AASHTO VE-2017 Guidelines for Value Engineering (Revision 4).pdf

1、Guidelines for VALUE ENGINEERING 2017 EDITIONCover photos: Washington State Department of Transportations Route 520 Eastside Transit and HOV Lanes project (Honorable Mention in the 2013 Value Engineering Awards, in the category of “Pre- Construction more than $100 million”) increased safety, mobilit

2、y, and access to transit across Lake Washington east of Seattle by widening the freeway, adding HOV lanes and two in-median transit stations, and creating a regional bicyclepedestrian path. 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplicati

3、on is a violation of applicable law. Publication Code: VE-4 ISBN: 978-1-56051-679-8 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Guidelines for Value Engineering | i American Association of State Hig

4、hway and Transportation Officials Executive Committee 20162017 OFFICERS: PRESIDENT: David Bernhardt, Maine VICE PRESIDENT: John Schroer, Tennessee SECRETARY-TREASURER: Carlos Braceras, Utah EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Bud Wright, Washington, DC REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES: REGION I: Leslie Richards, Pennsylvan

5、iaPete Rahn, Maryland REGION II: Charles Kilpatrick, Virginia James Bass, Texas REGION III: Randall S. Blankenhorn, Illinois Patrick McKenna, Missouri REGION IV: Carlos Braceras, Utah Mike Tooley, Montana IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT: Vacant 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transpor

6、tation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.ii | ALABAMA Rex Bush Stanley Biddick William Adams ALASKA Mark Neidhold ARIZONA Annette Riley Steve Boschen ARKANSAS Mike Fugett Trinity Smith CALIFORNIA Cathrina Barros Timothy Craggs COLORADO Neil Lacey CONNECTICU

7、T Rabih Barakat Scott Hill DELAWARE Brian McIlvaine Mark Tudor Stephen Sisson DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Zahra Dorriz FLORIDA Michael Shepard Paul Hiers GEORGIA Brent Story C. Casey HAWAII Julius Fronda IDAHO Jesse Barrus ILLINOIS Michael Brand INDIANA Jeff Clanton John Wright IOWA Chris Poole Deanna Maif

8、ield Michael Kennerly KANSAS Scott King KENTUCKY Bradley Eldridge Robert Caudill LOUISIANA Chad Winchester David Smith Simone Ardoin MAINE Brad Foley Charles Hebson Joyce Taylor Steve Bodge MARYLAND Angela Smith Eric Marabello Jason Ridgway MASSACHUSETTS Hasmukh (Hardy) Patel MICHIGAN Kristin Schust

9、er MINNESOTA Andrea Hendrickson Chris Roy MISSISSIPPI Amy Mood David Seal James Pittman MISSOURI Eric Schroeter MONTANA James Combs Lesly Tribelhorn NEBRASKA Michael Owen NEV ADA Kristena Shigenaga Paul Frost NEW HAMPSHIRE James Marshall NEW JERSEY Robert Marshall NEW MEXICO Gabriela Contreras-Apoda

10、ca Richard Pena NEW YORK STATE Richard Wilder Richard Lee Stephen Zargham NORTH CAROLINA Glenn Mumford NORTH DAKOTA Roger Weigel OHIO David Slatzer OKLAHOMA Tim Tegeler OREGON David Polly PENNSYLV ANIA Melissa Batula PUERTO RICO Jos Santana-Pimentel Luis Santos RHODE ISLAND Vincent Palumbo SOUTH CAR

11、OLINA James Kendall, Jr. Ladd Gibson Rob Bedenbaugh SOUTH DAKOTA Brian Raecke Mark Leiferman TENNESSEE Ali Hangul Jeff Jones Jennifer Lloyd TEXAS Mark Marek Paul Carlson UTAH Ben Huot Carlos Braceras Fred Doehring George Lukes VERMONT Jesse Devlin Kenneth Robie Nicholas Wark VIRGINIA Barton Thrasher

12、 Mohammad Mirshahi Robert Cary Ronald Gibbons WASHINGTON STATE Edward Carpenter Michael Fleming WEST VIRGINIA Chad Toney Dirar Ahmad RJ Scites WISCONSIN Jerry Zogg WYOMING Andrea Allen Jeffrey Brown Sandra Pecenka ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION Moh Lali FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Robert Mooney KOREA EXP

13、RESSWAY CORPORATION Chansu Reem SASKATCHEWAN Sukhy Kent Subcommittee on Design 2016 Chair: Carlos Braceras, Utah Vice Chair: Joyce Taylor, Maine Liaison: Patricia Bush, AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee 2014 Greta Smith, AASHTO Troy Tusup, California Ray Petrucci, Delaware Ken Leuderalber

14、t, FHWA Kurt Lieblong, Florida Matt Sanders, Georgia Ted Mason, Idaho Nancy Yoo, Minnesota Llans Taylor, Missouri Ray Sacks, Montana Paul Schneider, New Jersey Michael Mariotti, New Y ork Stephen Holmes, Ontario MOT Peter Healey, Rhode Island Mark Anthony, South Carolina Mike Flowers, Tennessee Terr

15、y Berends, Washington Dan Tyler, Wisconsin 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Guidelines for Value Engineering | iii Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Benefits of a Value Engineerin

16、g Program 1 Position Statement2 Critical Success Factors2 Executive Support.2 Program Management .2 Workshop Execution.3 Emerging Trends .3 Cost Savings from the Construction Industry .3 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .5 What Is Value Engineering? 5 History of Value Engineering .5 FHWA Participatio

17、n 5 Benefits of a Value Engineering Program 6 State Assistance 6 Website/Internet7 3.0 ELEMENTS OF A STATE V ALUE ENGINEERING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Management Support .9 VE Policy 9 Value Engineering Program Manager .9 Consultant Services 10 Sustaining

18、 the Program .10 Program Marketing 10 Training .11 Continuous Improvement and Process Linkages .12 4.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION V ALUE ENGINEERING FOR PROJECTS .13 Pre-Study Activities13 Project Selection 13 Scheduling the VE Study 13 Team Structure 14 Team Leader14 Team Members 15 2017 by the American Asso

19、ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iv | Study Activities .15 Information.16 Function Analysis16 Creative .16 Evaluation .17 Development17 Presentation 17 Post Study Activities .17 Resolution/Implementation Process1

20、7 5.0 CONSTRUCTION V ALUE ENGINEERING19 Value Engineering Proposals by Contractors 19 Benefits .19 Value Engineering Change Proposals 20 Review Process .20 Securing and Maintaining Contractor Participation .20 6.0 INTEGRATION OF VE WITH OTHER PROJECT IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES23 VE and Design/Build.23 V

21、E and Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) .24 VE and Least Cost Planning .24 VE and Practical Design 24 VE and Risk Analysis 25 VE and Constructability Reviews/Peer Reviews .25 VE and Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC).26 7.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 27 Performance Measures .27 Reporting Res

22、ults .27 Recommendation Status 27 Tracking Pending Recommendations 27 Internal/External Program Reporting 28 APPENDICES 29 Appendix A1. Federal Value Engineering Requirements .29 Appendix A2. AASHTO VE Background.29 Appendix A3. Value Engineering Publications .30 Appendix A4. VE Organizations32 2017

23、 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Guidelines for Value Engineering | 1 Benefits of a Value Engineering Program The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) r

24、ecognizes the need for the prudent use of resources and revenues while providing a quality transportation program. Value Engineering (VE) is a function-oriented technique that has proven to be an effective management tool for achieving improved design, construction, and cost-effectiveness in various

25、 transportation program elements. Data collected by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicates that the return on investment can approach or exceed 100:1. Summary of Past VE Savings of Federal-Aid Highway Program FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 Number of VE studies 135 215 2

26、81 352 378 402 Cost of VE Studies Plus Administrative Costs $6.4M $8.67M $9.78M $11.98M $12.51M $13.55M Estimated Costs of Projects Studied $14.1B $20.86B $23.03B $30.27B $32.26B $34.25B Total Number of Recommendations 1,233 1,664 2,381 2,905 2,950 3,049 Total Value of Recommendations $2.5B $2.98B $

27、2.91B $3.78B $2.94B $4.35B Number of Approved Recommendations 504 697 1,011 1,191 1,224 1,315 Value of Approved Recommendations $831M $1.73B $1.15B $1.15B $1.01B $1.98B Return on Investment 129:1 200:1 118:1 96:1 80:1 146:1 States that have active VE programs have realized additional benefits beyond

28、 design improvements and cost sav- ings including: An opportunity for stakeholders to participate in the process Improvement of standards and policies Responsiveness to stakeholder priorities and improved communication amongst stakeholders participating in studies Accelerated incorporation of new ma

29、terials and construction techniques Employee satisfaction from participation in agency decisions Increased skills obtained from team participation Improved constructability Reduced environmental impacts Reduced schedule Reduced risk Improved operations 1.0 Executive Summary 2017 by the American Asso

30、ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.2 | Position Statement To improve design excellence and achieve efficient cost and quality control, it is AASHTOs position that: Each member state should establish an ongoing VE p

31、rogram. The challenges of rising costs and diminished resources are addressed through the application of VE principles and practices in project development, construction, traffic operation, maintenance, and other appropriate areas. Guidelines are provided to member organizations to promote and assis

32、t in broad acceptance and use of VE with the provision of flexibility to adapt to individual needs. This document provides guidelines for establishing and administering VE programs. It is the intent of these guide- lines to assist state DOTs in developing a successful VE program, to promote the acce

33、ptance and use of VE while allowing maximum flexibility to each state. Critical Success Factors Executive Support A firm commitment of resources and support by executive management is the most important element for assur- ing the success of a VE program. Value engineering is a process that must be b

34、elieved in and supported to realize benefits. All levels of management must understand and support value engineering through fostering a climate that encour- ages participation on studies and welcomes and accepts ideas from VE studies. An organization that is open to change and innovation will welco

35、me VE and have a successful program. Program Management A state VE program requires development of a policy directive describing where, when, how, and to what specif- ic areas of work the VE effort should be directed. There should be clear objectives, timelines, follow-up actions, review, and feedba

36、ck. For optimum results in the project development phase, VE should be performed: Early in the planningdesign process to maximize potential product or service improvement and cost savings. On high-cost and/or complex projects. VE programs within the state organization should be actively managed, clo

37、sely monitored, evaluated, and modi- fied to assure the programs effectiveness. 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Guidelines for Value Engineering | 3 Workshop Execution Each workshop shou

38、ld follow either the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or SA VE International VE job plan. The VE team leader must be trained in both the value methodology and team facilitation with strong lead- ership and communication skills. Multi-disciplinary teams unrelated to the project with positive att

39、itudes and a willingness to investigate new ideas have the most success. Emerging Trends There are several emerging techniques in the transportation field that share the goal of improving projects. Inte- grating value engineering with emerging techniques and new technology will generate opportunitie

40、s to use the creative power of VE to add value through project improvement. Cost Savings from the Construction Industry In addition to performing VE during the project development phase, VE principles can also be applied during the project construction phase through Value Engineering Change Proposal

41、s (VECPs or VEPs). A VECP/VEP pro- gram encourages contractors to develop construction VE proposals which allow the state to benefit from a con- tractors design and construction ingenuity, experience, and ability to work with new techniques. These are also referred to as Cost Reduction Incentive Pro

42、posals (CRIPS) or Cost Savings Initiatives (CSI) in some states. Some important elements of a successful, ongoing VECP/VEP program are: Processing of proposals must be kept simple and done so as not to delay the contractors construction schedule. Cost savings are shared (normally equally) between th

43、e contractor and the implementing agency. Change proposals become the property of the state and the concept may be used on future projects. Change proposals should not compromise any essential design criteria or preliminary engineering commitments. Change proposals cannot be the basis for a contract

44、 claim. The implementing agency has the option to reject, with good justification, contractors proposals. It is essential that all VE team recommendations and contractor proposals be fairly reviewed and expeditious- ly evaluated for implementation. Please note that the Code of Federal Regulations do

45、es not allow federal participation for VECPs to accelerate construction. 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2017 by the American Association of State High

46、way and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Guidelines for Value Engineering | 5 What Is Value Engineering? Generations of VE users have found it to be a multidisciplinary, systematic tool that is very useful for identifying, analyzing, and sol

47、ving problems. By carefully examining each component of an undertaking, VE helps to find new and better ways of doing things. It can be used in building highways, constructing factories, designing office procedures, and even in purchasing the family automobile. Value engineering combines creative an

48、d analytical skills to improve the value of products and services by examin- ing their function. Value is the ratio of function to cost, so value can therefore be increased by either improving the function or reducing the cost. VE is unique from other problem solving techniques because of function a

49、nalysis. Value engineering is also known as value analysis, the value methodologies, value planning, etc. History of Value Engineering VE was developed during World War II by Lawrence Mes of General Electric. Seeking a way to make the most efficient use of war-limited funds and raw materials, Mes devised a team-oriented technique that determines the objective of a project, service, or process; analyzes functions; and examines each step for ways to increase effi- ciency and to cut costs and completion time. Afte