It is the responsibility of the Decision making group normally made up of the Highway Commissioner, Fleet Manager, County Engineer, Finance group, Park District Director, City Manager, Mayors, City Councils, County Commissioners to provide the greatest return on the invested dollar. The responsibility generally falls to the Engineering department and/or the finance department to accumulate all of the data available, present choices in a logical and complete format for the decision-makers to sign on and give support. The challenge that is discussed here focuses on the need to better address the short cycle-life maintenance issue when comparing longer-life solutions. Proper FULL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT incorporating all the old and new information, such as new capabilities in galvanizing, and the sky rocketing repainting costs driven by EPA lead issues. This redress hopefully will shed some very favorable light on the age-old question of how to get the greatest return for your dollar.

The decision making body biggest hurdle normally is to justify an additional 10% for a product that outperforms the low bidder with significantly lower life cycle performance. The effort to justify the 10% quite often get lost in the difficulty to document the additional hidden future maintenance costs for the low bidder. This is particularly true on life expectancy greater than twenty years. This 10% hurdle without proper documentation is quite often too great a hurdle to jump considering the "low bidder concept" which is the foundation for the RFP process in many of our governmental bodies. In addition many issues including fifty year old RFP's, changes in technology, lack of current information data bases shifts in quality, all play a role in providing the ultimate lowest cost solution..

When the dollars are small for an item the decision making process is much simpler. As we can image as the RFP project gets larger, more options, more knowledge, better vision, and more information is required. When products last over 50 years very few decision-makers fully grasp all the issues. The "low bidder" process presently drives our decision-making society. Nothing wrong with the low bidder process as long as all of the future hidden variable costs are included.

Dr Deming, A noted management guru who helped rebuild Japan into a thriving manufacturing giant, noted the importance of identifying all costs. All costs to Dr Deming included, known, unknown, direct and indirect costs. It was Dr Deming view after watching 60 years of manager decisions that they only look at one cost, the known costs when making decisions. Dr Deming success was in taking in all costs into the decision making process to improve the overall performance and was his success in shaping Japan manufacturing into a quality conscience powerhouse of the sixties.

The author truly believes in the hearts of most all decision makers attempts to make informed decisions is present, however gets lost in the more critical thinking mind set used in small dollar decisions. If we understand how past decisions were made, logic would suggest that we could improve our current decisions, and prevent repeating bad decisions. The traditional decision making tools for architect or engineers when designing and selection steel coating has been for 100 years driven at the lowest level of the decision making process. Do I use paint A, or Paint B, or Grease C, or etc. Decision making at this level is very logical at the critical thinking level, however, fails in the grander scheme of ROI performance.

For example when more frequent maintenance is not included in the overall purchasing decision quite often the least cost solution for the project is not achieved. Frequency issues for (3-5 times vs galvanizing) repainting, plus the onset of EPA environmental cost for recovering lead paint, especially over rivers and along water, need to be reanalyzed, and has driven maintenance engineers into heat stoke. Maintenance repainting costs have soared. Just a few years ago bridge repainting costs of 2-3 dollars per sq. ft was normal. Today full sandblasting, lead containment, traffic rerouting have driven bridge maintenance repainting costs through the roof with over water reconditioning costs of 13 to 20 dollars per sq. ft. It does not take a rock scientist to figure out that hot dipped galvanizing costs of 4-6 dollars per square foot is a bargain at the time of purchase.

The process outlined in this paper is the concept of full life cycle assessment (FLCA) or costing. Full life cycle assessment is defined as the process that forward looking managers would use in attempting to measure all costs, known and unknown associated with making a purchasing decision for a particular capital project with long life. Long life is defined as useful life greater than five years. The key driving principle behind FLCA is the accumulation of accurate data regarding full life cycle costs. The most difficult investment decision that any management group will have to deal with is placing a current dollar value on options with more frequent reconditioning costs. For we know that if the life cycle to first maintenance of all choices was identical, the choice would be simple. However, in real life that is not the case and thus FLCA outlines a procedure that can used to layout the initial costs and expected reconditioning costs side by side for management decision.

We know from past experience that these reconditioning costs will occur, and to a high degree each project manager has a handle on and understand the frequency and the direct costs of the recondition efforts. The real problem has been for the decision-making committee, or project engineer has been several in his efforts to project these future maintenance costs in fair presentation format in present dollar values at the time of purchase. First to capture the reconditioning costs for each choice, Second, to include all costs both known, unknown, direct and indirect costs. Third apply these future cost reconditioning cost based on current knowledge, Finally to add in these additional costs into the purchasing equation in a logical, professional manor. It is the author's option these costs are known, and should be included in any long-term decision.

It is critical in the application of FLCA to calculate the costs for a time period well beyond the longest expect life to first maintenance, or in some cases to the end longest expected life to first maintenance. Other items like resale value, can be includes as necessary. It is recommended that Project engineers run more than one maintenance cycle of the best product, however, never less than the life of the longest maintenance cycle.

There are many options available to the architect or engineer when selecting a coating system for steel. Several factors must be considered during the selection process. Remember, the "cheapest" system based on initial cost may wind up being the most expensive over the life of the project. That is why many professional associations and Public Sector Agencies encourage the use of Life Cycle Costing. The following data and suggested recap format will assist in selecting the lowest cost corrosion protection system to steel bridges and will provide the taxpayer with many years of maintenance free operation.

In developing strong viable data for life cycle costs, two items in the process require significant attention in the process. These are , "life expectancy" and total "maintenance costs. The following discussion will help explain a method to capture the best data both for local environments and also inclusion of the best national data. This study will address life cycle maintenance issues with bridges and the inclusion of these future costs into the purchase decision point.

To fill out the table below rank the RFP choices from best to worst (the author used longest life to first maintenance) and insert the choices in the columns below. For example below the ranking was Galvanized Concrete, weathered steel, and finally painted steel. The life expectancy file maintained within the department will determine the life expectancy of each item. Once the life cycle of each choice is made the appropriate number of maintenance cycles for that particular bridge can be included in the recap. FLCA recaps can be viewed from a management decision point either after the longest life cycle has completed or at double or triple life cycle points of the longest bridge option.

It is important to note that project engineering committee should give consideration to the application of the future value of money. If the committee does not apply future value of money to the study it may change the results slightly. It is the authors option to cost plus values to future maintenance and then to discount the present value of future dollars has little value, confuses the issues especially on purchases that are expected to last greater than 40 to 100 years Most all governing bodies or their outside accounting/auditing can provide information as to the impact of discounted dollars. In the editor's option, the present or future value principle application should be applied at the conclusion of Life cycle tables. It should be noted that if present or future values are included in the decision making process, then dollar values consideration should be given to aesthetic value, environment issues during reconditioning, etc. In this example present or future dollar values are NOT considered to keep the process simple. Once the process is understood, refinements can be added.

An independent engineering consultant Mr. John Malone of Galvanizing Consultants, and Mr. Donald Wetzel of the AGA conducted this study. This information plus the application of "Full Life Cycle Assessments" analysis confirms the cost-effective benefits of hot dipped galvanizing for township, city, county and state DOT highway bridge structures. The study was conducted in the fall of 1991 on six hot dipped galvanized bridges located in the state of Ohio. At the time of the study these bridges ranged in age from 19 to 24 years. Today these bridges average 30 years of age, and application ranging from industrial to rural, and lengths ranging from 60 to 227 feet in length.

In the United States, today it is estimated that approximately 600,000 bridges exist. At the time of this article it was estimated that approximately 500 full-galvanized bridges were in existence.

The engineers tested the thickness of the zinc coating on all six bridges. The average thickness that remained after approximately 20 years of service was 6.26 mils. The rate of zinc erosion is very stable and known and can be measured. This exceeds the standard for newly galvanized steel by 2.36 mils or exceeds new standards by 60%. The current ASTM 123-89 galvanizing standard for new steel is 3.9 mils It was also noted in the study that the life expectancies were EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE and projected a remaining conservative life of 40-90 years at which time 5 % of the bridge structure would be rusted.

BOTTOMLINE: application of FULL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (FLCA) principles determine the full cost during the life cycle of the item being measure. Information provided presently indicates in the state of Ohio, that the normal practice is to paint highway bridges every 10-15 years. The repainting costs in 1999 dollars are running at 3.00 to 4.00 dollars per foot with a 10-15 year paint cycle life.

COST REDUCTIONS: With 1999 hot dipped Galvanizing costs of approximately 4.00-5.00 dollars per sq. ft. at installation, the below FLCA cost reductions would be expected to the first significant maintenance.

BOTTOMLINE: If the additional installation cost is less than the expected cost for the alternative then the first choice is better. In this case, if hot dipped galvanizing can be purchased for less than 15.46 dollars per square foot (bridge C) then the choice is definitely galvanize purely based on costs. In this example, accumulated cost reductions over the life cycle of the bridge would range from a minimum of 12.61 to a maximum of 26.31 dollars per sq. ft. Application of present and future dollar principles represents even greater cost reductions. Stark County estimated that on the 247-foot galvanized bridge to install galvanizing was 2.85 dollars per sq. ft.

1. This website at www.rustfreetrucks.com/bridges.
2. Email: Law9@comcast.net
3. By fax to (630) 369-0947 request additional information.
4. Speak with someone immediately call (630) 369-8915.
5. From a business associate who owns one.

This site and it's contents belong to Midwest Galvanzing Co. The logos found within this site are the property their respective owners. Some of the content of these pages have been pulled from outside sources and are the property of that contents respective owner(s). Pages are developed exclusively for Midwest Galvanizing Inc.   ©