Mid-Atlantic Pontis 4.0 Workshop

**August 20 -- 21, 2001**

**FHWA Eastern Resource Center**

# Baltimore, Maryland

The FHWA Headquarters Office of Asset Management and Eastern Resource
Center conducted a Pontis 4.0 workshop on August 20 -- 21, 2001. The
workshop was held at the FHWA Eastern Resource Center in Baltimore,
Maryland. Representatives from four States (MD, VA, DE, and IL), AASHTO,
Eastern Federal Lands, Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center, and
Cambridge Systematics participated (see attached list).

Self-introductions were made followed by opening comments from Mr. Bob
Callan, the FHWA Eastern Resource Center Manager.

## **Agenda Topics**

**[Pontis Task Force Activities]{.underline}**, George Romack, FHWA
Office of Asset Management

-   The Pontis task force has been combined with the Virtis/Opis task
    force; now known as the AASHTO Bridgeware task force; Ken Hurst from
    KS is the chairman

-   Pontis is licensed by 38 State DOT's, several counties, FHWA, and a
    few international subscribers

-   Recent accomplishments: deployment of Pontis version 4.0, complete
    documentation upgrade (new technical manual due in September 2001,
    new users manual was released with version 4.0)

-   Held annual users meeting in New Orleans last year; scheduled for
    9/28-29 in Detroit this year

-   Future short-term efforts include:

    -   development of NHI training on Pontis 4.0 (to be done by
        Cambridge Systematics as a Bridgeware task; FHWA and contractor
        will provide instructors)

    -   continued technical support from contractor, Resource Centers,
        and Headquarters

    -   more workshops like these

**[Highlights of New Features in Pontis 4.0]{.underline}**, Bill Robert,
Cambridge Systematics

-   Status

    -   Pontis 4.0 has been shipped

    -   User training meeting is September 28-29 in Detroit

    -   New users manual is included on the Pontis CD technical manual
        is under development

    -   Printed copies of the manuals will be distributed at the users
        meeting

-   Key Features of Pontis 4.0

    -   Inspection Module

        -   Improved metric/English support

        -   Ability to add Inspector work candidates

        -   Many user interface improvements

        -   Recoding of the NBI translator in C++ language

    -   Project Planning

        -   Action log and project planning are integrated

        -   Completely new project planning interface

        -   Improved bridge analysis capability

    -   Programming Module

        -   Support for prediction of additional performance measures in
            the simulation, e.g. NBI condition ratings, sufficiency
            rating, and HBRRP eligibility

        -   Users are allowed much greater degree of control over the
            simulation module in order to improve the match of
            simulation generated work with agency business practices

    -   Results Module

        -   New user interface which allows the user to see the impacts
            of both scenarios and programs of user-defined projects, and
            reports for new performance measures

    -   Other

        -   Improved Pontis desktop and database design

        -   New right-click functionality

        -   Ability to create additional preservation actions

        -   Numerous user interface improvements

-   Database Migration Issues

    -   Pontis 4.0 includes major revisions to the database structure

    -   Upgrading a database from Pontis 3.4 to 4.0 is a significant
        effort

    -   Basic approach is to run a set of scripts in Pontis 3.4 to
        create "virtual" Pontis 4.0 tables, export data from Pontis 3.4,
        import data into Pontis 4.0, and run clean-up scripts

    -   Specific migration issues

        -   Customizations to element definitions made in Pontis 3.4
            must be reapplied in Pontis 4.0

        -   Custom tables -- userbrdg, userinsp, userrway, userstrunit
            -- may need to be modified to migrate

        -   User forms and reports need to be migrated from Infomaker 5
            to 7

        -   Not easy to go back to Pontis 3.4 once migration is complete

    -   Issues lurking in an agency's database tend to emerge when the
        agency performs data migration

-   Other issues

    -   Agency preservation policies

        -   New feature developed for Pontis 4.0, funded by IL DOT

        -   Can be used to have smart flags trigger element work

    -   Cost Models

        -   Expert cost and deterioration elicitations are needed to use
            the Pontis models

        -   Same basic approach as Pontis 3.x

        -   Developing cost models continues to be an issue --
            recommended approach is to perform bid tab analysis

**[FHWA Support Activities]{.underline}**, Mike Fraher, Southern
Resource Center and Bob Mihalek, Office of Asset Management

Mr. Fraher provided a description of areas where FHWA has provided
assistance with Pontis implementation. These include:

-   development of an NHI Pontis training course; goal is for a pilot in
    the first quarter of 2002

-   assistance in converting old databases

-   other assistance as needed to help users get over hurdles

Mr. Mihalek categorized the assistance he has provided as follows:

1.  Providing relational database expertise to the field and internally

2.  Providing FHWA translator answers to the field and internally

3.  Federal Lands BMS implementation

Within the ERC area, Mr. Mihalek has provided database assistance to DE,
MD, VA, and DC**.**

**[FHWA's BMS Lab Support]{.underline}**, Steve Chase, Turner Fairbanks
Highway Research Center

Mr. Chase provided an update on the activities of the Bridge Management
Information Systems Laboratory (BMISL) in the FHWA Turner Fairbank
Highway Research Center. The motivation behind establishment of the lab
back in 1993 was to help obtain a better understanding of our structures
through analysis of bridge data and to help prioritize bridge research.

Background on development of the lab:

-   obtained copies of 25 years worth of NBI data

-   integrated a GIS system

-   obtained additional national data sets including NHS, climatic,
    seismic, hydrographic, and geopolitical

-   integrated a statistical analysis and modeling system

-   gradually increased capabilities over the past eight years

-   created a large database that includes an on-line NBI data set for
    years 1984 through 2000, other special data sets and augmented
    tables

-   developing a stronger relationship with the Infrastructure CBU
    through activities such as developing a web-based query system for
    the Office of Bridge Technology and performing sensitivity analysis
    on the health index and failure costs for the Office of Asset
    Management

**[Pontis 4.0 Testing Issues]{.underline}**, Dave Thompson, IL DOT,
President of the Pontis Users Group

Mr. Thompson provided a copy of an email he issued to user group members
describing various aspects of Pontis. The following bullets summarize
the key points of the handout:

-   Based on a recent survey, 8 States out of 27 indicated that they had
    modified the cost model, deterioration model, and failure costs that
    were shipped with Pontis.

-   Do these modifications have to be made to use/benefit from the
    program? No, because 1) Pontis has a database that will store
    element level inspection information, 2) Pontis has a translator
    that will convert element level data to NBI ratings, 3) Pontis will
    now store inspector work candidates at the bridge or element level,
    and 4) Pontis now provides two sample databases to chose from that
    contain the models required to perform program simulations.

-   If modifications are not made, there are risks that need to be
    recognized such as 1) costs for various actions may or may not
    represent your actual costs, 2) the failure cost must be set high
    enough to force the program to select an action in the last
    condition state, 3) models need to be modified to incorporate State
    specific elements, and 4) the deterioration rates may or may not
    reflect your actual deterioration rates.

-   Bottom line - better models give better results.

-   Pontis 4.0 includes two sample databases. Neither should be used
    as-is. Suggestion is to install both and see which one better fits a
    given users needs. Each database contains only CoRe elements. The
    main difference between the two is how some of the rules are
    applied.

**[Licensing/Support Issues]{.underline}**, Jose Aldayuz, AASHTO

> Mr. Aldayuz provided a discussion of the status of licensing among the
> States and locals. The licensing period runs from July 1 through June
> 30. A high priority item for Bridgeware is to develop procedures for
> the integration of the products (Pontis/Virtis/Opis). AASHTO will be
> evaluating the future license fees for the Bridgeware products,
> particularly Pontis since the major development and enhancement work
> is complete.

### Discussion of User Issues

> During a roundtable discussion, each user provided a brief report on
> the status of Pontis implementation, identification of problems or
> concerns, and a statement of their expectations from Pontis.
>
> [Virginia]{.underline} -- Roy Holte -- started element level
> inspections in 1997; using Pontis to collect inspection data; not
> going like a well-oiled machine; version 3.4.4 has been installed in
> each District; considering having each District run Pontis
> independently since each operates like a separate highway department
> with their own set of rules; An internal audit of Pontis usage by the
> Districts concluded that the results were not providing any real
> benefit; estimated 600 person-days to get cost model modified;
> experienced problems customizing earlier versions of Pontis; currently
> have three people working on Pontis full-time; more hand-holding of
> Districts is planned; their expectations are to develop Pontis to the
> point that it will produce a reasonable prioritization of actions so
> that they can compare to their current method of selecting actions and
> investigate reasons for differences.
>
> [Maryland]{.underline} -- Doug Hutcheson -- involved in Pontis since
> 1994; approx. 2500 bridges maintained by the State with a similar
> number locally owned; using Access to collect inspection data; they
> have had a significant problem getting manpower devoted to Pontis;
> hard to keep someone in BMS position since Pontis has been slow to
> develop and difficult to learn; does not look like they will fill the
> currently vacant BMS position; not likely to renew their Pontis
> license; Counties have expressed some resistance since they are forced
> to collect data but have not been given access to the program or seen
> any results; MD has been waiting for some States to come forward and
> say that Pontis has helped them with their program; maintain a list of
> 300-400 bridges that are visited each year by a team of experts;
> projects are selected from the list for programming based on the field
> review; their intent was to use Pontis to validate their current
> decision making process and to support budget requests.
>
> [Delaware]{.underline} -- Dennis O'Shea -- have not gotten beyond
> inspection module; done some work in updating unit costs; would like
> to establish a database so that costs can be easily updated; performed
> a deterioration elicitation; looked at users costs; received good
> assistance from Cambridge Systematics with respect to eliminating
> widenings and raisings which are not typically performed in DE;
> developed a program that links digital photos with Pontis inspection
> data; do not feel comfortable with output of prior versions of Pontis,
> but optimistic about version 4.0; would like to see a basic set of
> rules for States to start with; probably won't start using version 4.0
> until the end of the next inspection cycle; currently using Pontis as
> a bridge database management tool; hope to get a full-time BMS person
> hired soon; need an IT person to compliment an engineer; currently use
> a ranking system similar to the sufficiency rating that is geared
> towards replacement; expectations are to develop Pontis into a system
> that can reliably identify projects based on maintenance needs and
> actions and serve as a reliable ranking system.
>
> [Eastern Federal Lands]{.underline} -- Steve Belcher -- struggling
> with development of unit costs since bridges are spread across the
> country; need more inspection data; not currently using Pontis for
> anything, but intend to use it for programming National Park Service
> bridges (\~ 1350); trying to get Pontis running and generate reports
> for management; problems and concerns include lack of cost data,
> structure of Pontis is not geared for a non-State or County user, and
> the NPS wants estimates on a per park basis **(Mike Fraher noted that
> within the Admin area of Pontis, parks could be designated by region
> or individually for modeling/reporting. It was further noted that some
> customization would still be required to get rid of items like NHS,
> functional class, etc.)**; trying to develop relative performance
> measures since functional service is not concern in National Parks --
> bridges are built to less than AASHTO standards and will remain that
> way.
>
> Based on his experience in working with the New Jersey Turnpike
> Authority and DOT, Bill Robert briefed the group on their
> implementation status. NJ Turnpike has generated a list of needs and
> compared it to their old process. They found that smart flags tend to
> drive their program. They are waiting on version 4.0 to see if past
> problems have been adequately addressed. NJ DOT has set up a database
> in Oracle; however, due to staffing concerns, they continue to rely on
> a mainframe. Inspection data is updated on field forms by the
> Inspectors and entered into the database by data entry personnel. This
> two-step process introduces additional opportunities for errors. They
> continue to see some value in element level inspections.
>
> Several specific issues were identified on the agenda and discussed
> during the workshop:

1.  Experience from others in the use of Pontis as a budget and
    prioritizing tool.

> *Not being used by any of the represented States. IL has their own
> prioritization process that has been incorporated into Pontis (SQL
> statement) and considers element level data; however, management has
> not bought into the concept yet. Colorado has used Pontis as an
> overall budgeting tool. South Carolina generated their 2002 program
> from Pontis by running the simulations with an unlimited budget and
> picking projects from the resulting list. If run with a very limited
> budget, primarily maintenance actions would be generated.*

2.  How are others using the Health Index (HI) as a performance target?

#### California is using the HI to establish priorities and for monitoring performance, and looking to use it for resource allocation, including personnel. 

3.  The use of Pontis as a project planning tool -- will version 4.0
    correct earlier problems?

Need to look at the rules that can be developed in version 4.0 to
determine if earlier problems have been corrected.

4.  Experience from others relative to obtaining cost data.

> *See state-specific discussion from above. A comment was made that
> consistency in cost data is probably more important than accuracy. A
> suggestion was made for a task group to work with a State to develop
> specific cost data for their models and document the step-by-step
> process that was used so that others could easily follow.*

5.  Selection of environments -- what is recommended practice?

DE and IL agreed that environments should be element specific. IL
established a set of rules (engineering based arguments) that assign
environments based on ADT and ADTT.

6.  Experience with having separate deterioration and cost data for each
    District or Region.

> *See state-specific discussion from above.*

7.  Scale factor -- what is it and how is it used?

#### Scale factor is something that can be specified for an individual element which can be used to adjust project level cost calculations to account for variances in depths, lengths, etc..

8.  What performance measures (if any) do agencies have relative to
    bridges? Can Pontis help with reporting on progress relative to
    performance measures?

VA is looking at NBI condition ratings. Any rating \<6 does not meet
performance requirements. Set minimum percentage \>6 as goal. No other
State specific measures were identified.

Several user needs were identified and a few recommendations were made
for consideration by FHWA and the Pontis Users Group:

-   The database conversion process is time consuming. Consideration
    should be given to ways of helping users streamline this process.
    FHWA has been, and will continue, assisting States. A suggestion was
    made to provide additional assistance to the users during the
    upcoming national users group meeting.

-   Training for multiple users is needed as soon as possible. The NHI
    course currently under development should address this need.

-   Users are struggling with how to obtain meaningful cost data for
    feasible actions. A suggestion was made for FHWA and/or a task group
    to work hand-in-hand with a State to develop costs and document the
    step-by-step process for others to follow.

-   An urgent need for success stories was recognized. Many licensees
    are under increasing pressure to show results from Pontis.

-   The need for training in the use of Infomaker was recognized.

-   The potential need for a stripped down version of Pontis for
    non-State users was discussed. This version would eliminate the
    numerous data elements that do not apply to these other users.

> The workshop concluded at 12:30 PM on August 21, 2001.

  -------------- ------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------
  Participants                                      

  Name           Organization       Telephone       Email

  Tom Everett    FHWA -- Eastern    \(410\)         <Thomas.Everett@fhwa.dot.gov>
                 Resource Center    962-3743        

  George Romack  FHWA --            \(202\)         <George.romack@fhwa.dot.gov>
                 Headquarters       366-4606        
                 Office of Asset                    
                 Management                         

  Bob Mihalek    FHWA --            \(202\)         <Bob.mihalek@fhwa.dot.gov>
                 Headquarters       366-1567        
                 Office of Asset                    
                 Management                         

  Bill Robert    Cambridge          \(617\)         [wer@camsys.com](mailto:werz@camsys.com)
                 Systematics, Inc.  354-0167        

  Jose L.        AASHTO             \(202\)         <jaldayuz@aashto.org>
  Aldayuz                           624-3610        

  Patrick        MD SHA Office of   \(410\)         <pmeineke@sha.state.md.us>
  Meineke        Bridge             545-8062        

  Doug Hutcheson MD SHA Office of   \(410\)         <dhutcheson@sha.state.md.us>
                 Bridge             545-8311        

  Steve Belcher  FHWA -- Eastern    \(703\)         <Steven.belcher@fhwa.dot.gov>
                 Federal Lands      404-6238        

  David Thompson Illinois DOT       \(217\)         <thompsondc@nt.dot.state.il.us>
                                    785-9312        

  Steven Chase   FHWA -- TFHRC      \(202\)         <Steve.chase@fhwa.dot.gov>
                                    493-3038        

  Dan Courtney   VDOT               \(804\)         <Courtney_td@vdot.state.va.us>
                                    371-2372        

  Dennis O'Shea  Del DOT            \(302\)         <doshea@mail.dot.state.de.us>
                                    760-2299        

  Mike Fraher    FHWA -- Southern   \(404\)         <Mike.fraher@fhwa.dot.gov>
                 Resource Center    562-3695        

  Rodolfo (Rudy) FHWA VA Division   \(804\)         <Rodolfo.maruri@fhwa.dot.gov>
  Maruri                            775-3361        

  Roy Holte      VDOT               \(804\)         <Holte_r@vdot.state.va.us>
                                    786-2817        
  -------------- ------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------