Step 1: Define Successful Bridge Bundling Project
Advantages
Cost savings and Accelerated delivery:
The single-contract approach in a Bridge Bundling project achieves cost savings and accelerates project delivery through:
- Economies of Scale: Overhead costs, procurement and contracting costs are spread over multiple bridges, resulting in economies of scale which lowers costs.
- Bulk purchases: Materials and supplies can be purchased in bulk, lowering costs on a per unit basis.
- Fast tracking projects: Bridge projects that would have been delivered as individual projects are now bundled into a larger project, accelerating delivery.
Access to alternative funding and delivery mechanisms:
There are several innovative approaches to funding and financing a Bridge Bundling project. More information on funding and financing can be found here.
State and local economic stimulus:
Bridge Bundling projects have a proven track record of providing economic stimulus at the state and local level. For example, the Missouri Safe & Sound Bridge Improvement Program created directly or indirectly supported more than 5,300 jobs during the Great Recession. Additionally, over 90% of the program’s work was performed by Missouri workers, and it utilized 41 DBE companies.
Enhanced equity through improved mobility:
Bridges delivered through a Bridge Bundling program are often in rural areas, and there are often fewer alternatives for residents. Repairing or replacing these bridges sooner and at a lower cost improves mobility for people and goods, and thus improves equity.
Challenges
Enabling statutes and local legislation:
Delivering a Bridge Bundling project can be a challenge from a legal perspective as authority to conduct all steps in bridge bundling isn’t entirely clear. Find more information on the legality of bridge bundling in Illinois here.
Strong public champion and public support:
Delivering a Bridge Bundling program requires juggling multiple stakeholders and cooperation from several jurisdictions. If there is no public champion who can garner support for the project, execution can be challenging. According to Dean C. Ringle of the County Engineers of Ohio, then-Governor of Ohio John Kasich lived near several county bridges that needed repair. This helped him wrap his head around the problem, and realize that something needed to be done.
Interagency coordination:
Cooperation across jurisdictions is critical to delivering a Bridge Bundling project. Having an effective framework to manage interagency communication and cooperation is essential, and can be bolstered by a robust communications plan.
Politics/Optics:
As the formula to select bridges for inclusion in a Bridge Bundling project identifies the bridges that are most in need of repair or rehabilitation, this can lead to a concentration of bridges in a certain jurisdiction. For example, a Bridge Bundling project that has ten bridges across two counties might have eight bridges in one county, and only two in the other. There may be a temptation to allocate bridges for political reasons by assigning five bridges to each county. This will lessen the project’s effectiveness as the bridges that are most in need are not being addressed.
Examples of Lessons Learned/Best Practices
The State and local Bridge Bundling case studies below demonstrate that Bridge Bundling works for similar types of bridges, for similar work types, and for all project delivery methods for the following purposes:
The Oregon OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program implemented a web-accessible, GIS database of environmental baseline information provided to contractors to help avoid or minimize environmental impacts during construction and to facilitate environmental performance measurement such as calculate delay estimates related to surveying, utility work, and construction and to optimize lanes closure timings and locations.
Pennsylvania’s Rapid Bridge Replacement locks in maintenance costs for the next 25 years. The public benefit of this approach is the delivery of a well-maintained asset over that contract term, avoiding the possibility that state budget priorities would require deferring maintenance in the years to come.
Missouri accelerated the rehabilitation or replacement of 802 out of 1,093 bridges under the Missouri Safe & Sound Bridge Improvement Program, which bundled the bridges into two separate procurement packages.
In October 2013, former Ohio Governor John Kasich announced the investment of $120 million in federal funding to repair or replace approximately 200 county and city-owned bridges over three years.
In June 2016, Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) awarded five (5) design-build contracts advertised earlier that year that bundle four-to-six bridge replacements in geographic proximity into single projects. The result is accelerated delivery of local aging bridges repair and replacement using the performance-based design-build bridge bundles contracts specifying maximum detour durations (up to 210 days per bridge), efficiently streamline delivery, and completion timeframes (1,095 calendar days).
KYTC’s Ohio River Bridge Project uses innovative finance tools, GARVEE Bonds and Toll Credit as State match to finance 220 county and 20 city bridges in the state, alleviating a need for local entities to contribute funding.
The Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge (RBR) Project bundles bridges of similar size and design, components can be mass produced, which results in a time and cost savings to taxpayers.
The Ohio Bridge Partnership Program expects to repair or replace 200 county bridges and 20 city bridges in three years and potential saving of 15 percent state estimated it would take to complete the project.
GDOT awarded five (5) design-build contracts that bundle four-to-six bridge replacements in geographic proximity into single projects. Twenty-five (25) local bridges will be replaced at a cost of $39.6 million, representing the GDOT FY 2016 Design-Build Bridge Replacement program. Funds resulting from HB-170, Georgia’s Transportation Funding Act of 2015 (TFA), were designated towards maintaining and improving existing infrastructure, which includes bridges.
Maximum efficiency benefits occur when Bridge Bundling is used in the following settings:
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) began bundling bridges with a pilot program in 2003. That project was a D-B contract that included 33 bridges at a cost of $20 million. SCDOT issued a second bridge bundle D-B contract in 2008. If additional right-of-way (ROW) was needed, the D-B team was responsible for acquiring any ROW needs on behalf of SCDOT.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) collaborated with 11 partners in creating and implementing environmental programmatic permitting.
As part of SCDOT’s Letter Packages, in order to minimize risks, preliminary hydrology and hydraulics and minimum span length was provided by SCDOT in the RFP.
Geotechnical borings were provided to SCDOT in the RFP.
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Mutual agreement between jurisdictions, particularly when rebuilding bridges and improving infrastructure, can benefit multiple jurisdictions, resulting in effective cost sharing, and allowing for innovative funding alternatives.
There is broad legal authority permitting local government sponsored Bridge Bundling:
Examples of Cross-Jurisdictional Templates
Most common intergovernmental cooperation models are joint local government services financed through traditional local government budget processes, not through public finance mechanisms like a bonding authority that makes it difficult to cover larger capital costs, such as a Bridge Bundling project.
The Boone/McHenry County 5-Bridge Bundle project replaces structurally deficient bridges that pose safety concerns. The project will provide an increased quality of life for rural residents by increasing connectivity and mobility in a sustainable manner.
Both Boone County and McHenry County saw the value in partnering together to design, solicit for Federal funding, and possibly construct five bridges. Boone County is the contract lead agency with coordination between McHenry County, the engineering consultant, and the Dunham Township Road District. On December 28, 2021, Boone County issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Boone County and Boone Township requested qualifications from interested firms for Phase I and Phase II Engineering to replace three structures.
McHenry County passed a resolution in November of 2022 approving an intergovernmental agreement with Boone County and an appropriation to provide engineering services for the County Line Road and Streit Road bridges as a part of the 2021 bundling project. This agreement is for a supplemental scope of services to the original contracted three bridge replacements. In February 2023, McHenry County passed a resolution in support of a RAISE grant application to partially fund the Boone/McHenry County 5-Bridge Bundle project.
Boone County Government has released an FAQ regarding the status and next steps for Phase I and II Engineering.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) recognized the West Glebe Road, Arlington Ridge Road, and Shirlington Road bridges in Arlington’s inventory and the Route 1 and Potomac Avenue bridges in Alexandria’s inventory. Each jurisdiction had maintained its respective bridges; however, there had never been a history of 50/50 cost sharing, without written agreement, between the jurisdictions for construction and rehabilitation of the West Glebe and Arlington Ridge Road bridges. Records indicated that the 1957 original construction of the bridges and the 1981 replacements of the bridge decks were financed with Arlington and Alexandria each contributing 50% of the cost. Both jurisdictions, Alexandria and Arlington, agreed to consider these five bridges as part of a 2020 Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and City.
Intergovernmental Agreement between Arlington County and City of Alexandria
It was determined there are approximately 20 load posted bridges that will receive funding for replacement. MDOT collaborated and engaged with the seven (7) Region Bridge Councils, soliciting their input on bridge candidates of regional prioritization. Several coordination sessions took place took discuss bridge bundle program governance and prioritization. The recommendations of the Regional Bridge Councils were incorporated into the final selections. Justifications were prepared to ensure bridge candidate selection meeting the requirements of the bill language. MDOT accepted all Regional Bridge Council changes and recommendations regarding the candidate bridges for the program. Each Regional Bridge Council has four voting members selected by the County Road Association and the Michigan Municipal League after soliciting expressions of interest from bridge owners. MDOT engaged with each of the Regional Bridge Councils and the Local Bridge Advisory Boards in the fall of 2021 and winter of 2022 to provide an update on the statewide pilot project and to coordinate next steps in the screening, scoping and prioritization of bridges utilizing the $196 million in CRRSAA funding provided by the legislature.
