[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28290]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 627
[FHWA Docket No. 94-12]
RIN 2125-AD33
Value Engineering
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to issue a regulation on value engineering
(VE) that would require its application to selected Federal-aid highway
projects, when funded under the FHWA's grant-in-aid process. The
proposed regulation would require State highway agencies (SHA) to
establish and administer VE programs; it outlines minimum VE program
requirements and provides guidance in establishing, administering, and
monitoring a VE program. This proposed regulation is considered
necessary to implement 23 U.S.C. 106(d), which provides that, in such
cases as the Secretary deems advisable, the Secretary may require a
value engineering or other cost reduction analysis of plans,
specifications, and estimates for proposed projects on any Federal-aid
highway.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written and signed comments to the Federal Highway
Administration, HCC-10, FHWA Docket No. 94-12, Room 4232, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All comments and suggestions
received will be available for examination at the above address between
8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments
must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Borkenhagen, Office of
Engineering, 202-366-4630, or Wilbert Baccus, Office of Chief Counsel,
202-366-0780, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA recognizes VE as an effective and
proven technique for reducing cost, increasing productivity, and
improving quality when applied in the development of highway projects.
This document solicits public comments regarding the VE requirements
being considered by the FHWA.
In 1991, the Congress required the FHWA to study its VE program.
Section 1091 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991, Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914 (Dec 18, 1991), required the
Secretary of Transportation to ``study the effectiveness and benefits
of value engineering review programs applied to Federal-aid highway
projects,'' and to ``report to Congress on the results of the study * *
* including recommendations on how value engineering could be utilized
and improved in Federal-aid highway projects.''
The FHWA's evaluation of the effectiveness of its VE program, as
described in a report submitted to Congress in June 1993,1
concluded that the application of VE in the development of highway
projects has the potential to result in substantial cost savings
without adversely affecting any of the highway projects' design,
aesthetics, or construction standards while assuring that environmental
and ecological goals are maintained. During the study made to prepare
this report, the FHWA examined VE data covering fiscal year (FY) 1988
to FY 1991 and found that only a limited number of States had active
and effective VE programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Value Engineering on Federal-aid Projects,'' a report to
Congress by the Secretary of Transportation is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7 appendix D. A
copy is in the file for FHWA Docket No. 94-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study found that FHWA's policy of the past 20 years of
promoting VE through education, encouragement, and technical assistance
has had limited success in persuading all States to implement VE
programs on a continuing basis. This finding is despite overwhelming
evidence that VE can be a very effective way to improve projects and
control costs from States with active VE programs. The FHWA has,
therefore, concluded that in order to improve the effectiveness of the
VE program nationwide, all States need to have active VE programs. As a
result, the FHWA proposes to require the use of VE in all States on
selected Federal-aid highway projects.
This regulation, if promulgated, would significantly improve the
effectiveness of VE in the Federal-aid highway program by requiring VE
to be applied in all States, thereby ensuring that the requirements of
23 U.S.C. 106(d) are met. The regulation would provide nationwide
application of VE to the FHWA's grant program in the same way that the
FHWA's direct federally funded VE program is covered by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-131 (Revised June 8, 1993, 58 FR
32964 (June 14, 1993)). The OMB Circular A-131 requires ``Federal
Departments and Agencies to use value engineering (VE) as a management
tool, where appropriate, to reduce program and acquisition costs.''
Discussion of Major Sections
The regulation would require States to establish, administer, and
monitor VE programs. Each State would determine the administrative
details of its VE program and institute VE program requirements to
carry out the VE program. States would have up to 1 year from the
effective date of the final rule to establish VE programs.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 627.1 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this regulation is to improve project quality and
productivity, foster innovation, eliminate unnecessary and costly
design elements, and ensure economical costs by requiring the
application of VE in the design and construction of selected Federal-
aid highway projects. The regulation would apply to contracts for early
project development, design, and construction of selected projects
funded with Federal-aid highway funds and may include studies of
project elements, project procedures, specifications, and standard
plans.
Section 627.3 Definitions
This section would define the VE terms of ``Function,'' ``Life-
Cycle Cost,'' ``Total Quality Management,'' ``Value Engineering,''
``Value Engineering Change Proposal,'' ``Value Engineering Incentive
Clause,'' ``Value Engineering Job Plan,'' and ``Worth.''
Section 627.5 General Principles and Procedures
This section would require States to establish VE programs which
meet minimum VE program requirements and to develop procedures to
administer and monitor their VE programs. This section would require
States to be adequately staffed to effectively manage and monitor their
VE programs, allow States to employ VE consultants to perform VE
studies, and authorize the cost of the VE studies as eligible for
Federal-aid participation. In addition, this section would require VE
program staffs to receive VE training. Value engineering training is
available through courses and workshops offered by the National Highway
Institute (NHI), various VE consulting firms, and some SHAs with active
VE programs.
Section 627.7 Reports
This section would require States to report to the FHWA the yearly
results achieved through the application of VE to projects financed
with Federal-aid highway funds. This information should be readily
available from the SHA's internal tracking and documenting of its VE
program. The FHWA is required to report certain data and other
information about its VE program to the Department of Transportation
(DOT), which then forwards the information to the OMB. The information
provided in the State reports would provide the data and information
needed for FHWA's report and would help the FHWA and States monitor the
effectiveness of State VE programs. The information contained in the
report will be made available to FHWA field offices and State agencies.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the docket closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final
rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to
late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant information
in the docket as it becomes available after the closing date, and
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new
material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that a savings of more than $100 million
per year is likely to occur as a result of the implementation of the
regulation. Therefore, this action is a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and significant within the
meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. Because it is
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be
significant, the FHWA has prepared the following regulatory evaluation.
The FHWA collected and evaluated considerable amounts of VE data in
1992 while preparing and writing its VE Report to Congress. During
FHWA's 1992 evaluation of the effectiveness of its VE program, the FHWA
analyzed data for all SHAs (50 States plus Puerto Rico and the District
of Columbia) describing their VE usage for the 4-year period from
fiscal year (FY) 1988 to FY 1991. The data showed that the SHAs
performed over 1500 VE studies, recommended an accumulative $3.6
billion in VE savings, and implemented VE savings worth $615 million.
The majority (71 percent) of these 1,500 VE studies were made by just
seven States. These seven SHAs, with ``active'' VE programs, averaged
39 studies per year. Nearly all of the remaining VE studies were made
by 27 other SHAs, an average of only 4 VE studies per year, with the 18
remaining SHAs performing only 12 VE studies over the 4-year study
period. The overall results showed the SHAs implementing an average of
$154 million per year in VE savings.
In order to evaluate the reported VE savings, the FHWA analyzed the
FY 1991 bid information reported and published in its Bid Opening
Report (Pub. No. FHWA-PD-92-017). In FY 1991, the SHAs accumulatively
awarded $10 billion worth of Federal-aid highway construction projects.
The seven ``active'' VE States awarded construction contracts worth
$2.5 billion, the 27 ``limited'' VE States awarded construction
contracts worth $5.0 billion, and the 18 ``inactive'' VE States awarded
construction contracts worth $2.5 billion.
The FHWA has concluded that because the seven SHAs (accounting for
25 percent of FHWA's construction program) with ``active'' VE programs
and the 27 States (accounting for 50 percent of FHWA's construction
program) with ``limited'' VE programs were able to save $154 million
per year, that an opportunity exists to save significant additional
Federal-aid highway funds if all SHAs develop ``active'' VE programs.
With 25 percent of FHWA's $10 billion construction program not exposed
to any VE analysis and 50 percent of its program having only a
``limited'' exposure to the VE process, the FHWA believes that
additional savings of more that $100 million would occur by requiring
all States to develop and administer VE programs as proposed in this
regulation.
The additional annual savings that would result from the
implementation of this regulation would remain with the affected SHAs.
The funds saved through VE could then be used to design or construct
additional highway projects, thereby allowing SHAs to get additional
work accomplished each year with the same overall amount of Federal-aid
highway funds. By being able to expand the amount of work accomplished
with their Federal-aid highway funds, SHAs would also be able to save
or free-up State funds for other projects.
Based on more recent VE information collected by FHWA field offices
for FY 1993, the FHWA found that during FY 1993, 27 SHAs had performed
at least 1 VE study, while 18 of these 27 SHAs performed at least 5
studies, and 9 of the 27 SHAs performed 10 or more studies. The FHWA
believes that these States either have VE programs in place or are
familiar with the VE process that would be required under this
regulation.
This rule will not significantly increase the burden upon State
governments. This regulation would require SHAs to develop VE programs
where a sufficient number of projects, representing at least 50 percent
of the Federal-aid highway funds expended by the State, will be
identified for VE studies each year. An average VE study takes 4 to 5
days to complete and requires a 4 to 6 person team. In FY 1993, 349 VE
studies of various highway projects were made by 27 SHAs. According to
the information provided to the FHWA, the average cost per project for
the 349 VE studies was $9,600 while the recommended savings (if all
recommendations were accepted) was $3.4 million per project. Assuming a
recommendation acceptance rate of 25 percent, implementation of the VE
recommendations would result in a cost savings of approximately $0.86
million per study. The VE cost savings should more than offset any VE
study or redesign costs to the agency.
In the past, some State highway agencies have resisted establishing
VE programs for various reasons. Many were concerned about the
additional staffing requirements and potential delays to projects. Some
considered the application of VE to be superfluous in light of the
review processes already applied in developing projects. These concerns
have been considered and addressed in this rulemaking.
Under an established VE program (which operates on a continuing
basis), the application of VE to the highway projects need not
adversely affect or delay any project because the VE studies are
normally performed in the early project development phase, where they
can be integrated into the process. In addition, the overall effect of
employing VE is generally positive, rather than duplicative of the
engineering analysis already completed on any project, because VE uses
a multi-disciplinary team, creative thinking, and functional analysis
to improve quality and productivity, foster innovation, eliminate
unnecessary and costly design elements, and ensure that projects are
cost effective. The regulation may affect staffing levels in SHAs that
do not currently utilize VE. Establishing, administering, and
monitoring a VE program will require each SHA to assign staff to carry
out specific VE functions, although it is expected that staffing
assignments will be minimal. States with existing VE programs probably
already have adequate staff assigned to carry out the VE functions.
Individuals serving as VE study team leaders or members should be
selected from existing SHA staffs that are trained in VE. Agencies may
also hire VE consultants to perform the VE studies. In either case the
study costs are eligible for reimbursement with Federal-aid funds at
the appropriate pro-rata share for the type of project studied.
Historically, any additional costs due to the need to hire or
reassign staff to manage the VE program have been more than offset by
the overall monetary savings resulting from the application of VE
studies to highway projects. In general, States with active VE programs
report return on VE investments of between 30 to 1 and 50 to 1, giving
the opportunity for substantial overall savings. In 1993, California,
Florida, and Massachusetts reported savings in excess of $100 million
as a result of VE study recommendations.
Since VE programs would be geared primarily toward analyzing the
larger and more complex projects, most local agencies (those receiving
small amounts of Federal-aid highway funds) would find themselves
exempt from the process. Large local agencies receiving substantial
amounts of Federal-aid highway funds would have to apply VE to some of
their larger projects in the same manner as the SHAs and would achieve
analogous benefits. Like State highway agencies, local agencies that
are required to perform VE studies may perform the studies themselves
or hire a VE consultant to perform the study. The cost to local
agencies of performing VE studies is project related and is therefore
eligible for reimbursement with Federal-aid highway funds, as stated
above.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small
entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The FHWA has determined that most small entities (those
receiving small amounts of Federal-aid highway funds) will probably not
perform VE studies because their projects are small and do not fit the
project selection criteria set forth in this proposal for performing VE
studies. Still, due to the many benefits that accrue through applying
the VE process, States should encourage local agencies to use VE in the
development of Federal-aid highway projects.
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.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. Under the Federal-aid
highway program, the FHWA reimburses States for costs incurred in
highway construction projects. This regulation would simply provide
that, as a condition of receiving such grants, States must ensure that
project costs are controlled and project quality is maintained. This
regulation recognizes the role of the States in employing VE. It gives
States wide latitude in establishing, administering, and monitoring
their VE programs and in selecting projects to be constructed using VE.
Therefore, the FHWA has determined that this action does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
separate federalism assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action contains a collection of information for the purpose of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The reporting and recordkeeping requirement associated with this
rule is being submitted to the OMB for approval in accordance with 44
U.S.C. Chapter 35 under DOT NO: ______; OMB NO: ______; Administration:
Federal Highway Administration; Title: Value Engineering; Proposed Use
of Information: Project data and cost information representing the
outcome of the VE studies will be used for determining if the
respondents are in compliance with the legislative requirements and to
report VE savings to the Department of Transportation, which then
forwards the information to the OMB; Frequency: Yearly; Burden
Estimate: 1,248; Respondents: 52; Form(s): Appendix A to Part 627;
Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 24.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Information Requirements Division,
M-34, Office of the Secretary, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590, (202) 366-4735 or the FHWA desk officer, Office of
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3228,
Washington, D.C. 20503, (202) 395-7340. It is requested that comments
sent to the OMB also be sent to the FHWA rulemaking docket for this
action.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
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 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
Government procurement, Grant programs--transportation, Highways
and roads, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued on: November 9, 1994
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to add part
627 to 23 CFR chapter I to read as follows:
PART 627--VALUE ENGINEERING
Sec.
627.1 Purpose and applicability.
627.3 Definitions.
627.5 General principles and procedures.
627.7 Reports.
Appendix A to Part 627--Annual Federal-aid Value Engineering (VE)
Summary Report
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106(d), 302, 307, and 315; 49 CFR 18.
Sec. 627.1 Purpose and applicability.
(a) This part will improve project quality and productivity, foster
innovation, eliminate unnecessary and costly design elements, and
ensure efficient investments by requiring the application of value
engineering (VE) to selected highway projects financed with Federal-aid
highway funds. This part requires each State highway agency (SHA) to
establish a VE program, outlines minimum VE program requirements, and
provides guidance on establishing, administering, and monitoring VE
programs. State programs shall be in effect no later than [one year
after the effective date of the final rule].
(b) This part applies to contracts involving the early development,
design, and construction of selected Federal-aid highway projects.
States shall develop VE programs that will apply the VE review process
to selected highway projects. States may exempt certain projects, such
as railroad and utility work, projects financed with highway planning
and research funds, certain projects authorized under the State's
highway safety program, and emergency relief projects from the VE
project selection phase.
Sec. 627.3. Definitions.
Contractor. The individual or firm providing material, supplies,
personal property, nonpersonal services, or professional services as a
party to the design or construction contract.
Function. Any performance characteristic that a product or service
accomplishes.
Life-cycle cost. The total cost of an item's ownership, computed
over its useful life. This includes initial capital costs (right-of-
way, planning, design, construction), user costs, and the cost of
operation, maintenance, modification, replacement, demolition,
financing, taxes, and disposal associated with the facility as
applicable.
Value engineering. The systematic application of recognized
techniques by a multidisciplined team to identify the function of a
product or service; establish a worth for that function; generate
alternatives through the use of creative thinking; and provide the
needed functions, reliably, at the lowest life-cycle cost without
sacrificing safety, necessary quality, and environmental project
attributes.
Value engineering change proposal (VECP). A proposal submitted by a
contractor under a VE incentive clause included in the provisions of a
construction contract that, through a change in the plans, design, or
specifications would yield an improved or equal product and reduce the
project cost (initial and/or life-cycle) to the contracting agency. The
net savings from the proposal are shared with the contractor in
accordance with the distribution provided in the VE or cost reduction
incentive clause.
Value engineering incentive clause. A construction contract
provision which encourages the contractor to propose changes in the
contract plans and/or requirements which will accomplish the project's
functional requirements at less cost (without adversely affecting the
project) and allows the contractor to share in the resultant cost
savings.
Value engineering job plan. An organized plan of action for
accomplishing a VE study that divides the study into a distinct set of
work phases. The phases normally found in a VE job plan include:
Project selection, investigation, speculation, evaluation, development,
presentation, implementation, and audit.
Worth. An estimate of the least expensive way of performing a
function, irrespective of its application to the project.
Sec. 627.5 General principles and procedures.
(a) State VE programs. Applying the VE process to projects will
improve project quality and productivity, foster innovation, eliminate
unnecessary and costly design elements, reduce impact costs on users,
ensure the safe operation of the facility, advance environmental and
ecological interests, and ensure economical construction costs on
selected highway projects financed with Federal-aid highway funds.
State highway agencies shall prepare written procedures establishing
continuing VE programs. These procedures shall be acceptable to the
FHWA and consistent with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ``Guidelines for Value
Engineering.''1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AASHTO's ``Guidelines for Value Engineering,'' 1987, is
available for inspection as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D
and may be purchased by writing to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 N. Capitol Street, NW.,
Suite 225, Washington, DC 20001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The VE program shall include procedures to insure that the VE
process is actively applied to applicable Federal-aid highway projects.
The VE procedures shall require the identification of candidate
projects for VE studies early in the development of the State's annual
Federal-aid program. As a minimum, a sufficient number of projects
representing at least 50 percent of the Federal-aid highway funds
expended by the State shall be identified for VE studies each year.
(2) The VE program should establish specific criteria and
guidelines for selecting Federal-aid highway projects for a VE review.
Consideration should be given to projects that have shown recent
substantial cost increases; projects with complex designs or
construction phases; projects involving major structures; projects with
unique specifications, standards, or processes; multi-modal projects;
projects with repetitive work elements; projects with high right-of-way
costs; projects with unique or experimental features; projects with
high maintenance, user impact, or traffic control costs; and projects
specifically requested for review by State agency program offices or
management.
(3) The VE program should establish specific criteria and
procedures for granting waivers of the VE study requirement on certain
types of projects or programs. The agency's procedures may allow for
certain types of projects to be eliminated from consideration for VE
when there is little likelihood that they would yield any opportunity
for improvements or savings.
(4) Value engineering studies should follow the systematic problem-
solving process defined by the VE job plan. Value engineering studies
should be performed using a team consisting of individuals from
different disciplines, such as: Design, construction, environment,
maintenance, planning, right-of-way, and other specialty areas
depending upon the project being reviewed. Individuals from the public
and other agencies may also be included as team members when their
inclusion is found to be in the public interest. The study leader
should be trained in VE, understand the VE process, and be able to
serve as the coordinator and facilitator of the VE team.
(i) Studies should be employed as early as possible in the project
development or design process so that valid VE recommendations can be
implemented without delaying the progress of the project.
(ii) Each study should conclude with a formal report outlining the
study team's recommendations for improving the project and reducing its
overall cost. As a part of the formal report process, a presentation of
the VE team's recommendations should be made to upper management and
documentation of the presentation included with the final report.
(5) The VE program should include procedures to ensure that the VE
recommendation approval process involves appropriate reviews and
concurrences from applicable staff offices, such as: Design,
construction, environment, air quality, safety, materials, traffic
operations, right-of-way, and other offices when the proposed VE change
impacts their specialty areas. All reviews by external staff offices
should be performed promptly to minimize delays to the project.
(6) The VE program should promote the development and submission of
VECPs by construction contractors, provide for their prompt review,
assure their prompt approval or disapproval and, if approved, assure
the implementation of the proposed changes. State highways agencies
shall include a VE or cost reduction incentive clause in their standard
specifications or project special provisions that clearly allows
construction contractors to submit VECPs. This clause should include a
provision allocating, by percentage, the cost savings that is to be
shared between the agency and the contractor. States should retain the
right to accept or reject all VECPs and acquire the rights to use
accepted VECPs in current and future projects without restrictions.
(7) The VE program should include procedures for monitoring the
implementation of the recommendations to ensure that proper
documentation is maintained for accepted and rejected VE and VECP
recommendations, the projected or actual cost savings associated with
the recommendations, and the total costs involved in performing the VE
studies. The monitoring procedures should also include a mechanism to
assure that applicable VE alternatives employed on one projects are
included in other similar projects.
(b) State VE coordinators. Each State highway agency shall be
adequately staffed with individuals knowledgeable in VE to effectively
coordinate and monitor its VE efforts. Individuals assigned to
administer and monitor the VE program should have sufficient authority
to insure the vigorous implementation of the VE program and be actively
involved in all phases of the VE program including the development of
the agency's annual VE plan.
(c) VE training. The VE program should include procedures for
identifying formal VE training needs and for coordinating training
efforts to ensure that an adequately trained staff is available to
perform the number of VE studies required in the annual VE plan and to
assure a continuing VE program. Key VE program managers, VE team
leaders and members, and individuals involved in the VECP review and
approval process shall receive VE training.
(d) Use of consultants. Consultants that have experience in VE may
be retained by SHAs to conduct VE studies on Federal-aid projects or
elements of Federal-aid projects. Members of consultant VE study teams
should be experienced in VE, have completed a recognized VE course or
workshop, and have participated in previous VE studies. A consultant
firm should not be retained to conduct a VE study of its own design
unless the firm maintains separate and distinct organizational
separation of its VE and design sections.
(e) Funding eligibility. The cost of performing VE studies is
project related and is therefore eligible for reimbursement with
Federal-aid highway funds at the appropriate pro-rata share for the
project studied.
Sec. 627.7 Reports.
Each SHA shall report yearly the results it achieved through the
application of VE to selected highway projects financed with Federal-
aid highway funds. States should report data for the Federal fiscal
year, the twelve month period beginning October 1 and ending September
30. States should submit these reports to the FHWA division office by
November 10 of the calendar year. This information may be transmitted
to the FHWA electronically. The suggested report format is provided in
appendix A of this part.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2125-______.)
Appendix A to Part 627.--Annual Federal-Aid Value Engineering (VE)
Summary Report
[Report only Federal-aid funded projects--State: __________ Fiscal year:
__________ ]
1. Total dollars invested in VE Studies by the SHA
this fiscal year (include in-house costs only, such
as, VE coordinator and staff salaries; study costs;
salary, travel and incidental costs for persons
making studies)..................................... $________M
2. Total dollars paid to VE contractors for
performing VE Studies this fiscal year (include such
costs as VE staff salaries for monitoring contractor
and VE study costs)................................. $________M
3. Total dollars invested in VE Training by the SHA
this fiscal year (include in-house costs for VE
coordinator and staff salaries for organizing and
monitoring; NHI training costs; salary, travel and
incidental costs for persons attending training).... $________M
4. Total dollars paid to VE contractors for VE
Training usedthe SHA this fiscal year (include
training costs; salary, travel, and incidental costs
for persons attending training)..................... $________M
5. Total number of individuals trained in VE during
this fiscal year.
Over 8 hours FHWA ______ State ______ Other
______
Under 8 hours FHWA ______ State ______ Other
______
Project Development and Design Phase
6. Total number of VE studies completed this fiscal
year................................................ ________
a. Total number of VE recommendations made....... ________
b. Total number of VE recommendation approved.... ________
7. Total estimated construction cost of all the
projects before the VE studies were performed....... $________M
a. Total dollar value of the VE recommendations
made............................................ $________M
b. Total dollar value of the VE recommendations
approved for implementation..................... $________M
8. Total estimated construction cost of all the
projects after the VE studies were performed and the
VE recommendations were approved for implementation. $________M
Project Construction Phase
(Value Engineering Change Proposals)
9. Total number of VECP received this fiscal year.... ________
10. Total value of VECP received this fiscal year.... $________M
11. Total number of VECP approved this fiscal year... ________
12. Total value of VECP approved this fiscal year.... $________M
13. Total amount of VECP approved savings provided to
contractors......................................... $________M
Life-Cycle Cost Savings
14. Total estimated value of life-cycle (cost
avoidance) cost savings for approved VE and VECP
recommendations this fiscal year.................... $________M
[FR Doc. 94-28290 Filed 11-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
