Use of Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation Industry (2018)

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.

APPENDIX D: AMG SURVEY OUTCOMES REPORT

D-1 CONTENTS Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Questionnaire Planning and Development ........................................................................................... 9 Selecting the Samples and Distributing the Surveys ............................................................................ 9 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Demographics of Survey Respondents ................................................................................................... 11 Contractors ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Responding Transportation Agencies ................................................................................................ 14 Agency Designers .............................................................................................................................. 15 Agency Planners and Surveyors ......................................................................................................... 16 Agency Procurement and Construction Function .............................................................................. 17 Software and Hardware Vendors ....................................................................................................... 19 Heavy Equipment Vendors ................................................................................................................ 19 Training and Educational Organizations ............................................................................................ 20 Barriers to Entry ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................... 21 Agency Designer’s Perspective .......................................................................................................... 26 DTM Creation, Use, and Sharing ........................................................................................................... 29 Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................... 29 Agency Designer’s Perspective .......................................................................................................... 32 Answer ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Count .................................................................................................................................................. 32 Percentage .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 35 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ........................................................... 35 Survey Questions targeted at Agencies Not Sharing EED: ................................................................ 38 Quality Control and Accuracy ................................................................................................................ 40 Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................... 43 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ........................................................... 55 Agency Designer’s Perspective .......................................................................................................... 67 Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 70 Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 74 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective ............................................................................................... 84 Data Format ............................................................................................................................................ 92 Contractors Perspective ...................................................................................................................... 93 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ........................................................... 94 Agency Designer’s Perspective .......................................................................................................... 94 Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective ................................................................................... 96 Legal ....................................................................................................................................................... 99 Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................. 101 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ......................................................... 101 Agency Designer’s Perspective ........................................................................................................ 102 Training ................................................................................................................................................ 102 Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................. 102 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ......................................................... 103 Agency Designer’s Perspective ........................................................................................................ 104 Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective ................................................................................. 104

D-2 Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective ................................................................................. 104 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective ............................................................................................. 104 Training and Educational Organization Perspective ........................................................................ 105 Perceived Risks..................................................................................................................................... 107 Contractor’s Perspective .................................................................................................................. 108 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ......................................................... 110 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective ............................................................................................. 112 Perceived Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 114 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective ......................................................... 119 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective ............................................................................................. 123

D-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 EERC Presentation Webpage for the Surveys ................................................................................ 9 Figure 2 Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State ......................................................................... 15 Figure 3 File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions .............................................................. 93 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Respondents by Survey .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 2 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment .................................................................. 11 Table 3 Contractor Survey Respondents by Functional Unit ...................................................................... 11 Table 4 Contractor Survey Respondents by Job Tile/Function Role .......................................................... 12 Table 5 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industrial Labor Relations ..................................................... 12 Table 6 Contractor Survey Respondents by Use of AMG .......................................................................... 13 Table 7 Number of Annual Projects Completed by Responding Contractors ........................................... 13 Table 8 AMG Applications of Construction Contractors ........................................................................... 14 Table 9 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents ............................................................. 15 Table 10 Job Titles of Design Survey Respondents .................................................................................. 16 Table 11 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents ........................................................... 16 Table 12 Job Titles of Agency Planning Survey Respondents ................................................................... 17 Table 13 Transportation Functions of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents ............................ 17 Table 14 Job Titles of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents ..................................................... 18 Table 15 Software and Hardware Vendor Respondent Organization Types ............................................. 19 Table 16 Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type ........................... 20 Table 17 Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG ................................................................................ 22 Table 18 Contractor Use of AMG by Contractor Type and Market Segment ........................................... 22 Table 19 Contractors Not Using AMG: Is Cost of Entry Too High? ......................................................... 23 Table 20 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Vendor Support? ............................................................ 23 Table 21 Contractors Not Using AMG: Do Not Understand AMG Technology? ...................................... 24 Table 22 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Employees with Technical Skills? ................................. 24 Table 23 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Learn More about AMG .................................................. 25 Table 24 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Implement in Future ........................................................ 25 Table 25 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Owner Cooperation? ...................................................... 26 Table 26 Design Learning Curve Obstacle ................................................................................................. 26 Table 27 Design Time and Effort Obstacle ................................................................................................ 27 Table 28 Design Mindset Obstacle ............................................................................................................. 27 Table 29 Design Standards Obstacle .......................................................................................................... 28 Table 30 Design Specifications Obstacle .................................................................................................... 28 Table 31 Do Contractors utilize DTMs for Estimating? ............................................................................. 29 Table 32 Do Contractors Utilized DTMs for Collection of Earthwork Quantities. .................................... 29 Table 33 Would Contractors Accept DTM Quantities for Payment? ......................................................... 30 Table 34 Contractor Functional Role Creating DTM ................................................................................. 30 Table 35 Percentage of Contractor DTMs Created from 2D ...................................................................... 30 Table 36 When EED Data Exchange Occurs .............................................................................................. 30 Table 37 EED Datasets Received from Owners ......................................................................................... 31 Table 38 Is EED Data Shared Back to Owners? ......................................................................................... 31 Table 39 Medium Utilized for EED Data Exchanges ................................................................................. 31 Table 40 DTM Development Cost Information .......................................................................................... 31 Table 41 Does Design Function Receive DTM from Survey Function? .................................................... 32 Table 42 Design Function Units Producing DTMs..................................................................................... 32 Table 43 Does Design Unit Share Models with Contractors? .................................................................... 32 Table 44 Is Design Model Manipulated When Shared? ............................................................................. 33

D-4 Table 45 Datasets Exchanged from Agency Design Function to Contractors ............................................ 33 Table 46 File Formats Utilized in Data Exchange with Contractors .......................................................... 34 Table 47 Functional Areas Receiving Datasets from Agency Design ........................................................ 34 Table 48 Medium for Data Exchange between Agency Functional Areas ................................................. 34 Table 49 Design Surfaces Shared by Agency Design Functional Area ...................................................... 34 Table 50 Additional Time Required for DTM Model Creation by Agency Design Functions .................. 35 Table 51 Agency Planning Function Topographic Data Collection Methods ........................................... 35 Table 52 Are DTMs Created by Planning Surveying Units? ..................................................................... 35 Table 53 Does Your Agency Procurement/Construction Units Share EED? ............................................. 36 Table 54 Primary Responsibility for DTM Contract Conformation According to Transportation Agencies ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 55 DTM Creation Responsibility by According to Transportation Agencies ................................... 37 Table 56 Should Agencies Share EED with Contractors? ......................................................................... 37 Table 57 Should Contractors Share EED with Transportation Agencies? .................................................. 38 Table 58 At What Contract Stage Should EED be Exchanged? ................................................................. 38 Table 59 Do Contractors Currently Exchange DTMs with Agencies? ....................................................... 38 Table 60 How are Electronic Plans Officially/Professionally Approved? ................................................. 38 Table 61 At What Contract Stage is EED Exchanged? .............................................................................. 39 Table 62 EED Datasets Exchanged by Agencies ........................................................................................ 39 Table 63 How are DTM Revisions Aligned with Original Issued Models? ............................................... 39 Table 64 Agency Inspector Access to DTMs ............................................................................................. 40 Table 65 Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies ...................................... 41 Table 66 Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software Organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 67 Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors ................... 41 Table 68 Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software Organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 69 Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 70 Contractor Reported AMG Specification Types .......................................................................... 43 Table 71 Contractor Reported DTM Responsibility for Contract Compliance .......................................... 43 Table 72 Contractor Reported EED Change Sequence ............................................................................... 44 Table 73 Contractor Reported AMG QC Responsibility ............................................................................ 44 Table 74 Contractor Reported AMG QC Performance ............................................................................... 44 Table 75 AMG Quality Control Intervals by Contractors .......................................................................... 45 Table 76 AMG Quality Assurance Intervals by Contractors ...................................................................... 45 Table 77 Contractor AMG Opinion on Rework ......................................................................................... 45 Table 78 Contractor AMG Opinion on Accuracy vs Conventional Methods ............................................. 45 Table 79 Contractor AMG Opinion on Data Points in DTM ...................................................................... 46 Table 80 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM File Types ........................................................................... 46 Table 81 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Translations ........................................................................ 46 Table 82 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ..................................................... 47 Table 83 Contractor Opinion on DTM File Size ........................................................................................ 47 Table 84 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ................................................................ 47 Table 85 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Model Builders .......................................................... 48 Table 86 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Field Personnel .......................................................... 48 Table 87 Contractor DTM Opinion on Training Machine Operators ......................................................... 49 Table 88 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training for Owners ...................................................................... 49 Table 89 Contractor Opinion on DTM QA/QC Procedures ....................................................................... 49 Table 90 Contractor Opinion on Owner AMG QA/QC Procedures ........................................................... 50 Table 91 Contractor Opinion on AMG Positioning Methods Accuracy ..................................................... 50

D-5 Table 92 Contractor Opinion on AMG Tolerances Specified by Owners .................................................. 50 Table 93 Contractor Opinion on AMG Hydraulic Sensor Selection .......................................................... 51 Table 94 Contractor Opinion on AMG Machine Response Time .............................................................. 51 Table 95 Contractor Opinion on AMG Operator Training ......................................................................... 51 Table 96 Contractor Opinion on AMG End-user Error .............................................................................. 51 Table 97 Contractor Opinion on AMG Customer Technical Ignorance ..................................................... 52 Table 98 Contractor Opinion on AMG Owner Technical Ignorance.......................................................... 52 Table 99 Contractor Opinion of AMG QA/QC Failure .............................................................................. 52 Table 100 Contractor Opinion on AMG Control Network Errors .............................................................. 53 Table 101 Contractor Opinion on DTM Final Surface Inaccuracy ............................................................. 53 Table 102 Contractor Opinion on DTM Original Surface Inaccuracies ..................................................... 53 Table 103 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review and Heavy Equipment Accuracy ......... 53 Table 104 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Content ................................................. 55 Table 105 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Basis ..................................................... 55 Table 106 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Content ..................................................... 55 Table 107 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Basis ......................................................... 55 Table 108 Agency Procurement DTM Contract Conformance Responsibility .......................................... 56 Table 109 Agency Procurement DTM QA/QC Process ............................................................................. 56 Table 110 Agency Procurement QA/QC Contractor Involvement ............................................................. 56 Table 111 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Process When Work Underway ...................................... 56 Table 112 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Benefits ...................................................................... 57 Table 113 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Points ................................................................. 57 Table 114 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Types ................................................................... 57 Table 115 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Translations ........................................................ 58 Table 116 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ............................................. 58 Table 117 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Size ...................................................................... 58 Table 118 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review ............................................. 59 Table 119 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Model Builders ................................................ 59 Table 120 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Field Personnel ................................................ 60 Table 121 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Machine Operators ........................................... 60 Table 122 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Owners ............................................................. 60 Table 123 Agency Procurement Opinion on QA/QC Procedures .............................................................. 62 Table 124 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network ........................................ 62 Table 125 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Contribution from Contractors ........................................ 62 Table 126 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Positioning Methods .............. 63 Table 127 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Tolerances ................................................. 63 Table 128 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Hydraulic Sensor Selection ....................... 63 Table 129 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time ........................... 64 Table 130 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training ...................................... 64 Table 131 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-End-user Error ....................... 64 Table 132 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Technical Ignorance .............. 65 Table 133 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Owner Ignorance ................... 65 Table 134 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-QA/QC Process ...................... 66 Table 135 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Control Network Errors ......... 66 Table 136 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-DTM ...................................... 66 Table 137 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Original Survey ...................... 67 Table 138 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Utilized ...................................................................... 67 Table 139 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Implementation ......................................................... 67 Table 140 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Adoption .................................................................... 68 Table 141 Agency Design CAD Standard QA/QC Compliance ................................................................ 68 Table 142 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Elevation Points .................................................. 69

D-6 Table 143 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-CAD Standards ................................................... 69 Table 144 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Work Process Sequence ...................................... 69 Table 145 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Software Competencies ...................................... 69 Table 146 Agency Planning RTK GPS Utilization..................................................................................... 70 Table 147 Agency Planning Angular Redundancy ..................................................................................... 70 Table 148 Agency Planning GPS Control Processes .................................................................................. 70 Table 149 Agency Planning RTK GPS Specifications ............................................................................... 70 Table 150 Agency Planning Perception on Total Station Survey Accuracy ............................................... 71 Table 151 Agency Planning Perception on Robotic Total Station Surveying ............................................ 72 Table 152 Agency Planning Perception of GPS Surveying ........................................................................ 72 Table 153 Agency Planning Perception of Photogrammetric Surveying ................................................... 72 Table 154 Agency Planning GPS Horizontal Accuracy ............................................................................. 73 Table 155 Agency Planning GPS Vertical Accuracy ................................................................................. 73 Table 156 Agency Planning GPS Survey Procedures ................................................................................. 73 Table 157 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Elevation Point Density ..................................... 74 Table 158 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-CAD Standards .................................................. 74 Table 159 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process Sequence .................................... 75 Table 160 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Designer Competencies ..................................... 75 Table 161 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Data Points .............................................. 75 Table 162 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-File Types .......................................................... 76 Table 163 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Data Translations .............................................. 76 Table 164 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review .......................... 76 Table 165 Software Vendor Opinion on DTNM Accuracy-User Training ................................................ 77 Table 166 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Algorithms ....................................................... 77 Table 167 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Interoperability ................................................. 77 Table 168 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Translations ...................................................... 78 Table 169 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-File Size ........................................................... 78 Table 170 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review .......................... 79 Table 171 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Model Builders ................................... 79 Table 172 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Field Personnel ................................... 79 Table 173 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Machine Operators ............................. 80 Table 174 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Owners ................................................ 80 Table 175 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-QA/QC Procedures ............................................ 80 Table 176 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-User Training ...................................................... 81 Table 177 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Machine Response .............................................. 81 Table 178 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Human Error ....................................................... 82 Table 179 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Control Network ................................................. 82 Table 180 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Surveys ............................................................... 82 Table 181 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-File Size .............................................................. 83 Table 182 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Size ......................................................... 83 Table 183 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Complexity ............................................. 83 Table 184 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications ..................................................... 84 Table 185 Heavy Equipment Vendor Specification requirement Explanation ........................................... 84 Table 186 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Positioning Methods.......................... 84 Table 187 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Specified Tolerances ......................... 85 Table 188 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Selection ................................ 85 Table 189 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time ................... 85 Table 190 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training .............................. 86 Table 191 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Human Error ..................................... 86 Table 192 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Customer Ignorance .......................... 87 Table 193 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Owner Ignorance ............................... 87

D-7 Table 194 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-QA/QC Process ................................. 87 Table 195 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network................................ 88 Table 196 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-DTM .................................................. 88 Table 197 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Original Survey ................................. 88 Table 198 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensors .............................................. 89 Table 199 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Calibration ............................. 89 Table 200 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Identification ....................... 90 Table 201 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Mitigation ........................... 90 Table 202 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Selection .............................................................................. 90 Table 203 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Product Documentation ....................................................... 91 Table 204 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications ..................................................... 92 Table 205 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG QA/QC ............................................................... 92 Table 206 Contractor File Formats for AMG ............................................................................................. 93 Table 207 Contractor EED Needed from Owners ...................................................................................... 94 Table 208 Agency Procurement File Formats for AMG ............................................................................ 94 Table 209 Agency Procurement DTM File Exchange Medium ................................................................. 94 Table 210 Agency Designer File Formats Received for AMG ................................................................... 95 Table 211 Agency Designer Application File Formats ............................................................................... 95 Table 212 Agency Designer CAD File Formats ......................................................................................... 95 Table 213 Agency Designer Application File Formats Exported ............................................................... 96 Table 214 Software Vendor Application Interoperability Standards .......................................................... 96 Table 215 Software Vendor Application Dataset Import ........................................................................... 96 Table 216 Software Vendor Application File Format Import ..................................................................... 97 Table 217 Software Vendor File Format Export ........................................................................................ 97 Table 218 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Customer Demand ............................................ 97 Table 219 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Owner Demand ................................................. 98 Table 220 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Agency Specifications ...................................... 98 Table 221 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Point Density ..................................................... 98 Table 222 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process .................................................... 99 Table 223 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Production Sequence ......................................... 99 Table 224 Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG ............................................. 100 Table 225 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange ........................ 100 Table 226 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation ....................................... 100 Table 227 Contractors Opinions Regarding Sharing of EED ................................................................... 101 Table 228 How Agencies Not Sharing EED Should Limit Liability ........................................................ 101 Table 229 How Agencies Currently Sharing EED Limit Liability ........................................................... 102 Table 230 Agency Designers Concern with Liability from Sharing EED ................................................ 102 Table 231 Contractor Field Personnel Software Training ........................................................................ 103 Table 232 Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training ....................................................................... 103 Table 233 Contractor Machine Operator Training.................................................................................... 103 Table 234 Agency Procurement Field Personnel AMG Training ............................................................. 103 Table 235 Agency Designer 3D Training ................................................................................................. 104 Table 236 Agency Planning Position Method Training ............................................................................ 104 Table 237 Software Vendor Product Training .......................................................................................... 104 Table 238 Heavy Equipment Vendor Training Offerings ......................................................................... 105 Table 239 Training/Education AMG Course Offering Count .................................................................. 105 Table 240 Training/Education AMG Course Delivery Method ............................................................... 105 Table 241 Training Education AMG CEU Course Credit ........................................................................ 106 Table 242 Training/Education Course Credit Types ................................................................................ 106 Table 243 AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors ........................ 107 Table 244 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation ............................................................ 108

D-8 Table 245 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment........................................................ 108 Table 246 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Internal Competent Personnel ............................................ 108 Table 247 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training .............................................................. 109 Table 248 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants ............................................................... 109 Table 249 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Operator Distraction ........................................................... 109 Table 250 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation ................................................................. 110 Table 251 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment ............................................................ 110 Table 252 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel .............................................................. 111 Table 253 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training ................................................................... 111 Table 254 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants .................................................................... 111 Table 255 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation ............................................... 112 Table 256 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment .......................................... 112 Table 257 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel ............................................ 113 Table 258 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training ................................................. 113 Table 259 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants .................................................. 113 Table 260 Perceived AMG Benefits Rates by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors ............. 114 Table 261 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG ................ 115 Table 262 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG ......................... 115 Table 263 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings ................................................................ 116 Table 264 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ................................................... 116 Table 265 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work .................................................. 116 Table 266 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation ................................................ 117 Table 267 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review ................................................ 117 Table 268 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety ............................................................................. 117 Table 269 Contractor Productivity Increase with AMG ........................................................................... 118 Table 270 Contractor Cost Savings with AMG ........................................................................................ 118 Table 271 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ....................................................... 119 Table 272 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work ....................................................... 119 Table 273 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Accuracy ............................................................................. 119 Table 274 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety .................................................................................. 119 Table 275 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Field Labor Reduction ........................................................ 120 Table 276 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Contractor Labor Cost Savings .......................................... 120 Table 277 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings ....................................................................... 120 Table 278 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ....................................................... 121 Table 279 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Contractor Re-Work .................................... 121 Table 280 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation ..................................................... 121 Table 281 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review ..................................................... 122 Table 282 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety ...................................................................... 122 Table 283 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety ....................................................................... 123 Table 284 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings ................................................... 123 Table 285 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings ..................................................... 123 Table 286 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression ..................................... 124 Table 287 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work .................................... 124 Table 288 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation ................................... 124 Table 289 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review ................................... 125 Table 290 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety .................................................... 125 Table 291 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety..................................................... 126 Table 292 Equipment Vendor Customer Productivity Increase with AMG ............................................. 126 Table 293 Equipment Vendor Customer Cost Savings with AMG .......................................................... 127

D-9 METHODOLOGY Questionnaire Planning and Development The project survey was intended to garner information from several groups of AMG stakeholders to define the current state of the industry. Separate survey questions for the stakeholder groups were developed by the project team based upon internal collaboration and the literature collected up t that pointing the research. The survey questions were presented and featured in the AMG Workshop on October 2, 2009 where the participants evaluated and gave feedback on the draft survey questions. After the workshop was conducted, the draft survey questions were refined and presented to the project Oversight Panel. Upon receipt and incorporation of the feedback and suggestions of the Oversight Panel, the survey questions were finalized and integrated into the on-line survey software application. Each survey was accessible through its own internet address (URL), all of which were presented on a master webpage at the Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC) hosted by Iowa State University. The individual survey URL was included in an email to targeted survey respondents. The list of targeted survey participants was formed through multiple channels including: key contacts within AGC, participation within TRB, and industry leadership. Eight separate surveys were created and launched: • Transportation Agencies 1. Agency Surveying Functions 2. Agency Design Functions 3. Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions • Private Industry 4. Construction Contractors 5. Heavy Equipment Suppliers 6. Software/Hardware Vendors 7. Legal Aspects 8. Trainers/Educators Figure 1 displays a screenshot of the EERC presentation webpage. Figure 1 EERC Presentation Webpage for the Surveys Selecting the Samples and Distributing the Surveys Two master lists were compiled to prepare a pool of respondents for the eight surveys. Master List 1 was created by gathering contact information from the following target groups: • previous NCHRP projects,

D-10 • this project's AMG Workshop, • the Associated General Contractors (AGC) national membership, and • a Mississippi Department of Transportation AMG project. Contacts on Master List 1 were expected to complete at least one of the questionnaires. Master List 2 was created by gathering contact information from leaders of the Professional Engineering License Board and the Professional Land Surveyor Associations in each of the fifty states. Contacts on Master List 2 were expected to forward the surveys to members of their organization or committee and ask them to complete a survey. A letter that described the project and survey focus was created as a cover letter for the surveys that were emailed as attachments to potential respondents on the two master lists. A multi-phase email campaign organized to communicate with these respondents consisted of • a personalized e-mail that was sent to all of the respondents on Master List 1 and Master List 2 and • a personalized follow-up e-mail that was sent to every targeted respondent reminding them to forward the survey to colleagues who had knowledge of AMG and of the February 26, 2010, closing date for the survey. Survey respondents were contacted by phone for further information if they indicated interest in further communication about the survey. More than 5,000 survey recipients were contacted between February 1 and February 26, 2010. , and 504 valid responses were received. Monitoring Throughout the deployment and implementation of the surveys, contact with the respondents was an ongoing process. Several survey recipients requested an alternate way to take the survey (e.g., manually on printed copies and returned by facsimile or electronic document). Some respondents wanted to be able to view all of the questions before submitting their surveys. The project team handled each of these requests individually. Team members manually recorded answers during telephone calls with three survey respondents and transferred their responses to on-line survey forms. These responses resulted from unresolved technical issues experienced by three respondents. Assessment A total of 504 persons responded in whole or in part to eight targeted surveys. The largest number of responses were from agency construction/procurement functional areas and construction contractors. The lowest response rate concerned the legal Aspects survey. Table 1 Respondents by Survey Survey Responses Agency Surveying Functions 76 Agency Design Functions 65 Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions 121 Construction Contractors 118 Heavy Equipment Suppliers 30 Software/Hardware Vendors 34 Legal Aspects 12 Trainers/Educators 48 Total Respondents 504

D-11 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS Contractors One hundred and eighteen (118) contractors participated in the survey. Of those, only 30 reported experience with AMG. Those thirty contractors, half of which have five or more years’ experience with the technology, represent close to 700 projects annually utilizing AMG, mainly for mass and fine grading earthwork applications. Approximately half of the contractor respondents were middle or executive managers representing mostly prime contractors in the public works sector of the industry. At least one respondent reported use of AMG for sub grade trimming equipment and landfill compaction operations. Of the 118 contractors, 62 participants answered each survey question while 56 answered only a portion of the questions. Sixty-Four percent (76 total) of the contractor respondents classified themselves as prime contractors. Approximately half (49%) of all the contractors responding are prime contractors involved in the public works segment of the industry. Conversely, twenty-one percent (21%) of all the contractor respondents identified themselves with the private sector of the industry. The survey questions regarding contractor demographics required the respondents to choose the one best answer for describing themselves and their organization, with an optional text box for capturing categories not listed in the specific question. The answers from the 'Other' option are provided at the bottom of the tables of survey response results. Table 2 displays the result from the Contractor Survey question, ‘Please indicate your organization's PRIMARY type of business. Table 2 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment Answer Count Percentage Prime Contractor-Private Market (A) 18 15% Prime Contractor-Public Works Market (B) 58 49% Subcontractor-Private Market (C) 3 3% Subcontractor-Public Works Market (D) 10 9% Consultant-Private Market (E) 4 3% Consultant-Public Works Market (F) 2 2% Other 5 4% No answer 18 15% Non completed 0 0% Other: Prime - Private & Public, Oil Refinery, General Contractor, Equipment Dealer, DOT. Table 3 displays results from the contractor survey question, 'Please indicate the closest function of the unit in which you work'. Approximately half of the contractor respondents identified themselves as associated with their organization's executive management functional area. The second and third most frequent response was Construction with 14 percent and “No Answer” were participants specifically selected a “No Answer” box. The fourth highest frequency was Project Management, and the fifth highest was the estimating functional area were 7 percent identified themselves. Table 3 Contractor Survey Respondents by Functional Unit Answer Count Percentage Executive Management (A) 53 45% Estimating (B) 8 7% Project Management (C) 10 8%

D-12 Answer Count Percentage Accounting (D) 1 1% Construction (E) 17 14% Engineering (F) 7 6% Equipment Management (G) 2 2% IT (information Technology) Management (H) 1 1% Other 2 2% No answer 17 14% Non completed 0 0% Other: GPS training and upkeep, Technical Communicator. The results from querying the contractors 'Please choose respondent's job title/functional role', mirrors closely the results of the previous question of association with functional area. This question correctly validated the participant response with the initial selected response. Approximately half of the respondents were either executive or middle managers in title. Table 4 Contractor Survey Respondents by Job Tile/Function Role Answer Count Percentage CEO/CFO/President (A) 38 33% Regional/General Manager (B) 13 11% Unit/Department Manager (C) 10 9% Estimator (D) 5 4% Project Manager (E) 7 6% Superintendent (F) 5 4% Surveyor (G) 3 2% Equipment Manager (H) 0 0% IT Manager (I) 0 0% Other 19 16% No answer 18 15% Non completed 0 0% Other: Chief Engineer, VP, Director of Construction, GPS champion, Controlled Systems Coordinator, Vice President, Engineering Technician, Vice President, VP, Vice President, GPS champion, OWNER, Estimating, Machine control and guidance specialist, Vice President, Business Development, Staff Construction Engineer, ADM ASST, Vice President. Well over half (56%) of the contractors responding to the survey identified themselves as Open Shop contractors as shown in Table 5 below. Table 5 Contractor Survey Respondents by Industrial Labor Relations Answer Count Percentage Closed Shop (Union Membership Required) (A) 32 27% Agency Shop (Union Membership Optional but Dues Required) (B) 2 2% Merit Shop/Open Shop (Union Membership Optional) (C) 66 56% No answer 18 15% Non completed 0 0% Table 6 displays results from the contractor survey question ' Does your company utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG)?'. Sixty-six (66) contractors provided an answer to the AMG utilization question, thirty-six (36) responded with 'No'. Thirty (30) participants answered “Yes”, with twenty (20)

D-13 indicating utilization both on Public Works and Private Works. A total of 52 out of 118 respondents either did not select a response to the question as indicated by “Non-Completed” (47) or responded by selecting “No answer” (5). Only one option was allowed in response to the AMG Utilization question. To focus the contractors who have AMG experience, the balances of the AMG-specific survey questions were only accessible to contractors who indicated that they had experience with AMG or who responded with “No Answer”. When a respondent answered 'No' to the AMG utilization question, the subsequent questions related to AMG use were skipped over and the participant was directed to questions regarding why the technology and process is not currently used in their organization, then to a 'Submit Survey' option, and finally the opportunity to provide contact information. The following table displays the breakdown regarding contractor use of AMG. Table 6 Contractor Survey Respondents by Use of AMG Answer Count Percentage No. (A) 36 3% Yes-Mainly On Public Works Projects. (B) 6 5% Yes-Mainly On Private Market Projects. (C) 4 3% Yes-On Both Public Works and Private Market Projects Equally. (D) 20 17% No answer 5 4% Non completed 47 40% Table 7 displays the results from the contractor survey question ' Approximately how many projects does your organization complete in a year utilizing AMG?'. Although the number of contractors with AMG experience who completed the survey was disappointingly low, the twenty-eight (28) who answered this question represent approximately 681 projects performed annually, with the highest annual number of AMG projects reported at 200 per year. Twenty-two of the contractors reported AMG experience of five years or more, which leads us to believe that the survey data reported has significance. Table 7 Number of Annual Projects Completed by Responding Contractors Calculation Result Count 28 Sum 681 Standard deviation 43.14 Average 24.32 Minimum 2 1st quartile (Q1) 7 2nd quartile (Median) 6 3rd quartile (Q3) 18.75 Maximum 200 Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method Table 8 displays responses to the question ' Which applications do you currently use AMG for?'. This question allowed multiple answers to be chosen.

D-14 Table 8 AMG Applications of Construction Contractors Answer Count Percentage Earthwork. (A) 25 36% Fine grading. (B) 26 38% Utilities. (C) 9 13% Paving. (D) 7 10% Other 2 3% Other: trimming of subgrade, compaction at landfills. Responding Transportation Agencies Three of the project's questionnaires were targeted at specific transportation agency functional areas defined by NCHRP Synthesis 385, Information Technology for Efficient Project Delivery: Design Function: The selection and detailed refinement of project alternatives regarding scope and design. Planning and Surveying Functions: The development of project design alternatives (feasibility) once a need has been identified. Also responsible for initial location and positioning data (location surveys). Procurement and Construction Functions: Development and delivery of contract documents; selection of the prime contractor to build the project; and administration of construction, maintenance, and operations contracts and project management of the transportation projects. Inspection of project materials and methods for compliance with minimum project quality specifications, and jobsite and administrative contract administration. The three targeted transportation agency surveys represent responses from 49 U.S States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Ontario, Canada. Most of the transportation agency responses were from individual state agencies, however there were also responses from city, county, and consulting transportation agencies and organizations. Figure 2 represents transportation agency responses from the United States by type of survey completed: D=Design Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire PS-Planning and Surveying Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire PC=Procurement and Construction Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire

D-15 Figure 2 Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State While it is convenient to organize transportation agency functional areas mentally as closely aligned and titled with names which mirror project lifecycles, the reality is that the agencies' functional areas/departments are organized and titled uniquely. Therefore, it may be that a transportation survey respondent from a department of functional area other than 'design' is best qualified to answer the survey questions. Additionally, the survey instructions encouraged the respondents to direct the survey to the most knowledgeable person available, which may have been in a functional role other than design (or another functional area). The survey tool possessed 'persistence' features, which allowed a survey to be saved, emailed to another person, and then completed. Some of the surveys were completed by multiple persons from the same agency. Agency Designers Sixty-Five (65) persons associated with transportation agency design functions participated in the Designer’s Survey. Of this total, 32 respondents identified themselves as associated with a design functional area, while 17 did not respond to the question. Nine respondents identified their related functional areas as 'other', displayed in Table 9 below. Table 9 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents Functional Area Count Percentage Planning (A) 2 3% Design (B) 32 49% Procurement (C) 0 0% Construction (D) 4 6% O&M (E) 1 2% Other 9 14% No answer 17 26%

D-16 Functional Area Count Percentage Non completed 0 0% Other: CADD Support, Support of Planning, Design, and Construction, Research, GIS, Engineering Services Division Agency Design Survey respondents identified their functional roles/job titles displayed in Table 10 below: Table 10 Job Titles of Design Survey Respondents Job Title/Functional Roles Senior Technician/ Survey Supervisor Senior Engineering Technician CADD Engineer - Roadway Design Assistant Design Engineer CADD Support Engineer Safety/Geometric Design Engineer Engineering Software Support Senior Manager/Construction Services CADD Support Coordinator Engineering Manager, State Road Office, Roadway Design Engineering Support Senior Project Engineer Assistant Chief Engineer - Operations Chief Engineer Director Engineering Solutions Delivery and Support Services GIS Coordinator Assistant City Engineer Design Engineering Manager Engineer Design & Construction Manager Geotechnical Research Manager Staff Construction Engineer C & M eng Assistant Director of Transportation Information Division Assistant State Roadway Design Engineer Performance Analysis Engineer Supervising Surveyor Senior Transportation Engineer, Chief CADD Support Branch State Design Engineer Transportation Engineering Program Supervisor Director Office of Design & Deputy Chief Engineer Engineer III, GIS Manager, Surveyor CADD Support Branch Chief Performance Analysis Design Resource Engineer Asst Chief Road Design Engineer CAD Manager Agency Planners and Surveyors Seventy-Seven (77) persons associated with transportation agency planning/surveying functions participated in the survey. Of this total, 11 respondents identified themselves as associated with a planning and/or surveying functional area, while 22 did not respond to the question. Six respondents identified their related functional areas as 'other', displayed in Table 11 below (six of which are surveying related plus Geographical Information Systems). Table 11 Transportation Functions of Design Survey Respondents Functional Area Count Percentage Planning (A) 5 6% Design (B) 18 24% Procurement (C) 0 0% Construction (D) 12 16% O&M (E) 0 0% Other 19 25%

D-17 Functional Area Count Percentage No answer 21 28% Non completed 1 1% Other: Survey, Research, Location Surveys / Mapping, Right of Way and Land Surveys, Contract Administration, Road & Bridge Constr & maintenance, Land Surveying, GIS, Surveying and Mapping, Location, Land Surveys, Engineering Services Division. Agency Planning/Surveying Questionnaire respondents identified their functional roles/job titles displayed in Table 12: Table 12 Job Titles of Agency Planning Survey Respondents Job Title/Functional Roles Senior Technician/ Survey Supervisor Senior Manager State Surveyor Planner Research Program Manager Contract Administration Engineer Region Engineer Senior Manager/Construction Services State Photogrammetry & Surveys Engineer/mapping and surveying Surveyor CADD Services Engineer Senior Land Surveyor State Location & Surveys Engineer Survey Manager Engineering Support GPS Coordinator District Surveyor SR. Civil Engineering Manager 1 Director Engineering Solutions Delivery and Support Services Right of Way Manager Construction Staff Engineer Construction Specialist Senior Transportation Surveyor Staff Construction Engineer State Highway Development Engineer Senior Transportation engineer C & M Liaison Engineer Vertical Territory Manager-Civil Assistant Design Engineer CADD Support District Construction Project Engineer Chief of Surveys Supervising Surveyor Performance Analysis Engineer Assistant State planning engineer Chief Geodesist Administrator, bureau of planning and community assistance Engineer III - GIS manager, Surveyor Chief, Office of Land Surveys Regional Director of Transportation State Survey Engineer Survey crew party chief CAD Manager Asst. Division Head - Surveys Agency Procurement and Construction Function One hundred and twenty-one (121) persons associated with transportation agency procurement/construction functions participated in the survey. Of this total, 61 respondents identified themselves as associated with a procurement and/or construction functional area, while 36 did not respond to the question. Fifteen respondents identified their related functional areas as 'other', displayed in Table 13: Table 13 Transportation Functions of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents Functional Area Count Percentage Planning (A) 4 3%

D-18 Functional Area Count Percentage Design (B) 4 3% Procurement (C) 1 1% Construction (D) 60 50% O&M (E) 1 1% Other 15 12% No answer 33 27% Non completed 3 3% Other: Policy, District Executive, Office of Quality Assurance Construction Applications, Research, Office of Quality Assurance (Construction Applications), Systems Engineering, Contract Administration, Maintenance, Design & Construction, Construction Program Management for the FHWA, Office Engineer, Design and Construction, Engineering Services Division. Agency Procurement/Construction Survey respondents identified their functional roles/job titles displayed in the Table 14: Table 14 Job Titles of Procurement/Construction Survey Respondents Job Title/Functional Roles Highway Engineer supervisor Director of Construction Construction Engineer Deputy Chief Engineer -Construction Chief of Engineering Audit Assist Bureau Chief Const & Maint President DOT-Manager District 1 Construction Engineer Supervising Engineer, Construction Construction Liaison Engineer District Construction Engineer Construction Quality Assurance Specialist Director of Construction/Materials Regional Engineer State Construction and Materials Engineer Senior Manager/Construction Services Engineering Support Head, Construction Contracts District Executive Contract Administration Engineer Construction Management Construction Associate Transportation Engineer Division of Maintenance, Office Chief Safety, Equipment and Training Project Review Engineer Assistant District Construction Engineer Geotechnical Research Manager Construction Engineering Manager Transporation Engineer Director Systems Engineer Construction Surveyor Coordinator State Construction Engineer Area Roadway Engineer Regional Construction Engineer Director, Office of Construction Programs Manager/Surveys and Photogammetry Supervising Engineer, Construction Construction & Materials Engineer Chief Roadway Standards Engineer Programs Manager/ Surveys and Photogammetry Transportation Speciaist HQ Area Engineer Construction Operations Engineer (COE) - Supervisory Civil Engineering position Buyer Specialist State construction Engineer District Six Construction Engineer Project Development Deputy Cheif Engineer Former State Highway Administrator (Retired) performance Analysis Construction & System Preservation Engineer

D-19 Job Title/Functional Roles Project Engineer, Construction Staff Construction Engineer Civil Engineer I, Engineer in Charge Construction Quality Management Engineer Acting Chief Project Control Office Innovative Construction Contract Procedures Specialist chief roadway std Performance Analysis Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer Transportation Engineer II / Construction Field Liaison in Central Office CAD Manager Software and Hardware Vendors Thirty-six (34) persons associated with AMG software and/or hardware functions participated in this survey. The survey results consist of 19 surveys in which all the questions were answered in total. Respondents to this survey reported their business type as follows in the text and Table 15: Software Provider, Engineering Software Development, supplier, GPS Vendor, Technology provider, Technology Consultant, Software, GPS machine control supplier, Machine Controls manufacturer, All, AMG Systems Manufacturer, construction positioning dealer, sales, Supplier of Machine control technology, Manufacturer of Machine Control System for Cat and Trimble, AMG Manufacturer, Manufacturer of Machine Control and Survey Positioning Products for the Construction and Survey Markets, Design SW Manufacturer, Software Solutions Provider, Manufacturing and sale of Precise positioning equipment, Software, Software Vendor. Table 15 Software and Hardware Vendor Respondent Organization Types Answer Count Percentage Surveying and positioning equipment manufacturer and dealer (A) 8 24% Design software developer and down channel sales and training partner (B) 11 32% Equipment manufacturer and dealer (C) 5 15% Other 5 15% No answer 5 15% Non completed 0 0% Other: Construction Company, 3D Data Prep Modeling, construction positioning dealer, State DOT Heavy Equipment Vendors Thirty-six (30) persons associated with AMG heavy construction equipment functions participated in this survey. The survey consisted of 61 questions and half were answered in total. Respondents to this survey reported their functional unit/department/division as follows: • Engineering / Research • Connect Worksite • Heavy Equipment Sales • SITECH of Indiana LLC • General Contractor • Engineering / Research & Development • Research & Development • Connected Worksite, Tool Automation development group • owner • Connected Worksite, Tool Automation Development Group • Machine Sales Department/Specialty Products Group/Machine Control & Guidance, Paving Products • Machine Sales/Marketing/training • Technology Products - providing sales, support and training of AMG • Technical Communicator/Heavy Equipment Division Sales and Service Support for AccuGrade • Large Asphalt Paver Design • Connected Worksite • Technology Division

D-20 • Technical Products / Accugrade • Construction Machinery Division • Construction Division • Heavy equipment sales • Engineering Department • AEC Sales • Construction Sales Division Respondents to this survey reported their job title/functional role as follows: • Engineer • Application Engineering • Technology Specialist/Territory Manager • Construction Technology Specialist • Superintendent • V.P. Engineering / R&D • Controls Engineering Manager • Technical Development Lead Engineer • President • Connected worksite application specialist • Technical Team Lead Engineer • Manager - Specialty Products Group • Machine Sales Training mgr. • Product Support Manager - manage inventory, provide training, installation and technical assistance to end users • Sales and Service Support • Mechanical Engineer • AccuGrade Manager • Technology Specialist • Technical Product Specialist • Manger, Paving Products Machine Control & Guidance Systems • Staff Construction Engineer • Equipment Specialist - Demonstrator Operator • Vice President, Engineering • Territory Manager • Sales Operations Manager Training and Educational Organizations The survey questionnaire for training and educational organizations was intended for discovery of AMG training opportunities related to the process in general, specific hardware or software utilization, or for operators on heavy equipment. This specific survey was populated by forty-eight (48) responses with 42 full responses and 6 responses not completely filled out. As the close deadline of the online surveys approached and responses to this survey were low, the survey URL was solicited on the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) email list server, therefore approximately half of the respondents were from universities of colleges as displayed in Table 16: Table 16 Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type Answer Count Percentage Surveying and positioning equipment manufacturer and dealer (A) 3 6% Design software developer and down channel sales and training partner (B) 0 0% Equipment manufacturer and dealer (C) 4 4% Independent professional trainer (D) 1 2% University or college (E) 26 54% Other 8 17% No answer 8 17% Non completed 0 0% Other: DOT, Construction Company, Construction Company, General Contractor, Construction positioning equipment dealer, FHWA, Engineering Company, 3D MC software & Design. Respondents to the AMG training survey were offered the option to identify their organizational name. The following list represents respondents which chose to do so:

D-21 • Leica Geosystems • Construction and Materials Support Center University of Wisconsin - Madison • AMW Group, inc. • Kiewit,Stacy and Witbeck,Reyes, Parsons, a joint Venture • 3D Surface Solutions, LLC • Kiewit • Western Carolina University • Western Carolina University • Purdue University • Pittsburg State University • Wentworth Institute of Technology • Michigan Sate University, School of Planning Design and Construction • Clemson University Construction Science & Mgt • Southern Illinois University Edwardsville • Western Illinois University • Purdue University • API - Associated Professionals Inc • CSU • Mesa State College Construction Management Program • Associated Professionals Inc. (API) • University of Nebraska • FHWA • University of New Mexico • Milton Cat • SITECH of Indiana, LLC • Duplantis Design Group • OU • Georgia Southern University • Department of Technology and Construction Management Missouri State University • Colorado State University Department of Construciton Management Dept 1584 • Oregon State University School of Civil and Construction Engineering • Georgia Southern University • University of Arkansas Little Rock • California State University - Fresno Lyle's College of Engineering Construction Management Program • CSU, Chico Construction Management Department • Mississippi State University • Carlson Software, Inc. BARRIERS TO ENTRY Contractor’s Perspective The contractor’s survey contained a series of questions regarding the reasons why their organization was not utilizing AMG. The answers given to these questions are summarized as follows and displayed in the tables below: The largest barrier of entrance to AMG as ranked by the respondents (by 2 to 1) was a perception of an investment which is too costly. The majority of the contractors responding to the survey classify themselves as primarily general contractors in the public works segment who also perform construction in the private market. Reasons given for not utilizing AMG in order of descending response rate: 1. Perceived cost of entry being too high. 2. Perceived lack of vendor support. 3. Tie: Not understanding the technology and the lack of qualified technical personnel. An equal number of votes were received from contractors who stated they did not understand the AMG technology (and therefore were not using it) and those who planned to implement AMG in the future. Only two of the respondents stated that lack of cooperation by project owners was a reason for not utilizing AMG.

D-22 Respondents answered according to Table 17 when asked ‘If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s):’ Table 17 Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG Reasons Chosen Count Percentage Cost of entry is too high. (A) 14 22% Lack of vendor/technical support in this geographic area. (B) 6 10% Do not understand the technology. (C) 7 11% Lack of employees with appropriate technical skills. (D) 6 10% We plan to learn more about AMG. (E) 6 10% We plan to implement AMG in the future. (F) 7 11% The owners we work for will not cooperate. (G) 2 3% Other 15 24% Other: nothing for our work has been developed, Not our market, No applications in building construction, We build buildings not roads, Subcontract most grading work, Our Subcontractors utilize this technology. We do not directly use it, does not apply to our trades, We use very little machinery- five skid-steers, two telescopic lifts, one small excavator, this work is subcontracted out, We do not self perform site work, We are an engineering firm, We do not perform site/grading work, Existing sub surface conditions may not be safe/allow, We use 3-D technology, but grade with layout because of entrance fees. Table 18 displays a cross tabulation of two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • Does your company utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG)? The results may indicate a trend in that prime contractors engaged in the public works sector of the construction market are the early adopters of AMG technology. It would appear that prime contractors are the early adopters on both the public and private construction market segments vs. subcontractor organizations. Table 18 Contractor Use of AMG by Contractor Type and Market Segment Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment No. Yes-Mainly On Public Works Projects. Yes-Mainly On Private Market Projects. Yes-On Both Public Works and Private Market Projects Equally. Total Prime Contractor- Private Market 9 0 2 0 11 Prime Contractor- Public Works Market 18 5 2 13 38 Subcontractor-Private Market 2 0 0 0 2 Subcontractor-Public Works Market 4 1 0 3 8 Consultant-Private Market 2 0 0 1 3 Consultant-Public Works Market 0 0 0 0 0 Total 35 6 4 17 62 ‘No answer’ and ‘Other’ parsed during cross tabulation.

D-23 Table 19 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [Cost of entry is too high.] The combined responses displayed in this table may reveal a trend in perception: that the prime contractors engaged in the public market perceive the cost of entry into AMG as too high (16%) while those in the private segment do not (6%). Table 19 Contractors Not Using AMG: Is Cost of Entry Too High? Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 23 0 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 17 1 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 49 9 58 Subcontractor-Private Market 1 2 3 Subcontractor-Public Works Market 8 2 10 Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4 Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 104 14 118 Table 20 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [Lack of vendor/technical support in this geographic area.] The table of responses to these questions appears to indicate that vendor support is not a significant barrier to AMG for contractors. Table 20 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Vendor Support? Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 23 0 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 53 5 58 Subcontractor-Private Market 3 0 3 Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10 Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4

D-24 Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 112 6 118 Table 21 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [Do not understand the technology.] Only seven respondents indicated that a lack of understanding the AMG technology was a barrier to entry, roughly an equal number of prime and subcontractors in both public and private market segments. Table 21 Contractors Not Using AMG: Do Not Understand AMG Technology? Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 23 0 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 16 2 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 55 3 58 Subcontractor-Private Market 2 1 3 Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10 Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4 Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 111 7 118 Table 22 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [Lack of employees with appropriate technical skills.] Because of the low response rate it is difficult to discern meaningful trends from the cross tabulation. Table 22 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Employees with Technical Skills? Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 23 0 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 55 3 58 Subcontractor-Private 2 1 3

D-25 Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total Market Subcontractor-Public Works Market 8 2 10 Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4 Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 112 6 118 Table 23 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [We plan to learn more about AMG.] Because of the low response rate it is difficult to discern meaningful trends from the cross tabulation. Table 23 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Learn More about AMG Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 22 1 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 54 4 58 Subcontractor-Private Market 3 0 3 Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10 Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4 Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 112 6 118 Table 24 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [We plan to implement AMG in the future.] Because of the low response rate it is difficult to discern meaningful trends from the cross tabulation. Table 24 Contractors Not Using AMG: Plan to Implement in Future Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 23 0 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 54 4 58 Subcontractor-Private Market 2 1 3

D-26 Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10 Consultant-Private Market 3 1 4 Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 111 7 118 Table 25 represents cross tabulated responses from two questions in the Contractor Survey: • Please indicate your organization\'s PRIMARY type of business. • If your company does not utilize Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) please tell us the reason(s): [The owners we work for will not cooperate.] Because of the low response rate it is difficult to discern meaningful trends from the cross tabulation. Table 25 Contractors Not Using AMG: Lack of Owner Cooperation? Contractor Type and Primary Market Segment Not selected Yes Total No Answer 23 0 23 Prime Contractor-Private Market 18 0 18 Prime Contractor-Public Works Market 57 1 58 Subcontractor-Private Market 3 0 3 Subcontractor-Public Works Market 9 1 10 Consultant-Private Market 4 0 4 Consultant-Public Works Market 2 0 2 Total 116 2 118 Agency Designer’s Perspective In consideration that three-dimensional (3D) design of construction plan drawings, if created by the designer and shared with the contractor, would aid in the creation of required digital terrain models (DTM), a series of question in the Agency Design Survey revealed the following information: Obstacles to 3D design at transportation agencies were reported as follows: • A perceived steep/deep learning curve for transitioning from 2D to 3D design. This challenge had the most individual votes and the lowest standard deviation. • The perception of overcoming existing transportation agency ‘mindsets’ of design procedures. • The perceived additional time and effort required to develop accurate 3D models compared to conventional 2D design. • A perceived lack of agency design specifications for 3D models. Additional comments which reinforced 3D design as an obstacle for AMG included inadequate hardware, software, and training. Survey responses are displayed below in the following tables. Survey Question: Please rank your opinion of obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization. (1=Highest Level Obstacles, 5=Lowest Level Obstacles) [Training/Steep learning curve.] Table 26 Design Learning Curve Obstacle Answer Count Percentage

D-27 1 (1) 3 14% 2 (2) 10 45% 3 (3) 5 23% 4 (4) 4 18% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 22 100% Number of cases 29 100% No answer 7 11% Non completed 37 56% Arithmetic mean 2.45 Standard deviation 0.96 Survey Question: Please rank your opinion of obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization. (1=Highest Level Obstacles, 5=Lowest Level Obstacles) [Additional time and effort required to develop accurate 3D models.] Table 27 Design Time and Effort Obstacle Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 23% 2 (2) 6 27% 3 (3) 5 23% 4 (4) 5 23% 5 (5) 1 5% Sum (Answers) 22 100% Number of cases 29 100% No answer 7 11% Non completed 37 56% Arithmetic mean 2.59 Standard deviation 1.22 Survey Question: Please rank your opinion of obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization. (1=Highest Level Obstacles, 5=Lowest Level Obstacles) [Overcoming existing agency mindset of design procedure.] Table 28 Design Mindset Obstacle Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 7 32% 2 (2) 4 18% 3 (3) 7 32% 4 (4) 3 14% 5 (5) 1 5% Sum (Answers) 22 100% Number of cases 29 100% No answer 7 11% Non completed 37 56% Arithmetic mean 2.41 Standard deviation 1.22

D-28 Survey Question: Please rank your opinion of obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization. (1=Highest Level Obstacles, 5=Lowest Level Obstacles) [Lack of applied agency design standards.] Table 29 Design Standards Obstacle Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 3 14% 2 (2) 6 27% 3 (3) 4 18% 4 (4) 6 27% 5 (5) 3 14% Sum (Answers) 22 100% Number of cases 29 100% No answer 7 11% Non completed 37 56% Arithmetic mean 3 Standard deviation 1.31 Survey Question: Please rank your opinion of obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization. (1=Highest Level Obstacles, 5=Lowest Level Obstacles) [Lack of design/construction specifications for 3D models.] Table 30 Design Specifications Obstacle Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 18% 2 (2) 6 27% 3 (3) 6 27% 4 (4) 3 14% 5 (5) 3 14% Sum (Answers) 22 100% Number of cases 29 100% No answer 7 11% Non completed 37 56% Arithmetic mean 2.77 Standard deviation 1.31 Additional comments received from the survey in response to the question, ‘Are there any other obstacles which challenge or prevent the development of 3D design in your agency/organization?’ are as follows: • Complete new design process for production of 3d model. Lack of 3d design tools for accurate models in intersection areas. Hard to create automated templates for all cases. • Current road design software in use does not create 3D models using an acceptable method. • Electronic seals and signatures. • Construction industry acceptance. • Computers with low processing speeds. • Software, training and time. • Meeting timelines. • Adequate software to complete quality 3D models in a timely manner.

D-29 DTM CREATION, USE, AND SHARING Because Digital Terrain Models (DTM) are an essential element in the AMG process, the targeted project surveys attempted to discover current trends regarding their creation, use, and sharing. Contractor’s Perspective Responses to the Contractor Survey revealed the following: • Within construction contracting organizations, the creation of the models are tasked equally between (1) estimator functional roles, (2) specialists whose functional role is dedicated to modeling, and (3) outsourced consultants. • The DTMs contractors use for AMG are just as likely to be created from ‘scratch’ (completely built from 2D plans) as shared at 100% design maturity from the owner’s engineers. • When an owner shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with the contractor (for DTM purposes), the exchange process is not standardized in the industry. It is just as likely to occur at pre-bid, post-bid, or post-contract stages. • More than half of the EED is shared via computer networks and CD/DVD media. • More than half of the responding contractors share EED back to the owner (as-built conditions). • A heavy majority of the responding contractors utilize DTMs for estimating quantities and the means and methods of earthwork construction tasks. • A heavy majority of the contractors utilize DTMs for quantity work progress and payment. • Contractors report a wide range costs for DTM development ($150-$2500 per lane mile, $750/Acre). The following tables represent the Contractor’s Survey responses regarding DTM creation, use, and sharing: Survey Question: Does your organization utilize Digital Terrain Models (DTM) for estimating purposes? Table 31 Do Contractors utilize DTMs for Estimating? Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 0 0% No-not to date. (B) 5 12% Yes-for calculating estimate quantities. (C) 19 44% Yes-for estimating means and methods. (D) 12 28% Yes-for constructability only. (E) 4 9% Other 3 7% Other: Estimating and construction, Start to finish, we convert the data to be used for AMG system we sell. Survey Question: Have you as a contractor used AMG data to collect earthwork quantity volumes? Table 32 Do Contractors Utilized DTMs for Collection of Earthwork Quantities. Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 26 22% No (B) 2 2% Other 0 0% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40%

D-30 Survey Question: Would you as a contractor accept AMG data as a basis of payment for work performed? Table 33 Would Contractors Accept DTM Quantities for Payment? Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 22 19% No (B) 3 2% Other 2 2% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Other: if it is proven accurate, probably. Survey Question: WHO creates Digital Terrain Models (DTM) to enable Automated Machine Grading for your organization? Table 34 Contractor Functional Role Creating DTM Answer Count Percentage Estimator(s) (A) 12 30% An internal person dedicated to DTM modeling. (B) 11 28% We outsource this to a consultant. (C) 12 30% The owners provide the DTM. (D) 5 13% Other 0 0% Survey Question: What percentage of the DTMs created for your company is completely reverse engineered from paper plans and drawings? Table 35 Percentage of Contractor DTMs Created from 2D Answer Count Percentage 100% (A) 6 5% 50-75% (B) 4 4% 25-50% (C) 5 4% 0-25% (D) 6 5% 0 (E) 1 1% No answer 48 41% Non completed 47 40% If your owner-agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, such as DTMs, WHEN does the exchange occur? Table 36 When EED Data Exchange Occurs Answer Count Percentage With the bidding documents. (A) 11 31% With the contract documents (after bidding). (B) 13 36% After the contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred. (C) 10 28% Other 2 6% Other: with BIM during precon, none

D-31 Survey Question: If Electronic Engineered Data (EED) is received from the owner, which of the following datasets are typically shared? Table 37 EED Datasets Received from Owners Answer Count Percentage None. (A) 1 1% Slope stake notes. (B) 3 3% Mass points and/or break lines. (C) 15 17% Alignment. (D) 16 18% Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) (E) 8 10% Full 3D design model. (F) 10 11% 3D Surfaces. (G) 15 17% Graphics. (H) 6 7% Storm and Sanitary. (I) 12 13% Other 3 3% Other: All if the Agency request, not consistent, we usually get the designs, line work and config files for use in AMG. Survey Question: When an agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with your company for AMG, do you share EED back to the agency (i.e. as-built)? Table 38 Is EED Data Shared Back to Owners? Answer Count Percentage Usually (A) 10 8% Rarely (B) 8 7% Never (C) 5 4% Other 2 2% No answer 46 39% Non completed 47 40% Other: always, We would share EED if asked. Survey Question: When an agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with your organization, what MEDIUM is used for the exchange? Table 39 Medium Utilized for EED Data Exchanges Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 0 0% The files are shared via a secure network. (B) 12 24% The files are shared via a non-secured network. (C) 8 16% The files are shared via CD/DVD. (D) 18 35% The files are shared via flash storage media (flash drives). (E) 9 18% Other 4 8% Other: Mostly e-mailed, email, e-mail, none Survey Question: Can you share any approximate cost ratios for development of DTMs, i.e. cost per lane mile, or cost per acre? Table 40 DTM Development Cost Information Answer Count Percentage

D-32 Other: $2500/Lane Mile, +/- $150 per lane mile, Roughly $800-1000 per mile based on $80/hour bill rate, +/- $150 per lane mile, Cost per lane-mile ± $750 Cost per Acre ± $50, Typically 10 hrs to set up a 10 acre site, too early for our company to know costs, We work primarily on runway or short road projects. Cost per runway (1.5 miles of project) varies from $10,000 - $25,000 depending on complexity. Agency Designer’s Perspective Transportation design agencies reported the following from their targeted survey: • Most of the design agencies receive DTMs from their agency’s planning/survey function. • A roughly equal number of design units produce DTMs as do not. • A roughly equal number of respondents share DTMs with contractors as those who do not. • When DTMs are shared with contractors by agencies, a clear majority share them ‘as-is’ with no manipulation for AMG. • The most common EED shared is (1) horizontal and vertical alignment, (2) conventional design files, and (3) TIN triangles. • The most common file formats shared are (1) .dtm, (2) .tin, and (3) .ttm in that order descending. • A clear majority of the designers report that 3D models expose design errors and that 3D design review requires additional time vs. the 2D process. The following tables represent the Agency Designer responses regarding DTM creation, use, and sharing: Survey Question: Does your design unit receive original ground Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) from the survey/planning function? Table 41 Does Design Function Receive DTM from Survey Function? Answer Count Percentage Yes (Y) 18 27% No (N) 3 5% No answer 7 11% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: Does your design unit produce Digital Terrain Models (DTMs)? Table 42 Design Function Units Producing DTMs Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 9 14% No (B) 7 11% Don't Know (C) 0 0% No answer 12 18% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: Does your agency share design models with contractors for purposes of Automated Machine Grading (AMG)? Table 43 Does Design Unit Share Models with Contractors? Answer Count Percentage Yes 8 7% No Answer 110 93% Non completed 0 0%

D-33 No (A) 8 12% Yes-as a matter of process/procedure. (B) 1 2% Yes-always when requested. (C) 1 2% Yes-when requested and a model exists. (D) 6 8% Other 1 2% No answer 11 17% Non completed 37 57% Other: Have piloted. Survey Question: What is done to the model when shared? Table 44 Is Design Model Manipulated When Shared? Answer Count Percentage The design models must be enhanced by manipulation of the data points. (A) 1 11% The design models are shared "as-is" (B) 7 78% Other 1 11% Other: Nothing Survey Question: What datasets are exchanged? Table 45 Datasets Exchanged from Agency Design Function to Contractors Answer Count Percentage Slope stake notes. (A) 2 5% Mass points and/or break lines derived from 2D plans. (B) 2 5% Horizontal and Vertical Alignments. (C) 8 22% Partial 3D design model (e.g., without intersection detail) (D) 4 11% Full 3D design model (E) 3 8% TIN triangles (F) 4 11% Design Files (G) 6 16% Storm and Sanitary (H) 2 5% Electronic contract documents (I) 1 3% Finish Grade (J) 3 9% Other 2 5% Other: DTM, any electronic data the DOT has (in its native format)-as requested by contractor.

D-34 Survey Question: What file formats are exchanged? Table 46 File Formats Utilized in Data Exchange with Contractors Answer Count Percentage .tin (A) 4 31% .dtm (B) 5 38% .ttm (C) 2 15% .LandXML (D) 1 8% TransXML (E) 0 0% Drawing file with triangle values displayed (F) 0 0% Other 1 8% Other: dwg, dgn, ASCII. Survey Question: With whom does your agency share the information? Table 47 Functional Areas Receiving Datasets from Agency Design Answer Count Percentage Agency Surveying (A) 5 22% Design (B) 6 26% Bidding/Procurement (C) 4 17% Construction (D) 7 30% Operations/Maintenance (E) 1 4% Other 1 4% Other: Contractors when requested. Survey Question: What medium is used for the file exchange? Table 48 Medium for Data Exchange between Agency Functional Areas Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 0 0% The files are shared via a secure network (B) 5 31% The files are shared via a non-secure network (C) 0 0% The files are shared via floppy/CD media (D) 4 25% The files are shared via DVD media (E) 5 31% The files are shared via flash storage media (F) 1 6% Other 1 6% Other: e-mail. Survey Question: How many design surfaces are supplied? Table 49 Design Surfaces Shared by Agency Design Functional Area Answer Count Percentage Final Top Surface and Final Bottom of Pavement Box Surface. (A) 2 3% Final Top Surface Only. (B) 2 3% Final Bottom of Pavement Surface Only. (C) 1 2% Other 2 3% No answer 21 32% Non completed 37 57% Other: Existing only, multiple surfaces: top-grading-subcuts-aggregates.

D-35 Survey Question: Does creation of DTM models add to the design unit's time allotted for production? Table 50 Additional Time Required for DTM Model Creation by Agency Design Functions Answer Count Percentage No (A) 3 18% Yes-the models have revealed minor errors in some data points which require time to correct. (B) 3 18% Yes- the models have revealed major errors in some data points which require time to correct. (C) 2 12% Yes-it takes more time to incorporate a design review into the process in order to issue engineered design data with the paper plans. (D) 6 35% I don't know. (E) 2 12% Other 1 6% Other: Still testing with several district design units. Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective • The photogrammetric topographical collection method was the most prevalent at agencies, followed by RTK GPS and conventional Total Station surveying. • 76% of agency planning/survey units indicate that they create DTMs. Survey Question: Which technology is most utilized in collection of topographic data? Table 51 Agency Planning Function Topographic Data Collection Methods Answer Count Percentage Conventional Total Station surveying (A) 5 7% Robotic Total Station surveying (B) 2 3% GPS (C) 1 1% RTK GPS (D) 7 9% Photogrammetric (E) 8 10% Other 0 0% No answer 3 4% Non completed 50 66% Survey Question: Does your agency create 3D Digital Terrain Models (DTM) as a process in the surveying functions? Table 52 Are DTMs Created by Planning Surveying Units? Answer Count Percentage No (A) 1 1% Yes-in some District offices (B) 4 5% Yes-in all districts (C) 16 21% Do not know (D) 0 0% No answer 5 7% Non completed 50 66% Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective • An equal number of procurement/construction units responding to the survey share EED with contractors as those who do not. • A clear majority of respondents in the agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas reported that field inspectors do not have access to DTMs. Agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas that do not share EED with contractors:

D-36 • A clear majority of procurement/construction units which do not share EED hold the opinion that contractors should be responsible for creation of DTMs for AMG. • An equal split of procurement/construction respondents felt that the responsibility for DTM contract compliance rested with either the agency or the contractor. • A clear majority of the respondents which do not share EED felt that agencies should share DTMs with contractors and vice-versa. • A clear majority of procurement/construction units which do not share EED hold the opinion that contractors should share EED back to the agency. • A clear majority of procurement/construction units which do not share EED felt that DTMs should be shared with contractors in the pre-bid stage, while a significant portion of respondents felt that the exchange should occur after a pre-construction conference. It appears from comments received that many plan to provide at pre-bid. Agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas that do share EED with contractors: • Of procurement/construction units which do share EED, an equal number of respondents stated that responsibility for creation of the DTM was either the contractor’s or the agency’s responsibility. • A clear majority reported that EED exchange actually occurs after contract execution at the pre- construction conference or stage. • A clear majority of the respondents in this survey reported that the owner’s warranty of constructible plans was for 2D ‘stamped’ drawings only. • Approximately half of the respondents which share EED with contractors reported contractors exchanging EED back to the agency. • Alignment EED was the most reported dataset exchanged. • An equal number of respondents which exchange EED with contractors reported that primary responsibility for creation of the DTM was either with the agency or the contractor. • Regarding revisions to the DTM after the initial share with the contractor, agencies were split on how to align plan changes to the model. Survey Question: Does your agency share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors for Automated Machine Grading? Table 53 Does Your Agency Procurement/Construction Units Share EED? Answer Count Percentage Yes (Y) 25 21% No (N) 27 22% No answer 6 5% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: Referring to the previous question. In your opinion, who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? Table 54 Primary Responsibility for DTM Contract Conformation According to Transportation Agencies Answer Not Sharing EED Sharing EED Count Percentage Count Percentage Contractor (A) 12 10% 14 12% Consultant on Subcontract to the contractor (B) 0 0% 0 0% Agency (C) 11 9% 4 3% Consultant on subcontract to the agency (D) 2 2% 0 0%

D-37 Answer Not Sharing EED Sharing EED Other 1 1% 4 3% No answer 32 26% 36 30% Non completed 63 52% 63 52% Other (Not Sharing): Design Review function. Other (Sharing): Provided to contractor with disclaimer at this point, See above, who created DTM, whoever creates the model. Survey Question: A Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS sub grade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion, who should be primarily responsible for creation of the DTM? Table 55 DTM Creation Responsibility by According to Transportation Agencies Answer Not Sharing EED Sharing EED Count Percentage Count Percentage Contractor (A) 13 11% 9 7% Consultant on Subcontract to the contractor (B) 1 1% 0 0% Agency (C) 5 4% 7 6% Consultant on subcontract to the agency (D) 5 4% 2 2% Other 1 1% 6 5% No answer 33 27% 34 28% Non completed 63 52% 63 52% Other (Not Sharing): depends. Other (Sharing): Agency or consultant-whichever creates the design file, We only provide data that we have upon request. The contractor would have to create anything else they would need to use it, We also create them but not as a standard practice at this time-we are heading toward that, We have used both the Agency, Consultant and the Contractor, depending on the project, unknown, first three options above. Survey Question: Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS sub grade Staking. some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion, should public works agencies share this data with contractors? Table 56 Should Agencies Share EED with Contractors? Answer Not Sharing EED Sharing EED Count Percentage Count Percentage Yes (A) 21 17% 15 12% No (B) 1 1% 3 3% Not Sure (C) 2 2% 0 0% Other 1 1% 7 6% No answer 33 27% 33 27% Non completed 63 52% 63 52% Other (Not Sharing): Yes, but with disclaimer, I think we should help as much as possible while allowing the Contractor/Consultant be responsible for their model. Other (Sharing): Only on Pilot jobs, If requested by the contractor, We have but with disclaimers, Our design software at this time does not easily transform to DTM model, yes when requested, When contractor requests, If available, if we have it we share.

D-38 Survey Questions targeted at Agencies Not Sharing EED: Survey Question: If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or Subgrade Staking by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), should the contractor share this data with public works agencies? Table 57 Should Contractors Share EED with Transportation Agencies? Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 25 21% No (B) 0 0% Not Sure (C) 1 1% Other 0 0% No answer 32 26% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN, in your opinion, should the exchange occur? Table 58 At What Contract Stage Should EED be Exchanged? Answer Count Percentage With the Bidding documents (A) 16 13% With the Contract documents (B) 1 1% After contract is executed and pre-construction meeting has occurred (C) 8 7% Other 1 1% No answer 32 26% Non completed 63 52% Other: Contract, Preconstruction and Design Reviews Survey Questions targeted to Agencies Sharing EED: Survey Question: If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or sub grade staking by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), does the contractor share the DTM back to your agency? Table 59 Do Contractors Currently Exchange DTMs with Agencies? Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 10 8% No (B) 7 6% Not Sure (C) 4 3% Other 3 3% No answer 34 28% Non completed 63 52% Other: Not required, We would require that yes and check with original ground control data, upon request. Survey Question: If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, how does your agency provide the "Engineer's Stamp" of approval on digital models or datasets? Table 60 How are Electronic Plans Officially/Professionally Approved? Answer Count Percentage Only the paper drawings are stamped and they govern. (A) 18 15% We have no method of approving the digital data (B) 4 3% Electronic signatures (C) 0 0%

D-39 Answer Count Percentage Other 2 2% No answer 34 28% Non completed 63 52% Other: data is provided as information only, as it is not part of the legal plan set, it is not stamped. Survey Question: If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the exchange occur? Table 61 At What Contract Stage is EED Exchanged? Answer Count Percentage With the Bidding documents (A) 4 3% With the Contract documents (B) 2 2% After contract is executed and pre-construction meeting has occurred (C) 12 10% Other 7 6% No answer 33 27% Non completed 63 52% Other: Right now it is after award of contract but we are switching to with Bidding Documents, At request of the Contractor (during bid period or after award), When requested by the contractor, We are moving to share with bidding documents, Currently after award, moving to make EED available at bid time, Upon request, Only when requested by the Contractor awarded the Contract. Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what datasets are exchanged? Table 62 EED Datasets Exchanged by Agencies Answer Count Percentage None (A) 0 0% Slope stake notes (B) 7 10% mass points and/or break lines (C) 6 9% Alignment (D) 15 22% Partial 3D design model (e.g without intersection detail) (E) 5 7% Full 3D design model (F) 7 10% 3D Surfaces (G) 10 14% Graphics (H) 6 9% Storm and Sanitary (I) 5 7% Electronic contract documents (J) 4 6% Other 4 6% Other: Any data that we have is made available to the contractor upon their request, As available from Design, Provided electronically but not in DTM, See Agency Design and Survey Sections. Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, how are the design changes handled after the original model has been issued? Table 63 How are DTM Revisions Aligned with Original Issued Models? Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 5 4% A new model with corrections is issued to the contractor (B) 5 4% The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version of the model (C) 6 5% Other 3 3%

D-40 Answer Count Percentage No answer 39 32% Non completed 63 52% Other: negotiated with contractor depending on project specific agreements, depends on extent of changes and time interval before it is needed in construction. Survey Question: Do your field inspectors have access to 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) used for construction? Table 64 Agency Inspector Access to DTMs Answer Count Percentage Yes-on most projects (A) 5 4% Yes-on selected projects (B) 9 7% No (C) 30 25% Other 6 5% No answer 8 7% Non completed 63 52% Other: We are currently writing our specifications and this will be a requirement, 1 Pilot project, State Survey Crews are available to our inspectors, upon request, Yes- when provided by contractor, Not utilized by field inspectors to date. QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCURACY Addressing the topics of accuracy and its control spans multiple stakeholders and stages in the project lifecycle. The project’s targeted surveys collected information and opinions from parties implementing AMG in the various stages of the process and we have attempted to compare their experiences and perceptions. Since the AMG process begins with the collection and use of existing project data, the foundation of quality and accuracy begin there (establishment of survey control). This collected terrain data is then transferred to additional stakeholders and manipulated in various software applications via import and export and additional data is added in the creation of design models. The end-users of the AMG process further manipulate this data for use in the heavy equipment which performs the grading method. In all of these processes there are potential issues and pitfalls regarding quality and accuracy before AMG implementation actually occurs. Quality control and accuracy issues in the implementation stage involve human competencies, equipment competencies, and ‘best practice’ processes and procedures. This section displays survey responses regarding quality control and accuracy in the following areas: • Data Collection • Digital Terrain Modeling and EED • AMG Processes and Procedures/End-User Competencies • QA/QC Reported Practices • Heavy Grading Equipment Issues Topographical Data and Collection: • Transportation planning and surveying units are increasingly mature in their data collection processes and use of cutting-edge technology (RTK Post-Processed GPS Surveying). • Most surveying units responding to the surveys have effective and validated RTK GPS specifications which guide their processes of data collection. • Planners and surveyors reported that Robotic Total Station surveying was slightly more accurate than conventional total station surveying, both of which were deemed considerably more accurate

D-41 than GPS and Photogrammetric surveying as shown in table Table 65. The lower the number in the table, the higher the rating of the respondents (on a scale of 1-4). Table 65 Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies Ranking of Surveying Technology Accuracy Count Std Dev Avg Rank Robotic Total Station surveying 32 0.50 1.52 1 Conventional Total Station surveying 32 0.79 1.52 2 GPS 48 0.93 2.29 3 Photogrammetric 75 0.79 3.57 4 • Ninety percent (90%) of respondents reported horizontal accuracy of 2 centimeters or less with GPS surveying equipment. • Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents reported vertical accuracy of 2 centimeters or less with GPS surveying equipment. • Digital Terrain Modeling: Table 66 Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software Organizations DTM Accuracy Factors Contractors Agency P/C SW/HW Number of data points in DTM 70% 90% 80% File types of shared data 52% 56% 67% Number of data translations 56% 77% 63% DTM constructability review 77% 70% 73% *This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor as ‘Important’ or ‘Very Important’. Table 67 Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors Factors Contributing to EED Accuracy SW_HW Elevation point density 94% Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes 81% The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process 88% Engineer design competencies in design software use 100% *This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor as ‘Important’ or ‘Very Important’. AMG: Table 68 Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software Organizations AMG Accuracy Factors Contractors Agency P/C SW/HW File size of DTM 46% 47% 10% DTM constructability review 75% 76% 40% Training/competencies of model builders 100% 90% 100% Training/competencies of field personnel (rover-checkers) 85% 85% 70% Training/Competencies of grading machine operators 81% 88% 70%

D-42 Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors 52% 70% 60% In-field QA/QC programs/procedures 89% 84% 80% *This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor as ‘Important’ or ‘Very Important’. QA/QC: Contractors • A large majority of contractors felt that AMG Quality control and tolerances should be controlled via existing standard specifications versus special provisions. • A majority of contractors which use AMG perform grade checking with a rover. • A majority of contractors using AMG perform QA/QC checks daily versus hourly or by sections/geometry of the project. • A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process exposes design errors earlier than conventional processes, and therefore reduces rework. • A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process is more accurate than conventional staking processes. • A majority of contractors felt that providing a surveyor and rover to agencies was sufficient for quality assurance, while they were equally divided over providing (1) rover and training, (2) grade stakes and grade sheets, (3) cut sheets. Heavy Equipment: The following AMG accuracy factors were reported as ‘Very Important’ or ‘Important’ by the contractor, agency, and heavy equipment vendor stakeholder groups by more than 50 percent of their respective respondents: • Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) • Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) • Lack of operator training • End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) • Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer • Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners • Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process • Errors in setting up the control network • Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM Tolerances specified by agencies/owners’ was deemed important by the contractors and equipment vendors, but only a third of the agency respondents thought the same. ‘Hydraulic sensor selection’ was considered an important accuracy factor by more than half the contractors, while less than a half of the agencies and less than a third of the vendors rated important. Table 69 Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Organizations Heavy Equipment Accuracy Factors Contractors Agency P/C H_Eqp Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) 77% 75% 81% Tolerances specified by agencies/owners 73% 34% 50% Hydraulic sensor selection 58% 44% 23% Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic 77% 62% 63%

D-43 Heavy Equipment Accuracy Factors Contractors Agency P/C H_Eqp control response) Lack of operator training 80% 75% 81% End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) 77% 65% 63% Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer 85% 70% 93% Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners 62% 70% 94% Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process 88% 74% 88% Errors in setting up the control network 96% 89% 94% Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM 96% 75% 80% Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM 81% 74% 87% Not cross-checking the final ground model of the DTM with owner. 69% N/A N/A *This table represents the percentage of respondents who chose ‘Important’ or ‘Very Important.’ Contractors: • Seventy-two percent of the responding contractors felt that quality control should be specified utilizing the agency’s exiting standard specifications. • A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that conforming or aligning the DTM to the contract documents was their responsibility vs. the owner/agency of consultants. • A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that design changes to the DTM after creation of the original model was their responsibility. • Almost half of the contractors responding perform quality control by grade checking with a GPS rover. • A majority of the responding contractors check AMG quality daily vs. hourly or by project geometry. Contractor’s Perspective Survey Question: If your owner-agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Guidance technology on projects, how are quality control (tolerances) specified? Table 70 Contractor Reported AMG Specification Types Answer Count Percentage Via existing Standard Specifications. (A) 23 72% Via Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specifications. (B) 6 19% Not Sure. (C) 1 3% Not specified or no specifications exist. (D) 1 3% Other 1 3% Other: owner decides. Survey Question: WHO is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? Table 71 Contractor Reported DTM Responsibility for Contract Compliance Answer Count Percentage Contractor. (A) 27 23% Consultant on subcontract to the contractor. (B) 0 0%

D-44 Answer Count Percentage Agency (C) 0 0% Consultant on subcontract to the agency. (D) 0 0% Other 0 0 % No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: How are design changes handled after original Electronic Engineered Data (EED) has been issued/exchanged? Table 72 Contractor Reported EED Change Sequence Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 2 2% New EED incorporating the changes is issued to the contractor. (B) 6 5% The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version of the EED. (C) 17 14% Other 1 1% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Other: EEd is changed by the agency submitted to contractor and contractor submits changes to sub- contractor. Survey Question: Who performs Quality Control (QC) when AMG is in process? Table 73 Contractor Reported AMG QC Responsibility Answer Count Percentage Agency-Owner (A) 0 0% Contractor Personnel (B) 24 20% 3rd party consultant/subcontractor (C) 5 4% Other 0 0% No answer 42 36% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: How do your construction personnel perform Quality Control (QC) when AMG is in process? Table 74 Contractor Reported AMG QC Performance Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 0 0% Grade checking with a GPS rover. (B) 24 43% Grade checking with a Total Station Collector. (C) 8 14% Grade checking with laser technology. (D) 11 20% Hire 3rd-party consultant for QC. (E) 12 21% Other 1 2% Other: Grade checking with stakes.

D-45 Survey Question: At what intervals do your construction personnel perform Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) when AMG is in process? [Quality Control (QC)] Table 75 AMG Quality Control Intervals by Contractors Answer Count Percentage By the Hour (1) 3 3% Daily (2) 17 14% Weekly (3) 1 1% By Linear Feet/Meters (4) 1 1% By Station (5) 4 3% Per Intersection (6) 2 2% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: At what intervals do your construction personnel perform Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) when AMG is in process? [Quality Assurance (QA)] Table 76 AMG Quality Assurance Intervals by Contractors Answer Count Percentage By the Hour (1) 1 1% Daily (2) 14 12% Weekly (3) 3 3% By Linear Feet/Meters (4) 1 1% By Station (5) 4 3% Per Intersection (6) 2 2% No answer 46 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: Please indicate your opinion regarding the Following: [Automated Machine Guidance exposes errors in design early in the process, avoiding costly rework.] Table 77 Contractor AMG Opinion on Rework Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 14 12% Agree (2) 11 9% Disagree (3) 1 1% No Opinion (4) 1 1% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: Please indicate your opinion regarding the Following: [Automated Machine Guidance is more accurate than conventional methods.] Table 78 Contractor AMG Opinion on Accuracy vs Conventional Methods Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 12 10% Agree (2) 11 9% Disagree (3) 2 2% No Opinion (4) 2 2% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40%

D-46 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Number of original data points in DTM.] Table 79 Contractor AMG Opinion on Data Points in DTM Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 14 19% 2 (2) 5 7% 3 (3) 8 11% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.00 Standard deviation 1.00 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [File types of shared data.] Table 80 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM File Types Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 7 9% 2 (2) 7 9% 3 (3) 9 12% 4 (4) 2 3% 5 (5) 2 3% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.44 Standard deviation 1.19 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports).] Table 81 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Translations Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 5% 2 (2) 11 15% 3 (3) 8 11% 4 (4) 4 55% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37%

D-47 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.44 Standard deviation 0.93 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [DTM constructability review.] Table 82 Contractor AMG Opinion on DTM Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 10 14% 2 (2) 10 14% 3 (3) 5 7% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 0 0. % Sum (Answers) 26 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 1.88 Standard deviation 0.86 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [File size of the DTM.] Table 83 Contractor Opinion on DTM File Size Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 6% 2 (2) 8 11% 3 (3) 11 15% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 2 3% Sum (Answers) 26 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.58 Standard deviation 1.06 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [DTM constructability review.] Table 84 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 6% 2 (2) 14 20% 3 (3) 6 9%

D-48 Answer Count Percentage 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 24 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 47 40% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.08 Standard deviation 0.65 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of model builders.] Table 85 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Model Builders Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 18 24% 2 (2) 9 12% 3 (3) 0 0% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 1.33 Standard deviation 0.48 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of field personnel (rovers-checkers).] Table 86 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training of Field Personnel Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 10 14% 2 (2) 13 18% 3 (3) 3 4% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 1.81 Standard deviation 0.79

D-49 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of grading machine operators.] Table 87 Contractor DTM Opinion on Training Machine Operators Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 11 15% 2 (2) 11 15% 3 (3) 4 5% 4 (4) 1 15% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 48 40% Arithmetic mean 1.81 Standard deviation 0.83 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors.] Table 88 Contractor Opinion on DTM Training for Owners Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 7% 2 (2) 9 12% 3 (3) 7 10% 4 (4) 3 4% 5 (5) 3 4% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.63 Standard deviation 1.24 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [In-field QA/QC programs/procedures.] Table 89 Contractor Opinion on DTM QA/QC Procedures Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 12 16% 2 (2) 12 16% 3 (3) 3 4% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40%

D-50 Answer Count Percentage Arithmetic mean 1.67 Standard deviation 0.68 Survey Question: How should owner-agencies request contractor assistance with Quality Assurance (QA)? Table 90 Contractor Opinion on Owner AMG QA/QC Procedures Answer Count Percentage Contractor provides agency a rover and training. (A) 8 19% Contractor provides a surveyor and rover at the agencies discretion. (B) 13 31% Contractor provides agency grade stakes and grade sheets. (C) 9 21% Contractor provides agency with cut sheets. (D) 8 19% Other 4 10% Other: But at agencies and contractors convenience, owner to supply their own equipment with contractor furnished card, contractor provides as-builts, n/a. Survey Question: A- In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser)] Table 91 Contractor Opinion on AMG Positioning Methods Accuracy Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 6 5% Important (B) 14 12% Neutral (C) 2 2% Somewhat Important (D) 3 2% Not Important (E) 1 1% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Tolerances specified by agencies/owners] Table 92 Contractor Opinion on AMG Tolerances Specified by Owners Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 8 7% Important (B) 11 9% Neutral (C) 5 4% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 1 1% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40%

D-51 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Hydraulic sensor selection] Table 93 Contractor Opinion on AMG Hydraulic Sensor Selection Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 4 3% Important (B) 11 9% Neutral (C) 10 9% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response)] Table 94 Contractor Opinion on AMG Machine Response Time Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 10 8% Important (B) 10 8% Neutral (C) 5 5% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Lack of operator training] Table 95 Contractor Opinion on AMG Operator Training Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 11 9% Important (B) 9 8% Neutral (C) 2 2% Somewhat Important (D) 2 2% Not Important (E) 1 1% No answer 46 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software)] Table 96 Contractor Opinion on AMG End-user Error Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 12 10% Important (B) 8 7%

D-52 Answer Count Percentage Neutral (C) 5 4% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer] Table 97 Contractor Opinion on AMG Customer Technical Ignorance Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 13 10% Important (B) 9 8% Neutral (C) 2 2% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 1 1% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners] Table 98 Contractor Opinion on AMG Owner Technical Ignorance Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 7 6% Important (B) 9 8% Neutral (C) 7 6% Somewhat Important (D) 3 2% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process] Table 99 Contractor Opinion of AMG QA/QC Failure Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 10 8% Important (B) 13 11% Neutral (C) 3 3% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40%

D-53 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Errors in setting up the control network] Table 100 Contractor Opinion on AMG Control Network Errors Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 18 15% Important (B) 7 6% Neutral (C) 0 0% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM] Table 101 Contractor Opinion on DTM Final Surface Inaccuracy Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 16 14% Important (B) 9 8% Neutral (C) 0 0% Somewhat Important (D) 1 1% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 37% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM] Table 102 Contractor Opinion on DTM Original Surface Inaccuracies Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 10 8% Important (B) 11 9% Neutral (C) 1 1% Somewhat Important (D) 4 4% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: Table 40M- In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG. [Not cross-checking the final ground model of the DTM with owner.] Table 103 Contractor Opinion on DTM Constructability Review and Heavy Equipment Accuracy Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 4 3% Important (B) 14 12% Neutral (C) 4 3%

D-54 Answer Count Percentage Somewhat Important (D) 4 3% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40%

D-55 Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective Survey Question: In your opinion, which areas should a guidance specification in public works agencies address? Table 104 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Content Answer Count Percentage GPS Machine Guidance (A) 0 0% Construction GPS Subgrade Staking (B) 0 0% Both GPS Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking (C) 13 11% Procedures for sharing EED (D) 7 6% Not Sure (E) 5 4% Other 1 1% No answer 32 26% Non completed 63 52% Other: Procedures for sharing EED and procedures for location staking. Survey Question: If public works agencies allow GPS Automated Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how in your opinion should quality control (tolerances) be specified? Table 105 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Specification Basis Answer Count Percentage Via existing Standard Specifications (A) 9 7% Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specification (B) 13 11% Not Sure (C) 2 2% Other 2 2% No answer 32 26% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: Which areas does your agency's AMG specification address? Table 106 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Content Answer Count Percentage Machine Guidance (A) 4 15% Construction Subgrade Staking (B) 3 11% Both Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking (C) 8 30% Procedures for sharing EED (D) 1 4% Not Sure (E) 3 11% Other 8 30% Survey Question: If your agency allows GPS Automated Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how is quality control (tolerances) specified? Table 107 Agency Procurement Existing AMG Specification Basis Answer Count Percentage Via existing Standard Specifications (A) 16 13% Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specification (B) 6 5% Not Sure (C) 0 0%

D-56 Answer Count Percentage Other 3 2% No answer 33 27% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: A digital Terrain Model (DTM) is required to perform Automated Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? Table 108 Agency Procurement DTM Contract Conformance Responsibility Answer Count Percentage Contractor (A) 14 12% Consultant on Subcontract to the contractor (B) 0 0% Agency (C) 4 3% Consultant on subcontract to the agency (D) 0 0% Other 4 3% No answer 36 30% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, are the contractors involved in the QA/QC process for design? Table 109 Agency Procurement DTM QA/QC Process Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 4 3% No- contractors must make any corrections to the DTM at their own risk. (B) 15 12% Yes-if the contractor discovers errors, we have a process of incorporating the corrections back into the design DTM model. (C) 1 1% Other 3 3% No answer 35 29% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: Does a typical contract involving AMG require the contractor to provide agency personnel with the means to electronically check grades? Table 110 Agency Procurement QA/QC Contractor Involvement Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 7 6% No (B) 28 23% Other 8 7% No answer 14 12% Non completed 64 52% Survey Question: How do your construction inspectors perform construction QA/QC for grade/subgrade when Automated Machine Grading is in process? Table 111 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Process When Work Underway Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 16 11% Grade checking with GPS rover (B) 13 23%

D-57 Answer Count Percentage Grade checking with Total Station collector (C) 22 39% Grade checking with laser technology (D) 2 4% Other 13 23% Survey Question: If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, do you have any data or feedback to support the following statements? Table 112 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Benefits Answer Count Percentage Errors and omissions are more easily discovered. (A) 5 9% Pay item calculations are more efficient. (B) 4 7% Pay item calculations are more accurate. (C) 3 5% N/A (D) 42 76% Other 1 2% Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Number of original data points in DTM] Table 113 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Points Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 21 21% 2 (2) 14 14% 3 (3) 2 2% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 39 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 19 16% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.62 Standard deviation 0.81 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [File types of shared data] Table 114 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Types Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 4% 2 (2) 15 16% 3 (3) 7 7% 4 (4) 7 7% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 34 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 24 20% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.59

D-58 Answer Count Percentage Standard deviation 1.05 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports)] Table 115 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Data Translations Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 6% 2 (2) 18 19% 3 (3) 5 5% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 31 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 27 22% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.13 Standard deviation 0.88 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Digital Terrain Models (DTM) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [DTM constructability review] Table 116 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 8 8% 2 (2) 15 16% 3 (3) 6 6% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 3 3% Sum (Answers) 33 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 25 21% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.27 Standard deviation 1.15 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [File size of the DTM] Table 117 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM File Size Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 5% 2 (2) 11 11% 3 (3) 13 13% 4 (4) 4 4% 5 (5) 1 1%

D-59 Answer Count Percentage Sum (Answers) 34 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 24 20% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.56 Standard deviation 0.99 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [DTM constructability review] Table 118 Agency Procurement Opinion on DTM Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 8 8% 2 (2) 18 19% 3 (3) 5 5% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 34 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 24 20% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.12 Standard deviation 0.95 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of model builders.] Table 119 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Model Builders Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 25 24% 2 (2) 11 11% 3 (3) 2 2% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 2 2% Sum (Answers) 40 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 18 15% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.58 Standard deviation 0.98

D-60 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of field personnel (rover-checkers)] Table 120 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Field Personnel Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 14 14% 2 (2) 19 18% 3 (3) 4 4% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 2 2% Sum (Answers) 39 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 19 16% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.9 Standard deviation 0.97 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/Competencies of grading machine operators] Table 121 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Machine Operators Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 20 19% 2 (2) 15 15% 3 (3) 3 3% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 2 2% Sum (Answers) 40 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 18 15% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.73 Standard deviation 0.99 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors] Table 122 Agency Procurement Opinion on Training for Owners Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 9 9% 2 (2) 19 19% 3 (3) 10 10% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 40 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 18 15%

D-61 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.13 Standard deviation 0.82

D-62 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [In-field QA/QC programs/procedures] Table 123 Agency Procurement Opinion on QA/QC Procedures Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 15 15% 32% 2 (2) 17 17% 3 (3) 5 5% 5% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 0 0% 1% Sum (Answers) 38 100% 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 20 17% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.79 Standard deviation 0.78 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Original control network] Table 124 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 25 25% 34% 2 (2) 9 9% 3 (3) 3 2% 2% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 1 1% 1% Sum (Answers) 38 100% 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 20 16% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.5 Standard deviation 0.86 Survey Question: Do typical contracts at your agency require the contractor to provide personnel with the means to electronically check grade elevations? Table 125 Agency Procurement AMG QA/QC Contribution from Contractors Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 5 4% No (B) 35 29% Don't Know (C) 4 3% Other 6 5% No answer 8 7% Non completed 63 52%

D-63 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser)] Table 126 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Positioning Methods Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 12 11% 2 (2) 21 20% 3 (3) 8 7% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.07 Standard deviation 0.93 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners] Table 127 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Tolerances Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 1 1% 2 (2) 13 12% 3 (3) 11 10% 4 (4) 11 10% 5 (5) 5 5% Sum (Answers) 41 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 17 14% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 3.15 Standard deviation 1.09 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Hydraulic sensor selection] Table 128 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Hydraulic Sensor Selection Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 3 3% 2 (2) 11 12% 3 (3) 16 17% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 32 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 26 21% Non completed 63 52%

D-64 Answer Count Percentage Arithmetic mean 2.53 Standard deviation 0.76 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response)] Table 129 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 12 12% 2 (2) 12 12% 3 (3) 10 10% 4 (4) 5 5% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 39 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 19 15% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.21 Standard deviation 1.03 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Lack of operator training] Table 130 Agency Procurement Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 18 15% 2 (2) 15 12% 3 (3) 11 9% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.84 Standard deviation 0.81 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software)] Table 131 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-End-user Error Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 13 12% 2 (2) 15 14% 3 (3) 10 9% 4 (4) 2 2%

D-65 Answer Count Percentage 5 (5) 3 3% Sum (Answers) 43 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 15 12% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.23 Standard deviation 1.15 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer] Table 132 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Technical Ignorance Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 12 11% 2 (2) 18 17% 3 (3) 7 7% 4 (4) 3 3% 5 (5) 3 3% Sum (Answers) 43 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 15 12% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.23 Standard deviation 1.15 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners] Table 133 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Owner Ignorance Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 13 12% 2 (2) 18 17% 3 (3) 7 7% 4 (4) 6 6% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.14 Standard deviation 1

D-66 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process] Table 134 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-QA/QC Process Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 11 10% 2 (2) 21 20% 3 (3) 8 7% 4 (4) 3 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 43 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 15 12% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.07 Standard deviation 0.86 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Errors in setting up the control network] Table 135 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Control Network Errors Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 22 20% 2 (2) 17 16% 3 (3) 3 3% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.66 Standard deviation 0.81 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Inaccuracies in the DTM] Table 136 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-DTM Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 17 16% 2 (2) 16 15% 3 (3) 9 8% 4 (4) 2 2% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11%

D-67 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.91 Standard deviation 0.88 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM] Table 137 Agency Procurement Opinion on Heavy Equipment Accuracy-Original Survey Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 18 17% 2 (2) 14 13% 3 (3) 8 7% 4 (4) 3 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 43 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 15 12% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.91 Standard deviation 0.95 Agency Designer’s Perspective Survey Question: Does your design unit adhere to CAD drafting standards? Table 138 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Utilized Answer Count Percentage No (A) 4 6% Yes-Published Standards developed nationally. (B) 0 0% Yes-Published Standards developed by the agency. (C) 12 18% Yes-Published Standards developed internally. (D) 3 5% I don't know. (E) 1 2% No answer 8 12% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: Based on the Standards identified, indicate the level of adoption of these Standards: Table 139 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Implementation Answer Count Percentage Adopted the Standards and comply fully without any modifications. (A) 8 12% Adopted the Standards and comply with slight modifications. (B) 6 9% Adopted the Standards, and comply with major modifications. (C) 0 0% No answer 14 22% Non completed 37 57%

D-68 Survey Question: Please indicate the level of adoption, in your opinion, of the CAD Drafting Standards: (1=Most Adopted, 5=Least Adopted) Table 140 Agency Design CAD Drafting Standard Adoption Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 9 16% 2 (2) 2 3% 3 (3) 6 10% 4 (4) 1 2% 5 (5) 2 3% Sum (Answers) 20 100% Number of cases 28 100% No answer 8 12% Non completed 37 57% Arithmetic mean 2.25 Standard deviation 1.37 Survey Question: Is there a formal design QA/QC program to ensure that the CAD Standards are followed? If so, please rate the level of formality to which they are followed by your agency (1=strictly followed, 5=loosely followed) Table 141 Agency Design CAD Standard QA/QC Compliance Answer Count Percentage No (A) 8 12% 1 (B) 4 6% 2 (C) 4 6% 3 (D) 1 2% 4 (E) 3 5% 5 (F) 0 0% No answer 8 12% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: Type the title of the CAD Drafting standards: The thirteen written responses were: • Roadway Design CADD Standards • MDOT CAD Drafting Standards • http://www.txdot.gov/business/disclaim.htm • NCDOT CADD Standards • NYSDOT Highway Design Manual NYSDOT CADD Standards a& Procedures Manual • Federal Lands Highway Division CADD Standards • CADD Standards Manual http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/caddmanual/caddmanual- welcome.htm • SHA CADD Standards. • CADD Engineering Standards Manual, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Production/CADD/Pages/CADDManual.aspx • KDOT Graphic Standards • Computer Aided Design and Drafting Standard Manual, 2000 • Delaware Department of Transportation CADD Standards Manual

D-69 • Mn/DOT CAD Standards • DM3 Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to DTM accuracy. [Elevation point density.] Table 142 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Elevation Points Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 6 9% Important (B) 8 12% Neutral (C) 2 3% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 12 19% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to DTM accuracy. [Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow process.] Table 143 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-CAD Standards Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 7 11% Important (B) 6 9% Neutral (C) 2 3% Somewhat Important (D) 1 2% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 12 18% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to DTM accuracy. [The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process.] Table 144 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Work Process Sequence Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 3 5% Important (B) 5 8% Neutral (C) 6 9% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 2 3% No answer 12 18% Non completed 37 57% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to DTM accuracy. [Engineer design competencies in design software use.] Table 145 Agency Design Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Software Competencies Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 9 14% Important (B) 4 6% Neutral © 1 2% Somewhat Important (D) 2 3%

D-70 Answer Count Percentage Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 12 18% Non completed 37 57% Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective Survey Question: Is post-processed of RTK GPS utilized when project control is established for contractors? Table 146 Agency Planning RTK GPS Utilization Answer Count Percentage Always when signal available (A) 5 7% Occasionally (B) 4 5% Primarily with conventional levels to establish vertical component (C) 8 10% Never (D) 2 3% No answer 7 9% Non completed 50 66% Survey Question: When horizontal project control is established WITHOUT GPS for contractors (Centerline, Offsets, Grade Sheets), What amount of angular redundancy is used on each traverse point? Table 147 Agency Planning Angular Redundancy Answer Count Percentage 2 sets (A) 9 12% 4 sets (B) 3 4% 8 sets (C) 0 0% Other 3 4% No answer 11 14% Non completed 50 66% Other: GPS Only, resection within defined tolerances, We use GPS for control. Survey Question: If your agency utilizes GPS for surveying, which of the following control processes are utilized? Table 148 Agency Planning GPS Control Processes Answer Count Percentage Real-Time Kinematics (RTK) (A) 18 40% Post Processed Kinematic (B) 8 18% Post Processed Static (C) 17 38% Other 2 4% Other: Levels for vertical control, all three--depends on situation. Survey Question: Does your agency have Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying Specifications? Table 149 Agency Planning RTK GPS Specifications Answer Count Percentage Yes (Y) 10 13%

D-71 Answer Count Percentage No (N) 7 9% No answer 9 12% Non completed 50 66% Survey Question: Can you tell us about these specifications (RTK GPS Surveying), i.e. what are they, were are they from, etc.? • 2 occupations, minimum of three hours between occupations, with a variation of no more than 2 cm (horizontal) allowed. For greater than that, a third occupation is required. We wrote our own with broad plagiarism of Caltrans specs. • http://txdot-emanuals1.dot.state.tx.us/txdotmanuals/ess/ess.pdf • We have developed RTK Specifications and they are integrated into our Caltrans Survey Manual. They are based on tests and experience. • Developed in 2006 by an internal group including myself, district land surveyors, district construction personnel, and headquarters. Includes hard specifications that must be met for collecting data with RTK, best practices, and requirements for submitting data to headquarters. • Our Surveying Standards of Practice (March 2009) outline detailed procedures for set-up, application, underlying control, positional accuracy verification among other things. These standards are a product of collaboration between MDOT and survey consultants. • Recommended guidelines are shown in NDDOT Survey Training manuals. Surveyors working on our projects are required to follow these guidelines. They include shot times. RMS and PDOP limits. Distance limits from the base. GPS configuration settings. • NDDOT survey training manuals offer specifications and guidance on shot times, configuration settings, and survey styles. NDDOT surveyors and consultants are required to use these guidelines. • The specifications were developed in house. The specifications used are primarily performance based. Methods for surveying are not typically specified. If the standards are met, the method need only be reported. • Caltrans Surveys Manual Survey Question: [Conventional Total Station Surveying] Rank your perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate) Table 150 Agency Planning Perception on Total Station Survey Accuracy Calculation Result Count 21 Sum 32 Standard deviation 0.79 Average 1.52 Minimum 1 1st quartile (Q1) 1 2nd quartile (Median) 1 3rd quartile (Q3) 2 Maximum 3 Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method

D-72 Survey Question: [Robotic Total Station surveying]- Rank you perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate) [Robotic Total Station surveying] Table 151 Agency Planning Perception on Robotic Total Station Surveying Calculation Result Count 21 Sum 32 Standard deviation 0.5 Average 1.52 Minimum 1 1st quartile (Q1) 1 2nd quartile (Median) 2 3rd quartile (Q3) 2 Maximum 2 Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method Survey Question: [GPS]- Rank you perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate) Table 152 Agency Planning Perception of GPS Surveying Calculation Result Count 21 Sum 48 Standard deviation 0.93 Average 2.29 Minimum 1 1st quartile (Q1) 1 2nd quartile (Median) 3 3rd quartile (Q3) 3 Maximum 4 Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method Survey Question: [Photogrammetric]- Rank you perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the collection of topographic data: (1=most accurate, 4=least accurate) Table 153 Agency Planning Perception of Photogrammetric Surveying Calculation Result Count 21 Sum 75 Standard deviation 0.79 Average 3.57 Minimum 1 1st quartile (Q1) 2 2nd quartile (Median) 4 3rd quartile (Q3) 4 Maximum 4

D-73 Calculation Result Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method Survey Question: What level of horizontal accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain? Table 154 Agency Planning GPS Horizontal Accuracy Answer Count Percentage 2 cm or less (A) 18 24% greater than 2 cm (B) 1 1% do not have GPS survey equipment (C) 1 1% Other 0 0% No answer 6 8% Non completed 50 66% Survey Question: What level of vertical accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain? Table 155 Agency Planning GPS Vertical Accuracy Answer Count Percentage 2cm of less (A) 9 12% Greater than 2cm (B) 6 8% do not have GPS survey equipment (C) 1 1% Other 4 5% No answer 6 8% Non completed 50 66% Other: Typical vertical accuracy is greater than 2 cm-better results may obtained depending on process used, 0 to 3cm, 2cm local, 3-4cm absolute, Arkansas has a poor Geoid. The typical repeated precision is close to 2cm. Survey Question: Does your agency have standardized procedures for the collection of GPS survey data? Table 156 Agency Planning GPS Survey Procedures Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 18 24% No (B) 1 1% Don't know (C) 0 0% No answer 7 9% Non completed 50 66% Survey Question: Are there any major differences in surveying for projects which you know will be utilizing AMG versus conventional staking and grading? • A lot of time is saved by not having to side stake and grading them. Accuracy is increased by having a 3D design model to verify elevation on a project utilizing GPS equipment instead of a pop level. • No. • modifying control to include monumentation for surround the entire project

D-74 • Less cross section stakes • No - we anticipate all projects in the future will use AMG • Making sure a GPS network is available at the project site. • No all projects are generally treated the same. The major difference is on the design end. Are the electronic files available? • In general, we do very little bluetopping for AMG project, instead we do grade checks. For Conventional grading we do all staking (unless the surveying is contracted out, in which case the contractor performs the staking). No other significant changes for AMG. • Additional control monuments may be set in areas convenient to the AMG equipment for calibration purposes. • Not at this time. • Not at this time. • No • No major differences on the Survey side, but maybe on the design side. • Terrain models are created as opposed to cross sections. Volume is calculated by the prismoidal method with AMG. • No • do not support AMG • No. We collect the information the same. • Assume you mean design/engineering surveying. With more data collection via 3D laser scanning, engineers need to be more able to work with 3D models, including surface and subsurface data. Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [Elevation point density] Table 157 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Elevation Point Density Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 8 24% Important (B) 6 18% Neutral (C) 0 0% Somewhat Important (D) 1 3% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes] Table 158 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-CAD Standards Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 6 18% Important (B) 6 18% Neutral (C) 3 9% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 15%

D-75 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 14 40% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process] Table 159 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process Sequence Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 4 12% Important (B) 9 27% Neutral (C) 2 6% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [Engineer design competencies in design software use] Table 160 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Designer Competencies Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 10 29% Important (B) 5 15% Neutral (C) 0 0% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Number of original data points in DTM.] Table 161 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Data Points Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 9 31% 2 (2) 3 10% 3 (3) 2 7% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.67 Standard deviation 0.98

D-76 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [File types of shared data.] Table 162 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-File Types Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 14% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 4 14% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 1 3% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.2 Standard deviation 1.08 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports).] Table 163 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Data Translations Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 21% 2 (2) 5 17% 3 (3) 3 10% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 1 4% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2 Standard deviation 1.13 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [DTM constructability review.] Table 164 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 8 28% 2 (2) 2 7% 3 (3) 3 10% 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41%

D-77 Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [End-user Training] Table 165 Software Vendor Opinion on DTNM Accuracy-User Training Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 9 32% 2 (2) 5 18% 3 (3) 0 0% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 14 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 6 18% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.36 Standard deviation 0.5 Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [Software Algorithms related to plane coordinate geometry.] Table 166 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Algorithms Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 2 7% 2 (2) 8 28% 3 (3) 4 14% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 14 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 6 17% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.14 Standard deviation 0.66 Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [Interoperability/Data Exchange formats.] Table 167 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Interoperability Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 18% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 3 11% 4 (4) 0 0% Arithmetic mean 1.93 Standard deviation 1.16

D-78 Answer Count Percentage 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 14 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 6 17% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.86 Standard deviation 0.77 Survey Question: Regarding software applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy.(1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [The number of data exchanges performed (iterations of import/export).] Table 168 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-Translations Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 14% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 2 7% 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 14 100% Number of cases 20 100 % No answer 6 17% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.14 Standard deviation 1.03 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [File size of the DTM.] Table 169 Software Vendor Opinion on DTM Accuracy-File Size Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 0 0% 2 (2) 1 4% 3 (3) 3 12% 4 (4) 4 17% 5 (5) 2 8% Sum (Answers) 10 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 3.7 Standard deviation 0.95

D-79 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [DTM constructability review.] Table 170 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-DTM Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 3 13% 2 (2) 1 4% 3 (3) 4 17% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 1 4% Sum (Answers) 10 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.6 Standard deviation 1.35 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of model builders.] Table 171 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Model Builders Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 7 29% 2 (2) 3 12% 3 (3) 0 0% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 10 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.3 Standard deviation 0.48 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of field personnel (rovers-checkers).] Table 172 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Field Personnel Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 2 8% 2 (2) 5 29% 3 (3) 2 8% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 10 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29%

D-80 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.2 Standard deviation 0.92 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of grading machine operators.] Table 173 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Machine Operators Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 1 4% 2 (2) 6 25% 3 (3) 2 8% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 10 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.3 Standard deviation 0.82 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors.] Table 174 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Training Owners Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 2 8% 25% 2 (2) 4 17% 3 (3) 3 12% 12% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 0 0% 4% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.3 Standard deviation 0.95 Survey Question: Please rate the following factors with your opinion as to their influence on accuracy of Electronic Engineered Data (EED): (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [In-field QA/QC programs/procedures.] Table 175 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-QA/QC Procedures Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 4 17% 34% 2 (2) 4 17% 3 (3) 0 0% 0%

D-81 Answer Count Percentage Sum 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 1 4% 8% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.1 Standard deviation 1.37 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [End-user Training] Table 176 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-User Training Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 3 12% 24% 2 (2) 3 12% 3 (3) 2 8% 8% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 1 4% 8% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.4 Standard deviation 1.35 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Inaccuracies In Machine response to GPS positioning] Table 177 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Machine Response Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 3 13% 21% 2 (2) 2 8% 3 (3) 3 12% 12% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 1 4% 8% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 2.5 Standard deviation 1.35

D-82 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Human Error] Table 178 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Human Error Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 2 8% 41% 2 (2) 8 33% 3 (3) 0 0% 0 % 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.8 Standard deviation 0.42 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Errors in control network set-up] Table 179 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Control Network Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 4 17% 34% 2 (2) 4 17% 3 (3) 1 4% 4% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 0 0% 4% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.9 Standard deviation 0.99 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Errors in preconstruction surveys] Table 180 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Surveys Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 4 16% 41 2 (2) 6 25% 3 (3) 0 0% 0% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100 Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41%

D-83 Answer Count Percentage Sum Arithmetic mean 1.6 Standard deviation 0.52 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Data file sizes] Table 181 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-File Size Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 0 0% 0% 2 (2) 0 0% 3 (3) 3 12% 12. % 4 (4) 4 17% 5 (5) 3 12% 29.17% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29 % Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 4 Standard deviation 0.82 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Project Size] Table 182 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Size Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 0 0% 0% 2 (2) 0 0% 3 (3) 3 12% 12% 4 (4) 4 17% 5 (5) 3 12% 29% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 4 Standard deviation 0.82 Survey Question: Regarding hardware applications which are utilized for DTMs, please rate the following in regards to their contribution to errors and/or inaccuracy. [Project Complexity] Table 183 Software Vendor Rating on DTM Accuracy-Project Complexity Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 0 0% 8% 2 (2) 2 8% 3 (3) 4 17% 17% 4 (4) 3 12%

D-84 Answer Count Percentage Sum 5 (5) 1 4% 16% Sum (Answers) 10 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 10 29% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 3.3 Standard deviation 0.95 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective Survey Question: Should an AMG specification contain equipment requirements? Table 184 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications Answer Count Percentage Yes (Y) 8 27% No (N) 5 17% No answer 4 13% Non completed 13 43% Survey Question: Please explain why equipment requirements should not be included in the specifications. Table 185 Heavy Equipment Vendor Specification requirement Explanation Answer 5 17% No answer 25 83% Non completed 0 0% • I feel the specification should be based on the finished product, not the process. • Contractors should be allowed to use whatever equipment suits their particular requirements as long as it meets the quality specifications for the project. • too many variables • Specs should describe desired results and accuracy requirements. The exact type, size, model and brand of equipment used should be left up to contractor. • Would love to have only my product specified. Otherwise stifles innovation. Specify the result, not the tool. Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser)] Table 186 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Positioning Methods Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 8 28% 45% 2 (2) 5 17% 3 (3) 2 7% 7% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 0 0% 3% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3%

D-85 Answer Count Percentage Sum Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.75 Standard deviation 0.93 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners Table 187 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Specified Tolerances Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 4 14% 28% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 5 17% 17% 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 1 3% 10% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.5 Standard deviation 1.21 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Hydraulic sensor selection] Table 188 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Selection Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 1 4% 12% 2 (2) 2 8% 3 (3) 5 19% 19% 4 (4) 3 12% 5 (5) 2 8% 20% Sum (Answers) 13 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 4 13% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 3.23 Standard deviation 1.17 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response)] Table 189 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Machine Response Time Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 6 21% 35% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 2 7% 7%

D-86 Answer Count Percentage Sum 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 2 7% 14% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.38 Standard deviation 1.45 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Lack of operator training] Table 190 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Operator Training Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 7 24% 44% 2 (2) 6 20% 3 (3) 1 3% 3% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 1 3% 6% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.94 Standard deviation 1.18 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software)] Table 191 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Human Error Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 4 14% 35% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 4 14% 14% 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 0 0% 7% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.25 Standard deviation 1

D-87 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer] Table 192 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Customer Ignorance Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 8 29% 50% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 1 3% 3% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0. % Sum (Answers) 15 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.53 Standard deviation 0.64 Survey Question: Table 9H- In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners] Table 193 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Owner Ignorance Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 11 38% 52% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 0 0% 0% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 0 0% 3% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.44 Standard deviation 0.81 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process] Table 194 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-QA/QC Process Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 9 31% 48% 2 (2) 5 17% 3 (3) 2 7% 7% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43%

D-88 Answer Count Percentage Sum Arithmetic mean 1.56 Standard deviation 0.73 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Errors in setting up the control network] Table 195 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Control Network Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 12 41% 51% 2 (2) 3 10% 3 (3) 1 3% 3% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.31 Standard deviation 0.6 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Inaccuracies in the DTM] Table 196 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-DTM Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 9 32% 43% 2 (2) 3 11% 3 (3) 3 11% 11% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.6 Standard deviation 0.83 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM] Table 197 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Original Survey Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 10 35.71% 46.43% 2 (2) 3 10.71% 3 (3) 2 7.14% 7.14% 4 (4) 0 0.00%

D-89 Answer Count Percentage Sum 5 (5) 0 0.00% 0.00% Sum (Answers) 15 100.00% 100.00% Number of cases 17 100.00% No answer 2 6.67% Non completed 13 43.33% Arithmetic mean 1.47 Standard deviation 0.74 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [Sensor/Technology system limitations] Table 198 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensors Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 3 10% 38% 2 (2) 8 28% 3 (3) 5 17% 17% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.13 Standard deviation 0.72 Survey Question: In your opinion, please rate the variables to accuracy with heavy equipment in regards to AMG? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) [System Sensor Calibration] Table 199 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Sensor Calibration Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 6 21% 42% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 3 10% 10% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 1 3% 3% Sum (Answers) 16 100% 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2 Standard deviation 1.1

D-90 Survey Question: If you selected any of the variables to accuracy in the previous question, HOW do you IDENTIFY problems/issues in these areas? Table 200 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Identification Answer Count Percentage Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) (A) 7 12% Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners (B) 5 8% Hydraulic sensor selection (C) 3 5% Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) (D) 6 10% Lack of operator training (E) 5 8% End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) (F) 5 8% Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer (G) 5 8% Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners (H) 4 7% Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process (I) 4 7% Errors in setting up the control network (J) 4 7% Inaccuracies in the DTM (K) 4 7% Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM (L) 4 7% Sensor/Technology system limitations (M) 3 5% Other 1 1% Other: User Range Error Survey Question: If you selected any of the variables to accuracy, HOW do you MITIGATE problems/issues in these areas? Table 201 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Accuracy-Problem Mitigation Answer Count Percentage Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) (A) 5 17% Unrealistic tolerances specified by agencies/owners (B) 1 3% Hydraulic sensor selection (C) 1 3% Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) (D) 2 7% Lack of operator training (E) 3 10% End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) (F) 3 10% Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer (G) 2 7% Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners (H) 3 10% Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process (I) 2 7% Errors in setting up the control network (J) 2 7% Inaccuracies in the DTM (K) 1 3% Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM (L) 2 7% Sensor/Technology system limitations (M) 1 7% Other 1 7% Other: Inertia Sensors Survey Question: What is the deciding factor when specifying sensor selection? Table 202 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Selection Answer 10 33% No answer 20 67% Non completed 0 0% • Expected tolerance of the sensor and application of the technology.

D-91 • Specify the tolerance required and leave sensor selection to the contractor. • For paving, that would be how accurate the sensors are to meet certian specification or criteria. • Application and specifications. • Blend of performance, cost, reliability. • Job accuracy specifications, job conditions, location and associated job activities. • The type of dirt work being performed. • Cost and quality. • Near term, cost is deciding factor. Long term, it will be the understanding of the sensor that decides selection. • Required job tolerances +/- 10mm or +/- 30mm. Survey Question: Do your products provide guidance/instruction regarding calibration of the sensors? Table 203 Heavy Equipment Vendor Sensor Product Documentation Answer Count Percentage Yes (A) 15 50% No (B) 1 3% Other 0 0% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 44%

D-92 Survey Question: What should be in a specification for AMG related to machine equipment? Table 204 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG Specifications Answer 8 27% No answer 22 73% Non completed 0 0% • I think the specification should state that the technology being used be verified by the job inspector to be suitable for the application. I also believe that if automation is desired that it should be included in the specification. Guidelines could be established by the agency to make recommendations of what would be considered acceptable. This way the contract knows up-front what they need to have to complete the job. • Equipment capabilities and tolerances best practices. • End result tolerances. • Possible certified operators and/or users. • Unsure of the context of this question. • Accuracy requirements, QC procedures & requirements, description of required machine tolerances & operating specifications to assure it can meet job requirements....that technology will work properly on a given unit. • Unsure. • NEE on displays should indicate to the 10th for GPS and 100th for laser. Survey Question: How should owners-agencies request contractor assistance with Quality Assurance (QA)? Table 205 Heavy Equipment Vendor Opinion on AMG QA/QC Answer Count Percentage Contractor provides agency a rover and training (A) 1 11% Contractor provides a surveyor and rover at the agencies discretion (B) 4 44% Contractor provides agency grade stakes and grade sheets (C) 0 0% Contractor provides agency with cut sheets (D) 1 11% Other 3 33% Other: owner provides surveyor and rover, Owner-Agencies should have equipment that they are familiar with and that they know meets accuracy requirements for QC function, Agency needs to make an initial investment in GPS equipment (Rovers) and be trained in proper use. DATA FORMAT The investigators attempted to determine the data formats involved with the exchange of Electronic Engineered Data (EED) exchanged between the functional areas of the project lifecycle in iterations of inputs and outputs (or exports and imports) between software applications. There currently is no primary software application that performs all of the functions required to produce the information for each stakeholder. Consequently the exchange of EED is accomplished by exporting the data produced in one function’s software application and importing it into another function’s software application. The survey questionnaires revealed that the most utilized output file formats were .dgn and .tin at the beginning of this multi-function process, but that the end users of the EED for automated machine guidance were utilizing .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn for input file types (to create .dtm or other proprietary file formats). Figure 3 displays a general IDEF0 map of the EED exchanged across AMG functions and the file formats utilized in the exchanges as reported by the survey questionnaires. The percentages represent the number of respondents which chose that file type as an input or output to their functional processes.

D-93 Figure 3 File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions Interestingly, approximately half of the software and hardware vendors responded that their products were capable of data exchange via LandXML and they ranked that methodology as the most important. LandXML was reported as one of the most prevalent import/export file formats by the software and hardware vendors along with .dwg, .dgn, and .dxf file formats. The vendors expressed that their software import/export capabilities were equally driven by owner and contractor needs, requirements, and demands. Contractors Perspective The following tables from the contractor survey represent the data utilized to construct DTMs for AMG. Survey Question: Which file formats do you need from owners to work with your software applications to utilize AMG? Table 206 Contractor File Formats for AMG Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 12 12% .tin (B) 7 7% .ttm (C) 11 11% .dwg (D) 17 17% LandXML (E) 7 7% TransXML (F) 0 0% .dxf (G) 14 14% ASCII text (H) 8 8% .dgn Microstation v.7 (I) 6 6% .dgn Microstation v.8 (J) 5 5% .pro (K) 7 7% Other 4 4% Other: REVIT, Land XML is preferred, Not sure, .dc for Config

D-94 Survey Question: What Electronic Engineered Data (EED) do you need for AMG which you are NOT receiving from owners? Table 207 Contractor EED Needed from Owners Answer Count Percentage 2D/3D Surface. (A) 15 42% Line work. (B) 7 19% Top of Pavement vs. Top of Subgrade. (C) 10 28% Other 4 11% Other: None, we are getting info needed, site cal, Original Ground Model Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective The following tables from the agency procurement/construction survey represent the data utilized to construct DTMs for AMG. Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what file formats are exchanged? Table 208 Agency Procurement File Formats for AMG Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 14 41% .tin (B) 6 18% .ttm (C) 1 3% .dwg (D) 3 9% .LandXML (E) 4 12% .dxf (F) 0 0% Other 6 8% Other: Not Sure, Not exactly sure we use microstation and geopak, CAICe Projects, Whatever the contractor needs-Since this is done after the contract award at the contractor’s request-we work out what is needed, unknown, See Agency Design and Survey Sections. Survey Question: If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what medium is used for the exchange? Table 209 Agency Procurement DTM File Exchange Medium Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 2 6% The files are shared via a secure network (B) 5 15% The files are shared via a non-secure network (C) 2 6% The files are shared via floppy/CD media (D) 14 42% The files are shared via DVD media (E) 2 6% The files are shared vias flash storage media (F) 3 9% Other 5 15% Other: Whichever is convenient for both parties, FTP, Varies, Not sure, Negotiated after contract award to what will work for both sides. Agency Designer’s Perspective The following tables from the agency designers’ survey represent the data utilized to construct DTMs for AMG.

D-95 Survey Question: Which file format can surveyors use to provide you with topographical data? Table 210 Agency Designer File Formats Received for AMG Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 15 27% .tin (B) 11 20% .ttm (C) 1 2% .dwg (D) 6 11% .LandXML (E) 4 7% .dxf (F) 4 7% .dtm (G) 9 16% Leica Format (native format of machine control software) (H) 1 2% Topcon Format (native format of machine control software) (I) 1 2% Trimble Format (native format of machine control software) (J) 1 2% CAT format (native format of machine control software) (K) 1 2% Other 1 2% Other: .tds Survey Question: Which file format does your application utilize to process collected field data capable of exporting? Table 211 Agency Designer Application File Formats Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 14 25% .tin (B) 8 15% .ttm (C) 2 4% .dwg (D) 6 11% .LandXML (E) 6 11% .dxf (F) 6 11% .dtm (G) 4 7% Leica Format (native format of machine control software) (H) 2 4% Topcon Format (native format of machine control software) (I) 2 4% Trimble Format (native format of machine control software) (J) 3 5% CAT format (native format of machine control software) (K) 0 0% Other 2 4% Other: txt, Trimble (not machine control software) Survey Question: Which file format does your application utilize to prepare CAD drawings capable of exporting? Table 212 Agency Designer CAD File Formats Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 18 60% .tin (B) 5 17% .ttm (C) 0 0% .dwg (D) 2 7% .LandXML (E) 0 0% .dxf (F) 2 7% .dtm (G) 3 10% Leica Format (native format of machine control software) (H) 0 0%

D-96 Answer Count Percentage Topcon Format (native format of machine control software) (I) 0 0% Trimble Format (native format of machine control software) (J) 0 0% CAT format (native format of machine control software) (K) 0 0% Other 0 0% Survey Question: Which file format does your application utilize to design and prepare 3D models capable of exporting? Table 213 Agency Designer Application File Formats Exported Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 12 35% .tin (B) 8 24% .ttm (C) 0 0% .dwg (D) 2 6% .LandXML (E) 3 9% .dxf (F) 3 9% .dtm (G) 3 9% Leica Format (native format of machine control software) (H) 1 3% Topcon Format (native format of machine control software) (I) 1 3% Trimble Format (native format of machine control software) (J) 1 3% CAT format (native format of machine control software) (K) 0 0% Other 0 0% Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective Survey Question: To which interoperability standard(s) do your software applications currently comply with? (1=Very Important, 5=Not Important) Table 214 Software Vendor Application Interoperability Standards Answer Count Percentage LandXML (A) 14 41% TransXML (B) 0 0% Neither (C) 0 0% Other 0 0% No answer 6 18% Non completed 14 41% Survey Question: What datasets can your software application(s) import? Table 215 Software Vendor Application Dataset Import Answer Count Percentage None (A) 0 0% Slope stake notes (B) 4 3% Mass points and/or break lines derived from 2D plans (C) 15 12% Alignment (D) 16 13% Partial 3D design model (e.g., without intersection detail) (E) 14 11% Full 3D design model (F) 15 12% TIN Models (G) 16 13% Graphics (H) 14 11% Storm and Sanitary (I) 11 9%

D-97 Answer Count Percentage Electronic contact documents (J) 6 5% Finish Grade (K) 13 10% Other 3 2% Other: bit maps with world files, Modification Models, "on-the-fly" design points, Raw LIDAR data points. Survey Question: Which file format can your software application(s) import? Table 216 Software Vendor Application File Format Import Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 13 15% .tin (B) 14 16% .ttm (C) 7 8% .dwg (D) 16 18% .LandXML (E) 15 17% .TransXML (F) 1 1% .dxf (G) 16 18% Other 5 6% Other: .nez .xyz. bmp.bpw.lla, Proprietary Leica formats, ascii, user defined, dem, .grd, shp Survey Question: Which file formats can your software application(s) export? Table 217 Software Vendor File Format Export Answer Count Percentage .dgn (A) 8 10% .tin (B) 12 15% .ttm (C) 8 10% .dwg (D) 14 18% .LandXML (E) 13 17% .TransXML (F) 1 1% .dxf (G) 16 21% Other 6 8% Other: DTX, TN3, .nez.lla.svy, Proprietary Leica formats, user defined, .grd, shp. Survey Question: What factors in your opinion will drive the adoption of interoperability standards for AMG? (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [Demand for end-user/customers.] Table 218 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Customer Demand Answer Count Percentage Sum 1 (1) 10 34% 48% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 1 3% 3% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41%

D-98 Answer Count Percentage Sum Arithmetic mean 1.40 Standard deviation 0.63 Survey Question: What factors in your opinion will drive the adoption of interoperability standards for AMG? (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [Demand from transportation agencies.] Table 219 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Owner Demand Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 9 31% 2 (2) 3 10% 3 (3) 3 10% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.60 Standard deviation 0.83 Survey Question: What factors in your opinion will drive the adoption of interoperability standards for AMG? (1=Most Important, 5=Least Important) [Requirements in specifications adopted by agencies.] Table 220 Software Vendor Opinion on Interoperability-Agency Specifications Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 8 29% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 2 7% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 14 100% Number of cases 20 100% No answer 6 18% Non completed 14 41% Arithmetic mean 1.57 Standard deviation 0.76 Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [Elevation point density] Table 221 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Point Density Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 8 24% Important (B) 6 18% Neutral (C) 0 0% Somewhat Important (D) 1 3%

D-99 Answer Count Percentage Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 14% Non completed 14 41% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes] Table 222 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Work Process Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 6 18% Important (B) 6 18% Neutral (C) 3 9% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 14% Non completed 14 41% Survey Question: In your opinion, rate the following factors for their contribution to Electronic Engineered Data (EED) accuracy. [The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process] Table 223 Software Vendor Opinion on EED Accuracy-Production Sequence Answer Count Percentage Extremely Important (A) 4 12% Important (B) 9 26% Neutral (C) 2 6% Somewhat Important (D) 0 0% Not Important (E) 0 0% No answer 5 14% Non completed 14 41% LEGAL The project investigators developed a separate, specific, survey questionnaire in order to gain information regarding the legal issues in regards to AMG. Only 12 persons responded to the survey in total and only one respondent was a lawyer who did not provide identification or contact information. The most pertinent piece of information gained from the survey was in response to the question 'Are you aware of any legal issues regarding 3D design or the sharing of Electronic Engineered Data (EED) in general?' To which one respondent answered: "An administrative ruling by the PE and PLS licensing board requires PE/PLS to build the 3D model. This is being challenged. Essentially, if the design is complete, then building the model is a CAD technician function that does not involve design decisions." This small piece of information is pertinent and will be addressed in Chapter 4.

D-100 There were however, questions regarding legal issues associated with the filing of claims and the sharing of EED included in the survey questionnaires for the contractors, agency design, and agency procurement/construction functions. In response to the question 'Has your agency been involved in any "claims for equitable adjustment" or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?', only 3 responses answered affirmative out of 304 total respondents to the three questionnaires (or 2 of 57 answering yes or no to the question). These responses are displayed in Table 224. Table 224 Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG Contractors Agency Designers Agency P/C Answer Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Yes (Y) 2 1% 1 2% 0 0% No (N) 21 18% 12 18% 21 17% No answer 48 41% 15 23% 37 31% Non completed 47 40% 37 57% 63 52% Table 225 reveals that agencies feel more exposure to liability because of sharing EED than contractors feel they should. Table 225 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange Sharing EED with contractors exposes agencies to liability. Contractors Agency P/C Strongly Agree 0 1 Agree 4 15 Disagree 20 17 No Opinion 3 2 No Answer 44 23 Non Completed 47 63 The table below reveals that a majority of both contractor and agency respondents which answered the question strongly agree that the sharing of EED contributes to a culture of cooperation between the stakeholders. Table 226 Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation Sharing EED with contributes to cooperation between owner-contractor. Contractors Agency P/C Strongly Agree 16 5 Agree 9 31 Disagree 1 0 No Opinion 1 3 No Answer 44 19 Non Completed 47 63

D-101 Contractor’s Perspective Only one respondent from the contractor's survey held the opinion that claims or change orders would increase with the sharing of EED, while 58% of those answering the question felt that sharing would decrease the likelihood of litigation or change orders. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents to the question in regards to the sharing of EED felt that it would have no effect on claims or change orders. Answers to the question, 'In your opinion, the sharing of Engineered Electronic Data (EED):' is shown in Table 227. Table 227 Contractors Opinions Regarding Sharing of EED Answer Count Percentage Increases the likelihood of claims/change orders. (A) 1 1% Decreases the likelihood of claims/change orders. (B) 17 14% Has no effect on the likelihood of claims/change orders. (C) 11 9% Other 0 0% No answer 42 36% Non completed 47 40% Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective Agencies that share EED with contractors reported liability waivers as the most common protection from contractor-created models used in AMG derived from agency design files. Agency Procurement and Construction personnel were asked if they shared EED with contractors. There was an even split between ‘yes’ answers (25) and ‘no’ answers (27). The survey questionnaire delivered different follow-up questions based upon this yes/no question. Respondents who answered ‘no’ (currently do not share EED) were asked the following question with responses shown in Table 228. Survey Question: If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in order to efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how should the agency's liability (for errors in the DTM) be limited? Table 228 How Agencies Not Sharing EED Should Limit Liability Answer Count Percentage Not an issue if there is no sharing (A) 0 0% Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents (B) 19 16% Not Sure (C) 4 3% Other 3 3% No answer 32 26% Non completed 63 52% Other: • It would seem this would be the same liability associated with the rest of the project design. • Most states have the "paper plans rule in case of a conflict" specification. For the first few years of "implementing" this technology, this is OK. However, after a specified period of time, the public works needs to produce electronic plans that take precedence over paper. • Since a consultant should develop the data, their errors and omissions insurance should cover any errors, similar to other data used in the construction of a project. Respondents who answered ‘yes’ (currently sharing EED) were asked the following question with answers in Table 229.

D-102 Survey Question: If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in order to efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how is the agency's liability (for errors in the EED) limited? Table 229 How Agencies Currently Sharing EED Limit Liability Answer Count Percentage Not an issue if there is no sharing (A) 0 0% Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents (B) 12 10% Agency chooses not to limit its liability (C) 1 1% Not Sure (D) 4 3% Other 5 4% No answer 36 30% Non completed 63 52% Other: • We provide the electronic documents for their use. They must convert the data to a useable form for their equipment and software and we are not responsible for the accuracy of the data. • Pilot projects, we work closely with contractor and data to deal with issues and limit risk exposure. • Agency responsibility defined in standard specs. • Liability Waiver provided when data requested. Data provided on request only. • Liability waiver is executed upon request/delivery of the EED. Agency Designer’s Perspective Agency personnel responding to the Designer’s survey were clearly more concerned with implied design warranty issues and the manipulation of their design data for the creation of models for AMG. This concern is expressed in responses to the following question in Table 230. Survey Question: Is your design unit concerned about liability (for design errors) which may be incurred with sharing design files with the contractor? Table 230 Agency Designers Concern with Liability from Sharing EED Answer Count Percentage No (A) 1 2% No-we require liability waivers to be signed by the contractor before use. (B) 5 8% Yes (C) 10 15% Other 1 1% No answer 11 17% Non completed 37 57 % Other: disclaimer states that paper still rules. TRAINING Contractors reported that they receive AMG training mainly from equipment and software vendors as well as from internal ‘champions’. Agency survey responses regarding AMG training were negligible. Agency survey responses regarding 3D CAD training were negligible. The majority of the respondents to the training course survey were academic institutions. Contractor’s Perspective The following tables are from the Contractor Survey:

D-103 Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software? Table 231 Contractor Field Personnel Software Training Answer Count Percentage Our organization trains internally. (A) 21 41% Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 7 14% The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 23 45% N/A (D) 0 0% Other 0 0% Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for AMG related hardware (handheld and tablet computers, GPS rovers, etc.)? Table 232 Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training Answer Count Percentage Our organization trains internally. (A) 21 40% Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 6 11% The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 25 47% N/A (D) 0 0% Other 1 2% Other: Trade shows Survey Question: How do your machine operators and maintainers receive primary training for Machine- specific equipment related to AMG? Table 233 Contractor Machine Operator Training Answer Count Percentage Our organization trains internally. (A) 22 43% Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 6 12% The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 22 43% N/A (D) 1 2% Other 0 0% Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective The following table is from the Agency Procurement/Construction Survey: Survey Question: If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, how do they receive training for the required software and hardware? Table 234 Agency Procurement Field Personnel AMG Training Answer Count Percentage The contractor trains the inspectors as part of contract/bid item (A) 5 4% The hardware/software vendors train the inspectors as part of purchase agreement (B) 3 3% N/A (C) 34 28% Other 7 6% No answer 9 7% Non completed 63 52% Other: Support staff try to provide training, sometimes contractor-sometimes vendor, We are working on a specification to have contractors provide training and we also provide some of our own in house training, Both vendor supplied training as part of purchase agreement and State supplied support by Construction personnel, Department provided training, in house training, Internal training staff.

D-104 Agency Designer’s Perspective The following table is from the Agency Design Survey: Survey Question: What percentage of your design engineers have been trained for 3D design? Table 235 Agency Designer 3D Training Answer Count Percentage 0% (A) 5 8% 1-24% (B) 5 8% 25-49% (C) 3 5% 50-74% (D) 2 3% 75-100% (E) 1 2% I don't know. (F) 2 3% No answer 10 15% Non completed 37 57% Agency Planner’s and Surveyor’s Perspective The following table is from the Agency Planning Survey: Survey Question: Which technology does your agency provide training for new/existing personnel? Table 236 Agency Planning Position Method Training Answer Count Percentage Conventional Total Station surveying (A) 20 26% Robotic Total Station surveying (B) 15 19% RTK GPS (C) 19 25% RTK Post-Processed GPS (D) 11 14% Photogrammetric (E) 9 12% Other 3 4% Other: Digital Levels, Digital & 3-Wire Leveling, Laser scanning and CADD Software and Hardware Vendor’s Perspective The following table is from the Hardware/Software Vendor Survey: Survey Question: Does your firm provide training for the software products previously listed? Table 237 Software Vendor Product Training Answer Count Percentage N/A (A) 0 0% Yes, exclusively. (B) 2 6% Yes, with third parties. (C) 1 3% Yes, we offer training and third parties also offer training. (D) 12 35% Other 0 0% No answer 5 15% Non completed 14 41% Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective The following table is from the Heavy Equipment (H Eq) Survey:

D-105 Survey Question: Does your organization offer training in any of the following areas? Table 238 Heavy Equipment Vendor Training Offerings Answer Count Percentage How to retrofit machinery for AMG (A) 7 23% Machine operator training (B) 14 47% GPS rover training (C) 7 23% EED using including DTM and 3D Modeling (D) 6 20% Other 2 7% Training and Educational Organization Perspective The following tables are from the Training Survey: Survey Question: How many separate courses do you or your organization offer regarding AMG? Table 239 Training/Education AMG Course Offering Count Answer Count Percentage One (A) 6 12% More than one (B) 8 17% No answer 34 71% Non completed 0 0% Survey Question: What is the PRIMARY delivery method of your AMG training? Table 240 Training/Education AMG Course Delivery Method PRIMARY delivery method of your AMG training? A B C D Classroom-at your site 0 0 0 4 Classroom-at client site 0 0 0 0 Online-synchronous (instructor and group paced) 0 0 0 1 Online-asynchronous (self-paced) 0 0 0 0 Desktop Computer-multimedia tutorials 0 0 0 0 Paper based tutorials 0 0 0 0 Books, pamphlets and other literature 0 0 0 1 Surveying and positioning equipment manufacturer and dealer = A Equipment manufacturer and dealer = B Independent professional trainer = C University or college = D Survey Question: What is the title/name of your course? • Automated Machine Guidance - Principles and Practice • On the job Training. We also take advantage of Dealer’s training. • Construction Surveying • Introduction to AMG. This is a web based NHI course • IDM 427 Construction Equipment Management I will spend one day out of the semester on this topic with the assistance of a local contractor experienced in the technology. • Fundamentals of Soils and Foundation Construction

D-106 Survey Question: Does your course earn attendees academic or continuing education credits? Table 241 Training Education AMG CEU Course Credit Answer Count Percentage Yes (Y) 4 8% No (N) 1 2% No answer 43 90% Non completed 0 0% Survey Question: What type of educational credits does your course earn attendees/graduates? Table 242 Training/Education Course Credit Types Answer Count Percentage College/University credits towards degree. (A) 3 75% CEUs (B) 0 0% PDUs (C) 1 25% Other 0 0%

D-107 PERCEIVED RISKS Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their respective surveys to rate factors pertaining to risks in AMG technologies and methodologies on a scale of 1-5 (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk). The results from the three surveys are displayed in Table 243 with the percentages representing responses of 1 and 2 (highest and next highest risk). Notable Differences in stakeholder responses regarding importance/significance of the risk: • Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors: Over half of the contractors and almost all of the equipment vendors considered this factor as highly important, while only a third of the agency respondents thought so. • Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally): More than half of all three stakeholder groups felt this factor important, with the contractors and equipment vendors voting roughly the same (75%-80%). • Lack of training required to implement (internally): All stakeholders were unanimous in voting this factor as important (64%-74%). • Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation: less than half of the respondents considered this factor highly important, with exception of the equipment vendors. Respondents to the contractor survey provided additional risk factors and comments deemed important: • Maintenance of AMG-related hardware on the equipment can be expensive over time. • No matter how you say it the risks are greater without the use of AMG. • Over-reliance on AMG capabilities. • Complacency with regard to QA/QC. • Incomplete site calibration. • Safety to ground personnel. • Risk of damage to expensive equipment. • Faulty equipment. • Reception to GPS. • Employee Cooperation. Table 243 AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors AMG Risk Factors Contractors Agency P/C HEqp Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors. 57% 33% 80% High initial investment in equipment-lack of Return-On- Investment data. 54% 43% 44% Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally). 75% 58% 81% Lack of training required to implement (internally). 64% 74% 69% Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation. 41% 42% 69% Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the machine cockpits. 11% N/A N/A *This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor with the two highest risk levels.

D-108 Contractor’s Perspective Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors.] Table 244 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 8% 2 (2) 10 13% 3 (3) 8 11% 4 (4) 2 3% 5 (5) 2 3% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.43 Standard deviation 1.14 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [High initial investment in equipment-lack of Return-On-Investment data.] Table 245 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 8% 2 (2) 9 12% 3 (3) 7 9. % 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 5 7% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.64 Standard deviation 1.37 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally).] Table 246 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Internal Competent Personnel Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 8% 2 (2) 15 20% 3 (3) 5 7% 4 (4) 2 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36%

D-109 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.11 Standard deviation 0.83 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of training required to implement (internally).] Table 247 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 3 4% 2 (2) 15 20% 3 (3) 7 9% 4 (4) 3 4% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.36 Standard deviation 0.83 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation.] Table 248 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 2 3% 2 (2) 9 12% 3 (3) 6 8% 4 (4) 7 9% 5 (5) 3 4% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 3.00 Standard deviation 1.18 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the machine cockpits.] Table 249 Contractor Perceived AMG Risk-Operator Distraction Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 0 0% 2 (2) 3 4% 3 (3) 5 7%

D-110 Answer Count Percentage 4 (4) 11 15% 5 (5) 8 11% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 3.89 Standard deviation 0.97 Survey Question: Are there other risks for the contractor utilizing AMG that you could share? • None. • Maintenance of AMG-related hardware on the equipment can be expensive over time. • None. • No matter how you say it the risk are greater without the use of AMG. • Over-reliance on AMG capabilities. Complacency with regard to QA/QC- Incomplete site calibration. • Safety to ground personnel, risk of damage to expensive equipment. • Faulty equipment-Reception to GPS-Employee Cooperation. Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors] Table 250 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 4% 2 (2) 10 10% 3 (3) 13 12% 4 (4) 8 8% 5 (5) 7 7% Sum (Answers) 42 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 16 13% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 3.10 Standard deviation 1.23 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [High initial investment in equipment-lack of return-on-investment data] Table 251 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 7 7% 2 (2) 12 11% 3 (3) 16 15% 4 (4) 7 6% 5 (5) 2 2%

D-111 Answer Count Percentage Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.66 Standard deviation 1.08 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally)] Table 252 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 10 9% 2 (2) 16 15% 3 (3) 14 13% 4 (4) 4 4% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 45 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 13 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.33 Standard deviation 1.00 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of training required to implement (internally)] Table 253 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 10 9% 2 (2) 25 23% 3 (3) 9 8% 4 (4) 3 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 47 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 11 9% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.11 Standard deviation 0.81 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Dependence on 3rd party consultants for DTM creation] Table 254 Agency Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants Answer Count Percentage

D-112 Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 6% 2 (2) 12 11% 3 (3) 14 13% 4 (4) 8 8% 5 (5) 3 3% Sum (Answers) 43 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 15 12% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.77 Standard deviation 1.13 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors.] Table 255 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Owner Cooperation Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 7 25% 2 (2) 5 18% 3 (3) 2 7% 4 (4) 1 4% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.8 Standard deviation 0.94 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [High initial investment in equipment-lack of return-on-investment data.] Table 256 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Equipment Investment Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 2 7% 2 (2) 5 17% 3 (3) 4 14% 4 (4) 3 10% 5 (5) 2 7% Sum (Answers) 16 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.88 Standard deviation 1.26

D-113 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally).] Table 257 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Competent Personnel Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Lack of training required to implement (internally).] Table 258 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-Required Training Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 14% 2 (2) 7 24% 3 (3) 4 14% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 0 0. % Sum (Answers) 16 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.13 Standard deviation 0.89 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk) [Dependence on 3rd party consultants for DTM creation] Table 259 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Risk-DTM Consultants Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 17% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 3 10% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 1 3% Sum (Answers) 16 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 14% 2 (2) 9 31% 3 (3) 2 7 % 4 (4) 1 3. % 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 16 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 1 3% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2 Standard deviation 0.82

D-114 Answer Count Percentage Arithmetic mean 2.19 Standard deviation 1.17 PERCEIVED BENEFITS Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their respective surveys to rate factors pertaining to perceived benefits in AMG technologies and methodologies on a scale of 1-5 (1=Highest Risk, 5=Lowest Risk). The results from the three surveys are displayed in Table 260 with the shown percentages representing responses of 1 and 2 (highest and next highest risk). All three AMG stakeholders agreed as to the value of the perceived benefits queried in the survey questions with the exception of (1) constructability review and (2) jobsite safety. Labor savings (direct cost on projects): More than half of all stakeholders deemed this benefit as high, but virtually 100% contractors were voted this benefit high. Environmental-Fuel savings: By mistake this question was not asked of the contractors. More than half of the equipment vendors voted it a benefit while less than half of the agencies considered it high. Project schedule compression: Contractors and vendors realize this benefit while just over half of the agencies do. Avoidance of re-work (re-grading): Virtually all contractors and vendors rated this benefit very high while almost half of the agencies did not. As-built documentation: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high over both contractors and agencies. Ease of constructability review: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high while contractors and agencies apparently do realize the benefit. Jobsite safety: This question was not asked of the contractors and neither agencies nor vendors rated it highly. Table 260 Perceived AMG Benefits Rates by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors Perceived AMG Benefits Contractors Agency P/C H_Eqp Labor savings (direct cost on projects) 96% 76% 80% Environmental-Fuel savings N/A 36% 60% Project schedule compression 86% 57% 93% Avoidance of re-work (re-grading) 93% 60% 87% As-built documentation 58% 57% 80% Ease of constructability review 44% 49% 73% Jobsite safety 68% 44% 60% safety of the traveling public N/A 31% 40% *This table represents the percentage of respondents choosing the factor with the two highest benefit levels.

D-115 Productivity gains and cost savings reported by contractors and equipment vendors are compared in Table 261 and Table 262. The equipment vendors appear more optimistic in regards to construction productivity gains while the majority of contractors report gains between 11 and 25 percent. A majority of the contractors report cost savings between 6 and 25 percent utilizing AMG. Table 261 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG Productivity Increase Using AMG Contractor Vendors 0-5% 0 1 6-10% 0 0 11-15% 4 2 16-20% 6 0 20-25% 5 1 26-30% 3 1 31-35% 3 2 36-40% 2 6 Table 262 Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG Cost Savings Using AMG Contractor Vendors 0-5% 0 0 6-10% 6 1 11-15% 4 0 16-20% 5 0 20-25% 7 2 26-30% 1 2 31-35% 0 3 36-40% 0 0 >50% 1 1 In open-ended questioning, one contractor reported the following benefit: ‘Allows operators greater understanding of design of final product.’ In open-ended questioning, equipment vendors offered the following in regards to customer (contractor) cost savings: ‘It really depends on the size of the job and how much AMG is utilized. The more AMG utilized, the higher the percentage. Low-end 10%, high end could be upwards of 50%.’ ‘Depending on design and type of projects ranges for 40 to 60 percent.’ ‘Back office costs increase even as field costs decrease. Overall, 10%.’ Contractors Perspective

D-116 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit) [Labor savings (direct cost on projects).] Table 263 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 17 23% 2 (2) 10 13% 3 (3) 1 1% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 1.43 Standard deviation 0.57 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit) [Project schedule compression.] Table 264 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 11 15% 2 (2) 13 17% 3 (3) 3 4% 4 (4) 1 1% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 1.79 Standard deviation 0.79 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit) [Avoidance of re-work (re-grading).] Table 265 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 18 24% 2 (2) 8 11% 3 (3) 2 3% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40%

D-117 Answer Count Percentage Arithmetic mean 1.43 Standard deviation 0.63 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit) [As-built documentation.] Table 266 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 8% 2 (2) 9 12% 3 (3) 7 10% 4 (4) 3 4% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 26 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 45 38% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.38 Standard deviation 1.1 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit) [Ease of constructability review.] Table 267 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 8 11% 2 (2) 4 5% 3 (3) 13 18% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 2 3% Sum (Answers) 27 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 44 37% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 2.41 Standard deviation 1.15 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Lowest Benefit) [Safety: Less personnel required on the grading surface with AMG.] Table 268 Contractor Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 12 16% 2 (2) 7 9% 3 (3) 8 11% 4 (4) 1 1%

D-118 Answer Count Percentage 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 28 100% Number of cases 71 100% No answer 43 36% Non completed 47 40% Arithmetic mean 1.93 Standard deviation 0.94 Survey Question: Are there other benefits for the contractor utilizing AMG that you could share? • None. • Allows operators greater understanding of design of final product. • None. • A deeper appreciation of how science and technology can streamline the entire construction • Process-”Technological Enlightenment". • Progressive image to customer, cost savings to customer, more competitive bids. • The use of AMG modernizes the art of construction. Survey Question: By what percentage does productivity increase by using AMG compared to not using AMG? Table 269 Contractor Productivity Increase with AMG Answer Count Percentage 0-5% (A) 0 0% 6-10% (B) 0 0% 11-15% (C) 4 3% 16-20% (D) 6 5% 20-25% (E) 5 4% 26-30% (F) 3 3% 31-35% (G) 3 3% 36-40% (H) 2 2% No answer 48 41% Non completed 47 40% Survey Question: What percentage of cost does your organization save by using AMG compared to not using AMG? Table 270 Contractor Cost Savings with AMG Answer Count Percentage 0-5% (A) 0 0% 6-10% (B) 6 5% 11-15% (C) 4 3% 16-20% (D) 5 4% 20-25% (E) 7 6% 26-30% (F) 1 1% 31-35% (G) 0 0% 36-40% (H) 0 0% Other 2 2%

D-119 Answer Count Percentage No answer 46 39% Non completed 47 40% Other: too early for us to know, 51%. Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective Survey Question: If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following: [Automated machine grading compresses the construction schedule] Table 271 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 2 1% Agree (2) 22 18% Disagree (3) 3 2% No Opinion (4) 11 10% No answer 20 17% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following: [Automated machine grading exposes errors in design in sufficient time not to require rework] Table 272 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 1 1% Agree (2) 16 13% Disagree (3) 6 5% No Opinion (4) 15 12% No answer 20 17% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following: [Automated machine grading is more accurate than conventional methods] Table 273 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Accuracy Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 2 2% Agree (2) 15 12% Disagree (3) 13 11% No Opinion (4) 9 7% No answer 19 16% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following: [Safety is a concern: Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the machine cockpits.] Table 274 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Safety Answer Count Percentage

D-120 Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 0 0% Agree (2) 4 3% Disagree (3) 23 19% No Opinion (4) 10 8% No answer 21 18% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following: [Safety on the job site is increased with less personnel required on the grade.] Table 275 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Field Labor Reduction Answer Count Percentage Strongly Agree (1) 5 4% Agree (2) 15 12% Disagree (3) 6 5% No Opinion (4) 12 10% No answer 20 17% Non completed 63 52% Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Labor savings (direct cost on projects)] Table 276 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Contractor Labor Cost Savings Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 16 15% 2 (2) 19 17% 3 (3) 8 7% 4 (4) 3 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 46 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 12 10% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 1.96 Standard deviation 0.89 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Environmental-Fuel savings] Table 277 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 4% 2 (2) 12 11% 3 (3) 18 17% 4 (4) 7 6% 5 (5) 3 3%

D-121 Answer Count Percentage Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 12% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.84 Standard deviation 1.03 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Project schedule compression] Table 278 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 6% 2 (2) 20 18% 3 (3) 15 14% 4 (4) 4 4% 5 (5) 1 1% Sum (Answers) 46 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 12 10% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.43 Standard deviation 0.91 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Avoidance of re-work (re-grading)] Table 279 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Contractor Re-Work Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 13 12% 2 (2) 15 14% 3 (3) 15 14% 4 (4) 4 4% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 47 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 11 9% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.21 Standard deviation 0.95 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [As-built documentation] Table 280 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation Answer Count Percentage

D-122 Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 6% 2 (2) 19 18% 3 (3) 11 10% 4 (4) 5 5% 5 (5) 3 3% Sum (Answers) 44 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 14 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.55 Standard deviation 1.09 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Ease of constructability review] Table 281 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 3 3% 2 (2) 19 18% 3 (3) 12 11% 4 (4) 8 7% 5 (5) 3 3% Sum (Answers) 45 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 13 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.76 Standard deviation 1.05 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Jobsite safety] Table 282 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 5% 2 (2) 15 14% 3 (3) 17 16% 4 (4) 6 5% 5 (5) 2 2% Sum (Answers) 45 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 13 101 % Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 2.67 Standard deviation 1.00

D-123 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for agencies utilizing AMG? (1=Highest Benefit, 5=Least Benefit) [Safety on the traveling public] Table 283 Agency Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 4 4% 2 (2) 10 9% 3 (3) 18 17% 4 (4) 4 4% 5 (5) 9 8% Sum (Answers) 45 100% Number of cases 58 100% No answer 13 11% Non completed 63 52% Arithmetic mean 3.09 Standard deviation 1.22 Heavy Equipment Vendor Perspective Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [Labor savings (direct cost on projects)] Table 284 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Labor Savings Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 7 25% 2 (2) 5 18% 3 (3) 3 11% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.73 Standard deviation 0.80 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [Environmental-Fuel savings] Table 285 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Fuel Savings Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 3 11% 2 (2) 6 21% 3 (3) 5 18% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 1 3 % Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7%

D-124 Answer Count Percentage Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.33 Standard deviation 1.05 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [Project schedule compression] Table 286 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Schedule Compression Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 10 36% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 1 3% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.40 Standard deviation 0.63 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [Avoidance of re-work (re-grading)] Table 287 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Avoidance of Re-Work Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 11 39% 2 (2) 2 7% 3 (3) 2 7% 4 (4) 0 0% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.4 Standard deviation 0.74 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [As-built documentation] Table 288 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-As-Built Documentation Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 9 32% 2 (2) 3 11% 3 (3) 2 7%

D-125 Answer Count Percentage 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.67 Standard deviation 0.98 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [Ease of constructability review] Table 289 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Constructability Review Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 6 21% 2 (2) 5 18% 3 (3) 3 11% 4 (4) 1 3% 5 (5) 0 0% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 1.93 Standard deviation 0.96 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [Jobsite safety] Table 290 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Jobsite Safety Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 5 18% 2 (2) 4 14% 3 (3) 2 7% 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 2 7% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 2.47 Standard deviation 1.46

D-126 Survey Question: In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? (1=Greatest Amount of Benefit, 5=Least Amount of Benefit) [safety of the traveling public] Table 291 Equipment Vendor Perceived AMG Benefit-Public Safety Answer Count Percentage 1 (1) 1 4% 2 (2) 5 18% 3 (3) 3 11% 4 (4) 2 7% 5 (5) 4 14% Sum (Answers) 15 100% Number of cases 17 100% No answer 2 7% Non completed 13 43% Arithmetic mean 3.2 Standard deviation 1.37 Survey Question: Do you know of any other benefits for contractors utilizing AMG? • Marketability. Being recognized as using technology. • Finding problems with design and correcting them before hand or earlier in the process, proof of work performed as per design specs. • Some components can record position data and accuracy detail for production analysis and documentation. Survey Question: Can you briefly explain the contractor benefit(s) of using AMG • Increased machine life. • Stake out costs. Survey Question: By what percentage does productivity/speed of operations increase by using AMG compared to not using AMG? Table 292 Equipment Vendor Customer Productivity Increase with AMG Answer Count Percentage 0-5% (A) 1 3% 6-10% (B) 0 0% 11-15% (C) 2 7% 16-20% (D) 0 0% 21-25% (E) 1 3% 26-30% (F) 1 3% 31-35% (G) 2 7% 36-40% (H) 6 21% No answer 4 13% Non completed 13 43%

D-127 Survey Question: What percentage of cost do you estimate your customers save by using AMG compared to not using AMG? Table 293 Equipment Vendor Customer Cost Savings with AMG Answer Count Percentage 0-5% (A) 0 0% 6-10% (B) 1 3% 11-15% (C) 0 0% 16-20% (D) 0 0% 21-25% (E) 2 7% 26-30% (F) 2 7% 31-35% (G) 3 10% 36-40% (H) 0 0% Other 3 10% No answer 6 20% Non completed 13 43% Other: It really depends on the size of the job and how much AMG is utilized. The more AMG utilized, the higher the percentage. Low-end 10%, high end could be upwards of 50%. Depending on design and type of projects ranges for 40 to 60 percent. Back office costs increase even as field costs decrease. Overall, 10%.