Municipal procurement: Competitive bidding for pipes Demonstrates Significant Local Cost Savings
                     Municipal Procurement: Competitive 
 Bidding for Pipes Demonstrates  
Significant Local Cost-Savings
By Richard F. Anderson, Ph.D.,
Senior Advisor, Mayors Water Council, USCM
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 
 SEPTEMBER 2018, WASHINGTON, DC
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF 
MAYORS
Steven K. 
Benjamin  Mayor 
of Columbia, SC  
President
Bryan K. Barnett  
Mayor of Rochester 
Hills, MI  Vice President
Greg Fisher  
Mayor of 
Louisville, KY  
Second Vice 
President
Tom Cochran
Executive 
Director and CEO
Municipal Procurement: 
Competitive  Bidding for Pipes 
Demonstrates  Significant Local 
Cost-Savings
By Richard F. Anderson, 
Ph.D.  Senior Advisor
U.S. Conference of Mayors Water 
Council
July 2018
TABLE OF 
MCaOyoNr’sT ENTS
Briefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Background and 
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5  Local Governments and the Affordability 
Crisis  . . . . . . . .
5
The Magnitude and Trajectory of Local 
Investment in  Water and Sewer 
Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
The Cost of Pipe 
Procurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Pipe Performance 
Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Public Safety and the 
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Discussion 
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
14
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Ohio 
Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Carolina 
Communites  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Michigan 
Communites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Arkansas 
Communites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
MAYOR’S BRIEFING
In today’s American cities, adopting the use of advanced technology 
and better  approaches to clean water and sewer are common and often 
required by law. Cities  providing public water delivery have not only 
grown in population size and in num-  ber, but also in their attitudes 
toward public health, and innovations involving system  designs, 
technologies and accepted practices. In the 19th century cast iron was 
added  to the common use of clay, lead and wooden pipes by cities to 
convey water and  wastewater. In the 20th century, continued innovation 
carried ductile iron, concrete  and cement, and plastic pipes into the 
market. In the 21st century, new generations of  plastics, advanced 
composites, and other materials are being added to a long list of  viable 
piping materials. Technological advancements in pipe materials have 
helped  to support a growing national population while continuing to 
improve on cost and  performance and achieve public health protection 
goals to guard against waterborne  parasites and toxic contaminants.
The daunting challenge cities face today is the urgent need to replace 
hundreds of  thousands of miles of aging and failing pipe. Pipes are the 
single most costly water and  sewer capital investment category. Mayors 
want efficient solutions that make the best  use of limited resources without 
compromising the performance or safety of their water  systems. One 
solution that municipalities can no longer afford to overlook is opening-  up 
their procurement processes so that managers have the freedom to 
consider all suit-  able project materials. Adopting practices and policies 
that encourage standardized  comparisons of different pipe materials for 
water, sewer, and stormwater projects pro-  vides mayors with an 
opportunity to reduce the local cost of pipes and maintain equal  or better 
public safety and material performance levels. A review of new 
information  reveals standardized cost comparisons demonstrate 
significant price point differences  and updating procurement policies can 
save as much as 30% of capital costs.
Background and Purpose
In 2013 the Mayors Water Council (MWC) released “Municipal 
Procurement: Pro-  curement Process Improvements Yield Cost-Effective Public 
Benefits”, a report examining  procurement practices in the water 
infrastructure sector. The report made a business  case for considering 
alternative pipe material so local governments could realize public  
benefits (e.g., cost, performance, safety). The report suggested the need to 
change out-  dated procurement policies, and that the biggest impediment 
to adopting these chang-  es stemmed from the reluctance of local 
procurement officials to break from convention.  This report presents 
information from new research that demonstrates the merits of  adopting 
open procurement policies and new practices that apply competitive 
consid-  eration of alternative pipe materials. These policies will help local 
officials maximize
resources and practice good governance.
There are three critical factors to consider when procuring water and 
sewer pipes:  cost, materials performance, and public safety. This paper 
examines each of these fac-  tors relying on new standardized 
comparisons for alternative pipe material cost, and  recent surveys 
reporting on pipe performance characteristics. Based on standard cost  
comparisons between different pipe materials, it can be estimatPeda gteha 5t 
applying such  analysis in an open procurement process can yield 
substantial cost-savings without  having to sacrifice performance or safety.
Local Governments and the Affordability Crisis
Local governments are struggling to deal with historically high costs 
to provide water  and sewer infrastructure and services. Census estimates 
from 2015 suggest that cities  and counties spent over $118 billion in the 
water and sewer sectors, and recovered $114
billion (or 96 percent) through rates, charges and fees. Despite recent 
improvement in  customer revenues, the unrelenting increases in total costs 
are fueling household afford-  ability impacts that are both significant and 
widespread. Federal and State financial  assistance has been on the wane 
for over 30 years, but the U.S. Environmental Protec-  tion Agency (EPA) and 
State regulators continue to require greater levels of local spend-  ing to 
accomplish national goals by imposing unfunded mandates on local 
utilities. Cit-  ies are also facing a challenge to add as much as 25 percent 
to current water and  sewer capacity to service the expected 80 million 
new Americans the Census predicts  by 2051. These factors converge at the 
local level where cities are seeking efficiencies,  innovation and other cost-
savings measures to take the pressure off rapidly rising rates.
The American Water Works Association estimates that it will cost over 
$1.3 trillion to  replace our nation’s water infrastructure. There are an 
estimated 240,000 water main  breaks/year, $2.6B wasted on lost water 
and sewer overflows due to aging pipes, and  at least 17% of potable water 
lost to leakage.
Residential water rates have gone up by 137% since 2000. A 2017 
Michigan State  University study projected that water could be 
unaffordable for 1/3 of Americans in  five years. A 2016 US Government 
Accountability Office report surveyed ten mid and  large-sized cities with 
declining populations and found that the cost for water and  wastewater 
service is almost twice the affordability threshold for low-income custom-  
ers in 40 percent of the cities it reviewed, with further rate increases on 
the way. To  make matters worse, these communities typically have some 
the oldest infrastructure  and receive the least amount of funding for 
infrastructure repair projects.
The Magnitude and Trajectory of 
Local  Investment in Water and Sewer 
Pipes
Local government spent over $359 billion between 1993 and 2017 on 
underground  assets. Material failure and replace/repair programs may be 
poor to excellent based on  factors such as asset management, 
Table implementation of best practices, and budget con-  straints. Cost and 
1 performance over time are critical elements of system design decisions,  so 
INDICATOR – PIPEthSe,  PmUaMgnPitSu dAeN oDf  DloRcaAlI NpSipe inSvEeWstEmRentsW AinTvEiRtes WinAtSeTreEWstA TinER prToOcTuArement 
decisions. L
A 25-year period (1993-2017) provides a long-term frame of reference 
CUMULATIVE 25-YEAR INVaESnTdM EeNsTti m19a9t3e-2 0 1o7f  (c$u mBILuLIlOaNti)ve inve1s9t2m.4ent. C1o2n7s.5truction i3n9v.2estmen3t5 9i.n1 sewer 
line and pumps and waste-  water line and drains from 1993 to 2017 was 
$359 billion, while construction invest-  ments in water and 
sewer/wastewater plants was $313 billion during that same period.
2017 INVESTMENT ($ BILLION) 8.0 4.4 1.89 14.29
25-YEAR AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%) 4.34 1.76 4.9
2016 TO 2017 GROWTH RATE (%) -21.7 -21.4 -12.6
SOURCE: U.S. Census, State and Local Government Construction 
Spending
Page 6
Figure 
1
THE COST OF PIPE PROCUREMENT
Pipes are one of largest single cost components of water and 
sewer/wastewater  systems (EPA estimates that pipes are 60% of project 
costs). The continual need for local  investments in pipes adds up over 
time. Spending on pipes can vary widely, (Figure  1 and Table 1), and 
there is an expectation that a large replacement cost is imminent  as 
existing pipes, especially cast iron pipe, approaches the end of its design 
life. The  pipes provide such a basic service in the community that they 
must perform with cer-  tainty, and that is why the pipe materials in use 
have undergone dramatic change. For  example, in the drinking water 
market, the pipes in use today (Table 2) have displaced  most wooden and 
lead pipes and cast iron and asbestos cement water mains are phas-  ing 
out. Similar changes have occurred in sewer and storm pipe markets where 
other  materials such as clay were once predominant.
“As mayor, it is my responsibility to explore options  
that will get our rate payers the best bang for the buck. 
 The open procurement process, allowing the bidding  
of different pipe materials, not only forced suppliers  
to sharpen their pencils, it ended up saving the city  
of Burton over $2 million by using PVC pipe instead  
of ductile iron (DI) pipe on our five-phase $25 million  
watermain replacement project. Even if we would have  
chosen to use DI pipe, the open procurement process  
forced the cost reduction of the DI materials that would  
have saved about $200,000 in the project.”
~ Burton (MI) Mayor Paula 
Zelenko
Page 7
Piping is remarkably inter-changeable and many of today’s modern 
water systems  use a variety of materials. However, many systems restrict 
themselves to a single mate-  rial for all uses (e.g. “all storm pipes must be 
concrete”) or some categories of use  (e.g. “all water pipes 12” and larger 
must be ductile iron”). These restrictions are often  written into a city or 
county specification or ordinance and prevent engineers and  contractors 
from considering otherwise acceptable materials. These restrictions create  
a ‘closed’ system, while expanding old standards to include alternative 
materials pro-  vides for ‘open’ competition.
A sensible local procurement approach can take advantage of 
changes in pipe  materials not only on a cost basis, but also on their 
Table performance characteristics. This  section summarizes several consultant 
2 studies recently released that examine cost dif-  ferentials of the major pipe materials based on pipe size and length.
WHAT KIND OF WATER PIPES ARE UNDERGROUND IN YOUR 
CITY?
Folkman (2018) estimates that four 
types of  pipe materials make up 91 The remaining 9% of pipes 
percent of water mains used
t $JUJFT PGUFO VUJMJ[F UIFN JO t IJHI  EFOTJUZ 
TDhPeN CfoJOuBr UcJoPOmmonly QPMZFUIZMFOF () %1&)  t
used pipes: TUFFM
t DBTU JSPO t NPMFDVMBSMZ PSJFOUFE 
($*) 28 %   t  17$ (17$0 )  t DPODSFUF 
EVDUJMF JSPO (%*) TUFFM DZMJOEFS ($4$)
28% t PUIFS NBUFSJBMT
t QPMZWJOZM 
DIMPSJEF (17$) 22%  t Source: Folkman, Steven Ph.D., P.E., (March 2018)
BTCFTUPT DFNFOU 
(A$) 13%
These studies have found that communities with open procurement 
policies have  been able to lower their costs for purchasing pipes even in 
cases where the same  material is used. In fact, going from a closed to 
open policy on average can save local  governments 30 percent in capital 
costs on pipe, or roughly $100,000/mile.
BCC Research and Datahawks reviewed bid documents and interviewed 
local water  officials in 14 communities (cities and counties). They looked at 
the use and cost of dif-  ferent pipe materials and different lengths of pipe 
commonly used by cities, notably  ductile iron and plastic pipe (primarily 
HDPE and PVC).
Here is what the research found:
t AO FTUJNBUFE 78% PG TZTUFNT BMMPX GPS POMZ POF UZQF PG NBUFSJBM 
JO DFSUBJO BQQMJDB-
tions (“closed competition”) leading to virtual monopolies.
t 5IF BWFSBHF DPTU UP SFQMBDF ESJOLJOH XBUFS QJQFT JO BO iPQFO 
DPNQFUJUJPOw TZTUFN
is 26% per mile less expensive than in “closed competition” regions.
t FPS TUPSNXBUFS, UIF TBWJOHT GSPN iPQFO DPNQFUJUJPOw BWFSBHF 39% 
QFS NJMF.
t /BUJPOBMMZ, iPQFO DPNQFUJUJPOw DPVME TBWF BO FTUJNBUFE $20.5 
CJMMJPO GPS ESJOLJOH
water and $22.3 billion for storm water in pipe material costs alone 
over the next  10 years.
Researchers found evidence of the added cost ‘closed’ procuPreamgeen 8t 
policies impose  on local governments. The costs result not from any 
difference of materials, but rather  from a difference of procurement policy:
“Furthermore, ductile iron pipe of the same diameter was found to be less  
costly in open bid cities than in closed bid cities: 8-inch ductile iron pipe 
cost,  on average, $71.69 per foot in Port Huron (closed) and $62,39 in 
Grand Rapids
(closed), in comparison to $58.60 in Livonia (open) and 55.64 in Monroe  
(open). Therefore, even when ductile iron is considered by itself, 8-inch pipe  
costs in closed bid cities were up to $16.05 higher than in open bid cities,  
equivalent to a pipe cost inflation of up to 29%,” (BCC 2017).
A summary table included in the appendix presents selected 
information for each of  the research reports. The key information includes: 
pipe material, annual installation in  linear feet, pipe diameter and cost per 
foot, and while the information presented in the  studies covers 2013 to 
2015, we focus on the 2015 cost per foot information, the latest  year of 
report availability.
Reevaluating the status quo and conducting cost comparisons can lead 
to choices  that yield benefit to the community and system users. These 
findings should be of great  interest to local officials that are looking for 
better options to upgrade their water sys-  tems, stretch resources and 
keep rates down.
Because the savings accrue at the project level, competition will speed 
the upgrad-  ing of water infrastructure and enable innovation to help 
provide clean, safe water and  reduce ongoing maintenance costs.
Pipe Performance Expectations
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the American 
Society for  Testing of Materials (ASTM) established outer diameter wall 
thickness standards for  pipes made of Cast Iron (CI), Ductile Iron (DI), Poly 
Vinyl Chloride (PVC), High Density  Polyethylene (HDPE) and Molecularly 
Oriented Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVCO). The stan-  dards establish a threshold 
of performance that all pipes are expected to meet. Thus,  pipes that 
meet these mechanical performance criteria, regardless of pipe material, 
 satisfy the standards. The standards are broken down by grouping pipe 
diameter sizes.
The AWWA standards have governed outer diameter (OD) sizes for 
pipes used  in municipal water systems since the 1970s. OD pipe size 
Table standardization for water  systems enable compatibility with connections 
3 for valves, hydrants, services and fittings  for different pipe materials and 
assures complete interchangeability with a minimal  amount of inventory 
NUMBER OF REPOreRqTuiEreDd  for operatioNnUs MaBnEdR  mOaFi ntenance aPctEivRitCieEsN. TTAheG Eo OutFe r wall  
BREAKS diameter (wall thickneCsIsT) IiEs Sthe most direct metCriIcT IoEf Spipe suitability for a 
1-25 project and  includes conside1ra0t1ion of hydrostatic design s3tr5e.s8s (psi).
26-50 54 19.1
51-100 47 16.7
101-200 42 14.9
201-300 7 2.5
301-500 11 3.9
> 500 20 7.1
TOTAL 282 100
SOURCE: Anderson, R. 2007, US Conference of 
Mayors Page 9
These standards address many concerns such as meeting firefighting 
requirements:  “Fire flow standards require a minimum residual water 
pressure of 20 pounds per  square inch gauge (psig) during flow. It is 
common practice to maintain pressures of 60  to 75 psig in industrial and 
commercial areas and 30 to 50 psig in residential areas.  Distribution 
system mains and pipes must be designed to withstand these pressures.”  
(/BUJPOBM ADBEFNJFT 1SFTT (64), 1982).
Why are pipes failing despite established standards for performance? 
Standards  describe the mechanical performance necessary for an 
application, or in the case of the  A/4*//4F 61 4UBOEBSE, UIBU UIF QJQF 
DPNQMJFT XJUI BMM IFBMUI SFHVMBUJPOT GPS NBUFSJBMT
that contact drinking water. But pipe standards do not specify what pipe 
to procure or  the environmental factors that may cause a pipe to fail 
prematurely such as the local soil  corrosivity, seismic conditions, or use. For 
existing pipe, age is also an important factor.
There is a growing body of information that characterizes the general 
decline of  infrastructure, and more specifically, breaks in water mains 
and sewer pipes. The  AWWA (2012) released a landmark report on 
underground infrastructure (pipes) that  unveiled the extent of decline and 
the urgency of addressing it. An AWWA follow-up  survey expressed this, 
“The top concern in the AWWA surveys for 2016 and 2017  is ‘renewal 
and replacement (R&R)’ of aging water and wastewater infrastructure”,  
(AWWA 2017). Additionally, the American Society of Civil Engineers 
(ASCE) has  opined that water and wastewater infrastructure in America 
gets a D- grade in 2009,  (ASCE 2009); and a slight improvement to a D 
grade in 2017, (ASCE 2017). The EPA  has similar findings.
Two surveys provide local-government oriented findings: a 330-city 
survey conduct-  ed by the Conference of Mayors, (2007); and, a more 
recent survey of 308 utilities  conducted by Utah State University, (2018).
The Conference of Mayors released results of a 330-city survey 
examining the status  of asset management and condition assessments of 
water and sewer pipes and pipe  failures (Anderson, 2007). The findings 
demonstrate that pipe breaks are common (See  Table 3). Asset 
management programs were more likely to be found in larger systems.  
Utah State University recently reported results from a survey of water 
main breaks,  (Folkman, March 2018). The survey included 308 drinking 
water utilities in the USA  and Canada with details from 281 on water 
main break data covering 170,569 miles  of pipe. This survey is an 
important contribution to the literature because it provides
estimates of pipe performance by type of pipe material.
Among the major findings of the Utah State University survey, several are 
important  because they directly address pipe performance in general and 
performance by pipe  material (adapted from Folkman, March 2018):
t 8BUFS NBJO CSFBL SBUFT IBWF JODSFBTFE 27% GSPN 2012 UP 2018; 
SBJTJOH GSPN 11 UP
14 breaks on average for every 100 miles of pipe per year.
t 5IF 308 XBUFS TVQQMZ TZTUFNT TVSWFZFE GPVOE UIBU 82% PG DBTU 
JSPO ($*) QJQFT BSF
more than 50 years old and experiencing a 46% increase in break 
rates.
t ANPOH UIF VUJMJUJFT TVSWFZFE, UJ  XBT GPVOE UIBU VTJOH BTTFU 
NBOBHFNFOU BOE PQFSB-
tions optimization (for example, pressure reduction and leak 
detection), help extend  the useful asset life.
t 0OMZ 45% PG 6UJMJUJFT DPOEVDU DPOEJUJPO BTTFTTNFOU PG XBUFS PNaBJgOeT. 
t 17$ QJQF IBE UIF MPXFTU GBJMVSF SBUF JO UIF TVSWFZFE VUJMJUJFT 10
DPNQBSFE UP DBTU JSPO,
ductile iron, concrete, steel and asbestos cement pipes.
t $BTU JSPO BOE EVDUJMF JSPO QJQFT FYQFSJFODF IJHI GBJMVSF SBUFT JO 
DPSSPTJWF TPJMT.  t MPTU VUJMJUJFT IBWF NPEFSBUF UP IJHI TPJM DPSSPTJPO 
SJTL.
A substantial portion of the current pipe inventory is cast iron and it is 
nearing the  end of its design life. Water and sewer system managers 
regularly consider whether to  repair or replace pipes. If repair, how, where, 
and for what linear measure? If doing a  replacement, also consider what 
pipe material has the best value.
The local government utility surveys confirm the constancy of breaks. 
Earlier in this  report we noted that even with a downturn in pipe 
expenditures by local government,  pipes, the underground infrastructure, 
and their immediate system connectedness,  drains, lines, etc., continue to 
be among the top annual construction expenditures in the  public water 
and sewer sectors.
The repetitive nature of the repair and replace procurement activity 
adhering to  entrenched or convenient procurement policies is a direct 
impediment to cost-savings  by stifling innovation. Mayors should instead 
view it as an opportunity to try new  approaches and new pipe materials. 
If different pipe materials meet recommended  mechanical standards, 
then they should also have equal consideration in an open  bid process. 
This will introduce competition and should result in lower prices, even for  
incumbent materials.
There are many claims and counterclaims about the efficiency, durability 
and safety  of pipes. Local procurement officials can obtain reliable 
information by contacting vari-  ous industry trade associations and state 
and federal agency resources. Officials can  also rely on consulting 
engineers for information.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND 
THE  ENVIRONMENT
Advances in drinking water treatment technologies have been 
tremendous since  1900, but the public health benefits are sometimes 
diminished with pipe failure. Cit-  JFT XJUI NBjPS VSCBO ESJOLJOH XBUFS 
TZTUFNT MJLF +FSTFZ $JUZ, /+, BBMUJNPSF, M% BOE
Louisville, KY implemented best practices in the early 1900s – filtration 
and chlorination
– and achieved an immediate decline in infant and childhood morbidity 
and mortality  related to parasitic water borne pathogens. Since then, the 
invention and incorpora-  tion of many new treatment technologies in the 
late 1900s has further enhanced pub-  lic safety. Yet breakage, which 
includes corrosions and leaks, of any pipe, regardless  of material, has the 
potential to reintroduce waterborne pathogens to the consumer  through 
infiltration of the pipe. Similarly, breaking sewer pipes and wastewater 
pipes  are a concern for the environment and potential human impact 
(basement backups  and contaminated streams).
Chronic health impacts are important to recognize, and they may be 
associated with  broken or fully functional pipes. Chronic health impacts 
have been related to chemicals  or contaminants in drinking water that 
may be carcinogenic. For example, some of  the drinking water treatments 
applied can result in potential public health impacts. The  EPA sets drinking 
water standards that regulate the allowable levels of substances of  
concern; and, the EPA has an action-forcing mechanism to consider new 
substances for  regulation on a regular basis.
The literature on acute and chronic public health impacts from 
contaminated water  is well established and not the primary concern of 
this report. While somewhat dated,  B /BUJPOBM 3FTFBSDI $PVODJM 
QVCMJDBUJPO QSPWJEFT B HPPE GPVOEBUJPO JO MJTUJOH BOE
describing some of these adverse health impacts and their drinking 
water causes,
(/BUJPOBM 3FTFBSDI $PVODJM (64) 4BGF %SJOLJOH 8BUFS $PNNJUUFF. 
8BTIJOHUPO (%$): Page 
1982). Drinking water safety is important, and it is local gove1rn1ment 
that provides  some of the safest drinking water to hundreds of millions of 
people daily. Providing  24-hour service all the time is an expensive 
proposition and local government invested  over $65 billion in 2015, and 
still it is a challenge to ensure uninterrupted service.
Until the late 1980s, EPA was responsible for testing and certifying that 
materials  were safe to be used for both drinking water and waste water 
pipes. Following a  decision by the EPA to no longer do this work, the EPA 
(through a regulatory process)  QBTTFE UIF SFTQPOTJCJMJUZ UP UIF /BUJPOBM 
4BOJUBUJPO FPVOEBUJPO (/4F). 4JODF UIFO UIF
/4F IBT EPOF BMM PG UIF UFTUJOH BOE SFUFTUJOH PG QJQJOH NBUFSJBMT UIBU 
HP JOUP XBUFS
infrastructure projects. It is important to note that all materials, from the new 
and inno-  vative to the traditional, are tested and retested to ensure 
their safety.
5IF A/4*//4F 61 4UBOEBSE FOTVSFT UIBU ESJOLJOH XBUFS QJQFT BSF TBGF 
GPS VTF BOE
that all pipes are tested for safety equally. The materials are tested before 
the pipes  are used commercially, by subjecting them to multiple tests, 
including if the pipes leach  chemicals or other substances into the water. 
Once the materials are certified, the test-  ing does not stop. Materials used 
in pipes are continuously tested throughout produc-  UJPO CZ /4F. 5IFTF 
BVEJUT BSF EPOF SBOEPNMZ UXJDF FBDI ZFBS BOE BMTP FOTVSF UIBU
quality control tests are being done by the manufacturer.
The Conference of Mayors adopted policies urging cities to consider 
environmental  impacts using life cycle analysis (LCA) when available 
and appropriate. LCAs have  become more widely available, and the 
Conference of Mayors provided an example in  relation to pipe materials 
(Anderson, 2013). It is important for mayors to weigh public  safety 
(including environmental externalities) as well as cost and performance of 
pipes.  Typically, an LCA considers several stages: production/extraction, 
construction pro-  cess, use, and end of life. Each stage of an LCA 
identifies inputs and outputs to assess  energy use, wastes, emissions and 
their environmental impact. The LCA provides “…  transparent disclosure 
of environmental impact and is used to standardize industry  
comparisons” (Sustainable Solutions Corporation, Royersford, PA). 
Standardized com-  parisons provide a good tool to assess competing 
product claims technically and ana-  lytically. Local procurement officials 
may have authority to request the results of an  LCA for a single pipe 
material or multiple pipe materials. This report will not address  the 
claims and counterclaims on pipe material environmental impacts. 
However, we  encourage local officials to consider LCAs when making 
water infrastructure decisions.  The pipe industry is moving towards 
providing more transparent and higher-quality  information on their 
environmental performance that may be of use to local officials.  For 
example, Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association commissioned an LCA on potable 
water,  gravity storm water, and sanitary sewer pipe systems that was 
reviewed in accordance  with ISO 14044 (a standardized review protocol 
ensuring the accuracy of an LCA). The  LCA led to a PVC pipe 
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), which complies with
*40 14025 TUBOEBSET BOE XBT JOEFQFOEFOUMZ DFSUJGJFE CZ /4F 
*OUFSOBUJPOBM.
There are many good resources that local officials can use to determine 
the safety  of piping materials and whether or not they are appropriate for 
their specific project.  These safety standards are based on data collected 
over long periods of time and  are reliable.
CONCLUSION
We reported in our 2013 review of local government water and sewer 
pipe pro-  curement practices that closed procurement that prohibits 
competition among different  pipe materials is prone to inefficiencies and 
the potential for substantial lost opportunity  costs. Cities invest significant 
resources in water and sewer pipes, then and now. The  case for 
considering alternative pipe materials that might perform as good or 
better  than conventional pipes used today, and cost less, is compelling. In 
the 2013 report  several communities provided anecdotal casesP awgheer e 
alternative (PVC) pipe materials  were chosen, and cost saving1s2 were 
achieved. A business case approach made pos-  sible through open bid 
procurement was suggested to compare competitive pricing  and overall 
value, and the local procurement official could find assistance from knowl-  
edgeable consulting engineers, or develop the tools needed to make 
accurate cost and  performance comparisons.
Five years later, 2018, the case for open competition is stronger. Closed 
procurement  and low bid policies may be state law in some cases but 
there is often an opportunity  for exception. Whether state law or local 
policy, the fact is that new information (both  knowledge and analytic tools) 
on cost, performance, public health and environmental
impact is readily available. Mayors and their departments can use this 
information  to lower or stabilize their pipe capital costs while meeting 
safety and performance  requirements.
A standardized cost per foot analytical tool such as the BCC and 
Datahawks  research used is of practical utility to local officials who make 
procurement decisions  and seek efficiencies and cost savings. The 
AWWA reports and Folkman’s survey make  a compelling case for the 
magnitude of the challenge to maintain and upgrade the  underground 
infrastructure. Folkman specifically emphasizes the increasing number of  
local systems making decisions about replacing legacy pipes, such as cast 
iron, that are  aging out and the importance of comparing pipe cost, 
performance and environmental  impacts when procuring new pipes. These 
decisions will have a 50 to 100-year design  life expectation.
Public health impacts are substantially mitigated when potable water 
pipes are  maintained and operated properly. The potential for health 
impacts increases when  pipes fail, and sometimes when treatment and/or 
biofilm protocols are changed or  modified. Pipe failure can result in the 
introduction of waterborne parasites and inor-  ganic elements to the tap. 
Testing frequently detects organic contaminants in pipes with  no- or 
interrupted-flow. For example, stalled water and residual chlorine in 
drinking  water pipes broken by an earthquake have resulted in detection 
of tri-halo-methane  (THMs) at the tap when service continued. Asset 
management best practices as well as  detection technology can effectively 
address pipe failure.
Public safety includes environmental impacts as well as public health. 
Reports and  testing results on all materials used in water infrastructure for 
public health are widely  BWBJMBCMF GPS SFWJFX GSPN BDDSFEJUFE UIJSE 
QBSUJFT, JODMVEJOH /4F. 8 F  TUBUFE JO 2013,
and restate here, the use of Life Cycle Analysis helps differentiate the 
environmental  impacts of pipe materials according to a standard method 
of comparison. Some pipe  providers seek additional differentiation 
through an Environmental Product Declaration,  which requires third party 
verification of ISO certification. This sets a high bar for com-  paring 
environmental impacts.
Discussion Questions
As this paper points out there is plenty of evidence to show that open 
procurement  and bid processes are the future of “good government.” The 
big question is why is there  still substantial local resistance to making any 
change? Is the resistance due to a lack of  information and training of local 
procurement officials? Are consulting engineers being  allowed to share 
new ideas or are they limited by the existing norms or local/state ordi-  
nances or laws? Are the cost, performance and safety information 
presented in a way  that is amenable to local procurement processes?
Changing behavior relies on changing attitudes, and the transparent 
and account-  able processes of open bid competition can lead the way. 
Mayors are strategically  positioned to play the leading role.
Page 
13
REFERENCES
American Water Works Association, 2012, Buried No Longer: Confronting 
Ameri-  ca’s Water Infrastructure Challenge, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association, 2017 State of the Water Industry 
Report,  AWWA, 2017, available from: https://
www.awwa.org/publications/opflow/abstract/  articleid/65762696.aspx.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “2009 Infrastructure Report 
Card,”  available from: https://
www.infrastructurereportcard.org/2009/sites/default/files/  
RC2009_drinkwater.pdf
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “2017 Infrastructure Report 
Card,”  available from: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/
Anderson, R., March 2013, Municipal Procurement Process Improvements Yield 
Cost-  Effective Public Benefits, Untied States Conference of Mayors, 
Washington, DC.
Anderson, R., September 2007, National City Water Survey 2007 – The 
Status of  Asset Management Programs in Public Water and Sewer Infrastructure in 
America’s  Major Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC.
BCC Research, February 15, 2016, Special Research Study: Comparison of 
Pipe-  line Installation Lengths and Costs in Two Cities, prepared for the American 
Chemistry  Council, (BCC Research, 49 Walnut Park, Wellesley, MA).
BCC Research, April 23, 2016, Special Research Study: Comparison of Water 
Main  Pipe Installation Lengths and Costs in North and South Carolina: Raleigh, 
Charlotte,  and Spartanburg/Greenville, prepared for the American Chemistry 
Council, (BCC  Research, 49 Walnut Park, Wellesley, MA).
B$$ 3FTFBSDI, /PWFNCFS 3, 2016, Special Research Study: Comparison of 
Water  Pipe Installation Lengths and Costs in Michigan: Port Huron, Grand Rapids, 
Monroe,  and Livonia, prepared for the American Chemistry Council, (BCC 
Research, 49 Walnut  Park, Wellesley, MA).
Datahawks, LLC, December 31, 2016, Special Research Study: Comparison 
of 8”  and 12” Water Main Pipe Installation Lengths and Costs in Closed 
Competition and  Open Bidding Arkansas Communities, (Datahawks, LLC, 4119 
Lee Ave., Little Rock, AR).  BCC Research, February 24, 2017, Special 
Research Study: Nationwide Pipe Length  and Cost Savings Evaluation, prepared 
for the American Chemistry Council, (BCC
Research, 49 Walnut Park, Wellesley, MA).
Folkman Ph.D., P.E., Steven, (March 2018), Water Main Break Rates In the USA 
and  Canada: A Comprehensive Study - An Asset Management Planning Tool for 
Water  Utilities Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada.
Mack EA, Wrase S (2017) A Burgeoning Crisis? A Nationwide Assessment of 
the  Geography of Water Affordability in the United States.
/BUJPOBM ADBEFNJFT 1SFTT (64), 1982, Drinking Water and Health 
Volume 4.
/BUJPOBM 3FTFBSDI $PVODJM (64) 4BGF %SJOLJOH 8BUFS $PNNJUUFF. 
8BTIJOHUPO (%$):
*4B/ -10: 0-309-03198-2
/4F *OUFSOBUJPOBM, 2015, Product Potable Water, Gravity Storm Water, and 
Sanitary  Sewer Pipe Systems Date of Issue May 15, 2015 Period of Validity 5 
Years Declaration
/VNCFS &1%10047
&1% 1SPHSBN 0QFSBUPS /4F *OUFSOBUJPOBM 789 / .  %JYCPSP 3E. AOO 
ASCPS M* 48105
USA www.nsfsustainability.org.
Sustainable Solutions Corporation, Evaluating Life Cycle AssessmPenatgs efo r 
Under-  ground Infrastructure, Royersford, 14 PA, 
www.sustainablesolutionscorporation.com.
United States Government Accountability Office, September 2016, 
Water Infra-  structure: Information on Selected Midsize and Large Cities with 
Declining Populations.  GAO 16-785.
APPENDIX:
BCC RESEARCH AND DATAHAWKS 
 SUMMARY FINDINGS
Ohio Communities
The two Ohio communities with closed bid systems paid average cost 
32%-35%  higher per foot for pipe ($51.83), compared to the one open bid 
county that had a  near even blend of DI and plastic pipe ($33.33).
Carolina Communities
The one open bid community procured a near even blend of DI and 
plastic and had  categorically lower cost except for 
Spartanburg/Greenville 4” to 6” pipe. For 12” pipe,  closed systems paid 
an additional 50% markup ($57.73 per foot compared to $28.21).
Michigan Communities
Two open bid communities in Michigan utilized DI and plastic blends, 
and where the  blend was near even the cost was considerably lower than 
the two no bid communities  using DI only. The report also found clear 
evidence of the added cost ‘closed’ procure-  ment policies impose on 
local governments:
“Furthermore, ductile iron pipe of the same diameter was found to be 
less costly  in open bid cities than in closed bid cities: 8-inch ductile iron 
pipe cost, on average,
$71.69 per foot in Port Huron (closed) and $62,39 in Grand Rapids 
(closed), in com-  parison to $58.60 in Livonia (open) and 55.64 in Monroe 
(open). Therefore, even when  ductile iron is considered by itself, 8-inch 
pipe costs in closed bid cities were up to
$16.05 higher than in open bid cities, equivalent to a pipe cost inflation of 
up to 29%.”  Michigan also demonstrated similar savings, with closed 
systems paying 27% to
34% more in capital costs.
Arkansas Communities
Arkansas communities exhibit some cost complexity. The one open bid 
community  procured plastic pipe, but DI pipe in one of the closed bid 
communities was slightly  less costly.
The other two closed communities procuring DI pipe had a cost nearly 
twice that of  plastic, except for 8” pipe procured in Hot Springs.
Page 
15
OHIO COMMUNITIES
LOCAL UNIT OPEN-BID PIPE 2015 PIPE 
CITY MATERIAL AVERAGE DIAMETE
COST  PER R  
FOOT (INCHES”)
COLUMBUS, OH NO DUCTILE $26.73 4” TO 6”
IRON
$4.6 MILLION $53.39 6” TO 12”
INVESTMENT
80,621 FEET OF PIPE $82.98 OVER 12”
INSTALLED
DELAWARE YES DUCTILE $15.23 4” TO 6”
COUNTY, OH IRON 44%
INCLUDES: DELAWARE, DUBLIN, WESTERVILLE, & PLASTIC $33.65 6” TO 12”
POWELL 56%
$7.9 MILLION INVESTMENT $80.83 OVER 12”
150,700 FEET OF PIPE INNSETIAGLLHEBD OR
HOODS
DAYTON, OH NO DUCTILE $31.49 4” TO 6”
IRON 90% Reference - BCC, February 15, 
2016
$1.8 MILLION WITH PLASTIC $51.71 6” TO 12”
INVESTMENT PLASTIC 10%
PIPE
CA3R7O,0L3I3N FAEE TC OOFM PMIPUE NEITXICESEPTION $122.73 OVER 12”
INSTALLED S IN
LOCAL UNIT OPEN- PIPE 2015 PIPE 
BID CITY MATERIAL AVERAGE DIAMETE
COST  PER R  
FOOT (INCHES”)
CHARLOTTE, NC YES DUCTILE $22.15 4” TO 6”
IRON 47%
$1.2 MILLION INVESTMENT PLASTIC 53% $25.18 6” TO 12”
37,800 FEET OF PIPE INSTALLED $65.87 OVER 12”
RALEIGH, NC NO DUCTILE $29.77 4” TO 6”
IRON
$1.76 MILLION INVESTMENT $57.73 6” TO 12”
30,021 FEET OF PIPE INSTALLED $127.11 OVER 12”
SPARTANBURG/GREENVILLE, SC NO DUCTILE $19.98 4” TO 6”
IRON 98.6%
$4.6 MILLION INVESTMENT PLASTIC $33.68 6” TO 12”
1.4%
185,443 FEET OF PIPE INSTALLED $85.2R8eference - BCOC,V FEebRru 1ar2y ”15, 
2016
Page 
16
MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES
LOCAL UNIT OPEN-BID PIPE 2015 PIPE 
CITY MATERIAL AVERAGE DIAMETE
COST  PER R  
FOOT (INCHES”)
LIVONIA, MI YES DUCTILE $57.37 8”
$1.5 MILLION IRON 6% N/A 12”
INVESTMENT PLASTIC 
94%
26,000 FEET OF PIPE 
INSTALLED
MONROE, MI YES DUCTILE $29.77 8”
IRON 44%
$1.76 MILLION PLASTIC $57.73 12”
INVESTMENT 56%
30,021 FEET OF PIPE 
INSTALLED
GRAND RAPIDS, NO DUCTILE $70.88 8”
MI IRON
$0.69 MILLION $74.39 12”
INVESTMENT Reference – BCC Research, November 
9,779 FEET OF PIPE 3, 2016
ARINKSATANLSLEADS COMMUNITIES
PORT HURON, NO DUCTILE $104.33 8”
MLOI CAL UNIT OPEN- IPRIPOEN 2015 PIPE 
$B2I.D8  MCILILTIYON MATERIA AV$E1R07A.7G4E DIA1M2E”TE
INVESTMENT  27,075 L COST  PER R  (INCHES”)
FHEOETT O SF PPRIPIEN GS, AR NO DUCTILE FOOT$32.23 8”
INSTALLED IRON
$236,080 MILLION 2015) $122.60 12”
INVESTMENT (2014 &  
26,000 FEET OF PIPE 
LINITTSLTE ARLOLCKE,D NORTH LITTLE ROCK, SHERWOOD, $161 1
CMAEUMNELTLERAL NO DUCTILE .$71119.41 28””
$1.76 MILLION INVESTMENT
ARKANSAS WATER: IRON
30,021 FEET OF PIPE INSTALLED
SPRINGDALE, AR NO DUCTILE $35.77 8”
IRON
$0.38 MILLION $58.16 12”
INVESTMENT
7,655 FEET OF PIPE 
INSTALLED
FAYETTEVILLE, AR NO PLASTIC $38.40 8”
$109,069 MILLION $61.02 12”
INVESTMENT  1,825 
FEET OF PIPE Page 
INSTALLED 17
The Mayors Water 
Council
The Mayors Water Council (MWC) assists local governments in providing 
high  quality water resources in a cost-effective manner.
MWC provides a forum for local governments to share information on 
water  technology, management methods, operational experience, and 
financing of  infrastructure development.
MWC monitors and responds to federal legislative, regulatory or 
policy  proposals affecting the delivery of municipal water services.
MWC also provides a forum to assist local governments in exploring  
competition and public-private partnership approaches, and 
alternative  methods of financing water infrastructure development.
Mayors Water Council Co-Chairs 
2018  Mayor Jill Techel, City of 
Napa CA  Mayor David Berger, City 
of Lima OH
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF 
MAYORS
1620 Eye Street, NW  
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-293-7330
Fax: 202-293-2352
usmayors.org