Evaluation of In-House Maintenance and Contract Costs for Guardrail, Rest Areas, Pavement Marker, Striping and Seal Coats

Details

• Creators:
  Garcia-Diaz, Alberto ; Cediel-Franco, Fernando
• Corporate Creators:
  Texas Transportation Institute. Texas A&M University
• Corporate Contributors:
  Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation ; United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  Contractors Costs Evaluation Guardrails Maintenance Project Management Resource Utilization Road Markings Roadside Rest Areas Seal Coating Stripping (Pavements) Utilization

  More +
• Publication/ Report Number:
  FHWA/TX-87/380-1F, Vol. I (Revised)
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  United States ; Texas
• Edition:
  Final Report September 1985 - July 1988
• Corporate Publisher:
  Texas Transportation Institute. Texas A&M University
• Abstract:
  An important decision for District Engineers is to determine the most efficient assignment of routine maintenance projects to either State forces or private contractors. Frequently this decision may not be fully supported from the point of view of cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this Study is to perform an economic comparison of the two options concerning four types of projects: seal coats, pavement markers, guardrail repair and rest areas. The fundamental objective of this research is to quantify and document all significant components of the cost of maintenance projects using State forces or private contractors. The most significant costs associated with the use of State forces were found to be materials, labor, equipment, overhead, insurance, building-use, and downtime. Alternatively, for contractors the most significant elements found were bid price, materials, contract administration, and supervision. Total average costs are documented for both in-house and contractor projects on the basis of 403 projects conducted in six selected Districts of SDHPT. It is recommended that a more complete database be developed for more extensive comparisons between the two options.
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  2-18-86-380
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:337efefa0b7b61fd051e489dd844f748c5e515f1b8f28d9fd38969f1e855bba45a1d980625691b5b0097bd08ea560ddeb3cbe11113892f51c621659bb2b5bbb5
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/84943/dot_84943_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.94 MB ]