~UBmCATION 

Office of Infrastructure 

Turner-Eairbank' 'Asset Management, Pavements, ana Construction 

1200 New Jersey; Ave. S.E . 

.Wasliington, DC 20590-9898 
FOREWORD

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assessed how paperless processes were 

successfully used by owner agencies throughout the project delivery process. The assessment 

techniques included desk scans of current practices, select interviews with owner agencies, and 

in-depth cross-sectional analyses of practices within various project delivery phases using case 

studies. This work led to a deeper understanding of the specific cost and benefit categories 

agencies can use to conduct a return on investment (ROI) analysis for implementing eConstruction solutions within their organizations. One of the key products of the research was to 

develop a generalized framework, using the ROI analysis as a basis that owner agencies can use 

to evaluate the business case to invest in an enterprise-wide technology deployment and 

implementation program to standardize e-Construction practices. The research also documented 

challenges and lessons learned from various e-Construction implementation efforts and identified 

opportunities for improvement for eight specific e-Construction practices. The actionable 

products of the research include guidelines for assessing investment prioritization, implementing 

and advancing e-Constructions practices, and a benefit-cost analysis template for calculating 

ROI.

Cheryl Allen Richter, P.E., Ph.D., 

Director, Office of Infrastructure

Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in 

the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the 

information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, 

or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the 

document. 

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement. 
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Report No.

FHWA-HIF-17-028

2. Government 

Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Addressing Challenges and Return on Investment (ROI) for Paperless Project 

Delivery (e-Construction)

5. Report Date: 

May 11, 2017

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Keyur Shah, Alexa Mitchell, Doris Lee, Jagannath Mallela

8. Performing Organization Report 

No.

N/A

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

1015 Half St. SE, Suite 650

Washington, D.C. 20003

10. Work Unit No.

N/A

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH6114R00031

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Infrastructure Research and Technology

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

The Contracting Officer’s Representative is Richard Duval, HRDI-20, Richard.Duval@dot.gov, 202-493-3365

16. Abstract

State and local transportation departments, as well as construction contractors, are realizing the benefits of a paperless system, 

which include ready access to historical project documents and data, reduced printing and mailing costs, ease of updating 

information, simplified workflows, and quicker and more efficient project collaboration. These paperless project delivery 

system (e-Construction) benefits can happen before, during, and after construction of a project. The adoption of eConstruction practices has recently increased among agencies, in part due to FHWA efforts to promote this innovation during 

the third round of the Every Day Counts (EDC-3) initiative. However, the levels of e-Construction in project delivery vary 

greatly among the agencies. This study documents how state departments of transportation (DOTs) are transitioning to a more 

paperless project delivery system. The researchers focused on identifying the challenges encountered during implementation 

of e-Construction and opportunities for improvement. In addition, cost benefit data from four agencies was captured to set 

benchmarks used in a template to estimate return on investment (ROI) that DOTs can use to develop a business case to fund eConstruction initiatives. The actionable products of the research, which are included in this report, are guidelines for 

implementing e-Construction improvement opportunities and a framework for calculating ROI. 

17. Key Words

e-Construction, Paperless Project Delivery, Digital 

Signatures, Construction Management, Electronic Plans, 

Electronic Bidding, Digital PS&E, Mobile Devices, Project 

Collaboration.

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through 

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. 

(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

112

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.
ii

 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

Background ................................................................................................................................. 1

Research Objective ...................................................................................................................... 1

e-Construction Definition ............................................................................................................ 1

Research Tasks and Report Organization ................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE ............................................................................. 6

Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) .............................................................................. 8

Electronic Bidding and Contractor Selection .............................................................................. 8

Project Construction Management .............................................................................................. 9

Project Inspection and Testing .................................................................................................. 10

Project Acceptance .................................................................................................................... 10

Project Close-Out ...................................................................................................................... 10

Data Sharing between Steps/Phases and Integration across All e-Construction Opportunities 10

Summary of State Agency Maturity .......................................................................................... 11

Common Tools Used for e-Construction .................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE ................................................................. 20

Who Should Use This Guidance? ............................................................................................. 20

e-Construction improvement opportunities ............................................................................... 20

How to Use this Guidance? ....................................................................................................... 22

Initial Self-Assessment .............................................................................................................. 23

Prioritizing Improvement Opportunities and Estimating Benefits and Costs ........................... 26

Project Success Factors ............................................................................................................. 58

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 69

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE PHASE I COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ............... 71

APPENDIX B. PRIORITIZATION ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 80

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 101
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Flowchart. Research approach. .........................................................................................3

Figure 2. Illustration. Research summary findings for e-Construction state of the 

practice. ..........................................................................................................................6

Figure 3. Flowchart. Steps to follow as general guidance for implementing eConstruction. ................................................................................................................22

Figure 4. Screen capture. Legend for data cells in ROI spreadsheet template. .............................38

Figure 5. Screen capture. Input field to calculate benefits for implementation of 

electronic bidding and contractor selection. ................................................................38

Figure 6. Screen capture. Anticipated benefit streams and phasing of benefits for 

electronic bidding and contractor selection. ................................................................39

Figure 7. Screen capture. Staff costs for implementation of electronic bidding and 

contractor selection. .....................................................................................................40

Figure 8. Screen capture. Costs and percentages incurred by year for 

implementation of electronic bidding and contractor selection. ..................................40

Figure 9. Screens capture. Benefit cost analysis for bidding and contractor 

selection. ......................................................................................................................42

Figure 10. Screen capture. Return on investment timeframe selection. ........................................42

Figure 11. Graph. Traditional learning curve observed when adopting new 

technology or methods. ................................................................................................44

Figure 12. Flowchart. Sequence of pre-implementation planning activities. ................................46

Figure 13. Flowchart. Sequence of system implementation activities. ..........................................47

Figure 14. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of electronic bidding 

and contractor selection. ..............................................................................................50

Figure 15. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of electronic PS&E. ........................51

Figure 16. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of digital review. ............................52

Figure 17. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of a project 

construction management system. ...............................................................................53

Figure 18. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of a project 

collaboration tool. ........................................................................................................55

Figure 19. Timeline. Potential schedule for the implementation of requirements 

for digital as-built records. ...........................................................................................57

Figure 20. Timeline. Potential schedule for the implementation of mobile devices. ....................58

Figure 21. Illustration. Risk management process. ........................................................................59

Figure 22. Scale. Calculation of risk score. ...................................................................................65
v 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of state of the practice for PS&E. ....................................................................11

Table 2. Summary of the state of the practice for electronic bidding and contract 

award. ...........................................................................................................................12

Table 3. Summary of the state of the practice for project construction 

management. ................................................................................................................13

Table 4. Summary of the state of the practice for project inspection and testing. .........................14

Table 5. Summary of the state of the practice for project acceptance. ..........................................15

Table 6. Summary of the state of the practice for project close-out. .............................................15

Table 7. Summary of the state of the practice for data sharing between 

steps/phases. .................................................................................................................16

Table 8. e-Construction commonly used tools for plan set review and preparation. .....................17

Table 9. e-Construction commonly used tools for electronic bidding and contract 

award1. .........................................................................................................................17

Table 10. e-Construction commonly used tools for project collaboration1. ..................................18

Table 11. e-Construction commonly used tools for project construction 

management and mobile devices1. ...............................................................................19

Table 12. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities 

(pre-construction). ........................................................................................................24

Table 13. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities 

(construction). ..............................................................................................................25

Table 14. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities 

(post-construction). ......................................................................................................26

Table 15. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities 

(cross-cutting/dependencies)........................................................................................26

Table 16. Prioritization criteria for evaluating benefits to the agency. ..........................................28

Table 17. Prioritization criteria for evaluating likelihood of success. ...........................................29

Table 18. Prioritization criteria for evaluating level of complexity. ..............................................30

Table 19. Prioritization criteria for evaluating how to leverage existing resources. .....................30

Table 20. Additional prioritization criteria to assess overall agency benefits. ..............................31

Table 21. Additional prioritization criteria to assess level of investment. .....................................31

Table 22. Additional prioritization criteria to assess how to leverage existing 

resources. .....................................................................................................................32

Table 23. Additional prioritization criteria to assess likelihood of success. ..................................33

Table 24. Definitions of terms used in BCA and ROI calculations. ..............................................37

Table 25. Description of worksheet tabs used in the ROI template. ..............................................37

Table 26. Summary of planning level estimates. ...........................................................................43

Table 27. Initial inventory of potential risks and barriers. .............................................................60

Table 28. Risk probability scale. ....................................................................................................63
vi 

Table 29. Risk impact scale. ..........................................................................................................64

Table 30. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of electronic bidding and 

contract award. .............................................................................................................80

Table 31. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of PS&E. .............................................83

Table 32. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of digital review of 

contract documents. .....................................................................................................86

Table 33. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of electronic project 

construction management system. ...............................................................................88

Table 34. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of a project collaboration 

tool to manage digital construction documentation. ....................................................90

Table 35. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of construction methods 

using AMG equipment. ................................................................................................92

Table 36. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of requiring digital asbuilt records. ................................................................................................................94

Table 37. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of digital signatures. ...........................96

Table 38. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of mobile devices. ...............................98
vii 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

2D 2-dimensional

3D 3-dimensional

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

AMG Automated Machine Guidance

BCA Benefit cost analysis

CAD Computer Aided Drafting

CADD Computer Aided Drafting and Design

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CDSv3 Construction Document System (version 3)

CMS Contract Management System

COTS Commercial off-the shelf

DIA Denver International Airport

DOT Department of Transportation

ECMS Engineering Construction Management System

EDC Every Day Counts

EDC-3 Round 3 of Every Day Counts

EDC-4 Round 4 of Every Day Counts

EDMS Electronic Document Management System

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GNSS Global Navigational Satellite Systems

iEWB internet Extra Work Bill

iPD integrated Project Development

IT Information Technology

Lidar Light Detection and Ranging

MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation
viii

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

PDF Portable Document Format

PKI Public Key Infrastructure

PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge

PS&E Plans, specifications, and estimates

RFP Request for Proposal

RID Reference Information Documents

RMP Risk Management Plan

ROI Return on investment

SAM Site Access Module

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation

VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation
1 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative focuses on 

“efficiency through technology and collaboration through a set of innovations targeted at 

shortening project development and delivery, enhancing roadway safety, reducing congestion, 

and improving environmental sustainability.” (FHWA 2013a) Technical teams have developed 

implementation plans for each innovation and are managing the deployment effort over a twoyear cycle during 2015 to 2016. 

Among the innovations identified for EDC-3 is e-Construction; this initiative aims to employ 

established technologies readily available to the transportation community, including digital 

electronic signatures, electronic communication, secure file sharing, version control, mobile 

devices, and web-hosted data archival and retrieval systems, to improve construction 

documentation management. (FHWA 2013b) These improvements would allow agencies to 

deliver projects faster and more efficiently, thereby delivering better value for stakeholders. 

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this research project is to prepare a practical guide to help agencies 

assess feasibility of e-Construction improvement opportunities, prioritize these opportunities, 

and plan for implementation. This research project responds to the increasing national interest in 

e-Construction implementation and in documenting the benefits and costs of using 

e-Construction tools. 

This implementation guidance will help agencies looking to adopt e-Construction, as well as 

agencies that have adopted some aspects of e-Construction but are seeking to expand their 

programs. 

E-CONSTRUCTION DEFINITION

This project follows the FHWA EDC-3 definition of e-Construction: “A paperless construction 

administration delivery process, including: electronic submission of all construction 

documentation by all stakeholders, electronic document routing and approvals (e-signature), and 

digital management of all construction documentation in a secure environment allowing 

distribution to all project stakeholders through mobile devices.” (FHWA 2013b) The eConstruction process includes the following: (FHWA 2014) 

• Electronic capture of construction data. 

• Electronic submission of construction documentation. 

• Increased use of mobile devices. 

• Increased automation of document review and approval. 
2 

• Use of electronic signatures throughout the construction process by all parties involved. 

• Secure document and workflow management accessible on any device. 

e-Construction can be used through all steps of the project delivery process, from project 

advertisement to final project acceptance, including the following: 

• Electronic bidding and contract award. 

• Electronic plan documents. 

• Project construction management (including utilization, transfer, and approval of 

electronic plan sets, contractor payroll submittals, claims, and change orders). 

• Project inspection and data collection. 

• Project acceptance (including punch lists, as-built submittal, and entering warranty 

phase). 

• Project close-out (including retainage release and entering warranty phase). 

• Project communications (e.g., public information management and internal 

communications). 

• Resource tracking (e.g., equipment, personnel, fleet, etc.). 
3 

RESEARCH TASKS AND REPORT ORGANIZATION

The research approach undertaken to accomplish the research objectives is illustrated in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Flowchart. Research approach. 

Research Current and Evolving Practice

This step involved a comprehensive literature review of information on past and ongoing efforts 

of agencies toward paperless or electronic project delivery, primarily in the highway construction 

realm. The purpose of the literature review was to better understand current effective practices

for paperless delivery and identify the leading agencies that use these practices. The findings of 

this task are described in Chapter 2. 

Document Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities 

This step included three activities: 

1. Analyzing results of a web-based survey administered by the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Construction in April 

2015 (AASHTO 2015). 

2. Surveying and analyzing contractor practice (WSP | Parsons Brinckherhoff 2015) 

3. Conducting more detailed interviews with a subset of state transportation departments and 

one airport with more progressive e-Construction practices. 

The survey by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction aimed to understand the use of 

e-Construction technology in project delivery with a specific emphasis on understanding the 

processes, tools, and systems used and the associated implementation benefits and costs. A total 

of 23 individuals representing 21 public agencies responded to the survey. From these responses, 

10 state transportation departments and one airport were contacted to obtain further information 

via a structured interview. The agencies interviewed are as follows: 

• Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). 

• California Department of Transportation. (Caltrans).

• Denver International Airport. (DIA). 

• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
4 

• Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT)

• Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).

• Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). 

• North Carolina Department of Transportation. (NCDOT).

• Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 

• Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

• Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). 

A separate survey was administered to 24 contractors, resulting in four responses, which were 

analyzed to document and compare their construction practices to those of state transportation 

departments. 

The findings from this task helped the research team gain an in-depth understanding of state 

transportation departments’ e-Construction practices, identify any key challenges and lessons 

learned during implementation, identify nascent and mature practices, and isolate any 

documented benefit and cost data. These findings are summarized in Chapter 2.

Analyze Data and Develop an e-Construction Development Plan 

This step involved identifying key areas of opportunity to develop a meaningful and 

progressively improving e-Construction program, developing criteria to assess feasibility based 

on the findings from previous tasks and the research team’s prior experience and body of 

knowledge, and determining feasibility using the criteria. The research team also identified 

additional criteria that agencies can use to determine feasibility and priorities specific to their 

agency. The e-Construction development plan is part of the implementation guidance, which is 

documented in detail in Chapter 3. 

Develop Implementation Guidance 

This step consolidates the following elements into the implementation plan presented in Chapter 

3:

• Factors for agencies to evaluate when prioritizing the focus areas of an e-Construction 

program. 

• General guidance on benefits and costs, allowing agencies to tailor the information based 

on their specific processes and construction programs. 

• Implementation plan guidance, including sequence of activities and strategies for 

overcoming common barriers for implementation. 

• Recommendations for obtaining organizational buy-in and managing change. 

Additionally, the guidance provides a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) tool in the form of a Microsoft 

Excel template to help agencies calculate return on investment (ROI) for one or multiple 

improvement opportunities identified in the e-Construction development plan. 
5 

Collect Benefit-Cost Data 

This step involved collaboration with four state transportation departments to obtain benefit and 

cost information from completed e-Construction projects. These values were used to validate the 

planning-level estimates and are included as benchmark data in the BCA tool. This exercise was 

conducted in response to the lack of systematic documentation of benefits, costs, and ROI. 
6 

CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE 

There is an active national interest in implementing e-Construction, including electronic bidding 

and contract award, project collaboration tools, mobile tools, and electronic project construction 

management. Many agencies have begun implementing these components of e-Construction. 

However, a few agencies are holding off because of a lack of clarity on where to begin and the 

uncertainty of the cost and feasibility of implementing e-Construction. Figure 2 illustrates the 

state of practice findings. 

Figure 2. Illustration. Research summary findings for e-Construction state of the practice. 

The state of practice of e-Construction varies widely among agencies; while some agencies are 

using paper documentation for most steps of the project delivery process, others are using some 

combination of both paper and electronic processes, and the most mature agencies are going 

completely paperless for the entire construction process. Michigan, for example, has moved

toward becoming completely paperless and is having all state highway system projects use 

e-Construction (as of the 2015 construction season). The agency rates itself as 99 percent 

paperless—tickets for materials are still paper. Florida has replaced more than 20,000 pieces of 

paper by using mobile devices on four projects. In addition, Iowa is working toward becoming 

completely paperless for highway projects from the design phase through construction. The 

agency is 99 percent paperless—the last step is integrating weight tickets and scale information 

electronically. (FHWA 2013c) 
7 

The following sections provide a more detailed description on the state of practice of 

e-Construction as collected from the literature review, AASHTO survey, and interviews for each 

step of the project delivery process. (AASHTO 2015) (Farr 2014) (Ganley, Elmes and Jarvis 

2015) (Garcia 2015) (Hoyne 2015) (McGrath 2015) (Mulder 2015) (Nagel and Usher 2015) 

(Rice and Rivas 2015) (Squire 2015) (Sylvester and Johnson 2015) (Tootle and Martin 2015) 

(Vandeventer 2015) These steps include:

1. Transfer/Sharing of Plans, Specifications, & Estimates (PS&E), which includes: 

a. Plans and specification documents in Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) or 

Personal Document Format (PDF). 

b. Tie-in of three-dimensional (3D) plans to automated machine guidance (AMG) 

equipment. 

c. Digital sealing and stamping of plan sets. 

2. Electronic Bidding and Contract Award, which includes: 

a. Electronic bidding through automated software. 

b. Digital signatures. 

3. Project Construction Management, which includes: 

a. Electronic review and approval process (digital signatures/reviews). 

b. Collaborative sharing sites. 

c. Material testing and quality assurance records (including quality control, independent 

verification, inspection, and acceptance testing). 

d. Contractor payroll submittals. 

e. Digital signatures. 

f. Claims and change orders. 

g. Mobile technologies for data collection. 

4. Project Inspection and Testing, which includes: 

a. Mobile technologies for data collection. 

b. Tracking of inspection activities and material testing results. 

c. Survey instruments. 

5. Project Acceptance, which includes:
8 

a. Providing documentation (e.g., punch lists, as-builts submittal, and entering warranty 

phase) in the form of CADD or PDF files. 

6. Project Close-Out, which includes: 

b. Tracking of warranty items. 

c. Payment release. 

7. Data Sharing between steps/phases, which includes:

a. Seamless integration across all e-Construction systems/tools. 

b. Electronic transfer of data between systems (e.g., contractor payment approvals to 

financial and accounting systems). 

For a summary of key agency practices for each project delivery step, as identified through the 

AASHTO survey, the contractor survey, and agency interviews, refer to Appendix A. 

PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E)

Many agencies use electronic files in CADD software format for creating plan sets. A common 

practice is to then deliver these plans as two-dimensional (2D) CADD files or PDFs. The use of 

3D models as reference information documents (RID) is still an emerging practice, although 

many states have a mature practice of delivering 3D models as RID, including Iowa , 

Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Utah, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin (FHWA 2016). Utah recently completed a project in which the 3D model was the 

contractual document for the bid letting.(Wheeler and Wood 2016) For the digital review of plan 

sets, more agencies are transitioning from a paper process to review plans (i.e., marking up and 

then scanning those plans) to using a software to mark-up plans. 

ELECTRONIC BIDDING AND CONTRACTOR SELECTION

Electronic bidding is the most mature practice among state transportation departments for several 

reasons: it has had a longer lead time to mature and take hold, several commercial-off-the shelf 

(COTS) solutions are available on the market, it is relatively quick to implement, and agencies 

quickly realize benefits. The common tool identified for electronic bidding was Bid Express 

along with Expedite as the companion program to prepare and submit the electronic bid. Other 

solutions identified were ExeVision’s integrated Project Development (iPD) solution. Many 

states also require contractors to submit their bids electronically for all projects (e.g., California, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, and Vermont). However, other states require electronic 

bidding only for projects over certain contract value (e.g., Florida requires electronic bids for 

projects over $5 million). Texas stated that although electronic bidding is currently voluntary, 

about 90 and 95 percent of contractors bid electronically for maintenance and construction 

projects, respectively. 

Alaska, New Hampshire, and the Denver International Airport reported that they still use paper 

bidding. Alaska, however, is looking to transition to an electronic bidding solution. 
9 

The contractors surveyed most frequently use electronic bidding, which aligns with the practices 

of state transportation departments.(WSP | Parsons Brinckherhoff 2015) 

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

Agencies either use a combination of paper and semi-electronic systems or electronic 

construction management systems. A completely paper-based process to manage construction 

progress is rarely used, likely because is labor and resource intensive. During this step of this

project delivery process, agencies use a variety of systems and tools, including electronic 

construction management to manage construction progress, a collaboration tool to share project 

documentation, and digital signatures to enable staff to authenticate documents electronically, 

which is also used for the stamping of plan sets and during electronic bidding.

Construction Management Systems

Most states use a COTS solution for their construction management systems (e.g., 

AASHTOWare products), although some states use custom-developed solutions, such as North 

Dakota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania).

Project Collaboration Tools 

Most agencies use COTS software for project collaboration. Common tools include 

ProjectSolve, ProjectWise, SharePoint, and DocExpress. (FHWA 2013c) A project collaboration 

tool enables all project documentation to be stored in one place so that staff can easily access the 

documents they need in a timely manner. In addition, collaboration tools facilitate 

communication and collaboration since staff can work on the same set of documents and easily 

pass documents back and forth. A project collaboration tool typically stores documentation for 

the life of the project, after which it is migrated to the agency’s enterprise document/content 

management system for archiving. 

Digital Signatures

More agencies are transitioning to digital signatures because it streamlines the approvals process, 

thereby enabling faster approvals and change orders. Digital signatures can be implemented at a 

relatively low cost to the agency because any fees associated with the process are transferred to 

the contractor. However, a key challenge that agencies have to overcome is implementing a 

policy that will allow the use and acceptance of digital signatures. Many state laws already allow 

the use of digital signatures for e-commerce, and its acceptance has become quite prevalent in 

the last decade. In addition to the Project Construction Management project delivery step, digital 

signatures are being used for the preparation of plan sets (digital stamping and sealing) and 

electronic bidding. 

The contractors surveyed also use either a combination of paper and semi-electronic systems or 

electronic construction management systems, which align with the practices of state 

transportation departments.(WSP | Parsons Brinckherhoff 2015) 
10 

PROJECT INSPECTION AND TESTING

The majority of state transportation departments use a combination of manual and electronic 

systems and tools for project inspection and testing. Mobile devices are most commonly used, 

although some agencies still use laptops. Agencies use mobile devices not only to enter and track 

inspection data, but also to record field activities in the construction management system, to 

access plan sets and manuals, and to communicate with office staff. Mobile devices enable easier 

access to real-time information and more accurate data collection in the field. They also give 

inspectors access to a vast range of applications that can help them in the field; the applications

that are used are ultimately contingent on user preference. For example, Texas encourages 

inspectors to explore free applications on the iPad. The agency had user groups test out different 

applications and report on their findings. 

Many agencies use ad-hoc approaches to procure and use mobile devices, which can result in 

short-term solutions but create issues over the longer term regarding duplicate devices and 

services, as well as multiple locations and methods to store all data and information. As a result, 

mobile devices should be used in conjunction with other electronic systems as an extension of 

those systems to obtain the most benefits.

The contractors surveyed rarely use manual, paper-based systems for project inspection and 

testing, which aligns with the practices of state transportation departments. (WSP | Parsons 

Brinckherhoff 2015) 

PROJECT ACCEPTANCE

The majority of agencies are being provided as-built documentation in the form of PDFs or 

computer aided drafting (CAD) files. The provision of 3D as-built models for project acceptance 

is uncommon, although this is the direction that the industry is moving in. The Project 

Acceptance process is typically a combination of a manual and electronic process since manual 

checks have to be conducted before a project is accepted by an agency.

The majority of contractors surveyed provide either paper or CADD as-built documentation to 

the owner, which aligns with the practices of state transportation departments. 

PROJECT CLOSE-OUT

Most agencies use a combination of electronic and paper practices for project close-out, and the 

practice of tracking warranty items varies. Some agencies use a manual process, while others use 

a combination of manual and automated tracking. A few states use an automated tracking 

process (e.g., Florida, Pennsylvania, and Vermont).

DATA SHARING BETWEEN STEPS/PHASES AND INTEGRATION ACROSS ALL 

E-CONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITIES

While many agencies have made significant strides in implementing an e-Construction program, 

there has not yet been a focus on integrating the various components of e-Construction (e.g., 

digital signatures and electronic bidding) in order to maximize the benefits for their investment. 
11 

However, there is some level of data sharing between the construction management and the 

financial or accounting systems.

Integrating digital data across all e-Construction processes will ultimately help agencies 

streamline the project delivery process and result in additional efficiencies that will increase 

benefits significantly. 

SUMMARY OF STATE AGENCY MATURITY

A summary of agency practices, as identified through the literature review, the findings from the 

AASHTO survey, and detailed interviews, are presented in Table 1 through Table 7 using a 

maturity framework to show where agencies fit on a scale ranging from nascent to mature. This 

information is current as of spring 2015 when the survey was administered and the interviews 

were conducted. Appropriate annotations regarding what the scale means for each category are 

also provided in the tables. 

Table 1. Summary of state of the practice for PS&E. 

LEVEL 1: NASCENT

Paper PS&E packet that may 

be scanned, and paper plan 

review

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

Electronic files in CADD 

software format and electronic 

plan review

LEVEL 3: MATURE

3D plans (geospatial) that 

allow quantity take-offs, tie-in 

to AMG equipment 

• Alabama 

• Alaska 

• Arkansas 

• Colorado 

• New Hampshire 

• Ohio 

• Pennsylvania 

• Virginia 

• Washington 

• California

• Connecticut 

• Florida

• Kansas 

• Kentucky 

• Louisiana 

• Massachusetts 

• Michigan 

• Minnesota 

• Nebraska 

• New Jersey 

• North Carolina 

• North Dakota 

• Vermont 

• West Virginia 

• Iowa,

• Oregon 

• Texas 
12 

Table 2. Summary of the state of the practice for electronic bidding and contract award.

LEVEL 1: NASCENT

Paper bidding and selection 

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

Online bidding as well as 

offline/paper bids 

LEVEL 3: MATURE

Mandatory electronic bidding 

through Bid Express or other 

automated software, including 

electronic signatures

• Alaska 

• New Hampshire 

• Alabama 

• Florida 

• Minnesota 

• Nebraska 

• North Carolina 

• Oregon 

• Texas 

• Arkansas 

• California

• Colorado 

• Connecticut 

• Florida

• Iowa 

• Kansas 

• Kentucky 

• Louisiana 

• Massachusetts 

• Michigan 

• Minnesota 

• Missouri 

• New Jersey 

• North Dakota 

• Ohio 

• Pennsylvania 

• Tennessee 

• Utah 

• Vermont 

• Virginia 

• Washington 

• West Virginia 
13 

Table 3. Summary of the state of the practice for project construction management.

LEVEL 1: NASCENT

Paper documentation 

(contractor and owner) 

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

Combination of paper and 

semi-electronic systems (e.g., 

Microsoft Word) to track daily 

reports stored on a computer 

LEVEL 3: MATURE

Electronic construction 

management systems (e.g., 

SiteManager) to track daily 

reports, progress percentage, 

change orders, payments, and 

other information

• None identified • Alabama 

• Alaska 

• California

• Connecticut 

• Florida 

• Iowa 

• Kansas 

• Louisiana 

• North Dakota 

• Oregon 

• Utah 

• Washington 

• Wisconsin 

• Arkansas 

• Colorado 

• Connecticut 

• Florida 

• Iowa 

• Kentucky 

• Michigan 

• Nebraska 

• New Hampshire 

• North Carolina 

• Ohio 

• Pennsylvania 

• Texas 

• Vermont 

• Virginia 

• West Virginia
14 

Table 4. Summary of the state of the practice for project inspection and testing.

LEVEL 1: NASCENT

Manual, paper-based methods 

and use of analog tools (e.g., 

straight edges and measuring 

wheels)

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

Mix of manual and electronic 

systems (e.g., SiteManager) to 

track inspections and material 

test results

LEVEL 3: MATURE

Electronic systems (e.g., 

SiteManager) to track all 

inspections and materials test 

results. Capability to geo-code 

data (e.g., indicate location of 

test cores). Survey instruments 

to check tolerance against 

design (geospatial rovers) – 

pay plan quantities 

• California

• Massachusetts 

• Oregon 

• Alabama 

• Alaska 

• Arkansas 

• Colorado 

• Connecticut 

• Florida 

• Iowa 

• Kansas 

• Louisiana 

• Nebraska 

• New Hampshire 

• Nevada 

• North Carolina 

• North Dakota 

• Ohio 

• Texas 

• Vermont 

• Virginia 

• West Virginia 

• Washington 

• Wisconsin 

• Michigan 

• Pennsylvania 
15 

Table 5. Summary of the state of the practice for project acceptance.

LEVEL 1: NASCENT

Paper as-built documentation 

provided to owner

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

CADD files provided to owner

LEVEL 3: MATURE

3D as-built models provided to 

owner 

• Alabama 

• Alaska 

• Arkansas 

• Florida 

• Massachusetts 

• Nebraska 

• New Hampshire 

• North Carolina 

• North Dakota 

• Oregon 

• Pennsylvania 

• Vermont 

• Virginia 

• Washington 

• California

• Connecticut 

• Iowa 

• Louisiana 

• Kansas 

• Ohio 

• Washington 

• West Virginia 

• Wisconsin 

• Michigan 

Table 6. Summary of the state of the practice for project close-out.

LEVEL 1: NASCENT

Manual tracking of most 

warranty items

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

Some automated tracking of 

warranty items through 

spreadsheets

LEVEL 3: MATURE

Release retainage amount to 

contractor automatically, 

ability to show all project 

warranty items and details on a 

map

• Alabama 

• Alaska 

• California

• Connecticut 

• New Hampshire 

• Oregon 

• Virginia 

• Arkansas 

• Iowa 

• Kansas 

• Louisiana 

• Massachusetts 

• Michigan 

• Nebraska 

• North Carolina 

• Pennsylvania 

• West Virginia 

• Florida 
16 

Table 7. Summary of the state of the practice for data sharing between steps/phases.

LEVEL 1: 

NASCENT

Mostly paper systems, 

no data sharing 

between systems

LEVEL 2: 

INTERMEDIATE

Stand-alone electronic 

systems, including 

spreadsheets and other 

electronic records 

LEVEL 3: MATURE

Electronic transfer of data 

between steps/phases, 

eliminating duplication; ability 

to share data electronically 

between systems (e.g., 

contractor payment approvals 

to financial and accounting 

systems); use of Civil 

Integrated Management 

practices

• Louisiana 

• Massachusetts 

• Oregon 

• Connecticut 

• Iowa 

• Kentucky 

• Nebraska 

• New Hampshire 

• North Dakota 

• Texas 

• Vermont 

• Alabama 

• Arkansas 

• Colorado 

• Florida 

• Kansas 

• Michigan 

• North Carolina 

• Ohio 

• Pennsylvania 

• Virginia 

• Washington 

• West Virginia 

COMMON TOOLS USED FOR E-CONSTRUCTION

Table 8 through Table 11 provide an overview of the common types of applications, services, 

and software used for e-Construction and the applicable key project elements. This list is not all 

inclusive, but it represents the majority of applications available in the market and being used by 

many state transportation departments. Many of these technologies are not specific to the 

construction industry but are rather broader collaboration tools used across an array of other 

industries. 
17 

Table 8. e-Construction commonly used tools for plan set review and preparation1. 

Application/Service/Software Description Project Elements

Adobe Acrobat products PDF solution for creating, editing, 

and managing documents; used for 

plan set review and signing and 

sealing plan sets

PS&E

Autodesk AutoCAD and Civil 

3D, Bentley MicroStation, 

Geopak, InRoads, and MX 

CAD software for 2D and 3D design PS&E

Bluebeam Revu Software used to edit and markup 

digital plans collaboratively

Construction 

Management and 

Project Acceptance

Table 9. e-Construction commonly used tools for electronic bidding and contract award1. 

Application/Service/Software Description Project Elements

Bid Express Internet bidding service that enables an 

agency and contractors to communicate 

with each other; it is used to submit the 

bid, view and download project 

information, and access plans and bid 

data online; this service is often used in 

conjunction with the Expedite Bid 

software 

Bid Advertisement, 

Electronic Bidding 

and Contract Award 

Expedite Bidding Software Software used to prepare, validate, and 

analyze an electronic bid and is often 

used in conjunction with the Bid 

Express service

Bid Preparation, 

Electronic Bidding 

and Contract Award 

DocuSign Digital signature product to securely 

access and sign documents to complete 

approvals and agreements

Electronic Bidding 

and Contract Award, 

and Construction 

Administration

 

1 These are the products shared during the interviews, and may not be all inclusive. 
18 

Table 10. e-Construction commonly used tools for project collaboration1. 

Application/Service/Software Description Project Elements

Doc Express Paperless contracting service that 

enables document exchange 

during construction projects; also 

allows for electronic signatures 

PS&E, and Construction 

Management

OnBase Enterprise information platform 

for managing content, processes, 

and documents, including CAD 

drawings 

PS&E, Construction 

Management, and PostConstruction 

ProjectSolve Internet-based collaboration tool 

that allows project teams to 

communicate and collaborate 

with each other

Construction Management 

ProjectWise Suite of software used for 

information management to 

manage, share, and distribute 

project materials in a single 

platform

PS&E and Construction 

Management

SharePoint Internet-based collaboration tool 

that allows project teams to 

communicate and collaborate 

with each other

Construction Management 
19 

Table 11. e-Construction commonly used tools for project construction management and 

mobile devices1. 

Application/Service/Software Description Project Elements

AASHTOWare Project Enterprise software suite that 

includes modules used to manage 

contract administration, contract 

records, daily work reports, 

contractor payments, materials 

management, and laboratory 

inventory management. The most 

commonly used modules are 

SiteManager and FieldManager

Project Construction 

Management

Mobile Inspector by Infotech Mobile application used to enter 

daily activities. This product is 

compatible with AASHTOWare

Project 

Project Construction 

Management

Headlight by Pavia Systems A cloud-based application used to 

enter daily inspector diaries in the 

field in real-time. Application also 

has a desktop client

Construction Inspection 

and Testing 

Masterworks by Aurigo Cloud-based application used to 

document daily activities and 

Laboratory Inventory and Materials 

information. It has a mobile and 

desktop client 

Construction Inspection 

and Testing 

Primavera P6 Project management software to 

assist with planning, scheduling, 

and controlling project resources 

Project Construction 

Management

Android tablet, Apple iPads, 

Windows tablets

Mobile devices enabling inspectors 

to collect data, access documents 

and applications from the field, and 

collaborate with office staff

Project Construction 

Management
20 

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE

The how-to guide herein is provided to state transportation departments looking to implement the 

e-Construction improvement opportunities identified and defined in this section. These eight 

improvement opportunities collectively represent the key components to developing a 

comprehensive e-Construction program that will improve the project delivery process and help 

agencies realize efficiencies and cost savings. These opportunities were identified based on a 

literature review of existing e-Construction documentation, the AASHTO survey, and detailed 

interviews conducted with state transportation departments. (AASHTO 2015) (Farr 2014) 

(Ganley, Elmes and Jarvis 2015) (Garcia 2015) (Hoyne 2015) (McGrath 2015) (Mulder 2015) 

(Nagel and Usher 2015) (Rice and Rivas 2015) (Squire 2015) (Sylvester and Johnson 2015) 

(Tootle and Martin 2015) (Vandeventer 2015) 

WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDANCE?

The audience for this e-Construction implementation guidance includes staff members analyzing 

the feasibility of various e-Construction improvement opportunities, decision makers, and end 

users of the project delivery processes and tools. These staff members reside in many functional 

areas, including construction, design, planning, and Information Technology (IT). Thus, proper 

coordination and collaboration is highly recommended. 

E-CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Pre-construction

Electronic Bidding and Contract Award

This improvement opportunity includes bid preparation, submittal, acceptance, evaluation, and 

contract award through an electronic system. Electronic bidding and contract award is among the 

most mature of e-Construction practices; nevertheless, many state transportation departments are 

not maximizing the full benefits of this digital process. In many cases, the processes for 

preparing and evaluating bids are still manual. The primary benefits are quicker and more 

accurate bids due to electronic/automated checking of formulas and real-time submittal, and the 

reduction of carbon footprint. 

Digital Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

This improvement opportunity refers to the preparation of digital and intelligent PS&E 

documents during the pre-construction phase, including electronic specifications and estimates, 

and 2D or 3D digital plan sheets as PDFs generated directly from CADD software. Additionally, 

it includes the use of these digital intelligent documents to review, collaborate, and approve the 

bid package during design and advertisement. Lastly, digital PS&E documents may include 

issuing 3D engineered models as contractual documents during advertisement. 3D design data 

enables the use of quantity take-offs during bidding, the use of AMG construction methods, and 

quantity verification and measurements during construction. Digital PS&E documents enable 

other paperless processes, such as electronic bidding and digital project review. The primary 

benefits are improved efficiencies due to turn-around time to receive comments during the 
21 

design phase. The costs and benefits listed in the analysis focus on pre-construction activities 

only. 

Construction

Digital Review of Contract Documents

This improvement opportunity includes the review and approval of contract documents once an 

award has been made. The awarded contractor submits all required contractual documents via a 

secure electronic system for the agency to review, accept, and execute the contract before 

construction begins. The primary benefits are improved efficiencies and faster turn-around times 

during the transmittal and approval of documents. Digital review combined with mobile devices 

can allow staff to both access and review information faster.

Project Construction Management 

This improvement opportunity refers to the use of an electronic system that handles contract 

administration, payroll and contractor payments review, documentation of project data and 

records, change order approvals, project reporting, tracking of materials and daily field activities, 

integration of material and lab administration, and project close-out. A construction management 

system allows members of the project to both enter and retrieve information faster and more 

efficiently compared to a paper-based process.

Digital Management of Construction Documentation using a Project Collaboration Tool 

This improvement opportunity includes the use of a document management system for sharing 

documents and collaboration during the construction of a project by all parties involved. The 

primary benefits are improved documentation and transparency, and increased efficiencies and 

accessibility.

Post-construction

Requirement of Digital As-Built Records 

This improvement opportunity refers to the requirement for providing digital as-builts in the 

form of 3D CADD and Geographic Information System (GIS) data collected using geospatial 

technologies (e.g., Global Navigational Satellite Systems (GNSS) equipment, light detection and 

ranging (lidar2

), and unmanned aircraft systems) at the time of project acceptance. The primary 

benefits are more accurate records that augment a programmatic asset inventory database and 

accessibility to information for asset maintenance and operation. 

 

2 Note that lidar is sometimes referred to as LiDAR, LIDAR, LADAR, or laser scanning, which mostly refer to the 

same technology. The format lidar is adopted in this report since it is the predominant convention used in the 

industry.
22 

Cross-cutting opportunities3

Digital Signatures 

This improvement opportunity includes the use of digital signatures for authenticating and 

approving documents electronically across all phases of the project delivery cycle. Digital 

signatures are a dependency for multiple improvement opportunities identified herein, such as 

accepting electronic bids, signing digital PS&E documents, managing construction documents 

digitally (e.g., change orders and approvals), and acceptance of digital as-builts.

Mobile Devices

This improvement opportunity includes the use of mobile devices to assist in both collecting and 

retrieving various data electronically in the field. As with digital signatures, mobile devices are 

used in combination with other improvement opportunities identified herein (e.g., digital access 

of PS&E documents, reference materials, and construction management systems). The primary 

benefits are increased transparency, accessibility, mobility, and communication. 

HOW TO USE THIS GUIDANCE?

This implementation guide is intended to be a general reference based on the three basic steps 

illustrated in Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Flowchart. Steps to follow as general guidance for implementing e-Construction.

The implementation guide is organized as follows: 

1. Initial Self-Assessment. The self-assessment tool enables agencies to assess their 

e-Construction maturity relative to industry best practice. The matrix is organized by each 

improvement opportunity and consists of a three-point maturity scale for agencies to assess 

their current practices. 

2. Prioritizing Improvement Opportunities and Developing a Business Case

a. Prioritizing Improvement Opportunities. Once agencies assess their maturity, the next 

step is to determine which improvement opportunities agencies already use and which 

 

3 Cross-cutting improvement opportunities are used across multiple project delivery phases and are considered a 

dependency for implementing e-Construction technologies.
23 

they should implement next, guided by a set of prioritization criteria. These criteria will 

help agencies determine the feasibility and priority of the various improvement 

opportunities in order to map out a path for moving forward with their e-Construction 

programs. 

b. Estimating Quantitative Benefits and Costs. This section presents a framework for

estimating benefits and costs for the improvement opportunities identified in the prior 

step and includes a set of planning-level estimates over a seven-year planning horizon for 

each improvement opportunity. This information allows agencies to prepare a ROI, 

which is a key metric for decision makers.

3. Project Success Factors. This section focuses on the considerations for successful project 

implementation. Subsections include: 

a. Risk Management. This section describes the typical barriers to implementation, along 

with strategies to respond to and mitigate each risk. The research team follows the Project 

Management Institute’s PMBOK® Guide definition of risk, which is defined as “an 

uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, will have a negative or positive effect on 

one or more project objectives.” (Project Management Institute 2013) 

b. Change Management. Early and ongoing involvement and input throughout the 

implementation process are essential to developing a tool that truly meets the needs of the 

agency, to gaining user acceptance and, ultimately, to achieving a successful project. 

c. Other Success Factors. This section describes other key success factors to help agencies 

organize their approach to implement new technologies and practices. These include 

factors such as business process improvement, project sponsorship, tool selection to meet 

the agency’s needs, and training. 

INITIAL SELF-ASSESSMENT

The first step to complete when defining an implementation plan is to accurately assess the 

current practices within the organization. It is highly recommended to make an assessment for 

each improvement opportunity previously defined using the initial self-assessment tool presented 

in Table 12 through Table 15. This tool compares the agency maturity level to industry best 

practices. The self-assessment enables agencies to understand their maturity baseline and use the 

scale to guide their adoption of e-Construction improvement opportunities over the next few 

years. It is important to note that once the baseline is established, the desired target goal should 

be also identified. Given the broad spectrum of e-Construction practices, it is possible that an 

agency may be advanced in some processes, while nascent or intermediate in others. 

The self-assessment tool defines three levels of maturity for each improvement opportunity: 

1. Nascent: Mostly paper-based process. 

2. Intermediate: Combination of paper and electronic processes. 

3. Advanced: Electronic process. 
24 

Table 12. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities (preconstruction). 

Improvement 

Opportunities

Nascent Intermediate Advanced

Electronic 

bidding and 

contract award 

Paper-based 

bidding and 

contract 

execution 

Optional electronic 

bidding; paper-based 

and electronic 

advertisement 

Mandatory electronic 

bidding; electronic 

advertisement only 

Digital PS&E Paper plans or 

PDF plans 

(scanned)

Electronically signed 

and sealed contract 

plans; 3D models shared 

as reference information 

(non-contractual) 

3D models provided as 

contractual documents
25 

Table 13. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities

(construction). 

Improvement 

Opportunities

Nascent Intermediate Advanced

Digital review 

of project 

documents

All reference 

materials and 

plans are paper 

documents 

Mix of electronic and 

paper reference 

materials and plans

All reference materials and 

plans are available 

electronically (e.g., 

specifications, standard 

drawings, contract, forms, 

etc.)

Project 

construction 

management 

Paper-based 

contract 

management 

A mix of paper-based 

and electronic contract 

management using tools 

such as Microsoft Word 

(e.g., to track daily 

reports stored on a 

computer), spreadsheets, 

and independent 

databases

Enterprise-level project 

construction management 

system that can be accessed 

in the office using a desktop 

computer and in the field 

with mobile devices; 

provides real-time 

information

Digital 

management of 

construction 

documentation 

using a project 

collaboration 

tool 

Paper-based 

processes with no 

automated way to 

share documents 

Internal project 

collaboration tool 

(inside the agency’s 

firewall only); electronic 

mail communication

Enterprise project 

collaboration tool that can be 

accessed inside and outside 

of the firewall securely

AMG for 

construction 

operations 

AMG 

construction is 

not allowed on 

construction 

projects

AMG construction is 

allowed and the agency 

does not have 

specifications for 

contractors; nor 

guidelines or training 

for inspectors 

AMG is allowed and the 

agency has specifications for 

contractors; guidelines and 

training available for 

inspectors 
26 

Table 14. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities (postconstruction). 

Improvement 

Opportunities

Nascent Intermediate Advanced

Digital as-built

records 

Paper-plans are 

redlined and 

archived in 

drawers/boxes 

PDF plans are redlined 

and electronically 

indexed and archived

3D digital as-built records 

are required as a final 

product for both subsurface 

utilities and above-ground 

features; electronic punchlists and alerts are used for 

closing projects 

Table 15. Level of maturity matrix for e-Construction improvement opportunities (crosscutting/dependencies). 

Improvement 

Opportunities

Nascent Intermediate Advanced

Digital 

signatures 

Use of ink 

signatures and 

seals

A mix of ink and digital 

signatures/seals 

depending on the project 

delivery step 

Digital signatures replace all 

ink signatures and seals 

Mobile devices All paper-based 

processes

Mobile devices 

available for certain 

types of projects 

Mobile devices are standard 

tools used for inspection of 

all projects

PRIORITIZING IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND ESTIMATING BENEFITS 

AND COSTS

Prioritization Criteria for Improvement Opportunities

Once agencies have assessed their current e-Construction capability, the next step is to use a set 

of prioritization criteria to determine the feasibility and priority of implementing each 

e-Construction improvement opportunity, as previously identified. The prioritization criteria 

were developed based on research findings and current state-of-the-practice. The criteria are 

divided into the following categories:

• Benefits to the agency. Evaluates whether and how the electronic system/tool will 

provide benefits to the agency.
27 

• Likelihood of success. Considers the factors that will contribute to the agency’s 

likelihood of successful implementation, such as maturity of the practice, successful 

implementation by other agencies, availability of strong COTS solutions, and policies to 

support the use of the system/tool.

• Level of complexity. Assesses the current paper-based process, how an electronic system 

will simplify it, and the complexity of the technology deployment to implement a digital 

solution. 

• Leverage existing resources. Considers whether the agency can leverage existing 

processes and resources to facilitate implementation of the improvement opportunity. 

The research team used the criteria identified in Table 16 through Table 23 to evaluate the 

feasibility for each improvement opportunity. The evaluation criteria include questions with 

“Yes” and “No” answers that help with the overall assessment for implementing each

improvement opportunity. In some cases, the criterion was “maybe,” or “it varies.” A detailed 

assessment of each improvement opportunity is provided in Appendix B. 
28 

Table 16. Prioritization criteria for evaluating benefits to the agency. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key 

Will this improvement 

opportunity improve consistency 

and standardization/ 

streamlining of processes to 

increase overall efficiency?

Yes, this improvement will help improve the streamlining 

of processes, increase consistency, and improve efficiency

and turn-around times for approvals, which translate into 

tangible benefits. 

No, the processes are simple or streamlined, and adding 

electronic systems will not improve turn-around times for 

approvals that result in significant benefits.

Will this improvement 

opportunity improve workforce 

utilization? 

Yes, the improvement will allow staff to conduct activities 

faster and eliminate or simplify certain steps that are time 

consuming and cumbersome resulting in additional 

capacity to work on other tasks. 

No, the improvement would not change staff efficiency or 

allow for faster work completion. 

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier information 

sharing, etc.)?

Yes, this improvement will allow the staff to receive and 

review project-related information and approve requests 

for changes and work orders faster, which will result in 

quicker turn-around times to start physical work. This 

acceleration of construction management tasks reduces 

the timeline for the overall project schedule. 

No, this system/tool by itself may not impact the time it 

takes to review and approve information related to the 

project. It may, in conjunction with other systems and 

tools, provide benefits and efficiencies that will contribute 

to faster turn-around times. 

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, etc.)?

Yes, this improvement will reduce risk to the agency 

and/or the contractor. 

No, this improvement may not directly reduce risk but 

could reduce risks when used in conjunction with other 

systems and tools. 
29 

Table 17. Prioritization criteria for evaluating likelihood of success. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key 

Have other agencies implemented 

this improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, costs, 

and lessons learned?

Yes, agencies can benefit from the experience and lessons 

learned (including how challenges were overcome) of 

other agencies that implemented the improvement, which 

can significantly increase the likelihood of success.

No, the improvement has not been implemented widely; 

therefore, agencies do not have the benefit of lessons 

learned and peer exchanges. 

Is there a strong COTS solution 

that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes, a strong COTS solution exists to implement this 

improvement, meaning there is expertise in the 

marketplace to help with the implementation and that 

other agencies may have implemented this improvement. 

No, without a strong COTS solution, agencies may have 

to either custom develop or heavily customize a COTS, 

which could result in higher costs and no industry 

expertise (outside the agency) to support the 

implementation. 

Are there existing state or federal 

requirements, statutes, or policies 

to support the improvement?

Yes, state or federal requirements, statutes, or policies are 

in place (e.g., the use of digital signatures is permitted), 

which means there will be no major legal or statutory 

hurdles for implementing the improvement opportunity. 

No, the improvement would require changes to existing 

policies or statutes. This may result in a longer 

implementation time frame and additional work to change 

policies or statutes. 
30 

Table 18. Prioritization criteria for evaluating level of complexity. 

Evaluation Key Prioritization Criteria

What is the simplicity/complexity 

of current process?

A complex business process offers more opportunities for 

standardization and consistency by making the steps 

electronic, more streamlined, and consistent. However, a 

complex technology process may make it more difficult to 

implement a solution in a short amount of time. 

A simple business process may not offer the same level of 

opportunities for standardization/consistency. On the 

contrary, a simple technology process may offer the 

quickest implementation solution to improve turn-around 

times for completing certain tasks.

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, how 

much?

Yes, implementing the opportunity would help streamline 

and simplify the process. 

No, implementing the opportunity would not help 

streamline or simplify the process.

Table 19. Prioritization criteria for evaluating how to leverage existing resources.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, leveraging existing systems/tools can help agencies 

make the most of their resources, and creating synergies 

with existing processes can help maximize benefits/cost 

savings. 

No, there are no documented cases for integrating this 

process with the agency’s existing systems/tools. The 

agency may have a custom-developed solution that may 

make integration with a COTS solution difficult. 

Are there documents or forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which ones?

Yes, documents or forms that can be easily converted to 

or originate in an electronic format will help facilitate the 

implementation process. 

No, documents or forms cannot easily be converted to 

the desired electronic format (e.g., making the switch 

from PDF plan sheets to digital as-built records) and will 

require additional effort during the development/ 

implementation process.
31 

Additional Prioritization Criteria

Table 20 through Table 24 list additional considerations that may vary significantly for each 

agency and thus cannot be generalized. Nevertheless, these questions should be considered to 

completely assess the feasibility and determine the prioritization of e-Construction improvement 

opportunities. 

Table 20. Additional prioritization criteria to assess overall agency benefits. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key

Is the process currently 

being supported by a legacy 

system that is likely to fail in 

the near future or no longer 

offers the desired 

functionality? 

Yes, relying on a system that may fail at any time is 

considered a high risk for data loss and inability to run 

reports or issue payments to contractors. Demonstrating 

that a system failure may keep the agency from making 

commitments to their stakeholders provides a strong 

business case to fund implementation of a newer system. 

Additionally, a new system may offer better functionality

not presently available in the legacy program to meet 

current business practices. 

No, the current system in use may not be outdated, or 

may be well-supported to add desired functionality. 

Will this improvement 

support/realize an agencywide initiative/directive (e.g., 

reducing overhead costs or 

reducing lost project 

documentation?) 

Yes, supporting an agency-wide initiative/directive will 

enable the agency to gain momentum within the agency 

and buy-in from management and staff. 

No, the agency has not identified an agency-wide 

initiative/directive. 

Table 21. Additional prioritization criteria to assess level of investment.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key

Implementation/integration, 

internal agency/staff time, 

software/licensing, software 

developing, on-going software 

maintenance and upgrades, 

and contractor compliance

Costs will vary—nevertheless, the cost of 

implementation is relative to the benefit that can be 

realized by the implementation of new technology. A 

thorough benefit-cost analysis should be conducted to 

determine the ROI for implementing the improvement 

opportunity. This financial investment analysis should 

be part of an overall business case for implementation of 

a new improvement opportunity. Additionally, the 

business case should incorporate investments that line 

up with the agency budget cycle. 
32 

Table 22. Additional prioritization criteria to assess how to leverage existing resources. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key

Does the agency have existing 

licenses/software that can be 

leveraged for e-Construction 

tools to minimize investment 

costs?

Yes, leveraging existing licenses will enable agencies to 

repurpose or expand upon existing software licensing 

agreements to optimize overall investments. In many 

cases, one functional area of the organization already 

owns an enterprise licensing agreement with a vendor, 

but the software platform may not be used across the 

enterprise. Additionally, vendors may offer a bulk 

discount for procuring additional software packages. 

While it is not necessary to purchase all e-Construction 

tools from one vendor, it is important to understand how 

each tool can integrate with existing systems and how 

the support team will be able to support the entire 

enterprise. For example, data entered in a construction 

daily diary electronic system can be extracted to another 

system to support mobility and accessibility (e.g., 

mobile mapping applications and cloud-based systems).) 

No, acquiring a new system will require a large initial 

investment. 

Can the agency leverage 

existing resources (e.g., IT 

staff, system administrators) to 

facilitate process 

improvements?

Yes, since internal staff will ultimately become the end 

users, their involvement is critical to ensure successful 

implementation. Agencies can create a dedicated 

implementation team or have staff split their existing 

responsibilities with implementation responsibilities.

Further, internal staff may be used to provide on-going 

technical support and training. 

No, hiring external resources can be costly, especially 

when internal involvement (and the institutional 

knowledge that comes with it) is critical to successful 

implementation.
33 

Table 23. Additional prioritization criteria to assess likelihood of success. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key

Has the agency implemented 

systems/tools for related 

steps/activities that can 

support this process?

Yes, having systems/tools in places for related 

steps/activities gives the agency a stepping stone to build 

from (e.g., having a project collaboration tool and a 

project construction management system in place and 

then deciding to implement mobile devices). This will 

also allow the agency to increase the benefits it is 

yielding for the existing systems/tools. 

No, the agency does not have any systems/tools in place

for related steps/activities. 

Has this improvement 

opportunity been piloted at 

the agency to an extent? 

Yes, piloting the initiative first before deciding to move 

forward with agency-wide implementation enables the 

agency to test staff receptiveness to adapting the 

technology and obtain an estimate of cost and benefits. A 

pilot project can also yield critical lessons learned to 

apply toward agency-wide implementation. 

No, if the agency has not piloted the initiative, it will not 

have any benchmarks for benefits and costs.

Number of parties involved 

in the current process 

(internal/owner, designers, 

contractors, others)

A higher number of parties involved translates into 

more users that will benefit from the improvement 

opportunity. 

A lower number of parties means that the improvement 

opportunity will have a smaller impact. 

Are business processes 

clearly documented?

Yes, clearly documented business processes make it 

easier to transition paper processes into electronic 

processes.

No, without clearly documented business processes (that 

reflect the agency’s most current practices), it will be 

more challenging to convert a paper process into an 

electronic process. 

Is there an identified funding 

source for implementation?

Yes, the agency is able to fund the improvement 

opportunity as part of a broader initiative or a previously 

identified need. 

No, without an identified funding source it may be harder 

to get the initiative off the ground. 
34 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Key

Is staff committed and 

involved in supporting 

implementation (despite staff 

constraints that may exist)?

Yes, staff commitment and involvement are critical to 

developing a tool/system that meets all agency/user 

needs. 

No, lack of staff commitment and involvement will 

impact the likelihood of success. If staff are not 

committed to the initiative, it will be difficult to get the 

labor resources needed for implementation. 

If there a champion and 

support/buy-in from 

executive management, 

internal staff, and the 

industry/local contractors’ 

association? 

Yes, support from internal agency staff and the 

industry/local contractors’ association is critical to 

successful implementation. A champion can help educate 

staff on the benefits of the system. 

No, the absence of a champion and management/staff 

support will impact the likelihood of success of the 

initiative. The agency may face substantial resistance that 

could be a roadblock for implementation. 

Does the agency have 

technical staff (e.g., an 

engineering automation 

group, engineering

application services group, 

design technical services, 

etc.) that can provide 

support and expertise in 

technologies used for 

engineering processes?

Yes, having in-house expertise gives agencies an 

advantage in determining which solutions will best suit 

the agency’s needs given existing resources. 

No, the agency does not have in-house technical staff to 

provide expertise. However, the agency can leverage 

some of this knowledge from peer agencies. 

Seamless integration across all improvement opportunities 

Although improving each area independently allows state transportation departments to identify 

significant benefits, integrating various areas would allow them to maximize the benefits of 

e-Construction by offering more benefits for their investments. Agencies that have transitioned 

multiple processes from paper to electronic should consider integrating those processes in order 

to help streamline the project delivery process and achieve additional efficiencies that will 

increase benefits significantly (more than the sum of the parts). The following is an example of a 

seamless integration scenario:

• Use of a common database for the complete project delivery process to reduce multiple 

data entry, ensure more complete and accurate project data, increase efficiency of 

information retrieval, and provide data for analysis, reporting, and management reporting. 
35 

• Use of a pre-construction management system to prepare bid materials. Contract 

language in bid materials would specify the requirements of geospatial data so that there 

is a common data environment for design, construction, and construction management. 

• Integration of the pre-construction management system with the electronic bidding tool to 

seamlessly upload bid materials to the agency’s electronic bidding tool.

• Use of electronic bidding and digital signatures by contractors to submit bids, and 

subsequently by the agency to review bid data (including verifying bid bonds) and 

conducting bid analysis.

• Integration of construction data into the agency project management system to allow for 

agency-wide views of all project information, including budgets, expenditures, 

commitments, status, schedule, and other key project metrics. 

• Integration with federal systems for FHWA project authorizations and modifications. 

• Linking of the bid submittal information (e.g., contract unit prices, pay items, etc.) with 

the construction management system for project initiation. 

• Use of 3D modeling data for AMG for site preparation, asphalt and concrete paving, and 

other activities.

• Management of contract administration, contract records, daily work reports, contractor 

payments, materials management, and laboratory inventory management using the 

project construction management system, which should have workflows built in to ensure 

seamless document routing. 

• Use of a project collaboration tool to effectively manage all contract documents, 

including the ones listed above in the construction management system. 

• Integration of mobile devices with key agency systems, including the project 

collaboration tool and project construction management system to access, review, revise, 

and approve various documents in the field.

• Use of the construction management system to conduct the final close-out process, 

including final acceptance, confirm all approvals and signatures are in place, and send the 

project for final payment to financial and accounting systems. 

• Transition of project documents from the project collaboration tool to the agency’s 

enterprise document/content management system once the project is completed. 

The feasibility of such an integration will vary by each agency and depend on the specific set of 

tools and systems in use.
36 

Estimating Quantitative Benefits and Costs

In addition to the prioritization criteria, agencies should consider the quantitative benefits and 

costs of each improvement opportunity to help build the business case for improvements. 

This section describes the BCA tool developed to help state transportation departments calculate 

ROI for the implementation of each improvement opportunity. The tool is an Excel-based 

template and was developed as a companion document to this report. The purpose of the ROI 

tool is to automate the BCA calculations using a user-friendly and flexible template that can be 

used by any agency. 

Benefit Cost Analysis Template 

The benefit cost analysis template is comprised of an input sheet to enter benefits and costs, as 

well as a calculation sheet that computes the total benefits and costs and the ROI. The template 

documents different cost and benefit categories and includes planning-level estimates based on 

certain benchmarks. The template is designed to be user-friendly and flexible so that agencies 

can change: 

• Benefit/cost categories. 

• Benefit/cost numbers. 

• Implementation timeframe and benefits realization timeframe. 

In addition, instructions on how to use the template and guidance on how agencies can estimate 

their own benefits/costs are incorporated throughout the template. 

General Information

A number of standard terms are used in BCA and ROI calculations, which are defined in Table 

24, and were taken into account when developing the template. 
37 

Table 24. Definitions of terms used in BCA and ROI calculations.

Term Description

Total costs Includes initial cost plus any reoccurring costs. 

Total benefits Includes total estimated benefits. 

ROI Return on investment for specific time period. 

Break-even Year The year in which the benefits first exceed the costs of 

implementation. 

Template Organization

The template has a number of tabs that provide the framework for the BCA and ROI calculations 

and potential timeline for implementing each of the e-Construction improvement opportunities 

identified in this study. Each improvement opportunity has three tabs: Inputs, BCA, and 

Timeline. Table 25 describes each of the tabs used in the template.

Table 25. Description of worksheet tabs used in the ROI template.

Worksheet Tab Description

Inputs The input tab is where the user inputs benefits and cost information. This tab 

has two parts:

Part A covers anticipated (quantitative) benefit streams and Part B covers 

costs. 

Cells highlighted in green are inputs (i.e., unlocked cell that can be edited), 

and cells highlighted in white are formulas calculated based on the inputs 

provided (i.e., locked cell that cannot be edited). This legend is illustrated in 

Figure 4. 

BCA The BCA tab is the reported calculations based on the information the user 

enters in the Input tab. The BCA tab has ONLY ONE user input field, which 

is the ROI timeframe. The template default is seven years, which is a typical 

timeframe used for implementation of information technology. A shorter 

timeframe may be selected based on software contract terms, depreciation of 

technology, and other factors. 

Timeline This tab provides a general timeline for deploying the specific e-Construction 

opportunity. There is no user input in this tab. 
38 

Figure 4. Screen capture. Legend for data cells in ROI spreadsheet template.

In addition, a worksheet at the end of the Excel file includes benefits that could be derived from 

integrating various improvement opportunities. 

Benefit and Cost Inputs

The benefit and cost inputs are based on a hypothetical agency with an annual construction 

program of $800 million and assumes that the agency has no existing software licensing in place 

and is implementing a COTS system.

Benefit streams are calculated based on a set of input categories, which vary depending on the 

improvement opportunity. However, common input categories include the agency’s annual 

construction program, personnel costs, materials costs, time savings, etc., as shown in Figure 5. 

The research team performed four case studies to collect project-level data from Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, and Utah. Additionally, a thorough ROI analysis prepared by the Pennsylvania DOT 

and prior studies were used along with the data from the four case studies to develop 

benchmarks. These benchmarks validate the planning and program level estimates that agencies

can confidently use in their own estimate calculations. This exercise was intended to fill the 

benefits documentation gap that currently exists. 

Figure 5. Screen capture. Input field to calculate benefits for implementation of electronic 

bidding and contractor selection.

In addition to the benefits streams, another input included in the template is the phasing of 

benefits—that is, the percent of benefits realized each year since there may be a gradual ramp up 
39 

of benefits immediately after implementation before an agency realizes 100 percent of benefits, 

as shown in Figure 6. 

Figure 6. Screen capture. Anticipated benefit streams and phasing of benefits for electronic 

bidding and contractor selection.

Cost categories, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, were based on commonly used tools by state 

transportation departments for the following components: 

• Pre-implementation planning consultant. 

• COTS software licenses. 

• COTS software maintenance. 

• Systems integration services. 

• Managed services support. 

• Hardware and other technical infrastructure. 

• Hardware and infrastructure maintenance. 

• On-site training/web-based training. 

• Hardware refresh. 

• Agency staff cost during project. 

• Agency staff cost to support system ongoing. 

• Systems integration services for upgrade. 

All the costs and benefits are presented in real dollars (today’s dollars), which eliminates the 

need to use an inflation factor for costs and a discount factor for benefits. 
40 

Figure 7. Screen capture. Staff costs for implementation of electronic bidding and 

contractor selection.

Figure 8. Screen capture. Costs and percentages incurred by year for implementation of 

electronic bidding and contractor selection.
41 

Benefits Cost Analysis Calculation

Based on the inputs provided in the inputs sheet, the template will calculate the following values, 

which are shown in Figure 9: 

• Total benefits. 

• Total costs. 

• Net benefits. 

• Cumulative net benefits. 

• Break-even year. 

• ROI based on the selected timeframe (default is seven years). 

• Average annual cost. 

• Average annual net benefits. 

In addition, the sheet allows for entry of qualitative benefits (ones that cannot be assigned a 

dollar value) and includes a set of qualitative benefits gathered/developed by the project team. 
42 

Figure 9. Screens capture. Benefit cost analysis for bidding and contractor selection.

The calculations use a seven-year time frame since this covers a longer time frame than 

implementation and captures the full benefits realization for at least a couple of years. In 

addition, it was assumed that hardware/software upgrade cycles occur every three to five years, 

which falls within this seven-year timeframe. The template has a built-in formula that enables 

agencies to calculate the ROI for any time frame (seven years or less), as shown in Figure 10. 

This field illustrates the flexibility in the template to select the desired time frame. The ROI will 

automatically update based on the number of years that is selected. 

Figure 10. Screen capture. Return on investment timeframe selection.
43 

Dashboard 

Table 26 presents the ROI calculated for each improvement opportunity using benchmarks and 

planning-level estimates. Digital review and mobile devices have the quickest break-even year, 

while digital review of project documents yields the highest seven-year ROI. 

Table 26. Summary of planning level estimates.

Improvement Opportunity Break-even Year 

(from start of 

project planning)

7-Year ROI

(rounded to 

nearest 

quarter) 4

Electronic bidding and contract award Year 3 700% 

Digital PS&E Year 3 325% 

Digital review of project documents Year 2 775% 

Project construction management Year 4 250% 

Digital management of construction documentation 

using a project collaboration tool 

Year 5 250% 

Requirement of digital as-built records Year 3 125% 

Mobile devices Year 3 200% 

As seen from Table 26, moving to a digital review of project documents is expected to yield the 

most benefits in the shortest time frame. This is primarily due to a prevalence of cloud-based 

tools available for a reasonable price that can be implemented easily to meet this goal, and a high 

amount of savings derived from reduced printing needs. Project construction management and 

project collaboration tools would take the longest to implement and institutionalize, resulting in a 

longer time to break even and a lower ROI over a seven-year timeframe. That said, all the 

opportunities identified are expected to yield a robust ROI and yield benefits quickly to the 

agency after implementation is completed.

These benefits and break-even years will vary per agency based on various factors such as the 

following: 

 

4 The return on investment percentages have been rounded to the nearest 25th, 50th, 75th, and 100th percentage.
44 

• Agency (size, current practices, urban/rural setting). 

• Existing maturity in e-Construction. 

• Project scope (new construction, major rehabilitation, minor rehabilitation). 

• Project location (close to a central/urban location, remote). 

• Tool used (enterprise tools where costs are divided among projects or a software 

purchased as a service for the project). 

A more detailed benefit cost analysis can be found in the BCA template.

Benefits Realization

When estimating benefits realization, agencies should be prepared for temporary losses in 

productivity as staff become acclimated with the new systems/tools before productivity increases 

and there is a positive net benefit. Figure 11 depicts an illustration of a learning curve, which 

shows how staff productivity is affected over the period that a technology is being deployed. 

This concept shows that productivity hits the lowest level during the beginning of a technology 

being deployed before increasing to its full potential when staff have become familiar with the 

new tools.

Figure 11. Graph. Traditional learning curve observed when adopting new technology or 

methods. 
45 

Factors Affecting Benefits Realization

The benefits yield varies across agencies and projects. Some factors that can affect the amount of 

benefits an agency will yield include the following: 

• Agency (size, current practices, urban/rural setting). 

• Existing maturity in e-Construction. 

• Project scope (new construction, major rehabilitation, minor rehabilitation). 

• Project location (close to a central/urban location, remote). 

• Tool used (enterprise tools where costs are divided among projects or a software 

purchased as a service for the project). 

Every project yields savings, but projects that require more documents result in more savings 

(through elimination of mailing, paper, scanning, etc.). Typically, new construction, major 

rehabilitation, and complex urban projects result in more benefits. Although minor rehabilitation 

projects also yield benefits, those benefits are not as apparent. A larger, more complex project 

tends to have larger plan sets and a longer timeframe, therefore saving more money than a 

project with fewer documents and a shorter time frame. Another factor that has a significant 

impact on benefits realization is which e-Construction solution is selected and how the new 

processes and technology are deployed. A solution that is user-friendly and can streamline 

processes will be more likely to have a quicker rate of adoption. In addition, integrating a single 

statewide e-Construction solution that aligns with standardized workflows can help train staff 

more effectively and efficiently because everyone follows the same process for every project.

One benefit that is difficult to quantify, but is significant, is having a single source of truth for 

project data. As the agency captures accurate data at the source and manages it in an enterprise 

solution, this information can be propagated to other systems and used multiple times realizing 

even more benefits than the elimination of paper. 

Implementation Activities and Timelines

The project activities are divided into four key categories:

• Pre-implementation planning phase. 

• System implementation phase. 

• Project management. 

• Organizational change management. 

The primary tasks/activities for each category are described in more detail below. Not all tasks 

will be applicable to all improvement opportunities. 
46 

Implementation Activities

Pre-Implementation Planning Phase

The suggested task/activities in the Pre-implementation Planning phase are illustrated in Figure 

12. 

Figure 12. Flowchart. Sequence of pre-implementation planning activities.

1. Initiate project. This task involves the development of a project charter, a project 

management plan to outline management processes to be followed during the project, and the 

initial project work plan. A project kick-off meeting with all key stakeholders should also be 

conducted. 

2. Map project delivery business processes. Understanding current business processes is 

critical because the technical requirements for any new system will need to support the 

agency processes. Furthermore, it is important to identify whether the current processes are 

based on preference, policy, or by law. Typically, mapping business processes is a 

documentation of workflows that includes brief narratives and identifies issues or bottlenecks 

with each of the tasks performed. Additionally, part of this process should include identifying 

unnecessary steps previously tied to paper-based methods that can be eliminated upon 

deployment of a new system. 

3. Define system requirements to meet the business needs. The system requirements define 

the functional capabilities needed in an e-Construction solution to meet the organization 

business needs and should be organized logically by major process and sub-processes. 

Furthermore, the requirements should define the type of data that will be used by the system 

and its sources, formats, and any special characteristics. Other general requirements include 

ease of use, common look and feel, analysis and reporting tools, any desired customization, 

automated workflows, security, audit trails, archiving, online help, user documentation, 

training, technical support, and warranty. 

4. Specify integration requirements. These types of requirements typically involve interface 

requirements to integrate with existing or planned agency systems and conversion of any 

legacy data into the proposed system (e.g., integrating mobile devices with the agency’s 

construction management system and project collaboration tool). 

5. Procure a COTS solution and professional services for implementation. The request for 

proposal (RFP) for e-Construction applications should include the functional and integration 
47 

requirements of the proposed COTS solution and professional services to provide a system 

integrator. Most software vendors in the construction industry do their own product 

implementations versus some other types of application systems where multiple systems 

integrators may implement a COTS product and the agency may obtain a better price by first 

selecting the COTS software solution and then bidding out the implementation services 

separately. It is highly recommended to include a technical demonstration as part of the 

review and selection process scored on a combination of meeting the functional requirements 

and cost of the solution. There is always an option to issue a request for information to gain a 

better understanding of the available options to properly define language and requirements in 

the RFP.

System Implementation Phase

The suggested task/activities in the System Implementation phase are illustrated in Figure 13. 

Figure 13. Flowchart. Sequence of system implementation activities.

1. Initiate implementation plan. Once a solution has been selected, an implementation kickoff meeting should be held between the project team and the system integrator to review and 

confirm functional requirements, define roles and responsibilities, set clear expectations, and 

finalize the details of the implementation approach, progress updates, and timeline. 

2. Set system configuration and perform testing. The system integrator performs necessary 

configuration and customization of the system, as well as initial testing to verify system 

requirements and identify any issues to be resolved before pilot testing. It is highly 

recommended to import a small sample of legacy information (whether it is previously 

scanned documents or data from an older electronic system) to test the conversation process 

prior to full deployment. During this stage, the system should be set up in a testing 

environment that could be later used for initial user acceptance and pilot testing. Depending 

on the e-Construction area of improvement, the timeline for conducting a pilot may be a few 

weeks or a few months.
48 

3. Provide initial training. The system integrator provides initial training to the 

implementation team and any other agency staff who will perform the user acceptance testing 

and support the system after implementation. 

4. Prepare for and conduct user acceptance test. It is recommended that this be an agencyled activity and that the testing involves additional staff who have not been involved in the 

day-to-day project development activities.

5. Identify gaps and create plan to provide solutions. The system integrator should develop a 

plan to solve any technical issues identified during the user acceptance testing. The schedule 

may have to be adjusted depending on the severity of the issues encountered during testing. 

6. Prepare training materials and user procedures. Typically, this material will be 

developed by customizing and enhancing the software vendor’s base materials to meet the 

needs of the specific agency. The responsibility of this task should be clearly defined in the 

RFP.

7. Conduct end-user training. It is recommended to have the system integrator conduct a 

train-the-trainer training program and provide additional online training resources to keep the 

cost low. In addition, providing just-in-time training should be considered because it is 

common for staff to forget the material if the course was presented too far in advance of the 

application deployment. 

8. Execute the final data conversion and deploy production system. This is the last step 

before moving into post-production support—the deployment of the production system based 

on the proposed plan. It is recommended to convert one region at a time if possible. 

9. Provide post-production support. Typically, post-production support is 60 days. The 

system integrator provides technical support before turning the system over to the ongoing 

post-production support team during this 60-day time frame. This period typically constitutes 

the system acceptance, and final payment for the implementation services to the system 

integrator can then be issued. 

Project Management Phase

Project Management tasks are performed throughout the project and include: 

• Manage performance of all project activities. 

• Maintain the project work plan. 

• Prepare project status reports. 

• Manage potential project scope changes that may arise. 

• Conduct Project Steering Committee meetings.

• Manage project budget and financial plan. 
49 

Organizational Change Management Phase 

Organizational Change Management occurs throughout the project and the tasks include: 

• Identify impacts of the new system on the organization. 

• Plan for and proactively manage the implementation of these changes throughout the 

project life cycle, including a structured stakeholder engagement and communications 

plan for central office and field staff. 

• Manage and implement user training program on both the new system and new business 

procedures. 

Potential Timelines for Improvement Opportunities

The potential timelines for implementation for each improvement opportunity are illustrated in 

Figure 14 through Figure 20. 

Electronic Bidding and Contractor Selection

Figure 14 illustrates the timeline for electronic bidding and contractor selection. Our general time 

estimate is that the pre-implementation planning (which includes documenting the current 

process, identifying and defining improvement opportunities, defining system requirements, and 

selecting a system based on system requirements) would require about four months. This 

assumes that the agency can negotiate the purchase through a state contract instead of an open 

market bidding, which would require longer. The system implementation is estimated to take 

about five months, followed by one month of user training and three months of production 

support during which the implementation team addresses any issues that are identified during the 

first few months of system use.
50 

Figure 14. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of electronic bidding and 

contractor selection. 

Digital Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

Figure 15 illustrates the timeline for digital plans, specifications, and estimates. Our general 

timeline estimate is that the pre-implementation planning (which includes documenting the 

current process, identifying and defining improvement opportunities, defining system 

requirements, and selecting a system based on system requirements) would require about five 

months. This assumes that the agency can negotiate the purchase through a state contract instead 

of an open market bidding, which would require longer. The system implementation is estimated 

to take about five months, followed by one month of user training and four months of production 

support during which the implementation team addresses any issues that are identified during the 

first few months of system use.
51 

Figure 15. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of electronic PS&E. 

Digital Review

Figure 16 illustrates the timeline for digital review. Our general timeline estimate is that the preimplementation planning (which includes defining system requirements, preparing an RFP, 

selecting a system based on system requirements, and negotiating the contract) would require 

about three months since the process is generally simple. The system implementation is 

estimated to take about one month (purchasing software license and initiating its use), followed 

by one month of user training and two months of production support during which the 

implementation team addresses any issues that are identified during the first few months of 

system use. It is assumed that all documents to be reviewed electronically originated in 

electronic format (e.g., Microsoft Word files), making implementation easy. 
52 

Figure 16. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of digital review.

Project Construction Management

Figure 17 illustrates the timeline for project construction management. A construction 

management system takes longer to implement than some of the other improvement opportunity 

areas identified since it is more complex and requires integration with various complex agency 

systems, such as financial and human resources management systems. This complexity also 

requires more testing activities, as reflected in the timeline below. 

The general timeline estimate is that the pre-implementation planning would require about seven 

months. The system implementation is estimated to take about twelve months, including two 

months of user training followed by three months of production support.
53 

Figure 17. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of a project construction 

management system. 
54 

Project Collaboration 

Figure 18 illustrates the timeline for project collaboration. Similar to implementing a 

construction management system, a project collaboration tool also takes longer to implement 

than some of the other improvement opportunity areas identified since it is more complex and 

requires more integration and testing activities. 

The general timeline estimate is that the pre-implementation planning would require about eight 

months. The system implementation is estimated to take about twelve months, including four 

months of user training followed by one month of production support during which the 

implementation team addresses any issues that are identified during the first few months of 

system use.
55 

Figure 18. Timeline. Potential schedule for implementation of a project collaboration tool. 
56 

Digital As-builts 

Figure 19 illustrates the timeline for digital as-builts. Assuming that the agency already 

implemented electronic PS&E, the step to implement digital as-builts may not be as daunting. 

However, it does require that the agency to work with stakeholders (e.g., contractors, 

construction, and maintenance staff). Implementation of digital as-builts requires defining what 

data will be collected, the format it will be delivered, and a process that will be used for review 

and acceptance of the final products. For agencies that produce their as-built records internally, 

there may be cost associated with data collection tools and software applications (e.g., mobile 

devices and mapping platforms). However, for agencies that require the contractor to deliver the 

as-built records, there may be no specific costs involved, although contractors may charge a little 

more for digital as-builts to compensate for the overhead of hardware and software tools they 

may need to complete that task. The agency will need to conduct some configuration to ensure 

that the correct symbols and terminology are used and that they are standardized and also 

conduct training to ensure staff is successful when migrating to the new electronic review 

process.

The general timeline estimate is that the pre-implementation planning would require about three 

months. The system implementation is estimated to take about one month, followed by one 

month of user training and two months of production support during which the implementation 

team addresses any issues that are identified during the first few months of system use. This 

timeline assumes that 3D engineered models have already been implemented for PS&E.
57 

Figure 19. Timeline. Potential schedule for the implementation of requirements for digital 

as-built records. 

Mobile Devices

Figure 20 illustrates the timeline for mobile devices. Our general time estimate is that the preimplementation would require about four months. This assumes that the agency can negotiate the 

purchase through a state contract instead of open market bidding, which would require longer. 

The system implementation is estimated to take about six months, followed by one month of user 

training and four months of production support during which the implementation team addresses 

any issues that are identified during the first few months of system use. Use of mobile devices 

for activities other than construction inspection would require additional time for both preimplementation planning and implementation. 
58 

Figure 20. Timeline. Potential schedule for the implementation of mobile devices. 

PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS

Risk Management

Risk is defined as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative 

effect on a project’s objectives,” which is consistent with the Project Management Institute’s 

PMBOK® Guide definition of risk.(Project Management Institute 2013) Risk management aims 

to increase the probability and impact of positive events and decrease the probability and impact 

of events that could negatively impact system implementation. The risk management process 

begins during project planning and continues during project initiation through system design and 

implementation. 

The output of the risk management process is the risk management plan (RMP), which is a 

standard project management tool that is used to document potential risks, assess the impacts of 

each risk, and identify strategies for responding to each risk. Risks are systematically scored to 
59 

determine whether they are high, medium, or low so that opportunities can be enhanced and 

threats can be reduced. The RMP is considered a living document, and it should be maintained 

throughout the life of the project by team members, with the project manager as the RMP owner. 

The key components of a RMP are illustrated in Figure 21. 

Figure 21. Illustration. Risk management process. 

• Risk Identification. This is the process of identifying risks that could affect the project 

and their characteristics. Agencies can use the list of initial risks identified in Table 27, 

which appears later in this section, as a starting point and then conduct risk planning 

workshops with key stakeholder groups as part of project planning activities to identify 

additional risks. Each risk should be documented in the risk log. 

• Risk Analysis and Prioritization. For each risk that is identified, agencies should assess 

the probability of occurrence using the standard probability scale and the level of impact 

using a standard impact assessment matrix in the event that the risk does occur. The 

product of probability and the impact will yield the Risk Score that will help determine 

Risk Planning. 

• Risk Planning. This step involves developing a risk response plan for handling each of 

the high-priority risks identified in Risk Analysis and Prioritization. Typically, this 

activity is the result of iterative discussions between the project manager and a range of 

project stakeholders. 

• Risk Control and Monitoring. This step includes executing the appropriate risk 

response plan to reduce the probability of a risk occurring or to mitigate its impact should 

it occur. This includes monitoring the progress in handling all risks that have occurred 

and continuing to identify and assess new risks that may emerge. This step should be 

carried out continuously during an implementation project. 
60 

Table 27. Initial inventory of potential risks and barriers.

Risk 

ID 

Critical 

Success 

Factor

Risk 

Description

Risk 

Class

Probability 

0.1 – 0.99

Impact

1 – 10

Risk 

Score 

(PxI) 

Identified By Risk Owner Response Risk Strategy 

and Notes

EC01 Executive 

Support

Executive 

sponsor is not 

identified

Internal 0.3 9 2.7 Implementation 

Team

e-Construction 

Business 

Champion

Avoid Prepare and 

present 

business case 

to executive 

management

Proactively 

seek executive 

sponsorship

EC02 Executive 

Support

Lack of staff 

resources to 

support 

implementation

Internal 0.5 9 4.5 Implementation 

Team

Project 

Sponsor

Mitigate Identify 

resources and 

obtain IT and 

stakeholder 

collaboration 

early in the 

pre-planning 

phase

EC03 Executive 

Support

Lack of buy-in 

for 

implementation

Internal 0.7 10 7.0 Implementation 

Team

Project 

Sponsor

Mitigate Communicate 

need and 

urgency of 

system/tool 

Share business 

case and 

benefits of 

system/tool

EC04 Funding Funding 

constraints 

prevent 

implementation 

External 0.6 9 5.4 Implementation 

Team

Project 

Sponsor

Mitigate Develop a 

business case 

that clearly 
61 

Risk 

ID 

Critical 

Success 

Factor

Risk 

Description

Risk 

Class

Probability 

0.1 – 0.99

Impact

1 – 10

Risk 

Score 

(PxI) 

Identified By Risk Owner Response Risk Strategy 

and Notes

from moving 

forward

justifies the 

investment

Implement 

system/tool in 

phases and 

identify 

“quick-wins” 

that allow early 

successes to be 

shown and 

shared with 

decision 

makers

EC05 Action Plan Digital 

signatures are 

not currently 

supported by 

policy or law

Internal/ 

External

0.5 7 3.5 Implementation 

Team

Project 

Sponsor

Mitigate Identify 

requirements 

for 

implementing

digital 

signatures

Work with 

stakeholders to 

change policy 

or statutes to 

enable digital 

signatures

EC06 Action Plan Timeline is 

unrealistic

Internal 0.3 5 1.5 Implementation 

Team

Project 

Sponsor and 

Project 

Manager

Mitigate Develop 

detailed multiphase 
62 

Risk 

ID 

Critical 

Success 

Factor

Risk 

Description

Risk 

Class

Probability 

0.1 – 0.99

Impact

1 – 10

Risk 

Score 

(PxI) 

Identified By Risk Owner Response Risk Strategy 

and Notes

implementation 

plan

Establish 

priorities for 

implementation

Verify 

implementation 

timeline with 

other states and 

available 

benchmarks

EC07 User 

Involvement

Business 

processes are 

not clearly 

documented

Internal 0.5 8 4.0 Implementation 

Team

Project 

Sponsor

Mitigate Work with 

business areas 

to map 

processes 

accurately
63 

Components of a Risk Inventory 

As a part of the RMP, agencies should document potential barriers and risks to implementation 

using a risk log. This section describes each component of the risk log in more detail. 

Risk Identifier

This is a unique sequence number assigned to each risk identified for ease of communication and 

reference. For this example, the identifier “EC” plus a unique sequence number has been 

assigned for initial risk inventory. 

Critical Success Factors 

Each risk is categorized into critical success factors, which are factors that are essential to 

successful project implementation. Examples of success factors include, but are not limited to, 

executive support, allocation of resources, in-house technical expertise, proper project 

management, change management, and organizational acceptance.

Risk Description and Classification

The risk description designates the nature of the potential risk/barrier, and the classification 

defines whether the risk is internal or external.

Probability

Each risk should be assigned a probability based on the likelihood of occurrence—the higher the 

probability, the more likely it is that the risk will occur. The probability score should be based on 

a 10-point scale ranging from 0.1 to 1.0, where 0.1 indicates a very low probability and 1.0 

indicates a very high probability of risk occurrence. Table 28 shows the probability distribution 

based by likeliness of occurrence.

Table 28. Risk probability scale. 

Probability Definition

0.1-0.2 Very unlikely that risk will occur

0.3-0.4 Unlikely that risk will occur

0.5-0.6 Equally likely whether risk will occur

0.7-0.8 Likely that risk will occur

0.9-1.0 Very likely that risk will occur
64 

Impact

Impact measures the potential severity of the impact of the risk on the project. Impact can be 

rated on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 indicates a very low impact and 10 indicates a very high 

impact of risk, as shown in Table 29. (Project Management Institute 2013)

Table 29. Risk impact scale. 

Project 

Objective

Very Low

1-2 

Low

3-4 

Moderate

5-6 

High

7-8 

Very High 

9-10 

Cost Insignificant 

cost increase

< 5% cost 

increase

5-10% cost 

increase

10.01-25% 

cost increase

> 25% cost 

increase

Schedule Insignificant 

schedule 

slippage 

< 5% 

schedule 

slippage 

5-10% 

schedule 

slippage 

10.01-25% 

schedule 

slippage 

> 25% 

schedule 

slippage 

Scope Scope 

decrease 

barely 

noticeable 

Minor areas 

of scope are 

affected

Major areas 

of scope are 

affected

Scope 

reduction 

unacceptable 

to client 

Project end 

item is 

effectively 

useless

Quality Quality 

degradation 

barely 

noticeable 

Only very 

demanding 

applications 

are affected

Quality 

reduction 

requires client 

approval 

Quality 

reduction 

unacceptable 

to client 

Project end 

item is 

effectively 

unusable 

Risk Score

The risk score indicates the severity of the risk, which is calculated by multiplying the 

probability and the impact numbers. 

Figure 22 is an adaptation from the PMBOK® Guide that can be used to assess initial risk.

(Project Management Institute 2013) The project risks are divided into low, moderate, and high 

risk based on their risk scores.
65 

Figure 22. Scale. Calculation of risk score. 

Risks with the highest scores should be the first priority in the risk response plan (part of the risk 

management plan), followed by moderate risks, and then by low risks. 

Identified By

This attribute indicates the source that identified the risk, which can be an individual, a group, or 

a meeting or process used to identify the risk. For the purposes of the initial inventory of barriers 

and risks, “implementation team” has been used as a placeholder.

Risk Owner

This attribute indicates the individual who owns the risk. The risk owner is responsible for 

addressing the risk should it arise. Ownership is typically assigned to an individual, such as the 

project sponsor. 

Risk Response

The seven potential responses to a risk are avoid, transfer, mitigate, exploit, share, enhance, or 

accept. Negative risks or threats should be avoided altogether, transferred to a third party, or 

mitigated by taking action earlier in the implementation plan rather than repairing the damaged 

after it has occurred. On the contrary, positive risks or opportunities should be exploited by 

eliminating uncertainty associated with a particular risk, shared with a third party who may be 

able to capture the opportunity better, or enhanced by increasing the probability for positive 

impacts. Lastly, accepting the risk may be a strategy that can be used for both threats and 

opportunities when the risk may not be eliminated. Passive acceptance requires no action, 

leaving the implementation team to address the risks as they occur while active acceptance 

requires the development of a contingency plan for known and unknown risks. 

Risk Strategy and Notes 

The response strategy and notes identify the strategies to respond to the risk. 

Initial Inventory of Potential Risks and Barriers

The initial inventory of potential risks and barriers previously presented in Table 27 was 

prepared based on information gained during agency interviews and industry standards. The 

probability scores were assigned based on information obtained in the detailed interviews and 

industry best practices for technology deployment. 
66 

Change Management 

Change management should happen as early as possible and continue throughout the project 

lifecycle. Stakeholder involvement and engagement is necessary to help manage upcoming 

change effectively. Since these stakeholders will ultimately become the end users of the system, 

it is important to ask for their feedback throughout the implementation process (and particularly 

during pre-implementation activities, such as business process review), keep them informed of

implementation activities, involve a core group in system demonstrations, and involve users in

user acceptance testing. These activities will help the agency overcome any resistance to change, 

ensure that the end product is a system that meets user needs, and that the system is used as it 

was intended once it is implemented (preventing any potential user workarounds). 

Other Success Factors

Other success factors that are critical to successful implementation are described in more detail 

below. 

Business Process Improvement

Agencies should review current business processes before implementing a new system to ensure 

a smooth implementation that results in a system that ultimately meets the agency’s needs over 

the long term and minimizes any system updates that may be needed in the future. During 

business process review, agencies should ensure that processes reflect the agency’s current 

practices and identify improvements that address current process and system shortcomings. 

Focusing on improving business processes provides a solid foundation by which future activities 

can build upon—well-documented processes will result in well-defined system requirements to 

address gaps in the agency’s current systems.

Project Champion and Strong Executive Support 

The implementation of any project should include a strong leader who will champion the 

initiative, provide support at the executive level, and who can make critical decisions and support 

the projects from the start. Lack of executive support can ultimately lead to failed 

implementation. The champion should be someone on the executive team who has the authority 

to delegate tasks to the implementation team and become the liaison between the implementation 

team and the agency executive leadership. The champion is also the person responsible for 

securing the funding to support the initiatives. The team should be carefully selected to ensure 

organizational buy-in and also the right level of expertise to advance the agency’s e-Construction 

program. 

Because e-Construction applications rely on both business processes and technology, the 

following team composition is recommended: 

• Executive Champion. A member of the executive team who provides management 

support whose role is to be informed of the progress. 

• Team Lead. A project manager responsible for coordinating all activities related to the 

scope of work and managing the overall schedule. 
67 

• Business Process Lead. A person with expert knowledge of the business process being 

affected by the application of e-Construction being deployed. 

• Technical Lead. A person with expert knowledge of technology deployment and existing 

systems used in production. This member of the team is most likely already providing 

technical support and training of existing systems. 

• IT Liaison. A person from the information systems group who is knowledgeable with the 

overall agency infrastructure, security policies, deployment requirements, and 

procurement of software. 

• Legal Team Liaison. A person from the legal team with expert knowledge of the laws 

that guide the business process being affected by the application of e-Construction being 

deployed. 

• Users or stakeholders. A diverse cross-section of multiple people who will use the 

systems being deployed. These people are the most affected by the implementation of 

new systems, thus having multiple representatives allows for feedback and staff buy-in. 

Tool Selection to Support e-Construction

Agencies should understand the current capabilities of their systems before initiating 

implementation. They should assess current IT infrastructure, such as network connectivity, 

access to the internet, firewalls, storage, and databases; the types and age of computers in place 

for performing project delivery tasks, such as design and construction inspection; the type of 

software that is currently being used within project delivery and changes that may significantly 

impact production; funding sources; and procurement vehicles. 

Software 

The process for selecting the best software solution for e-Construction directly depends on 

agency procurement practices, the specific application, existing software and enterprise licensing 

agreements, and availability of COTS solutions to meet the needs. Many of these solutions are 

well-entrenched in the industry and may provide well-established workflows and documentation 

shared by most of the agencies. Nevertheless, new and more modern products have recently 

emerged to meet the demands of mobility in the transportation industry as well as moving digital 

data beyond construction. These new players are forcing the market to be more versatile and 

competitive, and should be considered. An RFP process through which various vendors can 

propose their solutions and costs can help agencies select the best software for their needs.

Hardware 

Hardware to support e-Construction includes mobile devices, laptops, and surveying equipment, 

along with all the necessary accessories and services (e.g., impact-resistant cases, Wi-Fi, and 

internet connectivity). The three top considerations for choosing laptop computers and mobile 

devices are cost, user preference, and agency IT security policies. The considerations for 
68 

selecting surveying equipment to support the use of 3D data in the field are usually cost, 

software, user preference, ease of use, and quality of the equipment. 

IT Platforms

There is a significant investment in setting up proper IT infrastructure and services to maintain a 

paperless environment. These costs include establishment or addition of digital storage through 

either internal Storage Area Networks and servers and/or cloud-based services, the set-up of 

databases to support collaboration and document management systems, and access to a highspeed communication network across the geographic jurisdiction of the agency through fiber 

lines and wireless (Wi-Fi) or cellular connections. 

Accessibility to the records via a secure method is one of the most important items when setting 

up an IT infrastructure that will support e-Construction practices. Some agencies opt to keep all 

data stored internally on secured servers behind the firewall that can only be accessed via Virtual 

Private Networks or Remote Desktop connections. The advantage of using this method is that 

there is no need to invest in upgrading the desktop applications to offer a mobile interface. 

Alternatively, cloud-based technology, if set up correctly, can allow secured access via web 

interfaces and mobile applications from any computer or mobile device. Both methods require an 

internet connection for accessing records and any other data stored in the systems. 

Training and Technical Support

The success of technology deployment initiatives heavily depends on the training and guidance 

that staff receive. Staff need training not only to learn the new software and tools, but also to 

understand new workflows, processes, and policies. Business and technical guidance are

necessary for staff to understand the new processes that affect their daily work. Provisions, 

standards, and manuals will need to be updated before implementation so staff has the proper 

guidance to be successful. Staff who are invested in the process are more likely to welcome the 

adoption of a new technology or a change that impacts their everyday duties. Thus, training and 

technical support are key factors to achieving success.

An agency should consider different types of training programs to bring staff up to speed 

regarding e-Construction technologies. The training needs to accommodate many types of 

learners. Some employees prefer instructor-led training while others prefer a more independent 

style of learning. Instructor-led training can be conducted by specialized technical support staff 

whose primary function is to instruct. However, many agencies use the train-the-trainer approach 

to expand the training base from the central office support group to other geographic regions 

without needing to hire additional staff. Agencies should also consider just-in-time instruction, 

which enables staff to access training when they need it. While just-in-time training can be 

instructor-led when using the train-the-trainer program, it is more often used as electronic 

modules that include a combination of documents and videos. Because all of the improvement 

opportunities identified use software or an electronic tool, both the instructor-led and electronic 

training should also include the opportunity for hands-on practice, which can be accomplished by 

having sample files that the user can download and use with the software installed on the 

assigned computer or mobile device. 
69 

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

e-Construction practices are being successfully used in many state transportation departments, 

and the tools for implementing these paperless environments are commercially available and 

supported by the industry. The use of e-Construction practices continues to grow with more 

awareness brought by EDC-3 efforts and federal and state research. Furthermore, e-Construction 

will continue to advance quickly and be supported in the fourth round of the Every Day Counts 

Initiative (EDC-4) to go beyond paperless practices. Thus, the recommendations for the future 

advancement of e-Construction here are based on the lessons learned during this study to elevate 

the use of digital data for project delivery to the next level. 

e-Construction practices improve the efficiency in transportation agency business and quality 

control processes for highway construction projects. Many of the applications of e-Construction 

are mature within the transportation industry, and the current state of practice has demonstrated 

that there are benefits for both the contractor and the owner agency. e-Construction enables 

information to be shared quickly between all involved parties and significantly reduces or 

eliminates the environmental and monetary impact of printing and paper usage. e-Construction 

also makes historical project documents and data easily accessible, simplifies workflows, and 

increases collaboration both in the field and in the office. Benefits are also yielded throughout all 

stages of the project delivery cycle. In addition, e-Construction creates the opportunity to 

leverage project delivery digital data to supplement asset inventory that can be used for operation 

and maintenance activities.

The findings of this research and the implementation guidance presented will enable state 

transportation departments to expand their current e-Construction programs and use a consistent 

method to document and quantify benefits and calculate return on investment. The planninglevel benefit cost analyses for each improvement opportunity demonstrates that agencies will 

yield significant savings despite the upfront investment. Agencies can use the benefit cost 

framework to develop a business case for e-Construction implementation or to systematically 

quantify benefits for e-Construction initiatives that have been implemented and in practice for 

several years. 

The EDC-3 efforts to advance e-Construction are focused on the elimination of a paper-based 

electronic administration delivery process through the use of digital documents and electronic 

processes. Eliminating printed documents and their distribution is easily adaptable, accepted, and 

supported by the industry. It is also evident that the movement to a paperless environment has 

obvious benefits, such as reducing the carbon footprint and reducing the cost associated with 

paper supplies and mailing. While benefits are not easily quantifiable, many agencies have 

anecdotal evidence of e-Construction’s benefits and its ability to improve efficiency and 

transparency of the construction delivery process. The use of paperless environments has 

increased among state transportation departments in the last couple of years, in part due to the 

FHWA’s efforts to promote these technologies under EDC-3. 
70 

Another related initiative that has contributed to the adoption of e-Construction is 3D Engineered 

Models for Construction, which was introduced in EDC-2 and continued in EDC-3. The use of 

both 3D engineered models and paperless workflows have increased among state transportation 

departments in the last couple of years, in part due to the FHWA’s efforts to promote these 

technologies under the EDC program. In addition, effective practices to apply these tools to 

construction inspection are emerging, but documentation is highly focused on specific 

technologies (e.g., AMG, mobile devices). Consequently, there is a gap in identifying how 

e-Construction and 3D data intersect. The use of 3D data, geospatial tools, and mobile 

technology in construction inspection is the next logical step in the evolution of e-Construction 

as a practice for using digital data. Further, there is a need for understanding how the digital data 

collected during the construction acceptance process could be integrated into asset management, 

operations, and maintenance practices. Electronic or digital data that is captured and managed 

properly can build a higher level of confidence for operating and maintaining the roadway 

network 

This study identified the following areas for further investigation to advance e-Construction to 

the next level: 

• Use of 3D models as contractual documents instead of electronic plan sheets. 

• Use of digital data integration in construction inspection (e.g., real-time verification, 

measurement of quantities using surveying equipment, and low accuracy positioning for 

locating features). 

• Use of digital data for materials management tracking and warranties that can tie to the 

construction management system. 

• Collection of 3D as-built models and acceptance information to establish records that can 

be used for asset management, operations, and maintenance.

• Development of enterprise data management through governance and policy. 

• Further exploration is required to identify the best mix of technology and process to meet 

the needs of construction inspection and administration to further improve the efficiency, 

safety, and use of digital records realized from e-Construction during EDC-3.
71 

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE PHASE I COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW 

PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E)

PS&E practices identified during the comprehensive review include the following: 

• The Northern Region of ADOT&PF provides 3D models of road alignments and existing 

ground surfaces as supplemental project information. 

• CTDOT is using Bluebeam Revu for digital makeups and to sign digital contract plans. 

Staff members are able to review documents at the same time using the collaboration live 

review features (STUDIO) with real-time feedback. 

• DIA has an ongoing initiative to get plans and specifications into BIM and Revit formats. 

• Iowa DOT creates construction plans electronically and submits them to the Office of 

Contracts, which prepares PS&E packages and advertises them online for contractors to 

bid. For digital review, the agency is using Outlook to collect comments on plan sets 

since email allows for traceability and makes it easier to track and respond to comments. 

• MDOT provides reference information documents during project advertisement, which 

supplement virtual paper and public electronic files. The agency is also exploring 

Bluebeam for digital mark-ups. 

• NCDOT creates all plans in Bentley MicroStation, and these plans are then generated as 

PDF documents. The agency currently provides Digital Terrain Modeling for all of its 

projects that are let centrally. The agency also provides a 3D design file for a project if it 

was designed using Corridor Modeling (which is a majority of all of its projects).

• ODOT has been using Bentley MicroStation for 3D models for over 10 years, and 

effective January 2015, the agency requires delivery of digital data bidding reference 

packages for most roadway construction projects. 

• PennDOT has been developing contract drawings based on a variety of parametric 

design software since the mid-1990s. Penn DOT has standardized on the Bentley 

MicroStation CADD platform and uses Bentley’s InRoads as the civil design software to 

create 3D corridor models. These 3D corridor models are the basis for the production of 

contract drawings, which generate the electronic plan sheets. Although PennDOT has 

been sharing 3D models with contractors post-award since 2003, in January 2014, it 

became department policy to develop 3D models primarily, but not exclusively, for 

moderate to complex projects. These digital design files are shared as “For information 

only” reference documents with contractors during the pre-bid phase via its Engineering 

and Construction Management System (ECMS), an in-house developed, web-based 

application. Today, PennDOT shares surface and geometry files in LandXML. 

• TxDOT is using Bentley MicroStation for 3D and 4D modeling. 
72 

• VTrans is using Adobe to convert files to an electronic format and review plans 

electronically.

ELECTRONIC BIDDING AND CONTRACTOR SELECTION

Key findings for electronic bidding practices include the following: 

• Caltrans uses Bid Express as its primary tool for electronic bidding; however, it uses 

another system for contractors to download Bid Books so that the agency is able to track 

who is downloading documents. Contractors must log into the Caltrans website to 

download Bid Books for the desired project they want to bid on. While most documents 

are submitted electronically, some documents, such as Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise forms, are still in paper format.

• MDOT is using boilerplate letting documents that reduce download size and reduce 

storage space and printing. The agency also provides reference information documents 

during project advertisement to give contractors access to non-contractual documents 

prior to bidding on construction projects. 

• PennDOT is using its ECMS system for electronic bidding, solicitation for consultant 

professional services, contractor, and consultant selection, and contract execution. The 

system can be used to view all construction project information and documents, such as 

PS&E documents, contract agreements, and any other electronic documents requiring 

agency approval or certification.

• TxDOT uses a custom application, the Bid Proposal Request System, to check for the 

contractor’s available bidding capacity. The Bid Proposal Request System takes the 

request from the contractor and compares the amount they are approved to bid in one 

application to how much the contractor has under construction with the agency in another 

application. The difference between those numbers is the bidding capacity. 

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 

Construction Management Systems

Key findings for construction management systems include the following: 

• The Northern Region of ADOT&PF implemented SiteManager. SiteManager was 

initially used to store all documents, but the database was ballooning and staff decided to 

store all documents in eDocs, a database that was developed internally, and provide a 

URL in SiteManager that would link to eDocs. Daily reports and test results are entered 

into SiteManager, but a lot of backup information is now stored in eDocs. 

• Caltrans approves all contractor billings through the internet Extra Work Bill (iEWB) 

system, an Oracle-based system that was custom developed internally. iEWB enables 

verification and validation of electronic extra work bills for accuracy, which results in 

greater efficiency in the processing of bills. The prime contractor and the resident 
73 

engineer are able to communicate with each other when they create and send extra work 

bills for processing, and once the resident engineers approves payment, iEWB sends 

payment information to the Contract Administration System for processing. 

• DIA is in the process of implementing Oracle Unifier to track and manage submittals, 

budget items, change orders, pay applications, Requests for Information, and other 

documents in the system. The software is cloud-based so staff will be able to access it on 

their phone, iPads, or other devices. In addition, the agency uses Textura for contractor 

pay applications. Denver International Airport implemented Textura with larger projects 

approximately 2 to 2.5 years ago and has now rolled it out to all projects in the past year. 

Contractors are able to upload information into the system, and the monthly draw, 

approval process, and payment release are all electronic. Contractors can go into the 

system and check on payment status, and they are receiving payments much faster than 

before. Payment time has been reduced from 30 days to 5 to 10 days. 

• FDOT uses SiteManager on its mobile devices via the Citrix application. The agency is 

looking to implement AASHTOWare web-based construction management sometime by 

fiscal year 2017 (which means implementation began in July 2016). 

• Iowa DOT uses Doc Express to store all contract documents, enable contractors/ 

suppliers to submit material certifications, handle electronic signatures, secure static 

payroll submittals, electronic plan room, shop drawing submittals and approvals, and 

change order management, including electronic signatures. All documents are kept in one 

place, and notifications and workflows are built into the system. As of June 2014, the use 

of Doc Express is required on all state-administered projects.

• MassDOT developed a Contract Management System (CMS) in-house (using a SQL 

server) as part of its Accelerated Bridge Program to manage procurement, 

prequalification, and some payment functions. CMS is used in conjunction with several 

other standalone, homegrown databases, including the Site Access Module (SAM), the 

District Contract Database, and the Construction Division System. The use of so many 

databases has resulted in data redundancy, and the agency has recognized that this has 

wasted a lot of valuable time. The agency is working to bring all other databases into the 

CMS, but this effort has been challenging and time consuming. Submittal of contractor 

payroll is currently a paper process. Payroll submittal information is entered into the 

SAM, which generates an estimate, but the agency still uses a paper process for 

signatures. The Comptroller’s Office makes payments through the Massachusetts 

Accounting and Access Reporting System. 

• NHDOT uses a Construction Management System (CMS), which was developed inhouse. 

• NDDOT uses the Construction Automated Records System, a web-based system 

developed in-house, to prepare pay estimates, change orders, and project records. 

• PennDOT uses ECMS to administer a project. Since ECMS is a highly secured system 

based on user authentication for accessing project data, construction staff can use it to 
74 

add information to the system as project construction continues. Construction personnel 

add estimates, work orders, site activities, invoices, and payment information. All 

approvals and documentation of project site activities are completed through ECMS 

using automated workflows.

• TxDOT uses SiteManager as a construction administration tool for data collection in the 

field, daily work reports, contractor payments, change orders, materials tracking, and test 

report tracking. The Electronic Project Record System is a custom-developed software 

that acts as a portal to collect payroll information from contractors and to collect and 

track other pieces of information, such as safety reports and American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act dollars. The agency is trying to move away from custom software and 

toward COTS software that can be supported by a vendor so it will eventually transition 

to using the Labor Compliance Program tracker instead. The agency is also using 

Primavera to manage lettings to determine how to spend funding. For construction, 

Primavera is used to track whether a contractor is on time and for resolution of disputes 

and claims.

• VTrans uses AASHTOWare Project SiteManager, which was implemented in the early 

1990s, to handle all pay items, including change orders and pay estimates. VTrans also 

uses AASHTOWare Estimator for project cost estimates. Designers build their estimates 

for a project within Estimator, and the estimates are sent to Contract Administration 

electronically to use as part of project advertisement. Contractors submit their bids 

electronically, and this information is used to generate the electronic files that are then 

pushed to SiteManager. This information, including pay items, quantities, and pricing, 

forms the basis for using SiteManager throughout the construction phase. 

Project Collaboration Tools

Key findings for project collaboration include the following: 

• DIA has been using SharePoint as an internal reporting tool for projects. SharePoint 

stores the latest project information, including meeting minutes, change orders, PM plans, 

and stakeholder presentations. It is not meant to be a repository but rather a centralized 

location from which information can be easily shared so that executives on the airport 

team and other internal stakeholders can access certain project information in lieu of 

having access to the project file on the server.

• FDOT recently implemented ProjectSolve as its project collaboration tool.

• MassDOT implemented a SharePoint site for five projects for its Accelerated Bridge 

Program that totaled $1 billion in construction for document sharing and storing 

efficiency reports, non-conformance reports, photos, etc. However, since the site needs to 

be managed by an outside consultant, the agency is looking to transition to another 

platform. 

• MDOT uses ProjectWise as the “single source of truth” for the agency in managing its 

contracts. The agency uses ProjectWise workflows to obtain approvals on documents 
75 

from project scoping through contract close out, including contract modifications, 

payrolls, and shop drawings. ProjectWise has led to increased transparency, which has 

subsequently led to efficiencies in the way the agency does business. The system has 

been in place for about 12 years. Although numerous project collaboration tools are 

available on the market, Michigan DOT was already using ProjectWise and had 

administrators who knew how to use the software since the state of Michigan has an 

enterprise license agreement with Bentley.

• NCDOT uses SharePoint to store any reports that were previously created on paper, 

including inspector reports and materials received reports and for collaboration between 

the field and the central and regional offices. Staff members in all offices are able to 

access and work on the same set of documents as compared to previously, when copies of 

the same document were sent to several different offices. SharePoint also has a search 

functionality that enables staff to search for documents by keyword. This has made it a 

lot easier for staff to find the documents they need.

• ODOT is in the process of implementing ProjectWise, which is scheduled for completion 

in 2016. 

• PennDOT uses three systems for project collaboration, creating reports, and record 

storage and retention:

• PennDOT Project Collaboration Center is a modified version of Microsoft SharePoint 

used for submitting documents for review. The system provides better collaboration 

at all levels of the agency and with business partners. It also provides more efficient 

access to information, true multi-user collaboration with versioning, check-in/checkout, audit trail, retention policies, the ability to add metadata, and utilization of 

workflows for business processes. Most importantly, this system provides 

construction document retention while complying with “Right-to-Know” state laws. 

This system is integrated with ECMS, and it is the system used to share files, photos, 

and training materials. 

• Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) is used for electronic archival of 

project documents once the project is no longer active. 

• Construction Document System (version 3) (CDSv3) was created as a companion 

application to ECMS for construction management and inspection of projects. The 

main purpose of CDSv3 is to document project site activities and contractor 

payments, but it also is used to create reports with data retrieved from ECMS. 

• TxDOT is in the process of implementing ProjectWise, which is scheduled for 

completion in 2016. In addition, the agency uses EDMS for document management, 

which was implemented statewide in 2007. Although EDMS and ProjectWise serve very 

similar functions, the agency has set forth guidelines for which types of documents will 

be stored in each system. For project-specific documentation, the agency will use 

ProjectWise, but for internal processes such as writing manuals or internal 

memorandums, the agency will use EDMS. Project-specific files are stored in 
76 

ProjectWise so that files (e.g., design, construction, traffic, right-of-way, etc.) can be 

stored in one place for others to easily access rather than having files saved in several 

different places on the server. 

Digital Signatures

Key findings for digital signatures include the following: 

• FDOT uses public key infrastructure (PKI) for its digital signatures and all staff members 

are outfitted with IdenTrust digital certificates. Contractors must meet the minimum 

criteria of PKI infrastructure and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Level 3 assurance. In July 2013, Florida DOT issued a Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Florida DOT, the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers, and the Florida 

Transportation Builders Association that established the use of e-commerce on Florida 

DOT construction contracts. The Memorandum of Understanding acknowledges that the 

delivery of construction projects is extremely complex and the use of e-commerce will 

help expedite the review and processing of documents and approvals.

• MDOT uses Adobe (since the state of Michigan already had a license for Adobe) and 

Form Signer by Software 602 for its digitally encrypted electronic signatures, but it is 

looking to transition to Bluebeam. Each office is currently validating e-signatures on its 

own, but the agency would like to work toward an agency-wide signature repository.

• NCDOT is just getting started with DocuSign for digital signatures on plans and 

contracts and is working on obtaining contractual agreements between DOTs and private 

contractors. The agency has been working with its attorneys to ensure it is proceeding 

legally.

• ODOT has an internal digital signature capacity of 2,000 and contractors must provide 

their own digital signatures through a third party (which costs about $10 to $15 per 

month per signature). Digital signatures have been widely accepted by the engineering 

community. In 2001, the state of Oregon adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions 

Act, ORS 84.001 to 84.061, which permits the use of digital signatures, shortly after the 

federal law allowing digital signatures was passed. The Oregon State Board of Examiners 

for Engineering and Land Surveying adopted the new Oregon Administrative Rules in 

2008. The agency recently developed a digital signature provision in coordination with 

the Department of Justice for use on two pilot e-Construction contracts. The provision 

states that all documents submitted to the agency for a contract that requires signatures 

must be signed with a digital signature that is verifiable by the agency unless otherwise 

allowed or directed by the Chief Engineer. The agency fully expects the provision to be 

accepted as a standard specification in 2016. 

• TxDOT is pushing to execute all contracts electronically with e-signatures. The Design 

division rolled out DocuSign last year to sign and seal plans electronically for contract 

execution.
77 

• UDOT has used electronic signatures for the signing and stamping of plan sets and 

design exceptions, as well as electronic payroll verification for over 10 years. Electronic 

signatures have reduced overall agency documentation and auditing costs.

PROJECT INSPECTION AND TESTING

Key findings for Project Inspection and Testing include the following: 

• The Northern Region of ADOT&PF has mobile hot spots written into construction 

contracts allowing inspectors to link to cell service using a laptop so that SiteManager 

can be used on grade. 

• Caltrans geo-synchronizes photos so that inspectors can access the photos on plan 

sheets.

• FDOT inputs inspection results in SiteManager. Inspection forms that need to be filled 

out are taken from the ProjectSolve site, filled out, and then uploaded back to the site. 

The agency is also developing workflows so that when forms are uploaded, a notification 

will be sent to the next person that needs to review it. 

• Iowa DOT is using mobile devices to access construction documentation in the field; in 

addition, iPads are being used for asset management inventory and pavement 

management. Inspectors are using the application PDF Expert, which was easy for staff 

to learn and use, to view, review, and make edits/comments to electronic plan sets. PDF 

Expert is being used on all paperless pilot projects (and there were over 50 of these 

projects in 2015). When inspectors go into the field to take samples, a GPS location is 

snapped and added to the database to use for future decisions.

• NCDOT is using iPads to enable field personnel to be able to access a range of reference 

materials at all times, regardless of connectivity. Field personnel use Outlook for email 

and FaceTime to communicate with other staff. Citrix is used to communicate with the 

agency’s financial systems, SAP, and provides access to the Highway Construction and 

Materials System (HiCAMS), developed in house by 1999, which is used to track all 

inspections, materials, and test results, as well as for contractor payments. The SharePlus 

application is used on the iPad to access SharePoint. 

• PennDOT uses the Construction Document System (CDS) (which was created in-house 

as a companion application to ECMS) to record project activities from the diaries of the 

field inspector or by direct entry. The agency selected iPads for mobile inspections 

because of its higher level of security for accessing its other systems directly than that 

provided by other devices. The agency has also developed several mobile computing 

applications internally that are available on all PennDOT-issued iPads. 

• TxDOT uses iPads for mobile inspection. Inspectors that do not have iPads take notes on 

notepads and then enter that information into SiteManager. However, the agency has 

received approval for a $1 million grant to distribute additional iPads in the field. The 
78 

agency may eventually transition to another tablet that supports Microsoft Office and 

USB ports.

PROJECT ACCEPTANCE

Key findings for Project Acceptance include the following: 

• The Northern Region of ADOT&PF is testing Doc Express to submit documents 

electronically for Project Acceptance on a few contracts, although the current practice is 

mostly paper. 

• DIA is using spreadsheets to track completion of punch lists, but this will change with the 

rollout of Unifier. In addition, BIM 360 Field is being reviewed for managing punch lists. 

Although a small percentage of as-built submittals from contractors are in CAD or BIM 

format, most of them are in paper format. As-builts from the contractor are submitted to 

the Designer of Record to incorporate in the final as-built that is submitted to the airport. 

The agency uses Maximo to track warranty items and just upgraded to version 7.5. 

• MDOT requires a final inspection to ensure that the required documents are provided. 

These documents are then stored in ProjectWise. As-builts and other project information 

are all electronic, but some offices are more progressive than others in terms of CADD 

files or scanned files.

• NCDOT develops its own as-builts for its projects—except on design-build projects—

which have traditionally been paper and then scanned. The agency is working on 

electronic as-builts as part of the iPad and SharePoint process. 

• PennDOT still relies on paper-based as-built records and a combination of manual and 

some automated tracking of warranty items. However, PennDOT’s recent upgrade to its 

construction management system included a mobile application to document punch lists 

and final inspection records. 

PROJECT CLOSE-OUT

Key findings for Project Close-Out include the following: 

• The Northern Region of ADOT&PF has some electronic close-out reports, but all closeout reports are still printed and submitted in a binder to the review team. The review team 

reviews the contract in SiteManager, as well as the paper copies of the reports, and the 

final report is printed as a PDF and is signed and uploaded to SiteManager and stored in 

eDocs.

• Iowa DOT uses the information submitted to DocExpress and FieldManager to perform 

audits of the item progress payments to the contractors. The “paperwork” is then 

submitted and processed electronically through different approval processes and Doc 

Express for final project close-out. This close-out process still requires manual entry into 

electronic systems and is not completely automated. 
79 

• MassDOT is planning to implement a Laboratory Information Management System. The 

agency would prefer to have electronic processes so that its Research and Materials 

Section is able to track material submittals and project close-out. The section is currently 

using SharePoint as a repository to store this documentation. 

• NCDOT tracks warranties in its Highway Construction and Materials System

(HiCAMS), which was developed in-house. 

• VTrans uses Construction Contract Finals (CCF), a cloud-based business process 

management software, for construction close-out when field staff package all of their 

field records and turn them over to the Finals unit. The Finals Engineer is then 

responsible for checking final project quantities and paperwork, payment of final 

estimates to contractors once quantities have been accepted and requirements have been 

met, completing the extension of time process, and filing of final project records. The 

agency has been able to decrease its finals process from 1.5 years to about 11 months 

with business process management, and the CCF application will further reduce the 

duration of the finals process. 
80 

APPENDIX B. PRIORITIZATION ASSESSMENT

ELECTRONIC BIDDING AND CONTRACT AWARD (TABLE 30)

Description: This improvement opportunity includes bid preparation, submittal, acceptance, 

evaluation, and contract award through an electronic system. Electronic bidding and contract 

award is among the most mature of e-Construction practices; nevertheless, many state 

transportation departments are not maximizing the full benefits of this digital process. In many 

cases, the processes for preparing and evaluating bids are still manual. 

Dependencies: Digital signatures.

Anticipated Benefits: Reduced paper, printing, and distribution (postage); reduced manual data 

entry and data redundancy; reduced time in processing bids; reduced time in posting bid results 

to contractors; reduced errors in bids (including calculation of price extensions and totals); and 

reduced incomplete bids.

Table 30. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of electronic bidding and contract 

award. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Will implementation 

improve consistency and 

standardization/ 

streamlining of processes to 

increase overall efficiency?

Yes, electronic bidding standardizes the bidreview process, increasing efficiency for both the 

contractor and the agency. Electronic bidding also 

ensures a smoother submittal, where contractors 

no longer have to rely on mailing, faxing, or bid 

runners to drop off bids, which is inefficient and 

can be unreliable. The time it takes for the agency 

to review bids is also significantly reduced due to 

automatic calculations and comparisons.

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation 

improve workforce 

utilization?

Yes, electronic bidding will reduce the number of 

hours spent for bid lettings and review freeing 

staff to do other tasks. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate 

project delivery (through 

improved collaboration, 

easier information sharing, 

etc.)? 

Yes, electronic bidding enables the bid submittal 

information system (e.g., contract unit prices, pay 

items, etc.) to feed into the construction 

management system for project initiation without 

having to re-enter data. It also contributes to 

faster contract administration by expediting the 

bid-review process.

Benefit to 

agency
81 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Will this reduce overall risk 

to the project (design 

rework, etc.)?

Yes, electronic bidding reduces the risk of 

incomplete bids and reduces the risk of not 

awarding contracts to the lowest responsive 

bidder. 

Benefit to 

agency

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, 

costs, and/or lessons 

learned?

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented 

electronic bidding using COTS solutions. 

Likelihood 

of success

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) 

solution that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented 

electronic bidding using COTS solutions. 

Likelihood 

of success

Are there existing 

state/federal requirements, 

statutes, and/or policies to 

support the improvement?

Maybe, some state laws still require physical 

signatures for public projects. Nevertheless,

federal law allows for digital signatures under eCommerce statutes. Additionally, agencies may 

be statutorily required to provide free bidding 

opportunities to contractors making, which results 

in the state assuming all cost for mandatory 

electronic bidding. Agencies that have not made 

electronic bidding mandatory reported that most 

of the bids are submitted electronically by 

contractors anyway because of the ease and 

efficiency of the process, as compared to a paper 

process.

Likelihood 

of success

Is the current process

complex? 

No, a paper bidding process is not complex, but it 

is cumbersome because of the amount of paper 

documentation that must be tracked and the staff 

effort it takes to review all of the bids manually.

Simplicity 

or 

complexity 

Will the current paperbased process be simplified? 

If so, how much?

Yes, the bidding process will be significantly 

simplified for both contractors that are submitting 

bids and agencies that are reviewing bids. 

Electronic bidding automates calculations, which 

prevents math errors and has built-in checks to 

ensure that all blanks are filled in and all 

necessary forms are included. Agencies are able 

Simplicity 

or 

complexity 
82 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

to expedite the bid review/analysis process and 

reduce errors and required resources.

Can this system/tool be used 

in conjunction with the 

agency’s existing 

systems/tools and processes? 

Yes, electronic bidding can be tied to project 

estimation, construction management and other 

agency systems/tools and processes. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources 

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an 

electronic format to 

facilitate this improvement? 

If so, which ones?

Yes, most of these documents originate in an 

electronic form and others that are not can be 

converted in electronic form. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
83 

ELECTRONIC PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) (TABLE 31)

Description: This improvement opportunity refers to the preparation of digital and intelligent 

PS&E documents during the pre-construction phase including electronic specifications and 

estimates; and 2D or 3D digital plan sheets as PDFs generated directly from CADD software. 

Additionally, it includes the use of these digital intelligent documents to review, collaborate, and 

approve the bid package during design and advertisement. Lastly, digital PS&E documents may 

include issuing 3D engineered models as contractual documents during advertisement. 3D design 

data enables the use of quantity take-offs during bidding, the use of AMG construction methods, 

and quantity verification and measurements during construction. Digital PS&E documents 

enable other paperless processes, such as electronic bidding and digital project review. 

Dependencies: Digital signatures, and 3D CADD software.

Anticipated Benefits: Reduced paper, scanning or printing costs, gained efficiencies due to 

faster turn-around times to receive comments during design phase, increased collaboration and 

transparency, reduction of change orders and claims due to better risk management. 

Table 31. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of PS&E. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Will implementation 

improve consistency and 

standardization/ 

streamlining of processes to 

increase overall efficiency?

Yes, electronic plans, specifications, and 

estimates will allow staff to share documents 

quicker and improve the overall efficiency of 

the bidding process.

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation 

improve workforce 

utilization?

Yes, electronic plans, specifications, and 

estimates enable a more efficient review 

process.

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate 

project delivery (through 

improved collaboration, 

easier information sharing, 

etc.)? 

Yes, electronic plans, specifications, and 

estimates accelerates project delivery by 

reducing the time it takes to distribute paper 

documents to those involved in the review 

process.

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk 

to the project (design 

rework, etc.)?

Yes, providing 3D models as contractual 

documents reassures contractors about the 

reliability of the quantities and communicates

the design intent more accurately. Contractors 

use digital PS&Es to calculate bid estimates 

more accurately, which reduces their bidding 

risk which reduces the bid cost. Time savings 

during the estimating of the bidding quantities 

also allows contractors to be able to bid on 

Benefit to 

agency
84 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

more projects, which increases competition and 

results in lower bids. 

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, 

costs, and/or lessons 

learned?

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented 

electronic plans, specifications, and estimates 

using COTS solutions. 

Likelihood of 

success

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) 

solution that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented 

electronic plans, specifications, and estimates 

using COTS solutions. 

Likelihood of 

success

Are there existing 

state/federal requirements, 

statutes, and/or policies to 

support the improvement?

Yes, digital plans, specifications, and estimates 

are widely accepted.

Likelihood of 

success

Is the current process

complex? 

No, the process for developing electronic plans, 

specifications, and estimates is not complex 

because these documents originate in an 

electronic form. Advancing to the intermediate 

step of delivering electronic plan sheets derived 

from the CAD drawings is a simple process. 

However, making 3D engineered models the 

contractual documents can be a lengthy and 

complex process to establish depending on the 

maturity of the agency. Implementation of 3D 

design software and development of electronic 

deliverables can be a complex and labor 

intensive process. Those agencies with 3D 

design processes already in place will have an 

easier time advancing digital PS&E as 

contractual documents.

Simplicity or 

complexity 

Will the current paperbased process be simplified? 

If so, how much?

Yes, the bidding process will be significantly 

simplified for quantity calculations and 

communicating design intent. Additionally, 

having electronic PS&E documents will make 

collaboration much simpler. However, it is 

important to note that while there will be 

reduced paper usage and increased utilization 

Simplicity or 

complexity 
85 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

for some staff, other staff will need to focus on 

review digital files being delivered for the bid 

letting. 

Can this system/tool be used 

in conjunction with the 

agency’s existing 

systems/tools and processes? 

Yes, electronic plans, specifications, and 

estimates can be used with the agency’s 

electronic bidding and digital review tools. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an 

electronic format to 

facilitate this improvement? 

If so, which ones?

Yes, specifications and estimates documents 

originate in an electronic form. Plans are 

developed electronically from CADD software, 

so 2D data is easily converted. However, 3D 

data may require additional effort to identify 

and streamline deliverables. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
86 

DIGITAL REVIEW OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS (TABLE 32)

Description: This improvement opportunity includes the review and approval of contract 

documents once an award has been made. The awarded contractor submits all required 

contractual documents via a secure electronic system for the agency to review, accept, and 

execute the contract before construction begins. 

Dependencies: Electronic PS&Es, digital signatures, and document management system.

Anticipated Benefits: Reduced paper, printing, scanning, and distribution (postage); increased 

transparency, communication and collaboration; faster turnaround time for document review and 

approval. 

Table 32. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of digital review of contract 

documents.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Will implementation improve 

consistency and standardization/ 

streamlining of processes to 

increase overall efficiency?

Yes, electronic review of documents will 

streamline the contract approval and 

execution process and allow increased 

transparency through reliable traceability. It 

reduces the need to distribute multiple copies 

of the contract documents to reviewers, thus 

streamlining the process in reducing turnaround time. Additionally, digital plan 

review will reduce paper usage, eliminate 

postage costs, and result in significant time 

savings from not having to deliver plans to 

different locations around the state. In 

addition, it will reduce the time for 

approving changes, which can keep projects 

on schedule. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation improve 

workforce utilization?

Yes, the digital review process will allow 

staff to execute contracts faster and more 

efficiently from any location. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier information 

sharing, etc.)? 

Yes, the time savings from faster reviews 

and turnaround will contribute to overall 

faster project delivery. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, 

etc.)?

Yes, digital review of project documents will 

result in better traceability of required 

contract documents. 

Benefit to 

agency
87 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Have other agencies 

implemented this improvement? 

Have they documented the 

benefits, costs, and/or lessons 

learned?

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented 

digital review of plan sets, including the 

Florida, Iowa, and Vermont. These agencies 

have documented the qualitative benefits of 

the digital review process, but the 

quantitative benefits have not been 

measured/documented as extensively. 

Likelihood 

of success

Is there a strong commercial offthe-shelf (COTS) solution that 

can lead to this improvement? 

Yes, digital review of contract documents 

can be conducted through various readily 

available COTS solutions.

Likelihood 

of success

Are there existing state/federal 

requirements, statutes, and/or 

policies to support the 

improvement?

Yes, digital review of contract documents is 

widely accepted. 

Likelihood 

of success

Is the current process complex? Yes, the manual process to review contract 

documents can have multiple reviewers and 

different workflows, making the process 

relatively complex. An electronic review can 

vastly simplify this process. 

Simplicity 

or 

complexity 

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, how 

much?

Yes, the document review process will be 

significantly simplified, and will have the 

ability to track changes electronically. 

Electronic records of the changes include a 

time stamp and the name of the person 

making the change. This process increases 

transparency and accountability. 

Simplicity 

or 

complexity 

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, the digital review tool can be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s project 

collaboration tool and mobile devices. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms that 

can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which ones?

Yes, many agencies are using PDFs for 

review of contract documents.

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
88 

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (TABLE 33)

Description: This improvement opportunity refers to the use of an electronic system that handles 

contract administration, payroll and contractor payments review, documentation of project data 

and records, change order approval, project reporting, tracking of materials and daily field 

activities, integration of material and lab administration, and project close-out. A construction 

management system allows members of the project to both enter and retrieve information faster 

and more efficiently compared to a paper-based process.

Dependencies: Digital signatures, construction and document management systems. 

Anticipated Benefits: Reduced paper, printing, scanning, and distribution (postage); reduced 

misfiled and lost documents; increased transparency and accountability; increased security of 

documents; increased access to documents; and reduced time in accessing documents.

Table 33. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of electronic project construction 

management system. 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

Will implementation improve 

consistency and 

standardization/ streamlining 

of processes to increase overall 

efficiency?

Yes, a project construction management system will 

address the need for consistency and standardization 

of processes by streamlining time-consuming 

processes that must go through the chain of 

responsibility (e.g., contractor payments). 

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation improve 

workforce utilization?

Yes, a construction management system will reduce 

time taken to enter daily work report information, 

material test results, and other information. It will 

also reduce the time to retrieve information, thus 

improving staff efficiency. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier 

information sharing, etc.)?

Yes, the time savings from faster information entry 

and retrieval will result in faster project delivery 

through reduced time for change order approval, 

faster contractor payments and other timely approval 

of records.

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, 

etc.)?

Yes, a project construction management system will 

reduce overall risk, including data loss, cost 

overruns, etc. 

Benefit to 

agency

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, costs, 

and/or lessons learned?

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented a 

construction management system, including Alaska, 

Florida, Texas, and Vermont

Agencies have documented the qualitative benefits of 

using a construction management system, but the 

Likelihood of 

success
89 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

quantitative benefits have not been

measured/documented as extensively. 

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) solution 

that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes. There are several strong COTS solutions 

available in the market.

Likelihood of 

success

Are there existing state/federal 

requirements, statutes, and/or 

policies to support the 

improvement?

Yes, many existing requirements/policies support the 

use of a project construction management system.

Likelihood of 

success

Is the current process 

complex?

Yes, the construction management process is 

complex because of the multiple components that 

agencies need to keep track of, including people 

involved in the approval process, contract 

administration, payments, materials management, 

etc. This means there will be more opportunities for 

simplification by using an electronic system.

Simplicity or 

complexity 

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, 

how much?

Yes, the current paper-based process will be 

significantly simplified—all documents can be

electronically stored and tracked, eliminating 

confusion about where/how to access documents.

Simplicity or 

complexity

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, the construction management system can be 

integrated with project collaboration tools, digital 

signatures, and mobile devices to obtain greater 

benefits.

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which 

ones?

Yes, most documents/forms originate in an electronic 

format or can be easily converted into an electronic 

format. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
90 

DIGITAL MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION USING A 

PROJECT COLLABORATION TOOL (TABLE 34)

Description: This improvement opportunity includes the use of a document management system 

for sharing documents, and collaborating during the construction of a project by all parties 

involved. 

Agencies should also consider a process to migrate documents from the project collaboration 

tool to an enterprise document/content management system at the end of the project (which is not 

considered a part of this scope). 

Dependencies: Digital signatures, document management system. 

Anticipated Benefits: Reduced paper, printing, scanning, and distribution (postage); increased 

communication and collaboration; faster turnaround time for document review; and elimination 

of delivery time of plans to different locations for review.

Table 34. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of a project collaboration tool to 

manage digital construction documentation.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Will implementation improve 

consistency and 

standardization/ streamlining 

of processes to increase overall 

efficiency?

Yes, this improvement will help standardize the way 

project documents are filed and stored. A 

standardized filing system ensures that all documents 

are consistently stored in the correct location (and not 

saved in several different places) so they are easily 

accessible. A project collaboration tool acts as a 

centralized location for all project documentation 

(and communication) rather than having to send 

copies of the same document to different offices. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation improve 

workforce utilization?

Yes, a project collaboration tool will increase staff 

efficiency since documents can be accessed more 

quickly. It will also significantly reduce paper, 

mailing, and scanning costs. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier 

information sharing, etc.)?

Yes, the time savings from improved efficiency will 

contribute to overall faster project delivery. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, 

etc.)?

Yes, it will decrease the risk of misfiling/losing 

documents, reduce the risk of claims/disputes, and 

increase overall transparency and accountability. 

Having a centralized location where project 

information is stored also makes reporting easier. 

Benefit to 

agency
91 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, costs, 

and/or lessons learned?

Yes, multiple agencies have project collaboration 

tools, including Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, 

Oregon, and Texas. These agencies have documented 

the qualitative benefits of using a project 

collaboration tool, but the quantitative benefits have 

not been measured/documented as extensively. 

Likelihood of 

success

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) solution 

that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes, several COTS solutions are available. Likelihood of 

success

Are there existing state/federal 

requirements, statutes, and/or 

policies to support the 

improvement?

Yes, many agencies have policies in place mean to 

allow the use of project collaboration tools.

Likelihood of 

success

Is the current process 

complex?

Yes, collaboration on a project can be complex due 

to the number of parties involved. This can be 

amplified if procedures are not clearly documented 

or if procedures are not being consistently followed. 

A standard electronic process can help simplify the 

process. In addition, the number of parties needing 

accessibility to the documents increases complexity.

Simplicity or 

complexity 

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, 

how much?

Yes, the current paper-based process for project 

collaboration will be significantly simplified by 

having a centralized location for which all project 

information is stored and retrieved, thereby 

increasing accessibility.

Simplicity or 

complexity

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, the project collaboration tool can be integrated 

with construction management system, digital review 

of project documents, digital signatures, and 

electronic approvals. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which 

ones?

Yes, most of these documents originate in an 

electronic form and can then be stored in a project 

collaboration tool.

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
92 

AUTOMATED MACHINE GUIDANCE (AMG) FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS

(TABLE 35)

Description: This improvement opportunity includes the use of 3D modeling data to guide 

construction equipment during construction (e.g., earthwork and paving) operations. 

Dependencies: 3D engineered models as contractual documents, specifications to allow AMG 

construction methods, and guidance for inspectors to perform quality assurance on these types of 

projects.

Anticipated Benefits: Increased quality management, safety improvements, real-time 

verification of deliverables, faster project delivery, and increased utilization of field staff.

Table 35. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of construction methods using 

AMG equipment.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

Will implementation improve 

consistency and 

standardization/ streamlining 

of processes to increase overall 

efficiency?

Yes, with a standard specification, guidance for 

inspection procedures, and appropriate surveying 

equipment, inspectors will be able to perform quality 

assurance more efficiently and confidently. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation improve 

workforce utilization?

Yes, there will be a reduction in number of inspectors 

needed on-site. Proper training and technical support 

is critical for increasing efficiencies. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier 

information sharing, etc.)?

Yes, the use of AMG can lead to faster project 

delivery and lower overall cost, but may increase 

design time. AMG increases efficiency of 

construction activities through the reduction or 

elimination of survey staking, string line setup for 

paving, etc. However, the use of AMG is not ideal 

for use on every project, and is dependent on the 

contractor means and methods. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, 

etc.)? 

Yes, when used appropriately, AMG reduces safety 

risk due to lower exposure to heavy equipment, 

reduces the risk of unnoticed errors requiring rework, 

and decreases overruns of material quantities. 

Benefit to 

agency

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, costs, 

and/or lessons learned?

Yes, many agencies are allowing contractors to use 

AMG construction methods. Some of those states 

include: California, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin.

The benefits are widely recognized, but not as 

extensively documented. 

Likelihood of 

success
93 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) solution 

that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes, but it requires staff to have knowledge of 

surveying principles and 3D data. 

Likelihood of 

success

Are there existing state/federal 

requirements, statutes, and/or 

policies to support the 

improvement?

No, while some specifications for allowing the use 

AMG are available from leading states, there is 

limited guidance for inspectors to inspect AMG 

projects, thus construction manuals and training will 

need to be developed.

Likelihood of 

success

Is the current process 

complex?

Yes, the process to make digital data available to 

contractors to use in AMG equipment is complex for 

the agency, but the practice of using these 

construction methods is a mature approach in the 

contracting community. Contractors have been using 

AMG construction methods for grading and 

excavation since the early 1990’s. More contractors 

are increasingly advancing their processes to include 

more complex automation.

Simplicity or 

complexity 

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, 

how much?

Yes. The use of AMG equipment for construction 

projects is a contractor’s means and methods to 

completing the project. However, with proper 

equipment and guidance, construction inspectors will 

greatly benefit from using the same digital data the 

contractor uses to build the project for performing 

verification and quantity measurements. 

Simplicity or 

complexity

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, automated machine guidance (AMG) uses 3D 

modeling data and GPS technology to guide 

construction equipment operators. There is also 

increased potential for collecting digital as-built 

records from the automated sensors and modern 

surveying equipment used during the operation.

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which 

ones?

Yes, since 3D models originate in an electronic 

format. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
94 

REQUIREMENT OF DIGITAL AS-BUILT RECORDS (TABLE 36)

Description: This improvement opportunity refers to the requirement for providing digital asbuilts in the form of 3D CADD and GIS data collected using geospatial technologies (e.g. GNSS 

equipment, lidar, and unmanned aircraft systems) at the time of project acceptance. 

Dependencies: Digital PS&E documents, and digital signatures. 

Anticipated Benefits: Reduced paper and scanning costs; having accurate and digital record of 

the asset conditions for potential use in augmenting programmatic asset inventory; and 

accessibility to reliable information for asset maintenance and operation. 

Table 36. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of requiring digital as-built 

records.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

Will implementation improve 

consistency and 

standardization/ streamlining 

of processes to increase overall 

efficiency?

Yes, data can be used for asset inventory, which 

reduces the need for additional collection of asset 

data. In addition, much of the data can be reviewed at 

the time of field acceptance provided the 

construction engineer has the proper technical 

expertise. Consequently, this process combines 

measurement of quantities and acceptance of work, 

and review of as-builts, which will expedite project 

closeout.

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation improve 

workforce utilization?

No, while there will be reduced paper usage and 

increased utilization for some staff, other staff will 

need to focus on review and acceptance of digital 

data. This QA process requires significant technical 

expertise. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier 

information sharing, etc.)?

Yes, digital as-built records will expedite the closeout process because the verification can happen as 

the work is being measured and accepted in the field, 

thus improving project delivery.

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, 

etc.)?

Yes, accurate and well-documented as-built records 

ensure proper documentation of the asset condition, 

characteristics, and location. This ultimately reduces 

risk to the agency since as-built records are also an 

important resource for asset management.

Benefit to 

agency

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

No, some agencies have implemented the 

requirement for electronic plan sheets (PDF), but not 

digital as-built records for acceptance. 

Likelihood of 

success
95 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

documented the benefits, costs, 

and/or lessons learned?

The benefits for electronic plan sheets are somewhat 

documented. There is no documentation for digital 

as-built records.

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) solution 

that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes, there are strong COTS solutions that can be 

used for data collection and management of digital 

as-built records (e.g., GPS data collectors and 

mapping products). However, there are no industry 

standards established detailing the deliverables, thus

agencies must create specifications and enforce the 

requirements. 

Likelihood of 

success

Are there existing state/federal 

requirements, statutes, and/or 

policies to support the 

improvement?

No, specifications for allowing digital as-built 

delivery will need to be developed. Utah has

developed specifications for at least one project.

Likelihood of 

success

Is the current process 

complex?

No, the as-built documentation process is relatively 

simple, but paper scanning/storing/filing is 

inefficient.

That said, specifying the delivery of digital as-built is 

not common practice in the industry, and it will need 

coordination and collaboration with other functional 

units to define requirements. Additionally, the 

agency will need to establish a data governance plan 

to manage digital asset information and quality.

Simplicity or 

complexity 

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, 

how much?

Yes, the process of scanning and filing paper as-built 

records will be eliminated. 

Simplicity or 

complexity

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, contractors and survey crews collect data using 

geospatial technology (e.g., GNSS, lidar, etc.) as part 

of the QA/QC process. This type of information can 

provide features of the asset, including location 

coordinates (GNSS) in CADD and/or GIS data 

formats.

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which 

ones?

No, because the current creation of as-built records 

supports a plan-sheet based process. Agencies will 

need to develop new specifications to support a 

digital data workflow. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
96 

DIGITAL SIGNATURES (TABLE 37)

Description: This improvement opportunity includes the use of digital signatures for 

authenticating and approving documents electronically across all phases of the project delivery 

cycle. Digital signatures are a dependency for multiple improvement opportunities identified 

herein, such as accepting electronic bids, signing digital PS&E documents, managing 

construction documents digitally (e.g. change orders and approvals), and acceptance of digital 

as-builts. 

Dependencies: Policy enabling the use and acceptance of digital signatures. 

Anticipated Benefits: Digital signatures is a key dependency for electronic bidding as well as 

project collaboration, and the benefits derived are through those improvements, and not a direct 

result of digital signatures. 

Table 37. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of digital signatures.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

Will implementation improve 

consistency and 

standardization/ streamlining 

of processes to increase overall 

efficiency?

Yes, when compared to a paper signature process 

(which is time intensive when waiting for signatures 

to arrive in the mail), the use of digital signatures 

enables agencies to expedite the review and 

processing of documents and approvals, as well as 

the execution of agreements and change orders (e.g., 

it can prevent signatures from having to be validated 

multiple times by other offices).

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation improve 

workforce utilization?

Yes, digital signatures may relieve some staff 

constraints (i.e., distribution of documents requiring 

signatures). In many cases, staff is asked to handdeliver documents to remote locations when 

signatures are required the same day.

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate project 

delivery (through improved 

collaboration, easier 

information sharing, etc.)?

Yes, the time savings from no longer having to wait 

for documents in the mail before they can be signed, 

and mailed back will contribute to overall faster 

project delivery. 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this reduce overall risk to 

the project (design rework, 

etc.)? 

Yes, digital signatures will eliminate the risk of 

misplaced/ misfiled documents and of losing 

documents in the mail; it also reduces the risk of 

delays in document approvals. 

Benefit to 

agency

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented digital 

signatures, including Florida, Michigan, and Oregon. 

Likelihood of 

success
97 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category

documented the benefits, costs, 

and/or lessons learned?

Agencies have documented the qualitative benefits of 

using digital signatures, but the quantitative benefits 

have not been measured/documented as extensively. 

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) solution 

that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes. There are several COTS solutions in the market. Likelihood of 

success

Are there existing state/federal 

requirements, statutes, and/or 

policies to support the 

improvement?

It varies by state, but many states have requirements, 

statutes, and/or policies that support the use of digital 

signatures. 

Electronic signatures have been incorporated as part 

of federal law as the “Electronic Signature in Global 

and National Commerce Act” and “The Uniform 

Electronic Transaction Act.” However, state law 

may require bidding submittal to be provided at no 

expense to the contracting community, in which case, 

the agency will need to investigate different options 

for implementation. For example, the state may incur 

the cost of digital signature for all contractors, or 

making the use of digital signatures optional.

Likelihood of 

success

Is the current process 

complex?

Maybe. A paper process for approvals can be 

complex if there are numerous approvers involved 

and using digital signatures can help simplify the 

process significantly by eliminating the need to print 

and mail numerous document and enabling users to 

submit their signatures electronically.

Simplicity or 

complexity 

Will the current paper-based 

process be simplified? If so, 

how much?

Yes, the approvals process will be significantly 

simplified by utilizing digital signatures. 

Simplicity or 

complexity

Can this system/tool be used in 

conjunction with the agency’s 

existing systems/tools and 

processes? 

Yes, digital signatures can be incorporated into the 

electronic bidding process, along with all other 

processes that require approvals during project 

collaboration, project construction management, and 

final acceptance.

Leveraging 

existing 

resources

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an electronic 

format to facilitate this 

improvement? If so, which 

ones?

Yes, most documents/forms originate in an electronic 

format or can be easily converted into an electronic 

format. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
98 

USE OF MOBILE DEVICES (TABLE 38)

Description: This improvement opportunity includes the use of mobile devices to assist in both 

collecting and retrieving various data electronically in the field. Like digital signatures, mobile 

devices are used in combination with other improvement opportunities identified herein (e.g. 

digital access of PS&E documents, reference materials, and construction management systems). 

Dependencies: There are no dependencies to implement mobile devices, but agencies would 

derive most benefits when using these devices as extension of other systems such as project 

construction management and project collaboration systems. 

Anticipated Benefits: Most benefits of mobile devices are regarding faster access to 

information. As mentioned earlier, using mobile devices as extensions of other systems can 

result in an extension of benefits from other electronic systems (including improvement 

opportunities listed in this document). Mobile devices can also help with reduced data entry 

redundancy, increased data accuracy and overall quality (through automatic data validation), 

increased communication and collaboration using video conferencing applications, and reduced 

time spent traveling between office and field (thus increasing staff utilization).

Table 38. Prioritization criteria to assess implementation of mobile devices.

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

Will implementation 

improve consistency and 

standardization/ 

streamlining of processes to 

increase overall efficiency?

Yes, mobile devices (and their adaptability for 

various uses) can help streamline various 

processes (e.g., inspection process) by 

maximizing the productive time that staff 

members spend in the field and increasing the 

efficiency of data capture and communication in 

the field. Mobile devices enable staff to have 

access to all the information they need on a 

single device and input data directly into the 

device while it is being collected (which 

eliminates data entry redundancy and reduces 

data entry errors). Mobile devices can also 

facilitate troubleshooting since inspectors are 

able to video conference with office staff from 

the field.

Benefit to 

agency

Will implementation 

improve workforce 

utilization?

Yes, mobile devices will increase staff 

utilization by reducing data entry and the need to 

go back to the office to retrieve data (e.g., design 

drawings) 

Benefit to 

agency

Will this improvement 

opportunity accelerate 

project delivery (through 

improved collaboration, 

Yes, the time savings from improved efficiency, 

productivity, and more timely decision making 

will contribute to overall faster project delivery. 

Benefit to 

agency
99 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

easier information sharing, 

etc.)? 

Will this reduce overall risk 

to the project (design 

rework, etc.)?

Yes, it will eliminate manual data entry and 

provide access to all project documentation 

(including change orders, estimates, and plans) 

and reduce the risk of errors. 

Benefit to 

agency

Have other agencies 

implemented this 

improvement? Have they 

documented the benefits, 

costs, and/or lessons 

learned?

Yes, multiple agencies have implemented mobile 

devices. Some of those agencies are: Florida, 

Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas.

Some agencies have documented cost savings 

data from using mobile devices, and the 

qualitative benefits are well-documented. 

Likelihood 

of success

Is there a strong commercial 

off-the-shelf (COTS) 

solution that can lead to this 

improvement? 

Yes. There are several mobile devices available 

in the market, and many applications to support 

multiple construction management practices.

Likelihood 

of success

Are there existing 

state/federal requirements, 

statutes, and/or policies to 

support the improvement?

Yes, existing requirements/policies support the 

use of mobile devices. 

Likelihood 

of success

Is the current process

complex? 

No, but this opportunity spans over multiple 

processes that may add a level of complexity to 

consider. 

Simplicity 

or 

complexity 

Will the current paperbased process be simplified? 

If so, how much?

Yes, mobile devices will simplify various data 

entry and data retrieval processes. Once the data 

is collected on the mobile tablet, it can be synced 

to the construction management system/project 

collaboration tool (as opposed to collecting data 

manually and having to enter that data later). 

Inspectors no longer have to carry plan sets 

around or travel between the project site and 

their trucks to access specifications and manuals.

Simplicity 

or 

complexity 

Can this system/tool be used 

in conjunction with the 

Yes, mobile devices can be integrated with/used 

as an extension to the construction management 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
100 

Prioritization Criteria Evaluation Category 

agency’s existing 

systems/tools and processes? 

system and project collaboration systems among 

others. 

Are there documents/forms 

that can be easily converted 

to/originated in an 

electronic format to 

facilitate this improvement? 

If so, which ones? 

Yes, most of these documents originate in an 

electronic format and can be viewed on mobile 

devices. Mobile devices are also compatible with 

fillable forms. 

Leveraging 

existing 

resources
101 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily 

represent the views or policies of the State transportation departments or construction contractors 

whose policies and practices have been referenced, or who shared their insights via interview. 

This project is possible due to the funding from FHWA, sponsorship of the AASHTO 

Subcommittee on Construction, and the assistance from State transportation departments leading 

efforts to implement e-Construction. The contribution of the following individuals is also 

acknowledged: 

• Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities: Jaclyn Elmes, Francis 

Ganley, and Sara Jarvis. 

• California Department of Transportation: Luis Rivas, and Chris Rice. 

• Denver International Airport: Mark Nagel, and Keith Usher. 

• Florida Department of Transportation: Doug Martin, and Amy Tootle. 

• Iowa Department of Transportation: Greg Mulder, and Lee Shepard. 

• Massachusetts Department of Transportation: Michael McGrath. 

• Michigan Department of Transportation: Cliff Farr, Stuart Laakso, Rachelle 

VanDeventer, and Dan Belcher. 

• Missouri Department of Transportation: Sarah Kleinschmit, Jason Vanderfeltz, and 

Amanda Haynes. 

• North Carolina Department of Transportation: Lamar Sylvester, Phillip Johnson, and 

Marc Clifford. 

• Oregon Department of Transportation: Joe Squire. 

• Pennsylvania Department of Transportation: James Foringer, Lori Miles, and Rebecca

Bickley. 

• Texas Department of Transportation: Roxana Garcia. 

• Utah Department of Transportation: Rob Wight. 

• Vermont Agency of Transportation: David Hoyne. 
102 

REFERENCES

AASHTO. 2015. "State Use of e-Construction Technology." 

AASHTO. 2012. "Every Day is Earth Day: State DOTs Use New Technologies to Reduce, 

Reuse, and Recycle - Saving Taxpayers Millions." 

Albright, Brian. 2012. "Nevada DOT Implements iPad-Based MDM Solution." Field 

Technologies, October. 

Connecticut Department of Transportation. 2014. "Digital Project Development Manual, Version 

3.08." 

Construction Innovation Forum. 2013. "DFW Connector Project." 

Division of Construction Procurement, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. 2010. "Construction 

Procurement Guidance Manual."

Farr, Cliff. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the Michigan 

Department of Transportation." 

Farr, Cliff. 2014. "e-Construction at MDOT."

Farr, Cliff. 2013. "MDOT e-Construction Presentation for the 2013 AASHTO Subcommittee on 

Construction Annual Meeting." 

FHWA. 2016. "Every Day Counts: Creating Efficiency through Technology and Collaboration. 

EDC-3 Progress Report #3." 

FHWA. 2014. "Construction Peer Network National Synthesis Report: National Trends in 

Highway Construction Program and Project Delivery." 

FHWA. 2014. "AASHTO Innovation Initiative." e-Construction. September 25. Accessed 

October 3, 2014. http://aii.transportation.org/Documents/eConstruction/econstruction-webinarworkbook.pdf. 

FHWA 2013a. Every Day Counts. November 7. Accessed September 30, 2014. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-3.cfm. 

FHWA. 2013b. e-Construction. November 7. Accessed September 30, 2014. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edc-3/econstruction.cfm. 

FHWA 2013c. "FHWA Construction Technologies and Innovations." e-Construction. November 

7. Accessed September 30, 2014. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/leadprofiles.pdf. 

Ganley, Frank, Jacklyn Elmes, and Sara Jarvis. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI 

for e-Construction at the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities." 
103 

Garcia, Roxana. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the Texas 

Department of Transportation." 

Garcia, Roxana. 2014. Managing Highway Construction Projects in a Paperless Environment. 

Hall, Cheryl. 02. Construction company ditches paper for HybridCloud technology. June 2012. 

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/cheryl-hall/20120602-construction-companyditches-paper-for-hybridcloud-technology.ece. 

Hoyne, David. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the Vermont 

Agency of Transportation." 

Info Tech. 2014. "Agency saves $150k/year posting bid-related documents online." 

Jahren, Charles. 2014. e-Construction. American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials; FHWA.

Keck, Dennis, Hina Patel, Anthony J. Scolaro, Arnold Bloch, and Christopher Ryan. 2010. 

NCHRP Report 662: Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to 

Completion. 2010: Transportation Research Board. 

Martin, Doug. 2014. "Approach to a Paperless Environment." 

McGrath, Michael. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation."

Michigan DOT. n.d. "AASHTO Technology Implementation Group Nomination of Technology 

Ready for Implementation." 

MnDOT - Bid Letting. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bidlet/. 

Mulder, Craig. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the Iowa 

Department of Transportation." 

Nagel, Mark, and Keith Usher. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction 

at the Denver International Airport."

North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2013. "Bid Checklist." 

Project Management Institute. 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 

Rice, Chris, and Luis Rivas. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at 

the California Department of Transportation." 

Squire, Joe. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the Oregon 

Department of Transportation." 

Sylvester, Lamar, and Nilesh Suri. n.d. Use of Technology. North Carolina Department of 

Transportation. 
104 

Sylvester, Lamar, and Phillip Johnson. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for eConstruction at the North Carolina Department of Transportation." 

Taylor, John, and Cliff Yuill. 2012. "Speedy Transport Site Manager software implementation 

for West Virginia DOT." Trnsport News.

The Office of Architectural Engineering and Construction Applications of the Connecticut 

Department of Transportation. 2013. "As-Built Markups of Digital Contract Plans."

Tootle, Amy, and Douglas Martin. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for eConstruction at the Florida Department of Transportation." 

Vandeventer, Rachelle. 2015. "Addressing the Challenges and the ROI for e-Construction at the 

Michigan Department of Transportation." March. 

Wheeler, Paul, and Tyrell Wood. 2016. EDC-3 e-Construction Webinar 5: Gathering Documents 

vs. Gathering Data. Paperless to Digital Data Innovations. Webinar Presentation. November 16. 

https://econstructiontoday.adobeconnect.com/p1k1idrhrpz/. 

WSP | Parsons Brinckherhoff. 2015. State of Use of e-Construction. Online Survey.