Transcript RiddleWed830 - American Association of State Highway

Utility Cost Estimating
In Practice
Scott Riddle
Vice President – Public Utilities
KCI Technologies Inc.
Overview
• Maryland’s Process
– Milestones
– Responsibilities
– Tools
• Production History
– Rate of Success
• Next Steps…..
Background
• 17 Years of Experience with Utilities
• Majority of KCI’s Work is Directly for the
Utilities.
• Understanding of DOT’s Needs and
Schedules.
• Success with Utility Coordination Comes
From Successful Relationships.
Maryland’s Process
• Project Planning
– Utility Estimates by Highway Planners.
– Rough Assessment Approach.
– 2002: SHA asked KCI to Develop “Planning
Level Utility Estimating Matrix”.
Planning Estimate
Preliminary Investigation
• 30% Plans Are Sent To The Utility
Companies
– Rough Drainage
– No MOT
– Incomplete Grading
• Utility Company Resource Issues
– Many Projects Die Between P.I. and Final
– Provide High “Ball Park” Estimates That Will
Often “Kill” Project.
Semi Final – PS&E
• As SHA Plans Improve
– Drainage Is Complete
– Test Pitting Clarifies Impacts
• Utility Estimates Are Updated
– As Real Impacts Are Known, Estimates
Become More Focused
– Estimates Maintain High Contingencies
Factor Because of “Risk”
Prior Rights
• SHA initiates the “RW57” Form Process
• Utilities identify impacted facilities
• Utilities research for existing easements
and Rights of Ways
• Submit to SHA for review
• SHA reviews and validates research
• Final percentage is:
Total “Covered” Facilities/Total Facilities
Prior Rights
• Grey Areas
– Pole Outside of
Right of Way,
Conduit in Right of
Way
– Cables Feeding
from County Road
Risk Management
• DOT’s Risk
– Under Estimate Funding Request
– Higher Bids Due to Unknown Utility
Involvement
– Delay Claims Due to Concurrent Utility Work
– Higher Bids Due to Construction Methods
• Overhead Clearances
• Handwork
Risk Management
• Utility Company’s
Risk
– Under Estimate
Project Funding
– Loss of Service to
Customers
– Increased Effort for
Relocation
Maryland’s Process
Utility Estimate By
Highway Planner
Estimate By Utility with
30% of Information
Planning
Estimate
Actual
Construction
Rubber Meets the Road
PI
Estimates
Impacted Utilities
Final /
Known, Estimates
PS&E
Estimate With Contingences
and Prior Rights
Complete
Results – Data Source
• SHA’s Project Cost Database
– 925 Total Projects Since 1992
– 773 Projects with Complete Data
• 45 Projects with Cost Not Estimated
• 107 Projects without Final Cost
Results – Total Dollars
$154.500
Values In Millions
$154.000
$153.500
Estimated Cost
Verses Actual is
Less than 2%!
$153.000
$152.500
$152.000
$151.500
Estimated Relocation Actual Relocation Cost
Cost
Results – Total Cost
100
96.3
Values In Millions
80
52.3
60
40
20.7
20
5.8
Total Value of
Overage /
Under
0
-20
(22.9)
-40
Under
Spent
Total Value of
Projects
Over
Spent
Results – By Project
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$$(50,000)
$(100,000)
$273,555
$145,943
$92,273
$0
$57,000
-$65,000
Over
Under On
Spent Target Spent
Average Utility
Cost By Project
Average
Variance
Process Issues
• Wide Variation on Individual Projects
• Utility Estimates During Design
Excessively High often Killing Projects
• DOT Can’t Verify or Predict Utility Estimate
• Utility Company can’t Respond to the
Schedule or Flexible needs of DOT
New Approaches
• Consultant Involvement with Utility Review
– Relieves burden on Utility Companies
– Works to DOT’s Schedule
• Develop Utility Cost Data
• Interactive Coordination During Design
– Reduce Changes
• Continue to Develop Relationship with
Utilities.
Questions