United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
June 1999
TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
Impacts of Utility
Relocations on
Highway and Bridge
Projects
GAO/RCED-99-131
United States
GAO General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-280707
June 9, 1999
The Honorable John H. Chafee
Chairman
The Honorable Max S. Baucus
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
The Honorable Bud Shuster
Chairman
The Honorable James L. Oberstar
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
Work on highway and bridge projects often involves relocating utility lines
and facilities that are used in producing, transmitting, or distributing
communications, electricity, natural gas, water, and sewage. Schedule
slippages and increased costs associated with the construction of these
projects may result when these lines and facilities are not relocated in a
timely manner. In this regard, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) directed us to assess the impact that delays in relocating
utilities are having on the delivery and cost of federal-aid highway and
bridge projects.
As agreed with your offices, we examined the following for fiscal years
1997-98: (1) the extent to which states are experiencing such delays and
the causes and impacts of the delays; (2) the number of states that are
compensating construction contractors for the added costs incurred on
their projects because of untimely relocations by utility companies; (3) the
available technologies, such as subsurface utility engineering (SUE),1 that
are being used during project design to reduce the number or impact of
utility relocation delays; and (4) the mitigation methods that states are
using, such as incentives, penalties, and litigation, to encourage or compel
cooperation by utility companies that are relocating utilities on federal-aid
highway and bridge projects. To obtain information about these issues, we
sent a questionnaire to the departments of transportation of the 50 states
and the District of Columbia—for which we achieved a 100-percent
1
SUE is an engineering process that incorporates new and existing technologies to identify and map
underground utilities during the early development of a highway project.
Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
response rate. A summary of the responses is in appendix I.2 We obtained
additional information through interviews with officials of the
headquarters and field offices of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state transportation departments,
construction contractors, and/or utility companies in nine states.
Additional information on our scope and methodology is discussed later in
this report.
The extent of the delays on highway and bridge projects because of
Results in Brief relocating utilities ranged from none in three states to all projects in one
state during fiscal years 1997-98. The states that reported the delays cited a
variety of reasons for them, such as short time frames for planning and
designing projects, the utility companies’ lack of resources to perform
relocation work, and the poor timing, sequencing, and coordination of the
relocation work relative to the construction work. Only 10 states thought
that the delays had a great or very great impact on the costs and/or
construction schedules of federal-aid highway and bridge projects. States,
however, are not always aware of all the delays that occur. The
information that states have largely depends on the degree to which
individual construction contractors request schedule extensions and/or
submit claims for increased costs on delayed projects. Rather than
requesting extensions or submitting claims, some contractors told us that
they accommodate the delays by shifting work crews and equipment to
other segments of the project or to another ongoing project.
Forty-four states compensated contractors for utility relocation delays by
extending project completion schedules, and 30 paid contractors’ claims
for increased costs. Some contractors told us that while some direct-cost
increases resulting from delays can be recovered in their respective states,
either (1) they usually do not have the time to prepare the paperwork or
(2) the expected reimbursement–along with its timing–is simply not
worth the effort to prepare the paperwork. Other contractors told us that
certain states require contractors to assume full financial responsibility for
utility relocation delays.
Forty-three states reported that they used computer-aided design and
drafting systems during the project design phase of more than half of their
projects. Such systems use computer graphics technologies for designing
and mapping construction projects, including locating utilities. Although
2
For statistical purposes, in compiling and analyzing the questionnaire responses, we included the
District of Columbia as a state.
Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
the Federal Highway Administration recommends subsurface utility
engineering as a means of using new and existing technologies to
accurately identify, characterize, and map underground utilities, only
seven states responded that they used this engineering process on half or
more of their projects. However, it is unknown whether the use of
subsurface utility engineering has reduced the extent of utility relocations
or delays.
Forty-one states responded that they used early planning and coordination
and 33 responded that they used special contracting methods as a means
to help mitigate the impact of utility relocation delays. This contrasts with
the number of states that responded that they used more forceful
mitigation measures to encourage or compel utility companies to complete
utility relocations in a timely manner—three states responded that they
used monetary incentives, seven used monetary penalties, and two used
the courts.
To accommodate highway and bridge construction, utilities often must
Background relocate their lines and facilities when they lie in the path of a construction
project. Utility relocations are more prevalent today than in the past
because most current federal-aid roadwork involves the reconstruction or
expansion of existing highways and bridges (with accompanying utility
lines and facilities that already exist) rather than new construction.
Federal-aid highway and bridge programs, administered at the federal
level by FHWA, provide states with financial assistance for various types of
projects. The projects under these programs are financed generally on an
80-percent-federal, 20-percent-state basis—although the split in percentage
varies, depending upon the specific highway or bridge program. In fiscal
years 1997-98, about $21 billion a year in federal funds was obligated for
highway and bridge projects. Under TEA-21, the estimated funding for fiscal
year 1999 increased to about $26.6 billion and to about $28.3 billion for
fiscal year 2000. Along with the increased funding, an increased number of
projects involving the relocation of utilities is expected.
At the state level, state transportation departments generally administer
federal-aid highway and bridge projects. States are responsible for
planning, designing, and—with their contractors—constructing highway
and bridge projects, while utilities are usually responsible for relocating
their lines and facilities out of the path of the highway or bridge
construction. States often inform utility companies of planned highway
and bridge projects up to 5 years before construction begins. With an early
Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
alert, utilities can begin their own conceptual designs for relocating their
lines and facilities in concert with the planned projects. During predesign
meetings between the project designer and the utility representatives, the
utilities learn about upcoming highway and bridge projects, as well as
probable construction time frames. Even under the best of circumstances,
the planning and designing of highway and bridge projects often take a
long time, and frequently involve delays, cancellations, changes in
alignment, and other factors that can alter the involvement of utility
companies. These conditions encourage highway agencies to wait until
later in the design process to involve the utilities. Similarly, utility
companies prefer to wait until they are certain that the project’s planning
and design are firm before they begin their relocation work.
Construction contractors and utilities need to schedule their respective
work so that their activities are properly sequenced. Before utility
companies can relocate their lines and facilities, they must have the
right-of-way to the locations where the utilities are to be moved, and those
sites need to be cleared and graded.3
To varying degrees among states and individual projects, the site
preparation work is performed by the construction contractor, the utility
company, or a separate contractor. Once the site is cleared, the utilities
can install their conduits, ducts, or poles and connect their lines and
facilities at the new location. However, if a utility does not have the
needed right-of-way or the site is not cleared or graded, a utility company’s
relocation work would likely be delayed. If for these, or any other reasons,
a utility does not relocate its lines or facilities as scheduled, the
construction contractor’s schedule can be delayed.
During fiscal years 1997-98, about half of all federal-aid highway and
Extent, Causes, and bridge projects involved the relocation of utilities.4 States’ responses to
Impacts of Delays our questionnaire varied widely—from no delays resulting from utility
Resulting From Utility relocations in three states to delays on all projects involving the relocation
of utilities in one state. However, the full extent of the delays on
Relocations federal-aid highway and bridge projects caused by relocating utilities is
not known because states are not always aware of the delays. The states
provided us with a number of reasons for the delays, such as the following:
short time frames for states to plan and design projects, which affect all
3
Right-of-way is a general term denoting real property, or an interest therein, usually in a strip,
acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes.
4
Based on the numbers of advertised projects in the states’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
subsequent aspects of a project, including utility relocations; utility
companies’ limited resources to perform an expanding amount of
relocation work; and the poor timing, sequencing, and coordination of the
utility relocation and construction work. States generally did not perceive
that the delays have had a great impact on the costs and construction
schedules of federal-aid highway and bridge projects.
States Indicated That Forty-two states responded to our questionnaire on the percentage of
Projects Were Delayed, but delays caused by the relocation of utilities on federal-aid highway and
the Full Extent Is Not bridge projects in their respective state for fiscal years 1997-98. The extent
of these delays ranged widely among the states—from none reported by
Known Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont to about 95 percent of the
completed projects involving utility relocations in Idaho and to
100 percent of such projects in Rhode Island. We found that 20 states
reported delays for 0-10 percent of their projects, 8 for 11-20 percent, 6 for
21-30 percent, and 8 for above 30 percent. Nine states did not provide an
estimate. Figure 1 shows the extent of the delays reported for each state.
Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Figure 1: States’ Responses Regarding Percentages of Federal-Aid Projects Involving Utility Relocations That Were
Delayed, Fiscal Years 1997-98
WA
MT ME
ND
OR VT
MN
ID NH
SD WI NY MA
MI CT RI
WY
IA PA
NV NE NJ
OH MD DE
UT IL IN DC
CA CO WV
KS VA
MO
KY
NC
AZ TN
OK
NM AR SC
MS AL GA
TX LA
FL
AK
HI
0-10 percent
11-20 percent
21-30 percent
Above 30 percent
No estimate provided
Source: GAO’s analysis of states’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Although 20 states reported that about 10 percent or less of the federal-aid
highway and bridge projects involving the relocations of utilities
encountered delays because of these relocations, this does not necessarily
indicate the full extent of the delays. For example, although Connecticut
reported that only about 3 percent of its projects involving utility
relocations had delays caused by the need to relocate utilities, a state
transportation official told us that Connecticut does not keep track of all
the delays caused by utility relocations. This official stated that the
3-percent figure, which the state reported, represents the state’s
federal-aid highway and bridge projects involving documented delays in
relocating utilities. Therefore, if delays were not documented, they were
not included in the state’s response. A contractor association official in
Connecticut told us that the state has no good indicators of the frequency
and magnitude of delays caused by utility relocations. One contractor
pointed out that because Connecticut does not reimburse contractors for
the cost increases resulting from delays in relocating utilities, the costs of
such delays are often anticipated and incorporated somewhere in a given
contractor’s bid. As such, the costs of these delays go unreported.
States Gave Various The reasons that states gave for delays caused by utility relocations were
Reasons for Delays related but varied. Table 1 shows the reasons most frequently indicated for
such delays and lists them according to the number of states that
considered them to be a moderate or major reason for delays.
Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Table 1: States’ Responses Identifying
Reasons for Delays in Relocating Reason Number of states
Utilities Utility lacked resources 34
Short time frame for state to plan and design 33
project
Utilities gave low priority to relocations 28
Increased workload on utility relocation 28
crews because highway/bridge construction
had increased
Delays in starting utility relocation work: 28
some utilities would not start until
construction contract was advertised or let
Phasing of construction and utility relocation 26
work out of sequence
Inaccurate locating and marking of existing 23
utility facilities
Delays in obtaining rights-of-way for utilities 23
Shortages of labor and equipment for utility 19
contractor
Project design changes required changes to 19
utility relocation designs
Utilities were slow in responding to 16
contractors’ requests to locate and mark
underground utilities
Inadequate coordination or sequencing 13
among utilities using common poles/ducts
Source: States’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
As the table shows, one of the most prevalent reasons cited by the states
was the short time frame for them to plan and design projects, which can
affect all subsequent aspects of the project, including utility relocations.
With recent increases in the federal funding of highway and bridge
projects, states are planning and designing an increasing number of
projects in a shorter amount of time. For example, Colorado told us that
Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
its highway construction program had nearly doubled since 1995 and that,
in its rush to get projects under contract, time had become a shrinking
resource—particularly the time available for planning and designing
projects and the time available for designing and relocating utility lines
and facilities.
Shorter time frames for planning and designing construction projects also
reduce the amount of time available to acquire needed utility
rights-of-way. When utility facilities are located on a state’s rights-of-way
and those existing rights-of-way are not sufficient to accommodate a
planned utility relocation, additional rights-of-way need to be acquired.
Utilities are generally responsible for acquiring additional rights-of-way
that may be needed for a given project. In some instances, the utilities may
already have the necessary rights-of-way prior to the construction of the
highway and/or bridge project (known as “prior rights”). If the utility has
prior rights, the state usually pays for any additional rights-of-way that
may be needed, as well as for the relocation itself. Because utilities cannot
relocate their facilities unless they have the right-of-way for the new
location, delays in obtaining rights-of-way can, in turn, slow the timing of
relocation work.
Utility relocations for large highway and bridge construction projects can
be very complicated. In addition to the state transportation department
and its construction contractors, multiple utilities also may be involved.
To reduce scheduling problems, the contractors would prefer that, to the
extent possible, all utility relocation work be finished before the highway
or bridge construction begins. Preconstruction conferences involving all
the parties to the project provide an opportunity for the state agency and
the utility companies to communicate any final changes in project
schedules, jointly review and approve final sets of plans, and identify key
points of contact for the project. The conferences also provide an
opportunity for the contractors and utilities to agree upon work schedules
that will minimize possible conflicts during construction.
Several contractor officials told us that the work schedules that the
utilities provide at preconstruction conferences are often not specific or
reliable. Contractor officials also stated that utilities are often
unresponsive to contractors’ requests for needed actions. Contractor and
state highway officials pointed out, however, that utilities are not solely to
blame for all delays associated with relocating utilities. In this regard,
utility company officials told us that (1) contractors often make changes to
construction work schedules, (2) they have limited resources to respond
Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
to contractors’ requests, and (3) their first obligation is in servicing their
existing and new customers. Furthermore, even when reimbursed by a
state, utility companies do not profit from relocation work and generally
do not recover all of their indirect costs.
Impacts of Delays Vary As with the extent of delays, quantifiable information on the full impact of
delays caused by relocating utilities on the cost and delivery of federal-aid
highway and bridge projects does not exist. Delays in relocating utilities
can cause construction work to be rescheduled or delayed, or result in
contractor claims or litigation. In addition, less tangible impacts result. For
example, safety concerns, such as leaving excavations open while
conflicts are resolved, increase the risk to state agencies, contractors,
utility companies, and the traveling public. Furthermore, public travel on
highways under construction is more time-consuming and less convenient.
Five states responded that delays caused by relocating utilities had a great
or very great impact on the construction schedules of federal-aid highway
and bridge projects. Five states responded that these delays greatly or very
greatly increased the construction costs to the state, two states responded
that they greatly increased the costs to construction contractors, and two
states responded that they greatly or very greatly increased the costs to
other utility companies. In addition one state, New Mexico, reported that
delays greatly affected utility coordination efforts on other projects. The
states responding that the delays had a great impact on the projects’
schedule and/or costs for fiscal years 1997-98 are shown in figure 2.
Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Figure 2: States Reporting Great or Very Great Impacts From Delays Caused by Relocating Utilities, Fiscal Years 1997-98
U
S
S
S
SCU
SC
Increased length of project construction schedule
S Increased construction costs to state
C Increased costs to construction contractors
U Increased costs to other utilities
Source: States’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Although, as indicated by figure 2, most states did not report that delays
caused by relocating utilities had a great impact on the construction
schedules and costs of federal-aid highway and bridge projects, officials of
one national contractor association and several contractor companies told
us that states are not fully aware of the increased costs borne by
contractors because of these delays. This is because many states do not
reimburse their contractors for the costs resulting from delays caused by
relocating utilities and, therefore, the documentation supporting the full
impacts of delays is not sent to the states. Even in one state that provides
reimbursements, Rhode Island, four contractors that we met with told us
that, rather than take the time to gather the documentation and submit a
claim to the state, they find it easier to either absorb the increased costs or
simply factor an estimate of such costs into their contract bids.
State and contractor officials told us that contractors can lessen the
impact of some relocation delays by shifting their work crews to other
segments of the delayed project, or to entirely different projects until the
delayed work can be resumed. To illustrate, Idaho reported that about
95 percent of its projects had been affected by delays in relocating utilities.
Such delays caused the respective contractors to shift work crews and
adjust their schedules; thus, only about 6 percent of Idaho’s projects
actually resulted in contractual change orders or claims.
States can compensate contractors for delays caused by relocating utilities
States’ Compensation by extending project completion schedules and/or paying contractors’
of Contractors claims for increased costs. Claims due to delays in relocating utilities may
be included in the federal share of project costs provided to states.5
However, it must first be determined that (1) the utilities were relocated
prior to advertising for bids, or necessary coordination was arranged with
the utility company to avoid delaying the contractor, (2) approved state
procedures were followed, (3) construction work was delayed by the
utility company through no fault of the construction contractor, and
(4) the state exercised reasonable efforts to control the situation. Some
contractors in states that reimburse contractors for direct cost increases
resulting from delays told us that they usually do not have the time to
prepare the paperwork or that the expected reimbursement—along with
its timing—is simply not worth the effort to prepare the paperwork. Other
contractors told us that certain states require contractors to assume full
financial responsibility for delays caused by relocating utilities.
5
See Program Guide, Utility Adjustments and Accommodation on Federal-Aid Highway Projects, fourth
edition, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (Mar. 1998).
Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Twenty-nine states responded that they provided both project time
extensions and reimbursements to contractors for cost increases resulting
from delays in relocating utilities in fiscal years 1997-98, 15 states provided
only time extensions, 1 provided only cost reimbursement, 5 provided
neither, and 1 responded that it did not know if it gave time extensions but
it did not provide cost reimbursements. The states responding that they
provided project time extensions and/or reimbursed contractors for cost
increases in fiscal years 1997-98 are shown in figure 3.
Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Figure 3: States’ Responses Concerning Compensation of Contractors for Delays Caused by Relocating Utilities, Fiscal
Years 1997-98
Project time extensions
Reimbursed contractors' cost increases
Source: States’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Thirty-three of the 44 states shown in figure 3 reported that in fiscal years
1997-98, they granted time extensions for delays caused by relocating
utilities that ranged from 1 to 912 days. Eleven of the 30 states that
compensated contractors for costs incurred as a result of these delays also
identified the dollar amounts compensated in fiscal years 1997-98. These
amounts ranged from $7,855 to $8 million per state and totaled
$15.4 million for the 11 states.
The states identified technologies used in locating and identifying utilities
States’ Use of during the design process to facilitate utility relocations.
Available
Technologies • Computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) systems use computer
graphics technologies to design and map construction projects and
presents an expedient way to consolidate many different design aspects,
such as rights-of-way maps, into a common database, or base map.
Forty-three, or about 84 percent, of the respondents to our questionnaire
said that they had used CADD on more than half of their projects.
• Vacuum extraction, which removes dirt and debris from test holes with a
vacuum, is one of the more accurate methods for the nondestructive
location of underground utilities. Seven states used it on more than half of
their projects.
• Geographic information/global positioning systems are used for mapping
purposes. Geographic information systems use software and hardware to
develop an information database using coordinates of various land
features and mapping techniques. Global positioning systems represent a
newer method of providing ground control points for mapping purposes
by monitoring satellite signals; on-ground receivers pick up the satellite
information, which is then transferred to an attached computer. Fifteen
states reported they had used these systems on more than half of their
projects.
• Subsurface utility engineering is used to incorporate new and existing
technologies to identify and map underground utilities during the early
development of a highway project. This engineering process might include
using vacuum extraction to help locate utilities and CADD or geographic
information systems for information management and mapping activities
critical to the design process. Having such information early in the design
process offers project designers the ability to redesign the project or avoid
existing utilities. Seven states reported that they had used SUE on more
than half of their projects.
Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
The states that reported that they had used these various technologies on
more than half of their projects in the design phase during fiscal years
1997-98 are shown in figure 4.
Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Figure 4: States’ Responses Regarding Use of Selected Technologies on More Than Half of Their Projects, Fiscal Years
1997-98
CADD
CADD
CADD
GPS GPS
CADD
CADD CADD CADD
GPS GPS
GPS CADD SUE
CADD CADD
CADD GPS VE
GPS CADD SUE
CADD
CADD CADD
GPS
CADD GPS CADD
CADD
SUE
GPS CADD CADD
CADD CADD
VE
CADD VE
GPS CADD CADD SUE
CADD
VE SUE CADD
CADD
CADD GPS
GPS
VE
VE SUE
SUE CADD CADD
VE CADD
CADD CADD CADD
CADD
CADD GPS
CADD
GPS
CADD CADD
CADD
CADD
CADD
CADD CADD
VE Vacuum extraction
GPS Geographic Information/Global Positioning Systems
SUE SUE
Source: States’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Because we were specifically asked to examine SUE, we took a closer look
at its use among the states. FHWA has recommended the use of SUE to
accurately identify, characterize, and map underground utilities during the
design phase of a highway or bridge project. In April 1997, FHWA reported
several case studies to illustrate the cost savings or cost avoidances that
can result from using SUE.6 For example, Virginia made design adjustments
to a major highway project and eliminated 61 of 75 potential utility
conflicts with construction. By making the design changes, Virginia
reported that utility relocation work estimated to cost $731,425 was
avoided. With the cost of the project’s SUE activities totaling $93,553, a net
savings of $637,872 was reported. In another case, using SUE technology
enabled Maryland to redesign a project and thus reduce the length of gas,
water, and sewage lines needing relocation from 5,000 to about 400 feet for
each utility. SUE activities cost the project about $56,000, but Maryland
reported that the state and the utilities avoided over $1.3 million in
relocation costs that they otherwise would have incurred. Still another
example was a project in North Carolina, where vacuum extraction
technology was used in conjunction with SUE to precisely identify the
location of a water line running alongside 18 miles of roadway. According
to North Carolina, the process, costing about $10,000, resulted in
identifying approximately 4 miles of the water line that could remain in
place, thus helping the state and the utility company avoid about $500,000
in relocation costs.
We examined whether the states using SUE on more than half of their
projects performed better than the rest of the states in terms of having
fewer projects involving utility relocations, having less costly projects, or
having fewer delays caused by utility relocations. Five of the seven states
that indicated they used SUE on more than half of their projects also
included information on the numbers and costs of advertised projects, and
the delays of completed projects, which we used to compare with similar
information provided by many of the 32 states that reported that they were
not using SUE to any great extent. The results of our comparisons were
inconclusive. For the small number of states using SUE, we got mixed
results with respect to whether the use of SUE directly affected the number
of utility relocations, their costs, and any associated delays. These results
6
Subsurface Utility Engineering, Federal-Aid and Design Division, Office of Engineering, Federal
Highway Administration (Apr. 1997).
Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
indicated that other factors may be affecting the extent of utility
relocations and the extent of the delays caused by utility relocations.7
Under a July 1997 contract with FHWA, Purdue University is currently
conducting a 2 1/2-year study to determine the effectiveness of SUE on
reducing costs and delays on highway projects. This study is examining
the use of SUE in North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming,
and Puerto Rico. A final report is due in late 1999.
Incentives, penalties, and/or the courts were infrequently used to
Mitigation Methods encourage or compel utility companies to relocate utilities for federal-aid
Used highway and bridge projects in a timely manner. Forty-one states used
early planning and coordination, and 33 states used special contracting
methods to help mitigate or ameliorate the impact of relocating utilities.
Table 2 shows the number of states that reported that they used these
mitigation methods or measures in fiscal years 1997-98.
Table 2: States’ Responses Regarding
Mitigation Methods Used by States, Mitigation method Number of states
Fiscal Years 1997-98 Monetary incentives 3
Monetary penalties 7
Courts 2
Early planning and coordination 41
Special contracting methods 33
Source: States’ responses to GAO’s questionnaire.
Use of Incentives Although three states provided monetary incentives to encourage utility
companies to complete utility relocations on federal-aid highway and
bridge projects, none of these incentives were contingent on the timely
completion of the relocation work. For example, Delaware noted that it
paid one of its construction contractors to perform the utility trench
excavation for one utility relocation project. The second state, Missouri,
stated that it pays utility companies for the state’s share of relocation costs
7
States’ identified the extent to which they used SUE on the basis of the projects in the design phase
during fiscal years 1997-98. Our comparisons would be affected if the states significantly altered their
use of SUE for projects advertised or completed during fiscal years 1997-98.
Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
before the utilities begin work, subject to a final audit. Lastly,
Massachusetts pointed out that it reimburses utilities for 100 percent of
the costs of relocating utilities on bridge replacement projects. Under the
provisions of this program, Massachusetts makes the reimbursements
contingent on the utilities’ completing the relocation work on time. For
each day that the utility falls behind schedule, the state reduces the
amount being reimbursed. If relocating the utilities causes a contractor to
incur a delay that results in a claim, the cost of the claim would also be
deducted from the moneys due the utility. Although these provisions to
reduce payments for delays incurred are written into project agreements, a
Massachusetts highway official told us that these provisions have never
been used.
Use of Penalties Seven states responded that they had assessed monetary penalties against
utilities that failed to complete utility relocations on federal-aid highway
and bridge projects in a timely manner. These states either charged the
utilities for the costs that the states incurred or for contractor claims paid
as a result of delays in relocating utilities. These penalties were not
directly tied to missed agreed-upon utility relocation dates but were
assessed on a case-by-case basis. In 1998, the state of Rhode Island, which
pays for all of the costs of relocating utilities on federal-aid highway and
bridge projects, considered legislation that would have required utilities to
relocate their facilities within 30 days of receiving notice. If utilities were
not relocated within that time, Rhode Island’s department of
transportation would have been permitted to contract for the relocation
with a private company, and the utility company would had to have paid
for the cost of the contract. The utilities successfully argued that having
them pay for the relocations would increase the cost to their utilities’
customers, and the proposed legislation was not enacted.
Use of Courts The courts are seldom used to discipline utility companies for untimely
utility relocations. Only two states reported using the courts over the past
2 years. Kentucky responded that it had used the courts very infrequently,
and Texas responded that it had used the courts on only one occasion.
Officials from Maryland, which has not used the courts, questioned
whether the state could be successful in court because it would be
difficult to show that the utility was at fault. The officials said that the
state would need to demonstrate that (1) it or the construction contractor
had notified the utility company in a timely manner of the work to be done
and (2) the utility had not been kept from doing its relocation work. An
Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
official from Maine pointed out that his state works closely with utility
companies to resolve problems and conflicts. He expressed concern that
litigation would jeopardize the positive working relationship that exists
between the Maine department of transportation and the utilities. Officials
in several of the states we visited echoed this comment.
Early Planning and Forty-one states responded that they used early planning and coordination
Coordination methods to help avoid or reduce delays in relocating utilities and their
impacts on highway and bridge projects. For example, various states were
• providing much earlier—in some instances 5-year—notices of upcoming
projects;
• inviting utility companies to meetings early in the design phase of a
project;
• holding monthly, quarterly, or other periodic planning/coordination
meetings;
• providing advanced rights-of-way and utility relocation funding before the
highway and/or bridge construction work was funded; and
• improving coordination efforts and working relationships.
Illustrative of some of the actions being taken by states to deal with utility
relocation concerns, the Texas department of transportation recently
developed and adopted what it calls its Utility Cooperative Management
Process. This process was put together as a means of discovering and
incorporating utilities’ concerns into the planning, design, acquisition, and
construction phases of project development. Texas recognized, as have
many other states, that early coordination provides for more efficient
highway design, economical utility relocation, and reduced construction
costs. Texas’s goal is to (1) accommodate utilities during the planning and
design phase and (2) when utility adjustments are necessary, implement
an adjustment plan that is compatible with the state’s established contract
award scheduling and construction sequencing.
Use of Special Contracting States are using special contracting methods to help mitigate relocation
Methods delays. One way of reducing conflicts between construction work and
relocation work is to include the relocation work in the construction
contracts; thus, giving the construction contractor more control over all
the work. Fifteen states—Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina—have included
Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
utility relocation work, such as that for water and sewer lines, directly in
construction contracts for certain projects.
Another contracting method used by nine states—Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode
Island—is to separately contract the site clearing and preparation work
and allow utility companies the time to relocate their lines and facilities
before the state advertises the highway construction project. A state
transportation official told us, however, that such a phased approach can
generally extend the length of each job. Some representatives of utility
companies told us that they are reluctant to relocate utilities too soon
(e.g., before a construction project starts) because of the possibility of
subsequent project redesigns and the need for them to come back and
redo what they have already done.
Partnering is still another mitigation method mentioned by 11
states—Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, and Texas. This method, which is
advocated by at least one national contractor association, seeks to remove
the adversarial relationships that sometimes exist between states,
contractors, and utility companies and replace them with business
relationships that are based on common goals and a desire to work
productively together.8 According to the contractor association, partnering
does not change nor release any of the contractual requirements but helps
all parties recognize that a basic tenet of contract law is to act in good
faith. A Massachusetts highway official explained that partnering has been
used on large projects. State, contractor, and utility company officials
involved in the project meet weekly or biweekly to discuss all issues and
resolve problems. This official said that partnering helps improve
communications and reduce delays but that it does not resolve all delay
problems. He explained that when conflicting demands for a utility
company’s resources arise, relocating utilities may receive a lower priority
by the utility company because it entails expending resources as opposed
to doing something that generates income.
Contracts associated with very large federal-aid highway and bridge
projects sometimes contain unique features involving utility relocations
because of the magnitude of the relocation work. For example, the
ongoing Interstate-15 Project in Salt Lake City, Utah, is a
multi-billion-dollar, 17-mile project that involves the relocation of the lines
and facilities of about 45 utility companies and must be completed in time
8
See Partnering: A Concept for Success, The Associated General Contractors of America (Oct. 1991).
Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. As a means of facilitating the
relocation of utilities on this time-critical project, agreements were
reached whereby the relocation work of all but one of the utilities is being
done by the construction contractor. The electric utility company is the
only holdout, preferring to remain in charge of its relocation work.
Performing the utility relocation work gives the contractor more control
over this work, thus reducing the coordinating and work-sequencing
problems that might otherwise arise.
Another example of a very large highway and bridge project is the $10.8
billion Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts. This
project involves hundreds of miles of gas, electric, sewer, telephone, and
other utility lines and facilities that needed to be moved out of the path of
the new highway. At the time of our visit to the project in September 1998,
the utility work was more than 80-percent complete. Project officials
attributed the success they had in relocating the utilities to their ability to
(1) obtain utility companies’ involvement from the start and throughout
the design process; (2) require construction contractors to build the ducts
and conduits and the utilities to perform the hookups, such as cutting and
splicing cables; (3) enhance project coordination by having each utility
provide an employee liaison; and (4) use SUE early in the design process.
Project officials estimated that the costs of relocating utilities for the
Central Artery/Tunnel Project will total about $1 billion, including about
$150 million that represents reimbursements to the various utilities for
their relocation costs.
The relocation of utility lines and facilities is an integral part of many
Observations highway and bridge construction projects. Project construction is often
delayed when utilities are not relocated in a timely manner for the
construction work to proceed. There is no one solution to this problem.
Each highway or bridge project is different, with its own set of
circumstances, and must be dealt with accordingly by those involved in
the project. The highway and bridge projects that have proceeded most
smoothly are those that involved a lot of coordination, cooperation, and
communication between the various project participants early in the
project’s design and throughout the project. However, delays in relocating
utilities may become even more pronounced in the future. Increased
funding provided under TEA-21 for highway and bridge construction
currently and in the years ahead is expected to result in increased
(1) numbers of ongoing highway and bridge construction projects and
(2) demands on the resources of state transportation departments,
Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
construction contractors, and utility companies. Because the resources
available for utility relocation work are already stretched thin, utility
relocation delays will continue to demand attention by all project
participants.
We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report
Agency Comments for review and comment. The Department generally agreed that the facts
have been accurately and fairly presented in the report.
To assess the impact that delays in relocating utilities are having on the
Scope and delivery and cost of federal-aid highway and bridge projects, we
Methodology conducted various literature searches. We met with officials from FHWA
headquarters, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and several
subsurface utility engineering companies. We visited nine states and met
with officials from FHWA, state departments of transportation, and
construction and utility companies. We visited Delaware, Maryland, North
Carolina, and Virginia because of their proximity to Washington, D.C. We
visited Connecticut because construction contractors in the state brought
the issue of utility relocations to Congress’s attention. Massachusetts and
Utah were selected because of the large highway project going on in each
state–the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Massachusetts and the I-15
Project in Utah. Both are large-dollar projects involving extensive utility
relocations. Rhode Island was selected because its state legislature
recently considered a bill that would impose a penalty on utility
companies that failed to relocate their utilities within 30 days. Texas was
selected because several officials we met with mentioned its utility
relocation activities.
We also met with representatives of the Connecticut Road Builders
Association, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Construction
Industries of Rhode Island, the Associated General Contractors of
America, and Bell Communications Research. We contacted, by telephone,
officials from the Baltimore City Public Works, Maryland Public Service
Commission, Electric Power Research Institute, and American Road and
Transportation Builders Association. We attended a forum on utility
relocation delays hosted in July 1998 by the Construction Automation &
Robotics Laboratory, North Carolina State University; a national utility
relocation conference held in Louisville, Kentucky, in October 1998; and a
Utility/Contractor Forum hosted in October 1998 by the Connecticut
department of transportation.
Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
B-280707
Finally, on the basis of information we obtained through the above efforts,
we prepared a questionnaire and mailed it to the highway departments of
each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We received responses
from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which we summarized and
analyzed. The responses provided us with general information regarding
the extent, causes, and impacts of delays caused by relocating utilities in
each of the states and some information on how each state is responding
to the problem.
We performed our work from July 1998 through May 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary of Transportation; Kenneth R. Wykle, Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of
Management and Budget; state departments of transportation; interested
congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will send
copies to other interested parties upon request. Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix II.
Phyllis F. Scheinberg
Associate Director, Transportation Issues
Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Contents
Letter 1
Appendix I 28
Summary of States’
Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Appendix II 35
Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables Table 1: States’ Responses Identifying Reasons for Delays in 8
Relocating Utilities
Table 2: States’ Responses Regarding Mitigation Methods Used 19
by States, Fiscal Years 1997-98
Figures Figure 1: States’ Responses Regarding Percentages of Federal-Aid 6
Projects Involving Utility Relocations That Were Delayed, Fiscal
Years 1997-98
Figure 2: States Reporting Great or Very Great Impacts From 11
Delays Caused by Relocating Utilities, Fiscal Years 1997-98
Figure 3: States’ Responses Concerning Compensation of 14
Contractors for Delays Caused by Relocating Utilities, Fiscal
Years 1997-98
Figure 4: States’ Responses Regarding Use of Selected 17
Technologies on More Than Half of Their Projects, Fiscal Years
1997-98
Abbreviations
CADD computer-aided design and drafting (system)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GAO General Accounting Office
SUE subsurface utility engineering
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury
Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 32 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 33 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix I
Summary of States’ Responses to GAO’s
Questionnaire
Page 34 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Sumikatsu J. Arima
Resources, Paul D. Lacey
Community, and Ralph W. Lamoreaux
Economic Luann M. Moy
Earl P. Williams, Jr.
Development
Division, Washington,
D.C.
Helen T. Desaulniers
Office of the General
Counsel, Washington,
D.C.
(348097) Page 35 GAO/RCED-99-131 Utility Relocations
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO
Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Transportation Infrastructure: Impacts of Utility Relocations on Highway and Bridge Projects
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-06-09.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)