1 / 17

ITS Maintenance Experience in Michigan

ITS Maintenance Experience in Michigan. Gregory D. Krueger, P.E. Metro Region Traffic and Safety Engineer Michigan Department of Transportation. Background. Michigan ITS originally deployed in the 1970’s Significant expansion in 1995-1997 Continued modernization over time.

victoria-odonnell
Télécharger la présentation

ITS Maintenance Experience in Michigan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ITS Maintenance Experience in Michigan Gregory D. Krueger, P.E. Metro Region Traffic and Safety Engineer Michigan Department of Transportation

  2. Background • Michigan ITS originally deployed in the 1970’s • Significant expansion in 1995-1997 • Continued modernization over time

  3. Current Operations • Freeway Operations Center • 180 cameras • 65 DMS • 2000+ detectors • Mixed-media communications • Links to partners • No major upgrades in past 10 years

  4. Why Contract? • MDOT’s overall program increased approximately 100% in the past 13 years ($1.6B to $3.1B) • MDOT’s staffing levels have fallen 27% in the past 13 years (3,868 to 2,826) • MDOT is currently limited in the ability to hire new staff • MDOT currently has 2 staff members doing maintenance of ITS facilities

  5. Contract History • Original system was maintained by in-house staff • Expansion maintenance was part of original construction contract • RFP in 2000 for maintenance of hardware and software • Contract expired on March 26, 2004 • Currently using an interim maintenance provider • Developing a new RFP for a long-term maintenance contract (3-5 years)

  6. Contract Mechanisms • Purchase Orders (small activities) • Statewide, task order based general contracts • Construction-type contracts (pay items) • Service-type contracts (time and materials)

  7. Payment Options • Pay for level of effort/number of staff (assume X full-time people and pay 100% of their time) • Pay for equipment-days of service (the CCTV must be operational 350 days per year – OR – pay $X per day the CCTV is operational) • Pay for work order

  8. Pay for Level of Effort • No incentive to use staff efficiently • Easy to administer

  9. Pay for Equipment Days of Service • Simple to define • Incentive for effective use of staff hours • Moderate complexity to administer

  10. Pay for Work Order • Moderate complexity to define (due to overlapping pay items) • Low to moderate incentive for effective use of staff • Difficult and time consuming to administer

  11. Options System availability Response Time Penalties Issues Potential for increased bid prices with penalties Administration effort increases need for inspection, monitoring Partnership between MDOT and maintenance provider Performance Requirements

  12. Performance Requirements • Recommendations in MDOT Scope • Defined performance requirements • Permit penalties at discretion of engineer • Grace period for system availability • Penalty notification/warning period • Reasonable penalties

  13. Equipment Purchase • Include in contractor pay items • Higher risk • How does contractor estimate? • Estimated quantity by DOT with contractor bids • Complex to define • Non-specified parts? • Establishes prices for entire contract • Low incentive for doing cost-effective repairs

  14. Equipment Purchase (cont.) • MDOT owns inventory • Difficult to administer • Potential for delay in repairs to unavailable hardware • Lump sum equipment “bank” • Industry standard • Allows for material markup (in Michigan) • Takes time to administer

  15. Third Party Damage • Separate category in contract since it is impossible to plan for • Options • Exclude from scope and use other purchasing methods to do work • Delay in repairs (have to issue a new work order) • How do you differentiate claims of damage by others from normal damage or contractor negligence?

  16. Third Party Damage (cont.) • Include budget and provision for “as-authorized” work with estimate • Requires an estimate for each third party damage • What if damage is more extensive than originally thought? • If authorized with budgetary estimate • Quick to authorize • Moderately complex to administer • Requires trust between DOT and contractor

  17. Conclusions • Need to answer each question to determine contract type • DOT resources are valuable – need to determine where those resources are most appropriately used • Need a method to measure performance of maintenance activities • Use shorter term contracts with pre-approved extensions to avoid being locked in • Take the time to develop a contract that you are comfortable with

More Related