J.4_FHWA_CONTRACT_DTFH61-14-C-00045.pdf

Addressing the Challenges and Return on Investment (ROI) for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction)

Interim Report (Task 4)

January 2016

Updated: March 2016

FHWA Contract DTFH61-14-C-00045 Addressing Challenges and Return on Investment (ROI) for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction)

Note: The Federal Highway Administration, State Highway

Agencies listed in the report, and the authors do not endorse any of the products or manufacturers/vendors listed in this report.

Trademarks or vendors/manufacturers appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

i | P a g e

Table of Contents

Introduction e-Construction Definition

Phase I Approach

Summary of Findings

State of Practice

Common Tools Used for e-Construction

Summary of State Agency Maturity

AASHTO Survey Findings

Respondents

Summary of Findings

Contractor Survey Findings

Summary of Findings

Interview Findings

Documented Benefits and Costs

Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned

Implementation Challenges

Lessons Learned

Conclusion

Next Steps

Appendix A: AASHTO Survey Findings

Appendix B: Contractor Survey Findings

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Research Approach

Exhibit 2: e-Construction Findings Summary

Exhibit 3: e-Construction Maturity Overview

Exhibit 4: Overview of Software Used in e-Construction

Exhibit 5: Summary of State DOTs’ e-Construction Practices and Maturity

Exhibit 6: Summary of AASHTO Survey Findings

Exhibit 7: Summary of Contractor Findings

Exhibit 8: Agencies Selected for Detailed Follow-Up and Rational for Selection

Exhibit 9: Summary of Interview Findings

Exhibit 10: Oregon Estimated Categories of Savings

Exhibit 11: Documented Benefits of e-Construction file:///C:/Users/leed1/Desktop/FHWA%20e-Construction/4%20-%20Synthesis%20Report/FHWA%20e-Construction%20-%20Task%204%20Report_Final_March%202016_tracked%20changes.docx%23_Toc446321631 ii | P a g e

This Page Intentionally Blank

1 | P a g e

Introduction

The third round of the Every Day Counts (EDC) Initiative focuses on “efficiency through technology and collaboration” through a set of innovations targeted at shortening project development and delivery, enhancing roadway safety, reducing congestion, and improving environmental sustainability. Technical teams have developed implementation plans for each innovation and are managing the deployment effort over a two-year cycle during 2015-2016.

Among the innovations identified for the third round of the EDC initiative is e-Construction; the initiative aims to employ established technologies readily available to the transportation community, including digital electronic signatures, electronic communication, secure file sharing, version control, mobile devices, and web-hosted data archival and retrieval systems, to improve construction documentation management.1

The WSP| Parsons Brinckerhoff team has been retained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to assess how transportation agencies are transitioning to a more electronic/paperless project delivery system (e-Construction) and document the costs, benefits, and challenges during the transition. This activity provides the necessary return-on-investment (ROI) data to those agencies that are contemplating e-Construction. The scope of e-Construction covers the time from when a project is advertised to when the final project is accepted, and includes the processes used in the central office, field offices, and on the jobsite.

This document synthesizes all of the information gathered from Phase I and presents the best practices currently being used for paperless or electronic project delivery, primarily in the highway construction realm (e-Construction), and the challenges, lessons learned, and opportunities identified along the way.

This document includes findings from our literature search on e-Construction practices in Task 2 and the preliminary findings from the interviews we conducted in Task 3.

e-Construction Definition

This project follows the FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative Round 3 (EDC-3) definition of e-Construction:

A paperless construction administration delivery process, including: electronic submission of all construction documentation by all stakeholders, electronic document routing and approvals

(e-signature), and digital management of all construction documentation in a secure environment allowing distribution to all project stakeholders through mobile devices. The e-Construction process includes the following:2

Electronic capture of construction data.

Electronic submission of construction documentation.

Increased use of mobile devices.

Federal Highway Administration. (2013, November 7). e-Construction. Retrieved from EDC-3 Initiatives:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edc-3/econstruction.cfm (2014). FHWA Division Office EDC-3: e-Construction Webinar.

2 | P a g e

Increased automation of document review and approval.

Use of electronic signatures throughout the construction process by all parties involved.

Secure document and workflow management accessible on any device.

e-Construction can be used through all steps of the project delivery process, from project advertisement to final project acceptance, including the following:

Bidding and contractor selection/contract award.

Electronic plan documents.

Project construction and management (including utilization, transfer, and approval of electronic plan sets, contractor payroll submittals, claims, and change orders).

Project inspection and data collection.

Project acceptance (including punch lists, as-built submittal, and entering warranty phase).

Project close-out (including retainage release and entering warranty phase).

Project communications (e.g., public information management and internal communications).

Resource tracking (e.g., equipment, personnel, fleet, etc.).

3 | P a g e

Phase I Approach

This research project is divided into two phases: Phase I and Phase II, as illustrated in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Research Approach

The tasks in Phase 1 primarily involved collecting available information on agency practices in e-Construction, including documenting successes, challenges, and opportunities, as follows:

Task 2: Research Current and Evolving Practice involved conducting a comprehensive literature review for information on past and ongoing efforts of agencies for paperless or electronic project delivery, mainly in the highway construction realm (e-Construction), and identifying the leading agencies that use these practices.

Task 3: Document Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities included three components:

analyzing results of a web-based survey administered by the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Construction, surveying contractors, and conducting more detailed interviews with a subset of state highway agencies and airports with more progressive e-Construction practices. The AASHTO Subcommittee on

Construction survey aims to understand the use of e-Construction technology in project delivery with a specific emphasis on understanding the processes, tools, and systems used and the associated implementation costs and benefits. Based on the results of the web-based survey, the project team identified a subset of lead agencies to interview and obtain more information about their e-Construction practices. Two state agencies, the Michigan Department of

Transportation (Michigan DOT) and the Florida Department of Transportation (Florida DOT), were selected to be interviewed in advance of the release of the AASHTO survey results since both agencies were already recognized as national leaders in e-Construction. The project team also administered a survey to a list of contractors that was provided by state highway agencies to identify their construction practices and determine how they compare to those of state DOTs.

Task 4: Prepare Interim Report consolidates the information from prior tasks.

The second phase of the project will focus on detailing the scope of implementation (e.g., project size, contracting method), opportunities for automation, assessing the feasibility of these opportunities, and preparing implementation guidance for agencies.

4 | P a g e

Summary of Findings

State of Practice

There is an active national interest in implementing e-Construction, including electronic bidding and contract award, project collaboration tools, mobile tools, and electronic project document management. Many agencies have begun implementing pieces of e-Construction. However, some agencies are holding off because of a lack of clarity on where to begin and the uncertainty of the cost and feasibility of implementing e-Construction. Exhibit 2 summarizes the findings in this report.

Exhibit 2: e-Construction Findings Summary

Exhibit 3, which was included as a part of the FHWA EDC-3 Implementation Plan for e-Construction, summarizes the status of implementation of e-Construction by state DOTs across the nation, based on polling during regional summits. State highway agencies identified as “National Leaders” have adopted and implemented e-Construction technology and have constructed two or more projects using e-Construction technology. State highway agencies identified as “Potential Leads” have made strides in advancing e-Construction and may be national leaders, but further investigation is required. State highway agencies that have investigated or piloted some aspects of the e-Construction technology are labeled “Exploring.” Finally, agencies that are labeled as “Discussing” are not taking part in the national

EDC-3 technology initiative but are discussing potential e-Construction implementing. As of February

2016, 30 percent of agencies have adopted e-Construction, 64 percent of agencies are exploring e-

Construction technologies, and 6 percent of agencies have not yet used e-Construction. Based on the

EDC-3 regional summits and the results of target audience polling, the goal for the end of 2016 is that 40

5 | P a g e percent of states will have adopted e-Construction and at least 66 percent of states will have piloted e-

Construction.3

Exhibit 3: e-Construction Maturity Overview

The state of practice of e-Construction varies widely between agencies; state DOTs use different levels of automation for steps in the project-delivery process, from using paper documentation for most project delivery steps, to going completely paperless for the entire construction process. The Michigan

DOT, for example, has moved toward becoming completely paperless and is having all state highway system projects use e-Construction (as of the 2015 construction season). The Florida DOT is completing an e-Construction pilot project at the time of this report preparation. The Iowa DOT is working toward becoming completely paperless for highway projects from the design phase through construction.

However, some agencies are holding off on implementing e-Construction because of the lack of clarity on where to begin and the uncertainty of the cost and feasibility.

Common Tools Used for e-Construction

The most commonly used element of e-Construction is electronic bidding; 39 state departments of transportation have implemented electronic bidding through the use of Bid Express, a web-based electronic bidding software. In addition, the Connecticut DOT and the Wisconsin DOT use a digital review process for construction plan documents.

FHWA, Every Day Counts 3: e-Construction Implementation Plan, Available:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/implementation_plan.pdf http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/implementation_plan.pdf

6 | P a g e

Project collaboration tools, such as Bluebeam for as-built markups, and information management systems, such as ProjectWise to manage construction documentation, help agencies streamline the construction process by expediting document distribution, submission, review, and approval. Bluebeam enables multiple people to review a document simultaneously, in-real time, and mark it up electronically. ProjectWise enables staff to access documents, regardless of whether they are in the office or out in the field, and has workflow capabilities to streamline the approval process.

Multiple agencies reported using mobile devices, which enables inspectors and surveyors to access the latest construction documents wherever they are, take notes and photos in the field and attach them to files, and collaborate with office staff in real-time (e.g., ask specific design/construction field questions) through video conferencing. Mobile devices also enable staff to be more efficient; inspectors are able to perform their duties without having to sacrifice time for recordkeeping and are able to enter data quickly and minimize data entry redundancies.

Exhibit 4 provides an overview of the common types of applications, services, and software used for e-Construction; the key project elements of the construction administration delivery process that the applications, services, and software are applicable to; and the state DOTs that use the e-Construction solution. Many of these technologies are not specific to the construction industry, but rather, broader collaboration tools used across an array of other industries (e.g., PDF, Bluebeam, SharePoint, ProjectSolve, Facetime, etc.).

Exhibit 4: Overview of Software Used in e-Construction

Category Application/Service/Software Project Elements State DOT/

Project Users

Plans, Specification, and Estimates

(PS&E)

Adobe

PDF solution for creating, editing, and managing documents; used for plan set review and signing and sealing plan sets

PS&E Michigan DOT

Texas DOT

VTrans

MicroStation

CAD software used for project design

PS&E Florida DOT

North Carolina

DOT

Oregon DOT

Texas DOT

Note: The Federal Highway Administration, State Highway Agencies listed in the report, and the authors do not endorse any of the products or manufacturers/vendors listed in this report.

Trademarks or vendors/manufacturers appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

7 | P a g e

Exhibit 4: e-Construction Software Overview (Cont’d)

Category Application/Service/Software Project Elements State DOT/

Project Users

Electronic Bidding Bid Express

Internet bidding service that enables an agency and contractors to communicate with each other; it is used to submit the bid, view and download project information, and access plans and bid data online;

this service is often used in conjunction with the Expedite Bid software.

PS&E

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award

Caltrans

Florida DOT

Iowa DOT

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Michigan DOT

Minnesota DOT

New Jersey DOT

North Carolina

DOT

Oregon DOT

VTrans

Expedite Bid Software

Software used to prepare, validate, and analyze an electronic bid and is often used in conjunction with the

Bid Express service

PS&E

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award

Caltrans

ExeVision integrated Project

Development (iPD)

Comprehensive project development system that integrates all functional aspects of construction, including cost estimating and electronic bidding through final contractor payment

PS&E

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award

Texas DOT

Project

Collaboration

Bluebeam Revu

Software used to edit and markup digital plans collaboratively

Project Construction and Management

Project Acceptance

Connecticut DOT

Florida DOT

Digital InterPlot

Server used to create, store, and share construction plans

PS&E Utah DOT

8 | P a g e

Exhibit 4: e-Construction Software Overview (Cont’d)

Category Application/Service/Software Project Elements State DOT/

Project Users

Project

Collaboration

(con’t)

Doc Express

Paperless contracting service that enables document exchange during construction projects; also allows for electronic signatures

PS&E

Project Construction and Management

Alaska DOT&PF (piloting)

Iowa DOT

SharePoint

Web application framework used for collaboration to centralize access to project information

Project Construction and Management

Denver International Airport

Florida DOT

North Carolina

DOT

Utah DOT

ProjectSolve

Internet-based collaboration tool that allows project teams to communicate and collaborate with each other

Project Construction and Management

Florida DOT

Data Storage HybridCloud Server

Storage solution that provides the ability for secure and controlled access to data from any device with internet access; includes a local storage component that can be a network-attached storage device

Project Construction and Management

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

Document

Management

Electronic Document Management

System

Software that manages the creation, storage, tracking, and control of documents electronically

Project Construction and Management

Florida DOT

Michigan DOT

Texas DOT

ProjectWise

Suite of software used for information management to manage, share, and distribute project materials in a single platform

Project Construction and Management

Michigan DOT

Oregon DOT

Texas DOT

Utah DOT

9 | P a g e

Exhibit 4: e-Construction Software Overview (Cont’d)

Category Application/Service/Software Project Elements State DOT/

Project Users

Project

Management

Primavera P6

Project management software to assist with planning, scheduling, and controlling project resources

Project Construction and Management

Denver International Airport

Minnesota DOT

Texas DOT

AASHTOWare Project SiteManager

Enterprise software suite that includes modules used to manage contract administration, contract records, daily work reports, contractor payments, materials management, and laboratory inventory management

PS&E

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contra ct Award

Alaska DOT&PF

Florida DOT

Texas DOT

VTrans

West Virginia

DOT

Payment Electronic Project Record System

Online program that allows contractors to submit \ payrolls over the internet

Project Construction and Management

Texas DOT

Field Manager/FieldBook

Software suite used to manage construction projects; used for contractor payments

Project Construction and Management

Iowa DOT

Michigan DOT

Mobile FaceTime

Video chat application that enables collaboration between field staff and office staff

Project Construction and Management

Florida DOT

Michigan DOT

North Carolina

DOT

Texas DOT

Although a majority of agencies use commercial off-the-shelf software tools, a number of custom developed systems that agencies use include the following:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) o Two mainframe systems to initiate the project process:

A mainframe system to feed some basic project information.

Bid analysis system to determine the lowest bidder.

10 | P a g e o Internet Extra Work Bill (iEWB) system enables the verification and validation of electronic extra work bills for accuracy, which results in greater efficiency in processing of bills.

North Carolina DOT o Highway Construction and Materials System (HiCAMS) was developed in house in 1999 to track all inspections, materials, and test results, as well as for contractor payments.

Texas DOT o Bid Proposal Request System is a custom application that checks for contractors’ available bidding capacity.

o Electronic Project Record System (EPRS) is a custom-developed software that acts as a portal to collect payroll information from contractors.

VTrans o Construction Contract Finals is a cloud-based business process management software

(BPMS) used for construction close-out when field staff package all of their field records and turn them over to the Finals unit.

Summary of State Agency Maturity

A summary of agency practices, as identified through the literature review in Task 2 and the findings from the AASHTO survey and detailed interviews from Task 3, are presented in Exhibit 5 using a maturity framework to show where agencies fit on a maturity scale (ranging from nascent to mature).

Appropriate annotations regarding what the scale means for each category are also provided in the table. The practices are divided into the following key elements of the construction administration delivery process:

1. Transfer/Sharing of PS&E, which includes:

o Plans and specification documents in Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) or ED

(geospatial) format.

o Tie-in of 3D plans to automated machine guidance (AMG) equipment.

2. Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award, which includes:

o Electronic bidding through automated software.

o Electronic signatures.

3. Project Construction and Management, which includes:

o Electronic review and approval process (digital signatures/reviews).

o Collaborative sharing sites.

o Material testing and quality assurance records (including Quality Control, independent verification, inspection, and acceptance testing).

o Contractor payroll submittals.

o Claims and change orders.

o Mobile technologies for data collection.

11 | P a g e

4. Project Inspection and Testing, which includes:

o Tracking of inspection activities and material testing results.

o Survey instruments.

5. Project Acceptance, which includes:

o Providing documentation (e.g., punch lists, as-builts submittal, entering warranty phase) in the form of CAAD files or 3D as-built models.

6. Project Close-Out, which includes:

o Tracking of warranty items.

o Payment release.

7. Data Sharing between Steps/Phases, which includes:

o Electronic transfer of data between systems (e.g., contractor payment approvals to financial and accounting systems).

o Use of Civil Integrated Management practices.

12 | P a g e

13 | P a g e

Exhibit 5: Summary of State DOTs’ e-Construction Practices and Maturity

Process Step | Maturity Level Level 1

Nascent

Level 2

Intermediate

Level 3

Mature Transfer/Sharing of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E)

Alabama DOT

Alaska DOT&PF

Arkansas SHTD

Colorado DOT

New Hampshire DOT

Ohio DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

Virginia DOT

Washington DOT

Caltrans

Connecticut DOT

Florida DOT

Kansas DOT

Kentucky Transportation

Cabinet

Louisiana DOT

Massachusetts DOT

Michigan DOT

Minnesota DOT

Nebraska DOR

New Jersey DOT

North Carolina DOT

North Dakota DOT

VTrans

West Virginia DOT

Iowa DOT

Oregon DOT

Texas DOT

Paper PS&E packet, may be scanned to be converted to electronic files, and paper plan review

Electronic files in CADD software format and electronic plan review

3D plans (geospatial) that allow quantity take-offs, tie-in to AMG equipment

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract

Award

Alaska DOT&PF

New Hampshire DOT

Alabama DOT

Florida DOT

Minnesota DOT

Nebraska DOR

North Carolina DOT

Oregon DOT

Texas DOT

Arkansas SHTD

Caltrans

Colorado DOT

Connecticut DOT

Iowa DOT

Kansas DOT

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Louisiana DOT

Massachusetts DOT

Michigan DOT

Missouri DOT

New Jersey DOT

North Dakota DOT

Ohio DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

Tennessee DOT

Utah DOT

VTrans

Virginia DOT

Washington DOT

West Virginia DOT

Paper bidding and selection Online bidding as well as offline/paper bids Mandatory electronic bidding through Bid Express or other automated software, including electronic signatures

Project Construction and Management

(including digital review, contractor payroll submittals, claims, and change orders)

None identified Alabama DOT

Alaska DOT&PF

Caltrans

Connecticut DOT

Florida DOT

Iowa DOT

Kansas DOT

Louisiana DOT

North Dakota DOT

Oregon DOT

Utah DOT

Washington DOT

Wisconsin DOT

Arkansas SHTD

Colorado DOT

Connecticut DOT

Florida DOT

Iowa DOT

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Michigan DOT

Nebraska DOR

New Hampshire DOT

North Carolina DOT

Ohio DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

Texas DOT

VTrans

Virginia DOT

West Virginia DOT

Paper documentation (contractor and owner) Combination of paper and semi-electronic systems (e.g., Microsoft Word to track daily reports stored on a computer)

Electronic construction management systems (e.g., SiteManager) to track daily reports, progress percentage, change orders, payments, and other information

14 | P a g e

Exhibit 5: Summary of State DOTs’ e-Construction Practices and Maturity (Cont’d)

Process Step | Maturity Level Level 1

Nascent

Level 2

Intermediate

Level 3

Mature

Project Inspection and Testing Caltrans

Massachusetts DOT

Oregon DOT

Alabama DOT

Alaska DOT&PF

Arkansas SHTD

Colorado DOT

Connecticut DOT

Florida DOT

Iowa DOT

Kansas DOT

Louisiana DOT

Nebraska DOR

New Hampshire DOT

Nevada DOT

North Carolina DOT

North Dakota DOT

Ohio DOT

Texas DOT

VTrans

Virginia DOT

West Virginia DOT

Washington DOT

Wisconsin DOT

Michigan DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

Manual, paper-based tracking of inspection activities and materials testing. Analog tools (straight edges, measuring wheels) in use

Mix of manual and electronic systems (e.g., SiteManager) to track inspections and material test results

Electronic systems (e.g., SiteManager) to track all inspections and materials test results.

Capability to geo-code data (e.g., indicate location of test cores). Survey instruments to check tolerance against design (geospatial rovers) – pay plan quantities

Project Acceptance (including punch lists, as-builts submittal and entering warranty phase)

Alabama DOT

Alaska DOT&PF

Arkansas SHTD

Florida DOT

Massachusetts DOT

Nebraska DOR

New Hampshire

North Carolina DOT

North Dakota DOT

Oregon DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

VTrans

Virginia DOT

Washington DOT

Caltrans

Connecticut DOT

Iowa DOT

Louisiana DOT

Kansas DOT

Ohio DOT

Washington DOT

West Virginia DOT

Wisconsin DOT

Michigan DOT

North Carolina DOT

Paper as-built documentation provided to owner

CADD files provided to owner 3D as-built models provided to owner

Project Close-Out Alabama DOT

Alaska DOT&PF

Caltrans

Connecticut DOT

New Hampshire DOT

Oregon DOT

Virginia DOT

Arkansas SHTD

Iowa DOT

Kansas DOT

Louisiana DOT

Massachusetts DOT

Michigan DOT

Nebraska DOR

North Carolina DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

West Virginia DOT

Florida DOT

Manual tracking of most warranty items Some automated tracking of warranty items through spreadsheets

Release retainage amount to contractor automatically, ability to show all project warranty items and details on a map

Data Sharing between Steps/Phases Louisiana DOT

Massachusetts DOT

Oregon DOT

Connecticut DOT

Iowa DOT

Kentucky

Transportation Cabinet

Nebraska DOR

New Hampshire DOT

North Dakota DOT

Texas DOT

VTrans

Alabama DOT

Arkansas SHTD

Colorado DOT

Florida DOT

Kansas DOT

Michigan DOT

North Carolina DOT

Ohio DOT

Pennsylvania DOT

West Virginia DOT

Washington DOT

Virginia DOT

Mostly paper systems, no data sharing between systems

Stand-alone electronic systems, including spreadsheets and other electronic records

Electronic transfer of data between steps/phases, eliminating duplication. Ability to share data electronically between systems (e.g., contractor payment approvals to financial and accounting systems). Use of Civil Integrated Management practices.

15 | P a g e

AASHTO Survey Findings

Respondents

AASHTO sent the survey to its Subcommittee on Construction. A total of 23 individuals representing 21 agencies responded. These agencies were as follows:

Alabama Department of Transportation

(Alabama DOT)

Arkansas State Highway and

Transportation Department (Arkansas

SHTD)

California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans)

Colorado Department of Transportation

(Colorado DOT)

Connecticut Department of

Transportation (Connecticut DOT)

Florida Department of Transportation

(Florida DOT)

Kansas Department of Transportation

(Kansas DOT)

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC)

Louisiana Department of Transportation

(Louisiana DOT)

Massachusetts Department of

Transportation (Massachusetts DOT)

Michigan Department of Transportation

(Michigan DOT)

Nebraska Department of Roads

(Nebraska DOR)

New Hampshire Department of

Transportation (New Hampshire DOT)

North Dakota Department of

Transportation (North Dakota DOT)

Ohio Department of Transportation

(Ohio DOT)

Oregon Department of Transportation

(Oregon DOT)

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation (Pennsylvania DOT)

Vermont Agency of Transportation

(VTrans)

Virginia Department of Transportation

(Virginia DOT)

Washington Department of

Transportation (Washington DOT)

West Virginia Department of

Transportation (West Virginia DOT)

16 | P a g e

Summary of Findings

Exhibit 6 provides a high-level summary of the AASHTO survey findings for e-Construction practices used for each of the project delivery phases for three different contracting methods: Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B), Design-Build (D-B), and Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC). For a more detailed summary of AASHTO survey findings, see Appendix A.

17 | P a g e

Exhibit 6: Summary of AASHTO Survey Findings

Project Delivery Phase Most Common Practices System/Tools Type Length of Time Level of Satisfaction

Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

Most states reported using electronic files in CADD software format for all contracting methods

Only two states (Oregon DOT and Michigan DOT) reported using 3D plans between all contracting methods

Several agencies cited that they are exploring 3D deliverables, including Florida DOT and West Virginia DOT

The majority of the primary systems/tools are commercial off-the-shelf

Only one agency reported using a paper-based system

More than half of agencies’ primary systems/tools have been in use for more than 10 years, while less than one-third of agencies’ primary systems/tools have been in use for 5 to 10 years

Most agencies reported that they are either satisfied (35 percent) or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (45 percent) with their primary systems/tools

Bidding and Contractor Selection

The majority of agencies require electronic bidding using Bid Express or other software for D-B-B projects

For D-B and CM/GC, agencies use both online bidding and offline/paper bids

The majority of the primary systems/tools are commercial off-the-shelf

Most agencies responded that their primary systems/tools have been in use for more than 10 years, while one-third of agencies’ primary systems/tools have been in use for one to five years

Most agencies reported that they are very satisfied or satisfied with their primary systems/tools

Project Construction and Management

For D-B-B and D-B projects, most agencies reported using electronic construction management systems

More than half of the primary systems/tools used for Inspection and Testing are commercial off-the-shelf

The majority of agencies reported that their primary systems/tools have been in use for more than 10 years

More than half of agencies (55 percent) reported that they are satisfied with their primary systems/tools.

The second-most

18 | P a g e

Exhibit 6: Summary of AASHTO Survey Findings (Cont’d).

Project Delivery Phase Most Common Practices System/Tools Type Length of Time Level of Satisfaction

Project Construction and Management (Cont’d)

None of the agencies surveyed reported using paper documentation for this phase

No agencies reported using a system for less than one year frequent response was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (20 percent)

Project Inspection and Testing

For all contracting methods, the majority of agencies use a mix of manual and electronic systems for project inspection and testing

Only one agency (Pennsylvania DOT) reported using electronic equipment for inspections for D-B-B and D-B projects

More than half of the primary systems/tools used for Inspection and Testing are commercial off-the-shelf

The majority of systems have been in use for more than 10 years, while one-quarter of systems have been in use for one to five years

Half of agencies that responded are satisfied

Project Acceptance

For all contracting methods, the majority of agencies use paper as-built documentation that is provided to the owner

While several agencies reported providing CADD files to the owner, none of the agencies reported using 3D as-built models for Project Acceptance

The majority of the primary systems/tools are commercial off-the-shelf

More than two-thirds of responding agencies reported that their current Project Acceptance systems/tools have been implemented for over 10 years

None of the agencies are using a system that is less than one year old

Level of satisfaction with Project Acceptance systems/tools varies widely

19 | P a g e

Exhibit 6: Summary of AASHTO Survey Findings (Cont’d).

Project Delivery Phase Most Common Practices System/Tools Type Length of Time Level of Satisfaction

Project Close-Out

For D-B-B projects, most agencies reported using some combination of electronic and paper practices for Project- Close-Out, while one-third of agencies reported having manual tracking of warranty items

For D-B projects, agencies use both manual and automated tracking for most warranty items

Only one agency (Florida DOT) reported having fully automated tracking of warranty items for both D-B-B and D-B projects

About one-third of primary systems/tools are commercial off-the-shelf and about one-third are paper-based

About one-quarter of systems/tools are custom-designed

Almost two-thirds of responding agencies reported that their primary systems/tools have been implemented for over 10 years

Only one agency reported using a system that is less than one year old

Most agencies are either satisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their systems/tools

Data Sharing

For D-B-B projects, nearly half of responding agencies use stand-alone electronic systems

For D-B projects, most agencies use electronic transfer of data between phases

The majority of primary systems used for Data Sharing are custom designed

The majority of responding agencies reported that their current Data Sharing systems/tools have been implemented for over 10 years

Most agencies are satisfied with their Data Sharing systems/tools, while one-quarter are dissatisfied

20 | P a g e

Contractor Survey Findings

The project team administered a survey to a list of contractors, independent of the AASHTO survey. The names of contractors were provided by state highway agencies during initial interviews. This contractor survey focused on identifying the tools that contractors use for each step of the project delivery process

(and comparing these tools to those of state highway agencies), as well as the benefits and challenges associated with implementation. Four contractors responded, and their responses were analyzed to determine their construction practices and how they compare to those of state DOTs.

These firms have construction programs ranging from $50 million to $160 million in size, with the number of projects ranging from 20 to 50 projects to as many as 600 to 700 projects. These firms have collectively worked with the following state highway agencies:

Alabama DOT

Florida DOT

Georgia DOT

Indiana DOT

Iowa DOT

Kansas DOT

Michigan DOT

Missouri DOT

Minnesota DOT

Nebraska DOR

North Carolina DOT

North Dakota DOT

South Dakota DOT

Tennessee DOT

Texas DOT

Virginia DOT

Wisconsin DOT

Summary of Findings

Exhibit 7 summarizes findings from the contractor survey. For a more detailed summary of contractor findings, see Appendix B.

Exhibit 7: Summary of Contractor Findings

Project Delivery Phase Findings

Comparison to State Highway Agency Practices

Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

No one practice is used more frequently than others by the contractors surveyed

Most state agencies surveyed reported using electronic files in CADD software format

Bidding and Contractor Selection

Contractors use electronic bidding most frequently

Aligns with state highway agencies’ practices

21 | P a g e

Exhibit 7: Summary of Contractor Findings (Cont’d)

Project Delivery Phase Findings

Comparison to State Highway Agency Practices

Project Construction and Management

Two contractors reported that electronic construction management systems are used most frequently

One contractor reported that a combination of paper and semi-electronics systems is used most frequently

Three of the four contractors reported that paper documentation is rarely used, although one contractor reported that it is used commonly

Aligns with state agency practice

Agencies are either using a combination of paper and semi-electronic systems or electronic construction management systems; paper documentation is rarely used

Project Inspection and Testing

Three of the four contractors reported that manual, paper-based inspection activities and materials testing are rarely used, and one contractor reported that it is never used

Two contractors reported that survey instruments to as-built and CADD to compare to design and measure are used commonly, and two contractors reported that they are rarely/never used

Two contractors reported using electronic systems most frequently

Paper-based inspection activities was not common among state agencies—only 3 of the 21 agencies that responded reported using manual, paper-based systems

The majority of state agencies use a mix of manual and electronic systems for project inspection and testing; only one agency reported using electronic equipment for inspections

Project Acceptance Three of the four contractors reported that paper as-built documentation provided to the owner is used commonly/frequently

Two of the four contractors reported that providing CADD files to the owner is used commonly

3D as-built models provided to the owner are rarely/never used by the contractors surveyed

State highway agencies had similar responses

The majority of agencies use paper as-built documentation that is provided to the owner

No agencies reported using 3D as-built models for Project Acceptance

22 | P a g e

Interview Findings

Based on the web-based survey responses, the project team used the following selection criteria to select state highway agencies for follow-up:

At least one agency with nascent e-Construction practices.

At least three agencies that are national leaders in e-Construction.

Agencies that have documented e-Construction benefits.

Agencies that represent all regions of the country (West, Midwest, South, and East).

In some instances, agencies that did not respond to the AASHTO survey were selected for detailed follow-up. These agencies were either nascent in their implementation or had mature e-Construction practices. Exhibit 8 outlines the agencies selected for detailed follow-up and the rationale for selection.

Exhibit 8: Agencies Selected for Detailed Follow-Up and Rational for Selection

Agency Key Agency Properties/Criteria

Alaska DOT&PF Did not respond to AASHTO survey but selected based on recent implementation of SiteManager in Northern Region; maturity is nascent.

Caltrans Caltrans is looking to introduce mobile devices as a pilot for construction inspection—released survey to gather lessons learned from other state DOTs; has the largest construction program (in terms of dollars).

Florida DOT Mature e-Construction practices; considered national leader.

Iowa DOT Did not respond to AASHTO survey but selected based on mature e- Construction practices; considered national leader.

Massachusetts DOT Undertaking a department-wide look at how to implement a full electronic system for management of construction program. The agency has an in-house e-Construction team that is working on evaluating software options.

Michigan DOT Mature e-Construction practices; considered national leader.

North Carolina DOT Did not respond to AASHTO survey but selected based on its iPad pilot program launched in 2012, and iPads have now been rolled out in all field offices; also working on pilot project to give contractor access to project documents and test how agency can streamline submittal process of documentation from contractors.

Oregon DOT Uses 3D plans and digital signatures; is in the process of implementing ProjectWise.

Texas DOT Did not respond to AASHTO survey but selected based on mature e- Construction practices; considered national leader.

VTrans Smaller agency that faces challenges for advancing e-Construction;

developed a case for change for its project delivery improvement initiative.

23 | P a g e

In addition to the state highway agencies identified above, the project team interviewed Denver

International Airport. A summary of agency responses is provided in Exhibit 9. More detailed case studies for each agency are included in the Task 3 Report.

24 | P a g e

Exhibit 9: Summary of Interview Findings

Agency Size of Program e-Construction Practices Future Upgrades

Alaska

DOT&PF

(Northern Region)

Statewide: $700 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, which includes $440 million in FHWA projects, $175 million in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) projects, and $75 million in state-funded projects

Northern Region: $225 million in FY 2014, including $150 million in FHWA projects, $40 million in FAA projects, and $25 million in state-funded projects

PS&E: Provides 3D models of road alignments and existing ground surfaces as supplemental project information

Project Construction and Management: AASHTO SiteManager to store project documents

Project Acceptance: Testing Doc Express to submit documents electronically for Project Acceptance

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express for electronic bidding

Project Construction and Management: Implement AASHTOWare suite statewide

Caltrans

601 active construction projects worth $11.25 billion:

o D-B-B: 589 projects worth $8.6 billion o D-B: 6 contracts worth $1.7 billion o CM/GC: 6 contracts worth $950 million

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express and Expedite software

Project Construction and Management: Internet Extra Work Bill (iEWB) system for contractors to submit billing electronically; piloting mobile devices for contract administration

Project Inspection and Testing:

Record inspection results onsite with mobile devices

Denver International Airport

100 active projects

Capital Improvement Plan worth $850 million over the next 5 to 6 years

Undertaking $150 million in projects in 2015

PS&E: Ongoing initiative to get plans and specifications into BIM and Revit formats

Project Construction and Management: Implementing Oracle Unifier; Textura for contractor pay applications;

SharePoint for internal reporting; Primavera 6 for tracking contracts and budgets

Project Inspection and Testing: Piloting BIM 360 Field on iPads for electronic reporting

Data Sharing between Steps:

Identify synergies between systems

Exhibit 9: Summary of Interview Findings (Cont’d)

25 | P a g e

Agency Size of Program e-Construction Practices Future Upgrades

Florida DOT

535 active construction projects worth $11.5 billion:

o D-B-B: 434 projects o D-B: 77 contracts

PS&E: MicroStation, Autodesk Civil 3D; 3D design models used occasionally

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express for electronic bidding

Project Construction and Management: Hummingbird, ProjectSolve, SharePoint, mobile devices, digital signatures, form automation, electronic as-builts

Project Inspection and Testing: Mobile devices and SiteManager

PS&E: Advance 3D models initiative

Iowa DOT

650 D-B-B projects worth $700 million in FY 2014

PS&E: PDF, CAD, and 3D modeling files

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express for electronic bidding

Project Construction and Management: Doc Express, FieldManager/FieldBook, Electronic Reference Library, PDF Expert

Project Inspection and Testing: iPads

Project Acceptance: Develops own as-builts, exploring use of GIS tools for data collection for as-builts

Project Close-Out: Electronic document submission

Project Inspection and Testing:

Piloting electronic weight tickets

Explore how to tie construction with asset management

Massachusetts

DOT

406 active projects worth

1.6 billion:

o D-B-B: 400 projects worth $1.1 billion o D-B: 6 projects worth $500 million

PS&E: Plan sets converted to PDF for bid package but contractor can request CAD files for construction

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express for electronic bidding, which interfaces with the Contract Management System (CMS), a homegrown system that checks for prequalification

Project Construction and Management: Homegrown databases, Site Access Module (SAM), District Contract Database (DCD), and Construction Division System (CDS), which will eventually be merged with CMS; in the process of selecting a document management/ collaboration tool; SharePoint used to store documents on megaprojects

Project Construction and Management: Implement e- Signatures

Data Sharing between Steps:

Merge SAM, DCD, and CDS with CMS; interface CMS with selected document management/collaboration tool

Exhibit 9: Summary of Interview Findings (Cont’d)

26 | P a g e

Agency Size of Program e-Construction Practices Future Upgrades

Project Inspection and Testing: iPads used on megaprojects

Project Close-Out: Looking to implement a Laboratory Information Management System

Michigan DOT

Annual construction budget is $1.2 billion

Letting schedule includes about 800 contracts annually

PS&E: Exploring Bluebeam for digital markups

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express

Project Construction and Management: ProjectWise for document management; Adobe and Form Signed by Software 602 for digital signatures

Project Inspection and Testing: iPads in the field;

FieldManager for daily reports and pay estimates

Project Acceptance: Documents stored in ProjectWise

PS&E: Advancing 3D modeling

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award:

Boilerplate letting

Project Construction and Management: SharePoint site

North Carolina

DOT

Annual lettings amount to approximately $1.5 billion

At any one time, the agency has between 400 and 500 active D-B-B and D-B contracts

PS&E: All plans created in MicroStation and generated as PDF documents; Digital Terrain Modeling provided for all projects let centrally; 3D design files provided for projects designed through Corridor Modeling

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express

Project Construction and Management: SharePoint

Project Inspection and Testing: iPads; Highway Construction and Materials System (HiCAMS) to track inspections, materials, and test results, and for contractor payments

Project Acceptance: HiCAMS to track warranties

Project Construction and Management: DocuSign for digital signatures on plans and contracts

Oregon DOT

153 active construction projects worth $320 million:

o D-B-B: 150 projects worth $200 million o D-B: 2 contracts worth $100 million

PS&E: MicroStation; 3D models in use for over 10 years;

effective January 2015, the agency requires delivery of digital data bidding reference packages for most roadway construction projects

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express

Scheduled to go-live with e-Construction program in summer 2016

Exhibit 9: Summary of Interview Findings (Cont’d)

27 | P a g e

Agency Size of Program e-Construction Practices Future Upgrades o CM/GC: 1 contract worth $20 million

Project Construction and Management: ProjectWise;

CoSign ARX for digital signatures

Project Inspection and Testing: iPads

Texas DOT

As of January 2014, the agency had 1,405 active construction contracts and 1,739 active maintenance contracts valued at $13.3 billion

PS&E: MicroStation; 3D and 4D modeling

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Proposal Request System to check contractor’s available bidding capacity; ExeVision’s integrated Project Development (iPD) solution for electronic bidding

Project Construction and Management: Electronic Document Management System and ProjectWise for document management; Electronic Project Record System to collect payroll information; SiteManager for construction administration; Primavera for scheduling

Project Inspection and Testing: iPads for mobile inspection

Project Construction and Management: Execute all contracts electronically with e-Signatures; explore use of QR codes to link to information in ProjectWise

Project Inspection and Testing:

Piloting HeadLight application for electronic data collection

VTrans

105 active construction projects worth $335 million:

o D-B-B: 100 projects worth $210 million o D-B: 3 contracts worth $100 million o CM/GC: 2 contracts worth $25 million

PS&E: Adobe to convert files to electronic format and review plans electronically

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award: Bid Express

Project Construction and Management: SiteManager

Project Close-Out: Construction Contract Finals, a cloud-based business process management software used for construction close-out

Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award:

Explore the use of the Proposal and Estimates System and Letting and Award System

Project Construction and Management: Develop an electronic process for contract administration and manage contract submittal electronically

Project Inspection and Testing:

Implement mobile devices so inspectors can record findings electronically

28 | P a g e

Documented Benefits and Costs

This section presents the benefits and costs documented by various agencies and includes both qualitative and quantitative benefits. The costs of implementing e-Construction, which can include capital investment (hardware/software), training costs, annual IT maintenance costs, and proprietary products costs, are not as well documented as the benefits. Many agencies are still in the process of implementing e-Construction processes and do not yet have a final cost.

The quantitative benefits and costs are presented in Exhibit 11 and are grouped into four categories:

Direct costs/expense savings.

Collaboration.

Data access and reliability.

Productivity and process efficiencies.

Oregon DOT has started to consider the cost savings that have been realized by transitioning to a paperless process, but the agency has not yet quantified the savings. The agency anticipates major time savings (i.e., elimination of delays, expedition of certain processes, and faster turnaround times for public record requests) and has identified several other areas where e-Construction will reduce costs, as illustrated in Exhibit 10.

Reduced paper, printing, postage, envelopes, etc.

Reduced building storage space

Reduced travel to ship or transfer documents

Reduced overnight delivery, FedEx, UPS, etc.

Elimination of fax machines

Reduced number of copiers and toner Reduced labor

Reduced carbon footprint

A new multi-modal element – digital highway

Remote FHWA reviews

Reduced paper/analysis preparation

Lower risk of data loss

Ability to isolate sensitive files

Elimination of FTP site for file transfer

Exhibit 10: Oregon Estimated Categories of Savings

29 | P a g e

Exhibit 11: Documented Benefits of e-Construction

Benefit Stream/Benefits Qualitative/Quantitative Costs

Direct costs/Expense savings

Cost savings from the reduced use of paper, printing, and mailing

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport estimates that the construction team saved $5.1 million in costs through electronic access of drawings

Florida DOT estimates saving $22 million each year and saving $125,000 in scanning costs annually

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet estimates it saves 200,000 pages of bid-related paper documents per year with its electronic bidding…