Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction (2022)

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.

38 As noted in Chapter 1, follow-up case examples were gathered to provide further details on individual state uses and programs of SUE. The case examples were executed by a web-conference interview between the study team and selected state DOTs. The state DOTs were selected based on their survey responses. The individual responses were analyzed to identify states who used SUE, who had documented SUE procedures, whose description of SUE aligned with ASCE 38-02, whose collection and communication of SUE information seemed advanced and included quality- level referencing, and who were agreeable to being interviewed. A summary of these responses is presented in Table 4.1. The state DOT survey respondent was contacted to participate in the case examples and was invited to include other individuals with SUE experience within the state DOT to participate in the conversation. These were semistructured interviews and followed the questions outlined in Appendix C. Case examples were conducted for six states based on the previously discussed analysis. These states included Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Each state’s case example is summarized in the following sections and is subdivided according to the inter- view questions. C H A P T E R   4 Case Examples State DOT Use of SUE Documented SUE Procedures Description of SUE Communication of SUE Additional Notes Colorado Yes Yes According to ASCE 38-02 3-D model with QLs SUE in State Law Georgia Yes Yes According to ASCE 38-02 Plans with QLs Staffs an SUE Office Maryland Yes Yes Assignment of QL to utility data Plans with QLs Thoroughly Documented Procedures Minnesota Yes Yes According to ASCE 38-02 Plans with QLs SUE QA Approach Pennsylvania Yes Yes According to ASCE 38-02 Plans with QLs Evaluates Savings Texas Yes Yes According to ASCE 38-02 3-D model with QLs Evaluates Savings Table 4.1. Responses from state DOTs selected for case examples.

Case Examples 39   Colorado Department of Transportation 4.1 Overview Use of SUE In 2018, a bill in Colorado was written to mandate the use of SUE by law. This bill became Colorado Revised Statute 9-1.5. Some of the impetus for this law was due to a 2017 gas explosion in Firestone, Colorado, that resulted in several deaths and significant damage. Through investigation of this explosion, it was noted that the poor documentation of utilities played a role. A review by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) noted that the existing One Call law, or damage-prevention law, could be improved. These factors contributed to revisions in the One Call law and pointed to a need for better utility investigation for project development. Additionally, in 2017, a proposed house bill was drafted by the Colorado Contractors Associa- tion (CCA) to completely shift the onus of plan-depicted utility locations to the responsibility of a professional engineer (PE) in charge. The intent was to shift liability from contractors to the PE in charge for missed utility information on construction plans. This house bill did not pass as it was one sided. However, in 2018 a revised house bill (HB 18-167) did pass. This time the legislation had support across multiple stakeholders, including the CCA, SUE industry, local agencies, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and utility companies. The intent of HB 18-167 was to require agencies like CDOT to provide contractors with a higher level of utility-investigation data along with PE-stamped plans, as prescribed by ASCE 38 guidelines. In the past, CDOT had used SUE more extensively across their projects, but its use had waned due to the number of misnomers, misapplications, and misclassifications that were occurring because the National Consensus Standard was not referenced. The Colorado Revised Statute 9-1.5-101 resolved this issue and legally implemented the ASCE 38 standard for the application of SUE. Within CDOT today, SUE is at the forefront of project development and delivery. 4.2 Project Characteristics and Timeline for Using SUE Colorado’s SUE legislation requires that a SUE investigation must be performed on projects that meet four criteria. These criteria include that the project must (1) involve a construction contract with a public entity (permitted work of a utility fits this criterion); (2) be primarily horizontal construction (not vertical); (3) involve excavation limits exceeding two feet in depth and 1,000 contiguous square feet, or entail a utility boring; and (4) be designed by a professional engineer. It is estimated that 95% of CDOT projects fall within these four criteria. According to the law, all projects meeting these criteria must attempt to achieve SUE QLB or have justification for not doing so. The justification for not achieving the required SUE quality level, or exemption of the quality level for all or part of the project, must be legitimate, as determined by a professional engineer. The law also requires SUE QLA where there are conflicts with gravity systems. CDOT’s Utility Engineering Process Management entails several stages, including planning, 0%–30% designed, 30%–90% designed, 90%–100% designed, and construction. These stages articu- late when internal procedures happen and when legislative-required actions are needed. Planning entails the review of the project for the four aforementioned criteria to determine the applicability of HB 18-167. If applicable, the SUE provider is procured by 0% design complete. For CDOT, once a project is determined to meet the criteria, they use a SUE checklist and work collaboratively with a SUE provider and project team to develop a scope of work that defines what quality levels of SUE are needed, in what locations, and if any areas of exemption are warranted. This scope even includes aboveground utilities as they tie into underground features. Preliminary SUE deliverables (QLB, QLC, and QLD) are then provided around 10% design completion to provide an opportunity to avoid utilities within the design. Having an engineer-stamped ASCE 38 standard deliverable this

40 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction early has been immensely beneficial to their design teams. CDOT is seeing increased efficiency and confidence in utility depictions, which allows the design to progress fluidly. At 30% design complete, the project team will begin mitigating impacts with utilities and identify areas for test holes (i.e., QLA). During any relocation prior to or during construction, mapping of the utilities is performed to develop an as-built map and documentation for those facilities. This is performed using the PointMan by Prostar application and software. CDOT keeps a repository of as-built utilities through this vendor-provided system. 4.3 Communication and Quality of SUE Deliverables CDOT notes that because of the early integration of the SUE provider, communication of the SUE information with the project team is virtually seamless. This communication is further streamlined by holding a mandatory prebid meeting to discuss projects with complex utilities. On CDOT projects, the design team is the owner of the SUE deliverables and SUE-provider service contract, so the SUE deliverables are worked directly into the computer-aided design (CAD) files. Utility coordination is concurrent to this process, and the utility coordinator works closely with the project manager. As construction approaches, SUE plans and information are collected along with the utility- conflict matrix. These items are treated similarly to a geotechnical report and are provided to the contractors for informational purposes only. A separate set of utility plans with proposed alignments is included as part of the construction plans and contract documents for the project. Any preconstruction relocations are documented by the construction-management staff using the PointMan system and provided to the contractor. CDOT contractors have also been using PointMan (either due to contract requirements or on their own accord) to gather as-built infor- mation for the utility work they perform. CDOT is currently testing 3-D utility models and has piloted a few projects using SUE providers capable of providing these models. They see this as an area for advancement in the near future. 4.4 Costs and Savings of SUE In terms of costs and savings, CDOT spends millions on their SUE investigations. In 2019, they initiated a $10 million on-call state pool for SUE services, which does not include project- specific, SUE-procured services. This number also does not include local agencies that are beginning to implement SUE as well because they saw the benefits CDOT was attaining in accordance with the legislation. While CDOT does not have a formal mechanism for measuring direct cost savings (as their approach has advanced so rapidly), they see qualitative advantages in their project-development process, such as increased efficiency. They note fewer utility issues encountered late in design that require rework efforts, and benefits are also being noted by the stakeholders. Utility owners appreciate CDOT attempting to avoid utility relocations when feasible and that CDOT designers are also presenting areas for relocations when necessary. This is producing savings in project schedules and building valuable relationships. Further, CDOT is seeing value in better utility information earlier in project delivery, which has been much more valuable than the incomplete One Call markings they were previously collecting. CDOT further believes this provides more confidence to design and, therefore, improved bid packages to contractors. With these overall improvements in delivery to the contractors, risk is being reduced and is likely leading contrac- tors to reduce their contingency.

Case Examples 41   4.5 SUE Data Quality, Storage, and Availability CDOT’s policies and SUE deliverables are dictated by the current version of ASCE 38. While CDOT believes the quality of the SUE deliverables is maintained through the stamping require- ment, there are still some over-the-shoulder reviews and collaboration of the SUE findings with the project team. This is especially the case if issues are encountered in collecting SUE QLB and an exemption needs to be noted. Once the data is collected, CDOT’s PointMan system manages the SUE deliverables. Locations are designated and collected with field information, collection date, quality level, and additional attributes such as facility type, size, and material. This SUE information is evaluated for the project and then placed in their repository. If needed in the future, the data would need to be reevaluated and likely an additional investigation completed. Quality is also maintained on SUE projects through prequalification requirements for SUE providers. Overall, CDOT is pleased with its SUE providers. However, they do find that some SUE providers stand out based on their documentation practices, including pictures and sketches of surface features, above-surface features, and how those features tie into the underground utilities, as well as in their collection of attributes, vaults, owners and subordinate owners on poles, and so forth. CDOT reports the result to be a combination of personnel, practices, and workflows for documenting and delivering information. Providers that stand out are also advanced in the styling, line works, and notes for the deliverables provided, especially in the designations between quality levels and changes of quality levels between segments. 4.6 SUE Program Evolution and Lessons Learned CDOT’s evolution in their SUE program was radical and rapid. The success CDOT has seen in their Utility Engineering Process Management has been, in their opinion, a function of three things working well together: (1) utility coordination, (2) SUE, and (3) utility-construction management. Much of this success is attributed to the utility coordinator, who, at times, has been procured as a consultant to ensure personnel availability. CDOT utility coordinators are trained to leverage the SUE information with the utility companies and project teams to avoid utility impacts as much as possible and help build relationships. These relationships span across utility companies and SUE providers. As there has been an increase in the use of consultant utility coordinators, more SUE providers are beginning to add that service. The benefit of improved and more consis- tent collaboration has been realized when the SUE provider and utility coordinator are from the same firm. While there was some initial resistance to HB 18-167, the SUE law, by personnel within CDOT, adoption is growing. This resistance is primarily because some personnel feel the cost and time associated with SUE do not add value to the project. However, training has been able to help counter this perception and provide insight into the liability taken by not conforming to the requirements of the SUE law. Beyond the law, SUE has also been supported by top CDOT leadership, which has come to dissuade concerns. CDOT is also seeing some of their large design-build contrac- tors using SUE in their projects and reporting buy-in to the process. In addition, new training programs have been developed for multiple stakeholder groups in Colorado, such as a training and certification program for CDOT and a program through the Colorado American Council of Engineering Companies. Buy-in continues to grow as more begin to see the value of the process and see CDOT leadership support. They believe this value is largely coming from the avoidance of a utility-impacts mindset and feedback from the utility companies and contractors. CDOT reports a key lesson learned was to use the resources available. For example, although HB 18-167 helped promote SUE, integrating ASCE 38 in Colorado Revised Statute 9-1.5-101

42 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction provided the requisite standard of practice. Furthermore, the Subsurface Utility Engineering for Municipalities: Prequalification Criteria and Scope of Work Guide, also provided by ASCE, presents guidance for developing SUE providers’ scopes of work and prequalification criteria and is currently supporting CDOT’s SUE operations. Georgia Department of Transportation 4.7 Overview Use of SUE The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has a long-standing SUE program whose developmental timeline accounts for many firsts in the industry. The SUE program was founded on the objective of damage prevention and avoiding unnecessary utility relocations. Other goals of the program were to move away from exculpatory plan notes presenting utility information as potentially inaccurate and to highlight utility-related areas for savings within projects. Over time, GDOT’s SUE program has become mature and well documented. GDOT’s SUE program is managed out of the State Office of Utilities and is staffed by a SUE program manager and two SUE program QA reviewers (hereafter referred to as the SUE group). They have found it useful to hire staff with diverse backgrounds, specifically with regard to design experience, and with good communication and leadership skills. Supporting the efforts of this group are three to four on-call statewide contracts for SUE providers. These providers may be used for any project (as determined by the SUE group) that did not include SUE in their prime scope of services. SUE providers must be prequalified using GDOT’s specific Area Class 5.08 for minimum SUE qualifications, which includes providing services according to ASCE 38-02, with secondary requirements of electronic-data guidelines and plan-presentation guidelines. These services are predominantly for SUE during the preliminary-engineering phase of projects but could be used at any point, even during construction. For GDOT, SUE is provided in two approaches, either (1) as a service or subconsultant to the prime design consultant or (2) through the statewide on-call services provided through the State Office of Utilities. When part of the prime consultant agreement, which is mandatory on most major projects, these services are seamlessly integrated into the project-development process (in part because of the maturity of the program but also because of efforts of the SUE group within the State Office of Utilities). This integration is also achieved through GDOT’s project-concept- report checklist, which determines the applicability of SUE based on needs and project criteria. Furthermore, many process flowcharts, checklists, and tools exist that help guide the program and guidelines, including ASCE 38-02, which is referenced to assist in controlling deliverables. GDOT sees the value of SUE through multiple facets, not the least of which is efficiency. Although the current utilization rate of SUE is estimated at 70%, GDOT would consider using it on all projects if cost were not a factor. In the past, the approach to gathering utility data had been to request high-level schematic plans from utility companies that entailed no accuracy from which to make design decisions. The use of SUE eliminates the iterations of getting piece- meal information from utility companies as new conflicts come to light. With SUE, accurate utility information is collected upfront and sent to the utility companies for verification. This savings alone is of value. GDOT reports that its relationship with its SUE providers and utility companies is one of its core strengths. This can be exemplified by the fact that GDOT offers training to utility companies in reviewing and understanding highway plans. GDOT also works with their designers to both understand approaches to avoid utility issues and to help designers produce a project with sound constructability relating to utilities. This is further aided by GDOT’s promotion of utility com- panies as a partner, where the utility companies have a voice during the project-development

Case Examples 43   process. Finally, GDOT actively supports project staff by intentionally creating awareness around who to contact if utility issues arise. 4.8 Project Characteristics and Timeline for Using SUE Historically, GDOT has used a decision tree within their Utility Accommodation Manual to determine if a project should implement SUE. This decision tree included criteria such as the number of utilities per project length, number of traffic signals, and so forth. However, the SUE group found there were many projects not meeting the criteria that were still very good can- didates for SUE. A project may be a good candidate if the project team wanted SUE included, utility owners noted a need for assistance in locating their facilities, or other reasons. When these projects were identified, the use of the decision tree restricted GDOT’s ability to use the SUE group’s pool of funding for on-call services, which enables a SUE investigation to take place. Thus, GDOT has evolved from the decision-tree approach to a more discretionary approach, selecting SUE implementation based on the judgment of the project team and the SUE group. Once SUE is implemented, the project team uses a prequalified SUE provider. Currently, there are 17 companies on GDOT’s prequalification list. GDOT may begin its process by collecting SUE QLD or QLC at planning or 10% design com- plete, but they typically move straight to SUE QLB as early as possible, so they have horizontal accuracy for design decisions. The SUE process starts with the creation of the project-survey database, which helps in setting the limits for the SUE investigation. The SUE providers will then populate a utility-conflict matrix and complete a utility-impact analysis. The SUE provider’s development of the utility-impact analysis is part of the Preliminary Utility Relocation Process (PURP). While drainage and some design details may not yet be available, the SUE data will be verified by the utility companies, and potential conflicts can be highlighted as indicators for SUE QLA needs. Avoidance decisions may not be made at this point, but conflicts will begin to emerge. When the SUE plans are sent to the utility company to verify locations (a QA step), the utility company is prompted to show the location of possible relocations as needed. This process is a coordinated effort with the utility companies, SUE providers, and project designers. These early conversations influence avoidance decisions and help determine the ROW requirements to ensure there is requisite space for necessary relocations. This is an aspect of the program that has been improving over the last few years and with GDOT using their tentative project schedules to help prompt avoidance decisions by the designers. These discussions are supported by GDOT’s use of a customized version of the Bentley Navigator software, which allows GDOT to provide the SUE CAD files to the utility company, who can then electronically verify locations and draw relocation alignments as needed. One area of growth for GDOT is the collection of utility as-built information. GDOT is moving toward the collection of relocated or new utility installations during the construction of facilities and has a few pilot projects underway. In general, however, SUE investigation does not normally occur during construction. An exception exists if there are issues of inconsistency with One Call markings and the SUE plans. Additionally, some utility companies have SUE firms on con- tract that could investigate their own facilities if needed. 4.9 Communication and Quality of SUE Deliverables The quality of GDOT’s SUE deliverables is well defined through the standards and guidelines required of their providers. The SUE group also has several approaches and reviews in place to help maintain the quality of these deliverables. For example, GDOT has checklists for each quality level that serve as guides to what must be included in the SUE deliverables. These checklists

44 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction are required to be stamped by a registered engineer or land surveyor, as are the SUE deliver- ables. According to the electronic-data guidelines and other supporting guides, features collected within the SUE deliverables include size, type, material, and other utility attributes. Also included in the deliverables are utility-pole tables and test-hole tables. Utility-pole-information tables collect information on pole owners and other owners attached, as well as pole location, diameter, height, and other features. Test-hole tables present the locations of SUE QLA test holes, and associated test-hole forms provide the complete data for those holes. The forms are not included on the plans but are an additional deliverable to the designer. GDOT has developed a standardized approach to how SUE deliverables are depicted. GDOT was the first to show quality levels as part of a line and the first to have a symbol to indicate the change in quality level within a line segment. In addition, GDOT has an extensive listing of abbre- viations, symbology, and line styles that are required on deliverables in order to be consistent with those that are used in their surveying plans. Substantial information and details are included because GDOT wants the SUE plans to be able to stand on their own since they are a stamped and sealed deliverable. Due to the amount of information on the plans, they will sometimes use insets to expand areas for viewing. The stamped SUE plans, and their CAD files, are provided to the project team, and the SUE plans later become part of the contract documents. The quality of the SUE deliverables is maintained in several ways. First, the SUE group reviews all the deliverables and, as needed, makes field visits to ensure accuracy and alignment. The SUE reviewers within the SUE group will also review the SUE information as relayed within the design plans. The SUE group also relies on verification from the utility companies to assess the quality of the deliverables. Based on the quality of the deliverables, GDOT has the ability to score their SUE providers, which can then be used in considering their future prequalification. The prequalifica- tion of the SUE providers is also handled by the SUE group; thus, poor performance will impact future prequalification as well. 4.10 Costs and Savings of SUE GDOT previously conducted a study and found they were seeing an estimated $17 of savings for every $1 spent on SUE. GDOT also believes there is a qualitative benefit and associated value of SUE but wants a better strategy to gauge savings. Therefore, they are currently working on an approach similar to Texas DOT, using a utility-conflict matrix to track the utility impacts and highlighting the value of those avoided or mitigated due to SUE information. GDOT believes this approach will present the value, not only for SUE but also utility engineering in general. Currently, this approach is still in development, but GDOT expects it to provide good infor- mation for showing the value of their program. 4.11 SUE Data Quality, Storage, and Availability GDOT stores SUE deliverables in their Bentley ProjectWise database. Due to the nature of this platform, the data is somewhat difficult to access for personnel other than the project team. GDOT does have a system called GeoPI that allows for finding project files in a geographic loca- tion, but there would need to be knowledge that a SUE investigation was completed for a project, or the search could be time consuming. The intent of keeping the SUE data is for the data to be available for project development. 4.12 SUE Program Evolution and Lessons Learned GDOT has found that the success of their program depends on their people. They seek out well-rounded individuals with design backgrounds to support their SUE group. This group has the respect of the project teams and consultant community. GDOT also acknowledges that it

Case Examples 45   has been helpful that the State Utility Office is a standalone business entity with a strong his- tory and DOT leadership support. There is also program support from the utility companies who appreciate the partnership, communication, and services GDOT provides them in training, electronic permitting, and document exchange. The SUE program is viewed as a service to the utility companies by GDOT. GDOT’s SUE use has grown significantly. They spend an estimated $6 million per year within their on-call statewide contracts alone. The justified return comes from the SUE program accu- racy and improved design decisions that lead to avoidance. The relationships with utility com- panies and adoption of SUE within project development has created a culture of viewing utility companies as partners and resources. GDOT’s success is also aided by their guidelines, supporting documentation, and their willingness to adapt and continuously improve. For this program to be successful, the SUE-consultant community must also have available resources in staffing and equipment, which took time to evolve. Recognizing this, GDOT attempts to support these resources in collaborating with SUE providers, whether that is in minor assistance with traffic control, notifying property owners of their work, or providing training. Still, GDOT reports that not all SUE providers are equal. Those specializing in SUE practices tend to provide more value. GDOT also appreciates SUE firms that try to help their program advance, such as those that have promoted 3-D modeling and innovative software. Ultimately, in GDOT’s experience, putting effort into partnership results in success. Maryland Department of Transportation 4.13 Overview Use of SUE In 1987, the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) issued their first SUE contract. The use of SUE was being promoted as a way to mitigate projects going over budget as a result of utility issues. Part of this budget challenge stemmed from the fact that utility budgets were not often accurately estimated. To address this, MDOT developed a preliminary-cost-estimating phase for utilities within the planning phase, and the results evolved into early project-development utility coordination. This process is now formalized through MDOT’s utility-coordination forms and their utility manual. While the process was effective, it was not often utilized in the 1990s and early 2000s, primarily due to some significant utility-related issues on some large projects. Starting in 2005, how- ever, MDOT began evolving back toward early utility coordination, such as that established in their formalized process. As MDOT reinvigorates utility efforts, the DOT is trying to get utility information to the design teams early and provide the best information possible at 0% design complete. This is taking more organization and storage of files within Share Drives and Bentley ProjectWise databases. To be successful at getting utility information out at 0% design complete, it is necessary to get their stakeholders, including utility companies, onboard, with an avoid-first mindset. This involves the retraining of staff and bringing back concepts of partnership in the utility-coordination process. The new utility manual and coordination forms are leading the return to early utility coor- dination, which is subsequently leading to improved delivery of projects. MDOT utility staff is garnering the attention of management and has input in setting dates for lettings. By waiting for utility clearance or having a plan for utilities in conflict, they are seeing improved outcomes. MDOT utility staff is also presenting innovative resolutions, such as subdividing projects into manageable phases given the utility impacts. MDOT SUE providers are brought under agreements through various contract approaches. These contracts directly reference ASCE 38-02 for their services. While the current contracts

46 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction for SUE services alone have expired, MDOT still has active multiservice topography/ROW contracts and multiservice design contracts that include SUE services. 4.14 Project Characteristics and Timeline for Using SUE MDOT implements SUE for any major project. Minor projects such as milling and overlays, safety improvements, sidewalks, and similar projects do not involve SUE. This equates to about 70% of MDOT projects involving SUE. MDOT’s approach is to only contract for SUE services if they need SUE QLB or above. In general, MDOT finds minimal value in paying for services for QLC and is capable of conducting QLD itself. The utility-investigation approach begins with MDOT identifying potentially impacted utility companies from Miss Utility (One Call) studies and sending early utility-coordination forms to the utility companies beginning at −20% to 0% design complete (pre-SUE). These forms provide an opportunity to get utility information (type and size) within the vicinity of the project and determine if there are any critical utilities to avoid. These forms further provide an opportunity to collect a comprehensive list of utilities, pole owners, and those attached to the poles. When the SUE provider is brought onboard, they currently start by acquiring utility-company records (if MDOT has not already received them). MDOT helps coordinate this effort by providing a letter to the SUE providers for utility companies to let them know they are working on MDOT’s behalf. Ideally, the project manager, utility coordinator, and SUE provider work to complete a plan for SUE investigations. The goal is to achieve QLB information by the completion of planning and any QLA test holes by or at 65% design complete. The intent of earlier utility coordination is to get utility information in front of designers sooner to promote avoidance. MDOT Statewide Utilities Section provides direct support to the districts with the goal of making the project the best it can be at both 0% and 65% design, regardless of whether the project is built or shelved. MDOT promotes avoiding utilities as much as possible. However, if relocations are needed, MDOT will work with utility companies to propose protect-in-place or minor adjustments in impacted areas (though relocation alignment is up to the utility company). In addition, MDOT will typically acquire ROW when applicable or if it is needed faster than utility companies would be able to attain it. 4.15 Communication and Quality of SUE Deliverables The SUE investigation is communicated through a CAD file provided by the SUE provider after QA/QC processes. The MDOT utility survey supervisor also reviews SUE deliverables to improve consistency. The SUE firms and MDOT provide a review of their findings by aligning them to features in topography, the Miss Utility information, or other resources to check for rea- sonableness. This CAD file is provided to the MDOT survey group, then to the project manager of the design, and is ultimately integrated directly into the roadway plans. MDOT has success with this process and has seen some utility companies adopting MDOT design styles to make communication more seamless. The SUE information included in these CAD files is primarily for existing facilities, though proposed lines may also be included. To date, new locations are not included, but the files will show areas that are planned to be abandoned-in-place segments. These areas are indicated as such with symbology. In the deliverables, the SUE providers note areas of concern, for instance, where they may have lost a signal, and make recommendations about areas of concern. There is sometimes a transition between the SUE provider providing QLB and QLA. As such, the QLA provider may have to make small corrections to the QLB data, but the contract requires the

Case Examples 47   previous provider to make corrections to obvious errors. Note that MDOT has the ability to dis- qualify a provider for the poor quality of work but has not yet done so. The QLB deliverables must be stamped by an engineer or surveyor, and the QLA test-hole-data-forms deliverables must be stamped by an engineer. 4.16 Costs and Savings of SUE MDOT has witnessed savings from the use of their new manual and forms in improved com- munication and coordination but does not currently quantify these savings. However, although MDOT does not have documentation to show savings, they do have documentation of projects with increased costs and schedules due to poor utility coordination. MDOT is also currently reviewing any utility-related change orders on projects that were coordinated before their current process. In 2018 and 2019, utility-related-delay claims were upward of $1 million. The goal of this review is to learn from the past and make improvements, which MDOT is already seeing. 4.17 SUE Data Quality, Storage, and Availability MDOT is using Shared Drives, ArcGIS, and Bentley ProjectWise to store their SUE deliver- ables. The MDOT ArcGIS system is used as a platform for collecting information on what utility companies have been accommodated in their ROW. Survey123 is used to collect the utility locations of permitted accommodations. With the use of this technology, inspectors are now able to use mobile devices and collect general information and locations where utility-company construction is occurring. (It is worth noting that this initiative is still ramping up, and there has been significant training involved to highlight what should be collected.) As this technology is becoming more integrated into their practices, MDOT is also working with its historic project files and SUE deliverables to enter this information into the ArcGIS system. MDOT is also interested in seeing the outcome of these recent and innovative processes that they have put into place to help the SUE program. The object of the approach is not to replace SUE but rather to assist SUE providers by providing improved information about what utility companies are present in an area and where they may be located. The SUE investigation is still needed to achieve accurate locations. 4.18 SUE Program Evolution and Lessons Learned MDOT’s SUE program and utility-engineering program, in general, are working through a transition. The goal of the utility program is to have the utilities clear or a plan for such before the project moves to construction. The utility-engineering program has been coordinating with vari- ous MDOT offices, such as highway design, structural design, environmental design, and others, to develop a collaborative utility-engineering program that is acceptable and useful to all. One of the complexities has been that a design could come from any of these previously mentioned offices, at the district- or central-office level, and that these design approaches are not consistent. These offices further lack an understanding of early utility coordination and have not fully adopted the avoidance mindset (i.e., avoid utility relocations when reasonable and feasible). Because of the diversity of the offices involved in the design, training these staff has also been a challenge. The MDOT utility-coordination forms and new manuals have helped with this training, but MDOT also realizes every project is different and does not necessarily fit the mold. Thus, MDOT is continuously evolving and learning how to make these resources applicable for all projects. This is largely an iterative process through vetting of the various design offices. MDOT still has resistance from some, but many of the project teams have begun to see the value in the

48 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction processes and have been very collaborative. MDOT believes the remainder just needs additional training, which takes time. Now that there is confidence in their process, MDOT’s next steps are to look toward ways to automate it. MDOT is considering electronic systems and submissions as a way to ease the next phases of implementation of the new procedures and expects this to grow from largely utility coordination and SUE into an overall utility-engineering approach. Minnesota Department of Transportation 4.19 Overview Use of SUE The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) SUE program started when MnDOT began allowing DB contracts. In Minnesota, SUE activities are strictly funded by the state, with no federal dollars. MnDOT’s primary goal with their SUE program is to identify any utilities that need to be relocated, determine the timeframe for the relocations, and estimate the cost of the relocations. MnDOT’s SUE program captures both belowground and aboveground utilities, including pole and wire heights, and references ASCE 38-02. Note that ASCE 38-02 is also refer- enced in the existing state statute for the One Call system. On DB projects, which constitute less than 25% of all MnDOT projects, SUE is always a requirement and is performed by MnDOT during the procurement phase. The SUE documents are then included in the DB request for proposals. For DBB projects, MnDOT strives to have the required relocations performed prior to the start of construction. This approach is successful on approximately 75% of the projects. Consequently, there may not be a significant amount of SUE work beyond exposing the utility in DBB projects, and there are no prequalified SUE providers for DBB projects. When a different delivery method is used, however, the district has significant discretion to determine if SUE is needed, though limited infrastructure is in place to support SUE within these other contracting methods. Regardless of the delivery method, consultants are required to follow MnDOT’s 14-step utility- coordination process; however, as they work through this process, the consultant may determine that SUE is not necessary. SUE contracts are typically developed to achieve QLB, with a specified number of QLA locates. This allows the project team to get a unit price for these locates, which is then modified as the project progresses and the true number of QLA locates is defined. SUE providers are prequalified and typically are retained on the project from before 30% design complete until 6 months to 1 year after the construction cycle begins. This extended retention, which is typically for a small dollar amount, enables the SUE provider to handle anything that may arise during the early construction process (e.g., missed items such as out-of-service lines). In essence, this means that SUE providers are being treated as a consultant on the design team. MnDOT is slowly transitioning to 3-D work. Currently, only complex areas are represented through 3-D drawings, but MnDOT foresees an increasing number of 3-D drawings in the future. 4.20 Project Characteristics and Timeline for Using SUE For projects that require SUE, MnDOT strives to get QLB data done by 30% design complete. From there, the main points of conflict would be identified, and a plan would be developed to perform QLA, which should be done by 60% design. This allows the project team to have time to react. Areas that are selected for QLA are dependent on the nature of the conflict. These QLA locations are partially determined as part of the conflict-analysis matrix performed by the team. The overarching goal in selecting QLA locates is to get the necessary data but also to be as cost- effective as possible.

Case Examples 49   While MnDOT does not require SUE on non-DB projects, SUE may be used if the nature of the project demands it or if a certain dollar threshold is reached. MnDOT typically recom- mends districts use SUE on large, complex projects that involve excavation, projects in urban areas or other areas where many utilities are present, or where project schedules may be severely impacted by inaccurate underground-utility information. Projects that are large interstates (e.g., 404 extensions) or that have bridges are often encouraged to perform SUE as well. 4.21 Communication and Quality of SUE Deliverables Ensuring the quality of SUE deliverables is primarily the responsibility of the SUE provider. These SUE providers go through a prequalification process by MnDOT. Part of the requirement for prequalification is that the firm needs to have an internal QA/QC process, and the firm must have a PE on staff that is capable of performing the SUE work and subsequently stamping it. The SUE firm is then accountable for any errors and omissions. Currently, MnDOT has three prequalified firms for DB projects. Once the work is completed, the SUE provider is expected to communicate the results of their SUE investigations to the designers and to educate them about utilities. In addition, SUE providers are involved in a workshop alongside the MnDOT team and the utility owners, where the primary focus is to discuss identified conflicts and how to best resolve them. As a general rule, MnDOT tries to avoid suggesting or designing relocations for utility com- panies. However, they will identify and provide locations to the utility owner where the utility cannot be placed due to other known obstructions or conflicts. MnDOT will further keep these utility companies in the loop for ROW acquisitions, as utility owners are sometimes constrained in their relocation efforts until the ROW is acquired. Different districts have varying approaches to accommodating utilities. Some of the more advanced districts may strive to design around the utility information provided, whereas others simply plan to relocate if the utility conflicts with the design. One of the driving factors for the decision to design around or relocate the utility is the type of conflict. For example, if the utility is a fiber optic cable that is easily moved, the designers will not try to avoid the conflict as much. Utility avoidance in design is an area where MnDOT feels they could improve. Prior to construction, contractors are provided a set of plans that include a utility plan with a tabulation of all the utilities, including if the utility will stay at its current location or if it will be relocated. There is also a note on the plan set that includes the utility quality level. QLD is typi- cally the default note unless SUE work has been performed. When applicable, special provisions also include details about the timing of relocates, which allows the contractor to know if they will need to work alongside the utility companies. MnDOT primarily relies on Bentley products, including MicroStation and Geopak, to capture utility information. They are also using Bentley products as they move toward more 3-D aspects. 4.22 Costs and Savings of SUE As MnDOT becomes more fiscally responsible, the goal is to both identify and continue to build value in SUE projects. MnDOT does not tie a dollar amount to SUE projects; however, there are a few projects where significant cost savings have been seen. These savings are primarily in the way of avoiding work orders that would have occurred in the field if the utility had not been designed around. One task that is currently known to add value is the conflict matrix. In addition, the formalized SUE approach also encourages the project team to follow the process more thoroughly because there is a SUE contractor looking at each utility conflict individually.

50 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction This leads to better-quality data and more confidence across project personnel because people believe in the data sets more. There is also a belief in MnDOT that bids are decreased from the contractors (but not necessarily the utility companies) because of this improved data. 4.23 SUE Data Quality, Storage, and Availability MnDOT is currently challenged to gather records and both obtain ownership of SUE files and bring them into survey areas. As a general rule, on a statewide basis, SUE investigation is done for the project itself and then not usually used again on other projects. However, more advanced districts may utilize this data again, to a point. The real challenge is that MnDOT is not keeping up with new utility installations in the corridors. In addition, MnDOT’s goal is not to return to a project for another 20 years (or more) after it is completed, thus reducing the value of collecting as-builts. This is an area that MnDOT plans to improve on in the future. 4.24 SUE Program Evolution and Lessons Learned As a whole, MnDOT feels that they are moving toward a complete utility-engineering pro- gram. However, currently, SUE is not implemented consistently across the districts, and there is still some resistance to the SUE program. Each of the eight districts has autonomy over their projects, and MnDOT will only review the project at the end. In some of the more advanced districts (e.g., the metropolitan district), the value of SUE is recognized. However, in other dis- tricts, the benefit is not well understood, and SUE still needs to be justified to project teams. MnDOT believes they can better bring the SUE and coordination aspects together and be more uniform in their approach. Thus, even though MnDOT has been using SUE for a while, there is still significant room to advance the program across the state. MnDOT also identified a key best practice they’d like to see from all SUE firms: Sometimes, the contractor will take a picture of the site, with the utility exposed on both sides. This, in com- bination with the utility depth, provides more visuals of the particular conflict, which is helpful for the design team. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 4.25 Overview Use of SUE The state of Pennsylvania is legally required to perform SUE by the Pennsylvania Under- ground Utility Line Protection Law, Act 287 of 1974, as amended. This law, which references ASCE 38-02, states that project owners are required to use SUE on any complex projects having an estimated cost of $400,000 or more. Other projects that typically necessitate SUE for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) include projects with foundation con- struction, urban projects, projects on major roadways, projects on minor roadways, and major construction or rehabilitation projects. In Pennsylvania, SUE is typically provided by a SUE provider, though some work is performed by the contractor. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) code provides information on contractual requirements for SUE providers. PennDOT has a well-established utility program that has not changed much in recent years. PennDOT’s Design Manual-5 (DM-5), Chapter 6, is dedicated solely to SUE. DM-5 Chapter 6 contains the SUE utility-impact form used by PennDOT to manage risk (i.e., shows proof of SUE consideration under the One Call law, shows proof of utility consideration to ensure federal funds are not lost). This utility-impact form is a core item in the project-development checklist, and its completion is required before a project can even be advertised. Not only does the utility- impact form help determine the location of SUE on the project but this form also helps project

Case Examples 51   managers justify either why SUE is to be used or why SUE is not to be used. The utility-impact form then recommends QLB or QLA. The project manager (PM) and the district utility admin- istrator can opt to go against this recommendation, as long as justification is provided. SUE is used on between 50–75% of PennDOT-initiated projects and is paid for primarily through preliminary-engineering funds, with some paid for during construction if SUE is determined necessary during the construction phase. Primary goal of PennDOT is to have SUE performed before the completion of the preliminary-engineering phase (or about 20% of the design completed). Two of the greatest barriers for PennDOT are a lack of knowledge about SUE and miscon- ceptions that have developed about SUE across districts. These are due to two primary causes: (1) project-staff turnover and (2) long-tenured professionals who are resistant to SUE or do not believe in the value of SUE and have spread that belief across their district. As project staff turns over, PennDOT is beginning to see a paradigm shift across the DOT’s districts where SUE is no longer believed to raise their costs unnecessarily. Furthermore, PennDOT is increasingly able to show indirect value in SUE on projects. For example, because SUE was performed on a project in Lancaster County, the project team was able to identify 300 feet of drainage redesign that was necessary to avoid duct banks, waterlines, and other utilities. While the exact savings are not known, the project team recognized that SUE significantly improved the overall project schedule. Situations like this garner increased SUE buy-in. 4.26 Project Characteristics and Timeline for Using SUE SUE usage is primarily driven by the One Call law, which requires projects having an esti- mated cost of $400,000 or more to have SUE performed. This means that the use of SUE is not determined by the project type, though more complex projects often require higher levels of SUE. As a general rule for PennDOT, the less rural a project is, the more likely SUE is going to be required, even if the project appears simple. In fact, it is important to note that simplicity does not preclude SUE. For example, there was a project that appeared to be a simple replacement of some pipes, and SUE was not expected to be needed. However, when the details were examined, it turned out that the pipe size of the replacement was larger than the original pipe size, which had a significant impact on other utilities in the area. In this case, a SUE discussion was held with the PM, who did not initially believe SUE was necessary. The discussion led to all participants realizing SUE’s importance on the project. PennDOT strategically evolves its SUE knowledge early in the project. During the schematic phase, the project team gathers QLC/QLD data. As they move toward 10% design complete, the team begins gathering QLB data. The goal is to know where there could be potential conflicts, then perform QLA to determine if the design could be changed a little to avoid the utility (or to begin planning the move if avoidance is not possible). This QLA data is gathered by 20% design complete. Unfortunately, while this is the goal, this is still not occurring 100% of the time on projects. In fact, often, the utility conflict is identified too late, and the project team does not want to change the design. Essentially, this means that SUE is just used to verify the impact, but the utility is moved anyway. Once the utility is relocated, no additional data is collected. 4.27 Communication and Quality of SUE Deliverables Quality on PennDOT SUE projects is maintained through a prequalification process, which is detailed in the WBS code. Part of this prequalification process is the development of a QA plan. SUE providers are required to have at least one PE and one professional surveyor (PLS) on the project team, though either the PE or PLS can stamp the deliverables (both stamps are not required). Deliverables are standardized in the WBS code. The SUE deliverables are then reviewed by the project team upon receipt. Once the consultant or district PM gets the

52 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction information from the SUE provider, that information is subsequently used in the design and is eventually provided to the bidding contractors through PennDOT’s Engineering and Construc- tion Management System (ECMS). Once the SUE results are added to ECMS, it is available to all bidders prior to the bid. The intent is twofold. First, PennDOT can reduce the number of questions during the advertisement. Second, PennDOT hopes to get a better bid because the contractor will be aware of SUE items and potential issues. Once awarded the project, the contractor is provided with the construction plans that include quality levels. The full SUE study is also provided by a contract addendum/report. A goal of PennDOT is to improve the communications that are taking place. This commu- nication is highly dependent on the district and if the project is in house or out of house. If the project is internal, one of the PMs would be responsible for obtaining the contract to perform SUE. This information would be provided to the PM’s supervisor, which is then passed along to the designer. An important note here is that, for in-house projects, PennDOT districts may try to take all of their in-house projects and combine their SUE funds across them to hire a single SUE provider in a district-wide agreement. If this is the case, the PM would be responsible for initiating and executing the SUE agreement, and the SUE provider would submit deliverables back to the PM. In this case, the PM would then disseminate it back down to the units to make further decisions with the design team to try to resolve conflicts. If it is an out-of-house project (i.e., the consultant is doing design and/or utility coordination), the design contractor would be responsible for setting up the SUE agreement and would collect the incoming deliverables. In both cases, the SUE data would be used to evaluate potential test-hole locations. After the SUE deliverables are provided, SUE consultants/providers rarely sit down with the PennDOT staff to talk about the findings. PennDOT recognizes there would be value added if this were to happen. However, PennDOT does not know if these conversations are happening between the SUE provider and the design consultant for out-of-house projects. As a general rule, PennDOT also does not know the status of SUE throughout the project life and if it has been incorporated or if SUE data was actually used in the design process. This is because, in Pennsylvania, there are 11 districts, each with relative autonomy. Thus, every district operates a bit differently. In some districts, the district executive (formerly known as the district engineer) is a bit more aggressive about using SUE than other districts. The primary challenge for PennDOT across all of these districts is to ensure that SUE conversations are happening early in the design process (during preliminary design) and that the conversations continue to occur as the project develops and changes. Oftentimes, SUE challenges do not come out until the final design, after everyone walks to the project. At that point, the scope has to change. The second challenge for PennDOT’s District Utility staff is to educate these districts on the importance of SUE. For example, as PMs turn over, the District’s Utility Unit staff have to resell the use of SUE to those districts. This generally requires summarizing the information from the Pennsylvania One Call law and explaining why there is a requirement in the law that SUE is performed (e.g., failure to perform SUE can lead to loss of federal funds for delays caused by utilities). 4.28 Costs and Savings of SUE PennDOT does not track cost savings on its projects. The primary form of risk reduction is the aforementioned utility-impact form. It is worth noting, however, that in the past, there was an attempt by Pennsylvania State University to capture the value of SUE (i.e., return on investment) on PennDOT projects. (The results of this study are presented in the literature review.) A key outcome of this study for PennDOT was that PennDOT was originally going to create a separate utility-engineering manual but instead decided to create Chapter 6 of DM-5. This Pennsylvania State University study provided the basis for Chapter 6 and ultimately helped

Case Examples 53   propel the PennDOT SUE program forward. By integrating SUE into Chapter  6 of DM-5, PennDOT was able to create a better integration of SUE into the project-development process because the manual became a one-stop shop for SUE information. 4.29 SUE Data Quality, Storage, and Availability PennDOT has SUE data ownership when they are paying for the service. In Pennsylvania, however, each district stores its own SUE data, and no central repository exists for access- ing SUE data for future use, with the exception of utility-impact forms. Utility-impact forms are electronically completed and stored through PennDOT’s Utility Relocation Management System (URMS). This is actively being addressed as part of a SHRP 2 project, where the team is working on storing SUE information (e.g., getting as-built information from utilities) and putting that into the GIS system, so they have it for future use. When it was first established, One Call was intended to be a central repository. Once SUE was completed, the information was supposed to be provided back to One Call. However, there was not a standardization required for this SUE data, which has created challenges in terms of the effectiveness of this repository (i.e., some drawings are done by hand, whereas others are in CAD files with varying levels of detail). Historically, there have also been some enforceability challenges. 4.30 SUE Program Evolution and Lessons Learned SUE requirements were first established in Pennsylvania in the 1980s due to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court lawsuit involving PennDOT. In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that if PennDOT furnishes plans to a contractor for construction, and there are omissions in the utility data, the contractor is entitled to do whatever they need to correct that omission. For PennDOT, this meant that change orders could be exorbitant. To protect themselves, PennDOT decided SUE would be performed on projects to provide more complete information. When the Pennsylvania One Call law was established, the law stated that utility information gathered had to be furnished back to the One Call center. However, the law lacked enforce- ability early on, both in regard to performing utility investigations and in requiring returned information. As the law has evolved, however, this enforceability has increased. For example, there is now a damage-prevention committee meeting each month. When an underground utility is hit, the project owner, the excavator, and everyone else involved has to complete an alleged-violation report. If the project owner is found to have not performed SUE by the damage-prevention committee, they can be fined. Even with this increased enforcement, QLB is not required in the One Call law, which means that the records can be QLD and still comply with the statute. From a lesson-learned perspective, PennDOT has identified a cost-control measure that they could implement more strategically within these contracts, which is to include X number of test holes (where X is based on project size) into the contract. That way not only does this provide a place to charge that work to but, if it is part of the bid document, then the provider is also tied to the bid price. If there are not any test holes mentioned, there is the potential for extremely high change-order costs. This was a lesson learned after a gas utility company said that there was a need to excavate their pipe at every service line because the valves stick up 6–8 inches above the main, and that was what would be hit first. Prior to this utility requirement, the test holes allotted were not planned for these service lines. Thus, when the change hit, it was expensive for PennDOT because there was no contractual provision for adding those test holes. The second key lesson

54 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction learned from PennDOT is the importance of communication throughout the project, rather than just at the point of deliverables or other stage gates. PennDOT is currently developing a policy to collect the utility’s as-built information and to then incorporate the SUE data and as-built information into a GIS system. In addition, by 2025, PennDOT’s goal is to have paperless projects led through the ECMS system, where everything is electronic. Ideally, some projects may even provide all data in a single PDF. PennDOT is further working to integrate 3-D modeling into its products. The challenge PennDOT sees with the SHRP 2 3-D data repository is that, at this stage, PennDOT is having trouble even obtaining and organizing 2-D data sets with utilities, which is a point echoed by other state DOTs participating in a SHRP 2 peer exchange in 2019. Texas Department of Transportation 4.31 Overview Use of SUE The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has a very mature and formalized SUE program that is substantially used in the design process. Recently, the SUE program has evolved to beginning even earlier in the development process. The synthesis-survey results showed TxDOT to be implementing SUE earlier than any other state. In the last two years, TxDOT SUE investigations have been initiated in the schematic-design phase of projects. This change occurred because TxDOT found that their previous approach of waiting until later design stages, such as plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) (also known as detailed-design phase), did not allow for proper timing to support their avoidance mindset. Starting SUE in the schematic-design phase allows TxDOT to identify preliminary conflicts and provides opportunities for TxDOT to assess alignments beyond simple design changes. Utility companies are also contacted during this phase to indicate areas that could present substantial conflicts and should be avoided. This approach allows for informed early decisions and the early consideration of project-footprint needs for ROW acquisitions to accommodate utility relocations. These early efforts provide savings and value through design and construction. SUE performed within the design process is provided by prequalified consultants. SUE services may be procured either on a project basis by the prime consultant for the design of the project or on a long-term on-call basis if the services are for in-house design projects. Services may also include utility coordination, conflict identification, and inspection. SUE contracts are arranged according to the needs of the district and project managers. Within all SUE contracts and scope of services, the ASCE 38 standard (stated as the most recent version) is referenced as the standard for the services to be provided. TxDOT has a mechanism to use SUE if needed during construction through the services provided by their construction-engineering and inspection providers. Contractors have also conducted informal SUE investigations as utilities have presented themselves. TxDOT, when appropriate, has covered this work by force account. The goal, however, is that the majority of the SUE investigations occur early in the design process. TxDOT is fortunate to have a significant number of resources available for using SUE. Although they invest a substantial dollar volume into SUE investigations, TxDOT is confident that they are seeing a return on investment. 4.32 Project Characteristics and Timeline for Using SUE TxDOT does not have rigid requirements characterizing the use of SUE. Any project with excavation could implement SUE, but that investigation likely increases in intensity for more complex projects. The type of project and characteristics, such as complexity, ROW, density,

Case Examples 55   and overall project cost, may be indicators of the scope of the SUE investigation, but the PM typically makes the final determination if SUE is needed. These determinations are aided through conversations between the PM, SUE consultant, and, at times, the utility companies. The SUE investigation is initially scoped within the project-schematic phase. The associated SUE estimate is usually determined from the project cost estimate initially but then itemized and negotiated by linear-footage needs, quality levels desired, and the number of test holes esti- mated. Beginning in the schematic-design stage allows TxDOT to employ an avoidance mindset regarding highway design and utilities. When avoidance is not possible, minimizing conflicts is the goal, followed by accommodating the utilities needing relocation. The goal is to complete the SUE investigation up to SUE QLB in all desired locations on projects. Where QLB is not possible, close coordination with the utility owner occurs. The aerial facilities are also included within this investigation as QLC. The project teams also work with utility owners to ensure they receive the support necessary from the SUE services to coordinate with other utility companies and complete their relocation efforts. While TxDOT does not acquire replacement easement for utilities, they do assess the acquisition area to accommodate them when possible. This begins with initial notice letters noti- fying utility companies of the project and requesting utility records, as-built information, and easements to help determine those that are reimbursable. In TxDOT’s approach, the PS&E phase begins with an abundance of SUE information. This means that TxDOT is able to complete any additional investigation needed prior to 30% design complete. The investigation in this stage is largely QLA since, in the schematic phase, test holes are typically only in the areas critical for avoiding utilities. During this phase, the design project managers will review and verify the locations for test holes as suggested by the SUE provider. There has been minor resistance to having the SUE investigation within the schematic-design phase. This is because there is often a long period of time between the schematic and PS&E phase of the project. Typically, this means there is a new consultant contract for the PS&E phase. The transfer of the SUE information, which has been sealed by the professional engineer during the schematic phase, has been handled by transferring the information to the new design team and potentially new SUE consultant and requesting they take ownership of that data within their SUE investigation. The data transferred includes a preliminary utility-conflict list and SUE deliv- erables. Therefore, new SUE consultant costs cannot be billed as though the provider is starting from scratch, but the provider can include costs to ensure their own confidence in the data such that they can seal their SUE investigation. To help in this transition, TxDOT is promoting the use of transition meetings between the schematic- and PS&E-design phases to include project managers, SUE and utility consultants, utility companies, and others. For TxDOT’s DB program, SUE consultants are also hired in the schematic-design phase, and TxDOT uses individual workshop meetings with utility companies to verify the information and indicate QLA needs. TxDOT will also conduct additional SUE as requested by DB teams during procurement. This information is then provided for all teams to consider in the project. 4.33 Communication and Quality of SUE Deliverables The communication for SUE deliverables will vary slightly between project-specific or deliver- able contracts and the longer-term regional SUE contracts used by TxDOT project managers. In project-specific contracts, SUE and utility-coordination services are within the prime- consultant agreement for project development. These services are typically taken on by a sub- consultant. While some consultants provide both SUE and utility-coordination services, the most success has been seen where the prime consultant is conducting the utility coordination, and SUE is provided by a subconsultant. The collaboration of these services is important, and

56 Implementation of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Highway Design and Construction utility-coordination meetings should still involve the SUE provider and the utility compa- nies. For in-house TxDOT design teams, the SUE services are provided by a SUE consultant. A TxDOT project manager is in charge of the project and assists in utility coordination and review of SUE deliverables to ensure utility clearance. All SUE deliverables must be signed and sealed by a Texas-registered engineer, regardless of whether they are part of a subcontract or a direct contract with TxDOT. These sealed plans are then included within the construction document package. The SUE services also provide an option for construction inspection and verification in order to capture relocation as-built information through surveys and to update plans as needed. To support utility-coordination efforts, a Utility Accommodation, Coordination, and Verification (UACV) services contract can be used. UACV contracts are used to contract nonprofessional staff to assist project teams with reviewing agreements, utility payments, inspection of adjustments, or to confirm Buy America prior to installation. TxDOT is actively working on improving their communication of utility-related informa- tion internally. A new TxDOTCONNECT system provides project information, including a utility page, listing the utilities involved. TxDOT is also working to procure a new Utility Infor- mation System (UIS) that will tie in to TxDOTCONNECT. The UIS will list specific conflicts and provide links for permitting, along with combining other processes in the Right of Way Division. This would transition the current utility-conflict management system used to a more digital platform. A primary communication challenge has been keeping the construction contractor updated on utility relocation. Contractors can request digital information of the SUE investigation, including the utility-conflict list, utility contact information, and so forth. However, the smoothest communication of information is by including the SUE plan sheets from the construction bid package. This has led TxDOT to encourage the use of utility-specific transition meetings in construction as well. These meetings, especially when there is relocation work occurring during construction, help to identify continued utility-relocation works, identify utility contacts, review conflict lists, and discuss phases planned to avoid the remaining utility relocations. While the plan notes include planned clearance dates, the notes do not present the scope of the utility work. The use of a transition meeting allows this to occur and helps to resolve the occurrences of relocated utilities not being included within the bid package. TxDOT is trying to improve this practice and make it more commonplace. Note that if relocations occur prior to construction, the SUE data is updated and is provided to the construction contractor prior to the contractor starting work. Beyond the coordination with the project team to ensure SUE deliverables quality, TxDOT is in the process of developing a statewide SUE deliverables best-practices document. Current practices are not standardized and vary by the project team and SUE provider. This document is intended to improve the consistency of showing quality levels on plans by line styles and so forth. 4.34 Costs and Savings of SUE As mentioned, TxDOT believes having SUE data early is valuable. This has helped in the development of project estimates and identifying areas for potential savings. TxDOT intends to work toward a database to further assist with utility-estimate development and verification. TxDOT has recently been piloting reviews to determine utility-engineering savings in both cost and time. These utility-engineering savings are not necessarily SUE-only savings, as data considered also include early utility-coordination and utility-conflict management. Pilots were started with the metropolitan districts and included five projects initially. Pilots have now

Case Examples 57   expanded to one project each for all 25 districts. Six projects could be shared at this time. As can be seen, the documented savings exceed $13 million and 77 months across these six projects. When considering the cost of implementing this program (e.g., training and implementation costs), a cost-benefit ratio of 7.9 was calculated. These results are presented in Table 4.2. This approach demonstrates the value of their program, and they intend to continue these reviews and perhaps include them within their utility-information system. 4.35 SUE Data Quality, Storage, and Availability TxDOT is considered the owner of the SUE information provided. The deliverables are stored in TxDOT’s Bentley ProjectWise database. While the DOT does not have a good system in place for future use, there are plans to develop a system (perhaps to be a component of the UIS). 4.36 SUE Program Evolution and Lessons Learned TxDOT has a strong SUE program but believes in continuous improvement, which can be achieved through pilot tests. The use of piloted methods creates opportunities for support from users and management. TxDOT further recognizes that support from both district and upper- management leadership is a critical first step to success, followed by project-level buy-in. TxDOT also recognizes that a good training program and good culture are both needed to maintain knowledge and ability levels. Training assists internally to combat significant turnover in utility- related personnel, as well as externally, within the consultant (support) community. According to TxDOT, best practices of SUE providers include indicating SUE levels appro- priately on deliverables, including overhead utilities (indicating pole owners and those attached), and noting attributes such as clearance heights. SUE providers with a strong approach to finding unknown utility owners are also appreciated. District Economic Benefits (million) Time Savings (months) Construction Cost Estimate (million) Benefits/Construction Cost (%) Austin $0.09 0 $11.80 1 Dallas $0.50 15 $12.50 4 Fort Worth $1.80 38 $60.70 3 Houston $2.90 0 $124.10 2 San Antonio $4.60 24 $178.00 3 Abilene and Brownwood $3.11 0 Unknown Unknown Total $13.00 77 $387.10 3 Table 4.2. TxDOT Utility engineering value from pilot projects.