Effective Project Scoping Practices to Improve On-Time and On-Budget Delivery of Highway Projects (2016)

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.

Research Results about the PSP P a r t 1

5 C h a p t e r 1 Background Transportation agencies have significantly improved many aspects of project delivery, yet they continue to be challenged by cost increases and time delays that occur after a project is programmed and funded. Increasing or changing the scope of a project to improve facility performance is a com- mon source of cost increase and time delay. The negative impacts that scope growth and related problems can have on a transportation project’s cost and schedule can be minimized if these problems are identified and mitigated early in the project delivery process (PDP). Current research has identified considerable variation in scoping processes across STAs, includ- ing the definition of the PSP, formality of the process, timing of the PSP within project develop- ment, and project maturity at the point when the project is programmed. Other areas of variation include scoping activities and the outputs of the scoping process. This research revealed that most agencies ended scoping during the preliminary design phase, and most processes contained activities related to design activities, environmental impact assess- ments, ROW issues, some level of cost and schedule estimating, and identification of a preferred alternative. The manner in which these activities are integrated in the scoping effort is not per- formed consistently by STAs. In addition, few agencies have developed scoping-specific analytic tools that are used during the scoping process. The Payoffs of an Effective PSP The biggest payoffs of implementing an effective PSP are: • The potential for reduced costs and shortened schedules for design and construction. • Improved interaction between project disciplines based on a multidisciplinary team approach. • A better relationship with external stakeholders. • Improved on-time and on-budget project delivery. • A consistent and reliable approach. Potential for Reduced Costs and Shortened Schedules for Design and Construction The industrial and commercial building construction sectors have experienced similar prob- lems with scope changes and cost increases. Research in these sectors has produced a structured and systematic process to help owners meet project cost and schedule objectives by defining a project to a suitable level of development prior to authorization of detailed design. The statistical evidence from research in these two sectors indicates that earlier and more detailed scoping efforts Why Should STAs Formalize the PSP?

6 effective project Scoping practices to Improve On-time and On-Budget Delivery of highway Budgets have the potential to reduce total design and construction costs by as much as 20 percent, and shorten total design and construction schedules by as much as 39 percent. Integrated Multidisciplinary Team Approach On the most complex project many disciplines are involved in project scoping. A “stovepipe” approach to scoping is often common practice where scope details are developed by individual project disciplines and then passed to other disciplines as work is completed. Identifying the dis- ciplines involved in scoping and showing how these disciplines interact to produce key scoping information improves the likelihood of meeting project performance targets. Better Relationship with External Stakeholders Maintaining a consistent and reliable transportation construction program is one way to have a good relationship with external stakeholders. Because of limited funds, cost or schedule overruns on one transportation project can mean that funding for other projects is reduced or even elimi- nated. These outcomes can have negative repercussions for transportation agency relationships with public and legislative bodies. Improved On-Time and On-Budget Project Delivery Better predictability during the early project development phase offers significant benefits to STAs and their stakeholders in terms of project value and improve the chance of on-time and on-budget project delivery. However, current planning and programming among STAs appear to fall short of meeting this goal and necessitate a new and effective PSP. Consistent and Reliable Approach Recognizing that a comprehensive and scalable PSP has a positive impact on project delivery performance, a number of STAs have modified their scoping processes. However, the on-time and on-budget delivery of projects is still difficult to attain due to the lack of a consistent and reliable approach. An effective PSP can address this need.

7 C h a p t e r 2 This discussion of the current status of the PSP includes a description of outreach and defini- tion of the PSP, time frame, tools in use, activities covered, performance measurement techniques, experts involved, and critical issues and challenges. Outreach and Definition Only 40 percent of STAs have publicly available information on their PSP. These published processes show variations in the definition of the PSP, formality of the process, sequence of scop- ing activities, scoping activities, time frame for performing the PSP, and outputs from the scoping process. Time Frame for Performing the PSP The difference in definitions resulted in variations in the time frames for performing the PSP. While most agencies ended scoping during the preliminary design phase, a few ended scoping at the end of the planning phase or during the early stages of the detailed design phase. Tools in Use Outside of preliminary cost and schedule estimates, relatively few agencies have developed scoping-specific analytical tools to be used during the scoping process. Among the various tools and techniques used in scoping activities, STAs use a variety of desktop and server-based data- bases to aid in decision making during project planning and scoping. Activities Covered In the majority of STAs, the activities covered during the PSP are often limited to environmental impact assessment, cost and schedule estimation, and preferred alternative(s) descriptions. Performance Measurement Techniques STAs usually do not have a formal, standard practice for measuring the effectiveness of scoping activities, although they might keep track of items, specifically change orders. Less than 20 percent of STAs have some techniques to measure the effectiveness of project scoping. While several agen- cies have checklists to track scoping activities, the Texas Department of Transportation’s Advance Planning Risk Analysis (APRA) is the only available tool to measure the completeness of the PSP. What Is the Current Practice?

8 effective project Scoping practices to Improve On-time and On-Budget Delivery of highway Budgets Experts Involved This research indicated that design, environmental, and maintenance experts are often involved in the PSP. Environmental experts are involved because the scoping process tends to focus on environmental issues, and maintenance personnel are involved because they help assess the performance of a road or bridge to determine project needs. Some STAs have also developed mechanisms to involve public stakeholders. Critical Issues and Challenges An effective scoping process needs to address the potential for scope changes, cost overruns, and schedule delays. Table 1 indicates the critical challenges identified for implementation of an effective PSP. The important elements of an effective PSP involve commitment and support from an agen- cy’s senior management, early detailed engineering/design, more accurate project baselines, construction expertise, and a process that will provide the necessary framework and tools to facilitate an effective PSP to lead the PSP. Commitment of the Agency’s Senior Management The paradigm shifts for an effective PSP should start with the agency’s senior management. Management should take an active interest in the implementation of an effective PSP. The fol- lowing shifts should be considered: • Provide adequate duration. STAs should allocate adequate time to perform the comprehen- sive PSP based on the size and complexity of each transportation project. Category Critical Challenges Action R quired Process Lack of a comprehensive and flexible PSP • Use a scalable process tailored to meet the requirements of every project • Use the necessary framework and tools to facilitate an effective PSP Definition PSP outreach and consistency in definition • Offer guidance to help ensure consistent implementation of the PSP across multiple STAs • Use a PSP for every project • Use a consistent definition throughout the STAs Time frame Inadequate and inappropriate time frame for performing the PSP • Use a flexible time frame, intended to complete the PSP before the start of detailed design Activities covered Lack of PSP activities covering critical areas of project development • Perform activities related to project requirements for ROW, utilities, environmental, traffic management plan (TMP), cost, and schedule Techniques Lack of performance measurement techniques • Identify technique(s) to identify the effectiveness of the PSP before setting the project’s baseline Tools Lack of tools to support the PSP • Develop tools to support the PSP Experts involved Absence of construction experts in the PSP • Include construction experts in the PSP Detailed design complete Advancing detailed engineering/design earlier • Target to complete 20%–30% of the design by the end of the PSP Public engagement Lack of public engagement during the PSP • Consider the requirements of public and other stakeholders e Table 1. Critical issues or challenges for an effective PSP.

What Is the Current practice? 9 • Involve experienced personnel. Senior management should ensure the involvement of expe- rienced personnel during the PSP, representing design, hydrology/hydraulics, environment, construction, operation, ROW, utilities and railroad, and maintenance disciplines. The lack of experienced personnel for feasibility analyses negatively impacts the effectiveness of the PSP. The need to involve experts is based on the assumption that the PSP will be performed in-house and experts will be available during the PSP. Alternatively, this process could be performed by a consultant, who would do something similar. • Define the start and end of the PSP. STAs should consider a time frame where the PSP, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, is substantially completed before commencement of the detailed design phase. Early Detailed Design An effective PSP should involve completing 20 to 30 percent of the detailed design in order to achieve improved project cost and schedule objectives. STAs should select only experienced design personnel to lead the PSP. More Accurate Baselines An effective PSP should be intended to develop more accurate baselines by establishing: • A baseline scope based on project parameters and project objectives. • A baseline schedule based on preliminary work activities. • A baseline cost that accounts for available resources and allocation of resources across all scheduled activities. These baselines help to improve project control, project performance measurement, and project outcome prediction. Involvement of Construction Expertise The involvement of construction expertise in the PSP ensures improvements in project man- agement activities related to construction risks, planning and scheduling, cost estimation, and resource identification and utilization. This is especially true for large and complex projects. A Process to Facilitate Project Scoping This guidebook presents a process for an effective project scoping. The PSP is designed to be flexible and can be customized for individual projects. This approach uses a hierarchy of activities and steps essential to conduct a comprehensive PSP. The tools and techniques required to support these activities are detailed in the appendix of this guidebook.

10 C h a p t e r 3 Definition Based on the current research, the definition of the proposed effective PSP is: The project scoping process is a series of project-focused activities that develop key design parameters and other project requirements to a sufficient level of definition such that scope discovery is complete and a budget and project completion date can be accurately established to minimize the risk of significant change and project overruns. This definition is the stepping stone for the development of the PSP detailed in this guidebook. A Generic Approach The PSP proposed in this guidebook is applicable to most projects. However, since the PSP is complex, each state should check its state-specific regulations that may or may not apply to a proj- ect. This PSP is designed to be flexible concerning specific project characteristics and requirements. This process consists of three major activities: • Develop the project. The objective of the first activity of the PSP is to update and refine the project parameters, project definition, and project purpose and need to a sufficient level, which facilitates selection of the best alternative and development of a more accurate baseline scope, cost, and schedule. This includes selecting a PSP team, visiting the site, soliciting public input, refining the project concept, preparing conceptual cost estimates, and summarizing key project characteristics. • Analyze alternatives and document findings. The objective of the second activity of the PSP is to analyze the identified project alternatives and document the findings in order to assess, prioritize, and recommend a preferred alternative for further detailing the next step of the PSP. This includes performing various activities for each of the alternatives, such as ROW research, traffic analysis, survey of existing conditions covering environmental and utility issues, development of the conceptual TMP, and establishment of preliminary scoping cost estimates. • Develop a recommended alternative. The objective of the last activity of the PSP is to develop and document the recommended alternative. This includes developing preliminary draw- ings, finalizing environmental documentation, finalizing the TMP, determining real property requirements, engaging the public, preparing the baseline cost and schedule, and preparing the project scoping report. What Is an Effective PSP?

What Is an effective pSp? 11 Figure 1. Basic IDEF structure. Each of these activities is further expanded into an increasing set of detailed activities to facilitate the PSP. Model Used for Development The PSP is developed using the Integrated Definition (IDEF) function modeling technique. The IDEF modeling technique is a graphic description of a process or system using cell modeling graphic representation, as shown in Figure 1. The graphic description uses the following convention: • A function is an activity that describes what is accomplished. • Inputs are the data or objects the function transforms into outputs. • Controls are the conditions required to produce the correct output (often called a constraint). • Mechanisms are the means used to perform a function. • Outputs are the data or objects the function produces. Figure 2 and Figure 3 depict the proposed process’s Level 1 and Level 2 activities respec- tively, representing a general framework for the PSP developed using the IDEF modeling technique. The Framework The PSP is divided into four levels of activities. Figure 4 shows the framework for the overall PSP with the division of three levels of activities (Level 4 is not shown): • Level 1 is project scoping (A0). • Level 2 activities represent the main functions that describe a PSP (A1, A2, and A3). • Level 3, further hierarchical breakdowns of these three activities, describes the details of activi- ties required to perform these functions (A11 through A37). For example, A1: Develop Project is broken down into six activities in Level 3. These six activities are further broken down into 17 Level 4 activities, shown in Figure 5. Likewise, the activities A2

12 effective project Scoping practices to Improve On-time and On-Budget Delivery of highway Budgets Figure 2. Level 1 IDEF model. Perform Project Scoping A-0 Project Definition Project Purpose and Need Existing Conditions Capacity Improvement Needs Geographical, Political, and Technical Constraints Environmental/Sustainability Drivers Community Concern and Critical Issues Approved Project Scoping Report Tools Procedure Manuals Budget for Scoping Time for Scoping Regulations Project Development/Delivery Manager O1 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 C4 M1 C1 C2C3 M2 Develop Recommended Alternative A*3 Analyze Alternatives and Document Findings A*2 Develop Project A*1 Approved Project Scoping Report Recommended Alternative Updated Project Definition Project Definition Project Purpose and Need Existing Conditions Updated Project Purpose and Need Updated Project Parameters Scoping Team Approved Conceptual Cost Estimate Stakeholders Inputs on Project Capacity Improvement Needs Geographical, Political, and Technical Constraints Environmental/Sustainability Drivers Community Concern and Critical Issues Updated Project Information Regulations Tools Procedure Manuals Budget for Scoping Time for Scoping Project Development/Delivery Manager Figure 3. IDEF0 model.

Develop Project A1 Conduct Real Property Research A21 Conduct Preliminary Utility Conflict Analysis A22 Analyze Alternatives and Document Findings A2 Develop Preliminary Drawings A31 Engage Public A33 Develop Recommended Alternative A3 Determine Real Property Requirements A32 Solicit Input from Public Stakeholders A25 Prepare Preliminary Scoping Estimate A27 Perform Project Scoping A0- Project Definion - Project Purpose and Need - Exisng Condions - Capacity Improvements Need - Geographical, Political, and Technical Constraints - Environmental/Sustainability Drivers - Community Concern and Critical Issues Project for Scoping Recommended Alternative Scoping Report Prepare Conceptual Cost Estimate A15 Develop Conceptual TMP A26 Refine Project Concept A14 Conduct Site Visit A12 Survey Existing Environmental Conditions A23 Develop Preliminary Schematics A24 Develop Final TMP A35 Prepare Baseline Cost and Schedule A36 Prepare Scoping Report A37 Solicit Input From Public A13 Develop Final Environmental Documentation A34 Select Recommended Project Alternative A28 Summarize Key Project Characteristics A16 Select PSP Team A11 Figure 4. PSP framework.

14 effective project Scoping practices to Improve On-time and On-Budget Delivery of highway Budgets Develop Project A1 Select PSP Team A11 Solicit Input from Public A13 Refine Project Concept A14 Prepare Conceptual Cost Estimate A15 Conduct Site Visit A12 Identify Discipline Needs to Be Addressed A111 Identify Key Internal Participants and External Stakeholders A112 Summarize Key Project Characteristics A16 Prepare Organizational Chart A113 Prepare for Site Visit A121 Confirm Project Information A122 Identify Required Investigations for PSP A123 Reconfirm Context- Sensitive Issue A124 Identify Stakeholders/ Identify Affected Populations and Communities A131 Receive/Record Inputs from Stakeholders, Populations, and Communities A132 Identify and Document Future Expansion and Alternative Consideration A141 Refine Project Purpose and Need Document A142 Refine Project Characteristics A143 Determine Basis for Conceptual Cost Estimate A151 Prepare Base Conceptual Cost Estimate A152 Determine Major Risks and Set Contingency A153 Review Conceptual Cost Estimate A154 Approve Conceptual Cost Estimate A155 Figure 5. PSP framework—develop project. and A3 break down into Level 3 and 4 activities, shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. In total, the complete PSP is divided into 104 activities, including three activities in Level 2, 21 in Level 3, and 79 in Level 4. The activity number assigned to each activity in this guidebook is based on the IDEF0 function alpha-numeric syntax as explained in Table 2. When to Perform the PSP The PSP should be performed after a project is included in the transportation program and at a time when the ability to influence the project cost and schedule is the greatest, that is, before the design parameters are fixed and expenditures on the project are the lowest. Figure 8 describes the relationship between the ability to influence the project outcomes and project expenditures over the different phases of the project life cycle. Therefore, early completion of the PSP may result in greater flexibility to change or modify the project scope, cost, and schedule with minimal impact on project expenditures. While there are different opinions about when the PSP starts, this research found that the PSP, including NEPA review, should start in the planning phase, with a target to achieve completion before commencement of the detailed design phase. However, depending on the nature of the project, availability of inputs, and other resources, this time frame should be considered flexible between the planning and detailed design phases.

Figure 6. PSP framework—analyze alternatives and document findings. Conduct Real Property Research A21 Survey Existing Environmental Conditions A23 Develop Preliminary Schematics A24 Solicit Input from Public Stakeholders A25 Conduct Preliminary Utility Conflict Analysis A22 Gather Information from Utility Owners A221 Gather Information through One Call A222 Conduct Initial Assessment of Utility Impacts A223 Identify Resources and Impacts, Critical Environmental Impacts, and Sensitive Receptors A231 Document Administrative Record of Conditions, Resources, and Impacts A232 Determine Type of Environmental Document (EIS, EA, CE) A233 Determine Schematic Layout A241 Align Horizontal & Vertical Elements A242 Develop Cross- Sectional Elements A243 Identify Project-Specific Stakeholders, Populations, Affected Owners, and Communities A251 Notify Affected Populations, Properties, and Communities and Receive Input A252 Prepare Draft Mitigation Plan A253 Develop Conceptual TMP A26 Prepare Preliminary Scoping Estimate A27 Select Recommended Project Alternative A28 Determine TMP Components to Be Analyzed A261 Develop TMP Datasheet A262 Conduct TMP Studies for the Identified Project’s Alternatives A263 Perform TMP Cost Estimate A264 Select Recommended TMP for Each Identified Project’s Alternative A265 Determine Estimate Basis for Alternatives A271 Prepare Base Estimate for Alternatives A272 Determine Risks and Set Contingency for Alternatives A273 Summarize Alternative Analyses A281 Conduct Ranking Analysis A282 Select Project Alternative A283 Determine Access Limits during Construction and Operation A244 Review Estimate for Alternatives A274 Approve Estimate for Alternatives A275 Evaluate Project Definition Completeness A284 Analyze Alternatives and Document Findings A2 Gather ROW Maps A211 Gather Information about Real Property Interests and Restrictions A212 Assemble Real Property Research Results A213

Develop Preliminary Drawings A31 Engage Public A33 Develop Final Environmental Documentation A34 Develop Final TMP A35 Determine Real Property Requirements A32 Identify Owner Approval Requirements A311 Identify Documentation/ Deliverables A312 Identify Computing CAD/Model Requirements A313 Produce Preliminary Drawings A314 Gather Additional Data to Refine Recommended Alternative A321 Survey Existing Right-of-Way and Real Property Lines A322 Prepare Right-of- Way Map A323 Identify Stakeholders, Populations, Affected Owners, and Communities A331 Notify Affected Populations, Properties, and Communities and Receive Input A332 Finalize Mitigation Plan A333 Prepare Preliminary Environmental Documentation with Recommended Alternative A341 Perform Administrative Completeness Review A342 Revise/Modify Mitigation Plan, Permits, Etc. A343 Compile Project Information A351 Determine Types of TMP A352 Identify Stakeholders A353 Prepare Baseline Cost and Schedule A36 Prepare Scoping Report A37 Determine Estimate Basis for Recommended Alternative A361 Prepare Estimate Basis for Recommended Alternative A362 Determine Risks and Set Contingency for Recommended Alternative A363 Review Estimate for Recommended Alternative A364 Approve Estimate for Recommended Alternative A365 Identify Required Documentation/ Deliverables A371 Draft Project Scoping Report A372 Evaluate Project Definition Completeness for Recommended Alternative A373 Reach Resource Agency Concurrence, Record Permits and Commitment, and Document Administrative Record A344 Approve/Modify Scoping Report A374 Finalize Scoping Report A375 Assess Preliminary Relocation Assistance Needs A324 Develop Preliminary TMP A354 Finalize Preliminary TMP A355 Draft Final Document and Gather Public Review Input A345 Prepare Design Schedule for Recommended Alternative A366 Develop Recommended Alternative A3 Figure 7. PSP framework—develop recommended alternative.

What Is an effective pSp? 17 Figure 8. Influence and expenditure curves for project life cycle (Adapted from the Construction Industry Institute Primer on Constructability, 1987). Level Previous LevelActivity Activity Number Number of Activities in Guidebook Level 1 -- A0 1 Level 2 A0 A1, A2, and A3 3 Level 3 A1 A11, A12,…A16 6 A2 A21, A22,…A28 8 A3 A31, A32,…A37 7 Level 4 A11 A111, A112, A113 3 A12 A121, A122,…A124 4 A13 A131, A132 2 A14 A141, A142, A143 3 A15 A151, A152,…A155 5 A16 0 A21 A211, A212, A213 3 A22 A221, A222, A223 3 A23 A231, A232, A233 3 A24 A241, A242,…A244 4 A25 A251, A252, A253 3 A26 A261, A262,…A265 5 A27 A271, A272,…A275 5 A28 A281, A282,…A284 4 A31 A311, A312,…A314 4 A32 A321, A322,…A324 4 A33 A331, A332, A333 3 A34 A341, A342,…A345 5 A35 A351, A352,…A355 5 A36 A361, A362,…A366 6 A37 A371, A372,…A375 5 Table 2. Activity number system followed in this guidebook.

18 effective project Scoping practices to Improve On-time and On-Budget Delivery of highway Budgets Alternative Analysis and Preliminary Plans Environmental Process Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits, Relocation, and Reimbursement Property Acquisition and Relocation Assistance Design and Plan, Specification & Estimate Assembly Letting Construction Planning Preliminary Design Detailed Design Letting Construction Post Construction Property Management Planning linkages Definition, Selection, Financing, Sched. Environmental Commitments Preliminary Utility Conflict Analysis Right-of-Way Map Development Agreements, Scope Update Construction authorization Environmental reevaluation Environmental approval Right-of-way authorization Project Management 30% design 60% design 90% design 15-20% design 0% design Preliminary Inputs to Planning Figure 9. Project delivery process (NCHRP Report 771). Integration of the Project Delivery and Project Scoping Processes Typically, the PDP consists of six phases—planning, preliminary design, detailed design, let- ting, construction and post construction, as shown Figure 9. The integration of the PSP in the PDP may include performing some of the planning phase’s activities, complete preliminary design phase’s activities including environmental process, ROW map development, preliminary utility conflict analysis, etc., and some of the detailed design phase’s activities. The window for performing the PSP may occur any time from the end of the planning phase to before the start of the detailed design phase. The integration is shown in Figure 10.

What Is an effective pSp? 19 Alternative Analysis and Preliminary Plans Environmental Process Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits, Relocation, and Reimbursement Property Acquisition and Relocation Assistance Design and PS&E Assembly Letting Construction Planning Preliminary Design Detailed Design Letting Construction Post Construction Property Management Planning linkages Definition, Selection, Financing, Sched. Environmental Commitments Preliminary Utility Conflict Analysis Right-of-Way Map Development Agreements, Scope Update Construction authorization Environmental reevaluation Environmental approval Right-of-way authorization Project Management 30% design 60% design 90% design 15-20% design 0% design The Flexible Timeline for PSP Develop Project Develop Recommended Alternative Analyze Alternaves and Document Findings 20-30% design Figure 10. Integration of PSP and PDP.

20 C h a p t e r 4 The level of effort and information required to perform project scoping activities are usually different depending on the type, size, and complexity of the project, with large and complex projects requiring more effort during the scoping phase. This guidebook offers a comprehensive and scalable PSP in order to improve on-time and on-budget delivery of projects. This part of the guidebook describes strategies for implementing an effective PSP. Process Implementation The PSP should be performed before commencement of the detailed design phase. Therefore, the best time to implement the PSP is during the preliminary design phase. This ensures the availability of information for performing the PSP, resulting in a well-defined project scope, a more accurate cost and schedule at the end of the process, and the availability of the same before the start of the detailed design phase. Early Advance Engineering and Design STAs should target 20 to 30 percent completion of total project engineering and design activi- ties during the PSP. This requires advancing engineering efforts to this early phase of the PDP. Involvement of Multiple Disciplines STAs should ensure the involvement of multiple disciplines’ experts, representing design, environment, ROW, utilities, railroad, hydrology/hydraulics, construction, operation, and maintenance. The current research indicates that the majority of the agencies often do not involve person- nel from the construction discipline in the PSP. Early inputs from above disciplines, including construction, are critical for an effective PSP. Setting the Project’s Baselines STAs should adopt strategies to develop a well-defined baseline scope and accurate cost and schedule using the activities and steps detailed in Part 2 of this guidebook. The early set- ting of well-defined and accurate baselines not only improves project management but also helps in better assessment of project performance and improvements in future schedule and cost estimation. How Can an Agency Implement an Effective PSP?

how Can an agency Implement an effective pSp? 21 Process Time Allotment The time required for completion of the process will depend on the type, size, and complexity of the project. STAs should ensure that adequate time has been allocated to carry out an effective PSP. This time should include a contingency for risks associated with the PSP, such as the utiliza- tion rate, requirement of additional investigations, environmental permits, and other factors. Process Adoption This guidebook outlines a flexible PSP. STAs should adopt this process in accordance with the requirements of the individual project. For example, if a project does not have ROW requirements, then the agency does not have to address all the Level 4 activities of ROW. The same applies to utility relocation and alternative analysis.

22 C h a p t e r 5 This guidebook: • Provides a consistent way to perform the PSP across the districts/regions of the SHA. • Provides a comprehensive process with a hierarchical breakdown of activities for performing the PSP. • Identifies data requirements and conditions needed to perform the PSP. • Provides tools and techniques to perform the PSP. Project Scoping Continuum The project scoping continuum proposed in this guidebook is designed considering a highly complex project that involves many different disciplines and other characteristics of such a project. Scalability The project scoping continuum proposed in this guidebook is also designed to address scal- ability issues that reflect different levels of project complexity. In general, the complexity of the project drives the selection of activities performed when implementing the PSP. Because the type of project can determine project complexity, the type of project is also a driving force behind the selection of activities. A commonly used characteriza- tion of project types is as follows: • New construction. New construction projects involve the design and construction of a road- way on a new alignment, or major widening or improvement of an existing facility. • Reconstruction. Reconstruction projects frequently involve substantial changes to the horizon- tal and/or vertical alignment of a road, generally within the currently available ROW (although some real property acquisition may be necessary). Types of improvement under this category include road widening to increase capacity. • Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R). 3R projects generally focus on extending the service life of existing facilities, in many cases to enhance safety. The high end of the project scoping continuum requires agencies to perform all the PSP activi- ties proposed in this guidebook. This high-end continuum is applicable for new construction/ reconstruction projects such as complete removal and replacement of pavement, major align- ment improvements, the addition of lanes for through traffic, new roadways and/or bridges, complete bridge deck or superstructure replacement, intermittent grade modifications, and so on. How Can an Agency Use This Guidebook?

how Can an agency Use this Guidebook? 23 These projects involve environmental impact studies or complex environmental assessment, ROW plans, major utility relocations or heavy multi-utility coordination, comparative studies of multiple alternatives, and controversial and high-profile project stakeholders. The other end of the project scoping continuum is applicable to minor complex projects such as overlay projects, simple widening, or non-complex enhancement projects without new bridges. These projects typically do not require ROW plans, utility coordination, comparison of alterna- tives, or considerable public involvement, and qualify for environmental categorical exclusion. For such projects, a PSP is simple, and agencies perform only certain activities like developing the project (A1) and relevant activities to develop the recommended alternative (A3). However, many projects fall between these two extreme ends of the continuum. This is appli- cable for 3R projects like resurfacing, repairing pavement structures and joints, widening minor lanes and shoulders, making minor alterations to horizontal and/or vertical alignments, repairing bridges, and removing or protecting roadside obstacles. These projects may not require all of the PSP activities. For example, if a project does not have ROW requirements, then the PSP does not involve all Level 4 activities related to ROW. A project with no alternatives to compare may not require analysis of alternatives and document findings (A2). Tools and Techniques to Support a PSP Numerous tools and techniques support the PSP and can be used for different PSP activities. Some of these tools are different processes and techniques that have been developed in other related research efforts. Appendix A of this guidebook summarizes these tools and techniques, and describes when and how to use them. Links to Resources and Tools to Support a PSP Appendix B provides links to online resources and tools to support various PSP activities.