are there restrictions on access to site or other sensitive environmental issues?
3. Is special treatment of finished slopes required due to environmental and visual constraints from other agencies? Who is to approve the slope treatment and how is it to be paid for?
4. Is removal limit for utilities, major landscaping elements and concrete structure etc., clearly indicated on the plans?
5. If concrete removal quantity is sizable, is there an available dump site? Will project embankments accommodate waste concrete?
6. If removal item is asphaltic concrete (with environmental concerns for waste), can it be incorporated into the job or is there a dump site available?
7. Will blasting be allowed for removal of structural concrete?
8. Is there an available site for stockpiling materials for salvage?
9. Define limits for sawcutting concrete pavement. If depth of cut is important, then state minimum and maximum.
10. Are asphaltic concrete mill widths compatible with standard equipment sizes? Milling machines normally are 1.8 meters or 3.8 meters in width. Partial width cuts are not feasible due to tooth wear and machine capabilities. Small 305 to 457 millimeter machines are available for manhole or minor areas.
11. Can materials removed from existing pavement, base materials, etc., be used elsewhere on project?
12. Is earthwork phasing compatible with the actual construction and traffic control plan of the job? Define the earthwork needs in each stage. Does each stage balance, or does it require borrow or waste? Is the proposed source of embankment available or presently under traffic? Is there a temporary stockpile site on the job for any excess excavation that will be needed for a future stage? If possible eliminate double handling for excavated material.
13. Does horizontal and vertical alignment create special construction problems, i.e., widening on one side of the roadway may be more cost effective than widening on both sides because of physical restrictions.
14. Do the driveway, turnouts, or side road vertical grades meet the standards? Have the property owners been contacted and are NJDOT permit laws satisfied?
15. When faced with designing staged construction to accommodate traffic on an existing route, review of the local conditions. If the project is in a rural area with minimal conflicts or terrain differences, consider obtaining temporary R/W easements to construct detours around the work sites. This will enhance public safety, the contractors’ productivity and the overall job schedule.
16. Are shrink and swell factors reasonable? Is there any recent data on similar material in this region? If shrinkable material quantities are significant, consideration should be given to performing insitu field densities at different elevations within the proposed source.
17. When earthwork is tabulated for a large project, and it appears that the job will come close to balancing, provide a quantity “cushion” to insure against significant over/ underruns that create a change condition in the field.
18. If there is a choice on designing a project with waste or borrow, is this a section within a planned corridor which can be used to balance another project? Can you avoid designing adjacent waste and borrow jobs that do not bid concurrently?
19. Which product is most economical to deal with - borrow or waste? Consider local conditions for borrow availability or waste sites. Is waste material dirt or rock? Can the project accommodate the waste quantity with widenings, pullouts, slope flattening or berms? If additional excavation is needed to balance embankment, can cuts be flattened or daylighted?
20. On large earth work jobs, where it is necessary to haul over existing roadways, designate areas for temporary crossings, or detours so that off highway equipment can be used.
21. Consider excavation type for phasing purposes. If job has mix of dirt and rock, what is available when it is time to finish subgrade? Will it be necessary to import borrow?
22. Is drill and shoot required? Will traffic be impacted - what is acceptable length of time for highway closures?
23. Are roadway cuts wide enough to accommodate drills and excavation equipment 180 inches (4.5 meters) +?
24. Are there any impacts on adjacent structures or overhead utilities regarding fly rock? What local laws pertain to the control of fly rock and seismic monitoring?
25. Will shallow embankment sections accommodate anticipated rock size? Are there difficult grading operations that can be eliminated?
26. Are widths of roadway widenings compatible with equipment sizes? Most placement/ finishing units need widths of 12 feet (3.6 meters) + to operate. Anything less becomes a grading tractor/ hand labor activity with high costs.
27. Is a source available for shoulder build-up material that meets quality standards? Widen existing roadway cuts if possible to create build-up material.
28. Is there enough R/W to construct access to roadway widenings? Can pioneer roads feasibly be constructed into excavation or embankment areas? Can pioneer roads outside of the roadway prism be adequately repaired after construction?
29. If pioneer roads are not allowed because of environmental constraints, have alternative means of access been reviewed and verified? Are the constraints clear in the specifications or on the plans?
30. Can overloads be hauled through the project? Is hauling compatible with existing traffic patterns? Are turnaround areas available for trucking? Consider strengthened structures or use temporary overload haul bridges for increased haul efficiency and reduced impact on public streets.
31. Is there any presence of ground water or active streams? What environmental regulations govern? Will pumping or cofferdams be required?
32. Try to minimize restricted areas or irregular shapes that are not compatible for subgrade finishing with normal equipment.

Bases and Pavements

1. Minimize low production or hand work areas for placing or finishing.
2. Are truck turnaround areas available?
3. Can overloads/ width be hauled through job or re-routed to take advantage of savings?
4. Can permits be obtained to haul over length loads to the job in rural areas?
5. Consider the use of 100% milled asphaltic concrete for base course material, backfill, or shoulder build-up.
6. If possible, avoid roadway widths for widening projects that are not compatible with standard equipment sizes. Anything less than 10 to 12 feet (3.0 to 3.6 meters) in width for base course becomes a grading tractor/ hand labor activity. Asphalt paving machines usually have a standard screed width of 10 feet (3 meters). Overlapping the mat with the machine is acceptable for short distances, but extended used can lead to uneven screed wear.
7. Explore possible haul routes through metropolitan areas with local authorities prior to advertisement and list alternatives with known restrictions i.e., dust control, night hauls, trucking volume, etc.
8. Do construction phasing plans and details allow for width of conventional concrete paving equipment tracks 30 to 36 inches (750 to 900 millimeters)?
9. Are the material sources required for special materials available for the project and within a reasonable haul distance? If a long haul is required, does the type of material warrant the additional expense to the project? If not, are there alternative materials that can be used?

Pipelines and Drainage

1. Identify all utility conflicts on plans, if possible, by preliminary potholing. Indicate the type of existing pipeline material on the plans, so that its structural support can be considered when new utility crossing are made. Eliminate known utility conflicts prior to construction to avoid delays. Do plans show locations of relocated utilities?
2. Is underground work (new storm drains, pipelines, gas, electric, etc.) sequenced to coincide with or enhance construction phasing? If partial construction is required for pipelines, do temporary cut-off locations conflict with proposed traffic patterns? Will facility need to be functional in its temporary condition?
3. Are soil conditions conducive for trenching? Will the underlying material require blasting, or is it sand which has an angle of repose flatter than the area available to excavate? Will utility crossings allow open trenching or require boring?
4. Are soil conditions compatible with cast-in-place pipe option?
5. Are the diameters of the bored or augered pipe sleeves the correct size for existing soil conditions, i.e., 8 inch (200 millimeter) sleeves versus 12 inch (300 millimeter) cobbles?
6. Limit the use of “modified” catch basins. Attempt to incorporate the same catch basin standard throughout the project to improve forming productivity and standardize hardware.
7. Check catch basin location and depth to assure that no conflicts will occur with new or existing underground utilities.
8. Check pipe culvert locations to assure that; there are no utility conflicts, end treatments provide the required erosion protection, and the structure generally fits the drainage site conditions.
9. On a reconstruct item, should the original slope be flattened? Can each location be accessed with equipment - this is especially critical in large cut areas with minimal R/W.
10. Does a typical section need to be shown for ditch or channels?
11. When designing concrete linings for channels, allow either shotcrete or Class C.
12. structural concrete as alternate methods.
13. Will linings be needed for detention/ retention basins? If a patented lining system is specified, will it need the manufacturers expertise for installation?
14. Has consideration been given to temporary drainage through the project during specific construction phases? Do detours need pipe culverts? Will water be inadvertently directed into properties outside of the R/W during the storms?
15. Has the ponding area required on the upstream of the culverts been considered? Is drainage easement needed for possible ponding?
16. Has offsite drainage been considered? Are temporary easements needed for drainage construction? Do provisions need to be made to grade behind sidewalks or curb and gutter to meet existing contours?

Structures

1. Do the special provisions fit the job or have they been simply copied from an old not-applicable project?
2. Verify screed elevations and check dead load camber diagram for accuracy.
3. Can standard equipment be used to drill caisson foundations? Are boulders a potential problem? Are special measures needed for inspection?
4. Are soil conditions compatible for steel piling? Is pre-drilling required? Will piles require a special shoe?
5. Is dewatering required for foundation work? Will construction require cofferdams or wet wells and pumps? Consider establishing a bid item force account for dewatering, to reduce the risk cost for unknowns and limit contractor’s markups on FA.
6. Strive for simplicity in designs to take advantage of constructibility savings, i.e., adjust alignment if possible for bridges in rural areas, to avoid curves within the structure section.
7. Avoid heavily skewed bridges. Lengthening to reduce or eliminate skew should be considered.
8. Standardize shapes for bridges on the project to maximize form use.
9. Avoid irregular structure shapes if possible, for walls or footings in order to save concrete. The labor cost for forming far exceeds the concrete material value.
10. Minimize architectural details, particularly where aesthetics are not a factor. Since most inserts are made of plastic or rubber, standardize the detail when possible, so that costs can be lowered from the additional form reuse.
11. Is vibrator space provided around reinforcing steel to avoid honeycomb problems? Does steel spacing meet specification requirements?
12. Avoid reinforcing steel congestion in pier caps and hinges, caused by the mats of the deck steel, the cap steel, and the column reinforcement.
13. Use uniform heights for retaining walls to maximize the use of gang forms.
14. Except for long runs of retaining walls, use 2 foot (600 millimeter) minimum steps.
15. Consider working area needs during easement procurement. Space is needed adjacent to a major structure for a form laydown site.
16. Allow sufficient room between new foundations and existing roadways for the excavation, a working area, and a barrier.
17. Does structure site have any overhead utilities that will conflict with operation of cranes? Can the overhead lines be temporarily rerouted, or shut down?
18. Can access to structure locations be provided which will permit a free flow for transit mixers or trucking? Is it compatible with traffic patterns and safe to merge? Has pedestrian traffic at the structure location been addressed?
19. Design bridges that require falsework construction over traffic conditions, to allow a 190 inch (4.8 meter) minimum clearance to the bottom of the falsework. Safety beams for falsework < 190 inches (4.8 meters) is a high risk item and is constantly receiving traffic hits. Does falsework require illumination for night traffic? Is there a need for pedestrian openings?
20. Encourage the use of precast units. If precast girders are used, can they be trucked over the available highway route or is there a load/ length problem. Can access be created adjacent to the structure to set and erect the girders? Is it possible to precast the girders on site?
21. Consider stay-in-place decking over railroads, high stream beds, or canals where formwork stripping is difficult.
22. Is special manufacture required for bridge bearings? Are they readily available or a long lead item? Who should inspect the bearings?
23. Make sure the plans show that bearings are to be placed on a level bearing surface, and the orientation of the bearing device relative to the centerline of the substructure is clearly stated. A table indicating the amount and direction of offset to account for temperature/ shortening movement should be included.
24. Sign foundations - conventional truck-mounted drilling equipment has a 6 foot (1.8 meter) limitation in its ability to reach from the side or back of the truck. Special consideration needs to be given when placing foundations in existing roadways that have steep slopes or other obstacles.
25. Verify sign/ lighting foundations to assure that they clear all utilities and are out of the sidewalk area.
26. Check for utility conflicts and make sure that any requirements for lighting and signing on the structure are shown on the structure plans - not just on the lighting and signing plans.
27. Complex slings or bracing systems are often needed to provide temporary support for designed utility ductwork in bridges. Address this need and design the temporary support if required.

Traffic Control Plans

1. Insure that detour design fits field needs. Do planned detour grades and existing ground contours appear to reasonably conform to the existing conditions? Does the detour grade coincide with crossroads elevations? Do the detour ends meet the existing or proposed alignment? Does the detour drain properly to avoid ponding on the pavement?
2. Is there enough area inside the detour alignment to perform planned work?
3. Consider traffic flow for phased construction of elevated or depressed structures. Is there an elevation difference that will require the use of sheet piling or some other technique to maintain traffic lanes?
4. Has access for affected local business or residents been considered while the detour is in use?
5. Is the traffic control plan in concert with construction phasing? Check staging to verify that detours or roadway segments will be open for traffic at the designated times?
6. Is signing diagram clear and understandable? Does signing meet the traffic needs in each phase? If temporary barrier is required, have all staged moves been accounted for?
7. Can traffic conflicts be avoided by constructing temporary over/ under passes for hauling equipment in high volume areas?
8. Are required lanes and closure periods for freeways and local streets, clearly listed in the plans or special provisions?
9. Are work zones sufficient in size for the intended construction operation i.e., allow 750 to 900 millimeters for concrete paver tracks for work operations. Can workers, equipment and material deliveries safely enter/ exit work zones?
10. Have provisions been made for emergency vehicle travel through the detour/ road closure/ lane closure area?
11. Can conduit for lighting or signals be installed during construction sequencing for alignment shown? Is excavated embankment material suitable for conduit trench backfilling?
12. If possible, locate underground utilities to meet traffic control constraints for lanes, etc. Assume all trenches to require a backslope when calculating lateral clearance.
13. Have utilities been cleared in advance? Has power for temporary lighting/ signals been provided?
14. Wherever space permits, flare temporary barriers to 33 feet (10 meters) outside roadway edge to reduce the use of sand barrel cushions.

Incidentals

1. Riprap - what rock is available in region, angular or rounded? Does it meet the specific gravity and size requirements? Can it be produced on the job, or require hauling or from on offsite source? Is access to each riprap location a problem?
2. When riprap involves a long haul, allow an alternate bid for concrete lining.
3. Guiderail - Is embankment material free of large rock and suitable for post placement? Verify that designed transitions to existing bridges or concrete barrier meet field needs.
4. On guiderail reconstruction, steep existing slopes may require using longer posts to provide adequate post embedment. Also check horizontal and vertical alignment to determine if special traffic control measures are needed. If guiderail is to be adjusted at the same location, is temporary concrete barrier required for traffic protection? Is the barrier accounted for in the traffic control plans?
5. Fencing requirements are sometimes scattered on different sheets within the plans. If the fence alignment cannot be shown in sufficient detail on the plan or paving sheets, consider incorporating a separate fence plan for clarity.
6. Is temporary fencing needed to protect work sites near farms, pedestrian routes and residential areas?
7. Use standard curb and gutter sections as much as possible. This is particularly important in long unbroken runs, since most contractors will use a curb machine and carry standard slip form shapes.
8. Consider potential concrete supply for jobs with small concrete quantities, etc. If there is no local commercial supplier, choices may be restricted to a portable plant or long haul transit mixed.

Maintenance Considerations

1. Can the finished product be accessed for routine maintenance i.e., debris fence clean-out, grader ditch/ berm reshape over high cuts, retaining wall maintenance, etc.? Will the designed facility require special equipment or other unusual requirements for maintenance that will increase life cycle costs?
2. Make certain that catch basins are not located in curb returns or driveways.
3. Design catch basins within roadway limits to fall in the gutter pan. Avoid installation in the travel lane were grill could be a maintenance problem from snowplow hits.
4. Confirm with Maintenance the appropriate minimum drainage pipe sizes and maximum lengths for each to permit cleaning out blockages.
5. Try to avoid significant changes in grade within a drainage system, which may eventually cause silting problems for maintenance, i.e., a 5% median grade entering a catch basin with a lateral pipe at 1%.
6. Consider replacing a double barrel concrete box culvert with a single span box, i.e., use 8 by 4 foot (2400 by 1200 millimeter) in lieu of two 4 by 4 foot (1200 by 1200 millimeter). This would require some redesign of the Standards, but the maintenance savings for clean out would be beneficial. The constructibility would also be improved, since the square footage in forming costs would reduce substantially.
7. Is drainage properly controlled at the ends of structures, i.e., to prevent erosion problems in the abutment areas?
8. Does the sidewalk cause ponding at the transitions to the bridge deck?
9. Minimize the use of concrete slope paving at abutments whenever possible, to eliminate the constant maintenance problem. Consider instead, low profile retaining walls or extending the span to allow 1:3 slopes.
10. Locate controller for signals near power supply to reduce cost and maintenance. Provide conduit for future needs.
11. Check locations of junction/ pull boxes to ensure that they do not fall in a wheel path of the roadway or driveway.
12. Consider flattening embankment slopes whenever possible to eliminate guiderail in higher elevations, i.e., plowed snow collects at guiderail locations causing maintenance problems during freeze/ thaw.
13. When designing/ constructing debris fences upstream of structures, provide maintenance access and a clear sight for visual inspection from the highway.
14. Review driveway designed profile, to assure that grade breaks can be negotiated by a vehicle without bottoming out.
15. Make certain that traffic signal or light poles are not located in sidewalk area or wheel chair ramp. Is pedestrian push button within reach of disabled?

Constructibility Review Checklist

General

( )      Provide work areas when practical.
( )      Verify utility locations on plans.
( )      Assure utility construction coordination with other Agencies.
( )      Are pay items in the bid tabulation covered by the specs?
( )      Is all of the required work covered by pay items?
( )      Provide access to work areas.
( )      Consider access for routine maintenance in design.
( )      Consider construction methods that “drive” the design.
( )      Is weather a factor?
( )      Are materials available?
( )      Keep design simple and flexible.
( )      Standardize design elements.
( )      Do specifications allow work efficiency?
( )      Are specifications clear, and conform with current practices?

Earthwork and Grading

( )      Clear and grub - how will bush/ trees be disposed of?
( )      Check local Agency requirements for environmental issues.
( )      Is special slope treatment required - how is it paid?
( )      Are structure removal limits clearly shown?
( )      Review disposal alternatives for concrete/ bituminous surfaces.
( )      Is blasting allowed?
( )      Any available stockpiling sites?
( )      Are sawcutting limits specified?
( )      Do bituminous concrete removal widths concur with equipment capabilities?
( )      Can existing roadway materials be salvaged for other use?
( )      Is earthwork phasing compatible with construction requirements?
( )      Can easements be economically obtained for temporary detours?
( )      Do driveway/ turnout grades meet allowable standards?
( )      How is shrink/ swell factor applied to earthwork tabulation?
( )      Are shrink/ swell factors reasonable?
( )      Provide quantity cushion on large earthwork jobs.
( )      Attempt to balance earthwork between several projects on corridor work.
( )      Which material is more economical - borrow or waste?
( )      Designate temporary crossings for overloads.
( )      Consider material type available during staged construction.
( )      How long of period can highway be closed for blasting/ clearing?
( )      Are rock cuts wide enough to accommodate equipment?
( )      What are local laws regarding blasting?
( )      Will excavated rock fit into available fills?
( )      Are roadway grading/ fill widths compatible with equipment size?
( )      Is local source available for shoulder build-up material?
( )      Is there a source available which will meet topsoil specs?
( )      Can access be constructed to remote locations?
( )      Consider overload hauling through job for large volumes.
( )      Any presence of ground water or active streams?
( )      Minimize restricted areas that eliminate normal equipment use.

Bases and Pavements

( )      Minimize low production or hand work areas.
( )      Are truck turnaround areas available?
( )      Can overloads/ widths be hauled through job?
( )      Permits for overlength loads to the job feasible?
( )      Use 100% milled bituminous concrete for base course, backfill or shoulders?
( )      Design widenings which will accommodate standard equipment.
( )      Check out haul routes through metropolitan areas - restrictions?
( )      Do phasing plans allow for concrete paving equipment clearance?
( )      Are special material sources available and reasonable in haul?

Pipelines and Drainage

( )      Identify utility conflicts on plans.
( )      Is underground work sequenced with roadway operation?
( )      Are soil conditions conducive for trenching?
( )      Is cast-in-place pipe compatible with soil type?
( )      Are pipe sleeves diameter sizes compatible with existing soil?
( )      Try to standardize catch basins for the job.
( )      Check for catch basin conflicts with underground utilities.
( )      Keep catch basin location in gutter pan.
( )      Compare roadway/ pipe grades to insure cover.
( )      Do designed grades for drainage system encourage silting?
( )      Are typical sections shown for dikes or channels?
( )      Allow alternates for channel lining designs.
( )      Will linings be needed for detention/ retention basins?
( )      Review potential drainage problems through temporary construction.
( )      Has ponding area on upstream end of culverts been considered?
( )      Has offsite drainage been considered (beyond construction limits)?
( )      Is drainage properly controlled at the ends of structures?
( )      Does sidewalk pond water at transition to bridge deck?
( )      Confirm minimum pipe sizes with Maintenance for clean out work.

Structures

( )      Do Special Provisions fit the job?
( )      Verify screed elevations and dead load camber for accuracy.
( )      Will caisson drilling require special measures?
( )      Are soil conditions compatible for steel piling?
( )      Is dewatering required?
( )      Strive for simplicity in bridge design.
( )      Avoid heavily skewed bridges.
( )      Standardize pier shapes for job.
( )      Avoid irregular shapes for walls of footings.
( )      Minimize architectural details.
( )      Allow for vibrator space around rebar.
( )      Reduce rebar congestion at pier caps.
( )      Design uniform heights when possible for retaining walls.
( )      Use 600 millimeter minimum steps for retaining walls.
( )      Consider working areas needs around structures.
( )      Check for overhead utility conflicts.
( )      Consider access to structure site.
( )      Does falsework over traffic provide 4.8 meter clearance?
( )      Use precast units when possible.
( )      Use stay-in-place decking when stripping is a problem (not over traffic).
( )      Do bridge bearings require special manufacture?
( )      Show clear installation procedures in the plans for bearings.
( )      Minimize the use of concrete slope for abutments.
( )      Consider existing terrain when locating sign foundations.
( )      Check sign/ light foundations on bridges for utility conflicts.
( )      Is design required for temporary utility ductwork support?

Traffic Control Plans

( )      Insure that detour design fits field needs.
( )      Does detour allow enough area for planned work?
( )      Consider staged construction - vertical elevation differences for traffic lanes.
( )      Check access for local business/ residents.
( )      Is traffic control plan coordinated with job phasing?
( )      Does signing meet traffic needs in each phase?
( )      Can traffic conflicts be reduced by innovative haul roads?
( )      Is freeway closure information clearly shown in plans?
( )      Are work zones large enough for equipment access?
( )      Can emergency vehicles travel through zones without delays?
( )      Does required conduit installation fit construction staging?
( )      Design underground utilities, if possible, to fit traffic needs.
( )      Is power for temporary/ permanent utilities available?
( )      Check pull box locations in relation to wheel paths.

Incidentals

( )      What is available locally for riprap materials?
( )      Is existing embankment suitable for guiderail posts?
( )      Design flatter slopes to reduce guiderail in higher elevations.
( )      Is fencing plan clear and understandable?
( )      Is temporary fencing needed to protect work sites?
( )      Is debris fence visible and accessible from roadway?
( )      Use standard curb and gutter sections whenever possible.
( )      Check driveways/ sidewalks for conflicts with utilities.
( )      Consider possible concrete supply for small remote jobs.
( )      Can temporary barrier be flared 10 meters to eliminate sand barrels?

Implementation Plan

Note: This implementation plan applies to only those projects that require a formal independent constructibility team review.

Guidelines

1. The requirement for an independent formal constructibility team review shall depend on the type, size, cost, and complexity of the project (typically $15 million and over, multi-staged, high community impacts). The Project Manager shall make this determination.
2. For projects that do not require a separate review, the Quality Assurance review team shall also review for constructibility.
3. For more complex projects (typically $30 million and over, multi-staged high traffic volume, or high community impacts), an independent formal constructibility team review may be required of the Designer (through their staff not involved with the project or a subconsultant) as part of their Quality Control or performed through a Department task order agreement. The Project Manager shall also make this determination. If the Designer is requested to perform a review, the Project Manager shall request documentation from the Designer showing how constructibility issues were addressed.
4. The Field Manager from Construction Services and Materials shall take the lead in the review process. Review sessions shall be held at the Regional offices.
5. The review team shall be independent of the Quality Assurance (QA) review team in order to obtain objective review comments.
6. The review team makeup and size depends on the complexity of the project. It shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
   • Project Manager
   • Field Manager
   • Prospective Resident Engineer
   • Various Design Units
   • Various Operations Units
   • Community Relations (as required, depending on community-sensitive issues such as potential impacts on businesses, noise ordinances, and night work)
7. The review shall be performed on the Initial Design Submission (at the end of the Designer Development Phase) and concurrently with the QA review.
8. Depending on the type, size, cost, and complexity of the project (see first bullet above), a separate team review may be required (as determined by the Project Manager) for several alternatives during the Scope Development Phase as an on-going process (similar to a Value Engineering study).
9. An independent team review is not required at the end of the Scope Development. The scope team, which includes the Field Manager, should make a concerted effort to identify constructibility items, determine their impacts on the project, and attempt to resolve them throughout project scope development.
10. The review team shall utilize the Constructibility Guide in performing their review.
11. The review team shall utilize the checklist contained in the Guide on a QA review effort level.
12. In addition to asking themselves if it’s buildable, the review team should also ask: Do the documents communicate sufficient information for bidding purposes? The review team should approach this task from the point of view that they are bidding the contract documents in an attempt to discover discrepancies and incomplete information that would hamper production of an open and competitive bid or result in potential changes.

Implementation Plan

1. Select a project.
2. The Project Manager will notify the Field Manager of the need to assemble the review team, meet and discuss on who should be on the team, and establish the review schedule and meeting format (e.g. one-to-one or group session).
3. The Project Manager will provide the Designer a distribution list of the plans and available specifications. The review team should receive a full set of plans and available specifications.
4. The Designer will distribute the plans and available specifications to the review unit managers while indicating the review session date. It should be distributed at least two weeks prior to the review session date. The unit managers will them forward the package to a reviewer who becomes part of the review team.
5. While performing their review, reviewers should mark their comments on the plans and also document them separately utilizing the Constructibility Guide checklist. Any critical discoveries should be brought to the attention of the Field Manager in a timely fashion.
6. At the review session, the team meets with the Designer to discuss and resolve most of their comments. The Field Manager will direct the review session. The Designer will prepare the minutes of the meeting.
7. Subsequent to the meeting, the Designer will address the remaining comments and, if necessary, submit revised plans and specifications to the review team for approval. The Designer will document how comments were addressed and approved in the resolution of comments summary and submit to the Field Manager for review and approval.
8. The Field Manager will review and approve of the summary and forward to the Project Manager for review and concurrence.
9. If there is an impasse on resolving comments, the Program Manager shall be notified to resolve the comments.