Read and translate the following memorandum

MEMORANDUM

To:District Maintenance Engineers

Copy:District Directors of Operations, Bill Albaugh

From:Sharon E. Holmes, P.E.

State Maintenance Engineer

Date:December 18, 2005

Re:Asset Management Contracting and handling of MRP data

This memo is provided to further clarify the coordination of Maintenance Rating data involving asset management contracts. Items 1-4 were originally included in the previous memo dated May 22, 2005 on Asset Management Contracting.

This information is provided again for your reference. Item 2 has been updated to modify the period for requesting an MRP adjustment to 2 weeks after the end of the rating period. Item 5 has been added, and contains additional details concerning requests to modify MRP data within Asset Management Contracts.

1. Maintenance Rating Programme (Mrp) Administration: For the purposes of administering asset management contracts involving the MRP, the State Maintenance Office (SMO) will provide the Districts with 30 sample sites, or a minimum of 3 sites per mile for systems less than 10 miles in length, per facility type per cost center, for each asset management contract during the MRP rating period.

This will ensure a more reasonable number of samples to evaluate contractor maintenance efforts. The SMO will supplement the MRP samples generated naturally by the MRP programme in order to obtain 30 samples, or a minimum of 3 sites per mile, per facility type per cost center, for each asset management contract. The naturally generated MRP samples will be included in the unit, district and statewide MRP rating.

The supplemental samples will only be used for contract administration purposes. The State Maintenance Office has updated the MRP procedure to provide for the distribution of MRP samples during the rating period, in order to make the time allowed for MRP sample evaluation commensurate with the number of samples to be evaluated.

In addition, a Quality Assurance Review of each MRP team (including contract teams) by the State Maintenance Office will be required annually. Compliance with the updated procedure is a requirement of all existing and future asset management contracts.

2. Mrp Quality Assurance by the District: The Districts have the contractual authority to perform an independent MRP within the contract limits. The District must invite the contractor to observe the quality assurance review, in order to improve the overall consistency and coordination between the District and the contractor MRP teams.

The asset management contract allows the District to adjust the contractor’s MRP rating to the District determined MRP rating, plus 2 points. This adjustment can be made to the characteristic, element and/or overall MRP, as warranted. Any District adjustment to the MRP must be provided to the State Maintenance Office for inclusion within the Statewide MRP within 2 weeks after the end of the MRP rating period.

From time to time, the District may perform an informal review of field conditions to get a sense of what is actually happening on the job. The District may perform this review independently, but if problems or concerns are suspected or found, the District must notify the Contractor as soon as possible and invite the contractor to jointly review field conditions, in order to resolve the concerns, and improve the overall consistency and coordination between the District and the contractor.

3. Mrp and Contract Performance Assessment: There will be instances when the quantity of any individual characteristic existing within the samples for a facility type may fall below 10, making a fair and reasonable determination of contractor performance using only the MRP difficult. Prior to assessing contract penalties, when this occurs, the District must attempt to increase the sample size to a minimum of 10 sites containing that characteristic, for each facility type.

If a minimum of 10 sites cannot be identified within the facility type, an on-site review of all existing sites must be conducted. The District must invite the Contractor to participate in an on-site review to assess the overall maintenance condition of the characteristic, taking into consideration evidence of contractor activity to maintain the system, and other conditions including weather, impact and sensitivity to adjacent property owners, remaining useful life of the characteristic, etc.

The District may reduce or eliminate a penalty based upon sound engineering judgment, to be fair and reasonable. When this occurs, the District must document the circumstances and outcome of the review to the Contractor, and retain all documentation within the contract file.

4. Retainage and Penalties: The MRP is a useful tool for evaluating performance, and administering asset management contracts. When used to assess retainage and penalties, the District must ensure that the action is fair and reasonable. Since penalties are calculated based upon the point deficiency of an individual characteristic, element or overall MRP rating, an item having a small number of samples, or a characteristic of less relative significance, can result in an excessive penalty.

The Districts are authorized, and responsible for ensuring that any penalty assessed is fair and reasonable. The reasonableness of any punitive action must be reviewed by the District and discussed with the Contractor. The District must document the reasonableness of punitive action, and retain all documentation within the contract file.

5. District Request to Modify Mrp Data: Any request to modify the MRP data for samples located within an asset management contract must meet the following criteria:

a. The District Maintenance Engineer responsible for the geographic area in which the affected sample resides must send a written request to adjust the MRP data to the State Maintenance Engineer, with a copy to the DOT Contract Administrator.

b. Any request to modify MRP data must be received by the State Maintenance Engineer within two weeks after the end of the MRP period.

c. The request to modify MRP data must include justification for the change, including details regarding the Asset Management Monitoring Plan results and documentation that items 1-4 above have been completed, including coordination with the Asset Management Contractor.

d. Modifications to the MRP data are not desirable. It is the intent of this memo, and the previous memo dated May 22, 2005 to eliminate the need for MRP modifications by insuring uniform and consistent results through close coordination with the Asset Management Contractor as described in items 1-4 above, along with the Asset Management Monitoring Plan.