BIMS_MRPS_2024_2025_2026.pdf
PDF 2 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 2STP-124694
- Issued by
- Virginia
About this file
This document contains Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) evaluation reports prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Maintenance Division for the Richmond South Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services (BIMS) contract covering evaluation cycles conducted in 2024. The reports assess maintenance performance across six asset groups: Roadway and Shoulders, Roadside, Drainage, Traffic, Bridges, and Service B. During the 2024 Cycle 1 evaluation (April 15–May 3, 2024), inspectors evaluated 140 randomly selected segments of 1/10 mile each, examining 6,249 total assets with 5,982 passing and 267 failing inspection. The 2024 Cycle 2 evaluation (October 15–30, 2024) inspected 6,204 assets with 5,849 passing and 355 failing. Each evaluation cycle included photographic documentation of failing conditions with corresponding GPS locations, resulting in 269 pictures for Cycle 1 and 363 pictures for Cycle 2.
For the 2024 Cycle 1 evaluation, the contractor achieved ratings of 99.7% for Roadway and Shoulders, 93.3% for Roadside, 85.8% for Drainage, 98.9% for Traffic, 99.5% for Bridges, and 98.9% for Service B, with all asset groups meeting or exceeding the 90.0% required rating except Drainage. The Cycle 2 evaluation showed a decline in performance, with Roadway and Shoulders dropping to 90.8% and Drainage declining to 81.4%, resulting in only the Drainage asset group triggering an MRP non-performance deduction of $3,389.00 (1% of the $338,900.00 monthly contract value) in both cycles. The reports indicate an overall improvement trend from previous years, with Cycle 1 showing 43.3% fewer failures than the prior cycle across all asset groups, though Cycle 2 performance deteriorated with 33.0% more failures recorded, particularly in Roadway and Shoulders (860% increase) and Drainage (36.7% increase).
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
April 2024
Virginia Department of Transportation
Maintenance Division
Created: May 30, 2024
Richmond South
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services (BIMS) Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) Evaluation Results – 2024 Cycle 1
April 2024
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") is the rightful owner of the data, information, and documents (the "Materials") that are being provided to you. Permission to use the Materials from VDOT is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Materials is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, without the express written permission of VDOT, and (3) no modifications of any Materials are made.
© 2024 Virginia Department of Transportation. All rights reserved.
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following evaluation report corresponds to the 2024 cycle 1 MRP evaluation for the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024. The field evaluation started on April 15 and ended on May 3, 2024.
For the Richmond South BIMS evaluation, 140 segments of 1/10 of a mile each were randomly selected for inspection. Table 1 shows a summary of the evaluation effort. A total of 6,249 assets were inspected from which 5,982 passed the inspection, 267 failed the inspection and 1 asset was warranted a discretionary consideration. A total of 269 pictures of failing conditions with their corresponding GPS locations were recorded during the evaluation. Please see Appendix B for a detailed list of failed asset items, and Appendix C for a detailed list of discretionary considerations.
Table 1 Summary of the Evaluation Effort
Asset Group Total Sites Inspected
Total Asset Items
Inspected
Total Asset Items Passed
Total Asset Items Failed
Total Discretionary Consideration
Total Pictures Taken
Roadway and Shoulder 140 1035 1030 5 0 6
Roadside 140 1842 1711 131 0 131
Drainage 139 1074 984 90 1 91
Traffic 140 1772 1737 35 0 35
Bridge 34 246 243 3 0 3
Service B 140 280 277 3 0 3
All Asset Groups 140 6249 5982 267 1 269
Table 2 shows a summary of the evaluation results. The first column indicates the asset group type.
The second column indicates the asset group ratings (See Appendix A). The third column indicates the required rating for each asset group. The second and third columns were used for calculating the MRP non-performance deduction percentage indicated in the fourth column. The last column shows the deduction amount corresponding to each asset group. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024 cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the Asset Group MRP non-performance deduction amount is $3,389.00.
Table 2 MRP Asset Group Ratings and Non-Performance Deductions
Asset item non-performance deductions have been calculated only for items belonging to asset groups that meet or exceed MRP Requirements. There were no asset item non-performance deductions for the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024 cycle 1 MRP evaluation. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024 cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the total MRP non-performance deduction amount is $3,389.00.
Asset Group Asset Group Rating
Required Rating for Asset Group
MRP Non- Performance
Deduction Percentage
Asset Group Deduction Amount
Roadway and Shoulders 99.7% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Roadside 93.3% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Drainage 85.8% 90.0% 1% $3,389.00
Traffic 98.9% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Bridges 99.5% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Service B 98.9% 90.0% 0% $0.00
$338,900.00
$3,389.00 Monthly Contract Value:
Asset Group MRP Non-Performance Deduction Amount:
ii
RICHMOND SOUTH BIMS MRP RATING TREND
Figure 1 shows the MRP rating trend for the Richmond South BIMS contract. The first evaluation was conducted in calendar year 2022, the second and third in 2023, and the fourth in 2024. In all the evaluations, the Leidos evaluators inspected 140 randomly selected sites (10% of the project).
Figure 1 – Richmond South MRP Asset Group Rating Trend During the first MRP evaluation cycle of 2024, 43.3% fewer failures were recorded than in the previous cycle. For the Roadway and Shoulder asset group, inspectors recorded 73.7% fewer failures than in the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 94.6% to 99.7%. For the Roadside asset group, inspectors recorded 21.1% fewer failures than in the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 84.6% to 93.3%. For the Drainage asset group, inspectors recorded 47.7% fewer failures than in the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 82.6% to 85.8%. For the Traffic asset group, inspectors recorded 64.6% fewer failures than in the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 93.0% to 98.9%. For the Bridge asset group, inspectors recorded 40.0% fewer failures than in the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 96.5% to 99.5%. For the Service B asset group, inspectors recorded 40.0% fewer failures than in the previous cycle, and the MRP rating increased from 98.1% to 98.9%.
APPENDIX A
ASSET GROUP RATING CALCULATIONS
Ta bl e A
-1
R O
A D
W A
Y A
N D
S H
O U
L D
E R
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
G S ss et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si n g et I te m s
A ss et I te m
W ei g h ti n g
P as si
P er ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss ib le co re
A ct u al
A et
It em
S co re
A d ju st ed et G ro u p at in g
R eq u ir in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
A sp h al t Su rf ac e
9.
.1
9.
9.
.1
.0
C o n cr e te
S u rf ac e
9.
0.
0%
9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
P av e d
S h o u ld e rs
5.
.7
5.
5.
.7
.0
U n p av e d
S h o u ld e rs
5.
0.
0%
5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.5
.4
.7
.0 e
-2
A D
S
ID
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
D e b ri s an d R o ad
K il l
8.
.6
8.
7.
.6
.0
B ru sh a n d
T re e s
5.
.7
5.
4.
.7
.0
C o n cr e te
B ar ri e r
8.
.6
8.
7.
.6
.0
So u n d
W al l a n d B ar ri rs
4.
0.
0%
4.
4.
0.
0%
.0
Sl o p e s
5.
.7
5.
5.
.7
.0
Fe n ce
5.
.9
5.
4.
.9
.0
Il le ga l S ig n s o r St ru ct u re s
5.
0.
0%
5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
R e ta in in g
W al ls
8.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
C ro ss O ve r/
P o li ce
P ar ki n g Lo ca ti o n s
5.
0.
0%
5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.6
.4
.3
.0 e
-3
D
A
IN
A G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
P ip e s an d
B o x C u lv e rt s s q .f t.
8.
.3
8.
6.
.3
.0
P ip e s an d
B o x C u lv e rt s s q .f t.
8.
0.
0% 8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
P av e d
D it ch e s
6.
.6
6.
5.
.6
.0
U n p av e d
D it ch e s
6.
.7
6.
6.
.7
.0
U n d e r an d E d ge
D ra in s
8.
.9
8.
7.
.9
.0
St o rm D ra in s an d D ro p
In ts
8.
.7
8.
6.
.7
.0
C u rb
G u tt e r, C u rb in g
R ai se d
, C o n cr e te
M e d ia n
4.
.8
4.
2.
.8
.0
To ta l
.2
.0
.8
.0 e
-4
T
A F
F
IC
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
Si gn s
8.
.2
8.
7.
.2
.0
Si gn s
O ve rh e ad a n d
B ri d ge
M o u n te d
8.
0.
0% 8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
R o ad w ay
C o n ve n ti o n al , H ig h
M as
t) L ig h ti n g
6.
0.
0%
6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn
L ig h ti n g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn
L ig h ti n g
U n d e rd e ck o r
Tu n n e l
6.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
G u ar d ra il
8.
.1
8.
8.
.1
.0
Im p ac t
A tt e n u at o r
9.
0.
0% 9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
O b je ct
M ar ke rs a n d D e li n e at o
3.
.3
3.
3.
.3
.0
G la re F o il s
5.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
P av e m e n t M e ss ag e s
6.
0.
0%
6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
P av e m e n t M ar ki n gs
8.
0.
0% 8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
P av e m e n t M ar ke rs
8.
.9
8.
7.
.9
.0
To ta l
.0
.3
.9
.0 e
-5
B
ID
G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
D e ck
9.
0.
0%
9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su p e rs tr u ct u re
9.
0.
0%
9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su b st ru ct u re
9.
0.
0%
9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Sl o p e
P ro te ct io n
5.
.2
5.
5.
.2
.0
To ta l
.4
.3
.5
.0 e
-6
E
R V
IC
E
B A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
G ra ff it i R e m o va l
4.
0.
0% 4.
4.
0.
0%
.0
Ju n ct io n B o x
5.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Sl o p e
5.
.9
5.
4.
.9
.0
To ta l 9.
9.
.9
.0
October 2024
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services (BIMS) Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) Evaluation Results – 2024 Cycle 2
October 2024
Virginia Department of Transportation
Created: November 18, 2024 data, information, and documents (the "Materials") that are being provided to you. Permission to use the Materials from VDOT is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Materials is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, without the express written
2024 Virginia Department of Transportation. All rights reserved.
The following evaluation report corresponds to the 2024 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation for the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024. The field evaluation started on October 15 and ended on October 30, 2024. For the Richmond South BIMS evaluation, 140 segments of 1/10 of a mile each were randomly selected for inspection. Table 1 shows a summary of the evaluation effort. A total of 6,204 assets were inspected from which 5,849 passed the inspection, 355 failed the inspection and 6 assets were warranted a discretionary consideration (see Note). A total of 363 pictures of failing conditions with their corresponding GPS locations were recorded during the evaluation. See Appendix B for a detailed list of failed asset items and Appendix C for a detailed list of discretionary considerations.
Table 1 Summary of the Evaluation Effort
Asset Group Total Sites Inspected
Total Asset Items
Inspected
Total Asset Items Passed
Total Asset Items Failed
Total Discretionary Consideration
Total Pictures Taken
Roadway and Shoulder 139 1054 1007 47 2 50
Roadside 140 1790 1678 112 1 114
Drainage 138 986 863 123 0 123
Traffic 140 1885 1831 54 0 54
Bridge 32 209 197 12 3 15
Service B 140 280 273 7 0 7
All Asset Groups 140 6204 5849 355 6 363
Table 2 shows a summary of the evaluation results. The first column indicates the asset group type.
The second column indicates the asset group ratings (See Appendix A). The third column indicates the required rating for each asset group. The second and third columns were used for calculating the MRP non-performance deduction percentage indicated in the fourth column. The last column shows the deduction amount corresponding to each asset group. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation, the Asset Group MRP non-performance deduction amount is $3,389.00.
Table 2 MRP Asset Group Ratings and Non-Performance Deductions
There were no asset item non-performance deductions for the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2024 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation, the total MRP non-performance deduction amount is $3,389.00.
Note: Spalling greater than 1 inch was observed on several bridge substructures. This defect does not constitute an MRP failure. These conditions were recorded in Appendix C.
Asset Group Asset Group Rating
Required Rating for Asset Group
MRP Non- Performance
Deduction Percentage
Asset Group Deduction Amount
Roadway and Shoulders 90.8% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Roadside 93.5% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Drainage 81.4% 90.0% 1% $3,389.00
Traffic 94.9% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Bridges 92.3% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Service B 97.4% 90.0% 0% $0.00
$338,900.00
$3,389.00 Monthly Contract Value:
Figure 1 shows the MRP rating trend for the Richmond South BIMS contract. The first evaluation was conducted in calendar year 2022, the second and third in 2023, and the fourth in 2024. In all the evaluations, the Leidos evaluators inspected 140 randomly selected sites (10% of the project).
Figure 1 – Richmond South MRP Asset Group Rating Trend During the second MRP evaluation cycle of 2024, 33.0% more failures were recorded than in the previous cycle. For the Roadway and Shoulder asset group, inspectors recorded 860.0% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 99.7% to 90.8%. For the Roadside asset group, inspectors recorded 14.5% fewer failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating slightly increased from 93.3% to 93.5%. For the Drainage asset group, inspectors recorded 36.7% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 85.8% to 81.4%. For the Traffic asset group, inspectors recorded 54.3% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 98.9% to 94.9%. For the Bridge asset group, inspectors recorded 300.0% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 99.5% to 92.3%. For the Service B asset group, inspectors recorded 133.3% more failures than the previous cycle, and the MRP rating decreased from 98.9% to 97.4%.
e
A D
W A
Y A
N D
S H
O U
L D
E R
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
s s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e
Id n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s in s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s c o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s d s e t G ro a ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
As ph al t S ur fa ce
9.
.9
9.
9.
.9
.0
Co nc re te S ur fa ce
9.
.9
9.
7.
.9
.0
Pa ve d Sh ou ld er s
5.
.1
5.
5.
.1
.0
U np av ed S ho ul de rs
5.
0.
0% 5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.5
.7
.8
.0 e
A D
S
ID
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
De br is a nd R oa d
Ki ll
8.
.1
8.
7.
.1
.0
Br us h an d
Tr ee s
5.
.1
5.
4.
.1
.0
Co nc re te
B ar rie r
8.
.2
8.
7.
.2
.0
So un d
W al l a nd
B ar rie
4.
0.
0%
4.
4.
0.
0%
.0
Sl op es
5.
.5
5.
5.
.5
.0
Fe nc e
5.
.2
5.
4.
.2
.0
Ill eg al S ig ns o r S tr uc tu re s
5.
.3
5.
4.
.3
.0
Re ta in in g W al ls
8.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Cr os sO ve r/
P ol ic e
Pa rk in g
Lo ca tio ns
5.
0.
0% 5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.6
.5
.5
.0 e
A
IN
A G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
Pi pe s a nd
B ox
C ul ve rt s ( <3 sq
.ft
8.
.4
8.
5.
.4
.0
Pi pe s a nd B ox C ul ve rt s (
≥3 sq .ft
8.
.8
8.
7.
.8
.0
Pa ve d Di tc he s
6.
.8
6.
4.
.8
.0
Un pa ve d Di tc he s
6.
.6
6.
6.
.6
.0
Un de r a nd
E dg e Dr ai ns
8.
.4
8.
6.
.4
.0
St or m D ra in s a nd
D ro p In
8.
.1
8.
6.
.1
.0
Cu rb
G ut te r, Cu rb in g Ra is ed
, C on cr et e M ed ia n
4.
.6
4.
2.
.6
.0
To ta l
.2
.9
.4
.0 e
A F
F
IC
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
Si gn s
8.
.5
8.
7.
.5
.0
Si gn s - O ve rh ea d an d
Br id ge M ou nt ed
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Ro ad w ay
(C on ve nt io na l, Hi gh M as t)
Li gh tin g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn Li gh tin g
6.
0.
0%
6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn
Li gh tin g
- U nd er de ck o r T un ne l
6.
.0
6.
4.
.0
.0
Gu ar dr ai l
8.
.1
8.
8.
.1
.0
Im pa ct
A tt en ua to r
9.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
O bj ec t M ar ke rs a nd
D el in ea to
3.
.9
3.
3.
.9
.0
Gl ar e Fo ils
5.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
Pa ve m en t M es sa ge s
6.
.7
6.
5.
.7
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ki ng s
8.
.4
8.
8.
.4
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ke rs
8.
.3
8.
7.
.3
.0
To ta l
.2
.6
.9
.0 e
ID
G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
De ck
9.
.0
9.
7.
.0
.0
Su pe rs tr uc tu re
9.
0.
0% 9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su bs tr uc tu re
9.
.9
9.
9.
.9
.0
Sl op e Pr ot ec tio n
5.
.8
5.
5.
.8
.0
To ta l
.4
.7
.3
.0 e
R V
IC
E
B A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et I te m
N u m b er o f
A ss et I te m s
Id en ti fi ed
N u m b er o f
P as si et I te m s
A ss et I g h ti n g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et I te m
To ta l
P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et I in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et I te m
Gr af fit i R em ov al
4.
.3
4.
4.
.3
.0
Ju nc tio n
Bo x
5.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Sl op e
- S er vi ce
5.
.7
5.
4.
.7
.0
To ta l 9.
9.
.4
.0
May 2025
Created: May 20, 2025
Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) Evaluation Results – 2025 Cycle 1
May 2025 data, information, and documents (the "Materials") that are being provided to you. Permission to use the Materials from VDOT is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Materials is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, without the express written
2025 Virginia Department of Transportation. All rights reserved.
The following evaluation report corresponds to the 2025 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation for the Richmond South BIMS contract. The field evaluation started on April 28 and ended on May 9, 2025. For the Richmond South BIMS evaluation, 140 segments of 1/10 of a mile each were randomly selected for inspection. Table 1 shows a summary of the evaluation effort. A total of 7,114 assets were inspected from which 6,666 passed the inspection, 448 failed the inspection, and 1 asset was warranted a discretionary consideration. A total of 451 pictures of failing conditions with their corresponding GPS locations were recorded during the evaluation. See Appendix B for a detailed list of failed asset items and Appendix C for a detailed list of discretionary considerations.
Table 1 Summary of the Evaluation Effort
Asset Group Total Sites Inspected
Total Asset Items
Inspected
Total Asset Items Passed
Total Asset Items Failed
Total Discretionary Consideration
Total Pictures Taken
Roadway and Shoulder 140 1132 1117 15 0 15
Roadside 140 1984 1750 234 0 236
Drainage 140 1327 1200 127 0 127
Traffic 140 2201 2136 65 1 66
Bridges 34 190 190 0 0 0
Service B 140 280 273 7 0 7
All Asset Groups 140 7114 6666 448 1 451
Table 2 shows a summary of the evaluation results. The first column indicates the asset group type.
The second column indicates the asset group ratings (See Appendix A). The third column indicates the required rating for each asset group. The second and third columns were used for calculating the MRP non-performance deduction percentage indicated in the fourth column. The last column shows the deduction amount corresponding to each asset group. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2025 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the Asset Group MRP non-performance deduction amount is $3,389.00.
Table 2 MRP Asset Group Ratings and Non-Performance Deductions
Asset item non-performance deductions are calculated only for items belonging to asset groups that meet or exceed the MRP Requirements. Table 3 shows the asset item(s) that failed the required asset item MRP Rating (70% or greater). The first column indicates the asset item, the second column indicates the asset item rating (see Appendix A), and the third column indicates the minimum required rating for that asset item. The second and third columns were used for calculating the MRP non-performance deduction percentage indicated in the fourth column. The last column shows the deduction amount that corresponds to each asset item. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2025 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the asset item non-performance deduction is $847.25.
Asset Group Asset Group Rating
Required Rating for Asset Group
MRP Non- Performance
Deduction Percentage
Asset Group Deduction Amount
Roadway and Shoulder 96.0% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Roadside 87.1% 90.0% 1% $3,389.00
Drainage 90.0% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Traffic 94.8% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Bridges 100.0% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Service B 97.5% 90.0% 0% $0.00
$338,900.00
$3,389.00
Table 3 MRP Asset Item Non-Performance Deductions
For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2025 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the total MRP non-performance deduction amount is $4,236.25.
Asset Item Asset Item Rating
Required Rating for Asset Item
MRP Non-Performance Deduction Percentage
Asset Item Deduction Amount
Paved Ditches 63.7% 70.0% 0.25% $847.25
$0.00
$338,900.00
$847.25
Asset Item Non-Performance Deduction Amount:
iii
Figure 1 shows the MRP rating trend for the Richmond South BIMS contract. Field crews have been evaluating Richmond South BIMS contractor’s performance since 2022. To improve clarity, we have only included the results from the last 3 years. In all the evaluations, the Leidos evaluators inspected 140 randomly selected sites (10% of the project).
Figure 1 – Richmond South MRP Asset Group Rating Trend During the first MRP evaluation cycle of 2025, 26.2% more failures were recorded than the previous cycle. For the Roadway and Shoulder asset group, inspectors recorded 68.1% fewer failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 90.8% to 96.0%. For the Roadside asset group, inspectors recorded 108.9% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 93.5% to 87.1%. For the Drainage asset group, inspectors recorded 3.3% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased, due to the weight of the assets, from 81.4% to 90.0%. For the Traffic asset group, inspectors recorded 20.4% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating slightly decreased, due to the weight of the assets, from 94.9% to 94.8%. For the Bridges asset group, inspectors recorded 100% fewer failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 92.3% to 100%. For the Service B asset group, inspectors recorded the same number of failures as the previous cycle, and the MRP rating slightly increased, due to the weight of the assets, from 97.4% to 97.5.%.
e
A D
W A
Y A
N D
S H
O U
L D
E R
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
et It em
N u m b er o f
A ss et It em s
Id en tif ie d
N u m b er o f
P as si n g A
Ite s
A ss et g h tin g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et It em
T o ta l P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et It em
As ph al t S ur
9.
.9
9.
9.
.9
.0
Co nc re te S ur fa ce
9.
.9
9.
8.
.9
.0
Pa ve d Sh ou ld er s
5.
.7
5.
5.
.7
.0
U np av ed S ho ul de rs
5.
.4
5.
5.
.4
.0
To ta l
.5
.3
.0
.0 e
A D
S
ID
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et It em
N u m b er o f
A ss et It em s
Id en tif ie d
N u m b er o f
P as si n g A s
A ss et g h tin g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et It em
T o ta l P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et It em
D eb ris a nd R oa d
Ki ll
8.
.3
8.
5.
.3
.0
Br us h an d Tr ee s
5.
.7
5.
4.
.7
.0
Co nc re te B ar rie rs
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
So un d W al l a nd B ar
4.
.7
4.
3.
.7
.0
Sl op es
5.
.9
5.
5.
.9
.0
Fe nc e
5.
.9
5.
3.
.9
.0
Ill eg al
S ig ns o r S tr uc tu re s
5.
.6
5.
4.
.6
.0
Re ta in in g
W al ls
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Cr os so ve r/ P ol ic e Pa rk in g Lo ca tio ns
5.
0.
0%
5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.9
.7
.1
.0 e
A
IN
A G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et It em
N u m b er o f
A ss et It em s
Id en tif ie d
N u m b er o f
P as si n g A s
A ss et g h tin g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et It em
T o ta l P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et It em
Sm al l P ip es a nd B ox C ul ve rt s s q.
ft
8.
.0
8.
7.
.0
.0
La rg e
Pi pe s an d Bo x Cu lv er ts s q.
ft
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Pa ve d D itc he s
6.
.7
6.
4.
. 7
.0
U np av ed
D itc he s
6.
.8
6.
6.
.8
.0
U nd er
D ra in s an d
Ed ge
D ra in s
8.
.1
8.
7.
.1
.0
St or m
D ra in s an d
D ro p In
8.
.5
8.
8.
.5
.0
Cu rb
G ut te r, Cu rb in g Ra is ed
, C on cr et e M ed ia n
4.
.4
4.
3.
.4
.0
To ta l
.2
.2
.0
.0 e
A F
F
IC
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
et It em
N u m b er o f
A ss et It em s
Id en tif ie d
N u m b er o f
P as si n g A s
A ss et g h tin g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et It em
T o ta l P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et It em
Si gn s (s ta tic
P os t M ou nt ed
8.
.7
8.
7.
.7
.0
Si gn s (s ta tic
O ve rh ea d an d
Br id ge M ou nt ed
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Ro ad w ay
(C on ve nt io na l, H ig h
M as
t) L ig ht in g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn L ig ht in g
6.
.0
6.
5.
.0
.0
U nd er
D ec k or
T un ne l L ig ht in g
6.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
G ua rd ra ils
8.
.1
8.
8.
.1
.0
Im pa ct
A tt en ua to rs
9.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
O bj ec t M ar ke rs a nd
D el in ea
3.
.9
3.
3.
.9
.0
G la re F oi ls
5.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Pa ve m en t M es sa ge s
6.
.5
6.
5.
.5
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ki ng s
8.
0.
0% 8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ke rs
8.
.2
8.
7.
.2
.0
To ta l
.7
.4
.8
.0 e
ID
G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
et It em
N u m b er o f
A ss et It em s
Id en tif ie d
N u m b er o f
P as si n g A s
A ss et g h tin g
P as si ce n t fo r
A ss et It em
T o ta l P o ss re
A ct u al
A
S co re
A d ju et G ro in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et G ro u p
A d ju et in g
R eq u in g f o r
A ss et It em
D ec k
9.
0.
0%
9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su pe rs tr uc tu re
9.
0.
0%
9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su bs tr uc tu re
9.
0.
0% 9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Sl op e
Pr ot ec tio n
5.
0.
0%
5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.4
.4
0.
0%
.0
October 2025
Created: October 30, 2025
Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) Evaluation Results – 2025 Cycle 2
October 2025 you. Permission to use the Materials from VDOT is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Materials is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on
2025 Virginia Department of Transportation. All rights reserved.
The following evaluation report corresponds to the 2025 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation for the Richmond South BIMS contract. The field evaluation started on October 6 and ended on October 16, 2025. For the Richmond South BIMS evaluation, 140 segments of 1/10 of a mile each were randomly selected for inspection. Table 1 shows a summary of the evaluation effort. A total of 6,634 assets were inspected, from which 6,126 passed the inspection, 508 failed the inspection. No discretionary considerations were warranted. A total of 511 pictures of failing conditions with their corresponding GPS locations were recorded during the evaluation. See Appendix B for a detailed list of failed asset items.
Table 1 Summary of the Evaluation Effort
Asset Group Total Sites Inspected
Total Asset Items
Inspected
Total Asset Items Passed
Total Asset Items Failed
Total Discretionary Consideration
Total Pictures Taken
Roadway and Shoulder 140 1,057 1,025 32 0 32
Roadside 140 1,906 1,683 223 0 225
Drainage 138 1,174 959 215 0 215
Traffic 140 1,985 1,958 27 0 27
Bridge 33 232 227 5 0 6
Service B 140 280 274 6 0 6
All Asset Groups 140 6,634 6,126 508 0 511
Table 2 shows a summary of the evaluation results. The first column indicates the asset group type.
The second column indicates the asset group ratings (See Appendix A). The third column indicates the required rating for each asset group. The second and third columns were used for calculating the MRP non-performance deduction percentage indicated in the fourth column. The last column shows the deduction amount corresponding to each asset group. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2025 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation, the Asset Group MRP non-performance deduction amount is $13,556.00.
Table 2 MRP Asset Group Ratings and Non-Performance Deductions
Asset item non-performance deductions are calculated only for items belonging to asset groups that meet or exceed the MRP Requirements. There is no asset item non-performance deduction. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2025 Cycle 2 MRP evaluation, the total MRP non-performance deduction amount is $13,556.00.
Asset Group Asset Group Rating
Required Rating for Asset Group
MRP Non- Performance
Deduction Percentage
Asset Group Deduction Amount
Roadway and Shoulders 93.3% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Roadside 89.1% 90.0% 1% $3,389.00
Drainage 78.9% 90.0% 3% $10,167.00
Traffic 97.4% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Bridges 97.5% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Service B 97.8% 90.0% 0% $0.00
$338,900.00
$13,556.00
Figure 1 shows the MRP rating trend for the Richmond South BIMS contract. Field crews have been evaluating Richmond South BIMS contractor’s performance since 2022. To improve clarity, we have only included the results from the last 3 years. In all the evaluations, the Leidos evaluators inspected 140 randomly selected sites (10% of the project).
During the second MRP evaluation cycle of 2025, 13% more failures were recorded than the previous cycle. For the Roadway and Shoulder asset group, inspectors recorded about twice the number of failures recorded in previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 96.0% to 93.3%.
For the Roadside asset group, inspectors recorded 5% less failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating increased from 87.1% to 89.1%. For the Drainage asset group, inspectors recorded 70% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 90.0% to 78.9%.
For the Traffic asset group, inspectors recorded about half the number of failures recorded in the previous cycle and the MRP rating slightly increased from 94.8% to 97.4%. For the Bridges asset group, inspectors recorded 5 failures and the MRP rating decreased from 100.0% to 97.5%. For the Service B asset group, inspectors recorded about the same number of failures as the previous cycle, and the MRP rating slightly increased from 97.5% to 97.8.%.
e
A D
W A
Y A
N D
S H
O U
L D
E R
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
As ph al t S ur
9.
.8
9.
8.
.8
.0
Co nc re te S ur fa ce
9.
.5
9.
8.
.5
.0
Pa ve d Sh ou ld er s
5.
.8
5.
5.
.8
.0
U np av ed S ho ul de rs
5.
0.
0% 5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.5
.4
.3
.0 e
A D
S
ID
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
De br is an d Ro ad K ill
8.
.9
8.
7.
.9
.0
Br us h an d Tr ee s
5.
.9
5.
3.
.9
.0
Co nc re te B ar rie r
8.
.2
8.
7.
.2
.0
So un d W al l a nd B ar
4.
0.
0% 4.
4.
0.
0%
.0
Sl op es
5.
.6
5.
5.
.6
.0
Fe nc e
5.
.4
5.
3.
.4
.0
Ill eg al
S ig ns o r S tr uc tu re s
5.
.3
5.
4.
.3
.0
Re ta in in g
W al ls
8.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
Cr os sO ve r/ P ol ic e Pa rk in g Lo ca tio ns
5.
0.
0%
5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.6
.4
.1
.0 e
A
IN
A G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
Pi pe s a nd
B ox
C ul ve rt s ( <3 sq
.ft
8.
.4
8.
5.
.4
.0
Pi pe s a nd B ox C ul ve rt s (
≥3 sq .ft
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Pa ve d Di tc he s
6.
.4
6.
3.
.4
.0
U np av ed
D itc he s
6.
.5
6.
6.
.5
.0
U nd er a nd
E dg e Dr
8.
.7
8.
5.
.7
.0
St or m D ra in s a nd
D ro p In
8.
.3
8.
7.
.3
.0
Cu rb
G ut te r, Cu rb in g Ra ise d, C on cr et e M ed ia n
4.
.3
4.
2.
.3
.0
To ta l
.2
.6
.9
.0 e
A F
F
IC
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
Si gn s
8.
.1
8.
7.
.1
.0
Si gn s - O ve rh ea d an d
Br id ge M ou nt ed
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Ro ad w ay
(C on ve nt io na l, Hi gh M as t)
Li gh tin g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn L ig ht in g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn L ig ht in g
- U nd er de ck o r T un ne l
6.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Gu ar dr ai l
8.
.3
8.
8.
.3
.0
Im pa ct
A tt en ua to r
9.
0.
0% 9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
O bj ec t M ar ke rs a nd
D el in ea
3.
.0
3.
3.
.0
.0
Gl ar e Fo ils
5.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
Pa ve m en t M es sa ge s
6.
.0
6.
4.
.0
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ki ng s
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ke rs
8.
.9
8.
7.
.9
.0
To ta l
.0
.1
.4
.0 e
ID
G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
De ck
9.
.7
9.
9.
.7
.0
Su pe rs tr uc tu re
9.
0.
0% 9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su bs tr uc tu re
9.
.9
9.
9.
.9
.0
Sl op e Pr ot ec tio n
5.
.9
5.
5.
.9
.0
To ta l
.4
.5
.5
.0 e
R V
IC
E
B A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
Gr af fit i R em ov al
4.
.6
4.
4.
.6
.0
Ju nc tio n
Bo x
5.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Sl op e
- S er vi ce
5.
.1
5.
4.
.1
.0
To ta l
9.
9.
.8
.0
May 2026
Created: May 28, 2026
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services (BIMS) Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) Evaluation Results – 2026 Cycle 1
May 2026 you. Permission to use the Materials from VDOT is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Materials is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on
2026 Virginia Department of Transportation. All rights reserved.
The following evaluation report corresponds to the 2026 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation for the Richmond South BIMS contract. The field evaluation started on May 4 and ended on May 15, 2026. For the Richmond South BIMS evaluation, 137 segments of 1/10 of a mile each were randomly selected for inspection1. Table 1 shows a summary of the evaluation effort. A total of 5,641 assets were inspected, from which 5,111 passed the inspection, 530 failed the inspection. No discretionary considerations were warranted. A total of 533 pictures of failing conditions were recorded during the evaluation. See Appendix B for a detailed list of failed asset items.
Table 1 Summary of the Evaluation Effort
Asset Group Total Sites Inspected
Total Asset Items
Inspected
Total Asset Items Passed
Total Asset Items Failed
Total Discretionary Consideration
Total Pictures Taken
Roadway and Shoulder 136 924 867 57 0 57
Roadside 137 1,673 1,362 311 0 312
Drainage 136 965 860 105 0 106
Traffic 137 1,520 1,480 40 0 40
Bridge 31 234 219 15 0 16
Service B 137 325 323 2 0 2
All Asset Groups 137 5,641 5,111 530 0 533
Table 2 shows a summary of the evaluation results. The first column indicates the asset group type.
The second column indicates the asset group ratings (See Appendix A). The third column indicates the required rating for each asset group. The second and third columns were used for calculating the MRP non-performance deduction percentage indicated in the fourth column. The last column shows the deduction amount corresponding to each asset group. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2026 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the Asset Group MRP non-performance deduction amount is $13,556.00.
Table 2 MRP Asset Group Ratings and Non-Performance Deductions
Asset item non-performance deductions are calculated only for items belonging to asset groups that meet or exceed the MRP Requirements. There is no asset item non-performance deduction. For the Richmond South BIMS contract for 2026 Cycle 1 MRP evaluation, the total MRP non-performance deduction amount is $13,556.00.
1 A portion of I-295 was removed from the Richmond South population for being outside of the project scope. This action resulted in a reduction of the inspection sample.
Asset Group Asset Group Rating
Required Rating for Asset Group
MRP Non- Performance
Deduction Percentage
Asset Group Deduction Amount
Roadway and Shoulders 91.4% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Roadside 76.5% 90.0% 3% $10,167.00
Drainage 84.2% 90.0% 1% $3,389.00
Traffic 98.4% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Bridges 95.3% 90.0% 0% $0.00
Service B 99.5% 90.0% 0% $0.00
$338,900.00
$13,556.00
Figure 1 shows the MRP rating trend for the Richmond South BIMS contract. Field crews have been evaluating Richmond South BIMS contractor’s performance since 2022. To improve clarity, we have only included the results for the last 3 years. In all the evaluations, the Leidos evaluators inspected 10% of the project by randomly selecting 137 segments.
During the 2026 Spring cycle MRP evaluation, inspectors collected 5% more failures than the previous cycle but the number of inspected assets is 15% lower than in previous cycle mainly due to the reduction of the inspection size (see footnote in page i). For the Roadway and Shoulder asset group, inspectors recorded 75% more failures than the previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 93.3% to 91.4%. For the Roadside asset group, inspectors recorded 40% more failures and the MRP rating decreased from 89.1% to 76.5%. For the Drainage asset group, inspectors recorded 51% less failures and the MRP rating increased from 78.9% to 84.2%. For the Traffic asset group, inspectors recorded 50% more failures and the MRP rating slightly increased from 97.4% to 98.4%. For the Bridges asset group, inspectors recorded three times the number of failures recorded in previous cycle and the MRP rating decreased from 97.5% to 95.3%. For the Service B asset group, inspectors recorded three-time less failures than in previous cycle, and the MRP rating increased from 97.8% to 99.5.%.
e
A D
W A
Y A
N D
S H
O U
L D
E R
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
As ph al t S ur
9.
.6
9.
8.
.6
.0
Co nc re te S ur fa ce
9.
.5
9.
8.
.5
.0
Pa ve d Sh ou ld er s
5.
.1
5.
5.
.1
.0
U np av ed S ho ul de rs
5.
0.
0% 5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.5
.8
.4
.0 e
A D
S
ID
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
De br is an d Ro ad K ill
8.
.6
8.
4.
.6
.0
Br us h an d
Tr ee s
5.
.7
5.
3.
.7
.0
Co nc re te
B ar rie r
8.
.5
8.
7.
.5
.0
So un d
W al l a nd
B ar
4.
.6
4.
2.
.6
.0
Sl op es
5.
.2
5.
5.
.2
.0
Fe nc e
5.
.4
5.
3.
.4
.0
Ill eg al S ig ns o r S tr uc tu re s
5.
.5
5.
4.
.5
.0
Re ta in in g W al ls
8.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Cr os sO ve r/
P ol ic e
Pa rk in g
Lo ca tio ns
5.
0.
0% 5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
To ta l
.6
.4
.5
.0 e
A
IN
A G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
Pi pe s a nd
B ox
C ul ve rt s ( <3 sq
.ft
8.
.7
8.
6.
.7
.0
Pi pe s a nd B ox C ul ve rt s (
≥3 sq .ft
8.
.1
8.
8.
.1
.0
Pa ve d Di tc he s
6.
.4
6.
4.
.4
.0
U np av ed
D itc he s
6.
.2
6.
6.
.2
.0
U nd er a nd
E dg e Dr
8.
.7
8.
6.
.7
.0
St or m D ra in s a nd
D ro p In
8.
.4
8.
7.
.4
.0
Cu rb
G ut te r, Cu rb in g Ra ise d, C on cr et e M ed ia n
4.
.7
4.
3.
.7
.0
To ta l
.2
.3
.2
.0 e
A F
F
IC
A S
S E
T G
R O
U P
R A
T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
Si gn s
8.
.6
8.
7.
.6
.0
Si gn s - O ve rh ea d an d
Br id ge M ou nt ed
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Ro ad w ay
(C on ve nt io na l, Hi gh M as t)
Li gh tin g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn L ig ht in g
6.
0.
0% 6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Si gn L ig ht in g
- U nd er de ck o r T un ne l
6.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
Gu ar dr ai l
8.
.0
8.
8.
.0
.0
Im pa ct
A tt en ua to r
9.
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
.0
O bj ec t M ar ke rs a nd
D el in ea
3.
.4
3.
3.
.4
.0
Gl ar e Fo ils
5.
N
/A N
/A N
/A N
/A
.0
Pa ve m en t M es sa ge s
6.
0.
0%
6.
6.
0.
0%
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ki ng s
8.
0.
0%
8.
8.
0.
0%
.0
Pa ve m en t M ar ke rs
8.
.4
8.
7.
.4
.0
To ta l
.7
.7
.4
.0 e
ID
G
E A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
De ck
9.
.0
9.
9.
.0
.0
Su pe rs tr uc tu re
9.
0.
0% 9.
9.
0.
0%
.0
Su bs tr uc tu re
9.
.2
9.
9.
.2
.0
Sl op e Pr ot ec tio n
5.
.5
5.
5.
.5
.0
To ta l
.4
.7
.3
.0 e
R V
IC
E
B A
S S
E T
G R
O U
P R
A T
IN
s e t It e m
N u m b e r o f
A s s e t It e n ti fi e d
N u m b e r o f
P a s s s e t It e m s
A s s e t It ig h ti n g
P a s s rc e n t fo r
A s s e t It e m
T o ta l
P o s s o re
A c tu a l A s s e t
It e m S c o re
A d ju s s e t G ro ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t G ro u p
A d ju s s e t It ti n g
R e q u ir ti n g f o r
A s s e t It e m
Gr af fit i R em ov al
4.
0.
0%
4.
4.
0.
0%
.0
Ju nc tio n
Bo x
5.
0.
0% 5.
5.
0.
0%
.0
Sl op e
- S er vi ce
5.
.5
5.
4.
.5
.0
To ta l
.2
.1
.5
.0
| BIMS Richmond South ExecS 2024c1_Created 053024.pdf |
| BIMS Richmond South ExecS 2024c2_Created 111824.pdf |
| BIMS Richmond South ExecS 2025c1_Created 052025.pdf |
| BIMS Richmond South ExecS 2025c2_Created 103025.pdf |
| BIMS Richmond South ExecS 2026c1_Created 052826.pdf |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .