December 9, 1996

Mr. Paul E. Toussaint

Division Administration

Federal Highway Administration

P. O. Box 536

Frankfort, Kentucky 40622

Dear Mr. Toussaint:

SUBJECT: Kenton/Campbell Counties

I-275, Cincinnati Bypass

FD52 059 0275 078-083 108 C

FD52 019 0275 073-078 075 C

IM 275-9(84) 14

A post-construction review was held on the subject project on November 15, 1996, in the District 6 office. The following personnel were in attendance:

Daryl Greer C. O. Highway Design

Robert Semones C. O. Highway Design

Paul Doss Federal Highway Administration

Jim Peace District 6, Construction

Robert Farley Federal Highway Administration

George Hoffman District 6, Pre-Construction

David Kratt C. O. Design

David Fultz District 6, Resident Engineer

Dave Heil E.A. Partners

Les Haney…………………………. E.A. Partners

Richard Guidi…. District 6, Design

The attendees reviewed the project plans, maintenance of traffic, and construction change orders. This post construction meeting dealt with issues pertaining to a pavement rehabilitaion project. The project was approximately 6 miles long , 2 lanes each direction.

The following issues were discussed:

1. The first issue involved the construction segment scheduling and phasing when developing highway plans or vice versa. The discussion with this issue included the necessity to pre-plan the phasing of segments so that certain materials from one end of the job can be utilized at another location of the project without delays or extra costs. These items need to be looked at prior to any construction. The discussion also included the need to consolidate small segments of a job into one section. This method would insure a more cost efficient product without conflicts between different contractors.
2. Cross road intersections should be considered for rehabilitation (if necessary) at the same time of the pavement rehabilitation project.
3. The resident engineer of this particular job stated that the specified mechanical stabilization method did not function as expected. Transportation Central Office was notified of the problem with no change of plans. It was discussed that the mechanical stabilization should be used as asset and not incorporated in the pavement design itself.
4. The existing lighting conditions were not handled properly. The finished side slopes of the shoulders actually encroached upon the pedestals of the the light posts jeopardizing the safety of motorists. In the event of a collision with the light post the unit would not have the break away capabilities that was intended for each light post.
5. The existing lights over the roadway did not function at the time of the pavement rehabilitaion due to conduit corrosion and neglect. There was no provision provided during this pavement rehabilitaion to correct this problem.
6. It was requested that total pavement replacement jobs should be classified as reconstruction instead of pavement rehabilitation.
7. There was concern about diamond grinding being performed immediately after the pavement rehabilitation job. The rideability specification may have to be changed for concrete surface or include the diamond grinding in the contract.
8. Shoulders should be constructed the same as mainline to expedite construction on high volume roadways. The full depths shoulders could be used for detours or be used for widening jobs in the future.
9. Adequate pipe end structures need to be used at ends of edge drain outlets. The double wall non-perforated pipe is not withstanding impact from maintenance equipment.
10. Edge drains should be camera inspected before acceptance.
11. Pavement rehabilitation projects should have included bridges at interchanges for pavement replacement or overlay . This would eliminate the need for a separate contract in the future thus saving money.

The following change orders were discussed:

There have been eight change orders to date on the project.

This change order was necessary to implement the contractor’s "Value Engineering" proposal for using an automatic dowel bar inserter. The proposal was reviewed and accepted by District and Central Office personnel. The inserter was utilized on the two outside lanes of pavement eastbound and westbound the length of the project. This change order also allowed for changing the bond breaking coating on the dowel bars to facilitate the machine provided the substitute coating used meets KDOT materials approval.

Additional Cost $7,000

Additional Cost $423,202.62

This change order was necessary to delete the contractor’s "Value Engineering" proposal for using an automatic dowel bar inserter. The proposal as described in change order #2 was tried but failed to work properly. The cost offsets the fee in change order #2

Additional Cost $32,569.60

Additional Cost $93,620.67

This change order addressed the lighting during phases of construction. A note on the original plans specified that the existing lighting would not be disturbed. Due to washing and erosion of the existing earth slopes most of the existing conduit was exposed and deteriorated.

Due to construction and excavation of grades the existing conduit and junction boxes had to be disturbed thus resulting in Change Order # 7. The lighting on pavement rehabilitation jobs to be

given more consideration during the design phase. Once the grade was in place the earth slopes covered the light standards at some locations. This creates a traffic hazard since no guardrail was placed in front of the light standards.

Additional Cost $23, 963.72

This change order reflects the additional pipes and drop boxes needed to facilitate drainage of existing ditches. Cut slopes and benches had to be cleaned also.

Additional Cost $335, 875.00

A site visit followed the office review. The project appeared well constructed. It was suggested by Mr. Bob Farley that delineators at edge drain outlets be removed. This would provide a better clear zone for mowing equipment.

The original contract amount was $24,997,057.51. Approved change orders to date are $682,516.67 for a total revised amount of $25,679,574.17 . There are a few minor items for Central Office that have not been included at this time.

The attendance of all the participants in this post-construction review is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

J. M. Yowell, P.E.

State Highway Engineer

BY: John B. Sacksteder, P.E.

Director, Division of Highway Design

JMY:JBS:rts:pcr3-96.doc

cc: Post-construction Review Participants

Charles Raymer

FHWA File

Design File

J.E. Kearnes

J. Stone

P. Gravely

S. Cornett

S. Goodpaster

R.A. Yeager

C.L. Meyers

W. Crace

G. Sharpe