LPA – Utility Coordination Natalie Parks StructurePoint November 20 , 2013

1. LPA – Utility Coordination Natalie Parks StructurePoint November 20, 2013

2. Today’s Topics • Basic INDOT/LPA Program • Key People • Utility Coordination Process • Submittals • Agreements • Work in Contract • Case Studies • Utility Company Comments

3. INDOT/LPA Program • Mission:To empower Local Public Agencies (LPA) through excellent education and collaborative relationships, to plan, build and maintain a superior transportation system that promotes economic growth, ensures safety, and complies with all local, state, and federal regulations.

4. INDOT/LPA Program • INDOT is Involved on an LPA Project When Federal Dollars are Spent • District LPA Project Manager to secure federal funds. • District Utility Coordination when there is a reimbursable utility relocation. • Must follow federal regulations for utilities CFR 645 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/utility.cfm • Must follow 105 IAC 13 • Utility Accommodation Policy (July 2013) • INDOT Design Manual • LPA Design Guidance Document - Chapter 10

5. LPA Utility Coordination • Key people • LPA Employee in Responsible Charge (ERC) • LPA Design Project Manager • Utility Coordinator • Utility Personnel • INDOT Project Manager • Ultimately the Utility Coordinator and the Design PM are both responsible for ensuring 105 IAC 13 is followed.

6. LPA Utility Coordination Process • Process is the same – (105 IAC 13) • Research – 1 to 2 weeks • Initial Notice – 1 to 2 months • Verification Plans – 2 to 4 months • Conflict Analysis – 2 to 4 months • Work Plan Development – 1 to 6 months • Reimbursable Agreements – 2 to 4 months • Notice to Proceed/Construction

7. Research • Many municipalities do not have a permit program • Rely more on: • Indiana 811 • Field visits • Field surveys • Use previous project information if available • Talk to the LPA utility/engineering dept.

8. Standard Utility Submittals • Follow the 105 IAC 13 rules and allow the appropriate time for response • Copy project owner representative on all submissions • INDOT’s District Utility Coordinator is involved in a LPA projects Utility Coordination process, only when there are Reimbursable Agreements.

9. Ready for Contracts • Per Section 10-4.03 LPA Guidance Document: Submission prior to RFC should include: • Utility Work Plan/Relocation Drawings from each utility or Letter of No Conflict • LPA/Utility Reimbursement Agreement for each reimbursable utility • Utility FMIS authorization letter or e-mail • Utility Certification • Utility Special Provisions

10. Stage 3 • The biggest difference between LPA and INDOT projects: • Utility Certification, Work Plans & Relocation Drawings are due at Stage 3 Submission to INDOT

11. Additional Charges and Invoices • Assist the ERC in determining if a scope change to the existing agreement, or a cost overrun requested by the utility are appropriate. • Make sure that all scope changes and cost overruns have been approved by the ERC prior to the utility company proceeding with work. If not, and the utility does any of this work without prior approval, these charges are not reimbursable. • Assist the ERC in ensuring that the charges are per the agreement and the utility invoices are correct. • If an invoice is incorrect or inappropriate, advise the ERC in resolving the issues with the utility.

12. Case Study

13. Case Study • Project involves: • Municipal utility relocation • Right-of-way limitations • Railroad crossing • Project owner owns the utility • Utility requires relocation due to new overpass bridge • Utility crossing railroad off of the right-of-way

14. Case Study • Is the utility reimbursable? • If so, by whom? • Does the utility need to secure permanent right-of-way? • If so, why? • If not, why not? • What involvement is needed by and with the railroad?

15. LPA – Utility Coordination Tom Rueschhoff LPA/Railroad/Utility Engineer, INDOT October 30, 2013

16. LPA Utility Relocation Agreements • When is an LPA/Utility agreement required? • Only when a utility relocation is required due to being in direct conflict. There are 3 scenarios: • Reimbursable: When the utility company relocates their own facilities. • Reimbursable : Work in Contract - The utility relocation is constructed as part of the road contract. • Non-reimbursable: Work in Contract - The utility agrees to include the utility relocation as part of the road contract. These bid items should be identified as “non participating” and 100% of the successful bid will be paid up front by the utility company.

17. Work in Contract • Early on (Stage 1) ask the utility companies to consider including their relocations in the LPA project. • Benefits: • Allows better overall construction coordination with the contractor in control of the scheduling • Reduces, and hopefully can eliminate, utility delays • Saves on overall construction costs (Mobilization, pavement cuts, shoring, overall efficiency…) • Eliminates claims, contractor responsible for the x, y and z location • Saves on overall construction time • “The Contractor knows where everyone went”.

18. Case Study • Case Study • Case Study

19. Case Study – Existing • Pipeline Company has a 14” diameter gas pipeline that crosses an existing road that the LPA is proposing to add a lane. • Existing pipeline has a casing pipe that extends 5 ft. beyond the existing paved shoulder. • New pavement will extend beyond the end of the casing. • Pipeline Profile: The top of the pipeline is 6 ft. below the proposed pavement. • Existing pipe is structurally inadequate for the loading without a casing pipe.

20. Case StudyExercise • Pipeline Company requested 100% reimbursement. • Claim – Lose the ability to access the end of the casing pipe, therefore will not be able to slide the pipe out for future maintenance. • They proposed 2 possible options and relocation costs: • Option #1: Bore and install a new pipeline with thicker walls under the new wider pavement. • Option #2: Open cut pavement, remove the existing casing, and provide maintenance to the existing pipeline, and install a no-load slab over pipeline.

21. Case Study What costs are reimbursable? Option 1: New pipe bored in place Option 2: Remove Casing • Inspect and provide maintenance to coating under casing. • Install no-load slab Note: Current Industry Design Standards no longer recommend a casing pipe be used due to cathodic corrosion.

22. Case Studyactical Exercise • INDOT’s Response: • Pipeline is in conflict with the roadway improvements due to the inadequate structural capacity of the pipe. • Option 1: Onlythe segment of the pipeline between the existing roadway right-of-ways is within an easement with property interests, and therefore is eligible for reimbursement. • Option 2: Removing the casing and inspecting the pipe’s outer wall coating is a maintenance item, and therefore is notreimbursable. • Neitherof these options proposed by the utility company will allow for future maintenance.

23. Case StudyPractical Exercise • INDOT’s Response: • Therefore only the no-load slab over the section of pipeline within the easement is reimbursable. • It is the Utility Company’s decision on either boring and installing a new line, or open cutting and removing casing, and installing the no-load slab. • The Utility Company should coordinate with LPA’s contractor to schedule open cut when road is shutdown.

24. Utility Companies • Several items utilities have had with LPA utility coordination • Wide range of experience levels • Do not know to follow the 105 IAC 13 when federal aid projects • LPA’s often will claim their projects are Minor Projects to attempt to hold utility companies to shorter response time • Utility companies receive notification to attend a “Pre-construction” meeting when they had not received a Notice to Proceed

25. Questions?Congratulations on being the 1st Prequalification Graduating Class