The study began with a web-based search for relevant articles, case studies, and other legal doctrine addressing the use of electronic delivery and signature verification technologies, specifically in government uses. A total of twenty (20) articles were researched, including publications from vendors, State DOTs, the Volpe National Transportation System Center, the Federal Trade Commission and the Uniform Law Commission.
The report from this literature research included information about the two (2) most significant laws that standardized electronic delivery and signature verification technologies: the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN). It also explained electronic signatures, as well as distinguishing between an electronic signature and a digital signature. The latter provides authentication of the identity of the person who “signed” the document and methods to indicate that a document has not been changed since the signature was added. This report briefly described five (5) existing and acknowledged service providers for electronic signatures.
The final report also contained a comprehensive bibliography of all reference materials, with a short summary, abstract and list of key terms for each article, links to websites (as applicable), along with an outline identifying section headings, major topics and discussion points. A glossary of terms was also assembled.
As noted in the Literature and Web Research report, the primary barrier to using electronic delivery systems for acquisition and relocation notices, and written offers to acquire are the current Uniform Act implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 that do not allow for the use of an electronic delivery method. Although some individual state laws may also prohibit this type of delivery, this is not viewed as an obstacle to any Federal regulatory change that may occur, since the change would likely be in addition to personal or mail delivery, and not mandated.
In this stage of the research, information was collected directly from State DOTs and industry professionals (vendors) about the use of electronic delivery or signature verification systems that may be used to expedite or streamline right of way (ROW) acquisition. There were three essential components involved in this effort:
Prior to conducting interviews, an interview questionnaire was developed to gather information from the selected State DOTs regarding their experience with electronic delivery or signature verification systems. A copy of the interview questionnaire is attached as Exhibit “A” to this report.
In January of 2014, representatives from eight (8) State DOTs were interviewed by telephone:
Indiana Department of Transportation
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
Michigan Department of Transportation
Mississippi Department of Transportation
South Dakota Department of Transportation
Texas Department of Transportation
Utah Department of Transportation
Virginia Department of Transportation
Generally, the State DOTs do not use electronic delivery of documents to property owners or displaced persons. The only exception to this would be if a property owner specifically requested that type of delivery for an offer to acquire. In this case the DOT would typically follow-up on the delivery with a hard copy by mail and/or a personal telephone call to the owner. None of the DOTs used electronic delivery for relocation notices, since it is not permitted under the current Uniform Act regulations. Most of the DOTs use email for some type of follow-up contact, again if requested by the owner or displaced person.
Several of the DOTs use electronic methods to deliver documents internally, most commonly for appraisal and appraisal review. The appraisal reports are electronically signed by both the appraiser and the reviewer, and the acquisition agent is notified that an approved appraisal report is available for negotiation purposes upon agency approval of the just compensation amount.
Most of the interviewed representatives stated that electronic delivery and signature verification would be a useful tool that could be used in conjunction with other delivery methods for offers and notices.
Three (3) State DOTs interviewed have implemented an electronic delivery/signature system with the public in an office or area outside of ROW. All stated that it had resulted in a streamlining of work effort.
Prior to conducting interviews, an interview questionnaire was developed to gather information from selected vendors regarding their electronic delivery system. A copy of the interview questionnaire is attached as Exhibit “B” to this report.
Interviews with Adobe EchoSign and Silanis Technology, Inc. were conducted during January 2014. A representative from each vendor was contacted to secure an agreement to complete the interview, and then a copy of the interview questionnaire was emailed for completion.
Data security and system uptime/availability are very important in this arena, and both organizations maintain that they have never experienced a system breach of their data. Further, they both report a system uptime of 99%. All data is stored on servers, and is secured using the latest encrypted algorithms. Silanis and Adobe offer different levels of identity options for signers. The most common authentication method is the use of the signer’s email address, where the signer is invited via email to e-sign a document. An agency may also use email plus challenge questions, where the vendor presents to the user a list of challenge questions that only the user should be able to answer (i.e., last 4 digits of social security number, year of birth, telephone number). The user must correctly respond to the challenge question(s) before accessing the e-signature transaction. Another option is to use email plus SMS (text-message), where the system sends the signer a one-time password via SMS. The signer is then prompted for this password upon accessing the e-signature transaction. Since the signer’s phone is used, which is something the user has in addition to something the user now knows, this is often referred to as a two-factor authentication.
As part of the e-sign process, the comprehensive Silanis consent to the e-sign page is the first page the signer must review and accept. This action then becomes part of the audit history. Opting in is typically on a transaction-by-transaction basis, however, an agency may elect to use a “blanket” consent, or have it set for a specific period. If the user then elects to “opt out,” the agency would reset the mandatory e-sign consent on each future transaction. An example of the typical Silanis consent page is attached as Exhibit “C” to this report.
Adobe’s response to this question indicated that the agency (sender) can provide an option for the signer to decline a signature, which would be tracked in the transaction audit trail. An example of Adobe’s option for a signer to decline a signature is attached as Exhibit “D” to this report.
It is important to note that the forms provided here are for informational purposes. An organization or agency can customize a consent page to meet its individual needs. An agency may consult with legal counsel to determine the specific legal consents required for electronic signatures, and work with a vendor to incorporate language into the signer’s consent.
Both vendors can set data retention policies at the direction of the client. In addition, both services create an audit trail of the electronic signature process (i.e., who initiated the request and date of request, when the document was downloaded, date of electronic signature, chronological order in cases of multiple signers, etc.). The vendor maintains a copy of this audit trail and an original key to authenticate the signed document so the authenticity of the copies can be verified. Both vendors report a high level of security for all data stored/retained on their servers. This data is encrypted, and access is limited to authorized individuals only. Silanis and Adobe indicated that they support two-factor authentication for system administrator access.
Finally, both Silanis and Adobe allow for branding options on the product, such as including an agency or company logo on the product’s web page and/or documents produced.
In the next step of the research study, a stakeholder working group was convened comprised of State DOT representatives who participated in the interviews. The purpose of the working groups was to identify challenges that must be addressed when using an electronic delivery or signature verification system for federally-funded projects.
The working group included representatives from the following State DOTs:
Indiana Department of Transportation
Mississippi Department of Transportation
South Dakota Department of Transportation
Texas Department of Transportation
Virginia Department of Transportation
In addition, two (2) representatives from the FHWA Office of Real Estate Services Headquarters participated in the working group, as well as one FHWA Division Realty Officer.
The working group met through webinars a total of four (4) times over a period of approximately six (6) weeks (02/20/14, 03/07/14, 03/21/14, and 04/04/14). These meetings progressed from a general discussion of how the participating DOTs were using electronic signatures in any of its current processes or systems, to a more specific examination of the advantages and disadvantages associated with using electronic delivery of offers to acquire and relocation notices. These discussions also included the practicality of implementing an electronic delivery and signature system for a State DOT. Both Silanis Technologies, Inc. and Adobe EchoSign provided demonstrations as to how its products would work in any particular State DOT setting.
