This session will highlight opportunities for local agencies to better deliver federal aid projects, including the LPA Certification process for local design standards and the Utility Relocation Inspection Contracts that are now eligible for federal aid reimbursement

Sharkey, Jennifer L

English

Purdue E-Pubs

        r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA How Locals Take Control on TheirFederal Aid Projects Rachel Wren, PE INDOT Seymour District Construction Area Engineer          r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Utility Coordination – Construction Perspective • Project Utility Coordinator should be involved from inception to conclusion of construction, not just to letting • LPA should include utility coordinator involvement during construction in consultant agreements • Standard Specifications 105.06 states “Prior to letting the contract…the Department will endeavor to have all necessary adjustments of the public or private utility fixtures, pipelines, and other appurtenances within or adjacent to the limits of construction completed.” • Doesn’t always happen • Things that will help to make it happen • Perform tree clearing operations outside of an INDOT contract • Perform tree clearing operations in a separate INDOT contract   Ce:nte:rpoinr. Utilily 90 TIii) zo r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Utility Coordination – Construction Perspective • Contract Information Book • Required to identify each known utility and describe all known necessary work • Must include anticipated schedule for completion in the 107 RSP • Indicate what event starts the contractor’s timeline • Contract prep document/time set • Utility work plans must be complete prior to requesting a time set from the area engineer • Submittal should include a Gantt chart for utility relocation            r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Downside of Not Moving Utilities Prior to Letting • Standard Specifications 105.06 identifies Contractor’s justification for compensation, time extensions, and/or acceleration costs • Utility delays are excusable, compensable delays • Not the fault of the Contractor and are the fault or responsibility of the Department/LPA • 108.08 (b) specifically states “delays due to work that utilities or other third partiesperform within the project limits” • Utility Delay Impacts • Time • Increased impact to the travelling public • Money • Delay costs – labor, insurance, equipment, contractor field office costs, escalation • Acceleration costs – attempt to limit time extension    Utility Delay Costs • All costs are “non-participating” or ineligible for Federal participation • Payment for items that are the responsibility of others, such asrelocation of utilities within the right of way • Contract claim awards if transportation department is determined to be negligent • Example given – utility and right of way claims  r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Examples of Impact - Negative • Delay on project could impact adjacent project ability to start on time • One road might be detour route for another • Conflicting Maintenance of Traffic • Project consultant inspectors may become unavailable • Payment of utility delay claims with 100% local work • Where do these funds come from? • Other planned projects? • Other departments in the local agency? • Poor Public Perception     r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Actual Cases with Resolutions • Case 1 – LPA contract – claim pending • 357 day time extension via change order plus 24 day time extension via claim • 62 additional closure days (compared to original 150 days in contract) • Change orders of $115,000 plus $330,000 via claim (all 100% local funding) r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Actual Cases with Resolutions • Case 2 – LPA contract • Settled in mediation • 275 day time extension to completion date • 200 day time extension to intermediate completion date • Liquidated damages waived • Contractor dropped claim for alleged inefficiencies • Case 3 – INDOT contract • 43 day time extension to completion date • 123 day time extension to intermediate completion date • Liquidated damages waived • $1.5 million in escalation costs (all 100% INDOT funding)       r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Examples of Impact - Positive • Tree clearing outside of contract • Allows utility relocation efforts to start prior to letting • Utility RSP 107-R-169 can be updated up to one week prior to letting with up-to-date utility timeframes • Offset/eliminate non-participating change orders • Cuts down on post letting construction time set • Lowers risk for contractors, who canstart the job closer to letting • Will get more accurate pricing                  Proposed Zs.yo Route ~----------------------------------s1a 13+50 to 14+50. N~"':._ ~' / // 22' Ll Zs.yo to nser up pawe;r pole 814-7005 ,once it is re.ad)' for attachments-( ... ... y. . ' •t ~ ~~ r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Examples of Impact - Positive • I-69 Finish Line - Contracts 1 & 2 • Contract 1 cleared all trees for both contracts prior to contract 2 letting • Utilities began relocation prior to contract 2 letting • INDOT had a consultant inspector on site daily monitoring utility progress • Utilized GPS rovers, compared work plans to actual placement, identified conflicts with proposed construction plans, communicated daily/weekly with utility companies including on site contractors  r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Examples of Impact - Positive • I-69 Finish Line - Contracts 1 & 2 • Overall utility delay claim on contract 2 - $85,000 on a $164 million contract • Contract not yet complete • Minor redesign work occurred as a result of identified conflicts between the work plans and the proposed construction • Project opened on time, despite aggressive schedule • Promise kept to the public about the road closure time       r.-..n Nextlevel ~INDIANA Utility Relocation Inspection &LPA Certification Process Kathy Eaton-McKalip Director, Local Programs Indiana Department of Transportation   BEST PRACTICES FOR LOCAL PROJECTMANAGEMENT 13     , .... Best Practice #1 – Triple Constraint Scope Schedul Cost  Scope, Cost, and Schedule are all project constraints  Each constraint is related to the other – can’t change one without impacting theothers  Need to manage each independently and collectively for project success 14          Road Safety Audit Report: Bes Practice: Conduct a Feas"bi ity Study,Engineeri g Study, or Road Safety Audit CR100N Steuben County, Indiana October 2018 NORTH BAKER ROAD ABBREVIATED ENGINEERING STUDY STEUBEN COUNTY, INDIANA NOVEMBER 2013 Conducted By: STEUBEN COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Jennifer l. Sharkey, PE Scope 15 • Identify Problem • Why does this roadway, intersection, orcorridor need to be addressed? • Discover Root Cause • What is contributing to the issue of this facility? • Identify Appropriate Solution • What is the best approach to addressing the root cause of the issue? t i lin         Best Prac · ce: Conduct a Red Flag Survey/lnves ·gatio Schedule • Identify “schedule busters” and provide contingency for delays • Right-of-way condemnation • Historic properties • Environmentally-sensitive areas • Construction phasing • Utility relocation • Etc.  tiI ti i n 16      Best Prac · ce: Solici pee /exte na review of cost estimate Cost • Prepare realistic cost estimates • INDOT bid tabs • Informational review by consultant/contractor/neighboring community • Review market trends • Review past projects • Considerations • Fiscal years (state fiscal year vs. local fiscal year) • Matching funds availability  tit r r l f17       □ consulta nts Hanselman Road over Pigeon Creek March 2020 Progress Report Date: 10 March 2020 . . • To: Ms. Jen Sharkey, Steuben County Engineer From: Brandon Arnold, P.E., USI Consultants, Inc. • • • I 8415 E. 56th St. • Suite A Indianapolis, IN 46216 Final Plans Development Green a On track: Yellow a Caution: Red a Attention Key Project Information Des. No. : Letting Date: Construction Cost Estimate: NA TBD $658 K (prelim) DETAILS SCHEDULE & WORK COMPLETED SUMMARY Next Milestone Submittal: Anticipated Submittal Date: WORK COMPLETED LAST MONTH Continued work on final bridge design WORK TO BE COMPLETED THIS MONTH Final bridge des ign - continue deve lopment UTILITY STATUS Utility Company: Frontier Steuben County REMC PERMIT STATUS Agency and Permit Type: IDEM 401 USACE 404 Reimbursable N N Relocation Required y y Final Plans Q2 2020 Current Coordination Stage Work Plan Review Work Plan Review Submitted Date : 7/24/2019 7/24/2019 County Surveyor - Legal Drain - No pe rm it requ ired per Mr. Larry Gilbert on December 21, 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT STATUS None R/W STATUS Right of Entries secured on August 12'" and 13'" 2019. SCOPE CHANGES None ACTION ITEMS NEEDED FROM LPA Work Plan Approved Approval Date: 8/1/2019 9/17/2019 Provide tentative schedule for fina l plans due date and advertisement. This will aid in utility work plan coordination. Best Practice #2 – Consultant Management  Request progress reports from consultants  Provide quarterly report drafts to consultant for review before submitting to INDOT  Track invoices, payments, and reimbursements 18                 Payment Invoice Invoice App lication No. Date No. 1 97909 3/31/2020 2 98007 4/30/2020 3 98059 5/29/2020 4 98093 6/26/2020 5 98202 7/31/2020 6 98265 8/28/2020 7 983 17 10/2/2020 8 983 83 10/30/2020 9 98456 11/25/2020 10 98608 12/30/2020 11 98696 1/29/202 1 Amount 830,31.5.00 SlZ,760.00 S43,0ZS.OO SZ4070.00 S14.SZS.OO 16,365.00 Sll,650.00 $7,325 .00 $7,260 .00 $12,035.00 $2 ,045 .00 CONSULTANT NAME PROJECT- Prelim. Eng. and R W Eng. Contract Date: Des No. 11/412 019 180Z918 Account MVH: 1173-533-3000.66 PE &RWEnglServices 10% Account Federal Grant : 8128-000-3000.01 90% Reimbursement Federal Grant: 8128-000-6201 Federa l PE Contract Amount: $507,515.00 $8, 700.00 $4 56,7 63.5 0 Federal Amount PO Supplemental No. 1: 2/16/2021 Federal Reimbursement - PE Received PE Amount Sent to 10% Local 90% Federal Remaining (Total) Check Date Check # INDOT from Amount INDOT 13,031.S0 SZ7,Z83.S0 $477,200.00 5/4/2020 152188 6/4/2020 6/16/2020 $27,283 50 Sl,Z76.00 111,484.00 $464,440. 00 6/1 /2020 152569 7fl /2020 7/2712020 $1148400 S4,30Z.S0 S38,7ZZ.S0 $421,4 15.00 7/6/2020 153028 8/5/2020 8/24/2020 $38 722 50 12.407.00 SZl 663.00 $397,345 .00 153388 9/22/2020 10/6/2020 $21,683 00 Sl.4SZ.S0 113 072.S0 $382,820.00 9/8/2020 153752 1011412020 10/26/2020 s13,0n50 1636.50 S5,7Z8.50 $376,455.00 10/5/2020 154162 1/4/2021 1/25/2021 $5.728.50 11,165.00 SlD,485.00 $364,805 .00 11 /2/2020 154465 1/4/2021 1/25/2021 $10 .4 85.00 $732.50 $6,592.50 $357,480.00 12/7/2020 154981 2/2/2021 $6 .592.50 $726.00 $6,534.00 $350,220.00 12/31/2020 155244 21212021 $6 .534 .00 $1,203 .50 $10,8 31.5 0 $338,185.00 $10 .831.50 $204.50 $1,840.50 $336,140.00 $1,840.50 .__ __ .i:,,:128~ 3==9.;:::,i 2020 paid to consult ant s YOU are the Employee of Responsible Charge (ERC) and areresponsible for ALL aspects of a federal-aid project! Claim Voucher Split MVH $3,031.50 $1,276.00 $4,302.50 $2,407.00 $1,452.50 $636.50 $1,165.00 $732.50 $726.00 $1,203.50 $204.50 Federal Grant $27,283. 50 $11,484.00 $38,722.50 $21,663.00 $13,072.50 $5,728. 50 $10,485.00 $6,592.50 $6,534.00 $10,83 1. 50 $1,840.50 Total Bmml'ilil lmBD'!l'!l IBimml lml!1l!l!I!l ~-­lllmmml IEIEBI lllm.Bilml lml'iBl!l'il IIIEDl!I!l Benefits of tracking information independently of Auditor or Clerk-Treasurer/Controller: • Checks and balance • Assist with grant auditing reports • Especially since funds paid out don’t always equal reimbursements received • Essential project information is in one place • As ERC, you will get the questions from the consultant, INDOT, or SBOA 19                           Best Practice #3 – Project Documents Prepare Project Binder for each Project Phase Preliminary Engineering (PE) • RFP Process & Consultant Selection • Copy of signed Contracts & Agreements • Design Exceptions • INDOT Quarterly Reports & Consultant Progress Reports • Environmental Documents (may need separate binder) • Utility Coordination Documents (may need separate binder) Right-of-Way (ROW) • Assurance Letter • Correspondences • ROW Certification Letter Construction & Inspection (CN & CE) • Bid documents • Contractor selection • Pre-con meeting notes • Progress meeting notes • Change Orders Financial • Invoices • Reimbursements 20     THANK YOU Jennifer L. Sharkey, PE Lead Research Engineer Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) jlsharke@purdue.edu 260-316-1006 21 

How Locals Take Control on Their Federal Aid Projects

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4572&context=roadschool

How Locals Take Control on Their Federal Aid Projects

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Purdue E-Pubs