Potential Best Practices:

R/W Acquisition and Utility Relocation

Robert Lewis, P.E., DBIA, HNTB Corporation

David Hannon, P.E., Cintra

Andrew Hoenig, P.E., DBIA, Georgia Department of Transportation

Steps, Challenges, and Opportunities

• R/W Acquisition

• Utility Coordination/Relocation

Georgia DOT’s Experience

Agenda

R/W AcquisitionRobert Lewis, P.E., DBIA, HNTB Corporation

Bid-Build

• Preliminary/Final Design

• Agency acquires ROW (after environmental approval)

• Acquisition complete prior to letting

Design-Build

• R/W typically acquired concurrently with other activities

• Agency and/or Design-Build Team

• Lump Sum contract

• Constructible segments

Bid-Build vs. Design-Build (ROW Acquisition)

49 CFR Part 24 and the Uniform Relocation Act

23 CFR Part 710.313 (Design-Build Projects)

• Allows R/W acquisition services in the DB contract

• Construction may be phased/agency approval

• DB Team R/W Acquisition Plan

• DB Team project tracking system/quality control system

• Agency developed (FHWA approved) R/W Manual

State Laws

Authority

Establish Goal(s)

Assess Project Risks

Risk Allocation

• R/W Acquisition strategy

Costing Plans/Environmental

Document

RFP (Scope of Services)

Procure/Award

Administer Contract

Design-Build Process

(Steps)

Pre-acquisition Activities

• Property management

• R/W Plans/Revision

• Title and appraisal packages

Acquisition Activities

• Offers/negotiations

• Relocation assistance

• Conduct closings

• Condemnation support services

Note: No offers until environmental clearance

R/W Acquisition

(Scope of Services)

Challenges in

ROW Acquisition

Schedule

Reliable R/W cost estimate

STIP

Third Party Issues

• Agency reviews

• Negotiation/closing timeframe

Environmental considerations

• Advance acquisitions

Experience

Assessing Challenges

(Risk Management)

Schedule

• 12 months to 3 years

• Review timeframes

• Offers/negotiation

• Design-Build team schedule

Estimate

• Design footprint

• Cost-to-cure elements

• STIP

Schedule and Estimate

Schedule impacts

Difficult to manage

Environmental Considerations

Schedule impacts

Difficult to manage

Third Party Issues

Bid-Build vs. Design-Build

Design-Build Team

Agency experience

Experience

Opportunities in

ROW Acquisition

Prior to NEPA completion

• Individual CEs

High risk parcels

Rapidly developing areas

Hardship/Protective buy

Advanced Acquisitions

Quick delivery

Limit DB Team risk

May limit innovation

Risk of acquiring too much

ROW

Agency Acquired

DB Team controls schedule

Advance acquisition in priority

construction areas

Ability to stage construction

activities

Opportunities to avoid and

minimize

DB Team Acquired

Accelerates acquisition

Shares risks

Promotes innovation

Shared Acquisition

Accelerates acquisition

Shares risks

Local Acquisition

Electronic

Cloud based

Real-time tracking

Management Tools

Identifying Utilities

Coordination with Utility Owners

Relocation/Avoidance of Utilities

Pros/Cons

Allows for accelerated delivery/reducing acquisition timeline

Encourages use of effective scheduling methods and software

Allows for greater risk transfer to DesignBuild team; with some risk retainedAgency

Scope, reviews, oversight, and timelines

must be clearly defined in RFP (refine

as lessons are learned)

A commitment to oversight is critical

Do not underestimate time and

resources Agency will need for

oversight

Hold the Design-Build Contractor

accountable

Lessons Learned

(R/W within DB Contract)

Assess and manage Risk wisely (all

parties)

Make the Design-Build Contractor retain

responsibility of clearing ROW after the

NTP date, as stipulated in the RFP, and

prior to construction to avoid many

problems, concerns, and issues

Monitor and audit the QC/QA processes

for adequacy and effectiveness

Lessons Learned

Utility Coordination/RelocationDavid Hannon, P.E., Cintra

Identifying Utilities

Coordination with

Utility Owners

Relocation/

Avoidance of

Utilities

Utility Coord/Relo Overview

As-built

Engage utility owners

SUE

Identifying Utilities

Meet with all Utility Owners

Provide SUE to Utility Owners

Discuss utility needs

Discuss Design-Build delivery

Utility Coordination

Design

Avoidance

Protection from

construction activities

Utility Relocation

Challenges to

Utility Relocations

Old plans

• Inaccurate

• Lack of detail

• Missing

No SUE or

Inappropriate quality

level of SUE

Incomplete locations

Who came first?

Property rights

Critical path

Prior to project

construction

Utility owner

backlog

Project Schedule

Relocations not considered

during ROW Acquisition

Relocation impacts to

environmental resources

• Not documented in NEPA

• Not considered in permitting

ROW/Environment

DB Team?

Utility Owner?

Transportation

Department?

Relocation Responsibility

Distrust of DB process

Distrust of DB Teams

(Contractors)

Refusal to coordinate

Difficult to meet with

Unreasonable design

requests/requirements

Utility Owners and DB

Outside of normal

construction

activities

Unfamiliar with

relocation work

DB Team and Relocations

Opportunities in

Relocating Utilities

Recommend QL-B

(QL-A if mitigates a risk)

Provide accurate base

utility information

Early SUE

Clear

Concise

Unambiguous

Contract Language

Upfront agreements with

utilities

Establishes

roles/responsibilities

Relocation/protection

requirements

MOUs/MUAAs

Common solutions

Win/Win scenarios

Partnering

ROW Acquisition

• (Don’t acquire from the same

owner twice)

Environmental

• Include impacts in permits

• Include in NEPA documentation

Environmental/ROW

Coordination:

• DB Team responsible for

coordination

• Improves DB Team and

Utility relationship

• DB Team in control

DB Team Responsibility Step 1

Relocation:

• DB Team controls relocation

schedule

• Utility owner oversight

• Pre-approved contractors

(utility owner)

• May eliminate property rights

concerns

DB Team Responsibility Step 2

Encourage expedited

relocations

Encourage inclusion in DB

Contract

Encourage relocation

avoidance

Minimizes property rights

concerns

Incentivize Relocations Step 3

Georgia DOT Project ExperienceAndrew Hoenig, P.E. DBIA

Program OverviewDesign-Build Program Overview

Total Number of Contracts Awarded = 26

Total Amount of Contracts Awarded = $747,886,333

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 3

32-2

-81

[20

04

]

32-2

-81

[20

10]

32-2

-81

[20

12]

32-2

-81

[20

13]

$18

,175

,170

$79

,332

,69

6

$10

0,2

42,

289

$3,0

28,0

00

$10

,30

5,37

9

$0 $0

$80

,857

,48

7

$11,

541,

88

6

$17,

128

,86

5

$39

,59

3,6

28

$53,

49

1,4

73 $83,

637

,89

7

$19

5,77

6,3

88

$29

,878

,175

$24

,89

7,0

00

$0.00

$50,000,000.00

$100,000,000.00

$150,000,000.00

$200,000,000.00

$250,000,000.00

FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015

Northwest Corridor

• $600+ million P3 project in 2012

I-285 @ SR 400

• $800+ million P3 project

anticipated late 2015

SR 400 Widening

• $53 million from Local County

Jimmy Deloach Connector

Innovative Delivery projects

Jimmy Deloach Connector

Project Overview

Project Overview

Expedited delivery

November 18, 2011 letting date

December 31, 2015 completion date

100 % State Funded - $ 72,772,000

Design, Construction, Mitigation credit purchase, Preparation

of Individual Permit (IP), and ROW acquisition services

First GDOT DB contract to include ROW Acquisition

Project Corridor

• 3.1 mile 4-lane Facility from Georgia Ports Authority

• New location Limited-Access

• 2 interchanges

Large number of acquisitions

Schedule critical

Environmentally sensitive areas

Drainage needs

• Coastal and local requirements

Critical utilities serving area

Relocated businesses

Challenges

47 ROW parcels to be acquired

• 9 parcels eliminated through

Value Engineering

New location

Influential property owners

Mix of industrial, commercial,

and residential

ROW Acquisition

DB Team acquisition

DB Team coordinated utility and

environmental needs

DB Team controlled schedule

Management tools

Acquisition in 18 months vs. 30

months (DBB)

Opportunities

8 utility owners

• City of Savannah and City of Port Wentworth water

• Atlanta Gas Light and Southern Natural Gas

• Georgia Power Distribution and Transmission

• AT&T and Level 3 Communications

Unavoidable relocations

Norfolk Southern

Utility Coord/Relo

60 year old 48”

waterline

$2.7 million

relocation costs

Industrial customers

Relocation costs in

Design-Build contract

City of Savannah

Dual 42” gas lines

Single 36” gas line

Responsive

Environmental Coordination

Relocation costs by agreement

with SNG

Southern Natural Gas

MOUs

Early coordination (not always successful)

Incentivize accelerated relocations

DB Team responsible for coordination and relocation

• DB Team coordinates ROW/Environmental impacts

• Incentives relocation avoidance

• DB Team controls relocation schedule

Lessons Learned

Questions?

Contact Information

Andrew Hoenig, P.E., DBIA

Georgia DOT

ahoenig@dot.ga.gov

404-631-1757

Rob Lewis, P.E., DBIA

HNTB Corporation

rtlewis@hntb.com

404-556-2981

David Hannon, P.E.

Cintra

dhannon@i77partners.com

980-522-4732

Resources

https://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/Pages/DesignBuild.aspx