Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation (2020)

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.

30 C H A P T E R 4 This chapter of the report describes the STA case examples that were based on the ini- tial survey results. The follow-up interviews will help other STAs enhance or improve their current as-built procedures. The states selected for these interviews/case examples were Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Minnesota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The interviews were conducted using Zoom web conferencing. The topics of the conversation centered on the following points: • Specific as-built development, preservation, and renewal methods; • Accuracy and usefulness of completed as-built plans; • Who is using as-built plans after their approval; • How as-built plans are used after their approval; • Impact of alternative delivery methods on as-built plans; • Lessons learned on as-built plan development, preservation, usage, and renewal; and • Impact of as-built plans on project performance measures. The interview candidates were selected for the following reasons, in approximate order of precedence: 1. STAs indicating they were willing to be interviewed. 2. STAs that have well-defined as-built procedures. 3. STAs viewed as progressive in as-built development. 4. STAs viewed as progressive in as-built storage and preservation. 5. STAs viewed as progressive in as-built usage. 6. STAs that employ different as-built procedures according to project delivery method. 7. STAs with varying sizes, complexities, and regional locations. Arizona As-Built Procedure Best Practices and Implemented Research The Arizona Department of Transportation developed an as-built web page that has signifi- cantly improved as-built procedures. Everything regarding Arizona DOT as-built procedures can be found on this page. The web page includes frequently asked questions, common mistakes in preparing record drawings, record-drawing guidelines, record-drawing examples, a record- drawing process flowchart, contact information, the link to completed as-built plans, and addi- tional resources. Figure 30 shows the list of frequently asked questions regarding record drawings found on Arizona DOT’s as-built web page, and Figure 31 shows the list of common mistakes in preparing record drawings. Case Examples

Case Examples 31 According to Arizona DOT, the record-drawing process flowchart is one of the most useful aspects of the web page. It provides a step-by-step procedure on how record drawings should be developed and stored. The flowchart is depicted in Figure 32. The resident engineer is responsible for developing the redline plans in the field. These redlines are sent to the record drawing designer, who uses them to create the PDF record drawings. Record drawings go through several checks at Arizona DOT, and the resident engineer must approve the record drawings developed by the designer. The approved record drawings must be e-mailed to the Project Resource Office (PRO) along with the Record Drawing Project Submittal Form. PRO will check the record drawings for compliance, and if all guidelines are met the record drawings will be uploaded to the Repository of Online Archived Documents (ROAD). These drawings are available in the Arizona DOT Information Data Warehouse (AIDW). A link to ROAD can be found on the Arizona DOT as-built web page. Before the final payment can be delivered and the project can be closed out, as-built plans must be in-house and approved. ROAD is available to the public, and record drawings can be found using the record-drawing search tab. Figure 33 depicts the record-drawing search feature in ROAD. Figure 30. Frequently asked questions regarding record drawings on Arizona DOT as-built web page. Figure 31. Common mistakes in preparing record drawings on Arizona DOT as-built web page. SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

32 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation Figure 32. Stages I and II of Arizona DOT’s redlines/record-drawing plans flowchart.

Case Examples 33 Arizona DOT is also making progress in the transparency of as-built plans. Arizona DOT encourages the public to get information on transportation infrastructure through ROAD. This transparency inevitably requires litigation involvement under some circumstances. If a project is under construction or has been completed but the record drawings have not yet been uploaded to ROAD, the public must go through the Risk Management Office. Risk Management will determine whether the information can be released. Varying As-Built Procedures According to Project Delivery Method As-built procedures are generally the same for all project delivery methods. However, the entity responsible for as-built development may vary from project to project. The project man- ager, with input from the project team, decides who is responsible for as-builts for a project. For simple projects, often design–bid–build projects, districts are responsible for as-builts; how- ever, for more complex projects or design–build projects, a consultant or the design–builder is responsible for as-built development. The designer responsible for the official record drawings is dependent on the type of project. For example, a traffic designer would be the record-drawing designer for a traffic project. As-Built Information on Warranties, Agreements, and Deployed Technology Arizona DOT does not collect information on warranties or agreements. Information on deployed technology is not included in the as-built plans and is sent to Homeland Security in the district office separately. Incorporation of As-Built Data into Asset Management As-built data are not currently incorporated into asset management. When as-built data are needed, that information must be pulled from the as-built plans. Arizona DOT would eventually like to incorporate as-built data into asset management to get the most accurate information available. Figure 33. Record-drawing search in ROAD.

34 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation As-Built Information Received from Third-Party Agencies Third-party agencies can share record drawings in one of two ways. Record drawings can be e-mailed directly to Arizona DOT as PDFs, or as a link to the record drawings from the company site or file-sharing site. If a link is shared, the files must be available for download for 14 days. Colorado As-Built Procedure Best Practices and Implemented Research Colorado Department of Transportation also has a specification regarding as-built plans or, as Colorado DOT refers to them, construction drawings. Figure 34 is Colorado DOT Specification 105.02 (f). According to the spec, the contractor is responsible for construction drawings that are submitted to the engineer before the final payment. These drawings should be maintained as the project progresses, and notations on the drawings must be made within seven days of the change. The construction drawings completed by the contractor are used to develop the as-constructed plans. Official as-constructed plans are developed using MicroStation or Redline Software if the plan set is prepared electronically. Colorado DOT stated that elec- tronic plans help with the as-built process because they are easier to prepare and maintain. Colorado DOT’s construction manual lists specific information to be incorporated into the as-constructed plans. As-constructed plans should contain a professional engineer’s stamp; changes to the scope of work, intent of contract, geometric design, structural plans, typical sections, standard plans, and specifications; and corrections to design errors. The construction manual also contains detailed procedures for preparing electronic and manual as-construction plans. Varying As-Built Procedures According to Project Delivery Method In general, as-built procedures do not vary by project delivery method at Colorado DOT. The contractor is always responsible for construction drawings, and the project engineer receives those plans and oversees the transformation of those plans to the as-constructed plans. How- ever, contracts for design–build projects have a different language than other delivery methods. At Colorado DOT, contractors are more likely to complete the construction drawings on time and properly on design–build projects. Figure 34. Colorado DOT Specification 105.02 (f).

Case Examples 35 As-Built Information on Warranties, Agreements, and Deployed Technology Colorado DOT does not perform projects with warranties. Its contracts for projects with agreements or deployed technology are the same as all contracts; therefore, as-built develop- ment does not differ for these projects. Incorporation of As-Built Data into Asset Management Colorado DOT is incorporating as-built data into signal and bridge assets. Signal inventory and asset condition data are maintained statewide and are updated to show new or replaced signals; however, specific as-builts are not referenced in the inventory. Bridge asset management recommendations aim to incorporate the history of all structures. The majority of Colorado DOT’s structures’ as-builts are located on e-folders that allow for easy access. A goal for Colorado DOT is to locate and provide as-built plans for the entire struc- ture asset inventory in the e-folders. Asset management recommendations rely on the current condition, and as-built plans are beneficial when evaluating projects and potential treatments. As-builts incorporated into asset management are extremely helpful from this standpoint. As-Built Information Received from Third-Party Agencies Colorado DOT allows as-builts to be delivered as hard-copy plans or electronic plans. There is no requirement for how these plans are shared. Electronic plans are often shared in e-mails, as CDs, or through USB flash drives. Kentucky As-Built Procedure Best Practices and Implemented Research Currently at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), as-built plans are developed by construction personnel by hand or using editing software on iPads. These plans are then stored in ProjectWise as PDFs. However, KYTC has an ongoing research project on improving the as-built process (KYSPR-18-555, Redefining Construction “As-Built” Plans to Meet Current KYTC Needs). Interviews were conducted with Project Development (i.e., as-built end users) and Project Delivery (i.e., as-built developers) to identify potential improvements to current as-built procedures. An as-built checklist was developed that provides as-built information requested by end users at KYTC to as-built developers and the minimum acceptable recording method (Tables 5 and 6). The checklist provides the as-built information needed for each category of end users (Table 5). It also describes the minimum acceptable recording method for required as-built information. Table 6 is a checklist of necessary as-built information broken down according to work type. Projects with these work items require as-built information. All as-built information is converted to PDF format before its submission. The minimum acceptable recording method ensures the information collected is done so in a way that the information will be useful to end users. When the as-builts are developed was also of interest within the research. According to KYTC as-built developers, developing as-builts throughout the project as it progresses is the most efficient way to develop these plans. In addition to the as-built checklist, KYTC indicated it had an as-built point of contact at KYTC to enhance the as-built process. This point of contact would be responsible for uploading

36 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation as-built plans to the appropriate destination and ensuring they are being completed consistently and uniformly. Varying As-Built Procedures According to Project Delivery Method As-built plans are developed by construction personnel at KYTC. However, under most circumstances for design–build projects, the design–builder is responsible for developing the as-built plans. During interviews with as-built developers, it was suggested that outside entities such as design consultants or contractors be employed to assist with as-built plan development, depending on the project. Besides the case of the design–builder creating as-builts for design– build projects, there is no variation in as-built procedures according to delivery method. As-Built Information on Warranties, Agreements, and Deployed Technology It was of interest if STAs record specific or different as-built information on projects with warranties, agreements, or deployed technology. KYTC does not differentiate such projects in regard to as-builts, and as-built information recorded is the same. End User Required As-Built Information Minimum Acceptable Recording Method Bridge Maintenance Pile tip elevations Hand-drawn Concrete cylinder breaks Hand-drawn Beam seat information Hand-drawn X-dimensions Hand-drawn Culvert fill heights Hand-drawn Foundation layouts Hand-drawn Pavement Design Actual courses placed Hand-drawn Typical sections Hand-drawn Subgrade details Hand-drawn American with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp information App Intersection grades Mobile LiDAR Highway Design Anything underground Hand-drawn Alignments Hand-drawn Picture of completed project Camera LiDAR scan of completed project Mobile LiDAR Structural Design/Geotechnical Footing information Hand-drawn Pile lengths Hand-drawn Stationing equations for where bridges and roads meet Hand-drawn Changes in bridge length Hand-drawn Piers built at wrong skew Hand-drawn Bearing details Hand-drawn Rock cut slopes Drone Cut and fill slopes Hand-drawn Utilities Subsurface utility information Hand-drawn Utility conflict information Hand-drawn Alignments Hand-drawn Depths Hand-drawn Clearances Hand-drawn Permits Permitted facilities Hand-drawn Table 5. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as-built checklist.

Case Examples 37 Major Work Product Work Product Components Individual Work Items Required As-Built Information Collection & Recording Method (Current Recommendation) Future Collection & Recording Methods Structures • Concrete Cylinder Breaks • Test and Record in SiteManager Foundation Piles • Pile Tip Elevation/Lengths • Measured Bearing • Direct Measure and Record on Pile Logs Foundation Layout • Bottom of Footer Elevation • Direct Measure and Record on Plans Substructure Abutment/End Bent • Beam Seat Elevations • Beam Seat Layout • Wing Wall Dimensions • Direct Measure and Record on Plans Piers • Beam Seat Elevations • Beam Seat Layout • Direct Measure and Record on Plans Superstructure Bridge Deck • X-Dimensions • Finished Grade • Surveyed and Record as PDF • Direct Measure and Record on Plans Culvert • Culvert Fill Heights • Wing Wall Dimensions • Direct Measure and Record on Plans Foundation Layout • Bottom of Footer Elevations • Surveyed and Record as PDF Roadway Right of Way Completed Project • Actual Roadway Monuments and Lines • Survey and Record on Plans • Picture & GPS and Record on ArcGIS • Google Earth Subgrade Stabilization Method • Cement/Line/Rock Roadbed • Record Method Used as PDF Asphalt/ Concrete Pavement Base Courses • Actual Courses and Thickness • Direct Measure and Record on Plans Permitted Facilities Entrances • Permitted Facilities • Scaled Drawings • Visual Inspection and Record on Plans • GPS/Geographic Information System (GIS) Asset Management System • PDF Redline Editor Utilities Underground Utilities • Subsurface Information • Conflict Information • Measured or Surveyed and Record on Plans • Record in • As per ASCE 38-02 • As per SHRP 2 R01A • Alignments, Depths, and Clearances Maintenance Database • GPS/Asset Management Table 6. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as-built information by work type.

38 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation Incorporation of As-Built Data into Asset Management Currently, as-built data are not being incorporated into asset management and little discus- sion on asset management was present in interviews. However, as research on as-built proce- dures continues at KYTC, this is an area for consideration and enhancement. As-Built Information Received from Third-Party Agencies As-built plans are developed by construction personnel at KYTC. However, when a third- party agency provides as-built information, it is typically shared by e-mail. Minnesota As-Built Procedure Best Practices and Implemented Research The Minnesota Department of Transportation has taken enormous steps in as-built devel- opment. The following timeline shows the progression of its as-built procedures since 2009. • 2009—Learned about the process • 2010—Metro District As-Built Committee was formed • 2011—Created a uniform as-built pay item/specification that included five asset classes • 2012—Metro District initiated four pilot projects • 2015—Implementation to all Metro District projects • 2017—Greater MN District meetings were held • 2017—Added six assets and updated as-built specifications • 2018—District tour • 2019—Statewide As-Built Committee was formed Through this process, Minnesota DOT discovered the key factors to a successful as-built pro- gram are leadership support, ownership, clear communication, clear business process, and data value through system integration. The as-built information collected at Minnesota DOT includes asset type and feature, geo- spatial geometry, and asset inventory attributes, which are established as Excel (.csv) files or shapefiles and marked-up drawings established as PDF files. The asset information is divided into 12 asset classes and is listed in the Minnesota DOT 2011.601 As-Built Specification and Pay Item. Figure 35 is Specification and Pay Item 2011.601. This pay item/specification accurately tracks costs and allows for payment to be held until as-built plans are completed and submitted. Methods 1 and 2 listed in the spec are methods in which the information must be collected and indicate required accuracy. As-builts must be e-mailed by the contractor to the project engineer while copying Minnesota DOT’s as-built e-mail address. Minnesota DOT has also developed an as-built website to assist with as-built develop- ment. The website has tabs for the asset classes. Each tab contains the specific features to be collected; feature codes; GPS location requirements; an electronic spreadsheet that includes field names, metadata, and example collection data; and a key contact for that asset class. As an example, Figure 36 shows the Traffic Barriers page of the as-built website. Once the as-built information is submitted in the formats mentioned previously, the data are entered into the Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS), which focuses on asset inventory and performance and maintenance management. This system is integrated with Esri Roads and Highways, Swift, and the ArcGIS server for viewing.

Case Examples 39 Currently, Minnesota DOT is tracking let construction projects and as-built usage, commu- nicating District 2018 projects and the status of the data, conducting monthly statewide as-built working group meetings, and compiling special provisions/website changes. Next steps include a case example on utilizing as-built data, adding asset classes to 2011.601, continuing to build contractors’ expertise, and improving the business process. Varying As-Built Procedures According to Project Delivery Method The as-built procedure at Minnesota DOT is a newly defined procedure. Currently, only one process exists for all delivery methods and is the process outline described earlier, but not all projects require as-builts. However, Minnesota DOT indicated that as progress continues research on improvements will continue. While there was no direct mention of differing pro- cedures according to delivery method, Minnesota DOT mentioned it can begin to compare as-built collection methods, such as who the responsible party is for as-built development. As-Built Information on Warranties, Agreements, and Deployed Technology Minnesota DOT does not alter its as-built collection methods for projects with warranties, agreements, or deployed technology. It indicated that such information could be an attribute of an asset in TAMS. Currently in TAMS, manufacturer information is an asset attribute; however, as-built specifications do not ask for this information. Figure 35. Minnesota DOT 2011.601 As-Built Specification and Pay Item.

40 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation Incorporation of As-Built Data into Asset Management Minnesota DOT’s as-built program is directly linked to its asset management. In addi- tion, a statewide asset-grade LiDAR survey was completed in 2017. The statewide survey was purposed to obtain traffic barrier information and was expanded to obtain a full inventory of assets within the state. LiDAR was proposed by most contractors and was the method used for the survey. Fifteen thousand centerline miles of LiDAR information has been collected to date, helping to populate several asset inventories, including the asset classes indicated in the 2011.601 As-Built Figure 36. Traffic Barriers page of Minnesota DOT as-built website.

Case Examples 41 Specification and Pay Item. The LiDAR survey collected location information and some asset attributes. The project also included a boots-on-the-ground assessment of traffic barrier defects. Spreadsheets with the asset and defect information were used to create map books. The map books are being utilized by Minnesota DOT crews to determine what they can fix and to prioritize the defects. All inventory and assessment data will be uploaded to TAMS. As-Built Information Received from Third-Party Agencies Minnesota DOT receives as-builts from contractors through an e-mail distribution list including the project manager and as-built experts. As-builts are typically sent as csv files. Of the 221 projects in the 2019 construction season, 109 include pay item 2011.601; therefore, contractor completed as-builts are not always necessary. Virginia As-Built Procedure Best Practices and Implemented Research The Virginia Department of Transportation implemented a two-person system for track- ing and verifying as-built plans. The developer of as-built plans varies according to the project delivery method, which will be discussed in the next section. Developers include Virginia DOT staff, consultants, design–builders, and contractors, depending on the project. The first three are much more common, and the contractor is typically only responsible for as-builts for specific and detailed project types such as intelligent transportation system (ITS) projects. The two-person system includes the as-built developer(s) and the as-built checker(s). The as-built developer must record changes in MicroStation and save the file as a PDF. The individual responsible for checking and verifying the as-built plans reviews the PDF version. The checker verifies that numbers and notations are reasonable, and that the accuracy is adequate. The accuracy of as-builts is dependent on the field conditions, and there is not a standard accuracy requirement for all as-built plans. As-builts as 3-D models are in discussion at Virginia DOT. Varying As-Built Procedures According to Project Delivery Method As stated previously, as-built procedures at Virginia DOT vary according to delivery method. The procedures for design–bid–build projects are well-established, while the procedures for design–build projects are not as well-established. Virginia DOT plans to develop a well-defined as-built development procedure for design–build projects in the future. For design–bid–build projects, the district is responsible for as-built development. Virginia DOT employees develop the as-built plans for approximately 90% of these projects, while the remaining are developed by a hired consultant. Guidelines indicate that the individual respon- sible for developing as-builts must be a professional engineer. These as-builts must be completed in MicroStation and saved as a PDF. As-builts for design–bid–build projects are typically com- pleted within 6 months of the completed project. Design–build projects require as-built plans; however, there is no required procedure. As-builts are in the request for proposal and must be completed by the design–builder before they close out the project. Virginia DOT indicated the DOT intends for the procedure for as-built development for design–build projects to be different from those for design–bid–build projects.

42 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation As-Built Information on Warranties, Agreements, and Deployed Technology Projects with warranties, agreements, or deployed technologies do not require additional or different as-built information than any other projects at Virginia DOT. However, as stated previ- ously, contractors are most likely responsible for ITS project as-builts. Incorporation of As-Built Data into Asset Management Virginia DOT has an Asset Management Division; however, there is currently no systematic incorporation of as-built data into asset management. As-Built Information Received from Third-Party Agencies As stated, the majority of as-builts are completed by Virginia DOT staff; however, as-built data gathered from third-party agencies are typically received through e-mail. Some districts still require paper as-builts to be submitted, but for most districts electronic as-builts are preferred. Wisconsin As-Built Procedure Best Practices and Implemented Research At Wisconsin DOT, the project staff develops as-built plans, whether that be in-house staff or consultants. Specifications indicate that as-built plans must be in PDF format; however, there is no requirement on the type of software used to develop the PDF plans. Wisconsin DOT implemented a pilot project testing the use of Bluebeam for developing as-built plans. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 75% of as-builts are developed using Adobe software, while 25% are developed using Bluebeam. However, Wisconsin DOT has recently downloaded Bluebeam to all employee computers, so it believes the percentage of as-builts developed using Bluebeam will increase. Bluebeam can perform measurements, embed photos, link other file types, and load more data than Adobe. Bluebeam can be used on iPads, enabling staff to develop as-builts in the field as the project progresses. Wisconsin DOT provided findings from the pilot project: • Bluebeam on iPads is stripped down compared to the desktop version; • It is a good tool for referencing, but as-builts developed using Bluebeam on iPads will most likely need to be cleaned up on the desktop version; • Users found a slight improvement in as-built development using Bluebeam on iPads; and • Using Bluebeam on iPads did not appear to save time when developing as-builts. Wisconsin DOT also mentioned using 3-D modeling for as-builts for a megaproject in Milwaukee. For this project, a combination of in-house staff and consultants worked on the as-built 3-D models. This was unique to this specific project. Wisconsin DOT has developed an as-built records management system (ARMS) for storing as-built plans. The project staff develops as-built plans using Adobe or Bluebeam and sends the completed plans to the regional office. Regional office staff upload the plans to ARMS, where they are then uploaded to the Wisconsin GIS database, DOTView. Once as-builts are uploaded to the GIS database, Wisconsin DOT employees can select an area in the database, and as-built plans within that area populate with information on when they were developed. Structural infor- mation is also searchable by Structure ID. Wisconsin DOT eventually plans to link ARMS and DOTView with asset management information.

Case Examples 43 Varying As-Built Procedures According to Project Delivery Method Different projects at Wisconsin DOT may have different approaches to as-built develop- ment, such as using 3-D models for the megaproject in Milwaukee. However, Wisconsin DOT is only allowed to perform design–bid–build projects; therefore, there is no variation in project delivery method. As-Built Information on Warranties, Agreements, and Deployed Technology Projects with warranties, agreements, or deployed technologies do not require additional or different as-built information than any other projects. However, specific and detailed work such as electrical work may require the contractor to provide as-builts. Incorporation of As-Built Data into Asset Management As mentioned early in this section, Wisconsin DOT hopes to incorporate asset manage- ment into its ARMS and its GIS database. Currently, it has applications monitoring inventory such as signs and signals. This information is monitored in the asset database managed by the Office of Asset Management. Ideally, this information will be added to the GIS database and will be viewable in DOTView, along with the as-built information. This allows for the asset information to be located spatially. As-Built Information Received from Third-Party Agencies Wisconsin DOT receives as-built information from third-party agencies in all ways. How- ever, by permit, as-builts should be delivered by e-mail as a PDF. Wisconsin DOT has discussed applying as-built standards in the permit process requiring as-builts to be sent as CAD files with a certain accuracy. Challenges Faced After the interviews, it seemed in the best interest of the interviewees to report some findings as general and anonymous. All interviewees indicated challenges they and their STAs have faced while developing, preserving, and using as-built plans. The following is a compiled list of chal- lenges faced across all six STAs that were interviewed. • Limited time, • Limited resources, • Insufficient as-built guidelines, • Limited capabilities of staff, • Difficulty collecting as-built information in the format needed by end users, • Digital transition of the industry makes development difficult, • Value of as-builts is often not recognized until several years after their development, • No verification of whether as-builts are completed and stored, • As-builts are not fully compatible with other softwares, • Making as-builts public can be a homeland security issue, and • Accuracy of as-builts is often not quantified.