Common Challenges and Comprehensive Strategies for Utility Risk Management in Alternative Delivery Infrastructure Contexts
Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16, Issue 4
Abstract
In recent decades, state transportation authorities (STAs) have increasingly relied upon alternative contracting methods (ACMs) to deliver large surface transportation infrastructure projects. ACM delivery allocates higher levels of responsibility—and associated risks—to the private sector for the completion of engineering design and other elements. To this end, this study highlights attitudes and strategies related to utilities risks, a topic agreed by public and private industry to be highly material to ACM project success. The study utilizes a mixed-methods approach featuring (1) content analysis of contractual and programmatic STA documentation and (2) semistructured interviews with subject matter experts across a broad cross section of the national project delivery network. Synthesizing these results, the study presents commonly identified challenges related to the identification, allocation, mitigation and management of utilities risks in ACM contexts. It furthermore identifies the best practices and strategies utilized across STAs and ACM project networks to address those challenges. The study thereby contributes a highly contextualized integration of contractual analysis supplemented with practitioner perspective. The results offer guidance to STAs seeking to effectively manage utilities and geotechnical risks while fostering a competitive procurement environment.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
The available data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding and primary authors upon reasonable request: interview questions, notes and comments.
References
Works Cited
Arizona DOT. 2016. “202 South Mountain loop project.” Accessed March 20, 2023. https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/smf-tp-execution.pdf.
ASCE. 2022. Standard guideline for investigating and documenting existing utilities. ASCE 38-22. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Colorado DOT. 2017. “Central 70 project.” Accessed February 20, 2023. https://www.codot.gov/programs/ctio/projects/i-70/central-70/request-for-proposals-rfp.
Colorado General Assembly. 2018. “Colorado House Bill 18-167, 71st general assembly, 1st regular session.” Accessed February 20, 2023. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-167.
FMI and DBIA (Design-Build Institute of America). 2023. “Mid-cycle update report.” Accessed April 14, 2023. https://dbia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/DBIA-2023-Mid-Cycle-Survey-Report-FMI.pdf.
Georgia DOT. 2014. “GDOT utility coordination workshop.” Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Innovative/DesignBuild/Design-BuildUtilityTraining-2-24-2014.pdf.
Georgia DOT. 2016. “Utility accommodation policy and standards.” Accessed May 21, 2022. https://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/utilities/Documents/2016_UAM.pdf.
Georgia DOT. 2018a. “GDOT design-build manual.” Accessed May 22, 2022. https://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/DesignBuild/001-GDOT_Design-Build_Manual.pdf.
Georgia DOT. 2018b. “I-16 & I-95 interchange project RFP.” Accessed May 9, 2022. https://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Innovative/DesignBuild/RFP/I-16%20-I-95%20Interchange%20-RFP.pdf.
Gransberg, D. D., D. M. Pittenger, and G. Chambers. 2017. “NCHRP 20-07 Task 373: Utility coordination using alternative contracting methods.” Accessed May 1, 2022. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(373)_ACM-Utility-Coordination-Guide.pdf.
Jung, Y. J. 2012. “Evaluation of subsurface utility engineering for highway projects: Benefit–cost analysis.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 27 (1): 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.08.002.
Lew, J. J. 1997. “Subsurface utility engineering: An initial step in project development.” J. Constr. Educ. 2 (2): 109–118.
Maryland DOT. 2016. “Public-private partnership agreement: Purple line project.” Accessed May 9, 2022. https://www.purplelinemd.com/about-the-project/p3.
Maryland DOT. 2018. “MD 32—Linden Church Road to I-70 Project RFP.” Accessed May 9, 2022. https://roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/Pages/Dsbinfo.aspx?PageId=873.
Molenaar, K., et al. 2020. NCHRP Report #939: Guidebooks for post-award contract administration for highway projects delivered using alternative contracting methods.” Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/180184.aspx.
Mostaan, K., and B. Ashuri. 2016. “Challenges and enablers for private sector involvement in delivery of highway public–private partnerships in the United States.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (3): 04016047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000493.
Nelson, L. 2016. “‘Lessons learned’: Metro will pay nearly $300 million more to company that widened the 405 Freeway.” Los Angeles Times, November 29.
New York State DOT. 2022. “I-81 Central Viaduct Project, Phase 1 Contract 2 Part 2.” Accessed September 8, 2023. https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/designbuildproject56.
Omer, T., R. Sturgill, and T. Taylor. 2022. “Impacts of alternative contracting methods for utility coordination of transportation projects.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2022, 41–49. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483978.005.
Shabana, O., and G. M. Gad. 2023. “Mitigating claims and disputes for public–private–partnership transportation projects in the United States.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 15 (3): 04523012. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-827.
Sinha, S. K., H. R. Thomas, M. C. Wang, and Y. J. Jung. 2007. Subsurface utility engineering manual: Final report. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania Transportation Institute.
Taylor, T. R. B., and T. A. Omer. 2021. “NCHRP 20-07 Task 407: Utility coordination efficiency, safety, cost, and schedule impacts using various contracting methods.” Accessed May 9, 2022. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07Task407revfinalreportV2.pdf.
Texas DOT. 2019. “Oak hill parkway project design-build agreement.” Accessed June 5, 2022. https://www.txdot.gov/business/road-bridge-maintenance/alternative-delivery/oak-hill/abvd.html.
Texas DOT. 2022. “Southeast connector project.” Accessed September 8, 2023. https://www.txdot.gov/business/road-bridge-maintenance/alternative-delivery/se-connector/abvd.html.
Victorio, S. M., R. E. Sturgill, and T. R. B. Taylor. 2023. “Evaluating and incorporating utility coordination practices into the Kentucky transportation cabinet project development process.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2677 (11): 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231166391.
Washington DOT. 2021. “SR 167/I-5 to SR 509—New expressway project RFP.” Accessed May 9, 2022. https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/contracting-opportunities/sr-167-i-5-sr-509-new-expressway.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16 • Issue 4 • November 2024
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 30, 2023
Accepted: Apr 24, 2024
Published online: Jul 24, 2024
Published in print: Nov 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Dec 24, 2024
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Business management
- Construction engineering
- Construction industry
- Construction management
- Contracts and subcontracts
- Disaster risk management
- Disasters and hazards
- Geohazards
- Geotechnical engineering
- Infrastructure
- Infrastructure vulnerability
- Lifeline systems
- Natural disasters
- Practice and Profession
- Private sector
- Project management
- Risk management
- Utilities
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.