FHWA DTFH6117D00008-0003
Many State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) construction projects require the acquisition of private property on which to construct the projects. The process of planning and designing a project requires effective coordination and collaboration over a period of several years before actual construction may begin. A major concern of the Federal Highway Association (FHWA), State DOTs, local governments, and the public at large, is the fact that many of today's major transportation projects, upon completion, result in massive cost overruns beyond the transportation agencies' original cost estimates. The project cost overruns frequently include overruns in the Realty or Right-of-Way (ROW) components of those projects.
FHWA undertook this project with the objectives of identifying, sharing, and improving best practices among State DOTs for estimating ROW costs. For the purposes of this project, ROW costs are defined as the alignment-related rights that must be acquired to make a project happen. This report provides information from the first phase of the project, documenting the state of the practice in ROW cost estimation amongst State DOTs and identifying potential options, requirements for, and barriers to an improved electronic cost estimation calculator. The hope was to find an existing electronic ROW cost estimation tool or tools that could be enhanced or disseminated for increased use by State DOTs. If such a tool was not found, the project's next phase was to develop specifications or options for such a tool.
The state of practice in ROW cost estimation was assessed through a literature review, online survey (to which 35 State DOTs responded), and interviews with California DOT, Florida DOT, Minnesota DOT, Mississippi DOT, Tennessee DOT, Texas DOT, Virginia DOT, Wisconsin DOT, and Wyoming DOT. Overall, a wide variety of ROW cost estimation procedures was identified across the surveyed State DOTs. Some use methods supported by electronic data and tools, while some still use manual or paper methods. However, no State DOT was found that was using a stand-alone electronic ROW cost estimation calculator, and no examples of such software tailored to State DOTs were identified. Instead, several State DOTs have moved to electronic data management and retrieval systems, which often include ROW cost estimation as one of many components. Only one off-the-shelf electronic ROW management system (RWMS) was identified as being in use by State DOTs. This is the BEM Systems, Inc. (BEM) PAECETrak, which is in use by Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming DOTs (WYDOT) with over a decade of development by these agencies. This system does have a cost estimation module. Some State DOTs have developed their own RWMS; these typically have not included cost estimation modules, although they serve as a data repository to support cost estimation.
A number of State DOTs, or districts of State DOTs, have created spreadsheets or database systems to support cost estimation—essentially electronic versions of cost calculation forms. These tools serve as a means of ensuring that all costs are identified and tracked, and may include default values for some factors to help ensure consistency across an agency or district.
Cost estimation typically progresses through four stages of project development, including planning (conceptual estimates), programming (baseline estimates), preliminary design (updated estimates), and final design (final estimates). The basic data requirements at each stage are the same, except for the planning stage, where potential takings may not be known with any detail and cost estimates may be more general. However, the level of detail available may increase over the course of the project, as the design is refined. Other cost factors may also be refined as project planning progresses.
Data requirements for electronic cost estimation include:
Some of these data items are quantitative and would typically serve as a basis for a quantitative estimate of land costs (e.g., parcel sizes, use types, and density). Other data might be evaluated more qualitatively (e.g., condition of improvements) or based on historical quantitative observations to assign ranges of estimates (e.g., differences between actual costs and estimates at each stage of planning). An electronic tool could provide a platform for combining these data items and evaluating historical data to develop better factors, but professional judgment will still be needed to determine likely values for land and other costs. Most States' confidence in an entirely automated cost estimate would be very limited.
Many parts of the transportation project cost estimation process are straightforward. For example, there are Federal standards for asphalt and concrete cost estimation based on unit volumes. No such standards or consistency exist for ROW cost estimation. In fact, there are many "moving parts" which make accurate ROW cost estimation a challenge and would pose challenges to creating a universally applicable electronic tool. Key barriers include:
In some cases, electronic methods could help address some of these barriers, for example, by improving knowledge retention and by providing a platform to explicitly inventory all cost components and track uncertainties. In some cases, procedural and institutional enhancements, such as formalized coordination processes, may be needed to take full advantage of the benefits of an electronic tool. Substantial differences in State-to-State contexts and requirements may pose the most significant barrier to developing a cost estimation tool. This will need to be addressed by working with a sample of States to see if their needs can be met through a common tool.
Despite the barriers listed above, the project team believes there are actions that can be taken to improve the state of practice in ROW cost estimation amongst State DOTs. Options for further development include:
Adapting an existing tool or creating a new tool would need to be done carefully to ensure that it can provide key State-specific functionality without requiring resources for customization that exceed the effort of creating a State-specific tool from scratch. It is recommended that FHWA work with two or three pilot States to identify local customizations required, develop a tool suited to each States' needs, and test the level of effort and utility of such a tool. A new tool has the potential to introduce interesting new functionality, such as risk assessment or predictive data analytics, but this would increase its development costs and timeframe.
As an alternative to a stand-alone tool, FHWA could help States work with and improve cost estimation functionality within existing electronic RWMSs. These can provide a platform for integrating ROW cost estimation data and tools.
An immediate next step would be to flesh out specifications of a potential tool, to serve as a strawman proof of concept. FHWA should vet these specifications with a few interested States, via a workshop or peer exchange, to confirm that an electronic ROW cost estimation tool could be developed that they would find useful. Resources such as the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Government User Group or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) State Transportation Innovation Councils (STIC) could potentially be leveraged to provide funding, technical, and/or institutional support to supplement FHWA's efforts or a pooled fund study could be initiated if enough States were interested.
The U.S. Congress authorizes Federal funds in support of the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP). The purpose of the funding is to assist the States in providing for the construction, maintenance, and improvement of highways and bridges on eligible Federal-Aid Highway Routes and for other special purpose programs and projects. The FHWA is charged with the administration of the FAHP. A major component of the program is the Federal-Aid Highway Construction Program, through which the FHWA, in collaboration with the States, provides and administers Federal funding in support of a broad range of activities necessary for the States to carry out their respective highway construction programs and projects.
Many State DOT construction projects require the acquisition of private property on which to construct the projects. Many projects may also require the relocation of persons and businesses that are impacted by the proposed construction. The activities by which Government agencies or their agents carry out such acquisition and relocation activities are subject to numerous Federal and State laws and regulations. The FHWA Office of Planning, Environment, and Real Estate (HEP) is the Administration's national policy office for those three Program Areas that require effective coordination and collaboration over a period of several years before the actual construction on a highway project may begin.
Current ROW practice and procedural manuals are the products of 40 years of statutes, case law, regulations, management styles, and best practices. These practices have been brought into compliance with the requirements in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act).1 This law was enacted by Congress to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving Federal funds or Federal financial assistance, will be treated fairly and equitably, and will receive assistance in moving from the property they occupy.
A major concern of FHWA, DOT, local governments, and the public at large, is the fact that many of today's major transportation projects, upon completion, result in massive cost overruns beyond the transportation agencies' original cost estimates. The project cost overruns frequently include overruns in the ROW components of those projects. Gone are the days when the ROW costs were typically a very small percentage of the overall project cost. Today, the project ROW costs may be as much as 15 to 20 percent or more of the total project cost. Very often, a combination of factors contribute to such overruns. Despite that fact, some State DOTs have developed or implemented certain processes that have consistently resulted in more reliable project cost estimates.
FHWA undertook this project with the objectives of identifying, sharing, and improving best practices among States for estimating ROW costs through the development and/or dissemination of an electronic ROW cost estimation calculator. For the purposes of this project, ROW costs are defined as the alignment-related real property rights that must be acquired to construct a transportation project. This project was to be undertaken in two phases:
This report documents the findings and recommendations of the first phase of the project. This report does not recommend a specific course of action in the second phase, but instead provides options for further consideration by FHWA.
Phase one was conducted between September 2017 and January 2019 using the following methods:
A synthesis of this information into key findings and recommendations, including identification of data needs for a ROW cost estimation tool (section 5.0, task 4 of the workplan); barriers to implementation and remedies for those barriers (section 6.0, task 5 of the workplan); and summary conclusions and recommendations (section 7.0, task 6 of the workplan).
As an initial step in this project, literature sources related to ROW cost estimation tools, methods, and procedures were reviewed. Table 1 presents a bibliography of sources compiled in task 2 of this project. Sources are presented in reverse chronological order.
| Reference | Description | Relevance to Improving Electronic Cost Estimation Tools |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Right-of-Way Statistics, FHWA. | This website presents realty statistics by State and year, with the latest year being 2019. Statistics include number of parcels acquired, total compensation costs, residential and nonresidential displacements, and relocation costs. | This information can help place the problem being addressed by this project in perspective by understanding the magnitude of costs associated with ROW acquisition and how it varies by State. It may also help suggest which States might be most interested in improved cost estimation tools. |
| Flexibilities in Right-of-Way, FHWA. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-1/pdf/row_brochurefnlweb.pdf | This brochure describes six flexibilities that agencies can apply in the ROW process to speed acquisition and reduce costs. These include appraisal waiver valuation, conflict of interest waivers, conditional ROW certification, right of entry for Federal lands transfers, incentive payments, and functional replacement of real property. | These flexibilities highlight the importance of process tools in the ROW process. Some measures (such as incentive payments) may nominally increase costs, but reduce overall costs through reduced litigation and delays. |
| Barriers to Right-of-Way Acquisition and Recommendations for Change. Minnesota Department of Transportation (2016). | This project identified barriers and obstacles that occur during the ROW acquisition process that result in cost increases and delays and developed recommendations for change to improve the existing ROW acquisition process and practices. | The report notes that many urban counties and cities in Minnesota spend more than 30% of their transportation project budgets for ROW acquisition. The report found that many barriers to reducing costs are related to the public relationship and legislative issues. The number of recommendations (25) to reduce costs is an indication of the number and complexity of factors that potentially need to be considered when developing ROW cost estimates. |
| National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 446: Use of Advanced Geospatial Data, Tools, Technologies, and Information in Department of Transportation Projects: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2016). | This report identifies the current state of the practice regarding the development, documentation, and introduction of advanced geospatial technologies within transportation agencies. It includes results from a survey of State DOTs (96% response rate) concerning their current and planned use of advanced geospatial technologies, as well as a service provider questionnaire. | Advanced geospatial data and tools could include RWMSs that support cost estimation (although these were not explicitly covered). The report identified the top three barriers to technology adoption as cost, inertia, and technical expertise. The three key drivers of success are an early adopter mindset, an internal champion, and an interest in safety. |
| Implementation of Electronic Right-of-Way Management Systems Versus Paper Systems. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HEP-16-001 (2015). | The purpose of this report is to provide FHWA, State, and local DOTs with a tool kit using tangible and easily understandable documentation with quantitative metrics. This toolkit will assist these professionals as they endeavor to get their leadership buy-in to support implementation of Integrated Electronic RWMSs. | Electronic RWMSs can be an important tool to support improved cost estimates. |
| NCHRP Report 771: Strategies to Optimize Real Property Acquisition, Relocation Assistance, and Property Management Practices. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2014). | This research was intended to (a) develop improved, integrated real property procedures and business practices in the project development and delivery process; and (b) develop suggestions to improve property management practices. Of particular interest was comparing typical business practices against the requirements in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The research included an online survey, interviews, and peer exchange. | This report identifies strategies to reduce delays in acquiring real property—one of the main reasons for project cost overruns. The report reviews the use of data management platforms for property management purposes, finding that although databases and Web mapping tools are increasingly used, computer-aided design (CAD) or GIS platforms are rarely used to support property management. Difficult-to-use databases or information systems were identified as a significant challenge. The project produced a real property acquisition and relocation assistance model in accordance with the Uniform Act. |
| Hancock, K., Developing a Logical Model for a Geo-Spatial Right-of-Way Land Management System. Contractor's Final Report for NCHRP Project 8-55A (2011). | NCHRP Project 08-55 and 08-55A were undertaken to identify data elements to include in a spatial data model for a ROW information system, to manage both parcels and highway project alignments. | The NCHRP 08-55A report identified 19 States with RWMSs, with varying degrees of functionality. Such systems can serve as a basis for storing a wide variety of information related to cost estimates. |
| FHWA, Visualization for Right-of-way Acquisition (2011). Prepared by Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. | This report describes how visualization technologies can be used to expedite and enhance the ROW acquisition process by supporting evaluation of different design change solutions and their effects on the ROW process. A survey of States found that the use of visualization technologies for ROW acquisition purposes currently is much less prevalent than its use in other areas of highway project delivery, but there was interest in learning more about potential applications. | Visualization technologies can help improve cost estimation, for example, by improving the ability of estimators to understand potential impacts on property, to improve communication with property owners regarding these impacts, and to map potential relocation choices. Application of these techniques can also help to reduce the acreage of land to be acquired as well as litigation and associated condemnation fees or damages. |
| NCHRP Report 658: Guidebook on Risk Analysis Tools and Management Practices to Control Transportation Project Costs. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2010). | This guidebook provides guidance to State DOTs for using specific, practical, and risk-related management practices and analysis tools for managing and controlling transportation project costs. | |
| NCHRP Report 625: Procedures Guide for Right-of-Way Cost Estimation and Cost Management. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2010). Geographic Information Systems Applications for Transportation Right-of-Way | This report provides an in-depth analysis of the problems and practices of ROW cost estimating and cost management. It expands upon the research conducted for NCHRP Project 8-49, published as NCHRP Report 574. | This research presents tools discovered through interviews, but does not focus on development or evaluation of tools. It does find that a more in-depth look at specific tools that support ROW cost estimation could be beneficial.The report concludes that no estimating technique or tool will ensure development of accurate estimates. Instead, a structured process is needed that addresses and manages the numerous uncertainties in the ROW cost estimation process. |
| NCHRP Web-Only Document 132: Right-of-Way Methods and Tools to Control Project Cost Escalation. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2009). | NCHRP Project 8-49 addressed ROW cost estimating to only a limited extent. This report describes the research process for additional NCHRP 8-49 work addressing ROW cost estimating and cost management. It provides an overview of the data gathering and analysis processes used to create a Procedures Guide specifically for ROW cost estimating (NCHRP Report 625). | See NCHRP Report 625. |
| Geographic Information Systems Applications for Transportation Right-of-Way: July 22–24, 2008, Lee's Summit, Missouri. Summary Report on a Follow-Up Peer Exchange prepared by USDOT Volpe Center for FHWA Office of Interstate and Border Planning and the Office of Real Estate Services (2008). | This report presents the findings of a peer exchange focusing on select State DOT applications of GIS in the ROW area. Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Washington DOTs participated, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration. | This report presented what, at the time, were agencies' best practices, desired improvements, and challenges with GIS applications for ROW management. Many of the systems reviewed are still in use today, with some evolution. There was some discussion of how these systems can support cost data and better cost estimates. |
| Hancock, K., Research Results Digest 310: Integrating Geospatial Technologies Into the Right-of-Way Data-Management Process. NCHRP Project 08-55, Transportation Research Board (2006). | NCHRP Project 08-55 and 08-55A were undertaken to identify data elements to include in a spatial data model for a ROW information system, to manage both parcels and highway project alignments. | See discussion of NCHRP 08-55A report. |
| NCHRP Project 8-49: Procedures for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects during Planning, Programming, and Preconstruction. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2006). | This guidebook presents cost estimating management and practice approaches to address the root causes of cost escalation and to support the development of consistent and accurate project estimates. These practices are aligned with project development phases and project complexity. The Guidebook provides strategies, methods, and tools to develop, track, and document realistic cost estimates during each phase of the project development process. | The report found that actual expenditures for project ROW are frequently greater than the cost estimate produced during the initial phase of project development due to factors such as poor estimating methods (difficulty with damages and condemnations), inconsistent application of contingency, and difficulty in accounting for future appreciation and other market conditions. Management of these influencing factors and the ROW estimating process can contribute significantly to cost estimate consistency and accuracy throughout project development. |
| NCHRP Report 574: Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects During Planning, Programming and Preconstruction. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2006). | This is the Final Report for NCHRP Project 8-49, Procedures for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects during Planning, Programming, and Preconstruction. | This report establishes four basic steps of cost estimation practice. Electronic cost estimation tools can be designed to support each of these steps. Note that NCHRP Report 625 proposes an updated version of this procedure. |
| NCHRP Project 20-68: Domestic Scan Pilot Program Best Practices in Right-of-Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2006). | This report highlights three States' practices (FL, MN, TX) to explore new, innovative, creative, and collaborative methods of acquiring ROW, advancing construction completion, and facilitating utility relocation or avoidance. | The report highlighted the factors that plague estimators attempting to predict the future value of real estate, including rising real estate values, rapid property development in planned program corridors, complications with relocation of utilities, and private-property rights. Factors complicating cost estimation—and conditions that vary by State, as shown in the scan tour examples—would need to be considered when developing a ROW cost estimation tool. |
| GIS in Right-of-Way Scan, Tallahassee, Florida, Federal Highway Administration (2004). | A ROW scan covering GIS was held in Florida in July 2004. The scan, sponsored by FHWA's Office of Real Estate Services, was attended by representatives of 12 State DOTs and FHWA staff from both the field and Headquarters. Participants explored the development of new GIS tools that allow earlier input of ROW data to aid in project decision making. A major goal of the scan was to integrate ROW data into environmental streamlining through GIS tools. | This document highlights the desire for better technical tools to support the ROW process with activities dating back over 15 years now. |
| Integration and Streamlining Transportation Development and Decision-Making: State of the Practice Synthesis Report. Federal Highway Administration (2002). | This report identifies successful practices employed in the development of transportation solutions by means of integrating the disciplines of planning, environment, real estate, and engineering. It includes findings from a survey of all 52 State DOTs and a selection of other transportation planning organizations. The survey included information on ROW acquisition issues. | This report does not address cost estimation, but it does provide practices that have been identified as important at reducing ROW costs, and includes a few comments as to how better integration can improve ROW cost estimation. |
| NCHRP Synthesis 292: Innovative Practices to Reduce Delivery Time for Right-of-Way in Project Development. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2000). | This synthesis examines the delivery of ROW and property interests for project construction and mitigation activities and reports on successful strategies employed by agencies to accelerate this process. The primary source for this report is a detailed survey mailed to ROW managers of all 52 State transportation agencies (36 responded). | Practices identified in the report to expedite delivery of ROW can influence ROW costs. |
| State Transportation Innovation Councils website | This website provides information on best practices of State Transportation Innovation Councils, including innovations to speed project delivery and implement Every Day Counts technologies. | STICs are a potential vehicle to develop and communicate innovations such as improved cost estimation tools and methods. |
The literature can generally be grouped into three categories:
In general, there is very good and comprehensive literature on best practices in ROW acquisition and management, and also good (if not entirely current) resources on cost estimation procedures. Lack of coordination or other procedural and institutional limitations, are the primary factors implicated in delays that lead to ROW cost increases over the life of the project.2 Best practice data and tools can help to support better cost estimates, but there will always be inherent uncertainties, which compound in proportion to the time between the initial estimate and the final cost. Data management tools are important to help in tracking and understanding past performance of cost estimates, but are of limited value if the procedures are not in-place to coordinate the information needed to develop accurate cost estimates (and limit changes that could increase costs) on the current project. State, legal, and regulatory frameworks for land acquisition, takings, and compensation also vary widely, another factor that could pose a challenge to developing a standard cost estimation tool.
FHWA (2011) defines five basic steps of ROW acquisition activities:
FHWA's ROW Statistics presents data on the number of parcels acquired, total compensation costs, residential and nonresidential displacements, and relocation costs by State and year. Sample data for the nine States interviewed for this research (section 4.0) is shown in table 2. Some States have very large ROW programs, with total annual compensation costs in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Six States (Texas, Florida, Georgia, California, New York, and North Carolina) had compensation costs exceeding $100 million in 2017, and another 9 had costs between $25 million and $100 million. At the other end of the spectrum, 16 States and territories had costs of less than $5 million in 2017. Nationwide, 33,779 parcels were acquired in 2017 at a total compensation cost of nearly $2 billion. Of these acquisitions, 7,973 parcels were acquired by administrative settlement and 5,969 by condemnation. The number of parcels acquired was not always related to total costs; for example, New York acquired 524 parcels at a cost of $114 million, while Maine acquired 1,029 parcels but at a cost of only about $5 million. Total nationwide costs for relocation expenses in 2017 were $34 million for 1,084 residential relocations and $114 million for 1,291 nonresidential relocations.
| State | Total Number of Parcels Acquired (Ownership) | Number of Parcels Acquired by Administrative Settlement | Number of Parcels Acquired by Condemnation | Compensation—Total Costs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 1,649 | 383 | 67 | $141,755,438 |
| Florida | 1,144 | 521 | 362 | $268,589,371 |
| Minnesota | 1,692 | 174 | 98 | $28,825,874 |
| Mississippi | 330 | 65 | 29 | $19,581,207 |
| Tennessee | 710 | 220 | 136 | $39,445,405 |
| Texas | 1,623 | 452 | 399 | $387,119,570 |
| Virginia | 581 | 286 | 102 | $22,819,829 |
| Wisconsin | 1,388 | 337 | 226 | $46,133,224 |
| Wyoming | 202 | 3 | 0 | $2,377,452 |
| U.S. Total | 33,779 | 7,973 | 5,969 | $1,979,255,046 |
(Source: FHWA Annual Right-of-Way Statistics, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/uniform_act/stats/index.cfm?getyear=2017&getstate=0&orderby=CTC&ordertype=DESC.)
NCHRP Report 625 (2011), and prior to that, NCHRP Report 574 (2006), are the two most relevant references to improving cost estimation procedures. Both reports confirmed that cost escalation is a common occurrence related to ROW. NCHRP Report 625 found that ROW cost estimation and cost estimate management processes generally lack structure and definition as compared with the other areas of cost estimation and there is a lack of integration and communication between those responsible for ROW cost estimating and those responsible for the overall project cost estimate. These three issues are further compounded by uncertainties specific to ROW estimating, which include:
Report 625 developed a structured process approach for ROW estimating that addresses these important issues. Following a process approach to estimating and cost management ensures that the financial effects of both design and ROW decisions are always visible to the project development team. "Stove pipe" structures are not specifically the cause of project cost escalation problems; however, they fail to enable staff and management to address adequately the foundational problems that drive project cost escalation.
The report found that "computers and data" can be helpful, but not necessary, for successful cost estimating. More important is the organizational culture and an environment that supports those charged with producing the estimate. Accurate estimates will only be produced when senior management fully engages the use of structured ROW cost estimating and cost management processes and ensures that staff have the resources to complete each step in the process. The process is laid out with five steps:
The report further lays out four distinct but interrelated cost estimating and management processes:
NCHRP Report 625 notes that most State DOTs typically have a cost estimate sheet or checklist to ensure that all elements affecting ROW costs are considered. Typically, the major estimate elements are:
The report summarizes notable practices identified through interviews with State DOT agencies, as shown in table 3.
| Project Development Phase | Best Practice |
|---|---|
| Planning |
|
| Programming and Preliminary Design |
|
| Final Design |
|
(Source: NCHRP Report 625.)
Finally, NCHRP 625 discusses risk assessment/analysis tools. The report notes that the California and Washington State DOTs provide good examples of the application of comprehensive risk management for major projects.
Important literature has been published over the past 10 to 20 years on improving ROW management practices, with the objective of reducing delays and cost overruns. The most recent of these is NCHRP Report 771 (2014), Strategies to Optimize Real Property Acquisition, Relocation Assistance, and Property Management Practices. While these improvements are not made primarily for the purpose of improving cost estimates, this can be an important by-product, as increasing lengths of time between initial estimates and final costs lead to greater cost uncertainties (and often higher costs). In fact, if the problem to be addressed by a cost estimation tool are cost overruns that exceed estimates, the solution to the problem may be as much procedures to reduce the overruns, as procedures to develop better up-front estimates.
Virtually all those studies reference the importance of an agency having a well-defined ROW cost estimation structure and collaborative, consistently applied processes. For example, Report 771 identified solutions to cost estimation challenges, including:
A 2006 domestic scan tour (NCHRP Project 20-68) looked at the practices of Florida, Minnesota, and Texas—considered leaders in ROW management—in detail. The scan team found that while each State visited has experienced considerable success in improving their ROW acquisition and utility relocation processes, there is no single "silver bullet" that can be applied throughout the country. Instead, a range of tools and techniques exist that may be applied in different statutory, political, cultural, and geographic contexts. The team did find, however, that all three States shared common traits, including:
NCHRP Synthesis 292 (2000) reported the results of a survey of ROW managers that identified several factors that contribute to success in expediting delivery of ROW by participating in a systems approach to project development:
Lack of electronic cost estimation tools and data are not identified in the reports as the primary factor leading to poor cost estimates, but they are still identified as important tools to support improved cost estimation, especially if supportive institutional and procedural factors also are in-place. For example, NCHRP Report 771 identified "difficult-to-use databases or information systems" as a significant challenge for property management.
Computer systems have advanced rapidly over the past two decades and agencies have increasingly migrated from manual/paper methods of data management (including ROW and property data) to electronic data management systems. For ROW management, these systems are either integrated with GIS capabilities (given the inherently spatial nature of ROW management) or users may interface with GIS systems through import/export of files. Some agencies also have found integrated or standalone visualization tools helpful (FHWA/Volpe Center, 2011). Some agencies have adopted integrated RWMSs, while others have one or (usually) multiple tools supporting different functions. Integrated systems can serve as a platform and/or data repository for a cost estimation tool.
FHWA (2016) defines an integrated RWMS as a system which "supports the full lifecycle of the acquisition process, including tracking ROW phase project information; identification of parcels which are candidates for acquisition; appraisal; negotiation; condemnation processes if required; business relocation services; and residential relocation services." It may also support tracking of utility relocation and property management activities. It includes integrated workflows and capabilities to generate forms and letters. It is integrated with financial management and potentially other systems such as document management (DM).
A survey conducted for the FHWA study found that the level of automation and the use of systems for ROW management varies widely from largely paper-based systems to systems in which both internal and external users can access and show information on a map. Agencies tend to move from paper to standalone/ad hoc and finally to integrated systems. Among 29 responding States, 7 reported using paper systems, 3 reported using fully electronic systems, and 19 reported using a hybrid approach.
FHWA found that there currently are several commercial off-the-shelf software packages available in the marketplace that can provide some of the functionality required in an electronic RWMS, but some degree of customization is usually required. Off-the-shelf or custom solutions are estimated to cost between $4 and $5 million initially (project cost and first year of operations), and generate potential tangible benefits of $3 million a year at a prototypical medium-sized transportation agency.
The report identified benefits, challenges, and lessons learned for electronic RWMSs. Potential benefits related to cost factors include:
The survey asked respondents about implementation challenges and anticipated benefits of implementing a ROW system. The results are shown in table 3 and table 4. Difficulty with data conversion was noted as the top challenge, while decrease in data entry and redundancy was the most frequently noted benefit.
| Response | Percent of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Difficulties with data conversion from the existing automated or manual systems. | 76% |
| Obtaining a sufficient level of end-user involvement. | 59% |
| Change management and overcoming resistance throughout the agency. | 47% |
| Balancing resources (i.e., time, money, and IT support) to be able to improve system. | 41% |
| Ensuring adequate technical and end-user support. | 24% |
| Ensuring appropriate executive sponsorship and support. | 12% |
(Source: FHWA, 2016.)
| Response | Percent of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Decrease in data entry and access redundancy. | 89% |
| Improved documentation and consistent/standardized reporting. | 78% |
| Decrease in time it takes to perform tasks. | 78% |
| More efficient utilization of current staff or reduction in staffing. | 78% |
| Improved oversight. | 67% |
| Increased access to information both internally within agency and by the public. | 56% |
| Improved customer service and public relations. | 33% |
(Source: FHWA, 2016.)
NCHRP Synthesis 446 (2016) reviews the use of advanced geospatial data, tools, technologies, and information in State DOT projects. It identifies barriers to adoption as well as drivers of success. Its primary focus, however, is on data sources and collection methods (e.g., light detection and ranging) rather than data management systems. The NCHRP 08‑55A report (2011) identified 19 States with RWMSs, which have varying degrees of functionality for the various stages of the ROW management process. A number of the tools discussed in this report are explored specifically for their cost estimation support functionality in this project's interview findings (section 4.0 of this report).
A key tool in the information-gathering process was a national survey of the State DOTs. The team developed an electronic survey using the Survey Monkey commercial software program. The leadership of the AASHTO ROW, Utilities and Outdoor Advertising Control Subcommittee provided email contact information for the State DOT ROW Program Managers, who the team used as the initial contacts regarding the research project. Some of the ROW Managers remained as primary points of contacts, while others designated one of their staff as the team's primary point of contact. To assist in publicizing the survey and educating staff about its importance, the project team created a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of the project and presented it at the AASHTO ROW Conference in April 2018. FHWA provided a signed letter endorsing the survey that was provided to the State DOT contacts. The survey was reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget prior to distribution.
The survey included yes/no, multiple choice, and free-response questions. To promote consistency and accuracy, and to minimize the burden on any one individual, the team requested that States assemble a small team of key personnel (3 to 5 people). It was recommended that the team consist of individuals who, as a group, possess a high level of knowledge and experience with the agency's ROW cost estimation process; that team members represent a variety of positions within the program areas, to provide a broad perspective; and that the team include at least one midlevel manager or higher, who is designated to lead the team. To promote as much consistency as possible, one member of the team was requested be assigned to enter all of the agency's responses. In some cases, however, due to staffing and time constraints, only one person was involved in developing the survey responses on behalf of the responding agency. Not every agency answered every question, reflecting the fact that the respondent(s) may not have been familiar with all of the agency's processes.
The survey questions were divided into the following general categories:
The survey was first distributed in mid-May, 2018 with a requested response time of 10 business days. Because of the time requirements to complete the survey and competing demands on State DOT staff time, response was initially slow. The project team followed up by telephone and/or email with all States, multiple times if needed, to encourage responses. The survey was closed in early August 2018 with a total of 35 State responses received, although not all questions were completed by all agencies. Â
| Agency | Contact Name |
|---|---|
| Alabama Department of Transportation | Jeffrey Jones |
| Arizona Department of Transportation | Paula Gibson, ROW Administrator |
| Arkansas Department of Transportation | Jennifer Williams, Assistant Division Head, ROW Division |
| California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) | Linda W. Tong, Chief, Office of Appraisals, Local Programs and ROW Certifications |
| Colorado Department of Transportation | Christine Rees, ROW Program Manager |
| Connecticut Department of Transportation/Rights-of-Way | Anthony J. DeLucco, Supervising Property Agent |
| Delaware Department of Transportation | Bob Cunningham, Chief of ROW |
| Florida Department of Transportation | Lura Wiley, Manager, Appraisal and Cost Estimates |
| Georgia Department of Transportation | Cory Payne, Assistant Appraisal and Review Manager |
| Kansas Department of Transportation | Laura Burmham, Operations Assistance to the Chief of ROW |
| Kentucky Transportation Cabinet | Dean M. Loy, Director ROW and Utilities |
| LA. Department of Transportation and Development | Donna Stinson, Chief Appraiser |
| Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration | Olu Okunola |
| Michigan Real Estate Services | Chip Kraus, Supervisor Litigation and Valuation Unit |
| Minnesota Department pf Transportation | Joseph Pignato, Director Land Management |
| Mississippi Department of Transportation | Trudi Loflin, ROW Division Director |
| Missouri Department of Transportation | Brenda Harris, Assistant to the State Design Engineer-ROW |
| Montana Department of Transportation | Rob Stapley, ROW Bureau Chief |
| New Jersey Department of Transportation | David Kook, Manager, Technical Support ROWs and AM |
| New York State Department of Transportation | Kimberly Lewis, Real Estate Specialist 2 |
| North Carolina Department of Transportation | Jim McGowan, State Appraiser |
| Ohio Department of Transportation | Drew Gilmore |
| Oregon Department of Transportation | Keith Benjamin, ROW Management and Policy Advisor |
| Pennsylvania Department of Transportation | Mark Chappell |
| Rhode Island Department of Transportation | Richard Kalunian |
| South Carolina Department of Transportation | Michael W. Barbee, Director of ROW |
| State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities | Al Burton, Supervisor Project Coordination ROW |
| Tennessee Department of Transportation | Jeff Hoge, Director ROW Division |
| Texas Department of Transportation | Gus Cannon, ROW Division Director |
| Utah Department of Transportation | Kimberly O'Reilly—ROW Deputy Director |
| Vermont Agency of Transportation | Rosa Benoir, ROW Appraiser III |
| Virginia Department of Transportation | James Damer, Regional ROW Manager—Appraisals |
| West Virginia Division of Highways | Robert D. Moore |
| Wisconsin Department of Transportation | Erin Kube, Statewide Acquisition/Litigation Facilitator |
| Wyoming Department of Transportation | Roy Weber, Assistant ROW Administrator |
Appendix A of this report contains the detailed survey results. A summary of key findings is provided below. Appendix C includes the complete survey instrument.
Overall, the project team did not identify any State DOT that has developed or acquired software or any other "electronic tools" that could reasonably be considered a standalone "ROW cost estimate calculator," defined as a tool that provides a complete estimate of ROW costs generated through automated means. Some agencies are using multiple software products which aid in ROW cost estimation, but do not perform all of the functions of ROW cost estimation. For example, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin have electronic RWMSs as well as spreadsheet aids to cost estimation. Three States, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, have adopted enterprise ROW data management systems that include a cost estimation function.
Satisfaction with their existing ROW cost estimation tools and methods varied widely by State, as did the existence of formalized procedures, training programs, and other "best practices." Some States have centralized ROW functions while in others they are decentralized at the district or regional level. Agencies noted multiple barriers to improving ROW cost estimates. Lack of consistent data and technical tools were noted by some, but more common were institutional factors (e.g., lack of coordination, lack of knowledgeable personnel) and unforeseeable issues (e.g., design changes).
(Note: Answered: 32.)
(Note: Answered: 34.)
A variety of approaches were noted for establishing contingencies or risk factors in cost estimates. This question was free response. Responses included:
Agencies also were asked whether contingency or risk factors were updated at each new phase of the project. Many indicated the contingency did not change. Others indicated that it was refined if relevant new information was available or as risk factors were removed from the project. For example:
(Note: 18 respondents answered this question.)
Agencies noted a variety of barriers to improving cost estimates. These are shown in figure 5. Some of the key findings include:
Importantly, the greatest barriers appear to be either institutional and structural issues (staff resources, coordination procedures), or unforeseeable factors (design changes, scope creep)—not technical tools. That said, improved technical tools would still seem to have value for at least half of the agencies surveyed.
(Note: 31 or 32 respondents depending on the specific response.)
Most agencies responded that they did not conduct pilot projects to investigate new ROW project cost estimation tools, technologies, and/or practices, but five responded that they did. Details were provided for the following:
Table 7 provides an inventory of software tools that various surveyed agencies reported using to support ROW cost estimation and survey comments provided regarding the purpose of the software.
| System | State | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Access Database | AR | Internal database of historical costs (agency specific). |
| Auditor | OH | |
| Customer Profile Management System—Database system | KS, AL | Database system. |
| eBuilder Document submission | NJ | Document storage. |
| Georilla | MN | Internal Web-map application that currently is being used by ~700 unique visitors per month to combine asset, project, and activity information to make better data-driven decisions. The Asset Management Project Office Supports the development and direction of Georilla. |
| Integrated ROW Information System (IRIS) | TN | IRIS stores and compiles ROW cost estimates with a breakdown on the property types. |
| Maryland DOT (MDOT) State Highway Administration's enterprise GIS (eGIS) layers and property viewer | MD | Research location and property value for affected properties. |
| OREMS | MD | Custom built program used as a database and management tool. |
| Parcel Tracking System (PTS) | MS | Developed by MDOT ROW Division. Within this system, we have sales data that assists the appraiser as well as information to assist the relocation agent. |
| Project Cost Estimating System (PCES) | VA | |
| Redundant Array of Independent Risks | KS | |
| ROW Electronic Acquisition Land Management System (REALMS) | MN | REALMS is a Web-based, online, statewide system that allows users to quickly access and search ROW information, visualize and track parcel geometry, and customize and generate ROW reports. |
| REM (DelDOT) | DE | Historical R/W data. |
| Right-of-Way and Utilities Management System (RUMS) | VA | ROW and Utilities Management System (final stage). |
| Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) | MO | ROW Database. |
| WisDOT Cost Estimate Spreadsheet | WI | |
| WisDOT Project Management Program (PMP) | WI | Cost Estimate Spreadsheet: Enter parcel information and issues into the spreadsheet. |
| Centralized Database—ROW Estimate | SC | The estimation is pulled into PMP. |
| Centralized Database—ROW Estimate | MI | |
| Internal ROW Information System | TX | |
| BlueBeam | MI | Keeps design, engineering and construction teams connected throughout the entire project lifecycle. Has an estimator feature, not ROW specific. |
| DataScout (DataScoutPro, DataScoutAccess) | AR, LA, OK | County land records—County Assessor, Tax Collector, Circuit Clerk, and GIS parcel boundaries. DataScoutAccess: Online Commercial and Personal Property Assessing. |
| LandVision | CA | Real property data; Access property details, parcel information and lines, parcel maps, aerial imagery, and market metrics in one convenient online tool; Search for properties, vacant land, and available lots with criteria like building size, lot size, land use, property type, last sold date, owner mailing address, and much more; Run map-based searches by radius, buffer, custom drawn boundary and selected area; Import your own data and create custom maps to better analyze land for ROW opportunities. |
| Vamanet (Virginia Mass Appraisal Network) | VA | |
| ESRI/ARC GIS | DE, CA, AL, VA | Maps and geographic information. |
| PACETrak (BEMS Systems) | NJ, WY | PAECETrak is a Web-based, GIS integrated application developed by BEM Systems, Inc. to automate the complicated process of acquiring and managing properties for ROW departments. PAECETrak manages, tracks, and documents the entire acquisition process—from property identification to acquisition—including excess property disposition. |
Based on the survey findings, States seem to fall into a number of categories (with some overlap):
Some quotes from survey respondents illustrate the range of responses received from the survey:
To supplement the survey, videoconference interviews were conducted with the nine State DOTs, exhibiting state-of-practice ROW cost estimation methods, including electronic aids. Candidates for the nine were identified based on the Web survey and literature review findings. After confirming the nine agencies and interview questions with FHWA, the project team scheduled and conducted the interviews. Most interviews were conducted in September 2018. Each interview involved multiple staff from the responding agency as well as the project team. The purpose of the interviews was to gain an in-depth understanding of each agency's ROW cost estimate processes, the types of electronic ROW cost estimate calculators used (if any), the costs to develop, implement and maintain them, and the effectiveness of the various calculators.
This section presents the criteria for selecting the nine States, a summary of each State's practices that supported their selection, and a summary of interview findings. Appendix B presents the interview guide as well as detailed interview notes for each State. Prior to publication of the report, findings were reviewed by each State for accuracy.
The primary selection factor considered by the project team was the use of one or more software tools for ROW cost estimation purposes as identified in the survey responses, since the focus of the project is on electronic ROW cost estimate calculation processes and tools.
In addition, the project team considered an agency's general application of effective and successful practices in ROW cost estimation (whether or not implemented electronically), as identified in the literature reviewed in task 2, including:
Finally, the project team looked for States representing a diversity of contexts, including agencies with both relatively large and small programs and capacity, as well as States representing a cross section of national geographies.
Some of the States interviewed have commercial off-the-shelf software, some have products developed especially for their agency, and some have both. The project team requested that each agency provide a demonstration of the functionality and capabilities of their software products during their interview. The team also requested that the agencies invite any consultants who worked on (or are familiar with their software) to participate in the interviews.
The list of interview States is shown in table 8, with a brief rationale for the State's inclusion. A more detailed justification for each State's selection follows.
| State | Comments |
|---|---|
| California | Many positive application examples, use several electronic tools. |
| Florida | In-house-developed RWMS. |
| Minnesota | Internal ROW database with data to support cost estimation. |
| Mississippi | Received "honorable mention" in the "Innovation" category of the 2017 HEPR Excellence in ROW Awards for their PTS. |
| Tennessee | Commercial, customized RWMS cost estimation function. |
| Texas | Detailed, informed survey responses with many positive application examples. |
| Virginia | Internal ROW database, best practice cost estimation procedures, and data. |
| Wisconsin | 2017 FHWA Excellence in Realty Award Winners for "Innovation," have created a real estate automated data system. |
| Wyoming | Commercial, customized RWMS cost estimation function. |
Caltrans has 12 districts and each district does their own ROW cost estimating and each has their own nuances in estimating ROW cost. When they do an initial estimate, there is no system that stores that information. As the project progresses, they have simple spreadsheets or databases for estimating. For example, the North region has developed an Excel spreadsheet that estimates project capital costs, support costs, and the lead time required to complete the work and generates the ROW Data Sheet. District 7 uses FileMaker, as a database, and it performs some calculations, such as multiplying square footage by per unit rate or lot area rate; it also tracks zoning. Eminent domain and condemnation estimates come later in the process. Caltrans has a ROW Management Information System (ROWMIS) agency-wide database that stores completed datasheets and generates form letters.
Caltrans uses a number of electronic tools to support ROW cost estimation, including LandVision for real property data, Google Earth for aerial photography, Civil 3D computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) software, and ESRI GIS. LandVision is a vendor-provided real estate research and mapping software offering online mapping and parcel maps. LandVision loads the most current parcel information as it is made available by the State's counties. LandVision is used mainly to gather information at the start of a project. It provides real-time parcel information such as ownership information, parcel size, and zoning. It includes the ability to access comparable sales research. The information is pulled manually and entered into other tools like Excel spreadsheets to be used in the next process. LandVision has the ability to export graphic information into a format that can be read by CADD software (Civil 3D), Google Earth, and Bing.
Google Earth (and sometimes Bing) are used as verification tools when doing an estimate. They also have used Google Earth with Keyhole Mark-up Zip (KMZ) overlays from design to determine how a project is impacting other areas. Project CADD data is converted to Keyhole Mark-up Language (KML) format for overlay purposes. Civil 3D is considered to be the main ROW mapping tool. Civil 3D supports most of the districts' needs to read the line work and get a visual from Google Earth or Bing. Some districts have GIS users that are familiar with ESRI and have put together ESRI maps, instead of Civil 3D.
Other noteworthy practices at Caltrans include:
As a priority for future development, Caltrans notes they would like to replace ROWMIS with a user-friendly interface that can be integrated with other systems to reduce the number of manual inputs. This could include automatic entry of data from a cost estimating tool. Caltrans has identified three ROW management software tools: BEM (PACETrak), Flairdocs, and geoAMPS.
Cost estimating improvement is a State priority, not only for ROW estimates, but for all divisions in Caltrans. They are looking at how they can alter their estimating process. ROW is working with a number of groups, including advanced planning, environmental, design, ROW, and engineering to improve the estimate process from project initiation to final project. There is a commitment to find a holistic approach and be more transparent—e.g., advanced planning working with environmental to get a due date for the environmental document that drives the due date for the ROW datasheet. This effort is in its infancy, with the agency working to get buy-in from all departments and districts and working with an agency-wide culture change.
The North region provides examples of addressing barriers to improving cost estimate consistency through institutional and process flow improvements. For example, ROW has worked with the environmental team to use familiar vocabulary within the datasheet to help with permit and mitigation estimates. ROW, ROW Engineering, and Advanced Planning have worked together to reduce the turnaround time to develop the initial datasheet. ROW Engineering provided training to Advance Planning on what is expected in cost estimate maps and Advance Planning is now providing the initial cost estimate maps.
Florida DOT (FDOT) has an in-house-developed RWMS. The RWMS is FDOT's centralized property management tool, catalog, and inventory system. The system tracks projects through the appraisals, negotiations, acquisition, litigation, condemnation processes to the submittal of payments and stores the official ROW estimate. It does not estimate costs. Other software used by FDOT includes Excel, Google Maps, electronic review comments (ERC) system, video logs, and available geospatial tools. ROW estimators are typically provided with the output generated by other offices using geospatial tools.
FDOT exhibits other noteworthy practices:
In the early stages of the ROW cost estimation process, FDOT ROW starts with Florida County Tax Appraiser Interactive Maps, to develop ROW cost estimates, parcel by parcel. Early in the preliminary design, an overlay of KMZ files from the CAD designer's environment can be imported to Google Earth, to visualize the project limits.
FDOT has automatic electronic cost calculators (not specific to ROW), but rarely uses them because they have been determined to be inaccurate. The tools do not lend themselves to cost estimating. The agency notes that it is not the tool, but the types of costs used in estimating, that are the challenge. There are hard costs, soft costs, and nonlinear costs, all of which are beyond the scope of an automated system. They choose to use a semi-automated system where they can control fixed costs, soft costs, and nonlinear costs.
There are two types of automatic electronic calculators used by FDOT. One is used by the planning staff and it works similarly to a construction calculator (on quantities) and has been found to be very inaccurate. They have a better system that requires appraisal skills to analyze the scope of the project relative to tax maps and online resources. Variables are plugged in based on appraising expertise. These automated calculators are only used when the scope of the project is limited. Once more details of the project are available, they use a semi-automatic system based on Excel spreadsheets, where they can control the costs and is typically accurate within acceptable variance levels. The estimates are manually entered into their RWMS.
Every district has their own estimating tool. An example is district 1's Cost Estimate Application, an Excel workbook, is shown below. One sheet of this workbook tracks parcel information with user-entered estimates of various costs categories such as land cost, building, site improvements, landscaping, and signs (figure 6). Another sheet tracks relocations, move costs, and damages by parcel. A third sheet totals the parcel values and adds legal and administrative fees and other expenses—this form has default values per parcel or unit that can be changed by the user. The workbook also includes sheets to track reasons for variances between actual and estimated costs, and to track changes in estimates by phase of project development (figure 7). Overall this workbook does not estimate costs automatically, but it does provide a useful template for tracking and combining user-entered cost components to arrive at a total cost estimate.
FDOT reports that the next revision will probably include better Internet connectivity and some cloud-based tools technology. The Innovation Team is exploring the option to develop an "augmented reality tool." A pilot of this tool currently is used primarily to give the property owner a visual of the proposed ROW project and how it may impact their property. Augmented Reality Technology would benefit engineers and could provide the estimators (including ROW cost estimators) with "virtual" visualizations of the proposed facility after the completion of construction—another potential tool that could be valuable in the ROW estimating process, throughout the design process.
Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) has an internally developed ROW management database, the REALMS, which was demonstrated to the project team. REALMS does not provide cost estimates. However, it does serve as a repository for historical cost information and provides contingency/risk factors based on the historical database. MnDOT uses REALMS in conjunction with other software, including the Georilla GIS viewer, eDOCs DM system, Primavera P6 project management system, Statewide Integrated Financial Tools (SWIFT) financial management system, statewide GIS, and county GIS and property records. REALMS also has an integrated GIS application, although districts are not required to use it.
Other noteworthy practices of MnDOT include:
REALMS contains electronic, auto-populated form templates that provide statewide consistency no matter where the project is located. It has the ability to track unit costs for items such as unit cost of recording, or continuation of a title or new title. Historical data is stored by property types and district and is used to assist the ROW staff in calculating an estimate for a specific property type in a district. Overall project ROW cost estimates can be entered by planning and programming stage (e.g., year of STIP).
REALMS standardizes information that was previously maintained in a variety of Excel files and Access databases. MnDOT developed REALMS by purchasing VDOT RUMS, as they could not find any suitable off-the-shelf products. However, they needed to work with the consultant to change 90 to 95 percent of the code due to differences in program structure between the States. They estimate the development cost to range between $1 and $2 million. In the future, MnDOT would like to add integration with the agency's project and finance management systems.
The Mississippi DOT's (MSDOT) ROW Division received "honorable mention" in the "Innovation" category of the "2017 HEPR Excellence in ROW Awards" for their PTS, a program that was developed in-house and one that appears to have some cost estimation applications. PTS covers every aspect of the ROW process, from the beginning to the end, and maintains a repository of historical data. The PTS system includes details about the project, scheduling information, and estimated and actual costs. It generates and tracks documents and sends notifications. PTS is a server-based system that has been developed and updated for over 20 years. It is integrated with the Project Development Project Management (PDPM) System and the Financial Management System (FMS).
PTS does not have a ROW cost estimation function, but it does manage data to support cost estimation. It has a Property Listing and Sales module to manage and view sales data which can provide comparable sales. Appraisers enter sales data on an ongoing basis.
ROW cost estimating starts during the field review. All parties involved (appraisers, relocation agents, property management, environmental) are represented at the field review and provide a cost estimate to the District Coordinator, who enters the cost estimate on the PTS Cost Estimate screen. ROW staff enters administrative and miscellaneous costs. Estimates are revised as needed due to design changes. PTS also tracks the programmed amount and allows comparison to the cost estimate. The system tracks project estimates and expenditures by land, improvement, damages, relocation costs, administrative costs, etc., allowing users to quickly identify the projects and areas that are running either over or under the estimate figures. ROW management monitor and compare the actual expenditures to the estimates.
Other noteworthy practices at MSDOT include:
The ROW division is very satisfied with the PTS as a "one-stop shop" and does not have any major enhancements planned.
The IRIS application is Tennessee DOT's (TDOT) implementation of the BEM PAECETrak solution to manage the complicated process of acquiring and managing properties for the TDOT. IRIS includes an Estimation Module providing two methods to estimate ROW costs. Some of the regions estimate based on land values (Base Estimate), and some regions estimate based on tracts. A Base Estimate groups properties by type and estimates the land use and land value as a whole. TDOT notes that both estimation methods produce very good estimates, when comparing estimates to actual expenditures. IRIS's Estimation Module also includes utilities and railroads.
The first cost estimate is referred to as a "base" or "functional" estimate done at the beginning of a project. This estimate is based on functional plans with aerial photos of the project, showing the ROW lines and slopes. This is the Preliminary Cost Estimate that ROW staff gives to the Programming Office. Through the life of the project the Programming Office adjusts the estimates based on factors over time. Two or three months before the final plans are available, a field review is held to finalize the plans. Once the plans are finalized ROW staff completes a final estimate in IRIS. A sample screen shot from the Base Estimate tab is shown in figure 8.
ROW staff uses a variety of systems to obtain parcel information, including Multiple Listing Service (MLS), GIS, Courthouse Retrieval System, TitleSeacher.com, and Tennessee Property Search. Appraisers upload appraisals into the Tract Central interface of IRIS, the primary interface to enter and manage information about each tract. PAECETrak includes a tab to track market activity with information, including property type, size, and list price, that is used to develop default cost estimates (e.g., price per square feet).
TDOT worked with BEM over a three-year period, starting in 2012, to develop IRIS. Prior to IRIS, TDOT worked with flat files and then developed an in-house, Oracle/Access-based application. Further in-house development was deemed impractical, so TDOT selected BEM in a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) to customize an off-the-shelf product that had been used by a few other States (but not as a RWMS). The development cost was approximately $1.1 million and there are ongoing licensing costs as well as task orders for feature improvement. IRIS includes a DM function and there is a tablet version available for field use. TDOT has been happy with the product as a centralized database. They note that early on, there was some resistance in using IRIS, but more users are recognizing the benefits of IRIS and are embracing the technology.
TxDOT does not have an electronic ROW cost estimating tool for the agency or the division. Each of the regional locations has their own hand-filled form, but these are similar in nature. However, the agency plans on instituting a standardized form and has developed some drafts.
TxDOT uses a number of tools that support cost estimation. These include the ROW Information Management System (ROWIS), a 20-year-old system that captures data for cost accounting for various aspects of ROW acquisitions, as well as Microsoft Excel for calculations and reporting and internal share drives and SharePoint for collection of data. TxDOT is in the process of building an enterprise system for transportation projects that will include the information from ROWIS. The new enterprise system will not be an estimating tool, but it should provide better support for cost estimates. A challenge with the existing ROWIS system is that it does not capture the specificity to build cost estimating algorithms by property type. One of the most difficult aspects of developing an accurate ROW estimate is determining the damages to the remainder. The note field may contain this acquisition data, but it is not broken down by property type. The new enterprise system will have more details to create algorithms for the cost of acquisition and condemnation such as the duration and cost.
Other noteworthy practices at TxDOT include:
TxDOT notes they have recently been challenged to improve their estimating process, based on the variances between estimated and actual costs on several recent projects. TxDOT has not analyzed the estimates to actuals to see how accurate the estimates were.4 They are interested in efforts to develop better cost estimation methods.
VDOT's main tools to support ROW cost estimation are the RUMS and the PCES. RUMS stores all cost estimates and all parcel information for the project, including appraisals, negotiation summaries, and legal and relocation documents. RUMS provides a contingency/risk factor based on a historical database. RUMS is integrated with the agency's PCES and Integrated Project Management System. The intent of the PCES is to get the best estimate possible at an early stage of the project and continue generating accurate estimates as the project develops throughout the stages required for completion of the project. Currently, ROW cost estimates are entered in PCES and pulled into RUMS.
RUMS was developed by a consulting firm, while PCES was developed based on an existing district tool. One motivation was to develop better cost estimates as requested by FHWA of the States about 20 years ago, because of consistent discrepancies between estimated and build costs across the Nation. Development of both systems occurred between 1995 and 2000 at a cost of approximately $2.5 million, with $500,000 for annual maintenance when the systems were first implemented. The systems are now supported internally. VDOT noted that RUMS has allowed better tracking of reports and actions, and has cut costs.
VDOT notes that actual costs are usually close to estimates. Variable costs for administration cost, attorney fees etc. can be found in RUMS. They can go into RUMS and pick a project and get historical variable cost. VDOT has another system, Cardinal, that tracks salary hours for ROW expenditures and administrative utility cost. If the PCES tool is used correctly, the estimate usually comes in plus or minus 10 percent.
Other tools used include ArcGIS, CADD, and Google Earth. Property data sources include the Virginia Mass Appraisal Network (VamaNet), Metropolitan Regional Information Systems (MRIS), MLS, and CoStar for real estate information. VDOT maintains a Comparable Sales database.
Other noteworthy VDOT practices include:
Improvements desired by VDOT include:
WisDOT uses the Real Estate Automated Data System (READS), a Web-based application developed by BEM Systems, Inc. to track and manage all phases of property acquisition specific to WisDOT workflow processes. READS is a customized version of PAECETrak. READS can also be used as a project management tool to track the acquisition process beginning with the initial parcel selection, title search, appraisal, offer to acquire, closing, and potential condemnation proceedings through demolition and property management. READS has a built-in cost estimation calculator, but the agency is not using it today because it needs to be updated and adjusted. Instead, WisDOT uses READS data in conjunction with cost estimate spreadsheets. WisDOT was the 2017 FHWA Excellence in Realty Award Winners for "Innovation" for the READS software. It was developed between 2009 to 2011 at a cost of about $600,000, plus an annual maintenance cost of $50,000 to $70,000.
The WisDOT Cost Estimating Spreadsheet is used to standardize and facilitate creating ROW estimates for projects. Parcel estimates are based on parcel type and property type, estimated time to complete a ROW activity, per unit land values, and other known estimates. Time estimates were developed from a real estate time study that looked at the average time it took to do specific ROW tasks. The per-unit land values are developed from researching the comparable sales data. A tab tracks the original estimate, original offer, and closed acquisition dollars (the latter 2 manually entered). The worksheet includes an appraiser's checklist of property characteristics to be verified. Estimates may be updated several times and every version is kept but original to revised estimates are not typically compared. Litigation is funded in other ways and is not included. The spreadsheet has been in use by WisDOT regions for about 15 years.
The READS vendor took WisDOT's Cost Estimating Spreadsheet and duplicated it in the system. However, WisDOT determined there was not a sufficient benefit to doing the cost estimate in READS and elected to use the spreadsheet as the main estimating tool. The delivery estimate is entered into READS at the project level.
WisDOT also uses Google Earth and County Maps/GIS to pull parcel information. Comparable sales data are obtained from the Department of Revenue and from MLS.
Other noteworthy practices include:
Currently, READS and the spreadsheet cost estimator are not integrated. WisDOT would like to build a bridge so that parcel information does not need to be entered twice and would also like to have a better tracking mechanism for post project analysis of estimates. WisDOT would like to integrate the cost estimate spreadsheet with READS in the future.5
Process improvements that WisDOT has been working on include becoming more "hands-on" during the appraisal scoping process (appraisal scoping starts with the cost estimates) and obtaining buy-in from the project team sooner than later.
WYDOT uses PAECETrak, a commercial off-the-shelf product developed by BEM Systems, for real estate management. This is a Web-based system, deployed on premise at WYDOT, that automates the complicated process of acquiring and managing properties for the ROW Department. Parcel information and assessor information are manually entered into PAECETrak and documents can be uploaded.
A ROW cost estimate is completed as soon as the engineering tech has entered the size of each individual "taking" into the system. This is done prior to the appraisal. This estimate is not used with construction or project development, but provides a rough estimate of the cost to purchase the required land for the project. The land value applied to a parcel is the land value that the estimator has obtained from making phone calls to real estate agents or appraisers. The damage figure is an educated guess. The contingency factor is generally +/- 10 percent unless the project has a lot of relocations. This estimate is generated once; as payments are being made, the actuals are posted. It is possible to run reports to compare the actuals and the estimate amounts, but generally, WYDOT does not do this. It is also possible to run reports from another system that will also capture the labor hours expended to acquire the property. Figure 9 is a screen shot of the sample estimating screen.
WYDOT introduced the system over 10 years ago. Development took about a year (modified from a product developed for NJ Transit), at a cost of about $450,000. Annual maintenance is about $45,000.
Other noteworthy WYDOT practices include:
WYDOT notes the biggest issue for improving ROW cost estimate performance is calculating actual property values. The Appraisal module does track comparable sales, but WYDOT would like if the comparable sales could be extracted from the comparable sales database to be used in the estimator. Wyoming is a nondisclosure State and sales information is not available from the land records. They also noted that it is difficult to estimate costs for damages, landscape damage, billboards, or large signs. These costs are not known until after the appraisal is done. There is often a difference between what the owner feels the value is versus the agency estimate.
WYDOT notes that while they can generate historical reports, it usually it does not make sense to go back to the historical data. The data may be old and not applicable to the next project. Historical comp sales are sometimes used, depending on how old the data is.
Table 9 identifies functionality built into the various software platforms used by the interviewed States to support ROW activities. Note that in all but three States, the applications provide some data and tools support ROW cost estimation, but do not actually perform a cost estimation function.6 These systems have typically been developed as "RWMSs" with the primary objective of managing and tracking real estate through some or all phases of the ROW process, from acquisition to property management. Five of these systems serve as the "system of record" for the agency; seven systems store general project information as well as parcel details. Only three currently provide for storage of property listings and sales (comps).
| ROWMIS | RWMS | PTS | IRIS (BEM) | REALMS | RUMS | PCES—Data-sheet | READS (BEM) | WISDOT Cost Estimate Worksheet | PAECETrak(BEM) | ROWIS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caltrans | Florida | Mississippi | Tennessee | Minnesota | Virginia | Virginia | Wisconsin | Wisconsin | Wyoming | Texas | |
| System of record | • | • | • | • | • | ||||||
| General project information | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Parcel details | 6 | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | |||
| Property listing and sales (comps) | 6 | • | • | ||||||||
| Project schedule | • | • | |||||||||
| ROW Phases | |||||||||||
| Acquisition | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Appraisal | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Condemnation | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Demolition | • | ||||||||||
| Displacement /relocation | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Business damage | • | ||||||||||
| Eminent domain | • | • | • | ||||||||
| Railroad coordination | • | ||||||||||
| Property management | • | • | • | • | |||||||
| Approval Workflow | |||||||||||
| ROW estimate approval workflow | External | • | External | ||||||||
| ROW appraisal approval | • | • | • | ||||||||
| ROW Cost Estimation | |||||||||||
| Costs estimate—calculates | External | External | External | • | External | External | 5 | External | • | • | External |
| Stores cost estimate | • | • | • | • | 3 | • | • | • | |||
| Document Management | 4 | ||||||||||
| Templates to generate correspondence | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Upload/ download | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | ||||
| Barcode scanning (documents) | • | ||||||||||
| Document retrieval (parcel information) | • | ||||||||||
| GIS/Visualization | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
| Litigation/Legal | • | • | • | • | |||||||
| Notification/Alerts | • | • | • | 5 | • | • | |||||
| Financial Management | |||||||||||
| Payment submittal/ Invoices | • | 2 | • | • | |||||||
| Invoice module | • | 2 | |||||||||
| Reports | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | |||
| Utilities Project | • | • | |||||||||
Notes:
Figure 10 illustrates a set of hypothetical steps in estimating ROW costs. These steps are used to organize the data needs for cost estimation. Federal and State constitutions and law require "just compensation" for takings, which has been defined generally by the courts as equating to fair market value of a property, and may not be less than the amount estimated in the State DOTs appraisal.
A few observations:
Table 10(below) provides a list of data items typically used for ROW cost estimation and potential sources of each data item. Some of these data items are quantitative and would typically serve as a basis for a quantitative estimate of land costs (e.g., parcel sizes, use types, and density). Other data might be evaluated more qualitatively (e.g., condition of improvements) or based on historical quantitative observations to assign ranges of estimates.
| Data Item | Sources |
|---|---|
| Parcels Affected | |
| Project alignment/ footprint | Engineering drawings, CADD, or GIS files |
| Parcel footprints | County or municipal property databases |
| Footprint of potential takings/acquisitions by parcel | Overlay of project alignment with parcel boundaries |
| Factors Affecting Current Fair Market Value | |
Existing characteristics by parcel
|
County or municipal property databases Field surveys Deeds Maps and plats Government environmental databases |
Comparable property sales
|
Multiple Listing Service, CoStar, and other real estate listings State or local development agency |
Planned land use and zoning
|
County or municipal property databases Municipal or county zoning code and map Municipal comprehensive plan and land use map Expert opinion (no plan/zoning) |
| Other Factors Affecting Land Acquisition and Relocation Costs and Contingency Factor | |
| Appreciation in land values | Historical trends and patterns Economic forecasts |
| Potential legally compensable damages | Field surveys |
| Offsets | Field surveys |
| Relocation assistance costs | Number of properties requiring relocation and type of relocation State guidelines or experience |
| Litigation risk | State statutes/legal framework Historical experience |
| Compensation above fair market value | State-specific estimate based on preferred practice |
| Administrative Costs* | |
| Number of parcels | Parcel and project alignment databases |
| Time required between planning estimate and completion of negotiation and settlement | Project timelines, review of similar project timelines, professional judgment |
* Administrative costs include labor and expenses on the part of the acquiring agency and/or its consultants.
The objective of this section is to identify the barriers that will affect the State DOTs' ability to implement electronic ROW cost estimate calculators in their ROW offices and propose ways of overcoming the barriers.
Many parts of the transportation project cost estimation process are straightforward. For example, there are Federal standards for asphalt and concrete cost estimation based on unit volumes. No such standards or consistency exist for ROW cost estimation. In fact, there are many "moving parts" which make accurate ROW cost estimation a challenge, and development of a universally applicable tool even more so. The literature, survey findings, and especially interview findings shed some light on these challenges.
Key challenges—many of which are interrelated—include:
Table 11 lists barriers to implementing electronic cost estimation tools and potential remedies incorporated in the design and/or implementation of an electronic tool. This table also lists potential "nontool" remedies—policy, procedural, and institutional changes that can help to overcome these barriers, and which may be needed along with tool development to maximize the benefits of an electronic tool. These "nontool" remedies are derived from the best practices described in the Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Procedures located in section 2.0.
| Barrier | Potential Tool-Based Remedies | Potential Nontool Remedies |
|---|---|---|
| Uncertainty in determining fair market value: qualitative aspects. | A tool populated with a large amount of data could potentially apply price methods to assist in controlling for factors affecting market value.The tool might serve as a calculation and data analysis platform, but leave it to the user to input fair market values (or refine initial estimates provided by the tool) based on professional judgment. | Hire, train, and engage qualified appraisers and estimators early in process.Engage external stakeholders before developing initial real property estimates for large or complex acquisitions. |
| Uncertainty in determining fair market value: limited data. | The tool could serve as (or link to) a repository of data from similar areas elsewhere in the State.The tool could include "default" values to use when good local data are not available or provide guidance on how to estimate uncertain values. | |
| Uncertainty in determining damage, relocation, and mitigation costs. | The tool could track historical data to help provide a basis for cost experience. | Coordinate with agency environmental personnel to understand mitigation requirements. |
| State and regional differences: State legal requirements. | The tool could provide for default State-level factors (contingencies, litigation risk, premiums paid above fair market value, etc.) that are assigned by HQ ROW staff with an understanding of conditions within the State.The tool should be developed working with test States to ensure that the value provided by common elements of a calculator would outweigh the effort involved in customization. | Establish statewide guidelines for cost estimates that consider State-specific factors. |
| State and regional differences: realty program structures. | The tool should allow for significant State-specific customization, e.g., definition and naming of process stages, flexibility in data fields used, import/export formats. | |
| State and regional differences: sub-State differences in contexts and methods. | The tool should be designed to allow for regionally specific factors. | |
| State and regional differences: institutional resistance to change and new procedures. | The tool should be designed with input from its users to ensure that functionality provides value-added that makes it worthwhile to use/adopt and that users "buy-in" to the tool. | Work to create a culture of change to increase acceptance of new procedures.Implement agency-wide guidance and training of new procedures with demonstrated commitment from leadership. |
| Factors that change over time: design changes. | The tool could potentially assist with information coordination (e.g., notifications of changes, display of outputs).The tool might include scenario/ alternatives or risk analysis capabilities to consider the range of costs that might be incurred from different plausible design envelopes. | Establish a formalized process with close communication between cost estimators and designers to maximize accuracy of inputs to the tool at each stage and also help designers understand how changes might affect costs. |
| Factors that change over time: economic cycles. | The tool could serve as a repository of historical trends and fluctuations in land values and use these to develop a range of uncertainties for future values based on local characteristics and analysis timeframe. | Engage in "flexibilities" practices (as defined by FHWA) to reduce time associated with acquisition and therefore uncertainty. |
| Lack of qualified personnel. | The tool could serve as "institutional memory" and education for new staff through data storage and tracking of factors. | Train and hire qualified appraisers and estimators. |
One conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that risk factors will always exist. FHWA may want to consider developing a tool that explicitly incorporates risk, rather than simply providing a point estimate of costs with contingency factors. The tool could be structured to re-evaluate risk as the project moves through the planning and development process. This functionality could build from existing tools, such as Caltrans' Risk Register. It is recognized that some agencies may not find it beneficial to quantify certain risk factors or come up with ranges of estimates as these may have legal implications should litigation occur.
Any new or modified tool that is developed should be created working closely with a few State DOTs representing different legal and program contexts, and with various district offices in their State represented (for decentralized programs). This will ensure that the tool will be applicable and viewed as creating value-added by different States and their district personnel.
An additional observation is that different States may have different challenges they need to address, depending on the number, size, and nature of projects within their portfolio and the nature of their experience with misestimating costs. For example:
It must also be recognized that different agencies may have different motivations to be more or less conservative with cost estimates. For example, some agencies would rather be more conservative to avoid the need to ask for more money at a later date. However, in some cases, there may be pressures to come in with lower cost estimates so that a project has a greater chance of being funded. A tool can only help to improve estimates insofar as an agency is interested in improving the estimates.
This research did not identify a single existing, stand-alone cost estimator tool that could be quickly and easily adapted for use by all States and would provide all the necessary functions of cost estimation. It did identify some tools that could serve as a basis for other States to use, for example:
Nevertheless, the research and interviews conducted for this project have found that:
While a couple of States have had some success using prepackaged electronic calculators (e.g., Tennessee and Wyoming with the PAECETrak module), others such as Florida, Texas, and Wisconsin, have noted that existing calculators have been too inaccurate to be useful to the agency. They have designed their own systems, typically using spreadsheets, that integrate existing data which rely on  expertise and professional judgment that are applied throughout the ROW cost estimating process.
The following options might be considered by FHWA as a next stage in this project or through other work. While the goal of this project was to develop an electronic ROW cost estimation tool, the options are framed more broadly in terms of what actions might be taken to address the underlying problem, i.e., cost estimates that vary markedly from final costs:
FHWA could support the development or redevelopment of a tool. Since the project team did not find any examples of a true stand-alone electronic cost "estimator," this would more likely mean adapting a tool that supports the development of cost estimates in combination with the professional judgment of ROW personnel to provide specific unit cost inputs.
The process for adapting an existing tool might include (1) further evaluating some existing State DOT' tools to determine which might be most readily adaptable and useful elsewhere; (2) confirm with the State DOT if they would be willing to have their tool used in this way; (3) recruit two or three other State DOTs interested in having an electronic tool and work with these State DOTs to define specifications for their needs and customize the tool for them; (4) test the tool on some sample projects; (5) evaluate the level of effort involved in customization and the quality and utility of information provided; and (6) develop guidance to other State DOTs as to how to adapt it for their own use.
FHWA could decide to create a stand-alone tool from the ground up, working in collaboration with State DOTs through AASHTO or some other mechanism. The tool would provide templates for data, built-in calculations, checklists of considerations, etc. FHWA would provide guidance to State DOTs as to how to customize them for their own application. The tool might have different modules for different stages of the planning and project development process. It could be developed in Excel or another platform to be determined, depending upon the requirements and level of functionality desired. The extent to which different data items or parameters are drawn from national or State default values, versus estimated from data populated by the user, versus directly user-input would need to be determined.
A collaborative development process with at least two or three State DOTs is recommended to ensure that a tool meets user functionality requirements.
FHWA may wish to consider some specific possibilities for further investigation for a new tool:
The tool could also be a process-support tool, such as a set of procedures and checklists to assist with implementing good cost estimation procedures, rather than a tool that actually performs cost estimates.
One key point is that any tool—whether existing or new—is likely to be more successful if it provides a platform for supporting the judgment of the ROW professional, rather than replacing that judgment. No tool will be able to accurately account for all the qualitative factors and uncertainties that go into ROW cost estimation. However, it can help professionals quantify, track, and account for the key uncertainties. The implication is that any direct cost estimates produced by the tool (e.g., fair market values of properties, contingency factors) should be provided as initial values that can be modified by the user.
If FHWA decides not to create or adapt a stand-alone tool, it could continue to promote the adoption of electronic RWMSs (ERMS). This might include providing guidance on how to structure or use these systems to support a cost estimation module, and possibly supporting pilot tests of two or three State DOT applications to develop, evaluate, and/or refine cost estimator functionality in their ERMS. There is currently a limited number of vendors offering ERMS due to the small market for these systems, and greater involvement of FHWA in partnership with States could help to expand and stimulate this market.9
This approach recognizes the important function of ERMS in supporting and improving cost estimates. ERMS can include a cost estimation module. However, only one ERMS application currently in use (by three State DOTs) includes such a module and it currently is used by only two of these States, with the third feeling it needed to much customization and calibration required to make it accurate. Even if it does not include a cost estimation function, however, the agency's ERMS still serve as an important tool for improving cost estimates, for example, by:
FHWA already has undertaken steps to promote the use of ERMS, for example, through the publication Implementation of Electronic Right-of-Way Management Systems Versus Paper Systems (2015).
FHWA could provide additional guidance and outreach on best practices in ROW cost estimation through guidance, peer exchanges, direct outreach, pilots, training courses, etc. The goal would be to continue to help States improve their practices, including procedures, coordination, and technical tools and methods.
Table 12 evaluates the opportunities and risks associated with each option.
| Approach | Benefits | Risks |
|---|---|---|
| Adapt an existing tool. | Lower effort. Quicker results. Utilizes a proven technology. |
Existing tools may not meet specifications for an electronic ROW cost estimator. State-specific factors challenge transferability and functionality desired by one State DOT may not work for another. Harder to introduce innovative features into an existing platform. |
| Develop a new tool. | Develop universal specifications. Introduce innovative features (data mining, risk assessment) that could provide substantial value added. |
Will require substantial State-specific customization—limiting potential for State use. Potential for more involved and costly development cycle. Would be preferable to integrate cost estimation functions with an agency's ERMS if they have one. |
| Promote integration with ERMS. | Build on/integrate with existing State platforms that store much of the needed data. | Current ERMS adoption and functionality varies widely. Multiyear effort for any State DOT to implement an new ERMS. |
| Training and technical support. | Lower effort and risk. Promoting best practices can address underlying causes of poor cost estimates. |
State DOTs need to be interested in implementing best practice recommendations. Does not directly address needs of States requiring data/technology improvements. |
Immediate next steps could include:
Beyond this task assignment, resources such as the GIS in Government User Group or the AASHTO STICs could potentially be leveraged to provide funding, technical, and or institutional support to efforts to improve electronic ROW cost estimation tools.
5. Where does your agency document its agency-wide project cost estimation procedures and processes for all program areas?
Answered: 35 Skipped:4
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Agency Operations Manual/Guidelines | 37.14% | 13 |
| Individual Program Area Manuals (Planning, ROW, Design, etc.) | 68.57% | 24 |
| Stand-alone Cost Estimation Manual/Guidelines | 20.00% | 7 |
| Agency Intranet Site | 28.57% | 10 |
| Public Internet Site | 8.57% | 3 |
| Other (please identify) | 20.00% | 7 |
| Total Respondents: | 35 | |
Other:
6. Where does your agency document its ROW project cost estimation procedures and processes that are to be followed in a project? (Please check all that apply.)
Answered: 36 Skipped:3
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Agency Operations Manual/Guidelines | 22.22% | 8 |
| Individual Program Area Manuals (Planning, ROW, Design, etc.) | 66.67% | 24 |
| Stand-alone Cost Estimation Manual/Guidelines | 25.00% | 9 |
| Agency Intranet Site | 22.22% | 8 |
| Public Internet SiteOther (please identify) Note: if the source document exists in electronic format, please provide the link in the details. | 5.56% | 2 |
| 16.67% | 6 | |
| Total Respondents: | 36 | |
Other:
8. Are your agency-wide project cost estimation processes reviewed periodically to evaluate their consistency, accuracy, effectiveness, and efficiency?
| Answer Choice | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 60% | 21 |
| No | 40% | 14 |
| Total | 35 | |
12. Are your agency's ROW project cost estimation processes reviewed periodically to evaluate their consistency, accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency?
| Answer Choice | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 70% | 23 |
| No | 30% | 10 |
| Total | 33 | |
16. When were your agency's ROW project cost estimation processes last reviewed and/or updated?
Answered: 33 Skipped:6
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| They are currently being reviewed and/or updated | 21.21% | 7 |
| They have been reviewed and/or updated in the last five (5) years | 36.36% | 12 |
| They have been reviewed and/or updated in the last ten (10) years | 9.09% | 3 |
| They have been reviewed and/or updated more than 10 years ago | 6.06% | 2 |
| Do not know when they were reviewed and/or updated | 5.56% | 9 |
| Total Respondents: | 33 | |
26. As a project advances, what are the factors that "trigger" updating the ROW cost estimate? (Regular scheduled intervals, design changes, new info, etc.)?
Answered: 34 Skipped:5
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| New project phase | 47.06% | 16 |
| Design changes | 82.35% | 28 |
| Annual or other time intervals | 38.24% | 13 |
| By request | 64.71% | 22 |
| Identification of new information, risks, etc. | 73.53% | 25 |
| Others | 17.65% | 6 |
| Total Respondents: | 34 | |
Other:
27. When a ROW cost estimate is updated, what do your agency's procedures and processes require with respect to the documentation about differences between the former estimate and the "updated estimate"?
Answered: 18 Skipped: 21
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| All changes are identified at the time of the update and reasons for any changes are clearly documented for future reference | 50.00% | 16 |
| Changes are noted: documentation is encouraged but not required | 20.59% | 28 |
| Other (Please Explain) | 0.00% | 13 |
| Documented upon request | 23.53% | 22 |
| Other (Please Explain) | 5.88% | 25 |
| Total | 34 | |
Other:
9. How often is that data evaluated? (Structures and Processes, relates to #8 agency-wide project cost estimation processes reviewed periodically to evaluate their consistency, accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency.)
Answered: 19 Skipped:20
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Whenever a project is completed or "closed out" | 0.00% | 0 |
| On a scheduled basis (e.g., annually? Semi-annually? 5-year cycle?) | 31.58% | 6 |
| Periodically, upon request | 63.16% | 12 |
| Rarely, if ever | 5.26% | 1 |
| TOTAL | 19 | |
10. Have the evaluations, findings, and conclusions in such a review been a contributing factor in revising the agency-wide cost estimation processes for future projects?
11. In two to three sentences, please explain how the agency has used the evaluations' findings and conclusions to revise its agency-wide processes.
Responses:
13. How often is that data evaluated? (Relates to agency ROW project cost estimation processes reviewed periodically to evaluate their consistency, accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency.)
Answered: 23 Skipped:16
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Whenever a project is completed or "closed out' | 0.00% | 0 |
| On a scheduled basis (e.g., annually? Semi-annually? 5-year cycle?) | 34.78% | 8 |
| Periodically, upon request | 65.22% | 15 |
| Rarely, if ever | 0.00% | 0 |
| TOTAL | 23 | |
14. Have the findings and conclusions in such a review been a contributing factor in revising the ROW project cost estimation processes for future projects?
15. In two to three sentences, please explain how the ROW Program Office has used the evaluations' findings and conclusions to revise its processes.
38. When does your agency or ROW Program Manual or Guidelines state how often that data should be evaluated?
Answered: 13 Skipped:26
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Whenever a project is completed or "closed out' | 7.69% | 1 |
| On a scheduled basis (e.g., annually? Semi-annually? 5-year cycle?) | 15.38% | 2 |
| Periodically, upon request | 46.15% | 6 |
| Rarely, if ever | 15.38% | 2 |
| Other | 15.38% | 2 |
| TOTAL | 13 | |
Other
19. At what point in the project does the agency typically organize an interdisciplinary project development team?
Answered: 32 Skipped:7
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Project Initiation | 46.88% | 15 |
| Later in Planning Phase | 9.38% | 3 |
| Programming Phase | 3.13% | 1 |
| Preliminary Design Phase | 12.50% | 4 |
| Final Design | 3.13% | 1 |
| Agency does not typically create inter-disciplinary project teams | 25.00% | 8 |
| TOTAL | 32 | |
20. Does your agency conduct pilot projects to investigate new ROW project cost estimation tools, technologies, and/or practices?
21. Please provide any examples of ROW cost estimation pilots and briefly explain how these tools, technologies and/or practices are utilized.Â
22. Does the responsibility for submitting, updating, and tracking the ROW cost estimates typically remain with the same person (or team) throughout the project?
23. Who are the ones responsible for submitting, updating and tracking the ROW cost estimates through all phases of the project?
| ROW staff on inter-disciplinary project team | HQ ROW Office or staff | Division ROW Office or staff | District or Local ROW Office or staff | Consultants | Other | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project initiation | 17% | 5 | 13% | 4 | 3% | 1 | 40% | 12 | 3% | 1 | 23% | 7 | 30 |
| Later in Planning Phase | 14% | 4 | 14% | 4 | 7% | 2 | 41% | 12 | 0% | 0 | 24% | 7 | 29 |
| Programming Phase | 14% | 4 | 21% | 6 | 7% | 2 | 41% | 12 | 0% | 0 | 17% | 5 | 29 |
| Preliminary Design Phase | 13% | 4 | 23% | 7 | 7% | 2 | 53% | 16 | 0% | 0 | 3% | 1 | 30 |
| Final Design | 13% | 4 | 26% | 8 | 3% | 1 | 55% | 17 | 0% | 0 | 3% | 1 | 31 |
| Other (please identify) | 14 | ||||||||||||
Summary:
Thirty out of 33 agencies responded that the responsibility for submitting, updating and tracking the ROW cost estimates typically remains with the same person (or team) throughout the project.
More than half of the agencies indicated that their district or Local ROW Office or Staff are the primary group responsible for submitting, updating, and tracking the ROW cost estimates through all phases of a project—Project Initiation, Later in the Planning Phase, Programming Phase, Preliminary Design Phase, and Final Design Phase.
Mississippi splits the responsibility of preparing and submitting the ROW cost estimate. The HQ staff which prepares the ROW estimate and the district ROW staff then submits and requests updates as needed.
Additional comments:
About a quarter of the agencies specified their "HQ ROW Office or staff" as the primary group. Other agencies specified other groups for specific phases. Louisiana uses an Appraiser in the local office that provides and updates estimates, and the Chief Appraiser in HQ tracks costs estimates, and requests updates as needed. Other responsible groups are:
Project Initiation:
Later in Planning Phase:
Programming Phase:
Preliminary Design Phase:
Final:
7. How does your ROW Program Office establish a "contingency" or "risk" factor for its ROW cost estimates? Please explain the process, including a discussion of how the "contingency" factor might change at different points in project development.
Responses:
Answered: 32 Skipped: 7
24. Who typically provides the estimated costs for the various elements included in a ROW cost estimate at each project phase? (ex. land values, potential damages, contingency factors, appreciation in land values, relocation assistance costs, litigation risk, etc.)
| ROW STAFF ON INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT TEAM | HQ ROW OFFICE OR STAFF | DIVISION ROW OFFICE OR STAFF | DISTRICT OR LOCAL ROW OFFICE OR STAFF | CONSULTANT OR APPRAISER | OTHER | TOTAL | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Initiation | 16.13% | 5 | 12.90% | 4 | 3.23% | 1 | 38.71% | 12 | 6.45% | 2 | 22.58% | 7 | 31 |
| Later in Planning Phase | 12.90% | 4 | 12.90% | 4 | 6.45% | 2 | 38.71% | 12 | 6.45% | 2 | 22.58% | 7 | 31 |
| Programming Phase | 13.33% | 4 | 16.67% | 5 | 3.33% | 1 | 43.33% | 13 | 6.67% | 2 | 16.67% | 5 | 30 |
| Preliminary Design Phase | 10.00% | 3 | 23.33% | 7 | 3.33% | 1 | 53.33% | 16 | 6.67% | 2 | 3.33% | 1 | 30 |
| Final Design Phase | 9.68% | 3 | 22.58% | 7 | 9.68% | 3 | 51.61% | 16 | 3.23% | 1 | 3.23% | 1 | 31 |
Eighteen agencies out of 32 that responded use the same group throughout each project phase. More than half of these agencies indicated that their "district or local ROW office or staff" provides the estimated costs at each project phase. The 'HQ ROW Office or Staff' or the 'ROW staff on interdisciplinary project team" provides the estimated cost to a quarter of the DOTs. Other agencies specified designers, Bureau of Program and Project Managers, Planning and/or engineering departments, staff appraisers, and Strategic Transportation Investment Divisions (STID) provide the estimated costs for the early phases, project initiation, later in the planning phase and programming phases.
57. Who typically provides the critical input in developing the estimated costs for the various elements included in a ROW Cost Estimate in the Planning Phase? (ex. land values, potential damages, contingency factors, appreciation in land values, relocation assistance costs, litigation risk) NOTE: May be more than one individual.
62 Critical Inputs Programming.
68 Critical inputs Preliminary Phase.
74 Critical Inputs Final Phase.
In general, the agencies that responded identified the same group or groups throughout the project phases. Multiple groups may be involved in providing critical inputs in developing the estimated costs for the various elements included in a ROW Cost Estimate.
60. When the project moves to the Programming Phase, does the ROW Program Office typically revise its "contingency" or "risk" factor for its ROW cost estimates because of more refined data, or does the contingency remain stable until other factors trigger a revision? Please explain briefly.
Programming Phase (comments):
65. When the project moves to the Preliminary Design Phase, does the ROW Program Office typically revise its "contingency" or "risk" factor for its ROW cost estimates because of more refined data, or does the contingency remain stable until other factors trigger a revision? Please explain briefly.
Preliminary Design Phase (comments):
71. When the project moves to the Final Design Phase, does the ROW Program Office typically revise its "contingency" or "risk" factor for its ROW cost estimates because of more refined data, or does the contingency remain stable until other factors trigger a revision? Please explain briefly.
26. As a project advances, what are the factors that "trigger" updating the ROW Cost Estimate? (Regular scheduled intervals, design changes, new info, etc.)?
Answered: 34 Skipped:5
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| New project phase | 47.06% | 16 |
| Design changes | 82.35% | 28 |
| Annual or other time intervals | 38.24% | 13 |
| By request | 64.71% | 22 |
| Identification of new information, risks, etc. | 73.53% | 25 |
| Others (please list) Responses | 17.65% | 6 |
| Total Respondents: | 34 | |
Other:
Final Design (comments):
Answered: 32 Skipped: 7
25. At what point does the ROW Program Office (through ROW staff on the project development team, staff appraiser/review appraiser or other ROW staff) typically develop a ROW Cost Estimate for the first time?
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Project initiation | 43.75% | 14 |
| Later in Planning | 9.38% | 3 |
| Programming Phase | 12.50% | 4 |
| Preliminary Design Phase | 25.00% | 8 |
| Final Design Phase | 9.38% | 3 |
| Total Respondents: | 34 | |
28. Are your agency's project cost estimates in all program areas (including updates) reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
67. Are your agency's overall project cost estimates (including updates) that are developed in the Preliminary Design Phase all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
73. Are your agency's overall project cost estimates (including updates) that are developed in the Final Design Phase all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
Are project cost estimates in all program areas reviewed and approved by mid to senior-level manager?
| 28. All Phases | 67.Prelim Design | 73.Final Design | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 24 | 17 | 18 |
| No | 8 | 2 | 5 |
| % Yes | 75% | 89% | 78% |
| % No | 25% | 11% | 22% |
Agencies that reported they do not include mid to senior-level agency managers in any of the phases for review and approval of the overall project costs estimates:
Note: GA responded "No" to question 28 and "Yes" to involvement in the 2 phases. Agencies that responded "Yes" to 28 but "No" to the 2 phases for review and approval of the overall project costs estimates are:
29. Are your ROW cost estimates (including updates) all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
56. Are your ROW cost estimates (including updates) that are developed in the Planning Phase all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
61. Are your ROW cost estimates (including updates) that are developed in the Programming Phase all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
66. Are your ROW cost estimates (including updates) that are developed in the Preliminary Design Phase all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
72. Are your ROW cost estimates (including updates) that are developed in the Final Design Phase all reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers?
| 29. All Phases | 56. Planning | 61. Programming | 66. Prelim Design | 72. Final Design | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 27 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 21 |
| No | 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| % Yes | 79% | 94% | 86% | 95% | 88% |
| % No | 21% | 6% | 14% | 5% | 13% |
30. At some point, near or after the completion of the project, (e.g., after the completion of construction or project close out), does your agency conduct a formal review of all the project cost estimates (from the initial cost estimate to the final project cost estimate), including all ROW estimates, to evaluate the consistency and accuracy of the estimates throughout the life of the project?
31. Please briefly explain. NOTE: If the source document(s) that describes the postproject review exists in electronic format, please provide the link.
Generally, the majority of the agencies responded that project cost and ROW cost estimates are reviewed and approved by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers. An agency's project cost estimates are reviewed and approved mainly during the preliminary and final design phase. The ROW cost estimates are reviewed and approved during all the phases by one or more mid to senior-level agency managers.
Most agencies do not conduct a formal review of the project costs estimates from the initial cost estimate to the final project cost estimate, including the ROW estimates, to evaluate the consistency and accuracy of the estimates throughout the life of the project. For agencies that do review the estimates versus the actual costs and find there were significate changes, a determination of what or why the over or under estimate is made.
32. How would you characterize the extent to which electronic/digital software tools are used in your agency's ROW cost estimation process?
Answered: 34 Skipped:5
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Several tools/applications, many of which are integrated | 14.71% | 5 |
| Several tools/applications, few or none are integrated | 26.47% | 9 |
| Few (1-2) tools/applications (stand-alone) | 47.06% | 16 |
| No tools/applications | 11.76% | 4 |
| Total Respondents: | 34 | |
33. Please indicate at what point in a project your agency typically uses electronic/digital software tools that have application to the roles and responsibilities of the ROW Program?
Answered: 29 Skipped:10
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Project initiation | 55.17% | 16 |
| Later in Planning Phase | 41.38% | 12 |
| Programming Phase | 44.83% | 13 |
| Preliminary Design Phase | 62.07% | 18 |
| Final Design | 51.72% | 15 |
| Total Respondents: | 29 | |
34. Please list all electronic/digital software tools that are used in the ROW cost estimation process. Briefly describe the function of each (in 30 words or less). Please Include Geospatial tools.
(See Table 7 in the main report.)
36. Does your agency maintain a centralized database for the purposes of tracking the relative consistency and accuracy of all ROW cost estimate files over time for evaluation purposes? (e.g., to track positive or negative trends, identify cost estimate items that are most frequently underestimated, etc.?)
37. Please describe how the database is maintained:
39. Who in your agency maintains ROW Program cost estimate files?
Answered: 32 Skipped:7
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| ROW staff on inter-disciplinary project team | 37.50% | 12 |
| HQ ROW staff | 34.38% | 11 |
| Agency finance staff | 6.25% | 2 |
| Agency planning staff | 12.50% | 4 |
| Construction Project Manager | 9.38% | 3 |
| Other Responses | 31.25% | 10 |
| Total Respondents: | 32 | |
Other:
40. How does the ROW Program's Manual or Guidelines account for overhead, administrative settlements and condemnation awards based on historical project data?
| ANSWER CHOICES | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| Overhead: | 97% | 28 |
| Administrative Settlements: | 93% | 27 |
| Condemnation Awards: | 97% | 28 |
41: Planning Phase:
58. Programming Phase.
63. Preliminary Design Phase.
69: Final Design Phase.
| Plng-Q41 | Prgmg-Q58 | Prel Design-Q63 | Finl Design-Q69 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 18 | 21 | 21 | 24 |
| No | 15 | 12 | 12 | 9 |
| Yes | 55% | 64% | 64% | 75% |
| No | 45% | 36% | 36% | 25% |
17. Does your agency provide structured training to all staff estimators about its agency-wide project cost estimation processes?
18. Does your ROW Program Office provide structured training to all ROW estimators about its project cost estimation process?
43. Do the team members receive training in order to understand how risks are to be identified and documented for reference throughout the project?
44. Please provide a brief description of the extent of the training (related to 43 - Risks):
45. Has your agency developed a comprehensive checklist (or some other tool), to account for typical potential risk factors to be referenced in every project?
48. How much project information (if any) is typically provided to the Project Development Team members in advance of the initial Project Team meeting on a medium to major project, concerning issues such as project schedule, project overview, identification of members, framework and ground rules, duties and responsibilities of team members, etc.? Please explain briefly (two to three sentences).
46. Please explain the risk analysis process, including a discussion of how the risk levels might change at different points in project development.
47. Once a risk has been identified, what is the agency's approach/strategy for assessing the risk level, analyzing the potential impacts, ,monitoring the risk throughout the project, and controlling the risk, to the extent possible Please identify each risk and explain your agency's approach/strategy:
49. How much (if any) of the following project information is typically available for consideration in the Early Planning cost estimate(s)? Please check all that apply.
Answered: 18 Skipped:21
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Project Schedule | 55.56% | 10 |
| Alignment (or multiple alignments) i.e., Project termini, typical widths, etc. | 83.33% | 15 |
| Historical data (prior projects in area-adversarial property owners | 44.44% | 8 |
| Zoning, land use mix | 77.78% | 14 |
| Historic properties within the project limits | 50.00% | 9 |
| Government-owned properties within the project limits | 72.22% | 13 |
| Railroad-owned properties within the project limits | 88.89% | 16 |
| Utilities present within the project limits (issues with utility relocations) | 50.00% | 9 |
| US Postal Service facilities within the project limits | 55.56% | 10 |
| Public sentiment about the project, why it is being constructed | 27.78% | 5 |
| Significant environmental features within the project limits | 83.33% | 15 |
| Potential hazardous sites near or within the project limits | 44.44% | 8 |
| State laws or regulations with specific reference to any properties within the project limits | 44.44% | 8 |
| Character of the neighborhood(s) i.e, growing/stable/declining, vacant/improved, commercial/industrial/residential/agricultural/other | 61.11% | 11 |
| Environmental impact Study approval/issues cited, etc. | 27.78% | 5 |
| Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations | 33.33% | 6 |
| Other issues Responses | 27.78% | 6 |
| Total Respondents: | 18 | |
Other:
50. How consistently are your agency-wide approved project cost estimation procedures and processes followed in the Planning Phase?
| ANSWER CHOICES | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100% | 27.78% | 5 |
| 60-80% | 22.22% | 4 |
| 40-60% | 5.56% | 1 |
| 20-40% | 0.00% | 0 |
| 0-20% | 0.00% | 0 |
| Don't Know | 44.44% | 8 |
51. Who is responsible for developing the initial ROW cost estimate in the Planning Phase of the project?
| ANSWER CHOICES | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| ROW staff on inter-disciplinary project team or other ROW staff | 83.33% | 15 |
| ROW consultants | 0.00% | 0 |
| Agency planning staff | 0.00% | 0 |
| Engineering consultants | 0.00% | 0 |
| Others (please identify) | 16.67% | 3 |
Other:
52. Who is responsible for updating and tracking the ROW cost estimates throughout the Planning Phase of the project?
| ANSWER CHOICES | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| ROW Lead on inter-disciplinary project team | 39% | 7 |
| HQ ROW Office or staff | 6% | 1 |
| Division ROW Office or staff | 0% | 0 |
| District or Local ROW Office or staff | 33% | 6 |
| Other (please identify) | 22% | 4 |
Other:
53. During the Planning Phase, do the members of the project development team conduct a visual inspection of the project limits?
| ANSWER CHOICES | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 94% | 16 |
| No | 6% | 1 |
54. During the Planning Phase, how regularly does the project development team typically meet?
| ANSWER CHOICES | Responses | |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly | 17% | 3 |
| Quarterly | 0% | 0 |
| Whenever significant project information is revised | 44% | 8 |
| Other (please identify) | 39% | 7 |
Other:
55. In order to facilitate the broadest possible involvement of remotely located staff, are the team meetings conducted in such a way that project team members in the field are able to participate?
Answered: 18 Skipped:21
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 72.22% | 13 |
| No | 0% | 0 |
| Sometimes | 22.22% | 4 |
| Don't Know | 5.56% | 1 |
| Total | 18 | |
| Critical | Very Important | Somewhat Important | Not Very Important | Not Important | Don't Know | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate agency-wide cost estimation structure, procedures and processes | 6% | 2 | 13% | 4 | 26% | 8 | 10% | 3 | 26% | 8 | 19% | 6 | 31 |
| Inadequate ROW program cost estimation structure, procedures and processes | 6% | 2 | 13% | 4 | 32% | 10 | 16% | 5 | 29% | 9 | 3% | 1 | 31 |
| Inadequate funding to develop technological agency-wide cost estimation structure, procedures and processes | 13% | 4 | 6% | 2 | 29% | 9 | 16% | 5 | 16% | 5 | 19% | 6 | 31 |
| Insufficient number of experienced and knowledgeable ROW staff | 16% | 5 | 26% | 8 | 23% | 7 | 6% | 2 | 26% | 8 | 3% | 1 | 31 |
| Lack of adequate cost estimate training | 10% | 3 | 35% | 11 | 16% | 5 | 10% | 3 | 26% | 8 | 3% | 1 | 31 |
| Scope creep (inadequate project scoping) | 25% | 8 | 50% | 16 | 3% | 1 | 9% | 3 | 6% | 2 | 6% | 2 | 32 |
| Multiple design changes | 42% | 13 | 39% | 12 | 13% | 4 | 0% | 0 | 6% | 2 | 0% | 0 | 31 |
| Unrealistic delivery schedules | 32% | 10 | 32% | 10 | 26% | 8 | 0% | 0 | 10% | 3 | 0% | 0 | 31 |
| Absence or lack of opportunity to provide ROW input in early project planning | 16% | 5 | 19% | 6 | 23% | 7 | 19% | 6 | 19% | 6 | 3% | 1 | 31 |
| Lack of collaboration/ coordination among program areas | 16% | 5 | 28% | 9 | 19% | 6 | 13% | 4 | 19% | 6 | 6% | 2 | 32 |
| Lack of respect for ROW estimators | 9% | 3 | 13% | 4 | 22% | 7 | 22% | 7 | 25% | 8 | 9% | 3 | 32 |
| Lack of commitment/ funding to evaluate innovative estimating tools | 13% | 4 | 0% | 0 | 29% | 9 | 26% | 8 | 19 % | 6 | 13% | 4 | 31 |
| Resistance to consider change among agency senior management | 3% | 1 | 3% | 1 | 23% | 7 | 29% | 9 | 29% | 9 | 13% | 4 | 31 |
| Other barriers (please list all that apply in your agency) | 12 | ||||||||||||
Other:
For the software listed in the survey:
For agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities: What was the impetus that led to the DOT's decision to develop a new system?
For the ROW estimate calculation tool currently used by the agency:
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 @ 12:00PM Eastern (9:00AM Pacific)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Rene Fletcher | Caltrans |
| x | Robert Close | Caltrans – district 1 |
| x | Linda Tong | Caltrans |
| x | Jennifer Wisniewski | Caltrans |
| Robert Close | Caltrans | |
| x | Paul Pham | Caltrans |
| x | Kristen Pulliam | Caltrans |
| x | Curtis Burfield | Caltrans |
| x | Zoli Elo | Caltrans – district 7 |
| x | Mike Jones | Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. (JMT) - Project Manager |
| x | Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist |
| x | Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT - Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes:
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
Caltrans survey response identified the following electronic software tools
Interview Questions
In line with the FHWA's project objective, the project team has developed the following list of standard questions to guide the "top 9" case study interviews.
Section A: Software Estimate Tools
Demonstration was not available.
Background: Caltrans has 12 districts and each district does their own estimating and each has their own nuance in estimating ROW cost. Bob Close (represents district 1, 2 and 3) and Zoltan Elo from district 7 are on the Webex.
LandVision
Caltrans response: The LandVision is a real estate research and mapping software offering online mapping and parcel maps. Caltrans contracts with the LandVision vendor. LandVision loads into the system information from the counties, the most current parcel information as it is made available by the different counties.
LandVision is used mainly to gather information at the start of a project. It provides real-time parcel information such as, ownership information, and specifics on the parcel such as size, and zoning. Included is the ability to access comparable sales research. The information is pulled manually and entered into other tools like excel spreadsheets to be used in the next process.
Caltrans has purchased the service to retrieve document information. They can request a deed document for example, that can be printed and downloaded.
LandVision has the ability to export graphic information into a format that can be read by CADD software (Civil 3D), Google Earth and Bing.
LandVision has other features that could be customized for other Caltrans departments. Caltrans have met with the LandVision vendor to investigate the possibility of added an APM loader, so they could build a project. This has not happened.
B. Google Earth
Caltrans response: Google Earth is used to view parcels from their desktops, it doesn't replace onsite visits, but is used as a verification tool as they are doing an estimate. All staff have Google Earth on their desktop. Some units also have Bing maps, which can be used as an alternative to Google Earth.
They have also used Google Earth with KMZ overlays from design to determine how a project is impacting other areas. This is on a request basis. Project CAD data is converted to KML format for overlay purposes.
LandVision has the ability to export graphics in a format that can be read by Google Earth. Some districts have asked to associate the parcel, APN data, that has been extracted from LandVision and inputted into the CAD file, so when exported in KMZ file format it can be used by Civil 3D or Google Earth, to see the impacts.
C. Civil 3D – CAD Software
Caltrans response: Civil 3D CAD software is the standard civil design software used by Caltrans surveyors and engineers. It is used to read the LandVision line work that has been imported. They can also bring in the Google Earth or Bing aerial mapping. Civil 3D is considered to be the main ROW mapping tool. Civil 3D support most of the districts needs to read the line work and get a visual from Google Earth or Bing. D. Esri - GIS
Caltrans response: Â This is a GIS software that can combine Landvision, Google Earth, and topographical surfaces to give a #D image of the project, together with links to ownership date from Landvision. Some districts have GIS users that are familiar with ESRI and have put together ESRI maps, instead of Civil 3D. Generally, they don't use ESRI as a tool, because of the amount of training it takes to make someone confident with the tool, and most engineers and surveyors can use Civil 3D, instead.
How are the tools discussed used in the ROW calculation process, are there triggers or notification?
Caltrans response: The tools discussed are not part of the ROW Cost Estimation process. If ROW is doing a cost estimate, the project engineer sends the basic graphic for future project to the ROW engineering and ROW. ROW engineering prepares the map and sends it to ROW to finish. There isn't a graphic showing the workflow.
Section B: New Electronic System Development
For agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities: What was the impetus that led to the DOT's decision to develop a new system?
Caltrans response: Caltrans doesn't have a centralized database with property information. They would need to go to each county to find the information. LandVision provides the service that meets their needs to obtain current information about the parcel, from the city and counties within the state. It's there ready for Caltrans to use. They have been using LandVision for a while. Every 5-10 years they put out an RFP. LandVision won the last proposal and it has been renewed. Multiple departments subcontract under the master contract. It's already contracted with Caltrans Technology Services. Google Earth is very cheap, they already had it, already in use. Bing is also used, and it comes with the Civil 3D package.
Caltrans response: Google Earth was being used for graphic design for CAD and research. There is a similar program, Bing that is used. Bing came with the Civil 3D software.
LandVision: Caltrans needed current parcel information, access to sales information (comp), parcel details current ownership with contact information and zoning. They wanted the system to support linework import. The original contract with LandVision did not include document retrieval. They were able to add this component through a subcontract.
Caltrans response: Nice to have: Document retrieve is good, but for many counties, survey records, subdivision maps, and survey maps are not available. It's not a LandVision issue, most counties don't make these documents available online. It's not available routinely throughout the state.
Caltrans response: (LandVision) There doesn't seem to be any issues using the system. LandVision has a limited number of user accounts, but it's adequate for everyone to utilize their needs. The information in LandVision is relatively current. LandVision eliminates some of the need of having to go out to the counties to get information. LandVision has the ability to pull data from the counties on a regular schedule, as it becomes available. There may be some counties that are behind, so the information may not be current.
Caltrans response: For Civil 3D, there is training available. When requested by new agents or individuals, they will offer an online course. Also, someone with experience, working with new individuals provides on-the-job training.
Section C: Overall System Cost (Implementation and Maintenance)
Caltrans response: LandVision is a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) product and is supported by LandVision. Caltrans has an annual contract with the Caltrans Department of Technology Services and pay an annual fee of approximately $38,000. They have approximately 850 users accounts.
Civil 3D, it took 10 years to select it. It is administrator by the Division of Design. They have about 8,000 licenses. There are a lot of presets that needs to set to run correctly, and files that need to be installed, so Civil 3D is supported by their own IT and CAD staff.
Caltrans response: For Civil 3D, there is a group of CAD people that works directly with Civil 3D developers. It's a tight relationship. If there was a need for an improvement, they would look at it and try to get it for the users.
Section D: Right-of-Way Estimating Components
For the ROW estimate calculation tool currently used by the agency:
Caltrans response: When they first do an estimate, there is no system that stores the information. As the project progresses, they do have simple spreadsheet or databases for estimating. Eminent domain and condemnation estimates come later in the process. There are 12-districts and each district have their own method. There is no mandate to use specific tool. Caltrans has a RWMS database that ultimately stores datasheets and generates form letters.
Excel spreadsheets are used in the North region; Bob Close has developed a spreadsheet that estimates project capital costs, support costs, the lead time required to complete the work and generates the RW Data Sheet. The tool includes logic that estimates the number of support hours/costs to complete the required work. This logic is based on past experience and can be modified as work norms are updated.
District 7 uses FileMaker, as a database, and it does perform some calculations, like multiply square footage by per unit rate or lot area rate. It does track zoning by, APN numbers. It generates a paper datasheet that is put in project reports. FileMaker stores components for utilities, engineering utilities cost, railroad cost, track the post mile, the route, who and when requested it and is able to integrate the preliminary representation of the parcel. FileMaker also breaks the support hours /cost down by work breakdown structure.
Completed datasheets are stored in the ROWMIS, an internal database for all of Caltrans.
Caltrans response: What would be nice for the estimating tool to be tied into the ROWMIS. This is a statewide database. Currently, some information about the project is manually entered into the ROWMIS and other systems.
An estimate datasheet is saved in ROWMIS as a PDF file. They don't have a means to pull data from ROWMIS. Although, all versions of a datasheet are saved, and the system is robust in keeping the iteration well sorted and easily accessible. The DB keeps the history of a project.
Caltrans response: They would like ROWMIS to be main source, but at this point it's not. A priority for Caltrans is to replace ROWMIS with a user-friendly interface that can be integrated with other systems so that there aren't so many manual inputs.
They have identified three different ROW management software tools.
Section E: ROW Data Requirements
They don't have a ROW cost calculator. Questions were skipped.
Section F: Review and Approval of ROW Estimate Results
1. Does your electronic ROW cost estimate calculator provide a workflow that includes actions for review and approval of the ROW estimate?
2. If so, please describe how that process works.
Caltrans response: For the North region, the estimator completes the estimate and then sends the estimate to senior staff, who review the content and resource dollars. The senior may revise the resource estimate up or down. A copy is printed and distributed for individual signatures and final review of the printed document.
3. At what point are the reviews performed?
4. Does the estimator put in any historical data, or contingency or risk factors?
Caltrans response: It's done when the estimator completes the estimate. Then it goes for the initial review (content, resource dollars, lead time, and capital). Senior looks at any impacts that may change the lead time requested. A copy is printed and distributed for individual signatures and final review of the printed document.
The senior adds the historical, contingency and risk factors as needed.
What is nice about the spreadsheet, is that a new agent can start doing estimates for project that may have limited ROW or no ROW required, so they can start getting used to the process.
Follow-up questions to expand on select Caltrans survey question responses
The following questions pertain to specific CALTRANS responses to certain questions in the electronic survey that you completed recently. The intent of these questions is to get additional detail about some of the tools/practices/structures/processes referenced in Caltrans' survey responses.
Q7
How does your ROW Program Office establish a "contingency" or "risk" factor for its ROW cost estimates? Please explain the process, including a discussion of how the "contingency" factor might change at different points in project development.
Survey Response: Contingencies are a percentage built into the database based on project scope and knowns/unknowns. More unknowns, higher the contingencies. Addressed in our RW Manual.
Follow-up Q7: Please elaborate on the reference to the use of the database.
A) Where is that data stored?
Caltrans response: For the North region, the data is in the spreadsheet. They have the ability to change the contingency rate based on the project or the % of expected condemnation, most times it's 8- 10%, but it can be adjusted upward if needed.
District 7- the data is in the FileMaker database. They can change rates and they also use escalation to help mitigate some of the need for contingency, escalate to future dollars in terms of land and separately with utilities.
B) How is the data entered? (manually or automatically populated?)
Caltrans response: The percentage is entered manually for both district 1 and 7. District 7 mentions that for large projects, they can sometimes export data from LandVision as an import to Excel and input to the database. But this is rare.
C) How is the data searchable for retrieval? (Zoning? Area? Time period? Improved/Unimproved? Other factors?)
Caltrans response: Yes, the data is searchable, for district 7.
Q11
In 2-3 sentences, please explain how the agency has used the evaluations' findings and conclusions to revise its agency-wide processes.
Survey response: The findings have been used to form multi-disciplinary Estimating Improvement Groups.
Follow-up Q11: Please elaborate on the reference to the use of "Estimating Improvement Groups":
Caltrans response: Estimating improvement is a state priority, not only ROW estimates but all divisions in Caltrans. They are looking at how they can alter their estimating process. ROW is working with a number of groups, advanced planning, environmental, design, ROW, and engineering to improve the estimate process from project initiation to final project. There is a commitment to find the wholistic approach and be more transparent.
Example: An Issue that they have been working on with advanced planning, is when ROW receives a datasheet request and the due date is to prior to the environmental document being done. Advanced planning worked with environmental to get a due date for the document and then the ROW datasheet would be done a week after the environment document is completed.
How long has this effort been underway?
Caltrans response: They are in the infancy, trying to get buy in from all departments and districts. They are going through a culture change. The mission and vision is about 3-year old.Â
Any projection when?
Hopefully less than 5-years.
Q12
Are your agency's ROW project cost estimation processes reviewed periodically to evaluate their consistency, accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency?
Survey response: No
Caltrans response: In district 1 and 7 they do review the process. They look at the datasheet as compared to actual. When they are off, they definitely look into it.
Q18
Does your ROW Program Office provide structured training to all ROW estimators about its project cost estimation process?
Survey response: Yes
Follow-up Q18: Please give a brief description of the structured training that is provided to all ROW estimators.
Caltrans response: There is some on-the-job training, where a senior estimator provides training to a new estimator. Estimators have gone through formal appraisal training. Caltrans offers in-house appraisal training and academies or the opportunity to attend courses provided by the International ROW Association. Estimators are encouraged to work with the other teams to get specific estimates. For instance, utility estimates would come from the utility team or reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) estimates from the RAP team.
Q71
When the project moves to the Final Design Phase, does the ROW Program Office typically revise its "contingency" or "risk" factor for its ROW cost estimates because of more refined data, or does the contingency remain stable until other factors trigger a revision? Please explain briefly.
Survey response: Many risk factors are eliminated as the project moves forward. If "Unknown Utility conflict" is a risk, the risk is much lower once we have all title reports with recorded easements. District likely don't update the risk factors unless there is enough of a change to the alternative to warrant a new estimate. Example - if we realign a centerline to miss a private well, the new alternative will have a new risk register and any new information will be incorporated. If there are no changes to proposed design, the estimate would likely only be updated if there are changes in market value.
Q71 Follow-up: Please describe the "risk register"
Caltrans response: Caltrans has developed a Risk Register document, used by all units within a project, not only ROW, that documents any risk that may alternate the original estimate. The document captures the risk and quantifies the risk for the project. It is easier for some units, like construction to quantify, ROW risks are not that easy to quantify.
When risks are identified and entered into the Risk Register, there is an iterative process to update the datasheet and the risk register throughout the lifecycle of the project. The Risk Register stays with the project with the life of the project.
Q75
What barriers exist in your agency that are impacting its ability to provide more consistent and accurate ROW cost estimates during project lifetime:
Lack of collaboration/coordination among program areas:
Critical
Please elaborate on your collaboration/coordination efforts.
Caltrans response: Caltrans are working on building relationships with the other functions and improving communications and understanding on how each of the groups work and how each of the team can help each other. From a headquarters perspective, they want the ROW team to be included in the project process in the early stages. They have a statewide project estimating traveling team, led by the project management team, that goes out to explain the movement to improve communication and encourage teams to build relationships.
Follow-up Q75:
Can you think of any other critical barriers to improvement at CALTRANS?
What is the biggest problem / single issue to develop cost estimate consistency and what could be the solution?
Caltrans response: For the north region, there are a number of issues being addressed. ROW has worked with the Environmental team to use familiar vocabulary within the datasheet to help with permit and mitigation estimates. RW, RW Engineering and Advanced Planning have worked together to reduce the turnaround time to development initial datasheet. ROW engineering provided training to Advance Planning on what is expected in cost estimate maps and Advance Planning is now providing the initial cost estimate maps.
District 7 had a similar mapping issue: they had design do some of cost estimating maps.
Both districts track due dates and are getting better at keeping to the schedule. The district 7 database has the ability to send email notification to various users that helps keep them on schedule. From a headquarters' perspective, one of the challenges is technology: getting the contract, getting new programs out, without having to pull from the districts that have already done something similar, how to get the ideas out to the people.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018 @ 9:30AM Eastern
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Lura Wiley | FDOT - Manager, Appraisal & Cost Estimates |
| x | Derrick Brown | FDOT - Deputy Director, Production |
| x | Marcus Duval | FDOT -WebEx Contact |
| x | Joe Was | FDOT – district 1 |
| x | Gerald Springstead | FDOT – district 2 |
| x | Barbara Strouse | FDOT - Turnpike |
| x | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| x | Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist |
| x | Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
Florida's DOT survey response identified the following electronic software tools
Project Suite Enterprise Edition (PSEE), was identified during the interview as another project management system.
Formal RWMS description provided by FDOT:
RWMS is the primary computer application used by the Office of ROW statewide to record, manage, process and report information related to ROW business processes and programs including: Acquisition, Appraisal, Business Damages, Contracting, Cost Estimate, Eminent Domain, Funds Management, Relocation Assistance, Production Reporting and Property Management.
RWMS went into production use on 3 February 2003, after a three-year project to document user requirements, design, build, and test the application. RWMS replaced the ROW Control System - an IMS mainframe application that had been in use for twenty years. Several other applications were also retired by incorporating the functionality of those applications within RWMS.
RWMS is one of the largest and most complex Web applications in the Department. RWMS is comprised of more than three-hundred Web pages, one hundred and thirty database tables, several hundred business rules, and millions of lines of computer code. RWMS is available internally within the Department but it is not accessible on the Internet.
RWMS is considered a critical enterprise application and is linked to or accesses information from several other enterprise applications including the FMS, the Transportation Vendor Information System, Project Scheduling Management System, and various other applications and data sources.
Right-Of-Way Management System
FDOT clarifies the use of electronic ROW estimate calculators. They do have auto electronic calculators, they rarely use them because they are inaccurate. The tools do not lend themselves to cost estimating. It's not the tool, but the types of costs used in estimating. There are hard costs, soft costs, and nonlinear costs, all that is beyond the scope of an automated system. They choose to use a semi-automated system where they can control fixed costs, soft costs and nonlinear costs.
There are two types of automatic electronic calculators, one is used by the planning staff, it works similarly to the construction calculator: it works on quantities and is very inaccurate. They have a better system that requires appraisal skills to analyze the scope of the project relative to tax maps and online resources. Variables are plugged-in based on appraising expertise. These automated calculators are only used when the scope of the project is limited. Once more details of the project are available, they use a semi-automatic system, where they can control the costs and which is typically accurate within acceptable variance levels. These semi-automatic systems are Excel spreadsheets. The estimates are manually entered into RWMS.
FDOT Demonstration of RWMS
RWMS is a Web-based application and is the system of record for active ROW projects or soon-to-be active projects. The centralized RWMS is used to track ROW projects throughout the lifecycle of the project, including cost estimates. It does not have detailed parcel information.
If the project is in the "5-Year Program", the present-day cost estimate is entered for acquisitions, and the system applies an inflation rate. The default inflation rate is a real estate inflation factor that is applied to the base number and is calculated and compounded for the range of project years. The inflation factor can be modified by a district for a specific project. The output of the ROW Cost Estimate is provided to their customers, so the decision makers can program the money in the work program for the year it's anticipated to be spent.
Cause of Change – When an estimate changes, the "Cause of Change" is entered into the system. The user selects the reason for change and enters the percent change of the estimate. This is used as an analysis tool and helps FDOT to identify areas that may be improved.
Project Summary - Provides an overview of the project:
The summary includes what was estimated and has links to project schedules and other items such as project phase funding totals and balances.
A reporting module is available through a managed WebFOCUS application. The reporting tool can pull data from RWMS and from other systems that contain audited data for payed items. FDOT can generate a report that looks at the actuals, in comparison with the RWMS estimate. Each line item's "actuals" are compared to the line item cost estimate, showing the percentage difference and dollar difference. It's used for future analysis of trends and factors.
Estimates are done throughout the project. The last estimate is compared to the actual costs. The estimate may include known actual costs.
Home page for some of the modules:
Section A: Software Development
FDOT response: RWMS is a management tool as discussed during the demo.
FDOT response: Internal staff and authorized consultants
FDOT response: It was implemented in 2003. Development started in 2000. They worked in developing requirements for a couple of years.
FDOT response: RWMS was an upgrade to an older system. They are looking at possibility upgrades to RWMS in the future.
FDOT response: Most likely, No. Between the timeframe of 1998 – 2000 there weren't many commercial tools available.
FDOT response: FDOT was looking for a better management tool.
FDOT response: Â FDOT is decentralized and they needed to get input from the different districts throughout the state. Joint application development sessions were held for a least a year prior to development.
FDOT response. Not sure of the cost. They can get back to us if need be.
FDOT response: Their IT division supports the system.
Section B: "RWMS" Software Application and Function
FDOT response: The RWMS is FDOT's centralized property management tool, catalog and inventory system. The system tracks projects through the appraisals, negotiations, acquisition, litigation, condemnation processes to the submittal of payments and stores the official ROW estimate.
RWMS has the ability to upload documents, but it's not a mandate for the districts to upload all documents. They do upload appraisals and purchase agreements. They are currently working on adding more documents to the database. The RWMS does maintain forms and letters templates for specific modules.
FDOT response: RWMS is integrated with a few systems, Financial Management captures actuals, Work Program Administration and other systems from the mainframe imports project data. WebFOCUS, the reporting module, pulls data from RWMS. RWMS has the ability to download reports to excel, pdf and HTML. When the system was first developed, information from other systems were updated nightly, a 24-hour lag. Today information is updated live.
Section C: "Internal Electronic Review Comments System"
FDOT response: The ERC is a Web-based application used to track the entire review process (comments and responses) for plans and project submittals in a database. The FDOT ERC User Manual was sent to JMT. It's also available online:
http://www.fdot.gov/designsupport/ProjectReview/ERC/ERCManual.pdf
The system is mainly used by district Administrators and In-House PMs, Consultant PM, Lead Reviewers, Reviewers, Lead Designers, or Designers. Every stage of a project requires a review of some sort of document such as maps, permits, environmental document, and plans.
The documents to be reviewed are uploaded to the system. The staff who are assigned as reviewers are sent an email to review the document and provide comments. This could be the PM, reviewers and designers. Comments are added, comments can be responded to, and comments can be reviewed by others. The status of the comments are changed throughout the process. A ROW staff member must certify or review every project to ensure ROW issues have been addressed, even if there are no ROW issues.
Section D: "Project Suite Enterprise Edition"
FDOT response: Another project management application available to the ROW staff is PSEE. It was developed by FDOT by DOT. It's a dashboard that connects all the systems that the DOT has to offer, into one application. Internal DOT users can customize the dashboard to view project status, financial information, schedules, and documents.
What is PSEE?
Section E: ROW Cost Estimation Utility
FDOT response: They have a separate GIS system with comprehensive layer by layer views. The RWMS overview of the project page, can tie the GIS system's Geocode but only the project road ID number is imported into RWMS. To get detailed parcel/road information, they use the GIS system, Video Log and Google Earth. FDOT has videoed every road and the Video Log application allows a user to virtually ride down the road.
In the early stages of the ROW cost estimation process, FDOT ROW starts with Florida County Tax Appraiser Interactive Maps, to develop ROW cost estimates, parcel-by-parcel. Early in the preliminary design, an overlay of KMZ files from the CAD designer's environment can be imported to Google Earth, to visualize the project limits.
The scope of work from design engineering is to include a request for design information in an excel format for the take areas. The spreadsheet includes the Tax ID number and property number with links to the property appraiser website, links to maps with the proposed ROW. This starts the process of ROW cost estimation and communication with the designers to discuss any ROW issues.
FDOT response: FDOT ROW is constantly refining the tools. They update applications as needed when conditions change, laws change, or procedures change. The tools are fairly up-to-date. Technology has advanced beyond what RWMS can do. The next revision will probably include better internet and some cloud-based tools technology. Every district is constantly refining their estimating tools (Excel sheets) to meet contemporary business practices.
As part of the review process, they incorporate a double stage review of the cost estimates. Compare the previous cost estimate to the actuals and update RWMS with the reason for change. One district is currently in the process of updating the Excel spreadsheet that evaluates each parcel, to help determine the probability of going to court. They are updating factors and updating the litigation formula for attorney costs to be more accurate. They have developed budgeting software that they plan to marry with the new cost estimating spreadsheet. Each district has different ways of calculating the estimate. The districts are required to enter the estimate in RWMS, by project level and phase total, optionally by detail by line item. They have found that you need to start at the parcel level to feed up to the total estimate.
Augmented Reality Tool
The Innovation Team is exploring the option to develop an "augmented reality tool". Â This pilot is currently used primarily to give the property owner a visual of the proposed ROW project and how it may impact their property. A PowerPoint presentation was shown. Augmented Reality superimposes computer-generated images over a real-world image as viewed through a smart phone/tablet lens.
Augmented Reality Technology would benefit engineers and could provide the estimators (including ROW cost estimators) with "virtual" visualizations of the proposed facility after the completion of construction - another potential tool that could be valuable in the ROW estimating process, throughout the design process.Â
Section F: Review and Approval of ROW Estimate Results
1. Does RWMS provide a workflow that includes actions for review and approval of the ROW estimates?
FDOT response: Â The RWMS has a provision to review the cost estimates. Each district has an individual in charge of reviewing and approving the appraisal and cost estimates. There are paper and electronic copies. Paper copies are signed and kept at the offices. The cost estimate stored in RWMS is considered to be the official ROW estimate, it is not a signed copy.
Follow-up Questions, based on selected FDOT Survey Responses
The following questions pertain to specific FDOT responses to certain questions in the electronic survey that you completed recently. The intent of these questions is to get additional detail about some of the tools/practices/structures/processes referenced in FDOT' survey responses.
Q30
At some point, near or after the completion of the project, (e.g., after the completion of construction or project close-out), does your agency conduct a formal review of all the project cost estimates (from the initial cost estimate to the final project cost estimate), including all ROW estimates, to evaluate the consistency and accuracy of the estimates throughout the life of the project?
Survey response: No
2. Does FDOT not conduct such post-project reviews because, from its perspective, such reviews do not provide historical cost data that is typically meaningful and relevant data on other future projects? Or are there other reasons?
FDOT response: They may look at the estimate after it's officially closed. They have reports that compare estimates at different periods of time. The question is, is the comparison between apples and apples. They document the estimate change throughout the projects. Every estimate is compared to the previous estimate by a number of factors. Reports from the dashboard can be run to get statistical data so that they can determine trends in factors.
The reason the survey response was no, they are more interested in short-term, rather than historical.
Hardest to estimate is the final settlement/judgement cost. Historical factors can't always be applied or are applicable to the current project.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018 (1PM EDT: 12PM CDT)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Joseph Pignato | MnDOT - Row Director |
| x | Julie Groetsch | MnDOT – Assistant ROW Director |
| Paul Merchoewicz | MnDOT – P6 Cost Estimating Team Member | |
| x | Joella Givens | MnDOT |
| x | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| x | Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist |
| x | Joe Miklochik | JMT - ROW Section Head |
| x | Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT - Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
MnDOT survey response identified the following electronic software tools
Systems discussed:
Demonstration of software applications related to ROW Cost Estimation
MnDOT staff
REALMS (Historical ROW Data)
Julie and Joe provided a demo of the REALMS application that is used by various users with different permission levels, based on their positions and responsibilities.
By entering a project number, the screen displays a tree view of the available options on the bottom left and the right shows the details with more menu options as shown below. The tree view guides the user through the ROW project development process, including Title Order, Estimates, Environmental Due Diligence, Authorizations, Agreements, Commissioner's Orders, to project finalization.
The system provides the following capabilities and elements:
After the demo, the JMT staff conducted the interview.
MnDOT response: A smaller program that creates the project, PUMA System (internal to MnDOT) creates the project number, which is a 4-digit number with a dash and additional numbers. MnDOT wanted to integrate REALMS with PUMA but it wasn't possible at the time. Once the project number is in PUMA and available in REALMS, the project number and description are populated. Other information about the project will be manually entered.
MnDOT response: Documents are not stored in REALMS. The system of record is the eDocs DM system. MnDOT worked with eDocs to create the REALMS front-end search screen. REALMS is just the front end to look at the document. REALMS has the capability to upload directly to eDOCs.
The have moved away from Hummingbird, now it's eDIGS.
MnDOT response:
They have 3 "Super Users": one is the Assistant ROW Director, Julie Groetsch. They also have embedded IT professionals that support the application daily.
MnDOT response: The REALMS parcel identifier is a 9-10-digit system-generated unique identifier. They do use the public-improvement district tax ID for the parent track. The parcels are specific to what they are acquiring. The REALMS GIS viewer system can display parcels in different colors based on what they are acquiring. The REALMS parcel ID is generated from the road segment and is further broken down to manageable sections.
MnDOT explains that REALMS GIS was developed by MnDOT. It's not been a requirement for the districts to use the system. REALMS was created first, and most users are familiar with accessing data by entering search criteria instead of using a map view to select an area. They hope to add more information to the GIS version to make it more functionally usable.
The data comes from REALMS. If you touch a parcel on the screen, the data is populated.
Where does the parcel boundary come from? It comes from MicroStation. MicroStation creates the parcel file and processes it (tags, extract, translate, load ETL process).
MnDOT Response: The Project Managers use their scheduling tool: "Primavera P6". Environmental or other groups may not have access to the schedule. E-mails are sent out manually to the group that needs to do something. Assignments are done manually. For instance, the district will complete a section and if the Environmental Stewardship group needs to review the section, the district sends an email to the Environment Stewardship.
REALMS has been set-up to follow the acquisition process that MnDOT uses to acquire ROW. Each staff member/group that enters data into the system is done based on the user security given to them.Â
Although REALMS may have a lot of manual dissemination of data, they have built some "fail-safe" features, such as adding required fields to ensure the user can't continue until the proper information is entered into the system and/or not being able to proceed with the acquisition until proceeding fields have been entered.Â
MnDOT Response: Georilla was developed in 2010 (about 3-years after REALMS) by the MnDOT IT support group utilizing an open source viewer, GeoMoose (built by the city of St. Paul Minnesota). It's a framework for displaying signs, drainage structures, etc., (basically any type of distributed cartographic data). Georilla can connect with multiple data sources. The IT group worked on a project with the open source vendors to redo it from scratch, adding new features, grids, mobile capacity and search functionality. They will be releasing it soon.
Georilla is a consumer of the REALMS data. There are about 400+ plus players, 1,000 unique users per month.
Another GIS project the MnDOT ROW GIS Department is working on, is creating a ROW layer throughout the state. The development of the layer is about 60% done: some is survey grade – some is not survey grade. It includes the process of digitalizing plats and ROW maps. That is a two-year project with a July 2019 target date for completion.
It is intended that the layer will show conveyance lines and road turn-backs (when State Road is "turned back" to a local agency). The plan is for both REALMS and Georilla to use this layer.
Section A: Software Estimate Tools – these questions were answered during the REALMS demo
For the software listed in the survey:
Section B: New Electronic System Development
For agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities: What was the impetus that led to the DOT's decision to develop a new system?
MnDOT response: Yes. Before REALMS they used Excel spreadsheets and Access databases, and there were 8 or 9 differ ways of documenting ROW in their forms. There were in the process of decentralizing the program's existing centralized structure and needed a way to standardize the processes across the State.Â
MnDOT response: They looked at three (3) solutions. One was a Bentley product, off the shelf. Another was an Access database (but they knew that wasn't going to work). And finally, they looked at Virginia's product RUMS. They liked the way it looked. They liked the tree view, tracking, check marks, and
"crystal reporting.net system". Once they made the decision and purchased the software, they worked with the RUMS consultant to change about 90% to 95% of the code (as of today).
MnDOT response:
MnDOT response:
MnDOT response: Get more integration into the system early on.
6. How were the users trained on the system?
MnDOT response. There is no formal training for new users. It's learned as you go, "hands-on" work level. Every couple years there may be some statewide informal training on a technical and ROW agent level. They have eight districts each - district uses REALMS at different levels. There was some official training around the state when the system was first implemented. Districts were walked-through the system. Around version 1.5, Joe started a "REALMS for Dummies" training which may have been completed. Some online help is available.
Section C: Overall System Cost (Implementation and Maintenance)
Approximately how long did it take to go from "decision" to "development:" to "implementation"?
MnDOT response: It took about 18 months to two years, before 2007.
MnDOT response: They are currently on major release 3. Version 4.023
MnDOT response: Approximate cost was between $1M - $2M. Joe will send a better number to us.Â
MJ POST-INTERVIEW NOTE: MnDOT advised after the interview that they were unable to find this cost figure but advised this was a "good estimate".
MnDOT response: They system is supported by embed IT staff at approximately, staff cost of $250,000 per year
MnDOT response: Embedded IT ROW Support Staff.
MnDOT response: They do get some requests for new requirements each year. Currently there about 20 in the backlog, mainly for property management. They concentrated on the property acquisition and relocation modules, and then property management. The property conveyance process has changed. There may be a new form that needs to be added, or a link that is not working, or changes to the wording of a form.
MnDOT response: In most cases, these types of changes will require some code changes.
Section D: Right-of-way Estimating Components
For the ROW estimate calculation tool currently used by the agency:
This was covered with the demo.
MnDOT Response. Yes, the ROW estimate can change depending on the type of acquisition; it could change from partial take to total take. Parcel information is not captured at the level of the calculator. The calculator is a table, a capture of the whole project cost rather than parcel level. The key components that are looked at are the Certified Value and Certified Appraisals.
REALMS historical data is stored by property types and district and it's used to assist the ROW staff in calculating an estimate for a specific property type in a district.Â
Section E: ROW Data Requirements
MnDOT response: It's pulling a tag shape. CAD file into a GIS format. All the attributes associated with the parcel can be displayed in the GIS tool.
MnDOT response: In the utility area, they would like to be able to have the utility permit information on REALMS GIS. Some effort on the permit side to pull in the x, y and z coordinates. Also integrating location cost into REALMS.
MnDOT response: At the project level there are no checks on accuracy. But when looking at historical data for the last three years, anomalies can cause the estimate to be off. For instance, a parcel acquisition that was above the certified value, would skew the estimate. They would like to have the option to exclude such parcels from the historical estimate. Currently, they ask their IT support to help with this.
Section F: Review and Approval of ROW Estimate Results
MnDOT response: The districts are responsible for the review and approval of the ROW estimates. PMs may also review and approve. REALMS doesn't have an approval process. At a district level, a project sheet with baseline estimates is available. In general, when they are within 1 –2 two years from "letting a project", the estimate is a number: prior to that, it's a range.
MnDOT response: It is based on historical data that comes from an internal ROW database (REALMS). The "Crystal Report" that was previously shown with the various factors (% of DP, % above the certification value, and condemnation factor). The project estimator in the district may put in an inflation factor. It's hard to put an inflation factor on real estate.
Miscellaneous Notes:
Wednesday, September 19, 2018 @ 12:00PM Eastern (11AM Central)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Trudi Loflin | MDOT ROW Division Director |
| x | Nate Taylor | MDOT Information System |
| x | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist | |
| Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst | |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
MSDOT survey response identified the following electronic software tool: PTS. Within this system, we have sales data that assists the appraiser as well as information to assist the relocation agent.
Parcel Tracking System
Section A: Software Development
MDOT response: PTS is a one-stop shop. It covers every aspect of the ROW process, from the beginning to the end. The PTS system includes details about the project, scheduling information, estimates and actuals, generates and tracks documents and sends notifications. Notifications can be configured by the user.
MDOT response: All ROW staff and consultants. MDOT Administration has view privileges. Utilities have a project module to track project utilities costs. Utilities estimates are not included in ROW cost estimates. PTS is primarily used by the ROW staff.
MDOT response: Trudi isn't aware of when the first PTS was developed but there was one in-place when her tenure began 20 years ago. The PTS system is a server-based system, launched through their CITRIX application. There have been three or four updated versions over the last 20 plus years. The latest version came in around 4 years ago (2013-2014). Â
MDOT response: Trudi was not around when MDOT first developed a centralized ROW database. She was not aware of any specific project or issue that led to MDOT's decision to centralize the ROW data.
MDOT response: No. They are comfortable and pleased with PTS and have not considered looking at any ROW software products that are on the market today or using a consulting firm to develop a new one.
MDOT response: In general, they were content with the system; however, an MDOT IT developer  developed new features for PTS and presented them to Trudi which then led to an overhaul of the existing system. The newest version includes a notification module, scheduling module and deeper drilldown of the data.
MDOT response: It took about a year to develop.
MDOT response: Not aware of any.
MDOT response: Since this was developed in-house, the only cost they are aware of is the employee salaries.
MDOT response: The system is supported by the MDOT IT department.
Parcel Tracking System Demonstration
PTS is a server-based system launched from the CITRIX suite of applications. System navigation is on the left. Mississippi has six districts. The top left menu is used to view planned projects by district. Click on a District Discussion to view the 5-year planned projects for that district. These projects are discussed monthly with the other divisions.
After a project has moved from "planned" to "active", the bottom menus are used. The PTS main modules listed on the bottom left are:
PTS is integrated with the PDPM System. PDPM tracks projected due dates and completion dates. The PDPM dates are updated in the PTS system as schedule dates are updated.
The Project Schedule screen tracks the due dates and completion dates for the various project activities. There are 24 activity lines. The first eight lines tracks work that is done primarily by the roadway design division and the environmental division. The dates come from the PDPM system. The ROW staff enters the due dates and completion dates for the key ROW activities, authorized funding request, notice to proceed, various appraisal tasks, survey tasks, and other tasks. The form tracks the Begin Date, Estimated Due Date, Revised Date and Actual Completion Date. The ROW Acquired (line 24) is set by the MDOT Administration.
The system provides various parcel screens. One parcel screen lists each parcel and the user can check-off a ROW process as it is completed. Some of the columns are Appraisal, Acquired, Submitted (for payment), Condemnation, ROW, Displacement, Point of Entry, Improvements, Water Wells, as shown below. From this screen, the user can click the parcel number to view parcel information and parcel documents like deeds, full appraisals, title abstracts.
When the notice to proceed is given to the appraiser, it is his or her responsibility to load the appraisal, after it's been approved and reviewed. The maps and plans are stored in the Project Wise application. PTS provides a link to the Project Wise application.
Other screens of interest
ROW Cost Estimating
ROW cost estimating starts during the field review (line 4 of the schedule). All parties involved (appraisers, relocation agents, property management, environmental) are represented at the field review and provide a cost estimate to the District Coordinator. The District Coordinator enters the cost estimate on the PTS Cost Estimate screen. ROW staff does not review the appraisers' estimates. ROW staff enters the Administrative Cost and Miscellaneous Cost. Administrative Cost is based upon what they estimate the consulting fees to be by parcel. Miscellaneous cost is a rough estimate. It includes overhead and other costs that are hard to estimate which is outside of the ROW division.
After the field review, ROW Design Division reviews the recommendations and finalize the plans. If there were any changes to the designs, the programs involved review and update their estimate. Revised estimates are entered into the system. The original estimate is not stored in the system (at this point, funding has not been requested).
Survey Maps & Deeds Division converts the plans to ROW maps and loads the maps to the Project Wise System. At this point, ROW considers the ROW maps to be final. PTS provides the link to the Project Wise System.
Funding Authorization is requested after the ROW maps are finalized and environmental documents are complete. When the "Full Funding Authorized Date" on the PTS Cost Estimate screen has been populated, the system locks the PTS Cost Estimate screen. This is the official ROW cost estimate.
If major changes cause an increase in cost, Programming is notified of the estimated increase amount to the project. The estimate is not changed. Instead, ROW staff uses the Comments text box on the PTS Cost Estimate screen to record the requested amount, date requested and the reason.
The PTS Cost Estimate screen tracks the Programmed Amount, Total Expenses and Remaining Balance. In most cases, the Total Cost Estimate and Programmed Amount match.
The system tracks project estimates and expenditures by land, improvement, damages, relocation costs, administrative costs, etc., allowing users to quickly identify the projects and areas that are running either over or under the estimate figures. ROW management monitor/compare the actual expenditures to the estimates. The system's "drill down" feature lets a user move from a high-level screen to a more detailed screen to get more information.
Training
New employees and consultants are required to get PTS training. Members of the ROW division and Information system conduct the training.
Section B: "PARCEL TRACKING SYSTEM" Software Application and Function Â
MDOT response:
MDOT response: Yes. FMS and the PDPM system. PDPM stores project information and tracks project tasks due dates and completion dates.
MDOT response: A notification of a revision to the design
MDOT response: Yes, PTS allows users to subscribe to notifications based on a user's preference. It's up to the user to take the appropriate action.
MDOT response: Yes, we are constantly tweaking or adding features most of which are small but one big addition after the release in 2014, was the addition to the link to Project Wise to view ROW maps.
MDOT response: The ROW division is very satisfied with the system. It lives up to its goal of being a one-stop shop. They don't have any major enhancements planned.
None were noted.
MDOT response: MDOT IT department supports PTS. The ROW staff has a close relationship with the developers.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 @10:00AM Eastern (9AM Central)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Jeff Hoge | TDOT - Director ROW Division |
| x | Joe Shaw | TDOT - Assistant Director |
| x | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| x | Lisa Sigwart | JMT - Real Property Specialist |
| x | Jason Ramsey | JMT - Systems Analyst |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT- Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
TDOT survey response identified the following electronic software tools
Integrated Right-of-Way Information System Demo
The IRIS application is Tennessee's implementation of BEM's PAECETrak solution to manage the complicated process of acquiring and managing properties for the TDOT department. IRIS is hosted on TDOT's servers. TDOT described their cost estimation process and conducted a demonstration of their IRIS application. Projects are pulled up by Project Pin numbers.
The first estimate is referred to as a "base" or "functional" estimate done at the beginning of a project. This estimate is based on functional plans with aerial photos of the project, showing the ROW lines and slopes. Properties are identified by parcel number. This is the Preliminary Cost Estimate given to the Programming Office. Through the life of the project the Programming Office adjusts the estimates based on factors over time. IRIS generates and saves the estimate as the "Form 44A Estimate".
Two or three months before the final plans are available, a field review is held to finalize the plans. Once the plans are finalized ROW staff completes a "Form 44 Estimate" in IRIS. Funding for the project is set up from the "Form 44 Estimate" and this is the final estimate.
In previous years, the STID were doing cost estimates for everyone but didn't have the knowledge and expertise to accurately perform ROW estimates. Now ROW has stepped back in and provides the estimates.
IRIS includes an Estimation Module provides two methods to estimate ROW costs. Some of the regions estimate based on land values, (Base Estimate), and some regions estimate based on tracts. A Base Estimate groups properties by type and estimates the land use and land value as a whole. Both estimation methods produce very good estimates, when comparing estimates to actual expenditures. IRIS's Estimation Module also includes utilities and railroads. The ROW staff sends the whole estimate to the Programming Office to set up funding.
IRIS supports creating and maintaining templates for forms and letters. The templates are linked to a module and when generated are populated with the appropriate data from the database.
The Tract Central is the primary IRIS interface where users can enter and manage information about each tract. The Tract Central Menu guides users through the acquisition processes. Appraisers upload their appraisals. The IRIS database is based on the appraisal and the appraisal review. Appraisal information populates documents outside of the appraisal module.
IRIS supports Notifications/Ticklers, a notification tool to alert users when certain tasks have been completed or certain documents have been attached, so that a user can move to the next step in the acquisition process. The program also provides alerts if a certain event has not occurred as scheduled.
Tennessee's statewide financial system, "Edison", is an enterprise resource planning system. Edison's database contains human resources, financial and procurement/logistics information. BEM is working on integrating the contract and invoice information from Edison, to be delivered during the first quarter of 2019.
ROW staff uses the following systems to get parcel information. Some users are individual subscribers to the MLS:
Section A: Integrated Right-of-Way Information System
TDOT response: They have 247 users. Authorized users are mainly the ROW staff, Administration staff, appraisal reviewers, ROW acquisition, relocation agents, and property management agents. Some users function as a technical reviewer for the environmental division and can only view the information.
TDOT response: IRIS developments started in 2012. It took 3-years to develop. Development took longer than BEM initially estimated. The TDOT resources working with BEM worked their normal jobs as well as provided BEM the requirements and support needed, which took longer than expected. It took about a year after going live, for the TDOT staff to fully use the IRIS system.
TDOT response: Prior to IRIS, TDOT had flat files. During a 2000 business process review, one finding was that the ROW processes needed a ROW management tool. They worked with their IT staff and developed an in-house application with an Oracle back end and an Access UI interface to replace the flat files. Later the IT department decided they could no longer support Access and would develop an in-house ROW management tool.
TDOT response: TDOT's IT in-house solution "wasn't happening". TDOT looked at several approaches from other states and put out an RFP. About twenty vendors responded to the first RFP. Due to a protest, this RFP was withdrawn. The next RFP, seven to ten vendors responded. They selected BEM's product - an off-the-shelve product that was customized for Tennessee. At that time, there were maybe four states using a version of BEM's software. But no states were using it as a RWMS.
TDOT response:
TDOT response: Approximately $1.1M
TDOT response: PAECETrak is a license off-the-shelve product and TDOT has a 3-year contract remaining with BEM. TDOT still uses the Turbo Relocation Program that was originally developed by AASHTO. BEM also supports that program as part of their contract.
Section B: Software Application and Function
TDOT response:
TDOT response: TDOT changed the process to start the cost estimates, all plans are sent to headquarters. The plans include aerial photos with lines laid out and an Excel spreadsheet, which includes the approximate acquisition area. Headquarters will do the estimate, or headquarters sends the plans to the region to do. Receiving functional plans and ROW field review plans triggers the ROW cost estimation process.
TDOT response: An IRIS requirement was to reduce the manual entry of data. Data entered into IRIS flows to other areas within the system, reducing input errors. Program, Project, and Resources Maintenance (PPRM) System stores project information and is integrated with IRIS. IRIS imports the high-level project information from PPRM.
TDOT response: The 3-year contract is based on task orders. BEM's is working on a task order to complete the integration with Edison for the Appraisal Module. Another task order is to rebuild the GIS component. TDOT requested a GIS feature in the initial RFP. BEM delivered a GIS feature, but for various reasons, it didn't work on the server. The GIS feature should have been able to search the same spatial location to discern conflicts from any of the modules. TDOT is looking at doing a third contract to rebuild the GIS module for IRIS.
TDOT response: IRIS is an integrated centralized database that standardizes the acquisition processes and stores all project related information in one place. IRIS's strengths are the ability to manage projects, manage documents and standardize processes and forms. The document management component of IRIS has been a plus. Not only are documents for recent projects available, but TDOT is working on scanning older project documents to be uploaded to the system. IRIS produces standard forms and form letters and generates the appropriate forms and form letters. The acquisition processes and documents are tracked through the system and users have access to current information in one system. A tablet version of IRIS is available to users in the field.
TDOT response: The tasks order addresses issues and potential improvements to IRIS. Early on, there was some resistance in using IRIS. More users are recognizing the benefits of IRIS and are embracing the technology.
Section C: ROW Cost Estimation Utility
TDOT response: The system's key requirements to access information were, the system:
TDOT response: There are some enhancements that could be made, but they are not critical. The Turbo Relocation application uses breadcrumbs to navigate. It's easy to go back and forth to other pages. This would be a nice feature to have.
Section D: Review and Approval of ROW Estimate Results
TDOT response: Yes, there is a review and approval process. For instance, a supervisor approves the relocation computation. On the acquisition side, appraisals are linked to the acquisition. The appraisal must be approved before a negotiator can generate the 17B Offer Form. The forms requiring signature are printed out, signed, scanned and uploaded to IRIS. BEM has been tasked to incorporate a DocuSign process flow into IRIS, to generate the document in IRIS, pass it to DocuSign for electronic signature and pass it back to IRIS for storage.
TDOT response: Yes, it's possible to pull historical data from IRIS. The adjustment factor is pretty accurate. If the actuals start going over the estimates, then they could get the data from IRIS to develop a new adjustment factor. We can run reports to compare the estimate values and acquired values in IRIS.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018 @ 11AM–12:30PM Eastern (10AM–11:30AM Central)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Gus Cannon | TxDOT - ROW Division Directory |
| x | Lora Gunter | TxDOT - ROW Project Delivery section Director (primary contact person) |
| x | Laura Riley | TxDOT |
| x | Rosa Leon | TxDOT - Special Project Coordinator |
| Judith Robbins | TxDOT | |
| X | Rose Wheeler | TxDOT - Contracts and Finance Section Director |
| Kyle Madsen | TxDOT (primary contact person) | |
| X | Mike Jones | JMT - Project Manager |
| X | Lisa Sigwart | JMT - Real Property Specialist |
| X | Jason Ramsey | JMT - Systems Analyst |
| X | Lucy Gorsky | JMT - Business Analyst |
| X | Ryan Salamon | JMT - WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
TxDOT survey response identified the following electronic software tools
TxDOT informs us that they do not have an electronic ROW estimating tool for the agency or the division. Each of the regional locations has they own hand-filled form. They are similar in nature. They plan on instituting a standardized form. They have several draft hard copy forms, but at this time they don't have anything they can share with us.
JMT asked about the ROWIS reference found on the Web.
TxDOT response: The ROWIS system is an 20 year old system that captures data for cost accounting for various aspects of ROW acquisitions. It has no funding or cost estimating applications. ROWIS handles various payment types. The system is updated as payment transactions occur.
TxDOT is in the process of building an enterprise system for transportation projects. The information from ROWIS will be migrated to the new system. They are at least a year away. The new enterprise system will not be an estimating tool.
One of TxDOT objectives is to move ROW processes up to the point before the creation of environmental documents. They have moved about 20% - 25% of the ROW processes before the environmental processes. This gives ROW some cost savings (not calculable) and more time to hire a consultant to get through the acquisition processes. Any of the PS&E activities can be done prior to the environmental process.
Parcel information exists in the ROWIS database. The problem is the existing system does not capture the specificity to build cost estimating algorithms by property type. One of the most difficult aspects of developing an accurate ROW estimate is determining the damages to the remainder. The note field may contain this acquisition data, but it's not broken down by property type. The new enterprise system will have more details to create algorithms for the cost of acquisition and condemnation such as the duration and cost.
Interview Questions:
TxDOT response: ROWIS purpose was to capture data for a cost accounting basis. The system does capture the baseline numbers to response to questions on how many relocations and what was the cost, or how many parcels TxDOT has in possession. ROWIS does not capture the relocation details on how the costs were determined. Details are in hard copy documents. It is not possible to develop costs or factors based on historical data from ROWIS.
ROWIS can generate some forms and reports. They encourage ROW staff doing acquisitions to generate the Negotiator Reports and upload their Relocation Contact sheet. So, it does have the capability to upload, generate, print documents. ROWIS can search for documents but it can't do a key word search within the document. The Tabulation of Values, used for appraisal reviews, is generated from ROWIS showing the appraisal amount and compensation amount. There is no business process to enforce processes.. The future enterprise system will have a workflow dependency check, to ensure a process is completed before going to the next step.
TxDOT response: The enterprise system will include the listed modules/functions. There will be others. TxDOT has been going through a massive effort to identify the workflow and document the number, cost and duration of each core ROW function.
They are in the process of digitizing 100 years of historical deed documents. The digitalized documents will be stored in their OnBase document system with the taxonomy they have built. The new enterprise system will eliminate the paper documents. They have been working on this project for a year.
TxDOT response: This is an initiative handled by Mark Sumrall, Director of Real Estate Service to replace paper ROW maps. The initial GIS map represents all highway right-of- way owned by TxDOT. Active projects will have a color-coded status overlay. Ultimately this map will be fed into the new enterprise system; in real time users will be able to pull up the right-of way parcel and view the parcel status and get parcel information.
Email: mark.sumrall@txdot.gov
Survey Response Follow-up Question
Q11
In 2-3 sentences, please explain how the agency has used the evaluations' findings and conclusions to revise its agency-wide processes.
The new enterprise system has incorporated all transportation projects into a modern portfolio system that aligns the Unified Transportation Plan across the State. The plan portfolio is updated annually and when the full transition is made from the older legacy systems to the new enterprise system, the total cost estimates are expected to improve in timeliness and accuracy. The system provides the quantitative supporting source documents for the bi-annual Legislative Appropriation Request.
FOLLOW-UP:
1) What is the Legislative Appropriation Request?
TxDOT response: Not sure which Legislative Appropriations Request the survey response was referring to, but there is a Sunset Advisory Commission Committee that makes recommendations regarding the TxDOT. The Sunset bill was approved and past during the last legislative session and TxDOT is under review to make sure they are following the requests of the Sunset committee.
TxDOT explains some of the issues they have encountered in "letting" projects. TxDOT will be asked if they are meeting the letting targets. TxDOT has implemented a Possession and Use Agreement that provides TxDOT with the ability to gain irrevocable access to the property by providing the property owner a market rental incentive which has reduced the time to gain possession of the property by over 200 days.
Friday, September 7, 2018 @ 10AM Eastern
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Jim Damer | VDOT Regional ROW Manager - Appraisals |
| x | Corey Bourne | VDOT – Transportation Engineer, Senior |
| x | Corey Clinton | VDOT – Information Services Contact |
| x | Teri Diminio | VDOT – Cost Estimator NE Region |
| x | Al Cargill | VDOT – ROW Cost Estimator, Limited English Proficiency Coordinator, Hampton Roads |
| x | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| x | Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist |
| x | Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT - Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes:
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
VDOT survey response identified the following electronic software tools:
ArcGIS and RUMS are two of the tools used extensively during the lifecycle of the project. The systems discussed were:
Section A: Software Development
A. ArcGIS
1. What is the purpose of the tool(s)?
VDOT response: It's more than just a tool that provides the ability to view areas, property information, get tax map numbers, zoning information in order to prepare cost estimates, it also provides an overview of the whole community without having to leave the office. When first scoping a project, they may be handed a plan sheet or aerial photo of the area that they want a project on, Teri will extract the information from an ArcGIS dataset and enter the data into an Excel spreadsheet to start an estimate. ArcGIS also identify structures, buildings, houses that may impact the estimate.
2. Who uses the tool(s)?
VDOT response:
Alan notes that estimates are prepared by ROW estimators and sometime PM. ROW managers turn the estimate over to the Project Managers. PMs have the authority to override a ROW estimate. Alan recommends that PMs consult with ROW estimators prior to overriding a ROW estimate.
3. When is the tool used within the ROW cost estimation phases and cost estimate management process?
VDOT response:
4. What is the process flow; does output from one system feed another system?
VDOT response: ArcGIS doesn't flow into other systems. The data is pulled from ArcGIS, and transferred to an Excel spreadsheet to estimate cost or entered into another system.
5. If so, how is this accomplished? Is it a manual or an automated process?
VDOT response: Manually
6. Is there any system integration?
VDOT response: No
B. RUMS (VDOT was not able to demo this today)
1. What is the purpose of the tool(s)?
VDOT response: RUMS, stores all cost estimates, and all parcel information for the project. Within the parcel screen there is an Appraisal screen, that keeps all appraisal signed versions. There is Negotiation tab, with access to a RW24 report, a summary of the negotiations. Legal tab stores closing documents and Relocation tab stores landowner relocation documents.Â
RUMS also stored blank forms that are to be used during the ROW process. Appraisals are uploaded, and the system sends an email to the reviewer when the appraisal is submitted and ready for review.
RUMS also generates two Relocation reports (Phase 1). A report when relocation is needed and when relocation is not needed. Estimators find the Relocation Summary report to be a valuable tool.Â
JMT: Where are the RUMS documents stored, is that a dedicated RUMS Document Management System or a general VDOT document management system?
VDOT response: All RUMS documents are stored on a dedicated RUMS server.
2. Who uses the tool(s)?
VDOT response: Everyone in ROW uses RUMS Including negotiators, title examiners, and managers. Localities and consultants also have access to RUMS for their projects if they choose.
3. When is the tool used within the ROW cost estimation phases and cost estimate management process?
VDOT response: RUMS is the centralized tool used throughout the ROW process. There are many tools in RUMS that are used, such as PCES. It would be hard to dismiss it. They have improved the Appraisal module, since MnDOT had purchased RUMS.Â
4. What is the process flow; does output from one system feed another system?
VDOT response: The Integrated Project Manager (IPM) system, defines the initial active project. Project numbers are assigned and carried over to the RUMS system. There is a system prior to IPM for Planned projects 6-year plan (POOL). Once the POOL project is active, the project number is imported to IPM and RUMS.
IPM is a document folder of projects.
RUMS is the keeper of information that comes from PCES. POOL has the base number of estimated cost and PCES is used as an initial cost estimator tool.Â
5. If so, how is this accomplished? Is it a manual or an automated process?
VDOT response: POOL starts the process and is automatically updated to other systems, including IPM and RUMS.
6. Is there any system integration?
VDOT response: Yes. See response to question 5.
7. Please explain briefly, the relationship between the groups that are developing, submitting, updating and tracking the ROW estimate throughout the different phases of the project.
VDOT response: There are two ways that the ROW personnel are notified. One is by looking at the project schedule in RUMS and the other is getting a PM104 request from the PM to do or update an estimate. A PM104 request is sent at each milestone as the official request to have an updated estimate performed.
C. Project Cost Estimating System
1. What is the purpose of the tool(s)?
VDOT response: Try to get the best estimate possible at an early stage of the project and continue generating accurate estimates as the project develops throughout the stages required for completion of the project.
2. Who uses the tool(s)?
VDOT response:
3. When is the tool used within the ROW cost estimation phases and cost estimate management process?
VDOT response: PCES is used throughout the project life. It's also used to generate a closeout estimate, to determine if there are any monies left or if additional funding is needed. The Southeastern Region has gotten better at hitting the estimate. Before the project is closed out, the Project Manager should reach out to the ROW managers to determine if there are any outstanding condemnation costs, utility costs or monies left on the project. Utility companies have up to a year to send a final bill to VDOT after the project has completed.
Terri Dimino adds: Since the PCES system started, other than entering "parcel counts" and adding other complexity factors, we no longer enter the actual estimates in RUMS. We enter our information on a PCES form, which I save to the Special Projects Estimate Team Site for Fredericksburg and Culpeper Districts. Once ROW and Utilities are both on the estimate form, the PM will upload it to the PCES site.
4. What is the process flow; does output from one system feed another system?
VDOT response: Yes, once the ROW estimate is filled out, the summary sheet of the workbook is populated and once uploaded it goes to PCES Web page. The website estimate includes the ROW estimate, construction and other cost estimates.
RUMS has the option to accept either the estimate source of RUMS or PCES. Once the source is selected the estimate is automatically uploaded to RUMS, POOL, IPM and other systems.
Project Managers can override the ROW estimate. RUMS keeps track of both estimate sources to respond to any controversy.Â
5. If so, how is this accomplished? Is it a manual or an automated process?
VDOT response: Yes, once the Estimate Source is selected, then the estimate is auto populated to other systems.
6. Is there any system integration?
VDOT response: Yes
8. What triggers the process of updating the data to reflect revised project data affecting ROW costs?
VDOT response: Changes in plans that necessitate a change in estimate as additional costs.
9. Is there a notification process in your tool(s)?
VDOT response: PCES tracks expenditures and project estimate. When a project is overrunning, the project is shown as red or the expenditures are greater than the estimate. It's up to the PM to update the estimate. Estimates should never be lower than expenditures. Another notification has to do with tentative and actual dates that were entered into IPM.
Estimates are based on today's values. If the project is out 3-years, then inflation factors are used to adjust the estimate. The inflation factors are provided by the financial office and are updated annually, October 1. The add date inflation rate is added to all components of the projects. ROW uses the same inflation factor, unless it's the same fiscal year. There is another real estate inflation rate that comes from information from the MRIS (sales).
Section B: New Electronic System Development
For agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities: What was the impetus that led to the DOT's decision to develop a new system?
VDOT response: About 20 years ago, FHWA was requesting better estimates, because ROW estimates were consistently coming in below the build cost. As a result, they wanted the DOTs to put more effort in to making estimates more accurate.
VDOT response:
RUMS: They put a VDOT team together to define what was needed (RUMS) and worked with a consulting firm.
PCES: PCES was developed based on an existing district tool (Fredericksburg). It expanded from there.
Other software used for ROW estimates are: MRIS, CoStar, County Assessment information for sales information. There is an annual fee for MRIS and CoStar access.
VDOT response:
RUMS: The current RUMS system does not store the final deed in RUMS. It would be nice to have the version that was sent out at a minimum. Ideally, the deed should be uploaded with the clerk stamp. Same with the time report and utility uses.
PCES: PCES' limitation, is that it's not a database that can be queried to pull information.
They have a Sales Comparable database that stores PDF version of each sales written by the appraiser, converted to PDF, a reviewer approves the sales and it goes into the Comparable Sales database. They can search by sales price range or type of property. The documents are stored in SharePoint.
VDOT response:
RUMS: The initial phase was to provide standardized ROW forms that are auto-populated with the parcel, project information and to provide a better tracking of appraisals, title reports, and negotiation actions. Offices were running out of storage space for all the documents. Ultimately, it cut costs.
The actual appraisal is stored in RUMS. It is a finished product with everyone's signatures.
VDOT response:
RUMS: When RUMS first came out, they had classes in every district.
PCES: PCES went online around 2001. They had classes at the central office for all PMs. Then it went out to all districts. From about 2006 to 2010 that had training on a regular basis. They plan to start another round of training with the new release of the PCES software.
Section C: Overall System Cost (Implementation and Maintenance)
VDOT response:
RUMS: It took about a year to develop RUMS. In 1994, they defined the requirements. It took another year to develop from 1995-1996.
PCES: 1- to 2-year development process. PCES came online around 1999-2000. The pilot version was developed in 1998.
VDOT response:
RUMS: The system has been around for a while. They estimate about 100 updates or revisions over the last 20 years.
PCES:Â PCES is on version 8.0. Releases are usually twice a year, January and July. Estimate approximately 25 to 30 updates have been made the last 10 years.
VDOT response: It cost approximately $2.5 M to develop both RUMS and PCES.
VDOT response: $500,000 annual for maintenance, when it was first implemented
VDOT response: VDOT IT supports PCES and RUMS.
VDOT response: VDOT has an internal system, IT, that contacts the development team when application change request has been requested. The change request describes the change needed and the date it needs to be done. When the change has been deployed to production, an email is sent to the districts and PMs.
VDOT response: Currently, the PCES workbook cannot be changed without IT support. PCES in the future may be able to be changed by VDOTs PCES owner without involving the developers. This will still require the workbook to be downloaded and uploaded so it would become part of the system.
Section D: Right-of-way Estimating Components
For the ROW estimate calculation tool currently used by the agency:
VDOT response: All these are covered
VDOT response: RUMS is used for all phases.
VDOT response:
RUMS: One of RUMS improvements was to improve the effort in researching outstanding parcels. They would have to go to each project and look for hard copies. Now, the system provides SQL reports for condemnation and all outstanding condemnation case projects are shown.
PCES:Â The ROW portion has stayed the same. They have eliminated bridge for the PCES and created a Web application for bridge. Other Web-based applications planned are for roads, utilities and ROW. VDOT's ultimate goal is to create an application that can add more items such as Roundabouts, parking lots, etc. The next version will be all Web-based. The workbook is at its capacity, a change had to be made.
VDOT response: Ease of use for both RUMS and PCES.
Section E: ROW Data Requirements
VDOT response:
PCES: The PCES datasheet doesn't calculate automatically. There is a manual effort to download the datasheet into excel to complete the calculation. Would like the datasheet to show the calculated totals automatically.
Would like the ability to have real-time data from other recent projects be brought in automatically. This is a manual effort to research previous projects. Another area for real-time data would be for parcel data. Integrate GIS property information, to bring in the total area / acreage estimate. They are doing this manually.
VDOT response: Seems like actual to estimate cost are coming in close. Variable costs for administration cost, attorney fees etc. can be found in RUMS. They can go into RUMS and pick a project and get historical variable cost. VDOT has another system, Cardinal that tracks salary hours for ROW expenditures and administrative utility cost. If the PCES tool is used correctly, they usually come in plus or minus 10%.
Section F: Review and Approval of ROW Estimate Results
1. Does your electronic ROW cost estimate calculator provide a workflow that includes actions for review and approval of the ROW estimates
VDOT response:
RUMS: RUMS has an approval process for ROW estimates. ROW estimates are entered into RUMS, if the PM accepts the ROW estimate, the ROW estimate becomes the credible/approved estimate. The PM has the option to enter their own estimate (override the ROW estimate). ROW estimates are approved by ROW managers.
Terri Dimino adds: It also mentions that ROW estimates are entered in RUMS. As mentioned above, that is no longer so. Now, there is a link to PCES from the RUMS Estimate "tab"; and estimate information is pulled into RUMS. Since I am based in NOVA (Northern Virginia), the PM saves our estimate form to the "T Drive", and then they upload it to PCES from there. I then save a copy to the Special Projects Estimate Team Site.
2. Are the review findings and conclusions compiled in such a way that historical data from such reviews is maintained cumulatively, so that it may be used to identify recurrent issues or trends that could potentially be addressed?
VDOT response:
ROW staff compares ROW estimates to expenditures. At each milestone, the ROW estimates are compared to expenditures at that point. It helps to determine if they are on target.
The following questions pertain to specific VDOT responses to certain questions in the electronic survey that you completed recently. The intent of these questions is to get additional detail about some of the tools/practices/structures/processes referenced in VDOT's survey responses.
Q31 Follow-up
Please briefly explain. NOTE: If the source document(s) that describes the post-project review exists in electronic format, please provide the link.
Survey response: This review does not exist in an electronic format but can be found in our hard copy files.
Are reviews held for all projects?
VDOT response: The Southeastern region estimator will consistently look at the project to determine the accuracy of the estimate. They will go back when the project is completely finished and look at the last estimate prior to the final estimate - there is still the process to determine if there is money left or needed.
Follow-up Q30 and Q31: Regarding the post-project reviews:
A) What are the objectives of such reviews?
VDOT response: Reviews are to determine accuracy. Analyzing history helps the estimator estimate future projects.
B) How formalized is the review process? (i.e., are they typically conducted on all or most significant projects?)
VDOT response: ROW staff and utilities are included in the review process.
C) In the event that the review reveals significant discrepancies between the ROW estimates (or other program area estimates) and the actual costs on a project, how is that information used? Please give 1 or more examples if you can.Â
VDOT response: They can identify the areas that were either too high or low so that they get a better estimate next time. The review has helped us to zero-in on any problems or errors that have occurred during the project build.
Q45 Follow-up
Has your agency developed a comprehensive checklist (or some other tool), to account for typical potential risk factors to be referenced in every project?
Survey response: Yes
VDOT response: Each estimator may have their own checklist. They don't have an agency-wide checklist. We have gotten consistently better at generating our most accurate estimates.
Q48 Follow-up
How much project information (if any) is typically provided to the Project Development Team members in advance of the initial Project Team meeting on a medium to major project, concerning issues such as project schedule, project overview, identification of members, framework and ground rules, duties and responsibilities of team members, etc.? Please explain briefly (2-3 sentences).
In a typical situation involving estimates, a large amount of information is provided including full plans. Involving Smart Scale estimates there is drastically reduced amounts of information provided including project sketches only.
What is Smart Scale estimate?
VDOT response: Originated for localities to fast-track a project on the 6-year plan. They submit an application with an estimate. The estimate is usually too low, and ROW would have to revise it.
Follow-up Q75:
Can you think of any other critical barriers to improvement at VDOT??
VDOT response: One example would be state laws that make it more difficult for ROW. Example: VA has a new law requiring the agency to compensate for owners' "Lost Profits" and amount spent on litigation expenses. Take away the option of the PM uploading the estimate into the system because they want a project to stay on budget. Since this option is used we should make it possible only by discussing the ROW costs with ROW before they can override our estimate.
Monday, September 24, 2018 at 3:00PM Eastern (2PM Central)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Erin Kube | WisDOT Statewide Acquisition/Litigation Facilitator |
| x | Drew Kottke | WisDOT Information Systems contact |
| x | Abby | |
| x | Pamela Anderson | |
| X | Tanace Matthiesen | |
| X | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| X | Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist |
| X | Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst |
| X | Lucy Gorsky | JMT Business Analyst |
| X | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
WisDOT survey response identified their use of the following electronic software tools:
Formal READS description from the WisDOT User Manual:
WisDOT's READS is a Web-based application developed by BEM Systems, Inc. (BEM) to track and manage all phases of property acquisition specific to WisDOT workflow processes. READS can also be used as a project management tool to track the acquisition process beginning with the initial parcel selection, title search, appraisal, offer to acquire, closing and potential condemnation proceedings through demolition and property management. READS simplifies and reduces the time and costs associated with the acquisition process by:
WisDOT asks: "What is the definition of a ROW Cost Estimation Calculator?"
Mike responds, Federal Highway defines it as a program or a set of integrated programs that produces an estimate based on factors or other data that is entered into the system.
WisDOT states that READS has a built-in estimation calculator, but they are not using it today because it needs to be updated and adjusted. WisDOT does provide guidance on how to do cost estimating on different design levels from zero to 60% .
Demonstration of the WisDOT Cost Estimating Spreadsheet
WisDOT has trained staff in each of the regions in the state, held webinars and conducted training for the consultants at one of their conferences. The worksheet includes instructions and definition of terms. WisDOT Cost Estimating Spreadsheet is used to standardize and facilitate creating ROW estimates for projects.
The WisDOT Cost Estimating Spreadsheet is intended to produce ROW cost estimates for every parcel associated with the project. The parcel estimates are based on parcel type and property type, estimated time to complete a ROW activity, per unit land values and other known estimates. The worksheet tabs are:
Project-wide Estimates tab is the source tab for various formulas within the Individual Parcel Estimate tab.
Delivery Hours tab:
Individual Parcel Estimate tab
Conclusion Tab: Pulls the totals from the Individual Parcel Estimate tab,(broken down by Delivery and Nondelivery and category) and calculates the Project Estimate.
Appraisal Scoping Checklist: Appraiser's checklist of property characteristic to be verified, checked off to ensure nothing is missed.
Other Notes:
Overview of Project Management Plan (PMP system) and READS
Real Estate Automated Data System Demonstration
READS is Wisconsin's implementation of BEM's system PAECETrak. It's a secured Web-based application to automate the complex process of acquiring and managing properties for ROW. The Parcel Central Menus are:
A version of the Project and Cost Estimation module has been added to READS. This was built based on the 2010 version of the Cost Estimating Spreadsheet. The vendor took the spreadsheet and duplicated it in the system. WisDOT determined there wasn't a big benefit to do the cost estimate in READS, therefore they elected to keep the spreadsheet as the main estimating tool. The delivery estimate is entered into READS at the Project level.
The main goal for developing READS was to standardize, generate and store the various documents needed during the acquisition process.
BEM supports the application. WisDOT can manage and edit reports and document templates.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/eng-consultants/cnslt-rsrces/re/reads/trainingref.pdf
Section A: Software Development
WisDOT response: There was an RFP request in 2008-2009. READS went live 2010-2011. Previously WisDOT had an MS Access real estate database that didn't have document management. The goal was to replace the Access database with a Web-based system.
They had about 8 to 10 firms that responded and only a few were promising.
WisDOT response: A cost estimating team was put together about 10 years ago to develop a better cost estimating system that could be implemented into READS.
WisDOT response:
WisDOT response: In 2010, they paid around $600,000.
WisDOT response: Annual cost between $50,000 to $70,000.
Section B: Software Application and Function
WisDOT response:
READS saves generated documents automatically, allows document uploads and supports intelligent barcode scanning. All these documents may be located by many searchable fields. That part of the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) is very good. It has the ability to save everything.
WisDOT response:
WisDOT response:
WisDOT response: Integration with Peoplesoft
The piece that READS lacks natively is assigning document retention rules to the documents. Documents would have to be archived to another system to get that function.
WisDOT response: There are three ways changes are communicated 1). Legislative change, 2). Management directive to change a process and 3). User suggestions through READS eHelp module, emails with suggestions are sent to a shared mailbox and reviewed by the READS User Group.
WisDOT READS User Group meets twice a year to discuss and prioritize changes and negotiate with the vendor.
Section C: ROW Cost Estimation Utility
WisDOT response:
WisDOT response: Information from WisDOT Cost estimate Spreadsheets can be copied and pasted into READS.
WisDOT response:
Section D: Survey Response Follow-Up
The following questions pertain to specific WisDOT responses to certain questions in the electronic survey that you completed recently. The intent of these questions is to get additional detail about some of the tools/practices/structures/processes referenced in WisDOT' survey responses.
Q45
Has your agency developed a comprehensive checklist (or some other tool), to account for typical potential risk factors to be referenced in every project?
Survey response: Yes
WisDOT response: The WisDOT Cost Estimate Spreadsheet - Appraisal Scoping tab has the checklist. The checklist evaluates property based on different property characteristics, for instance damage situations such as access changes, internal circuity, and proximity damages.
Q47
Once a risk has been identified, what is the agency's approach/strategy for: Assessing the risk level; Analyzing the potential impacts; Monitoring the risk throughout the project and; Controlling the risk, to the extent possible Please identify each risk and explain your agency's approach/strategy:
Survey response: Risk & issue meetings are held throughout the project to address issues /risks and update estimates. Participation in scoping meetings addresses potential risks and issues, like a possible relocation so we can possibly avoid it.
Follow-up: Please describe the "risk & issue meeting process.
WisDOT response: When the survey was completed, they pulled answers from the regions. Not all regions have risk & issues meeting. Scoping meeting are generally for management when real estate is involved.
Once the appraisal scope has been defined and the appraiser assigned, some regions have an appraiser start-up meeting with acquisition agents, relocation agents, lead workers, and engineers to discuss every parcel and identify risks and issues. This is the first risk & issue meeting. Additional meetings are held to discuss individual parcels as needed. READS does not store risk information.
Imagine that you are told by your DOT that the agency (or FHWA or AASHTO) is committed to developing or purchasing a state-of-the-art "ROW Cost Estimation Calculator" – without regard for cost …………… one that will include:
" . . . new or additional data elements that would improve the accuracy and performance of a ROW cost estimate calculator." (Source: "ROW Cost Estimation Processes: State of the Practice"; Work Plan; Phase II;
task 4: Determine new or additional Data Requirements
WisDOT response: To have the Cost Estimate Spreadsheet in READS and to have a better tracking mechanism to analyze at the end of the project, the estimates to actuals and how to get better.
" . . . that will affect the Seattle DOT's (SDOT) ability to implement or attempt to implement electronic ROW cost estimate calculators in their ROW offices and propose ways of overcoming the barriers." (Source: "ROW Cost Estimation Processes: State of the Practice"; Work Plan; Phase II;
task 4: Determine new or additional Data Requirements
WisDOT response: As WisDOT ROW was going through the process of analyzing some of the costs, they realized that they needed to be more "hands-on" during the appraisal scoping process. Appraisal scoping starts with the cost estimates. Also, it's best to get buy in from the project team sooner than later.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018 @ 11:00AM Eastern (9:00AM Mountain)
| Name | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Kevin Lebeda | WYDOT – ROW Administrator |
| x | Roy Weber | Asst. ROW Administrator |
| x | Scott Henderson | WebEx Contact |
| x | Mike Jones | JMT- Project Manager |
| x | Lisa Sigwart | JMT – Real Property Specialist |
| x | Jason Ramsey | JMT – Systems Analyst |
| x | Lucy Gorsky | JMT Business Analyst |
| x | Ryan Salamon | WebEx Contact |
Minutes
Mike opened the meeting with an overview of the FHWA "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Process: State of the Practice". The purpose of this meeting is to interview agencies that have been successful in developing and applying a range of digital tools that are improving the performance and accuracy of their ROW cost estimation process. The interview questions are intended to elicit additional information from those agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities.
WYDOT survey response identified the following electronic software tools
Section A: WYDOT Demo PAECETrak
PAECETrak is a COTS product developed by BEM SYSTEMS. It's a Web-based system deployed on-premise at WYDOT, that automates the complicated process of acquiring and managing properties for the ROW Department. The application resides on a WYDOT server. WYDOT provides access to ROW employees, and the State Attorney General, and internal users as needed. No one outside of WYDOT has access to the application. The WYDOT introduced the system over 10 years ago. At the time, GIS was not available.
Wyoming has 23 counties, and most parcel information is now online, but WYDOT has not integrated parcel information. Parcel information is gathered from these tools:
The PAECETrak generates and stores documents needed for a project. Modules have templates available that standardize the form letters and specific project information is pulled into the templates as needed. They have approximately 200 templates. All information, including payment information associated with the acquired land through the ROW acquisition phase, is stored in the system.
The system provides the ability for users to set up 'Ticklers' or notifications. Email notifications are sent based on due dates, the user can set up manual notifications, or have the system automatically send out notifications based on a date. They worked with the consulting firm to determine which notifications are to be automatically generated.
Parcel information and assessor information are manually entered into PAECETrak. The "Log Module" contains all documents that were generated, either within or outside of the system. Users have the ability to upload property PDF drawings, surveys and other documents associated with the project or parcel.
A ROW Cost estimate is completed as soon as the engineering tech has entered the size of each individual "taking" or permit into the system. This is done prior to the appraisal. The purpose is to get the AFE started from the FHWA request. The system generates the FHWA Request letter for funding. This estimate is not used with the construction or project development. It provides a rough estimate of the cost to purchase the required land for the project.
The land values that are applied to a parcel is the land value that the estimator has obtained from making phone calls to real estate agents or appraisers. The damage figure is an educated guess. The contingency factor is generally 10% +/-. The exception would be a project that may have a lot of relocations.
This estimate is generated once. It is not updated. As payments are being made, the actuals are posted. It's possible to run reports to compare the actuals and the estimate amounts. Generally, WYDOT does not compare the actuals to this estimate. The actual payments to the property owner are shown on the form. It possible to run reports from another system that will also capture the labor hours expended to acquire the property. Sample ROW estimating screen is shown below.
After login, the PAECETrak modules are shown on the left. Clicking the module opens the form with other menu items related to the module. Below are some of the modules that were reviewed:
Section B: New Electronic System Development
For agencies that have developed or purchased one or more electronic programs or tools that is integral to the agency's ROW cost estimation activities: What was the impetus that led to the DOT's decision to develop a new system?
WYDOT Response: At the time, the Program Administrator (PA) wanted a way to view a project and get the status of the project quickly. Prior to PAECETrak, the PA would have to determine at what stage the project was in and track down the individual to get the status. They wanted a system that had built-in check and balances. For example, the acquisition agent could not pay beyond what the review appraiser authorized. They needed to be able to create consistent documents.
WYDOT Response: As far as they remember, there were two consulting firms that responded to their RFP. One was BEM, the other consulting firm's product couldn't produce documents, which was a requirement. PAECETrak met the needs. Today there are other companies that offer a ROW real estate acquisition and management system.
WyDOT staff conducted a demonstration of PAECETrak, including some of its more useful capabilities. Pros include: increased productivity, document consistency, ability to use outside office (VPN), and ability to have project information at your fingertips.
WYDOT response: Some of the users, like appraisers that were used to writing documents, had an issue with entering data in a textbox. Currently, PAECETrak only runs on Microsoft IE browser. Developers are working on adding other browsers. It is Web-based so when there are problems with the internet, there are issues with the application. This was one of the reasons that WYDOT chose to host the application on their server versus BEM.
They have limited ability to change a template. Developers must add a new template to the system. This may take a while. Once the template is available, a user with permission can modify the template. If they needed a document right away, they would create the document outside of the system.
WYDOT response: Representatives were there for weeks and provided the initial training. People involved in a specific module, like acquisition would get an overview of the complete system.
Section C: Overall System Cost (Implementation and Maintenance)
WYDOT response: PAECETrak development took approximately a year. This is a COTS product, first developed for NJ Transit, that was modified for WYDOT's needs.
WYDOT response: This is their initial version, 90% of what they initialed purchased. They have made some minor updates
WYDOT response: $450,000
WYDOT response: $45,000 annual maintenance
WYDOT response: The vendor, BEM-PAECETrak supports the system.
WYDOT response: They will work with the teams to get their input and come up with a list of changes, some may be fixes to the system, others may be new development. WYDOT discusses the changes with the vendor, vendor sends back the estimated cost to implement.
Section D: ROW Estimating Components
For the ROW estimate calculation tool currently used by the agency:
WYDOT response: PAECETrak offers an Outdoor Advertising module. WYDOT has an outdoor advertising application and it's not integrated with PAECETrak. Another module not customized for WYDOT was employee relocation, they don't have a lot of this type of relocation. The GIS module came later. WYDOT has not seen the version that BEM offers. WYDOT doesn't have a good GIS for their existing ROW properties. If the GIS had this type of capability, it would be of value. Without a good GIS WYDOT system, they would have to build it from scratch.
When PAECETrak was designed, there were several databases that were downloaded into the PAECETrak database to "seed" the system. The older systems are no longer in existence. All old and new projects are maintained in PAECETrak. Databases downloaded into PAECETrak:
WYDOT response: PAECETrak have initiated upgrades for other states. WYDOT has not been forced to accept an upgrade to make the system work. These are budgetary items, if they don't have the need or money, the upgrade is not implemented.
WYDOT response: Yes.
Section E: ROW Data Requirements
WYDOT response: Biggest issue is calculating actual property values by science. The Appraisal module does track comparable sales. It would be nice if the comparable sales could be extracted from the comparable sales database to be used in the estimator. Wyoming is a nondisclosure state. Sales information is not available from the land records.
WYDOT response: The ROW estimator handles variable costs and can be reevaluated as needed.
Section F: Review and Approval of ROW Estimate Results
The following questions pertain to specific WYDOT responses to certain questions in the electronic survey that you completed recently. The intent of these questions is to get additional detail about some of the tools/practices/structures/processes referenced in WYDOT's survey responses.
Please list all electronic/digital software tools that your agency might employ at the Preliminary Design Phase to assist in developing, revising, tracking, monitoring, communicating and reporting information in connection with the ROW Cost Estimation Processes. Please list each software program or other electronic/digital tool and briefly explain its function.
Survey response: All information in the ROW Cost Estimate is saved in our ROW Document Management System (PAECETrak) for future reference. The estimate is generated from this program as well as the request letter to FHWA for funding.
Q64 Follow-up: Please explain or demonstrate. Is that data useful for future cost estimate?
WYDOT response: Usually it doesn't make sense to go back to the historical data. The data may be old and not applicable to the next project. It's possible to generate reports. It doesn't benefit them to look at history. Historical comp sales are sometimes used, depending on how old the data is.
WisDOT response: The ROW cost estimate developed in PAECETrak is used  for acquisition, utilities and environmental cost are not included. These estimates are supplied to the FHWA. There is a separate utility program tool that another group uses that includes utilities and environmental cost.
The most difficult to quantify are damages, landscape damage, billboards or large signs. This is not known until after the appraisal is done. Difference between what the owner feels the value is versus ROW.
At what point of the project are site visits done?
After they have ROW utility plans, that show where the takings are going to be.1 The Uniform Act is contained in Title 42 U.S.C. 4601-4655. The regulations implementing the law are contained in 49 CFR Part 24.
2 Delays can result from a variety of factors such as community opposition, unexpected engineering complications, environmental clearance, funding uncertainty, administrative bottlenecks, or conflicts between agencies—in some cases better coordination can help to reduce these delays and in other cases it can at least help to identify the potential risks involved.
3 Virginia DOT's (VDOT) internally developed ROW and utility management system (see section 4.0).
4 The survey indicated that TxDOT does compare estimates to actuals, but in the interview TxDOT staff indicated that they did not.
5 This may appear to contradict the previous statement that WisDOT did not find it useful to integrate the cost estimate calculator with READS. This may be related to how the specific application was implemented. WisDOT was clearly interested in better data integration/communication across applications.
6 And in one of those three States (WI), the State does not use the built-in cost estimation function.
7 An "offset" is the value of the transportation to the property owner, which may reduce compensation for partial takings. Offsets are one of the most litigated questions of partial takings compensation (Bell, A., and G. Parchamovsky, "Partial Takings," Columbia Law Review Vol. 117 No. 8, https://columbialawreview.org/content/partial-takings/).
8 Such models have been developed in the past. For example, NCHRP Report 625 notes a cost estimation model developed by Kockelman et al (2004) in cooperation with TxDOT, based on data from TxDOT and CoStar. The accuracy of these models in predicting parcel acquisition cost was acceptable in the case of agricultural and vacant parcels, but the model lacked accuracy in the area of commercial and residential takings.
9 Vendor-provided ERMS identified by survey respondents or the project team, in addition to BEM Systems' PAECETrak, include Flairdocs (flairdocs.com/), geoAMPS (http://www.geoamps.com/), Aurigo (https://www.aurigo.com/solutions/business-automation/right-of-way/), and Landworks (https://www.landworks.com/).
