Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

31C H A P T E R 4 Analysis of Practices and Development of Evaluation ApproachIn the first phases of the study, the researchers conducted structured interviews with department of transportation (DOT) and utility company (UC) coordinating engineers. The purpose of these interviews was to develop a clear under- standing of the most significant utility coordination problems and insights into best practices. (Appendix B provides resources gleaned from the interviews for the 13 best practices.) The researchers then formed a volunteer industry review team of some of the most active and interested members of the group of DOT and UC experts who were interviewed in the first phase, building on their familiarity with the study issues, process, and purpose. This team consisted of nine DOT members and eight UC members. The industry review team reviewed research summaries and provided feedback on practices, participating in their identification and expansion through a series of e-mails and, in some cases, phone calls. Analysis of Recommended Practices During the work on Tasks 1, 2, and 3, the researchers identified both issues and recommended practices. Recommended prac- tices were identified based on two criteria: demonstrated suc- cess and alignment with solving the most commonly identified delay issues. The value of these practices can be found primarily in the amount of delay avoided, such as the cost per day of wasted construction time, redesign costs and time factors, and costs for inefficiencies in the coordination process. As DOTs and UCs are aware, this information is very difficult to get and varies widely among projects. Cost and time are huge issues for DOTs. Delays typically cause cost overruns. Cost overruns in turn influence the rest of the transportation program and the expectations of local, regional, and state governments. For example, according to the 2002 audit of the Springfield Inter- change project in Northern Virginia, Virginia DOT postponed or canceled 166 projects because costs were underestimated (1). The analysis of the data collected and cataloged in the issues matrix suggests the following specific best practices.Best Practice #1: Advance Relocation of Utility Work Either the state’s contractor or the utility company involved in the relocation may relocate the conflicting utilities before highway construction begins. This is done to alleviate possible coordination conflicts between UCs and contractors and min- imize delays during the construction phase. Advance reloca- tion also limits delays in projects due to budget delays while the utility company tries to find the funding for relocation. Several states reported using this best practice successfully. The following example is from Tennessee’s Chapter 86 Pro- visions that require utility relocation to be performed before construction begins or to be included in the state contract so the utility can be reimbursed (2): (2) The utility shall either: A. Enter into a written agreement with the commissioner to include the relocation as a part of the department’s highway construction contract; provided that such agreement may provide that the utility shall perform certain relocation work with its own union employees as required under a negotiated organized labor contract but, in such case, the utility shall be required to reimburse the department for all relocation costs if it fails to timely perform its relocation work as provided in the agreement with the commissioner; or B. Enter into a written agreement with the commissioner to remove all utility facilities that conflict with the highway construction, as determined by the department, prior to the letting of the department’s construction contract, and other- wise perform and complete the utility relocation in accordance with approved relocation plans and schedule of calendar days; provided that such agreement may provide that, in the event that the department does not undertake the highway construction project within a specified time, the utility shall be reimbursed for such relocation work as it has timely per- formed in accordance with the approved plans and schedule. Another example comes from North Carolina, where the DOT has started to examine utility corridors and plans 6 to

3212 years in advance of construction, although the UC may not be approached until the 30% design stage. Potential Obstacles or Barriers to Advance Relocation Any of the following circumstances may present obstacles or barriers to advance relocation: • Clearing and grubbing work must be complete and suffi- cient right-of-way (ROW) must be acquired. • In some cases, construction is incredibly expensive. For example, in big cut (or fill) areas the utility would need to dig down 30 or 40 ft to relocate in advance; if the utility waits until construction has started, the utilities may need to dig only 10 ft. • It is not always acceptable to subject a particular area to work zone delays twice (once for utilities, once for highway construction), when the work might otherwise be accom- plished concurrently. Busy urban streets, congested ROWs, and community functions can limit the time period dur- ing which construction can take place. • Sometimes the delivery of materials is such that the utility cannot get the materials before the time highway construc- tion starts. Earlier completion of designs can alleviate this concern. Other barriers may be presented by work sequencing; not all utilities can be relocated beforehand, or it may not make sense to relocate some utilities. In addition, the start schedule for the DOT construction project must be reliable. UCs are reluctant to relocate and then find out that the start of con- struction has been significantly delayed. In some states, leg- islative action may be required to allow the use of advance relocation. Finally, advance relocation may not be a good fit for design–build projects. Implementation Requirements Supporting state legislation is one of the most important implementation requirements to advance relocation policy. After the legislation is in place, several other elements enable the policy to be implemented and successful. Advance notice from DOTs to UCs concerning projects is necessary to allow for schedule and budget planning for the relocation work. To implement advance relocation, sufficient ROW must be acquired before relocation, and ROW clearing and grubbing must be performed. Often, DOTs need a mech- anism to handle clearing and grubbing of the ROW; that is, the DOT hires a subcontractor to do the work or the utility is reimbursed for performing clearing and grubbing work. Designs must be completed in time to allow advance relo- cation. Plans must be completed and sent to the utilities intime to do their design work, order materials, and schedule the work crews. In northern states, utility work is generally not undertaken in winter, so utility work is done during the fall before the year of highway construction, which requires sending plans to utilities in late winter or early spring of the year before highway construction begins. UC personnel per- forming relocations must be able to read plans and survey relocation layouts. Supportive Skills and Training Certain skill sets are necessary to implement advance reloca- tion. UC personnel or subcontractors must be able to lay out relocated work from plans and field surveys. UC personnel and subcontractor personnel would also benefit from train- ing in how to read basic transportation plans. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement After an advance relocation policy has been implemented, ongoing evaluation can provide guidance, identify areas where the process could be tweaked, and encourage improvement. At a minimum, UCs and DOTs should document and assess whether advance relocation of utilities has reduced utility conflicts during construction and whether the new process has improved interactions between the DOT and the UC and between the UC and the contractor. Delays (and avoidance of delays, wherever possible) should be documented and evaluated in relation to cause. Any other observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effectiveness of the practice or opportunities for improvement should also be recorded and evaluated. Best Practice #2: Early Involvement of Utilities in Planning and Design Phase Utility companies cited early involvement of the UCs in the planning and design processes as a best practice that has worked very well. The definition of “early” may vary across states, but it is obvious that utilities must be notified of poten- tial involvement in the beginning of the planning and design phase to avoid utility-related delays. Most commonly, DOTs performed what representatives called “early” notification at the 30% design stage. Early involvement of utilities increases coordination and design time. The sooner the UC is made aware of a potential conflict, the sooner planning can start and the UC can incorporate the project into its own sched- ules. Also, with increased coordination and partnering time between the designers and utilities, relocation can sometimes be avoided altogether. Although a face-to-face meeting is preferred, it may not be appropriate for all projects. For sim- ple projects with few utility issues, a formal meeting may not be needed.

33Some states have a requirement for early coordination between the DOT, the UCs, and contractors involved in the utility relocation process. In Wisconsin, each project is handled by a utility coordinator from start to finish. An oper- ational planning meeting is held with the UCs to discuss any issues that may be related to the construction. After the UC receives notice of the project from the DOT, it has 60 days to provide facility maps to identify their locations. When the DOT provides the UC with 60% design plans, it has from 60 to 120 days to provide complete work plans, depending on the complexity of the project. In Delaware, the state legislature passes an annual bill to approve funding of the 6-year capital program, which is pub- lished so the utilities can plan and budget accordingly. In addition, Delaware DOT’s annual and monthly schedules are shared with the UCs. Delaware DOT’s coordination process includes kickoff meetings at project start for major projects. Coordination meetings occur at preliminary, semifinal, start of construction, and as necessary in between. Early notification begins the coordination process between DOT designers and the UC, and early input from the UC enhances the opportunity for the designer to avoid utility relocation and possible rework due to late comments from the UC. It also allows the utilities to plan ahead and provides more time for the permitting process, which can reduce delays in the construction phase. Potential Obstacles or Barriers Any of the following circumstances can present potential obsta- cles or barriers, preventing early coordination: • If any of the parties involved fail to do their part in plan- ning and coordination, the process can falter or fail. • Employee turnover in both the DOT and the UCs tends to hinder the coordination process from being fully executed properly. • The DOT may try to cut corners rather than pull a project if a schedule gets tight. For example, if the DOT does not complete project plans until late in the process, it may send them to the utilities and ask the UCs to complete their work plans ahead of schedule. • The ROW acquisition process can be lengthy. • The utility is not sure that the DOT will really build the project. • Implementation of the process does not occur. (Involve- ment is recommended, but the design team does not make it a priority.) • The design decision-making process can be slow. • Some DOTs do not want utilities to do their final plans based on preliminary highway plans and, therefore, do not involve utilities until later.Implementation Requirements DOTs can benefit from standard processes for utility coordi- nation, including appointing a dedicated utility coordinator who serves as the liaison between the DOT and UCs. Early coordination with UCs allows the coordinator to work directly with them to coordinate the project schedule and the time frame for UC review of DOT plans and develop final reloca- tion plans. DOT management support is needed to take the time for early coordination and for personnel to be willing to follow the process. Supportive Skills and Training The DOT design project manager and the utility coordinator must be able to discuss technical utility relocation issues with UCs. The design personnel should have basic training in util- ity relocation technical issues to incorporate the UCs’ needs in the project design. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement After a standard coordination process is in place, ongoing evaluation can provide lessons learned and guidance to improve continuously. At a minimum, utilities and DOTs should document and assess whether the early coordination process allows adequate time for the UCs to develop the relo- cation plan and meet the project schedule. The assessment should include whether early coordination improved inter- actions between the DOT and the UC, interactions between the UC and the contractor, the quality of the project design, and the efficiency of the design process. Delays (and avoid- ance of delays, where possible) should be documented and evaluated in relation to cause. Any other observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effectiveness of the practice or opportunities for improvement should also be recorded and evaluated. Best Practice #3: Training of DOT Designers on Utility Relocation Process Several state DOTs and UCs said many designers are not suf- ficiently knowledgeable of the utility relocation process and technical issues and suggested training programs to inform them. High turnover rates at DOTs have led to inexperienced people doing design. Utility networks can be very complex. A belief in the utility industry is that if DOT designers under- stood the complexity of some utility systems, a greater effort would be made to avoid utility relocation during highway design. Advancements in technology are also being made, providing new information that could be useful in the design and relocation process. Training would help designers and

34UCs use this information correctly. The training should occur before the design phase. Designers with a comprehensive understanding of the utility system and the relocation process can better consider utilities during the design process, increasing the potential for cost savings through innovative designs that avoid utility relocations. The development of a consistent procedure and better coordination with UCs can increase timely relocations and reduce utility delay claims. Potential Obstacles or Barriers Inadequate budgets at DOTs can result in the DOT and FHWA giving a low priority to training programs that design engineers need to understand the complex utility relocation process. Without the necessary training, inexperienced designers are limited to on-the-job training. Alternatively, even when training is available, aggressive project schedules may leave designers reluctant to invest time in optional training unless certification is required by the DOT or FHWA. Implementation Requirements Training materials and a training program are needed for engineers to gain a basic understanding of the utility reloca- tion process. It is important for the training organization to have the required curriculum knowledge to inform designers on the complex process of utility relocation. Supportive Skills and Training Designers need to be skilled in project management funda- mentals and must understand utility system technology, including subsurface utility fundamentals, and the utility relocation process. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement After a training program is in place, ongoing evaluation can provide lessons learned and guide improvement. At a mini- mum, the training process should be documented and assessed to determine it whether improves the quality of project design and the efficiency of the design process. The assessment should include whether early coordination improved interactions between the DOT and the UC and between the UC and the contractor, improved the quality of the project design, and improved the efficiency of the design process. Delays (and avoidance of delays, where possible) should be docu- mented and evaluated in relation to cause. Any other obser- vations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effectiveness of the practice or opportunities for improvement should be recorded and evaluated.Best Practice #4: Development of a Geographic Information System Database Computer-aided design (CAD) files and plans are efficient; however, utilities often do not have compatible software. Therefore, much of the work, including redlining each other’s plans, is still done on paper. State DOTs and utilities have extensive mapping resources, including general ones used at project inception and detailed ones created in the course of a project. CAD files can capture this information and make it more available at completion. Compiling these resources and making them available in a central location could be an advantage to state DOTs and UCs alike for permitting util- ities and planning future projects. This process should be implemented before design and review for ongoing use in those phases. Potential Obstacles or Barriers Although CAD capability adds efficiency, it also can present drawbacks: • Numerous utility entities with a large range of capabilities constantly install utilities. DOTs and UCs agree that it would be nearly impossible to maintain a central map of all this work. Two primary issues are funding constraints and security concerns. More commonly, DOTs retain informa- tion in project files on paper or electronically. • DOTs often have as-built files, but in most states, it is only recently that projects are filed in electronic format. • Some UCs have yet to invest in current technology or training. • Some UCs have lobbied against the use of CAD. • The use of geographic information system (GIS) databases is not universal. • Not all utilities are below ground. • Funding is an issue. • Addressing security issues is a concern for utility companies. • Without a national or state law requiring software compat- ibility, conversion and accuracy of data, and background mapping compatibility, it is difficult to reach consensus. • Telecoms are reluctant to share proprietary informa- tion because other companies might gain a competitive advantage. • As-built utility plans require accuracy to within 6 in. Getting that level of accuracy will be difficult. • It is difficult to deal with the large volume of data. Implementation Requirements State DOTs and UCs need an adequate budget to implement a fully functional electronic document management system to

35allow file sharing of DOT as-built drawings. The UCs as well as the DOTs will also need sufficient funding to purchase software licenses for all users, develop servers and outside firewalls that are secure but accessible to multiple entities, and provide train- ing to teach employees how to use GIS and related equipment. State DOTs and UCs need to collaborate to develop a plan for mapping the large backlog of historical utilities data and to establish a process for acquiring as-built utility plans of sufficient accuracy. Supportive Skills and Training Users must be trained in the use of the GIS software application. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement After a GIS system is in place, ongoing evaluation will provide lessons learned and guide improvement. At a minimum, util- ities and DOTs should document and assess whether the GIS system has improved the quality of project design and the effi- ciency of the design process. The assessment should include whether use of the system has improved interactions among the DOT, UCs, and contractors; improved the quality of the project design; and improved the efficiency of the design process. Delays (and avoidance of delays, where possible) should be documented and evaluated in relation to cause. Any other observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effec- tiveness of the practice or opportunities for improvement should also be recorded and evaluated. Best Practice #5: Preconstruction and Progress Meetings Holding preconstruction and progress meetings throughout the construction phase allows discussion of utility-related issues with timely resolution. It also encourages partnering among the utilities and contractors. On complex projects, it is particularly beneficial to hold a preconstruction meeting devoted to utility issues. Regular meetings with the UC can improve communications and relationships between the util- ities and contractors, and schedules can be coordinated. Potential Obstacles or Barriers Utility companies may not have the time to attend one or more scheduled meetings. The DOTs also may have time con- straints that make it difficult to decide if such a meeting is justified considering the uncertain attendance by UCs. Implementation Requirements DOTs and UCs need to cooperate to identify projects or proj- ect thresholds when preconstruction meetings are appropriate.Mutual agreement among the DOT, the utilities, and contrac- tors is needed to set meeting schedules and develop procedures to make the best use of the time. Supportive Skills and Training DOT construction managers could benefit from a fundamen- tal knowledge of utility relocation technology and processes. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation of preconstruction and progress meetings will yield lessons learned, identify areas where the process needs adjusting, and provide guidance to improvement. At minimum, DOTs, utilities, and contractors should document and assess whether preconstruction and progress meetings improve the quality of project design and increase the effi- ciency of the design process. The assessment should include whether the new process has improved interactions between the DOT and the UCs and between the UCs and contractors. Delays and avoidance of delays should be documented and evaluated to reveal cause. Any other participant observa- tions on the effectiveness of the practice or opportunities for improvement should be recorded and evaluated. Best Practice #6: Incentive for Early Relocation Some state DOTs allow the opportunity to reimburse a utility for the cost of relocating its facility. For example, in 2003, Ten- nessee amended its state code (Public Act Chapter 86) and allowed utility reimbursements to occur based on the discre- tion of the commissioner. The policy established that any grade and drain project with ROW acquisition or bridge replacement is eligible. Smaller projects (e.g., safety projects) with limited state and federal funds are not eligible for Chapter 86 reim- bursement. If a project is qualified for Chapter 86, then the utility must meet three conditions to receive reimbursement: (a) the utility must submit plans within 120 to 186 days as pro- vided in state statute, (b) the utility must have a valid permit for the existing facility, and (c) the utility must relocate before letting or work must be included in the state contract. Potential Obstacles or Barriers Any of the following circumstances may present obstacles or barriers and prevent reimbursement for early relocation incentives: • Only specific project types are eligible for reimbursement. • Decisions or thresholds on the types of projects to include must be developed, ideally with support and agreement from the utility industry.

36• UCs may not be able to perform the work before construction. • UCs may be reluctant to allow a state contractor to per- form the work. • Reimbursement for early relocation of utilities requires legislative approval in most states. • Early relocation of utilities requires additional funding. • Resource and regulatory agencies may still prefer to hold DOTs responsible for work occurring in the DOT ROW. Implementation Requirements In most states, reimbursement for early relocation of utilities will require supporting state legislation to provide the neces- sary funding. Whether it is approved by policy or legislation, an agreement on project thresholds for inclusion in utility relocation reimbursement is necessary. The policy should provide specific guidance of the relocation process, including timing requirements, limitations for reimbursement, permit requirements, and whether the UC’s or DOT’s contractor will perform the work. Training on state-specific policy and spe- cific project types is eligible for reimbursement. Supportive Skills and Training No additional training is required other than an audit review of reimbursement requests. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation can yield lessons learned, identify areas where the process could be tweaked, and give guidance for improvement. To evaluate the use of utility reimbursement policies, DOTs and UCs should document and assess whether reimbursement for early relocation improved the efficiency of the design process and reduced potential utility delays dur- ing construction. The assessment should include whether the new process improved interactions between the DOT and the UCs and between the UCs and the contractor. Delays and avoidance of delays should be documented and evaluated for cause. Observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effectiveness of reimbursing a utility for the cost of relocating its facility or opportunities for improvement should also be recorded and evaluated. Best Practice #7: Development of Utility and ROW Management Systems Several state DOTs have implemented the use of ROW and utility and management systems to manage the utility reloca- tion process more efficiently. The complexity of the manage- ment system varies between states, but the overall objective is to help DOTs manage and track all the information providedthroughout the project’s phases. Critical milestones can be identified and the management system can be used through- out all project phases. Potential Obstacles and Barriers Any of the following circumstances may present obstacles or barriers to the development of ROW and utility management systems: • Inadequate investment budget, • Time to test new software, • Time to train employees, and • Lack of proper training on how to use the ROW and util- ity management system effectively. Implementation Requirements Business processes must be revised to include the use of the information management tools, and DOT personnel must be willing to use the system to the full extent of its functionality. The management system needs the capability to contain a large volume of as-built information, use graphics to depict information, and have the ability to connect to other data- bases containing related information. Before implementation, requirements regarding data ownership, data stewardship, and data standards should be clearly articulated. The plan needs a process to control the quality of archived data and preserve the security of the system. Additional funding may be needed to provide training on how to use the system. Supportive Skills and Training Users must be trained in use of the ROW and utility manage- ment system software. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Evaluation of the management system should be continu- ous to document lessons learned, identify areas that need improvement, and provide guidance for improvement. To evaluate the ROW and utility management system, DOTs and utility companies should document and assess whether the sys- tem improved the efficiency of the design process, increased productivity, and saved time. The assessment should include whether the new process improved interactions between the DOT and the UCs and between the UCs and the contractor. Delays and avoidance of delays should be documented and evaluated for cause. Observations of DOTs, UCs, and con- tractors on the effectiveness of the use of ROW and utility and management systems to manage the utility relocation process or opportunities for improvement should also be recorded and evaluated.

37Best Practice #8: Inclusion of Utility Relocation Work in DOT Construction Contract Inclusion of the utility relocation work in the scope of the contractor’s work avoids many of the coordination issues and scheduling conflicts between the utility relocation and the DOT contractor’s work. Under this arrangement, funding agreements may provide for reimbursement to the state by the UC. The efficiency of the contractor may be increased when the contractor is in control of the facilities and the schedule. Potential Obstacles or Barriers Any of the following circumstances may present obstacles or barriers, preventing utility relocation work from being com- pleted by the construction contractor: • The UC must allow the highway contractor to perform the work. • The highway contractor might not have experience with the type of utility work in question. • Utility relocation work may add more time to the contract. • Additional utility relocation work increases costs. • The DOT has increased liability and scope of responsibility. Implementation Requirements The UC must be willing to allow the DOT’s contractor to per- form the work. In some states, this may require supporting state legislation because of the DOT’s increased liability. The DOT must be willing to accept the increased scope of responsi- bility and develop an agreement structure and process to ensure that the state’s contractor has the knowledge, skill level, and resources to be able to perform the utility relocation work alone. Supportive Skills and Training When utility relocation work is included in the construction contract, DOT construction staff will have responsibility for overseeing and inspecting the contractor’s work process. DOT construction staff will need training in the technical issues involved in relocation of utilities. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation can yield lessons learned, identify areas where the process needs improving, and provide guidance to improvement. To evaluate the effectiveness of incorporat- ing utility relocation work in the DOT construction con- tract, DOTs and UCs should document and assess if the new process avoids scheduling conflicts between the contractor and UCs, and whether the overall efficiency of the contractor is improved when the contractor is in control of the facilitiesand the schedule. The assessment should include whether the new process met the UC’s requirements and improved inter- actions between the DOT and UCs and between UCs and the contractor. Delays (and avoidance of delays) should be docu- mented and evaluated for cause. Observations of DOTs, UCs, and contractors on the effectiveness of including utility relo- cation work in the scope of the contractor’s work or oppor- tunities for improvement should also be recorded. Best Practice #9: Subsurface Utility Engineering Subsurface utility engineering (SUE) can be used to locate exist- ing underground utilities and identify potential conflicts. SUE determines underground utility locations through records, surface features, surface geophysical methods, and excavation. Various levels of effort can be used to manage risks associated with incomplete or inaccurate utility information. CI/ASCE 38-02, “Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data,” is a basis for developing a scope of work for utility mapping. Best Practice #3 discusses training programs to teach employees when and how to use SUE information. Potential Obstacles or Barriers The use of SUE can provide valuable information, but at a cost. Other barriers also affect its use: • There may be an increased budget when SUE is not avail- able as a non-project-specific service. • It may be difficult to document cost-effectiveness of SUE. • It may be difficult to evaluate the benefits of SUE. • Qualified SUE providers may not be available. • Guidance is lacking on when and where SUE should be used for maximum cost-effectiveness. • Understanding of the importance of SUE may be lacking. • Training is needed to use SUE services effectively. • Expectations of the precision of SUE may be unrealisti- cally high. Implementation Requirements Additional money and training are needed to use SUE services effectively. Guidelines need to be developed on the require- ments for SUE providers so DOTs can determine where and when it should be used and at what level. Training on the effective use of SUE is necessary for employees, and designers must be willing to use the information provided. Supportive Skills and Training DOT design engineers must be skilled in the use of SUE to determine where and when SUE should be used.

38Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation of the use of SUE can provide lessons learned, identify areas for improvement, and guide improve- ment. To evaluate the use of SUE, DOTs should document and assess whether the use of SUE improves the efficiency of the design process, if it provides accurate utility information, and if it results in time savings and a reduction of utility relo- cation costs by allowing the designer to avoid potential util- ity conflicts. The assessment should include whether the new process improved interactions between the DOT and the UCs and between the UCs and the contractor. Delays (and avoid- ance of delays) should be documented and evaluated for cause. Observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effective- ness of the use of SUE should also be recorded. Best Practice #10: Utility Coordination Meeting Held During Design Phase Several state DOTs and UCs stated that a utility coordination meeting is held during the project design phase to determine conflicts, analyze alternative design options, and open the lines of communication between the DOT and UCs. The inter- viewees highly recommended a face-to-face meeting as a valu- able communication tool; however, ultimately, this practice was dropped as part of industry review team feedback. Best Practice #11: Utility Impact Matrix Georgia DOT uses a utility impact matrix on every project involving utilities. All utility conflicts are listed and a SUE con- sultant provides a resolution recommendation. Resolutions may include relocating the utility or adjusting the highway design. This management tool identifies potential conflicts and analyzes for the best solution. Utility relocation costs may be reduced by allowing the designer to make informed design decisions around potential utility conflicts. Potential Obstacles or Barriers The use of a utility impact matrix can clarify project conflicts and indicate solutions. At the same time, using a utility impact matrix is not simple: • Design engineers must be trained in the use of a matrix. • A utility impact matrix may not be justified for all proj- ects; simple low-impact utility projects may not require this activity. Implementation Requirements A SUE consultant may be needed to identify every utility con- flict and recommend a resolution, which requires additional time and funding.Supportive Skills and Training DOT designers must be trained in the use of the utility impact matrix to make informed decisions about potential utility conflicts. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation can yield lessons learned, identify areas for improvement, and guide improvement. To evaluate the effectiveness of a utility impact matrix, DOTs should docu- ment and assess whether use of the tool improved the qual- ity of project design and reduced utility conflicts during construction and whether the process improved interactions between the DOT and the UCs and between the UCs and the contractor. Delays and avoidance of delays should be docu- mented and evaluated for cause. Observations of DOTs, UCs, or contractors on the effectiveness of a utility impact matrix should be recorded. Best Practice #12: SUE Rating Procedures Many state DOTs cited the use of SUE as a best practice, but also noted as a barrier not knowing where and when to use the SUE process. Some states have created tools and guide- lines to help determine how SUE should be used on certain projects and which level of SUE quality should be used. Potential Obstacles and Barriers SUE can provide valuable information, but certain circum- stances may not warrant its use: • Newly developed tools and guidelines may not be all- encompassing. A situation might occur that is not con- sidered in the guidelines; therefore, it is still a judgment call on the part of the designer. • Some training is required for designers to know when and where to use SUE. Implementation Requirements Guides or forms need to be developed by the DOT or adapted for use by design engineers to help determine if the SUE process should be used on a certain project. Design engineers must be trained in the use of forms or guides. Supportive Skill and Training DOT design engineers must have basic training in SUE fundamentals and be trained in the use of the SUE impact rating form.

39Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation of the forms can yield lessons learned, identify areas where the process needs improving, and guide improvement. To evaluate the effectiveness of SUE impact rating forms, DOTs should document and assess whether use of the rating form improved the efficient use of SUE and resulted in reduced design cost and time. The assessment should include whether the use of a rating form improved the quality of project design and reduced utility conflicts during construction and whether the process improved interactions between the DOT and the UC and between the UC and the contractor. Delays and avoidance of delays should be docu- mented and evaluated for cause. Observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effectiveness of the use of SUE rating procedures should be recorded. Best Practice #13: Work Site Utility Coordination Supervisor Georgia DOT requires a work site utility coordination super- visor on every project that uses SUE. The state’s contractor must hire this supervisor to coordinate utilities during the con- struction phase and create an Emergency Response Plan for every project and foreseeable event, such as knowing where the nearest cutoff valve is in case of a water main break. Potential Conflicts or Barriers Employing a worksite utility coordination supervisor may require consideration of certain constraints: • Amendments to the construction specifications may be needed to require the contractor to develop a comprehen- sive emergency response plan. • DOT funding will be required for the contractor to provide a work site utility coordinator. • There may be a lack of available qualified personnel with sufficient understanding or training in UC needs and processes. • DOT may remain in facilitation or conflict resolution role. Implementation Requirements The DOT will need to identify and hire contractors who can provide competent utility coordination supervisors who are knowledgeable of the utility relocation process and have a good relationship with the UCs. The roles and respon- sibilities of the utility coordination supervisor will have to be clearly articulated and included in the construction contract.Supportive Skills and Training The work site coordination engineer must be a skilled project manager with an understanding of the utility relocation tech- nology and processes and technical survey and utility location processes. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Ongoing evaluation of work site supervisors should occur in order to learn from weaknesses, identify areas where the process could be tweaked, and continuously improve. To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of a work site utility coor- dination supervisor, DOTs should document and assess whether use of the supervisor improved interactions between the DOT and the UC and between the UC and the contrac- tor. Delays and avoidance of delays should be documented and evaluated in relation to cause. Any other observations of UCs, DOTs, or contractors on the effectiveness of a work site utility coordination supervisor or opportunities for improve- ment should also be recorded. Toolbox of Practices Practices in the toolbox cover the whole project life cycle, as shown in Figure 1. The recommended practices that have been included in the toolbox are organized for each tool or practice with the following information: 1. Best practice title 2. Detailed description 3. Source (who has implemented this) 4. History (when started, results) 5. Implementation requirements 6. Possible barriers 7. Expected benefits 8. Potential evaluation factors and considerations This toolbox, including a detailed summary of each best practice, appears in Appendix B. The industry review team helped to develop and identify implementation issues. Evaluation of Practices DOT and Industry Comments The research team developed a one-page form for DOT and industry comments on the recommended practices. The request for comments was sent to all DOTs and previously identified utility industry contacts. DOTs were asked to obtain input from the utilities in their state. A summary of the results is provided in Table 6.

40Figure 1. Recommended practices by phase.Respondents ranked “Advance Relocation of Utilities” highest in value provided and “Providing a Work Site Utility Supervisor” as the least valuable. The remaining recommended practices ranked closely in value ratings. Following is the list of rankings from most to least valuable: • Advance relocation of utilities; • Data server with DOT as-built information, linked to GIS; • Statewide GIS layers with all utilities; • Electronic information-sharing system for plans, redlining, and comments; • Preconstruction meetings; • DOT ROW/utility management systems; • Utility relocation work included in DOT construction contract; • Subsurface utility engineering; and • Use of utility impact matrix. A second set was ranked slightly less valuable: • Early notification of UCs (e.g., 30% design or earlier); • Education for designers on other organization’s (DOT or UC) needs and processes; • Progress meetings during construction;• DOT reimbursement of utility relocation; and • Guidance when and where to use SUE, such as impact rating. DOTs and UCs indicated that the most helpful practice for improving the quality of design would be education for designers on each other’s needs and processes. This was also gauged as the practice that would most improve the efficiency of the design process. Early notification of UCs (at 30% design or less) was estimated to be the practice with the best potential for improving the relationship between the DOT and the UC. A work site utility coordination supervisor or engineer was judged to be the best practice to reduce delays in the construction phase, closely followed by advance relocation of utilities. To varying degrees, DOTs indicated their interest in implementing and evaluating best practices that they were not currently using. DOTs were most interested in imple- menting information systems. Most DOTs were interested in implementing an electronic information-sharing system for plans, redlining, and comments. Statewide GIS layers with all utilities and data servers with DOT as-built information linked to GIS were also of interest. Respondents were also asked to suggest evaluation factors for the best practice implementation. Identified factors were

41If Not Using Which Are the Practice, Best, Given Are You Do You the Effort? Improve Improve Reduce Interested in Use this (# from Improve the Efficiency Relationship Delays Implementing It? Practice/ 1-least to Quality of of the between in the % Interested Strategy 15-most Project Design the DOT Construction and Very % Yes benefit) Design? Process? and UC? Phase? Interested Advance relocation of utilities 100.0% 9.4 1.6 2.6 2.0 3.5 0.0% Early notification of UCs 100.0% 8.5 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.4 33.3% (e.g. 30% Design or earlier) Education for Designers on 66.7% 8.8 3.0 3.3 2.7 2.0 33.3% other organization’s (DOT or UC’s) needs and processes Data server with DOT as built 16.7% 8.9 NA NA NA NA 50.0% information, linked to GIS Statewide GIS layer(s) with 0.0% 8.9 NA NA NA NA 50.0% all utilities Electronic information sharing 0.0% 8.9 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.6 66.7% system for plans, red- lining, and comments Pre-construction meetings 100.0% 8.9 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.6 NA Progress meetings during 83.3% 8.8 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.4 NA construction DOT reimbursement of utility 66.7% 8.8 2.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 0.0% relocation DOT Utility/ROW 50.0% 8.9 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.5 16.7% Management Systems Utility relocation work included 66.7% 8.9 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.5 0.0% in DOT Construction Contract Subsurface Utility Engineering 100.0% 8.9 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.5 NA (SUE) Use of Utility Impact Matrix 50.0% 8.9 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.5 33.3% Guidance when and where to 50.0% 8.8 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 0.0% use SUE; e.g. impact rating Worksite Utility Coordination 16.7% 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 16.7% Supervisor/Engineer Table 6. Summary of DOT and Industry Comment on Recommended Practicesconsidered in the development of the following evaluation assessments. Innovation Many of the best practices are not new. In fact, they are well- proven management principles and continue to be valid tools for improvement. For example, continuous and early com-munication is a fundamental project management principle. Some of the practices are becoming common, as word of their effectiveness spreads, including advance relocation of utilities, early notification of UCs (e.g., 30% design or earlier), and SUE. DOT reimbursement for utility relocation and inclusion of utility relocation work in DOT construction contracts are becoming more common. DOTs and UCs are also stepping up educating their designers on each other’s processes.

42Newer developments include guidance on when and where to use SUE, use of utility impact matrices, and data servers with DOT as-built information linked to GIS. Some areas still require much work, investment, and innovation. SUE may have evolved from an innovation to a standard practice; how- ever, the engineering and management tools for using SUE require additional innovation. The information technology tools suggested for ROW/utility management systems are still emerging and under development in some cases. GIS data management is also emerging. The suggested paradigm of the DOT and UC working as partners would chart new territory, especially in changing the role of the DOT to the custodian of a transportation corridorthat transports many different commodities (vehicles, peo- ple, and utilities). Development of Suggested Evaluation Framework The evaluation and testing strategy used a qualitative evalua- tion instrument to provide results feedback from key project participants, with specifics structured to address the main features of the particular strategy and expected outcomes. Preliminary prototypes of these assessments were developed on the general outline shown in Figure 2.Has the practice been implemented? Yes No How frequently is the practice used? Implementation problems (address more specifically in Part 3 below)? Yes No PART 2 – EVALUATION SPECIFIC TO BEST PRACTICE On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being a negative effect, 5 being no effect, and 10 being significant improvement over previous practices, rate the effect of this Best Practice on the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Communication between DOT and Utility Overall relationship between DOT and Utility Relationship between DOT/Utility and Contractor(s) Design Efficiency Consistency in Design Process Information Sharing Among Internal Stakeholders (DOT, Utility, Contractor) Information Sharing Among External Stakeholders (Facility Users, Public, Other Agencies) Avoidance of Utility Conflicts Construction Operations Overall Project Quality Overall Project Cost Figure 2. Sample assessment/evaluation form. (continued on next page)

43PART 3 – QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION 1. What worked well as this Best Practice was utilized? 2. Describe problems encountered during implementation of this specific Best Practice (without regard for simultaneous implementation of any other Best Practice). 3. Do you believe change orders were avoided by employing this Best Practice? Yes No Describe: 4. Did utilization of this Best Practice alter the project construction schedule? Yes No Specify how advance relocation of utilities affected this particular project schedule: 5. What would you recommend be changed to improve the effectiveness of this Best Practice? 6. Do you believe this Best Practice is generally applicable to all projects? Yes No Discuss reason(s) for your answer: Figure 2. (Continued).Recommended Procedures for Typical Utility Relocation Planning Recommended Practice: Involve Utilities Early in the Planning and Design Phase The following actions support cooperation during project planning: • Provide utility companies with long-range highway con- struction schedules. • Host meetings with utility companies to discuss future highway projects. • Recognize the importance of long-range highway/utility coordination. The better utilities can foresee potential impacts on highway projects to their systems, the more responsive they will be to transportation agency needs and the better they can account for such impacts in their capital construction programs. Conversely, transporta-tion agencies will improve the quality of project scoping, budgeting, and design efforts if they can obtain early information on utility construction programs and poten- tial conflicts. • Furnish information on the DOT long-range highway schedule, such as annual budgets, 5- or 10-year plans, pro- jected advertisement dates, or other information available to provide early notice. Be prepared to discuss ROW cor- ridor or other major projects and their potential impacts on existing utilities. Identify probable conflicts and ensure this information is communicated to the project designer and reflected in the project scope. • Solicit similar information on utility owner’s capital con- struction programs, particularly where a utility’s planned expansion or reconstruction may encroach on and coincide with a planned highway project. Look for opportunities to coordinate overlapping projects so that costs and public impact may be minimized. Through schedule changes, try to avoid situations such as where a new buried utility line disrupts a newly reconstructed highway.

44• Consider using the long-range planning meeting as a con- venient forum to discuss other highway/utility issues, such as accommodation policies and reimbursement. What begins as a series of informal planning meetings could eventually evolve into a local, regional, or statewide utility coordination committee. – Florida DOT provides a 5-year work program to utility companies semiannually and is exploring ways to make more use of the web to keep UCs current. – In Nevada, monthly meetings with local utility compa- nies and local entities are held in the Las Vegas area to enable participants to address upcoming project needs and identify better ways to improve future projects when dealing with utility relocations. These meetings provide an opportunity for Nevada DOT to better coordinate efforts with county officials and utilities to prevent proj- ect delays and costly mitigation. – Montana DOT provides 5-year long-range project sched- ules to all utility companies. These schedules are segre- gated by geographical area. • Consider providing earlier preliminary notice to utility companies to allow the utility companies to budget for relocations and have sufficient personnel available to do the work. • Provide utility companies with a notice of proposed high- way improvements and preliminary plans as early in the development of highway projects as possible. Ensure that utility companies understand that the dates on which the work may actually take place are subject to change, the preliminary plans are subject to many changes, and no relocation work should begin until firm letting dates have been established, plans have been substantially completed, and the DOT provides notification that work can begin. – In Wisconsin, all utility facilities that the DOT is rea- sonably able to recognize are included in such a notice. Within a reasonable time, usually about 60 days, util- ity companies are expected to respond to the notice and provide a description of facilities in the vicinity of the improvements, including specific reasons or needs for those facilities to remain in place or be relocated. After each utility responds to the notice, the DOT mails the utility at least one set of preliminary project plans. These plans should show all existing utility facilities known to the DOT in areas where they will conflict with the improvements. This process is fol- lowed by the Wisconsin DOT in accordance with a state law enacted to prescribe minimum utility coor- dination requirements to prevent utility relocations from delaying highway projects [Sec. 84.063, Wis. Stats. Utility Facility Relocations and related Admin- istrative Rule Trans 220].– In Missouri, the DOT furnishes microstation plan files to utility companies to reduce the drafting work by the utility companies. This process expedites development of utility relocation plans on a project. – In Florida, the DOT provides utility companies with advance notice of proposed highway improvements and furnishes preliminary route plans.  The DOT also submits 30%, 60%, and 90% plans to utility companies as part of the design process.  At least one Florida DOT district sends the utilities a monthly mail-out listing all projects in the produc- tion and letting cycle. This practice typically gives the utilities about 18 months of advance notice on planned projects.  Twice yearly, the DOT sends its 5-year work program to all utility companies in the state.  The Florida Utility Coordination Committee meets quarterly at different locations in the state.  The DOT maintains a utility web page containing its 5-year work program; names, addresses, and contact numbers of district utility engineers; advice on obtaining permits; and permit forms and agreements. – Georgia and South Carolina DOTs also host regular meetings with utility companies to advise them of pending projects and to review and submit preliminary plans to utility companies. Design Recommended Practices: Involve Utilities Early in the Planning and Design Phase and Hold Utility Coordination Meetings During the Design Phase The following actions support cooperation in the design phase: • Involve utility companies in the design phase of highway projects where major relocations are anticipated, to reduce conflict. Cost-effective advance planning is essential to utility companies because they must now compete under deregulation. The DOT’s help and cooperation is needed more than ever. It is not good business, and may have neg- ative political consequences, if DOTs attempt to dictate to utility companies. – Meet often with utility owners and highway designers, throughout the development of projects to coordinate ongoing activities. – Conduct onsite meetings or plan-in-hands with utility companies to determine utility conflicts and appropri- ate resolutions. – Conduct monthly detailed meetings on major projects, at a minimum, for all parties to keep abreast of the proj- ect status and changes.

45– DOT project engineers should meet individually with representatives from every utility company to minimize the possibility the DOT will reject utilities’ relocation plans and require redesign of the relocation. Early involvement can decrease the cost and impact of proj- ects by identifying conflicts that can be avoided. – Involve utility companies in the right-of-way design phase to ensure utility companies have room between the construction limits and the new ROW where facili- ties will relocate.  Pennsylvania DOT holds onsite meetings with utility companies in all 11 of its engineering districts. This produces valuable information for and from involved utilities and has not appeared to affect the time frame of projects.  Virginia DOT contacts utility owners during the design phases of projects where major relocations are anticipated. This allows planners to understand relo- cation needs and to identify major ROW corridor requirements for anticipated relocations. This has worked particularly well for major power transmis- sion and petroleum pipeline relocations. Virginia DOT has had only limited success involving utilities on projects where few relocations are anticipated because utility owners seem to prefer to wait until after the design has been essentially completed to discuss relocations. Virginia DOT strives to avoid or minimize relocations through application of its SUE program.  Some states such as Iowa design ROW limits at least 8 m beyond the construction limits to allow utility companies room to relocate facilities. • Conduct onsite utility meetings or utility plan-in-hands with utility companies to determine utility conflicts and resolution. • Participate in local One Call notification programs to the maximum extent practicable according to state law. “Util- ity companies in Germany are responsible for identifying all of their underground facilities and making this information known to highway contractors prior to excavation. High- way contractors in The Netherlands are required to call a national information center to obtain pertinent informa- tion about underground utilities in the area before they begin excavation activities. Highway contractors in United Kingdom must notify all affected utilities before they begin to dig. Despite these activities, damage to underground util- ities continues to occur. Extensive One Call notification programs have been developed in the United States to reduce damage to underground utilities caused by excava- tion activities. Even so, damage continues to occur. In order to protect underground utilities from unnecessary damage, state DOTs should utilize One Call notification centers atan appropriate level of participation, and should provide sufficient oversight to assure that highway contractors fully participate in One Call notification programs” (3 at 37). FHWA considers damage prevention to be a two-part process involving subsurface utility engineering during the early development of a project and One Call notification during the construction phase of a project. – Require contractors to fully participate in local One Call notification programs whether required by state law or not. (DOTs in several states are specifically excluded from One Call requirements, but contractors are not). This would include contacting the local One Call center before digging, waiting for the site to be marked before beginning to excavate, protecting the markings after they are placed, and hand digging within 2 ft on either side of marked lines. – DOTs should provide oversight to ensure compliance. Penalties should be assessed for noncompliance. – Contractors should be held responsible for damage caused by noncompliance. – State DOTs own or manage many underground utilities— sometimes vast, statewide networks for traffic signaliza- tion, lighting, intelligent transportation systems, and other purposes. Some DOTs are specifically exempted by state law from having to participate in local One Call activities. Montana DOT is securing proposals for a locating services company to locate state-owned facili- ties for all One Call requests. Recommended Practice: Use Subsurface Utility Engineering Where Appropriate The appropriate use of SUE is necessary to obtain the critical information needed for quality designs. SUE can be used to locate existing underground utilities and identify potential conflicts. SUE determines underground utility locations by using records, surface features, surface geophysical methods, and vacuum excavation. Various levels of SUE can be used to find the degree of precision needed. CI/ASCE 38-02, “Stan- dard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data,” serves as a basis for development of a scope of work regarding utility mapping. Recommended Practice: Use a SUE Rating Tool Designers must apply SUE resources judiciously. It is impor- tant to determine what quality level of SUE effort is needed at different locations in a project. Many state DOTs cited the use of SUE as a best practice but also noted not knowing where and when to use SUE as a barrier. Some states have created tools and guidelines to help determine whether SUE should

46be used on a certain project and what quality level of SUE effort should be used. Recommended Practice: Use a Utility Impact Matrix This is a management tool for identifying potential utility conflicts and analyzing the best solution for each problem. Utility relocation costs may be reduced by allowing the designer to make informed design decisions around potential utility conflicts. Georgia DOT uses a utility impact matrix on every project involving utilities. Every utility conflict is listed, and a SUE consultant provides a resolution recommenda- tion. Resolutions may include relocating the utility or adjust- ing the highway design. Recommended Practice: Develop a GIS Database Develop a GIS database as a tool to facilitate management and transfer of critical location and characterization information. State DOTs and utilities have extensive mapping resources, including general ones that are used at project inception and detailed ones that are created during a project and that could be made more widely available at completion. Compiling these resources and making them available in a central location would benefit state DOTs and UCs alike for per- mitting utilities and planning future projects. This process should be implemented before design and review. Because of the high development cost, a pooled fund approach may be necessary. Recommended Practice: Develop a Utility and ROW Management System Several state DOTs have implemented the use of ROW and utility management systems to manage the utility relocation process more efficiently. The complexity of the management system varies between states, but the overall objective is to help DOTs manage and track all the information provided throughout the project’s phases. Critical milestones can also be identified. The management systems can be used through- out all phases of the project. As noted above, this practice is a candidate for a pooled development effort. Construction Recommended Practice: Schedule Advance Relocation of Utility Work When possible, completing utility relocations before the start of construction can help avoid delays. Either the state’s con- tractor or the utility company involved in the relocation mayrelocate the conflicting utilities before highway construction begins. This practice may not always be possible due to work sequencing issues or other factors discussed below. Several states reported using this best practice successfully. Recommended Practice: Provide Reimbursement Incentives for Early Relocation Some states have successfully participated in providing incen- tive reimbursement to utilities for early relocation. These DOTs have determined that for certain project situations the benefit of obtaining early relocation more than offsets the reimbursement cost. This may be a project-specific issue. Also, reimbursement may require legislative change. Recommended Practice: Hold Preconstruction and Progress Meetings Invite utility companies to preconstruction meetings and encourage or require utility companies, contractors, and proj- ect staff to hold regular meetings, as appropriate, during the construction phase of a project. • Encourage or require all utility owners who must coordi- nate their relocation work with the highway construction to attend the project preconstruction conference. The pur- pose of their participation is the following: – Establish contact with the DOT project manager and the contractor’s organization. – Confirm the utility’s physical relocation plans. – Verify the utility’s relocation schedule and notification and coordination requirements as described in the proj- ect specifications. – Resolve other coordination details, such as signing and traffic control and site preparation by highway contractor. – Give utility owner representatives sufficient advance written meeting notice to facilitate their attendance. – Confirm their planned attendance by follow-up tele- phone call. – Designate a specific time during the preconstruction meeting to address utility issues. – Honor that meeting schedule and allow the utility rep- resentatives to be present only as needed during the reserved time period. – Depending on the number and complexity of the utility conflicts, reserve separate times for individual utility owners. – At the discretion of the DOT’s utility engineer or utility liaison, hold a separate preconstruction meeting with utility representatives and utility subcontractors. This

47sometimes provides a more comfortable setting for util- ities to address their coordination needs. If potentially serious concerns are identified, the DOT representative can then provide liaison between the utility and the highway contractor. A separate meeting with utility representatives may also avoid tying up the time of other DOT and contractor representatives who may have lit- tle direct involvement with the utility issues.  Wyoming recommends that utilities affected by proj- ect construction attend the preconstruction confer- ence. The Wyoming DOT assigns levels of utility involvement with a project so that utility companies and contractors are familiar with the extent of each utility company and contractor coordination work that is necessary. Wyoming also invites utility companies affected by a project to attend partnering meetings.  The Virginia DOT encourages or requires regular meetings between the contractor, utility owners, and others on major projects. Recommended Practice: Include Utility Work in the Construction Contract Inclusion of the utility relocation work in the scope of the con- tractor’s work avoids many of the coordination issues and scheduling conflicts between the utility relocation and the DOT contractor’s work. Under this arrangement, funding agreements may provide for reimbursement to the state by the UC. The efficiency of contractors may be increased when they have control of the facilities and the schedule. The UC must be willing to allow the DOT’s contractor to perform the work. In some states this may require supporting state legis- lation because of the DOT’s increased liability, and the DOT must be willing to accept the increased scope of responsi- bility and develop an agreement structure and process to ensure that the state’s contractor has the knowledge, skill level, and resources to be able to perform the utility reloca- tion work alone. Recommended Practice: Use a Work Site Utility Coordination Supervisor Complex projects may warrant the assignment of a project utility coordinator. This person would serve as an additional resource, coordinating utility issues during construction. Georgia DOT requires a work site utility coordination super- visor on every project that uses SUE. The state’s contractor must hire this supervisor to coordinate utilities during the construction phase. This person must also create an emer- gency response plan for every project and foreseeable event (e.g., where the nearest cutoff valve is in case of a water main break).Other Value-Adding Procedures Recommended Practice: Provide Training for DOT Designers Develop a complete basic and advanced training program for new employees and continuing education for experienced staff. Several state DOTs and UCs claimed that many design- ers are not sufficiently knowledgeable of the utility relocation process (and technical issues) and suggested that training programs be held to teach them. High turnover rates at DOTs have led to inexperienced people doing design, and utility networks can be very complex. There is a feeling in the utility industry that if DOT designers understood the complexity of some utility systems, a greater effort would be made to avoid utility relocation during highway design. Advancements in technology are also being made, providing new informa- tion that could be used in the design and relocation process. Training must be done to get designers and UCs to use this information correctly. This practice should be employed before the design phase. When designers have a comprehensive understanding of the utility system and the relocation process, consideration of utilities during the design process will increase the potential for cost savings with innovative designs that avoid utility relocations. The development of a consistent procedure to follow and better coordination with the UC can increase timely relocations, reduce utility delay claims, and gain the confidence of the people with whom you are working. Additional training needs include basic project manage- ment fundamentals and training in the best use of SUE as a design aid. Take the lead in developing and supporting utility coordi- nating committees. It is important to enhance cooperation, coordination, and communication with utility companies. “According to the U.S. GAO, the states that have active utilities coordinating committees that meet on a regular basis to dis- cuss common problems have fewer utility-related problems than other states. The team recommends that state DOTs continue and intensify efforts to meet with utility company representatives regularly. DOTs should take the lead in devel- oping and supporting utilities coordinating committees” (3 at p. 35). • The Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee meets quar- terly at various locations around the state. It is well attended by state DOT and utility company personnel. Many common problems are discussed and many issues are resolved. In addition, these 2-day meetings provide suf- ficient time for networking and social interaction, both of which contribute significantly to better understanding and better working relationships.

48• The North Carolina and South Carolina Utilities Coordi- nating Committees meet annually for a 2-day joint meet- ing, alternating each year from state to state. Both have many chapters that meet regularly at locations around the states. Consider Standardizing the Qualifications of Utility Coordinators Utilities and the technical aspects of their relocation engi- neering have become significantly more complex. Utility coordinators employed by DOTs, contractors, or UCs need a strong knowledge and experience foundation. This area of practice has had little structure for training and experience qualifications. A national certification process may be the logical outcome of the development of training and experi- ence standards. Although many issues must be resolved, the researchers recommend that this subject be given further consideration and development. A suggested research pro- posal has been included for further investigation of the feasi- bility of a national certification program. Roles and Responsibilities In addition to procedures, clear roles and responsibilities are essential. The following sections list generic functions and responsibilities. Generic DOT Functions Related to Utilities The DOT utility agreements and permits unit • Ensures that state statutes and rules regarding utility relo- cation are followed, • Implements the accommodation policy, • Issues notice and orders, • Executes utility agreements (payable and receivable), and • Issues permits for permanent utility installations. The utilities engineer • Oversees the activities of the utility agreements and per- mits unit; • Approves utility agreements; • Issues notices, orders, and permits on behalf of the com- missioner of transportation; • Enforces the DOT’s utility accommodation policy, if one exists; • Helps resolve outstanding utility issues; and • Coordinates utilities, including municipally owned facili- ties, on design–build projects.The utility agreement writer • Reviews district plans and recommends changes, • Prepares and sends all notices and orders, • Prepares and processes utility relocation agreements, and • Acts as a liaison between the district and the utility owners and serves as a central resource for utility issues. The utility permit writer • Reviews and processes all applications for long-form utility permits to install permanent facilities on highway ROW, • Suggests changes to applications if necessary, and • Issues permits (often with special provisions) for any utility work to be performed in state ROW. DOT Municipal Agreements A municipal agreements section or unit prepares and admin- isters municipal agreements, which include cooperative construction agreements, landscape partnership agreements, detour agreements, and signal agreements with cities, coun- ties, soil and water conservation districts, and state and fed- eral agencies. The municipal agreements engineer • Administers and coordinates agreements with municipal- ities for municipally owned utility facilities that are affected by construction or utility betterments as a result of con- struction, cooperative construction elements in state-let or locally let contracts, or other agreements as needed; • Encumbers funds to pay local units of government or coordinates invoices to pay the state for construction elements; • Develops and implements policies and procedures to address current laws and regulations; and • Distributes information to provide guidance for continu- ous improvement of agreement procedures. The municipal agreement writer • Provides engineering expertise and acts as a liaison to the district to assist with the development of the agreements necessary for highway construction projects; • Verifies that elements of a construction project comply with the DOT’s policy and procedure for cooperative con- struction projects with local units of government, if one exists; and • Writes the municipal agreements with the coordination and assistance of the project manager.

49DOT Office of Contract Management The DOT Office of Contract Management • Prepares legal documents, with the preparatory negotia- tions and receipt of signatures conducted by district staff; • Provides a legal review of all utility agreements; and • Holds authority to sign utility agreements of up to $1 mil- lion on behalf of the Department of Administration. DOT Office of Land Management or Right-of-Way ROW professionals assist other DOT staff by obtaining nec- essary right-of-way and preparing quitclaim deeds on trans- portation projects that require additional right-of-way. DOT Office of Bridges and Structures The Office of Bridges and Structures • Reviews preliminary plans and highlights conflicts between utility facilities and bridges; • Sends highlighted plans to the project manager, who col- lects all of the information, confirms relocation issues with utility owners, and requests accommodation; • Designs the accommodation elements for an attachment to or design into a bridge after receiving an accommoda- tion request; • Prepares cost estimates for accommodations and forwards them to the utility agreements and permits unit to use in a utility agreement; and • Receives permit requests from districts to accommodate utility facilities on bridges and evaluates these requests and reviews, comments, and approves the plans that the utility owners send with their requests to determine if the pro- posed accommodation is possible. Generic DOT District Functions Related to Utilities The district design team • Identifies utilities early in the design phase, • Conducts utility information meetings and utility design meetings, • Communicates project design and coordinates utility relo- cation with affected operators, and • Reviews utility relocation plans and permits.The district engineer or assistant district engineer • Sets the priorities and budgets for transportation projects in the district, • Oversees the district’s transportation projects and supports the work of those who are involved in the different parts of the process at the district level, and • Signs utility agreements and permits. The project manager • Is responsible for the overall project during the plan devel- opment process, or is part of a group of individuals who are responsible for a particular stage of project develop- ment in the plan development process; • Is responsible for overseeing activities to ensure their proper coordination, whether or not the project manager completes the task or delegates the responsibility for the task to another; and • Oversees many important roles on utility coordination, including: – Identifying utilities that a project will impact, – Conducting utility meetings, and – Leading review of permits. The design engineer, design project manager, or district util- ity coordinator may oversee or complete all or some of the util- ity coordination responsibilities of the project manager. The design project manager may also oversee all of the responsibil- ities on consultant-designed projects, making sure the consult- ant understands and completes all tasks satisfactorily. The construction group includes construction resident engineers, construction project engineers, field engineers, inspectors, and field crews. This group • Assists with the review of utility relocation plans, • Coordinates the placement and relocation of utilities dur- ing construction, and • Coordinates daily inspection of work to ensure compliance with plans and specifications and for monitoring progress as a means for justifying payment. The right-of-way/land management group assists other DOT staff by obtaining the ROW necessary for a project. The surveys team collects data on utility facilities in the proposed project for the project manager. The data include detailed, accurate information on aboveground appurte- nances. This team may gather horizontal locations of under- ground utilities that may be provided through One Call field locates.

50The permits team • Processes many different types of permits, including access, drainage, and short-form utility permits for temporary installations and maintenance projects; • Checks the accuracy of long-form utility permits; • Verifies field location; • Reviews requests for exceptions to the accommodation policy and provides input; • Reviews utility permits and provides comments or changes or adds special provisions; • Ensures that appropriate district units review utility permits; • Determines additional bond requirements; and • Ensures that utilities complete restoration. Generic Non-DOT Functions Legal Counsel The attorney general assigns an assistant attorney general to act as counsel to the DOT on utility-related issues. One Call One Call, which is part of the Department of Public Safety, is the statewide One Call notification system for underground utilities. It provides information about the utility facilities that excavation may affect. State law typically requires any organization or individual whose plans include excavation to contact One Call before digging. Government Agencies Governing authorities such as municipalities, townships, counties, park boards, other states, or state agencies other than the DOT are government agencies. Utility relocation on DOT projects may impact these agencies; therefore, it is important to include them early in the utility coordination process. Utility Owner The utility owner • Verifies the company’s facilities on preliminary plans; • Reviews plans; • Participates in design and related meetings and attends mandatory meetings with all utility owners as part of the design process, including utility information meetings and utility design meetings;• Submits relocation plans and schedules; • Coordinates the company’s relocation work with the DOT and its contractors; • Gets permits when performing work in the right-of-way of an interstate, U.S., or state highway. The work may consist of, but is not limited to, – Excavating – Placing fill materials – Grading – Paving – Surveying – Boring under a highway – Installing an overhead line – Blocking traffic • Acquires utility permits to construct, operate, or maintain a utility facility. This includes, but is not limited to, gas, electric, phone, cable, cellular, fiber optics, water, and san- itary sewer. Necessary Additions for Effective Utility Issue Management The following results are from a synthesis of the research team’s in-depth discussions with industry professionals, from both DOTs and UCs, who are actively engaged in addressing utility coordination issues. People are our most important resource, and people are a common element in each of the recommendations below. Training and motivating people at each step in the process requires organizational investment, commitment, and leadership. A Partnering Relationship The most successful DOT–utility–contractor working rela- tionships are based on partnering principles. During this study, the research team interviewed a broad selection of DOT utility engineers and their utility company counter- parts. The best-of-class examples maintained an operational relationship defined by • Commitment to common goals, • Clear definition of roles and responsibilities, • Early and continuous communication, and • Commitment to resolve issues at the lowest possible level. Each party can be faced with unexpected challenges that appear to make performance less than promised; however, working as a team, solutions to the hard problems can be found. This contextual background is the prerequisite foundation for all other technical and management initiatives. Organiza-

51tional leadership at the highest levels should be applied to this objective. Application of Sound Project Management In the researchers’ discussions with practitioners, a common theme arose. What was needed most was not a new tool such as an information management system or new design software, although such tools could be helpful. Universally, the applica- tion of basic project management to the project delivery process and, more specifically, to utility issues, was strongly recommended. Design engineers are by definition trained in engineering. This provides strengths that can be applied to project management. For example, they are trained to solve problems in a logical and structured manner. However, proj- ect management involves a much broader scope of skills and knowledge. Following are just a few of the key knowledge areas that come under the project management heading: • Project integration management, • Project scope management, • Project time management, • Project cost management, • Project quality management, • Project human resource management, • Project communication management, and • Project risk management. Competent project management is an essential element in improving the utility coordination process during project development and delivery. Training for this is one of the rec- ommended practices, and this assessment indicates that an investment in project management training may significantly improve the utility coordination process. Use of Best-of-Class Technical Tools The cornerstone of developing effective engineering solutions to utility issues is the location information. The quality of the information about the utility location and characterization affects the quality of all subsequent engineering decisions. The smart application of SUE is essential. Budgets are not unlimited; therefore, SUE resources must be applied based on an informed analysis of the project site situation. New tools for managing the application of SUE have emerged and are suggested as recommended practices in this study. Designers must make more effective use of the SUE information pro- vided to them. Roadway designers do not need to be SUE engineers, but they do need training in how to make the best use of SUE technology and the information it provides. Managing as-built utility location information is an over- whelming endeavor for DOTs and UCs. The challenges aregreat. The accuracy of much of the historical location infor- mation is questionable and its format precedes current digi- tal formats. The first order of business is to see that new as-built information is appropriately managed. Clearly this is an area for the application of state-of-the-art information management tools. Several examples of new initiatives in this area are referenced in this study as best practices. In general, software development requires significant investment. Because most DOTs share this common issue, a pooled effort to pro- duce a tool available to many might make sense. Roadway design engineers would also benefit from a more complete knowledge of the technical issues involved in relo- cating the various utility systems that occupy ROWs. In gen- eral, DOT engineers do not have a technical background in utility engineering. Many DOTs have somewhat resolved this issue by providing a DOT utility engineering coordinator as a resource. This specialist assists the design team with techni- cal issues and facilitates coordination with the UCs. However, the insight gained from this study is that DOT design engi- neers would benefit from additional knowledge in the techni- cal aspects of utility relocation. Communications and design quality would be improved. Next Steps and Recommended Research In subsequent SHRP 2 Renewal program work, there are three areas that offer particular potential: • Development of a suite of training tools specifically aimed at utility coordination – Effective use of SUE in project development (e.g., Georgia DOT) – Utility relocation engineering for roadway designers – Project management for engineers • Development of qualification criteria for utility coordina- tors and exploration of the feasibility of a national certifi- cation process • Development of the criteria for advanced information sys- tems for managing utility and ROW engineering States and UCs believe training could improve designs and that improved support for information systems has the most potential in reducing delay. Most of the states expressed interest in information systems, but cited funding as an obstacle. The initial phase of this study involved detailed discussions with many DOT and UC utility engineers and coordinators. From these structured interviews, the research team identi- fied the most common utility coordination problems. Rec- ommended practices were identified and investigated. The recommended practices that have been suggested in this

52report were selected based on their effectiveness in resolving the utility coordination problems. The team believes that all but two of these recommended practices are sufficiently defined in this report to facilitate broader implementation, but the areas for potential development listed above require additional work before implementation can be started. No doubt remains that quality training, appropriately directed, will produce significant improvements in this critical area of the highway renewal process. The task of managing utility information is becoming expo- nentially more difficult. Current and past technology simply cannot do the job. We need to apply our best state-of-the-art tools to this critical function. An organized, focused approachto developing the direction of this essential initiative is needed, as well as other key areas for potential improvement. The final chapter of this report includes research statements recom- mended by the R15 research team. References 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector Gen- eral. Audit of the Springfield Interchange Project, Washington, DC. November 2002. 2. Tennessee’s Chapter 86 Provisions: Section 2. Tennessee Code Anno- tated, Title 54, Chapter 5, Part 8. 3. Transportation Infrastructure: Impacts of Utility Relocations on Highway and Bridge Projects, GAO/RCED-99-131. 1999.