BACKGROUND

State departments of transportation (DOTs) regularly negotiate contractual agreements with utility owners during project development and delivery, which includes issuing permits that enable utility owners to occupy public rights-of-way (ROW). At times, these agreements may remain in place after a project is completed. State DOTs and local agencies review and approve each proposed utility installation to ensure the latest amended installation or any relocation complies with a state DOT’s utility accommodation policies and rules, relevant specifications/provisions, and industry standards or specifications.

Additionally, field verification processes are integral components for monitoring and certifying that proposed utility installations or relocations have been constructed and/or installed according to the utility construction documents and plans. Field verifications are a potential utility-related risk that could also be attributed to communication oversights between utility owners and transportation agencies (e.g., notification of construction start time and providing sufficient lead time for a state DOT’s inspectors). Other barriers identified include limited resources and tools to conduct inspections (e.g., guidelines, workforce readiness, and formal inspection training/certification). Research is needed to develop essential field oversight processes during utility installation and relocation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for state DOTs to assist with field verification processes for utility installation and relocation.

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

TASKS

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.

Note: Proposers shall include the schedule for each phase in their research plans. The sequencing of tasks and deliverables (such as technical memorandums or summary reports) should be structured for delivery in quarterly progress report submissions. An in-person or virtual interim meeting should follow the submission of each interim report.

PHASE I – Planning and Data Collection

Task 1. Conduct a literature review of relevant research related to field verification processes for utility installation and relocation. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted through the NCHRP; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and other national, international, state, and pooled-fund sponsored research (see Special Note B).

Task 2. Propose an approach (site visits, surveys, targeted interviews, focus groups, and other appropriate methods and/or tools) to collect information from state DOTs, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders according to field verification processes for utility installation and relocation.

At a minimum, the proposed approach shall identify, evaluate, and summarize information needed to characterize the current state of the practice as well as future needs, including:

• Financial (e.g., federal-aid and state funds, franchise fees, and leases), technical (e.g., duct banks, utility corridors, easements, and dedicated or shared spaces), and organizational (e.g., funding for inspections, dedicated staff, agency resources) requirements.
  
• State DOTs’ current field verification processes, methods, and tools (e.g., inspection criteria, quality control [QC], quality assurance [QA], performance and prescriptive specifications, post-event inspection).
  
• Correlation between the field inspector’s involvement and utility-related project delays as they relate to the return on investment (ROI) (e.g., facility locating costs for future projects, as-built drawings, DOT requirements and specifications, and notification and communication procedures).
  
• Use of readily available information-based technologies and details (e.g., 2- and 3-dimensional as-built drawings, radio-frequency identification [RFID] markers, and global positioning system [GPS] coordinates).
  
• Best practices for communication and coordination with other local, state, tribal, rail, transit, and federal agencies, including confirmation of project completion.
  
• Potential impediments (e.g., security, legal restrictions, job site safety, and environmental constraints) that could impact field verification processes for utility installation and relocation and potential implementation strategies for resolving impediments during project development and delivery.
  
• Data exchange standards and requirements to ensure compatibility and continuous flow of data from inception to asset management (e.g., creation or development of digital as-built drawings and as-acquired drawings).
  
• Innovative utility installation and relocation strategies, guidelines, and field verification tools. This should include technology support for field verifications (e.g., the functionality of software/hardware, the ability to provide a simple interface via mobile applications, the capability to connect with construction administration systems, and the capacity to function without internet or Wi-Fi connection).

Note: A Task 2 report is to be submitted for NCHRP approval before Task 3 can begin.

Task 3. Execute the data collection approach according to the approved Task 2 report. Synthesize the results of Tasks 1 and 2 and identify knowledge gaps in field verification processes that involve utility installation and relocation. These knowledge gaps should be addressed in this research or in the recommended future research, as the budget permits.

Task 4. Propose the research plan, to be executed in Phase II, to achieve the research objective. At a minimum, the research plan shall include:

• Developing a guide for utility field verification processes and management methods
  
• Developing resources for comprehensive field verification criteria, QC, and QA
  
• Developing implementation strategies for incentives/disincentives for contract compliance
  
• Identifying job training and proficiency requirements for performing field verifications, and implementation challenges for field verification processes
  
• Identifying methods to minimize recurring risk factors for field verification data management for future projects, including (1) archival storage for utility project data (e.g., GIS, repositories, depositories) and (2) coordination between state DOTs, government agencies (e.g., local, county, state), and utility providers
  
• Developing implementation strategies and procedures
  
• Developing prioritized recommendations for future research
  
• Developing presentation material and resources
  
• Developing examples to demonstrate the use of the guide. At a minimum, the selection of examples should demonstrate the effectiveness of:
  
  • Communicating information among the transportation industry and relevant stakeholders (e.g., state DOTs, construction contractors, utility inspectors, surveying professionals, utility owners, and third-party utility inspectors and contractors)
    
  • Determining archival and maintenance solutions for utility project data management

Task 5. Propose a preliminary outline and table of contents for the guide based on the findings from Phase I, which should incorporate key findings supported with examples.

Task 6.  Prepare Interim Report No. 1, which documents Tasks 1 through 5 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated plan must describe the work proposed for Phases II and III.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Whether in person in Washington, DC, or online, the NCHRP will host the meeting and be responsible for any panel member costs to attend. Work on Phase II will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.

PHASE II – Execution and Guide Development

Task 7.  Execute the research plan according to the approved Interim Report No.1.

Task 8. Develop the guide according to the approved Interim Report No. 1, supported with examples.

Task 9. Prepare Interim Report No. 2, which documents Tasks 7 and 8 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the project. The updated plan must describe the work proposed for Phase III.

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 2 by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report, if necessary. Work on Phase III will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.

PHASE III – Final Products

Task 10. Revise the guide after consideration of the panel’s review comments.

Task 11. Submit the final deliverables, including (1) a final research report documenting the entire research effort and findings; (2) the guide; (3) prioritized recommendations for future research; (4) presentation material and resources; and (5) a technical memorandum on implementation (see Special Note L).

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. The NCHRP wishes to award the contract for NCHRP Project 10-143 for a fixed price of $500,000; this amount will not be subject to any adjustment by reason of the contractor’s cost experience in the performance of the contract. In addition to providing a detailed budget, the proposer should provide a proposed schedule of project milestones, deliverables, and progress payments that is tied to the detailed budget and schedule.

B. The proposer will develop the research plan that expands from current resources and active and conducted research, including (1) NCHRP Research Report 1110: Minimizing Utility Issues During Construction: A Guide; (2) NCHRP Web-Only Document 396: Strategies to Address Utility Issues During Highway Construction; (3) NCHRP Synthesis 600: Practices for the Collection, Use, and Management of Utility As-Built Information; (4) Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 635.105, 23 CFR 635.123, 23 and CFR 645 subpart B; (5) FHWA-HIF-18-039 National Utility Review: Utility Coordination Process; and (6) Indiana DOT General Instructions to Field Employees, Section 14: Utility Relocation Inspection Procedures.

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2024. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.

D. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions.

E. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Contractors. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for contract negotiations.

F. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/7065. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

G. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

H. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a contract. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before contract negotiations continue.

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.

I. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.

J. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication-ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Contractors Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

K. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a "federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.

L. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.

The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committee members, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: Moving Research into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf

M. If the team proposes a Principal Investigator who is not an employee of the Prime Contractor, or if the Prime Contractor is proposed to conduct less than 50% of the total effort (by time or budget), then section five of the proposal should include: (1) a justification of why this approach is appropriate, and (2) a description of how the Prime Contractor will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their Subcontractors throughout the project.

N. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.

O. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.