Reducing Scope Creeps on Emergency Relief Projects in Eastern Federal Lands Highway during the Design Stage Katerina Roman Gonzalez Master in Engineering Management Program Dr. Hector J. Cruzado, PE Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Land Surveying Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Abstract ⎯ Eastern Federal Lands Highway numerous of ERFO funded projects. The Agency’s Division (EFLHD) has experienced significant role is to deliver the design and reconstruction of the scope creep on projects funded by the Emergency roadway facilities within two-years of the disaster. A Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) constant issue that has been identified by the project Program. This project identifies the specific issues team within EFLHD during the design process is that each project experienced during the design stage there are significant scope changes from the that could have been avoided or addressed during assessment to the final design stage, causing the final the initial assessment stage. To accomplish this, a estimate to be significantly higher than the estimate meeting with the Project Managers at EFLHD developed during the initial assessment. associated which each project was conducted. A new assessment checklist was recommended to help OBJECTIVE remind engineers of things to consider during the The objective of this project is to identify the pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment causes of significant scope and cost changes, and phases. propose improvements to the process that will allow Key Terms ⎯ ERFO Program, Eligibility, the project team to conduct better assessment of the Assessment Process, Recommendations damages to minimize significant scope creeps and provide a more accurate cost estimate during an INTRODUCTION earlier design stage. The Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) is a program developed to help CURRENT ASSESSMENT PROCESS federal agencies to repair and reconstruct Assessment Stage transportation facilities that were damaged during natural disasters. This special type of funding is To apply for the funding the owners needs to authorized under Title 23, Section 125 – Highway submit a Notice of Intent to the FLH Division Office, Trust Funds [1]. It’s eligibility for the funding which will initiate the process and proceed with the depends on meeting the following requirements: damage assessment stage. The Partners have the • Road needs to be owned by a Federal Land or a option of conducting the assessment themselves or Tribal Transportation facility and be opened to request assistance from Federal Lands Highway the public. Division. During the assessment stage, a team of experts in the field goes to the site to assess the • Damages were caused by the natural disaster damages caused by the event. During the site visit, The ERFO Program allocates funds for design, the team will document their observations by taking construction and construction oversight; typically pictures, measurements and drawing sketches of the administered by the roadway owner or Federal damages. Lands Highway (FLH) Division Office upon request. The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Office [2] delivers annually Post Assessment highest increase was on event KY2016-1-FS, which increased by 204%. In 2017, there were a total of After returning to the office, the team develops three disasters that had final data available. In this an assessment report that is used to determine the year, 100% of the events analyzed had significant magnitude of the damages (scope), estimated cost of cost increase. The highest increase was on event repairs, and funding needed to complete the design GA2017-1-NPS, which increased by 97%. and construction oversight of the project. The Program Manager evaluates the report to determines Table 1 POP Letters Cost Comparison its funding eligibility. The reports considered eligible will then become part of a Programs of Yea Event Number Initial Cost Final Cost Projects (POP) request, which is the first step to r 201 AR2015-1-COE $3,476,221 $4,735,788 obtain funds and initiate the design process. The 5 POP request is later revised to obtain additional 201 KY2016-1-FS $779,985 $2,373,369 funds needed to complete the project. 6 201 WI2016-1-FS $18,728,464 $24,258,74 METHODOLOGY 6 9 201 WV-2016-FS $25,227,664 $28,655,14 A research was conducted to identify previous 6 0 projects completed by EFLHD that had significant 201 MO2017-1-NPS $3,608,912 $4,965,913 7 cost changes. The initial and the final POP requests 201 GA2017-1-NPS $903,550 $1,781,000 generated to obtain funds for the disasters were used 7 to identify these projects. The data was evaluated for 201 PR2017-1-FS $25,072,948 $33,643,45 disaster damages completed during the years of 2015 7 3 thru 2017. A closed analysis of the information After meeting with the Project Managers, it was helped identify the Project Managers of each mutually agreed that the most common issues were individual disaster. A meeting was conducted to caused by inefficiencies during the assessment stage. discuss the specific issues faced during the different The following are some of the issues identified: design stages that caused a change in the scope. • Sites were missed during the initial assessment. During the meeting, inefficiencies during the initial • It was assumed that the bridges could be reset assessment were identified, which eventually led to while no as-built information was available to the recommendations and improvements proposed in confirm the bridge substructure would support this project. the loads. • Pedestrian bridge approaches were not meeting ANALYSIS OF DATA American Disability Act (ADA) slope requirements, therefore significant grading was During the research stage, the initial and final later proposed. POP letters were compared. Table 1 shows the • Quantities for numerous pay items were events that experienced a 15% cost increase when underestimated. comparing the initial cost estimate to the final cost • Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) requirements estimate. In 2015, there were a total of three disasters were not considered during design stage. that were delivered by EFLHD. In this year, 33% of Culverts sitting on rock were upgraded to the events experienced cost increase. The highest bridges to accommodate an open bottom increase was on event AR2015-1-COE, which structure. increased by 36%. In 2016, there were a total of eight • Resizing culverts to meet current standards was disasters that were delivered by EFLHD. In this year, not considered during the assessment. Upsizing 56% of the events experienced a cost increase. The culverts required significant grading, causing impacts to endangered species living near the • Data: Obtaining data prior to going to the sites roadway prism. To mitigate impacts the will allow for a better use of the time in the field. roadway was realigned away from the area. Pre-downloading maps and bringing hard • Other environmental considerations were copies of the report will help the team missed. understand what information needs to be obtained and visit the sites in a practical order. OBSERVATIONS AND Assessment RECOMMENDATIONS Depending on the magnitude and impact of the It is important to evaluate the current disaster in the area, there are numerous amounts of assessment process to understand why these issues sites visits that the team must assess during this arise on the first place. This section provides the phase. The teams are grouped in sub-teams by area observations made on the current process based on of expertise for example: bridge engineers perform the discussions with the Project Manager and all the bridge assessments, hydraulic engineers identifies areas of improvement for each phase of the perform all the culverts and stream assessment, assessment process. geotechnical engineers perform all the landslide Pre-Assessment Preparation assessment and highway engineers perform all the highway related assessment. Although this is a very First, during the pre-assessment phase there is effective way to conduct all the assessment, there are minimal in-office preparation prior to the site visits. occasions when a team is asked to conduct an In most cases, the teams are unfamiliar with project assessment outside of their area of expertise. Not area and have limited information on the type of knowing what to look for, they may miss damages that will be encountered. Therefore, they documenting important details of the site visit. As don’t bring the necessary equipment or gear to part of the recommendations to mitigate the risk, an properly obtain the information needed to prepare assessment design checklist was developed by area the reports. As part of the recommendations, a pre- of expertise. The purpose is to facilitate non-experts assessment checklist that will help mitigate the risk in the field to conduct the assessment without associated with the preparation phase: missing important items: • Research: Get familiarized with the area by • Geotechnical: Draw a cross-section with obtaining information of previous projects and dimensions of the roadway elements including contacting the Environment team in EFLHD to vertical and horizontal distances from the top to see if there are environmental considerations in the toe of landslide. Obtain measurements of the the project vicinities that they are aware of. side slopes 15-feet before and after the failure. • Equipment: Suggest a list of proper equipment Identifying the cause of the failure, document and gear to bring depending on the location of any soil instability observed in the field. the sites, type of damages and weather. • Hydraulic: Draw a profile and cross-section of • Understanding the ERFO Program: It is the stream. Obtain pipe and ditch dimensions important to read the ERFO Manual [3] before and document any signs of poor maintenance heading to the sites. Having a good (corrosion, debris). Verify if the pipe is sitting understanding of the ERFO Program, the on bedrock, or if headwall/wingwall process, eligibility and exceptions will help configuration is needed. Ask the Partner if the recognize when is required to replace damaged stream needs to be re-graded or if Aquatic areas in-kind and when is acceptable to upgrade Organism Passage requirements need to be to meet current design guidelines. considered and if they have preferred scour/erosion countermeasures. • Bridge: Obtaining as-built information and allowance as directed by FLH design bridge inspection reports will help the engineer guidelines; consider using a 20% allowance. confirm that none of the damages were pre- • Other Quantity Considerations: Upsizing disaster or due to lack of maintenance. culverts that are not meeting the minimum • Environmental: Verify with the Partner the design standards. For AOP, consider excavation following information: are there elements quantities to embed the culvert below grade. considered historic; are there endangered Adding new headwall to culverts 60-inches or species nearby; is Archaeological assessment or larger. Consider low cost countermeasures to wetland delineation needed; and if the project improve elements that are not meeting design requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) or standards. a Categorical Exclusion (CE). • Highway Design: Document the roadway CONCLUSION elements in a cross-section with dimensions. After evaluating the issues faced during the Verify that design criteria are being met; by design process for the projects funded through the looking for signs of skid marks which may ERFO Program it was concluded that most of the indicate vehicles are departing off the road. This issues could have been prevented during the could be a sign of sharp curves, narrow lane assessment phase. An evaluation of project specific widths or high superelevation rates that are not issues and the current process led to multiple meeting the design standards. Measure the recommendations to improve the process. width, depth and length of roadway washouts. If Recommendations were divided into three sub possible obtain information of the depth of the categories: the pre-assessment, assessment and post- asphalt, base and embankment reconstruction assessment phases. For future considerations, it is needed. suggested that the project cost increase gets tracked Not all the information needs to be obtained in yearly to continue improving the assessments by the field; it is recommended that the team include considering new issues that may result during the time in the agenda to conduct a closeout meeting at upcoming years. the end of the site visit. Other issues like traffic control, construction restrictions, upcoming projects REFERENCES and next steps in the process could be discussed [1] Federal Highway Administration, Office of Federal Lands during this meeting. Highway. Emergency Relief Program. Updated 03 October 2019. Retrieved from Post - Assessment https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm [2] The Federal Lands Highway Web Team. About us. Office The most significant issues encountered during of Federal Lands Highway. Updated 12 May 2016, the post-assessment phase are caused by quantity Accessed on August 11, 2019. Retrieved from under-runs and low unit prices used to estimate the https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/about/ cost of the permanent repairs. As part of the [3] Federal Highway Administration, Office of Federal Lands Highway. 2015. Emergency Relief for Federally Owned recommendation for this phase, a list of items to be Roads Disaster Assistance Manual. Publication No.: considered was develop: FHWA-FLH-15-001. Washington, DC: FHWA. • Unit Prices: The project will likely be advertised two years after the report was developed; therefore applying a growth rate to unit prices is practical. • Quantity Computations: Quantities are often underestimated. Instead of using a 10%