Information Technology Benefit-Cost Evaluation Report

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Oregon Transportation Investment Act III (OTIA III) State Bridge Delivery Program Information Technology Benefit-Cost Evaluation Report Page 1 of 199

Document Control Information Current Revision Information (Document Deliverable Originator) Work Order Contract: 13 Task Number: 1.1.6 Date: March 8, 2011 Transmittal Number: 0200 01 13888 File Name Revision: 2 Revision Description: Resubmitted to Address Comments Originator: Jim Hagar Revision History Revision Date Revision Description Originator 1 01/28/2011 Resubmitted to Address Comments Jim Hagar 0 12/30/2010 Original Document Jim Hagar Page 2 of 199

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary...4 1.1. Conclusions...5 2.0 Background...7 3.0 Methodology...8 3.1. BC Analysis Overview and General Considerations...8 3.2. IT Investments...10 3.3. Operation and Maintenance Costs...10 3.4. Benefits...11 3.5. Benefit-Cost Modeling...13 4.0 Summary of System Evaluations...15 4.1. GIS Infrastructure...15 4.1.1 Benefits of GIS Infrastructure...15 4.1.2 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis...16 4.1.3 GIS Infrastructure Conclusions...16 4.2. Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO)...16 4.2.1 Benefits of EBRO...17 4.2.2 EBRO Benefit-Cost Analysis...17 4.2.3 EBRO Conclusions...18 4.3. EBR ArcPad TM...18 4.3.1 Benefits of EBR ArcPad...18 4.3.2 EBR ArcPad Benefit-Cost Analysis...18 4.3.3 EBR ArcPad Conclusions...19 4.4. Engineering Drawing System (EDS)...19 4.4.1 Benefits of EDS...19 4.4.2 EDS Benefit-Cost Analysis...20 4.4.3 EDS Conclusions...20 4.5. Electronic Document Management System (EDMS)...20 4.5.1 Benefits of EDMS...21 4.5.2 EDMS Benefit-Cost Analysis...21 4.5.3 EDMS Conclusions...21 4.6. Bridge Reporting System (BRS)...22 4.6.1 Benefits of BRS...22 4.6.2 BRS Benefit-Cost Analysis...22 4.6.3 BRS Conclusions...23 4.7. Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool (CEI)...23 4.7.1 Benefits of CEI...24 4.7.2 CEI Benefit-Cost Analysis...24 4.7.3 CEI Conclusions...25 4.8. Pre-Construction Assessment Application and Reporting Tool (PCA)...25 4.8.1 Benefits of PCA...25 4.8.2 PCA Benefit-Cost Analysis...26 4.8.3 PCA Conclusions...26 4.9. Work Zone Traffic Analysis System (WZTA)...26 4.9.1 Benefits of WZTA...26 4.9.2 WZTA Benefit-Cost Analysis...27 4.9.3 WZTA Conclusions...28 5.0 Appendices...29 Page 3 of 199

1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to evaluate the benefits and costs of nine IT systems put in place by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP) in support of OTIA III State Bridge Program (Program). OBDP is a joint venture of Fluor Corporation and HDR Engineering which contracted with ODOT to manage this ten year $1.3 billion program. Among ODOT s goals for management of OTIA III were efficiency, positive economic impact, environmental stewardship and transparency. To assist in meeting these objectives OBDP put nine IT systems online. These included: Geographic Information System Infrastructure (GISI), which went online in 2004 and included the hardware and software to create and databases to support other IT activities, to generate maps in support of OTIA III and provide a research tool for environmental, design and programmatic issues. Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO), which went online in 2004 and provided web access to the OTIA III environmental baseline report in a GIS format. Environmental Baseline Report ArcPadTM (ArcPad), which went online with EBRO and made the ArcPad GPS tool available to the environmental and design staff for the purpose of updating EBRO. Engineering Drawing System (EDS), which went online in 2004 and created a repository for engineering drawings and CAD files in Bentley ProjectWise. Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), which went online in its present form in 2005, using FileNet P8 to manage and store most of OBDP s files. Bridge Reporting System (BRS), which went online in its present form in 2006 and provides a database of relevant Program and project information updated monthly. Construction Engineering/Inspection tool (CEI), which went online in 2007 and links web based construction inspection and project management forms to a central repository and database. Pre-Construction Assessment Tool (PCA), which went online in 2007 and provides an automated, database linked form for completion of Joint Permit Applications (JPAs) associated with the OTIA III programmatic environmental permit. Work Zone Traffic Analysis Tool (WZTA), which went online in its present form in 2009 and provides a GIS database and impact analysis tool for assessing traffic impacts in work zones. A separate report on each system evaluates their economic benefits and costs and considers future options for their use after completion of OTIA III in 2014. This report is a summary of the separate reports. Each of the separate reports is included in the appendix. Each report describes the background and development of the tool, its operational logic, and the alternative system that would have been used had the tool not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do not necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. For CEI benefits were determined through focus groups Page 4 of 199

of users and managers, interviews with other users and interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs). In most of the reports developmental and operational costs were evaluated from inception through 2010. For the tools that went online after 2007, the evaluation period was extended to cover a 5 year period. A life cycle costs evaluation was also included in the separate studies. Finally, a benefit-cost (BC) analysis was performed for each tool using risk analysis software (see page 9 for a description of how the risk-analysis model works). The BC analysis considered benefits and costs from the perspective of the OTIA III Program. 1.1. Conclusions The nine IT tools evaluated had a combined benefit cost ratio of 2.1, indicating that for every $1.00 invested in these tools, they returned $2.10 in benefits to the OTIA Program. Figure 1 depicts the net benefit calculation of these combined tools graphically through 2010. Total benefits attributable to these systems grew through 2009, with the expansion of the OTIA III Program and with the introduction of new tools. The negative net benefit in 2005 resulted because the EDMS operating costs in the first year it was online were higher than estimated benefits in that year. After 2009 total benefits leveled off and will decline as the Program winds down through 2014. Figure 1: Net Benefits of IT Investments Figure 2 compares the present value of benefits to the present value of investments, all discounted to 2010. In this chart the benefits include all years and are discounted to 2010. The $7.3 million of benefits are compared to investment costs of $3.5 million for a BC ratio of 2.1. The overall net present value (NPV) is estimated at $3.8 million and the internal rate of return, 23%. (See the methodology section on page 7 for a summary of how NPV and IRR are calculated.) Page 5 of 199

Figure 2: IT Benefit-Cost Ratio = 2.1 Most of the measureable benefits of these IT systems were time savings of people working on the OTIA III Program. Table 1 summarizes the time savings elements of the benefits and costs of these systems and shows they saved an estimated 7.9 full time equivalent positions during of the time period of this analysis. Table 1: Time Savings Impact of IT Tools Gross hours saved 137,000 Less O&M hours 26,000 Less development hours 29,000 Net hours saved 82,000 Equivalent annual full time employees (FTE) 7.9 The BC ratios for each of the individual tools/systems are shown in Table 2. Five of the systems had ratios of greater than one, indicating a positive return on investment. Each of these five systems saved significant amounts of time for Program staff and subconsultants while meeting OTIA Program management objectives of efficiency, environmental stewardship and transparency in management and reporting of Program results. Table 2: Benefit-Cost Ratios of IT Tools Tool B/C Ratio GIS Infrastructure GISI 3.0 Environmental Baseline Report Online EBRO 0.6 Environmental Baseline Report ArcPad TM ArcPad 0.7 Engineering Drawing System EDS -0.3 Electronic Document Management System EDMS 6.1 Bridge Reporting System BRS 1.5 Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool CEI 1.6 Pre-Construction Assessment Tool PCA 7.7 Work Zone Traffic Analysis System WZTA 3.6 / 0.7 Page 6 of 199

Three of the systems did not have a positive return. EBRO and ArcPad were not used as much as expected, largely because they were more appropriate to earlier phases of the Program, before the tools became available. EDS was not able to meet objectives for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it was based on software that proved more difficult than expected for design subcontractors to use. WZTA shows two different results. This tool was an unqualified success from the user point of view and has already been adopted by ODOT. The tool was based on creative approaches to calculation of construction traffic impacts developed by ODOT and OBDP. The precursors to WZTA had significant positive impacts on the Program. By bringing the tool online it allowed users to easily access databases and significantly shortened the time required to evaluate construction sites. In terms of overall use both inside and outside of the OTIA Program it has a BC ratio of 3.6. However, it was not introduced in its present form until 2009 when most of the design and traffic management strategy for OTIA III bridges had already been completed. As a result, impact on the OTIA III Program itself did not fully cover investment in the system. In terms of future use of these tools, two have already be adopted by ODOT. WZTA is already being used to evaluate traffic management strategies throughout ODOT. Also, BRS is being used to not only track and report on OTIA III bridges, but has also been used to track Oregon s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocations, 2009 Oregon Jobs legislation and is currently being used to track progress on the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network (OWIN). The future of other systems is still being considered. One of the most significant findings of this analysis is that the benefits of many of these systems depend on the legal relationships, management styles and work processes of the organization using the tool. For instance, CEI earned a positive return as used by OBDP but may not be successful for ODOT in its present form. This is due in large part to differences in management practices and legal accountability requirements of OBDP as a contractor. On the other hand, EBRO, which was not successful, might well be successful if used by ODOT as a central document management tool for all environmental assessments or if it had been put online earlier. 2.0 Background The OTIA III State Bridge Program has five goals that encompass economic stimulus, costefficiency, freight mobility, environmental and community sensitivity, and taking advantage of funding opportunities. Early in the Program it was determined that investments in information technology (IT) would be valuable in achieving these other Program goals and to provide documentation and reporting that maintained transparency with the public and the legislature. Such systems could improve work flow, reduce cost, help coordinate various aspects of the Program and make timely, accurate information available for both internal and public use. Ultimately, the nine systems described in the introduction were brought online. As the Program reached its peak in 2009 and 2010, ODOT and OBDP decided to document experience with the tools in order to evaluate the impact of these investments and to determine future direction for use of these tools after the OTIA III Bridge Program is completed in 2014. In mid 2009, the OBDP Economic Stimulus Group (ESG) began to evaluate the development and operating costs of these nine systems. In July, this effort was expanded to consider the benefits of the system and to calculate the benefit-cost (BC) ratios for the various tools. Each system was Page 7 of 199

first evaluated separately. This report pulls together the individual BC evaluations and attempts to draw conclusions for overall IT investments connected with the OTIA III Bridge Program. 3.0 Methodology Evaluation of the IT tools was carried out in the form of a benefit-cost analysis. The fundamental methodology is to measure annual gross benefits and subtract operation and maintenance costs to identify net benefits. Net benefits are discounted and summed into a single present value for comparison with investment costs. Dividing the present value of benefits by the present value of investments yields the benefit-cost ratio. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates benefits are greater than costs. In addition to the BC ratio, this analysis also calculated net present value (NPV), which is the amount by which benefits exceed costs and the internal rate of return (IRR), which is the return expressed as an interest rate. 3.1. BC Analysis Overview and General Considerations The logic used in this analysis is shown in Figure 3. The diagram shows that the BC ratio is based on total discounted benefits and total discounted development costs. Often in BC analysis it is not necessary to discount development costs, since they are assumed to take place in the same year. However, in this analysis development costs of different systems took place in different years. As a result all costs were discounted to 2010 for convenience and consistency. The chart shows that most of the gross benefits were the result of time savings, which were valued at applicable billing rates for OBDP staff and other consultants and at loaded rates for ODOT staff. Other tangible benefits were very limited. Annual operation and maintenance costs were made up predominantly of software licenses, staff time and data storage and back up. Developmental costs on the investment side of the analysis were made up of hardware, software, software licenses and internal development by ODOT and OBDP staff. There was also one software development contract and one case in which data migration was required. Page 8 of 199

Figure 3: BC Analysis Logic Flow for IT Systems There are four methodological considerations that must be addressed in any BC analysis: 1. Perspective: The point of view from which benefits and costs are viewed can be significant. In this case all benefits and costs were viewed from the perspective of the OTIA III Bridge Program. All costs were financed by that Program and for this analysis if benefits did not accrue to the OTIA Program they were not counted. For instance, as already pointed out, the Work Zone Traffic Analysis system would have had a positive return based on its benefit throughout ODOT. However, its return the OTIA III Bridge Program itself was more limited. Since the WZTA was funded by OTIA III this did not show a positive return. 2. Time Frame: In most cases projects were evaluated from the time they went online until 2010. In cases in which projects did not go online until 2007 or later, future years were estimated to provide a five year time horizon for evaluation. By comparison, highway projects are typically evaluated over a 20 year period. However, IT projects are expected to have a much shorter life span due to rapidly changing technology and must generate benefits more quickly to be cost effective. 3. Discount Rate: This is an interest rate that is used to adjust each year of the analysis to the present value. It should represent a time preference for investment resources that reflects the other opportunities for use of the funds over time. In this case the rate used was the average rate for OTIA III bonds of 3.74%. The rate reflects the cost of borrowing to make an investment earlier or the interest saved by delaying investments. Page 9 of 199

4. Risk and Uncertainty: All BC analysis contains elements of uncertainty which leads to the risk of over or under valuing the investment. In this case special software was used which allows entry of ranges of values when the expected return is within a range rather than an exact value or when the exact value is unknown. Where inputs are less certain, wider ranges are generated. Palisades @Risk TM was used to calculate results based on a Monte Carlo simulation. By using this technique, in addition to a single point estimate, a range of values is provided indicating the risk that the result is lower or higher. One of the benefits of this approach is the ability to quickly identify which factors have the most significant impacts on the outcome and should therefore receive additional attention in planning future systems or future evaluations. 3.2. IT Investments A summary of investments in the nine OTIA III IT systems is shown in Table 3. The majority of the cost of bringing these systems online was internal development by both ODOT and OBDP staff. These costs were estimated through focus groups conducted with staff that had been involved in their development. Other costs, including hardware, software and development contracts were obtained through OBDP IT staff. Table 3: Investments in IT Systems ($ thousands) Tool Hardware Software Development Contracts Internal Development Data Migration Total GISI $41 $69 $225 $334 EBRO $8 $8 $122 $150 $288 ArcPad $8 $14 $22 EDS $11 $116 $63 $190 EDMS $27 $104 $86 $217 BRS $1,440 $1,440 CEI $413 $102 $515 PCA $16 $85 $101 WZTA $370 $370 TOTAL $111 $297 $413 $2,507 $150 $3,477 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 3.3. Operation and Maintenance Costs Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are summarized in Figure 4. These costs were obtained from a variety of sources including the focus groups which also estimated internal development costs for the IT tools. More than three-quarters of annual O&M costs are IT staff who support the systems. It must be noted that as the OTIA III Program has started to wind down the number of staff supporting these tools will steadily decline with the result that O&M costs will fall. Page 10 of 199

Figure 4: Average Annual O&M Costs ($ thousands) 3.4. Benefits The starting point for identification of benefits associated with the nine IT systems was to map each system from the user perspective. How does the user get into the system? What information and tools are available there? How is the system maintained and updated? The system under review is then compared to the most likely alternative if the system being evaluated were not available. By comparing the two systems it was possible to identify areas where inputs and outputs would be different and where efficiencies might be achieved in use of the tool. Table 4 shows the primary alternatives that would have been used in the absence of each tool. Table 4: System Comparisons for Benefit Cost Analysis Tool Comparative System GISI EBRO ArcPad EDS EDMS BRS CEI PCA WZTA OTIA III Program without GIS at OBDP EBR without online GIS database No submission of EBR updates / updates using surveys Submission of plans in hard copy or through EDMS Paper filing system Previous Bridge List (BID) OBDP paper system One-off Joint Permit Applications and Preconstruction Assessments for each bridge. No PCA database Spreadsheet calculations without GIS database Page 11 of 199

Information for comparison of the systems and for identifying impacts and benefits came from a variety of sources: Review of system documentation: Each system had documentation prepared by OBDP IT staff. Examination of usage statistics: Usage statistics in various forms were available for each system. User logs: In two cases, user logs provided useful information on the how the systems were being used. Surveys: Four different surveys of system users were conducted to find out how they used the systems and what benefits they gained from them. Focus groups: Three focus groups were conducted with users of two of the systems. Special studies of alternatives: In two cases, special studies were conducted to quantify the cost of the alternative approach. Interviews: Extensive interviews were conducted. Interviews were particularly significant and included several different types of individuals connected with each system: Owners of the systems provided insights into purpose and operation and were particularly valuable in mapping each system. Subject matter experts (SME) included key users of system outputs from OBDP and ODOT as well as IT staff. They helped identify both benefits and problems with the systems being evaluated and the alternatives that would be used in their absence. Internal users from ODOT and OBDP were interviewed to gain an understanding of how the systems were actually used and what benefits and/or problems they experienced. External users, including subcontractors and other agency officials, often provided important information about how the systems were used outside of OBDP and how the outputs were perceived by external users. In two cases, outside experts with no specific connection to OTIA III bridges were contacted regarding their experience with similar tools. Most of the tangible benefits identified were the result of time savings. There were three major aspects of the IT tools that generated time savings: More efficient work flows reduced costs of data input or calculations. Databases which stored data in easily retrievable form and made data immediately available for calculations or creation of reports, maps or drawings. Web interfaces which made the information available from remote as well as central locations. These types of benefits could accrue to the immediate users of the systems those who logged on and uploaded or downloaded information or indirect users who obtained data through web interfaces or reports generated by the tools. In addition to tangible benefits there were three types of intangible benefits identified, which could not be measured. First, systems like BRS, PCA and GISI generate accurate, consistent and timely information that is used for responding to inquiries and reporting on the OTIA III Program. This has increased the credibility of both ODOT and the OTIA III Program in the eyes of the public and the legislature. It also improved coordination with other agencies and interest groups. Page 12 of 199

Second, some of these tools, WZTA and GISI in particular, have resulted in more frequent analysis of traffic, environmental, design and construction processes. As a result, construction costs are likely reduced, environmental concerns are addressed more consistently and the traveling public is likely experiencing fewer delays. Third, the systems improved the efficiency of Program oversight by improving information flow and accountability between ODOT and OBDP. Unfortunately, the calculation of those benefits was not possible within the scope of this study. 3.5. Benefit-Cost Modeling The BC model used for this study was an Excel spreadsheet augmented with Palisades @Risk software. Spreadsheets were populated with annual base data, investment costs and formulas for benefits and O&M costs derived from research described in the previous sections. The spreadsheets were designed to calculate the BC ratio, net present values (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) which were identified as output variables. Use of @Risk allows inputs in appropriate ranges rather than only as point values. This can be significant in three cases. First, some input data is naturally in ranges. For instance, an input used in one of the tools is the time required to draw a particular type of map on a computer aided drafting (CAD) system. This time will vary based on specifics of each map. Second, in some cases the actual point values are unknown and must be estimated. In these cases the estimated range of potential values can be used instead and the potential variation will be taken into account in calculating the BC value. Third, even in cases where a specific value is known there may be a risk that the value will change over the time period of the analysis. Using this software, this risk can be incorporated into the calculations. Figure 5 shows an example of input values for estimated time to revise a particular type of map using the CAD system. The graph shows it would most likely take an hour to make the revision and 80% of the time the revision can be accomplished between one-half hour and two hours. In no case would it take less than 6 minutes (0.1 hours) to make the revision and it could take up to 2 hours 40 minutes. Page 13 of 199

Figure 5: @Risk Input Example Hrs per map to revise / (March) 0.513 2.002 0.8 10.0% 80.0% 10.0% 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Trigen (0.5,1,2,10,90,RiskTruncate (0.1,)) Minimum 0.1000 Maximum 2.6715 Mean 1.2218 Std Dev 0.5505 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 The @Risk software uses a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate results. In making the calculations the model is run multiple times (in this case 10,000) with the input values allowed to vary within the specified ranges according to probability curves like that of the input example. The result is a statistical weighted distribution of output values indicating both the most likely result and the potential variance from the most likely value. Table 5 provides an example of the BC output measures taken from the EDMS evaluation. In this case the most likely BC ratio is 6.1 and there is a 10% chance it could be as low as 5.1 and a 90% probability that it is less than 24.3. Table 5: BC Output Example Showing Ranges Benefit-Cost Analysis Discount Rate 3.74% Output Ranges Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%) B/C Ratio 6.1 5.1 24.3 Net Present Value $ 1,331,996 $ 1,070,000 $ 6,030,000 IRR 30% 25% 94% A number of tools for better understanding the variance and risk are provided by @Risk. An example drawn from the same EDMS model run is shown in Figure 6, which is referred to as a tornado diagram because of its appearance. The chart shows that the most important variable affecting variance in the BC ratio is Cabinets per staff which is a measure of the number of staff that would be required to support a paper filing system of the size and complexity of EDMS. Page 14 of 199

Figure 6: Variance Evaluation Example Tornado Diagram 4.0 Summary of System Evaluations 4.1. GIS Infrastructure GIS Infrastructure (GISI) refers to the collection of hardware, software and databases maintained for the support of products, services and other IT applications making use of geographically located information. GISI is a framework that supports numerous other processes and other IT tools, as well as providing direct services in the form of mapping and data management. It provides a core of hardware and software that facilitates the functioning of EBRO, WZTA and other tools using GISI databases as well as producing maps and analytical products. 4.1.1 Benefits of GIS Infrastructure GISI creates several benefits for the OTIA III Bridge Program. First, it saves time in generation of maps and special studies. Using GIS software and databases maps can be created or updated quickly. The spatial database allows special studies such as the location of environmental or community features in minutes rather than hours. The second benefit of GISI is the quality, consistency, accuracy and timeliness it brings to mapping and special studies. Public involvement maps, for instance can be presented in a high quality format with confidence they contain the latest information. Third, several other tools including WZTA, EBRO, and to some extent BRS, PCA and the OBDP website rely on GISI software and databases to function. Without GISI those tools would either be reduced in scope or eliminated. Page 15 of 199

Finally, the availability of quality, spatially oriented databases has contributed to the ability of OBDP to centrally manage the OTIA III Bridge Program by taking advantage of mapping and database tools to assure timely accurate information. 4.1.2 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Figures 7 and 8 show the results of the BC analysis graphically. For GIS Infrastructure this analysis found a BC ratio of 3.0 and NPV is estimated at approximately $837,000. Figure 7: GISI Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 8: GISI Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 4.1.3 GIS Infrastructure Conclusions GIS Infrastructure appears to have been a valuable tool in delivery of the OTIA III Bridge Program. It saved time and cost in mapping and site evaluations and supported other tools such as BRS, EBRO and WZTA that use GISI tools. In addition to quantifiable benefits there were other benefits that could not be quantified, including improved accuracy, consistency and timeliness in evaluations and reporting and improved accountability through the dashboard structure supported by GISI. If these intangibles could be added to the analysis it would have been even more favorable. The primary lesson learned from the experience with this system is that it is possible to have shared, integrated GIS systems between client and contractor. If ODOT were to contract a major program like OTIA III in the future, the cooperative development of such a system could have considerable benefits. 4.2. Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO) EBRO provides access to the OTIA III environmental baseline report (EBR) in a web accessible GISI format. Prior to the OTIA III Program, ODOT engaged in an effort to collect comprehensive environmental data on over 400 bridge sites. The collection of baseline data against which impacts could be calculated and the frontloading of the environmental effort allowed the Program to obtain a programmatic permit for the OTIA III Bridge Program. This had significant beneficial Page 16 of 199

scheduling and budgetary impacts for the OTIA III Program. * Early in the OTIA III process the EBR was put into a web accessible GISI database for use in site evaluations and project development. At that time it was thought the database would be updated as new information became available. The EBRO database was expected to be a primary source of information for design and environmental reviews. 4.2.1 Benefits of EBRO While it was not used as extensively as anticipated, several environmental and design firms reported that the tool was useful early in project development. On occasion it reduced the need for site visits. The baseline reports and associated environmental performance standards also allowed for better pricing in design contracts due to the reduction in project unknowns and guidance that these documents provided to the design teams. In addition to being used by design and environmental consultants, OBDP staff used the site for a number of purposes that improved Program oversight and saved time. 4.2.2 EBRO Benefit-Cost Analysis The benefit-cost analysis for EBROnline covered the six years from 2004 through October 2010. The analysis used the following sources of information: Development and operating cost obtained from OBDP IT staff. Interviews with direct users of EBROnline and ArcPad. EBROnline log in data. A survey of OBDP users of EBROnline. Figures 9 and 10 graphically summarize the results of the analysis. For EBROnline the analysis found a BC ratio of only 0.6 and NPV was -$145,000 indicating benefits were less than investment costs. Figure 9: EBRO Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 10: EBRO Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 * See ODOT, OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program, Environmental Programmatic Permitting Benefit/Cost Analysis, October 2008. Page 17 of 199

Two factors contributed to the less that favorable BC ratio. First, the tool cost more than expected to bring online. In particular, if migration costs had not been so expensive the BC ratio would have been closer to 1.0. Second, the tool was not used as extensively as expected. Even those who used it regularly found that it was a convenience but rarely saved significant amounts of time. 4.2.3 EBRO Conclusions EBRO would have been more useful if put online sooner and less costly if the original environmental baseline work would have been better integrated with the GISI approach used to put the information online. Based on these findings, ODOT should consider augmenting its own GISI databases with the type of information contained in EBROnline and make it available both internally and to consultants for planning, baseline and conceptual design work early in the project development process. 4.3. EBR ArcPad TM ArcPad is an ESRI mobile GIS application that uses a global positioning system (GPS) to establish the location of environmental and infrastructure features within the layers of EBROnline. The tool was intended to be used to continuously update the EBRO database in the correct format and to provide a record of infrastructure and environmental changes as projects were carried out. This would provide an invaluable resource for Agency operations even after the conclusion of OTIA III. 4.3.1 Benefits of EBR ArcPad This tool was used on only 25 bridge sites out of more than 400 in the EBR database. Consultants who used it found it useful for delineating environmental features, such as wetland boundaries, without need of survey; and data gathered in this way proved easy to upload to a GISI database. However, most engineering and environmental firms found it was redundant because surveys had to be carried out anyway. Some firms that did not use ArcPad thought it could be useful if applied during planning, environmental baseline process and preliminary design phases where engineering precision was not an issue. 4.3.2 EBR ArcPad Benefit-Cost Analysis The analysis found a BC ratio of 0.7 for EBR ArcPad and a NPV of -$8,109. The tool was used for only a short time and did not generate sufficient benefits to cover initial investment costs. Figures 11 and 12 graphically show the results of the BC analysis. Page 18 of 199

Figure 11: ArcPad Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 12: ArcPad Total Benefits and Investment 4.3.3 EBR ArcPad Conclusions Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 While the ArcPad tool did not live up to expectations for the OTIA III Bridge Program, it demonstrated the potential for use of such tools early in project development, especially during development of environmental baseline reports. A similar tool could be valuable for any situation in which there is a desire to delineate features of a landscape and where a survey is not required for other reasons. 4.4. Engineering Drawing System (EDS) The Engineering Drawing System (EDS) was intended to provide a central point of access to all Architectural and Engineering (A&E) content which is needed to properly manage the Program. A&E content consists of technical drawings, three-dimensional models, maps, relational data and other information. The information is typically created, used, and shared by a large number of individuals from many different organizations throughout the lifecycle of the OTIA III Program. The system uses Bentley ProjectWise. 4.4.1 Benefits of EDS Most of the benefits of the EDS tool would have come from the ability of design, contracting and construction to see the same files and use the same database to transmit comments, requested changes, revisions and supplemental information. The final documents could have been viewed online by contracting and construction as well as designers. In fact, most of these benefits were captured by storing the design documents in EDMS. Unfortunately several obstacles made it impractical for continued use. First, contractors found that the time required to upload drawings and related files into the system was excessive. Second, they were already loading design drawings and related documents in to EDMS which was easier to use. Third, the OBDP/ODOT contract required drawings to be developed in Micro Station, which was only available to limited OBDP staff and therefore not useful for reviews. Finally, one of the assumed benefits of EDS was the ability to use Axiom SpecChecker to speed review of design drawings; however, SpeckChecker could be used without the EDS tool. As a result of these limitations, costs were higher than expected and some of the practical benefits of the collaborative work space were lost. As a result of these limitations, in 2006 a decision was made to discontinue its use. In order to meet future ODOT needs and contract obligations, OBDP staff have uploaded drawings to the Page 19 of 199

EDS system and will turn the entire system over to ODOT at the conclusion of the OTIA III Bridge Program. 4.4.2 EDS Benefit-Cost Analysis The results of the BC analysis are summarized in Figures 13 and 14. The BC Ratio was -0.3. NPV was -$292,000 indicating a loss for this tool. Due to the lack of benefits to EDS, O&M costs resulted in a negative net value exactly equal to the costs as shown in Figure 14. Cost continued after 2006 because of the need to maintain the ProjectWise license. Costs rose in 2009 and 2010 as a result of OBDP s work to put drawings and design documents into ProjectWise for ODOT s future use. Figure 13: EDS Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 14: EDS Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 = 4.4.3 EDS Conclusions The outcome does not mean future use of EDS, based on ProjectWise or similar document management software, would not be valuable to ODOT. Other state DOTs and engineering organizations have found this type of system to be valuable. However, there are three lessons learned: 1. For a system like EDS to be successful, it must be easily accessible at a reasonable cost to all parties involved in design, design review and contracting. 2. If more than one system is used to process documents it will be seen as redundant by the users. 3. The system would be easier to sell to the potential users if they saw an immediate benefit to their own work. 4.5. Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) The purpose of the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) is to provide a central repository for all documents associated with the OTIA III Bridge Program managed by OBDP under contract with ODOT. The EDMS system in use by OBDP is IBM s FileNet P8 system. The FileNet version of EDMS went online in September 2005 and initially contained 12,460 documents transferred from a previous temporary EDMS system. Since 2005 the number of documents stored in FileNet has increased to 210,000. Page 20 of 199

Under its contract with ODOT, many OBDP documents must still be delivered in paper form as well as electronic. However, since most working documents are not on paper and the existing paper documents do not have to be managed as an active paper filing system, the benefits of EDMS are not significantly reduced. 4.5.1 Benefits of EDMS Most of the quantified benefits of EDMS are savings in time and personnel by comparison to a paper filing system. Other benefits that could not be quantified include: 1) control of documents, including version management, which assures users have obtained the correct version of documents; (2) document sharing which improves coordination by making new documents or new versions of documents immediately available to those needing to view them; and (3) improved security based on protocols that make documents available only to approved users. 4.5.2 EDMS Benefit-Cost Analysis Calculation of benefits included a special study of the costs of an alternative paper system, a survey of users and a focus group to understand how engineering and project design documents were handled. The results are summarized in Figures 15 and 16. Figure 15 shows O&M costs and net benefits. During the first two years of operating the FileNet version of EDMS it generated fewer benefits than its operating cost. During Program start-up a paper system might have been operated at less expense. However, as the number of documents and users grew, the benefits of EDMS increased substantially. Figure 16 shows total net benefits and investment costs. Benefits have exceeded initial investment costs by more than six to one, yielding a BC ratio of 6.1. NPV is estimated at $1.3 million. One reason for the high BC ratio was the modest cost of bringing the system online. At the same time the system has substantial operating costs that create a risk of low returns if not heavily used. Figure 15: EDMS Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 16: EDMS Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 4.5.3 EDMS Conclusions EDMS is an effective tool for storing, retrieving and sharing documents. Two areas were identified as holding potential for improving the use of EDMS in the future. First, the records retention feature of EDMS was not used during OTIA III. The result is that there are likely unnecessary documents in the system. Second, during this study a number of people described EDMS to be cumbersome because of search engines, file naming conventions and Page 21 of 199

document templates. This finding highlights the importance of designing such systems with the user in mind and ongoing training and user assistance. There are numerous issues involved in deciding the future of EDMS after OTIA III. The most significant factor will likely be ODOT s decision about how to use electronic document management systems for its ongoing programs. Among the options for using EDMS after 2014 are: (1) migrate required documents as required by administrative rule or statute to other systems and close down EDMS; (2) migrate some or all of the files to a new ODOT system; or (3) retain a license for FileNet 3.0 to keep OTIA III files accessible and only migrate files to other systems as specific needs arise. 4.6. Bridge Reporting System (BRS) The Bridge Reporting System (BRS) is a centralized database containing both Program data and historical background material for each bridge and project bundle in the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program. BRS provides a single source of validated information, including budgets, schedules and status of bridges and bundles. BRS is reviewed and updated monthly to ensure necessary information is up-to-date and complete. Updates are timed to correspond with Monthly Progress Reports (MPR), but include more data than what is contained in that report. BRS was completed June 30, 2006. It replaced the previous Bridge Information Database (BID) (which was not a true database) consisting of information stored on spreadsheets and in MicroSoft Access files. 4.6.1 Benefits of BRS BRS improves accountability and reliability by making timely and accurate reports available to document progress in delivering the Program. The MPR and website dashboards tracking progress and performance for projects and the CS 3 Program depend explicitly on BRS data. Other routine and ad-hoc reports coming from the BRS go to internal OBDP staff, ODOT, legislators and interested parties on a regular basis. Several reports generated by BRS are featured on the OBDP and ODOT web sites. Compared to the BID, or other methods of compiling required data, BRS increases the number of things that can be reported. BRS also generates considerable time savings which is the primary source of measurable benefits. A survey of system users found three types of time savings. First, BRS takes less time to upload or retrieve data and reports compared to the previous BID or Bridge List. Second, the immediate availability of validated information saved time for many OBDP employees in carrying out day-to-day activities. Third, when reports must be prepared previously validated information is often available in BRS. 4.6.2 BRS Benefit-Cost Analysis A benefit-cost analysis was conducted for the six-year period 2005 through 2010. The analysis found a BC ratio of 1.5 and NPV estimated at approximately $1.0 million. The analysis is Page 22 of 199

summarized in Figures 17 and 18. One of the features of BRS that appears in Figure 17 is its relatively small O&M cost. Figure 17 also shows a steady decline in benefits since 2008 as the number of employees and the amount of activity in the Bridge Program is declining. Due to the small O&M cost it is expected to earn a positive return through the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014. Figure 17: BRS Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 18: BRS Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 4.6.3 BRS Conclusions BRS adds substantial value to the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program because of time savings found in retrieving data and the efficiency and reliability of the data sources. The Program improves credibility of ODOT, OBDP and OTIA III and because of the accuracy and reliability of MPR, dashboards and change management process. One of the lessons learned from the evaluation of BRS is tools can be constructed that increase accountability and transparency while also improving efficiency. BRS was developed to track all variables necessary to manage a project through the entire project delivery process from development through design, construction and closeout. Due to its structure, BRS has been used as the basis for the development of tools to track ARRA funds, the Oregon Jobs Initiative and the OWIN program. 4.7. Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool (CEI) The Construction Engineering/Inspection (CEI) tool consists of 33 fillable forms which can be accessed through the web or from a mobile client version of the tool. Information is stored within a database that can be used to develop summaries and reports. The system is used by inspectors, project managers and assistant managers, contract managers, environmental technicians, quality control specialists and ODOT construction managers. CEI went online in May of 2007. Previously, the daily progress reports (DPR), surveillance reports, non-compliance reports and other project forms were completed on paper and uploaded into EDMS. An Excel log was kept of surveillance and non-compliance reports, but no other data base was compiled from these reports. When the CEI tool went into use the surveillance and noncompliance reports were migrated into the new tool. The system has three important purposes: Page 23 of 199

1. Automate the forms that must be submitted for on-site inspection and engineering in order to speed submission, review and retrieval of this information. 2. Improve consistency of documentation. 3. Improve communication by making reports immediately available to anyone involved in a project, whether in the field or central office. 4.7.1 Benefits of CEI The most important benefits of the CEI are time savings in communication and coordination resulting from having DPRs and other project information web accessible. This was particularly important to OBDP because of its centralized management structure and its need for a high-level of documentation. In addition, the fact that information, such as, employees and on-site equipment, were stored in a database also saved time when responding to claims. For certain activities CEI did not generate time savings. For instance, the DPR actually took longer to complete in CEI compared to using paper. One of the reasons for this was that most inspectors found it impractical to fill out the form in the field using a laptop and typically returned to the construction office at the end of the day to complete them. The effectiveness of the tool would likely be enhanced by the use of note-pad type computers that could be carried as clipboards rather than laptops. 4.7.2 CEI Benefit-Cost Analysis BC calculations were based on the five year and eight month period from May 2007, when the system went online through 2012. The analysis found a BC ratio of 1.6 and NPV of $317,000. As shown in Figure 19 benefits peaked in 2009 at the height of the OTIA III Bridge Program. Figure 19: CEI Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 20: CEI Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 In estimating benefits, only those projects managed by OBDP were considered. ODOT Region managed projects were not included because in many cases they chose not to use the CEI tool. In instance in which they did use the tool, the ODOT management structure and work processes differed from those of OBDP and it was concluded that some of the findings used to estimate benefits to OBDP managed projects were not relevant to ODOT. Page 24 of 199

4.7.3 CEI Conclusions While the CEI tool shows a positive BC ratio in regard to projects managed by OBDP, it may not have been as successful with ODOT managed projects. A similar tool could be designed with ODOT s specific needs in mind. In the course of evaluating this tool a number of opportunities for improvement were identified. Any future system should provide for regular updates of the system as problems or new opportunities to enhance efficiency are identified. 4.8. Pre-Construction Assessment Application and Reporting Tool (PCA) The PCA was originally conceived as a way to consolidate reporting and application processes under the OTIA III programmatic environmental permit. The purpose of the online version was to create a single database to be used in preparing permit applications and in tracking and reporting compliance with programmatic agreements. The tool stores environmental information necessary for bridge construction permits and uses this information to prepare a consolidated permit application for up to ten agencies and meet the requirements of all permits included within the OTIA III programmatic permit. The permit created by the tool is based on the joint permit application of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands. A condition of the programmatic permit under which the Program operates is that the PCA must be filed for every project even if a finding of No Affect under the Endangered Species Act would have otherwise been filed for a particular project. The A&E firms preparing environmental and design work enter data into the PCA database as work is performed. The PCA tool also reduces the cost of annual reports required as a condition of the programmatic permit. Since all necessary material for preparation of the reports is stored in associated files it can be compiled automatically to address each requirement of the annual report. 4.8.1 Benefits of PCA The primary benefit of the PCA tool is time savings and consistency in completing consolidated environmental permits and annual reports required by the Program s programmatic permit. While the PCA tool generated significant benefits, it had a steep learning curve. The first time an individual or team prepared a consolidated permit using the PCA tool it usually took longer than it would have to prepare separate applications without the tool. However, after a team is familiar with the tool it can save significant time. Some users also expressed concern that an entire application had to be completed for every bridge in the Program, even if a project would have had a finding of No Affect were it not for the programmatic permit. This analysis did not completely resolve that issue which should be addressed if this or a similar tool is used in the future. The time savings preparing annual reports associated with the programmatic permit is more significant. The PCA database collects all the information in each JPA and makes it available for development of project and Program summaries and the annual report can be completed in weeks Page 25 of 199

rather than months. Data which would otherwise have to be collected from individual files is already compiled in the PCA database. 4.8.2 PCA Benefit-Cost Analysis A benefit-cost analysis was conducted for a five-year period following the introduction of PCA in December of 2006. The BC ratio for PCA was calculated at 7.7 and the NPV at $785,000. Part of the reason for the very favorable outcome of this analysis is O&M cost and initial investment in the PCA tool are relatively small. Figure 21: PCA Net Benefits and O&M by Year Figure 22: PCA Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 4.8.3 PCA Conclusions The PCA tool generated significant benefits for the OTIA III Bridge Program. The database created by the PCA tool will continue to be valuable in documenting compliance with environmental conditions and permits into the future after OTIA III is complete. A similar tool may be valuable for other future programmatic permits. 4.9. Work Zone Traffic Analysis System (WZTA) The Work Zone Traffic Analysis system (WZTA) provides a reporting and analysis repository for information related to roadway traffic and potential delays. The system combines information from several sources into a single consistent location. OBDP, in cooperation with ODOT, developed the online WZTA application to provide users greater access to mobility-related data throughout the state. The WZTA web application allows users to view roadway and roadway traffic data to determine the effects of lane closures related to construction and roadwork on mobility. 4.9.1 Benefits of WZTA The WZTA system has three important benefits: 1. Consistent data on roads and traffic that can be obtained quickly by users, reducing traffic analysis costs. 2. The reduced time necessary for analysis of work zone traffic flow allows analysis at several stages of project development, design and construction; resulting in better traffic management during construction. Page 26 of 199

3. Improved traffic management reduces disruption and delay experienced by road users during construction. 4.9.2 WZTA Benefit-Cost Analysis Benefits and costs of WZTA were calculated for the five-year period following development of the system. The system was developed in 2008 and calculations of benefits were made for 2009 through 2013. All benefits related to time savings using the WZTA web site and traffic analysis tool are compared to obtaining traffic and roadway data from other sources and making work zone traffic calculations using other tools. Many of the savings factors were determined based on a user survey conducted in August 2010. The results of the BC analysis were mixed. Total benefits in terms of time savings for all authorized users of the WZTA web site were substantial and result in a BC ratio of 3.6. However, when only the benefits to OTIA III are considered the ratio drops to 0.7. Figures 23, 24 and 25 illustrate these results. Figure 23 shows net benefits including OTIA III and non-otia users, compared to the relatively modest operation and maintenance costs. Figure 24 shows the majority of benefits have been to non-otia users, for analysis of other projects and maintenance activities on the state highway system. Use for OTIA III has fallen off rapidly because the tool is used primarily during the design phase, which is now complete. The tool will continue to be used on a limited basis during remaining construction activities. Figure 23: WZTA Net Benefit and O&M by Year Figure 24: WZTA Benefits Divided between OTIA and Non-OTIA Users Figure 25 summarizes the results, showing total benefits and OTIA-only benefits compared to investment in the website and analysis tool. Figure 25: WZTA Total Benefits and Investment Benefits and Investment discounted to 2010 Page 27 of 199

4.9.3 WZTA Conclusions WZTA has demonstrated the ability to connect a GIS database with a modeling tool to produce an efficient analytical system. The system has significantly improved the calculation of traffic impacts of construction and maintenance activities. It is widely used within ODOT and is expected to be transferred to ODOT at the end of the OTIA III Bridge Program in 2014. Page 28 of 199

5.0 Appendices Page 29 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS GIS INFRASTRUCTURE The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of Geographic Information System Infrastructure (GISI) put online for the OTIA III Bridge Program. This report is part of a series of reports that also includes Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Construction Engineering/ Inspection tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing System (EDS), Pre-Construction Assessment tool (PCA), Environmental Baseline Report Online with EBR ArcPad, and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA). Each of these reports describes the background and development of the tool, its operational logic and the alternative system that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do not necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. The term GIS Infrastructure refers to the collection of hardware, software and databases maintained for the support of products, services and other IT applications making use of data organized by geographic location (also referred to as geospatial organization). GISI is a diffuse framework that supports numerous other systems like WZTA and EBROnline (also referred to as Trans-GIS) as well as providing direct services in the form of mapping and data management. A benefit-cost (BC) analysis was performed using risk analysis software. Benefits of GISI fall into three categories: (1) direct benefits through cartography (mapping), data management and distribution, and special studies; (2) indirect benefits through other systems supported by GISI; and (3) benefits resulting from improved accuracy, consistency and speed of analysis made possible by GISI. In conducting a benefit-cost analysis only the first group of benefits could be measured. Developmental and operational costs are evaluated from inception through 2010 and life cycle costs are evaluated based on the assumption that GISI will end with the Program in 2014. Conclusions The analysis concluded that GISI is an integral part of the Program and of OBDP s operation. Much of the communication, collaboration and accountability that have become hallmarks of the Program are based on quick access to maps and data provided by the tool. In addition, other systems like EBROnline, BRS and WZTA depend in whole or part on GISI. A BC ratio of 3.0 was calculated for this tool, meaning for every $1.00 invested in the GIS Infrastructure it is earning a return of $3.00. Evaluation of the tool shows the cost and time savings in terms of mapping, data requests and benefits of other tools supported by GIS Infrastructure justifies the cost of the system. In addition to these quantifiable benefits other benefits could not be quantified and these included improved accuracy, consistency and timeliness in evaluations and improved accountability through December 2010 Page 30 of 199

reporting structures like the Monthly Progress Reports (MPR) and dashboards that provide regular assessments of progress and performance through predetermined performance measures. If these intangibles could be added to the analysis the BC ratio would have been higher. 1.0 BACKGROUND The primary purpose of the GIS Infrastructure is to analyze, visualize and interpret data in ways that reveal patterns and trends related, primarily, to their relationship to one another in space and time. The location itself is the organizing principle of the data and promotes and facilitates widespread sharing of geospatial data among contractors, stakeholders and agencies involved in the Program. More specifically, the goal is to simplify the sharing of accurate and reliable geospatial data (that is, data organized by geographic location) so users can utilize and understand project data as effortlessly as possible. GISI products and services include maps and special studies. Information systems (IS) applications supported by, or consuming, GIS include the Bridge Reporting system (BRS), Preconstruction Assessment Tool (PCA), EBR Online, EBR ArcPad and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA). These relationships are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: GIS Infrastructure Relationships Data Queries EBR Online EBR ArcPad OBDP Web Site & Tools GIS Infrastructure BRS Mapping Services Special Studies WZTA As depicted in Figure 2, the GIS links together data sets, using common location data (such as bridge numbers) to allow OBDP to relate internal data sets to external sources. By creating a shared database, one department can benefit from the work of another. The organization wide applications, known as enterprise systems, are central to the organization and ensure GIS Infrastructure Page 2 of 25 Page 31 of 199

information can be shared across all functional levels and across business applications. Data can be collected once and then be easily shared and used many times. To better integrate with ODOT s existing GIS, the application was built on ESRI GIS. The company s GIS is ubiquitous throughout government and is employed by ODOT GIS. The ESRI ArcGIS architecture allows the development of flexible, scalable systems that are compatible with ODOT systems. Figure 2: GIS Infrastructure and Data Integration ODOT Mapping & Data OBDP GIS Infrastructure External Data Sources OBDP Generated Data The planning that went into the GISI was successful for both OBDP and ODOT in that they are able to readily share information on the latest systems and how they should be used. OBDP was able to complete, incorporate and build on an internet mapping system that was originally started by another vendor for ODOT. With the common platform and standards, OBDP was able to build on the initial vendor s work and make it more usable for ODOT and the OTIA III Program. After assuming control, OBDP developed it in conjunction with the ODOT GIS staff to ensure compatibility with Agency needs. During the planning of GISI, staff met with ODOT GIS personnel to ensure that the OBDP system met the needs of the Program, was aligned with Agency goals and was designed with the best industry standards. The design goals of the OBDP GISI were to have: Organization-wide data availability any authorized user who would benefit from geospatial data should have easy access to it. GIS Infrastructure Page 3 of 25 Page 32 of 199

Alignment of GIS standards OBDP would develop and maintain their own database, but look for means of leveraging existing ODOT efforts. Extra effort was put into the coordination of activities between the Program and the Agency to ensure advances on one side were communicated and transferred to the other. The intent is to facilitate transfer at the end of the Program. Mission critical systems include GIS in Program systems that are critical to the achievement of mission objectives. Enterprise architecture requires an architecture and associated infrastructure to support data sharing and organization-wide, multipurpose operations. Flexibility acknowledging that there would be changes in the business operations over the course of the Program, the GIS was designed with a framework that could adjust to many needs. Additionally, the Program would have a wide-range of technical and nontechnical users through a robust set of GIS systems ranging from lightweight browsers to expert-level analytical, modeling and development programs. The expectation was OBDP GIS would purchase third party software as well as engage in system development. Organization-wide GIS standards and governance processes software, data and infrastructure standards must be centrally established and governed across the enterprise. Data delivery the ability of Program staff to originate, review and update spatial data without being expert GIS users, which would come through a variety of modes including web-delivery and mobile systems and staff oversight. Each of these objectives was accomplished and GISI has been fully operational on the Program since March 11, 2005. 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 OBDP s GIS Infrastructure System The logical model of OBDP s GIS Infrastructure is shown in Figure 3. The diagram shows the user s perspective and leaves out some of the details important to IT professionals. A more detailed diagram of the hardware and software elements is contained in Appendix A. Authorized users may access GISI directly to view geographic data and compile, download or print maps. Indirect users rely on GISI when they access systems supported by GIS. Each of the supported systems uses GISI to update information and maps. Some of the systems, BRS and ArcPad, also provide information to the GIS database. The GIS system itself has two parts. One element maps and updates programs, providing information to the various programs supported by GISI. The other element is the GISI database itself, which provides the source of information used by the mapping and data processing programs. The GISI database is regularly updated from original sources, which include ODOT databases. For instance, as ODOT updates road features or traffic volumes the information is regularly used to update OBDP s GISI databases. GIS Infrastructure Page 4 of 25 Page 33 of 199

OBDP s GIS analysts have direct access to the databases. The analysts perform three important functions: Data management The Analysts maintain spatial database and relevant tabular information (e.g., from BRS or PCA programs). Special Studies The data are combined in mathematical overlays to conduct special studies related to the Program (e.g. calculating the potential flood regime and associated impacts of a bridge site caused by the addition of pilings to a river). Visual communication Create maps that communicate the data in both hardcopy and online. Figure 3: GIS Infrastructure Logic User Access Internal Servers Direct GIS Access Direct User Web Access Indirect Users BRS EBR Online ArcPad WZTA Mapping/ Database Updates OBDP GIS Infrastructure/ Database OBDP Web Site Administrator Access GIS Infrastructure Page 5 of 25 Page 34 of 199

2.2 Alternative System In the case of GIS Infrastructure, the alternative system is not a single different way of doing business but a series of alternatives for each direct product and service and each of the systems supported by GISI. The alternatives are described in Table 1. Four major impacts would occur if GISI were not available: 1. Maps would have to be created by purchasing base maps (hardcopy and/or electronic) and adding features manually. 2. Special studies, that rely on GIS, would have to be contracted or carried out using more expensive methods. 3. Three of the independent systems supported by GISI would not be possible; EBR Online, Arch Pad and WZTA. 4. Two of the independent systems would lose some of their functionality; BRS and the OBDP web site. Product/Service/System Mapping Routine Maps Special Request Maps Public Involvement Maps Special Studies Data Queries BRS Support EBR OnlineSupport ArcPad Data Collection WZTA Support OBDP Web Site Table 1: GIS Infrastructure Alternatives Alternative Approach Base maps purchased from mapping company. Manual updates by graphics employees. Simple requests could be done by in-house graphics. Any significant requests would be purchased from a vendor. Would be produced in-house or purchased by PI consultants from other vendors. Some studies could be done in-house at higher expense and longer time, others would be contracted. Data would not be spatially located nor coordinated by location. As a result, queries would take longer. Bundle maps would be created from routine maps by graphics employees. Updates would be limited. BRS information would be manually added to routine maps. Not possible without GISI. Design and environmental consultants would work from hardcopy EBR only. Not needed without GIS. In theory, higher cost and lower quality in environmental field data collection. However, ArcPad was not widely used. The geospatial interface that makes data retrieval efficient would be lost and the analytic tool would revert to the spreadsheet program used prior to WZTA. Loss of functionality would result because drill down mapping would not be possible. Simple communication would be more difficult. GIS Infrastructure Page 6 of 25 Page 35 of 199

The most important aspect of handling these activities without GISI would be the loss of data integration and loss of timeliness in compilation of maps and data. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS Direct system users are those who have direct access to the GISI database. These are limited to OBDP GIS analysts who manage and update databases and produce maps and special studies. All Program staff and disciplines have access to the GIS services through the analysts for special projects and mapping requests. Indirect users include users of BRS, EBROnline, ArcPad, WZTA and the OBDP website which depend on GISI. Indirect users are extensive and include anyone who accesses the tools supported by GISI, including the OBDP website. Indirect users also include those who use maps produced by GISI, the MPR and other information that depends on the GIS database. As noted in Table 2, these users include OBDP, ODOT, the Legislature, regulatory agencies and the general public. Direct Users Table 2: GIS Infrastructure Users Analysts Direct Users Users of BRS, EBRO, ArcPad, WZTA and OBDP website 4 OBDP IT staff OBDP staff OBDP Sub-consultants ODOT Other users Regulatory agencies General public Indirect Users Other Indirect Users OBDP ODOT Legislature All users of OBDP produced maps 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS The GIS systems used by OBDP created three distinct benefits: 1. Reduced time and cost to collect data, prepare and distribute maps and reports. 2. Impacts of other programs like EBR Online and WZTA that rely on GIS Infrastructure to function. 3. Improved accuracy, consistency and timeliness. GIS Infrastructure Page 7 of 25 Page 36 of 199

4.1 Time and Cost Saving in Mapping and Data Functions Evaluation of time and cost savings begins by identifying the cost of fulfilling each of the alternative functions described in Table 1, without GIS. Several major sources of time and cost savings were identified. 4.1.1 Routine Maps The routine maps used in the Bridge Program would have to be generated in a much more time consuming manner. Regularly reproduced maps include: 85 monthly maps for the MPR. 15 standardized content Program maps that track bundle progress by region. Six online maps containing dashboard information. The monthly process of revising these maps involves reviewing Program progress to identify needed changes and then make the changes for use in the MPR and updating websites. Printed maps are produced as needed. The detailed description of the review and update process is shown in Appendix B. Lack of GIS would create two significant problems for the process. First, GIS maps would have to be manually reviewed and checked against changes in status of bridges and bundles as entered in other databases. The process is slower and would introduce more opportunities for omissions and errors. Second, the time required to draw the maps in a Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) system would mean the maps showing updated information for the MPR could not be ready for inclusion under the existing schedule. Either the MPR would be started earlier, in which case it might have to refer to a time period ending two months rather than one month earlier, or the maps contained in them would be updated on a less frequent basis. If maps were updated on a less frequent basis then either they would not be as current or would not contain all the information currently included. Creating the 106 monthly maps without GIS would require OBDP to obtain 5 different base maps that could then be drawn over in a CAD system and cropped for the purpose of showing regions or other subdivisions of the state. The base maps could probably be obtained by ODOT at minimal costs. If not obtained through ODOT, base maps compatible with CAD systems and of the quality currently used in the Program would likely cost between $1,000 and $10,000 each. In benefit-cost calculations a value of $2,000 per map was used. Likely, it would take an hour per map to draw each of the 85 maps used in the MPR and an average of two hours to create each of the other 21 maps. The update process would involve first checking the Bridge Reporting System (BRS) to see which bridges or bundles had changes, determining the appropriate changes to the maps, making the changes in a CAD system and then entering the revised maps in the MPR and/or appropriate websites and printing maps as required. To accomplish these tasks would probably require four hours per month to review BRS and determine required revisions. It would probably take an average of one-half hour per map for each of the MPR maps that needed to be updated and two hours per map for each of the other maps needing updates. MPR maps change only when the composition of the bundles change. Early in the Program as many as one-third of the active bundles might have required monthly changes. By 2010 it is GIS Infrastructure Page 8 of 25 Page 37 of 199

estimated that only 10% of active bundle require changes in any given month. The result is that total required revisions per month have fallen from about 24 maps to about two maps. Other monthly and quarterly maps required changes every month during the height of the Program, but today only about half the other maps require changes each month. Without GIS these maps would have cost an estimated $86,000 per year to produce and update. It should be noted that without GISI the quality and consistency of these maps would be reduced. The loss of these benefits was not quantified. 4.1.2 Special Maps Special maps would also require additional time to produce without the GISI. Examples of these special maps include location of no work bridges, location of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects in relation to OITA III bridges, and business and industrial sites in relation to OTIA III projects. They also include maps produced for special reports such as to the Bridge Oversight Committee (BOC) and would likely be produced from the same base as the routine maps and require approximately four hours per map to research and draw. Much of this time is related to research since without the GISI database, other maps and data sources would have to be searched and locations of features determined. Since 2005 there have been 4,677 of these maps produced. Most of these maps are included in one-time reports and often are not printed. A question could be raised as to whether all these maps would be drawn if GIS did not exist. Some of the maps might not actually be drawn without the GIS tools, but in all likelihood, the information would be necessary anyway. Since the majority of time responding to these requests without GISI would involve data searches rather than the actual map production, no reduction was made in estimated information needs without GISI. Without GISI these maps would have cost an estimated nearly $300,000 per year to produce. 4.1.3 Public Involvement Maps GIS has been used to produce an average of two public involvement maps per month throughout the program. Without GISI these would likely be produced by graphic departments of PI contractors at a cost of $100 to $200 each. Without GISI the consistent look and quality of the maps would likely be diminished. 4.1.4 Special Data Requests Data queries would also take considerably more time without GISI. Over the life of the Program there has been an average of 250 special data queries per year. Examples of the inquiries include bridges within 50 miles of certain cities, aggregate sources within a certain distance of specific bridges and which ODOT office locations are associated with which bundles. Obtaining this information without the GISI database would take one to four hours or more per inquiry. As with special maps, the question could be raised as to whether all these requests would be addressed without GISI. In all likelihood, some type of research would be done on most of these questions, though it might not be from a central database. For this reason, no reduction in these research activities was assumed without GISI. GIS Infrastructure Page 9 of 25 Page 38 of 199

The date requests would have cost an average of $98,000 per year without GISI. 4.1.5 Special Studies Special studies using GISI are another source of cost increases without GISI. There have been more than 50 of these studies, including flood plain evaluations, impacts to known environmental resources and reviews of environmental impacts. In most cases it is assumed that these studies would have to be performed by subcontractors at an average of $10,000 per study. The studies would have cost an average of $90,000 per year without GISI. 4.2 Indirect and Unquantified Benefits 4.2.1 Functionality of other Tools using GIS Technology A number of OBDP s IT systems depend on GISI technology and could not operate without GISI. These include Bridge Reporting System (BRS), EBR Online, EBR ArcPad, Work Zone Traffic Assessment tool (WZTA) and the OBDP website. Therefore, some of the benefits of those systems might be assigned to GISI. However, since those systems were already evaluated independently, no additional benefit was added. 4.2.2 Improved Data Accuracy, Consistency and Timeliness One of the characteristics of the GISI database is it coordinates all information based on location. Therefore, it is rare to have conflicting data for items of the same type in the same location within the system. The result is better consistency of data which leads to better accuracy since discrepancies are readily identified and resolved quickly as opposed to tabular, non-spatial databases. A case in point is the relation between the GIS Infrastructure and BRS. As shown in Appendix B, any changes in the status of bridges and bundles recorded in BRS are immediately identified in other databases using the same information. Likewise, any changes in project, bundle or bridge status resulting in a change in the GISI database are immediately evident in BRS. The result is improved consistency of data throughout for the entire Program. The speed at which GISI databases can be updated and published, combined with improved accuracy and consistency, facilitates tools like the OBDP dashboards that provide accountability for the OTIA III program. These would take considerably more time to assemble without GIS. No specific value was placed on consistency and accuracy in the benefit-cost analysis, although it clearly benefits the OTIA III program. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS Development costs and annual licensing costs for software were estimated in workshops with OBDP and ODOT key staff in June 2010. Since some development costs were carried out jointly between GISI, EBROnline (also referred to as Trans-GIS) and EBR ArcPad a cost allocation study was undertaken after the workshop to assign hardware and development costs to the individual tools. Annual maintenance and operating costs were estimated through more recent discussions with OBDP IT staff. GIS Infrastructure Page 10 of 25 Page 39 of 199

5.1 Development Costs Development costs included purchase of hardware and software as a package in 2004 and IT staff costs necessary to put the system online. Because GIS infrastructure was developed jointly with EBR Online and EBR ArcPad a cost allocation study was conducted to separate these costs. The following development costs were assigned to GIS Infrastructure: Hardware: $45,465; Software: $81, 920; Internal installation costs (IT staff): $224,668; Total: $333,754. 5.2 Maintenance and Operation Operations include licensing costs of $26,800 per year plus internal staff costs and data storage and backup. Internal staff costs have varied over the life of the program. Staffing costs ranged from a low of $217,000 in 2007 to a high of $432,000 in 2009. Throughout most of the Program there have been four staff assigned to GISI, but they have multiple duties and their time spent working on GISI varied considerably. Starting in 2010, the number of IT staff assigned to this activity started being reduced. Data storage and back up costs an average of about of $2,300 per year. 5.3 Average Annual Life Cycle Cost Annual life cycle costs were calculated by adding all development and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the GISI system through the end of the Program in 2014. The full cost of the system over the life of the Program was estimated to average $194,000 per year as shown in Table 3. Calculations assume the same licenses are used through 2014. Staff costs continue at a level of approximately one full time equivalent position. Data storage and backup will continue at approximately the same cost per year. The analysis assumed there would be a small amount of migration cost associated with moving data to ODOT computers. However, since ODOT and OBDP systems already communicate with each other data transfer is expected to be seamless and very efficient. GIS Infrastructure Page 11 of 25 Page 40 of 199

Year Total Devel Table 3. Average Annual Life Cycle Costs for GISI Licenses Operation and Maintenance Data Storage/ IT Saff Cost Backup Total Migration Total (Program Terminated in 2014) Totals by Year Present value (2010) Annualized 3.74% 2004 $ 333,754 $ 333,754 $ 416,010 2005 $ 26,800 $ 241,235 $ 1,710 $ 269,745 $ 269,745 $ 324,105 2006 $ 26,800 $ 241,235 $ 2,280 $ 270,315 $ 270,315 $ 313,080 2007 $ 26,800 $ 216,869 $ 2,280 $ 245,949 $ 245,949 $ 274,590 2008 $ 26,800 $ 310,947 $ 2,280 $ 340,027 $ 340,027 $ 365,936 2009 $ 26,800 $ 431,870 $ 2,280 $ 460,950 $ 460,950 $ 478,190 2010 $ 26,800 $ 232,350 $ 2,280 $ 261,430 $ 261,430 $ 261,430 2011 $ 26,800 $ 184,956 $ 2,280 $ 214,036 $ 214,036 $ 206,319 2012 $ 26,800 $ 191,429 $ 2,280 $ 220,509 $ 220,509 $ 204,896 2013 $ 26,800 $ 198,129 $ 2,280 $ 227,209 $ 227,209 $ 203,511 2014 $ 26,800 $ 205,064 $ 2,280 $ 234,144 $ 20,000 $ 254,144 $ 219,429 $ 1,978,304 $ 1,939,711 $ 193,971 Since any information retained by ODOT will be integrated into its GISI system and since the software licenses needed to run the system are already owned by ODOT, there will be no ongoing costs associated with retaining Program data after 2014. 6.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS A BC analysis was conducted for GIS Infrastructure for the years 2005 through 2010. In order to compare annual benefits with original development costs, all costs were discounted to 2010. The analysis used the following sources of information: Development and operating cost obtained from OBDP IT staff. Interviews with OBDP GIS Analysts and subject matter experts on GIS within OBDP. Interviews with ODOT staff about the relation between ODOT GIS and OBPD s system. Review of specific outputs of OBDP s GIS Infrastructure. Estimated costs of producing the same output without GIS. The BC analysis was carried out using an Excel spreadsheet supplemented with Palisades @Risk software. Use of risk software allowed two important calculations. First, when precise data was unknown, such as time requirements to create maps outside of GIS, the procedure allows the entry of a range of data. Second, the process established bounds of accuracy around the output of the model. For GIS Infrastructure this analysis found a BC ratio of 3.0 meaning that for every $1.00 in expenditures on the system it is returning $3.00 in benefits. Net present value (NPV) is estimated at approximately $837,000. The internal rate of return (IRR) was calculated at 61%. Applying risk analysis to the results indicates a level of confidence in the results and the probability that the benefits could be higher or lower than the central estimate. Table 4 summarizes these results. The table shows a 10% probability that the BC ratio is as low as 0.3, in which case GISI would not be earning positive returns. There is a 10% probability the BC could GIS Infrastructure Page 12 of 25 Page 41 of 199

be more than 8.1. The very wide range of result caused primarily by two factors. First, the uncertainty of the required time for map revisions and data requests without GIS Infrastructure results in a wide variation of benefits. Second, the initial investment of $334,000 is low compared to annual operating costs. As a result, relatively small fluctuations in benefits or operating costs can have a large affect on the BC ratio. Table 4 Benefit-Cost Calculations for GIS Infrastructure Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (10%) Benefit-Cost Ratio 3.0 1.3 8.1 Net Present Value $837,000 -$290,000 $3,000,000 IRR 61% 26% 143% 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS GIS Infrastructure is an integral part of OBDP s operation and it would be difficult to imagine how the organization could have achieved its current level of efficiency and accountability without GISI. A benefit-cost evaluation of GISI shows the cost and time savings in terms of mapping, data requests and benefits of other tools supported by GISI justify the cost of the system. In addition to these quantifiable benefits there were other benefits that could not be quantified, including improved accuracy, consistency and timeliness in evaluations and reporting and improved accountability through the dashboard structure supported by GISI. If these intangibles could be added to the analysis the BC ratio would have been higher.. In terms of ODOT s future use of GIS, the primary lesson learned is that it is possible to have shared an integrated GISI systems between client and contractor. If ODOT were to contract a major program like OTIA III in the future, the cooperative development of such a system could have considerable benefits. GIS Infrastructure Page 13 of 25 Page 42 of 199

APPENDIX A: GIS INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILED SYSTEM DIAGRAM GIS Infrastructure Page 14 of 25 Page 43 of 199

APPENDIX B: GIS MONTHLY MAP AND DATA PROCES GIS Infrastructure Page 15 of 25 Page 44 of 199

APPENDIX C: GISI BENEFIT-COST DOCUMENTATION B/C ANALYSIS OF GIS INFRASTRUCTURE LOGIC DIAGRAM GIS Infrastructure Page 16 of 25 Page 45 of 199

B/C ANALYSIS OF GIS INFRASTRUCTURE LOGIC DIAGRAM (CONTINUED) GIS Infrastructure Page 17 of 25 Page 46 of 199

GIS Infrastructure Benefit Cost Analysis Sources and Logic Variable Basic Input 1 Tech/Pro Rate OBDP 2 MPR maps (per year) OBDP Source Logic 3 Other monthly maps (per year) OBDP 4 Total = v2 + v3 Alternate Production of Routine Maps 5 Base maps MFA based on OBDP maps 6 Cost per base map MFA based on ODOT interview 7 Base map total = v5 * v6 8 MPR maps OBDP 9 Other monthly OBDP MFA based on ODOT and OBDP 10 Hours to create per MPR map interviews Hours to create per other MFA based on ODOT and OBDP 11 monthly interviews 12 Total hrs to create = v8 * v10 + v9 * v11 Hours to revise 13 % of bundles open BRS bundle status 14 % of open bundles requiring revision MFA based on interviews 15 % MPR maps revised each month MFA based on SME interviews = v13 * v14 16 MPR map revisions = v2 * v15 17 Gather revision information MFA based on SME interviews MFA based on ODOT and OBDP 18 Hrs per map to revise interviews 19 MPR map revision time = v17 + ( v16 * v18 ) 20 Percent other maps revised per month MFA based on SME interviews 21 Gather monthly revision information MFA based on SME interviews 22 Other monthly revisions per map MFA based on ODOT and OBDP interviews 23 Other monthly revision hrs = v21 + ( v20 * v202) 24 Total montly revisions = v19 + v23 25 Total hours, creation plus revision = v12 + v24 26 Total hourly costs = v25 * v2 27 Total Cost (hourly plus base maps) = v26 + v7 December 29, 2010 Page 47 of 199

P.I. Support Maps 28 Number OBDP IT Staff 29 Value per map MFA based on SME interviews 30 PI Support Value = v28 * v29 Sepcial Studies 31 Number OBDP IT Staff 32 Value per Study MFA based on SME Interviews 33 Total special studies value = v31 * v32 One time Maps 34 Number of Requests OBDP IT Staff MFA based on SME Interviews and 35 Hours per map subjects of map requests 36 Total hours = v34 * v35 37 Total one time map values = v1 * v36 Special Data Requests Number of special data 38 requests OBDP IT Staff MFA based on SME Interviews and 39 Hours per query subjects of map requests 40 Total hours = v38 * v39 41 Total special data request value = v1 * v40 Summary of maping and data gathering beneifts Total hours, all map and data 42 functions = v12 + v25 + v36 + v39 43 Value sub total = v7 + v27 + v30 + v33 + v37 + v40 Functionality in Other Programs 44 Trans GIS No value assigned 45 WZTA No value assigned 46 BRS No value assigned 47 Web Site No value assigned 48 Sub Total = v44 + v45 + v46 + v47 49 Total Benefits = v43 + v48 Operation and Maintenance 50 Licenses OBDP Cost Study 51 O&M Hours OBDP Cost Study 52 O&M Costs = v1 * v51 53 Data storage and back up OBDP 54 Total O&M = v50 + v52 + v53 55 Net Benefits = v49 v54 56 Total Total of annual v55 57 NPV of Benefits = v55 discounted to 2010 at v65 58 Total Total of annual v57 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 19 of 25 Page 48 of 199

Development Costs 59 Hardware OBDP Cost Study & allocation 60 Software OBDP Cost Study & allocation 61 Staff developmet hrs OBDP Cost Study 62 Staff development cost = v1 * v59 63 Total development = v59 + v60 + v62 64 Present Value (2010) = v63 discounted to 2010 at v65 Benefit Cost Analysis 65 Discount Value MFA based on OTIA III bond sale rate= 3.74% Results 66 BC Ratio = v58 / v64 67 NPV = v58 v64 68 IRR The rate at which v66=1.0 and v67=0 Notes on risk analysis Direct calcuation from spreadsheet Most likely value w/o risk evaluation Low range & high range Computed by @Risk software set at 10% and 90% ranges Median and Average Computed by @Risk software Not used GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 20 of 25 Page 49 of 199

GIS Infrastructure Benefit Cost Analysis 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Basic Input (March) Tech/Pro Rate $ 80.01 $ 85.91 $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 Ave OBDP Rate $ 68.67 $ 71.16 $ 73.75 $ 76.48 $ 79.21 $ 79.21 $ 81.94 MPR maps (per year) 765 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 Other monthly maps (per year) 189 252 252 252 252 252 Total 954 1272 1272 1272 1272 1272 Alternate Production of Routine Maps Base maps 5 Cost per base map $ 2,000 Base map total $ 10,000 MPR maps 85 Other monthly 21 Hours to create per MPR map 2.00 Hours to create per other monthly 4.00 Hours to create 254 % of Bundles open 94% 86% 76% 61% 44% 27% % open bundles requirign revision 33% 33% 20% 20% 10% 10% % MPR maps revised each month 31% 28% 15% 12% 4% 3% MPR map revisions 237.30 289.48 155.04 124.44 44.88 27.54 Gather revision information (4hrs/mo) 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 Hrs per map to revise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 MPR revision time (hrs) 166.65 192.74 125.52 110.22 70.44 61.77 Percent other maps revised per month 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 50% Gather revision information (8hrs/mo) 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 Other monthly revisions 189.00 252.00 252.00 252.00 189.00 126.00 Hrs per other monthly to revise 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Other monthly map revision hours 852.00 1,104.00 1,104.00 1,104.00 852.00 600.00 Total monthly revisions 1,018.65 1,296.74 1,229.52 1,214.22 922.44 661.77 Total creation plus revision 1,272.65 1,296.74 1,229.52 1,214.22 922.44 661.77 Total hourly costs $ 90,568 $ 95,629 $ 94,030 $ 96,177 $ 73,066 $ 54,225 Total Cost (hourly plus base maps) $ 100,568 $ 95,629 $ 94,030 $ 96,177 $ 73,066 $ 54,225 P.I. Support Maps Number 24 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 Value per map $ 150 150 150 150 150 150 PI Support Value $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 Sepcial Studies Number 9 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 5.00 Value per Study $ 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total special studies value $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 50,000 One Time Maps Number of Requests 644 867 867 867 867 421 Hours per map 4 4 4 4 4 4 Total hours 2,577 3,467 3,467 3,467 3,467 1,686 Total one time map values $ 183,361 $ 255,709 $ 265,180 $ 274,650 $ 274,655 $ 138,127 Special Data Requests Number of speial data requests 250 250 250 250 250 250 Hours per query 4 4 4 4 4 4 Total hours 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total special data request value $ 85,910 $ 85,910 $ 89,100 $ 92,280 $ 92,280 $ 95,460 Summary of maping and data gathering beneifts Total hours, all map and data functions 4,849 5,764 5,697 5,682 5,390 3,347 Value sub total $ 463,440 $ 530,848 $ 541,910 $ 556,707 $ 533,601 $ 341,413 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 21 of 25 Page 50 of 199

Functionality in Other Programs EBR Online WZTA BRS Web Site Sub Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Benefits $ 463,440 $ 530,848 $ 541,910 $ 556,707 $ 533,601 $ 341,413 Operation and Maintenance Licenses $ 26,800 $ 26,800 $ 26,800 $ 26,800 $ 26,800 $ 26,800 O&M Hours 2,808 2,808 2,434 3,370 4,680 2,434 O&M Costs $ 241,235 $ 241,235 $ 216,869 $ 310,947 $ 431,870 $ 232,350 Data storage and backup $ 1,710 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 Total O&M $ 269,745 $ 270,315 $ 245,949 $ 340,027 $ 460,950 $ 261,430 Net Benefits $ 193,694 $ 260,533 $ 295,961 $ 216,680 $ 72,651 $ 79,983 Total $ 1,119,503 NPV of Benefits $ 232,728 $ 301,750 $ 330,425 $ 233,191 $ 75,368 $ 79,983 Total $ 1,253,445 Development Costs Equpement $ 40,500.00 Software $ 68,586.10 Developmet hrs 2,808 Development cst $ 224,668.08 Total $ 333,754.18 Present Value (2010) $ 416,010.39 Benefit Cost Analysis Discount Value 3.74% Results Most likely Low range (10%) High range (90%) BC Ratio 3.0 0.3 8.1 NPV $ 837,435 ($290,000.0) $ 2,950,000 IRR 61% 26.00% 143% GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 22 of 25 Page 51 of 199

@RISK Output Report for BC Ratio / Most likely Performed By: Mark Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:54:30 PM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 23 Number of Outputs 2 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed GIS Infrastructure BC Analysis Latin Hypercube 12/21/10 17:36:01 00:00:19 Mersenne Twister 1 Summary Statistics for BC Ratio / Most likely Statistics Percentile Minimum (4.8) 5% (0.6) Maximum 14.6 10% 0.3 Mean 4.2 15% 0.9 Std Dev 3.0 20% 1.5 Variance 8.828430369 25% 2.0 Skewness 0.122464041 30% 2.5 Kurtosis 2.592960644 35% 2.9 Median 4.0 40% 3.3 Mode 3.9 45% 3.7 Left X 0.3 50% 4.0 Left P 10% 55% 4.5 Right X 8.1 60% 4.9 Right P 90% 65% 5.3 Diff X 7.8 70% 5.8 Diff P 80% 75% 6.3 #Errors 0 80% 6.8 Filter Min Off 85% 7.4 Filter Max Off 90% 8.1 #Filtered 0 95% 9.2 Regression and Rank Information for BC Ratio / Mo Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Hours per map / (M 0.942 0.940 2 Hours per query / (M0.312 0.288 3 Tech/Pro Rate / 200 0.096 0.095 4 Number / (March) 0.079 0.057 5 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.021 0.015 6 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.018 0.013 7 Percent other maps 0.013 0.014 8 Percent other maps 0.012 0.020 9 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.012 0.005 10 Tech/Pro Rate / (Ma0.009 0.013 11 Percent other maps 0.008 0.010 12 Hours to create per 0.007 0.020 13 Percent other maps 0.007 0.010 14 Percent other maps 0.006 0.015 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 23 of 25 Page 52 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:54:50 PM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Cost per base map Cost per base map / (March) D13 RiskTrigen(1000,2000,10000,10,90,RiskStatic( 2000)) (1,260.29) 5,049.83 14,409.79 Category: Gather revision information (4hrs/mo) Gather revision information (4hrs/mo) / (March) D24 RiskTrigen(40,48,56,10,90,RiskStatic(48)) 33.53 48.00 62.47 Category: Gather revision information (8hrs/mo) Gather revision information (8hrs/mo) / (March) D28 RiskTrigen(80,96,112,10,90,RiskStatic(96)) $ 67 $ 96 $ 125 Category: Hours per map Hours per map / (March) D49 RiskTrigen(1,4,8,10,90,RiskStatic(4)) (2) 4 11 Category: Hours per query Hours per query / (March) D55 RiskTrigen(1,4,8,10,90,RiskStatic(4)) (2) 4 11 Category: Hours to create per MPR map Hours to create per MPR map / (March) D17 RiskTrigen(1,2,4,10,90,RiskStatic(2)) (0.05) 2.43 5.34 Category: Hours to create per other monthly Hours to create per other monthly / (March) D18 RiskTrigen(2,4,6,10,90,RiskStatic(4)) 0.38 4.00 7.62 Category: Hrs per map to revise Hrs per map to revise / (March) Category: Hrs per other monthly to revise D25 RiskTrigen(0.25,0.5,0.75,10,90,RiskStatic(0.5) ) 5% 50% 95% Hrs per other monthly to revise / (March) D30 RiskTrigen(2,4,6,10,90,RiskStatic(4)) 0 4 8 Category: Number Number / (March) D38 RiskTrigen(20,24,28,10,90,RiskStatic(24)) 16.76393 24 31.23607 Category: Percent other maps revised per month Percent other maps revised per month / (March) D27 RiskTrigen(0.75,1,1,10,90,RiskStatic(1)) 63% 89% 104% Percent other maps revised per month / 2006 E27 RiskTrigen(0.75,1,1,10,90,RiskStatic(1)) 63% 89% 104% Percent other maps revised per month / 2007 F27 RiskTrigen(0.75,1,1,10,90,RiskStatic(1)) 63% 89% 104% Percent other maps revised per month / 2008 G27 RiskTrigen(0.75,1,1,10,90,RiskStatic(1)) 63% 89% 104% Percent other maps revised per month / 2009 H27 RiskTrigen(0.5,0.75,1,10,90,RiskStatic(0.75)) 0.30 0.75 1.20 Percent other maps revised per month / 2010 I27 RiskTrigen(0.25,0.5,0.75,10,90,RiskStatic(0.5) ) 0.04774575 0.5 0.9522542 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 24 of 25 Page 53 of 199

Category: Tech/Pro Rate Tech/Pro Rate / 2004 C5 RiskNormal(80.01,8.001,RiskStatic(80.01)) $ 60.00 $ 80.01 $ 100.00 Tech/Pro Rate / (March) D5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2006 E5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2007 F5 RiskNormal(89.1,8.91,RiskStatic(89.1)) $ 65.00 $ 89.10 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2008 G5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2009 H5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2010 I5 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.46 $ 120.00 Category: Value per map Value per map / (March) Category: Value per Study D39 RiskTrigen(100,150,200,10,90,RiskStatic(150) ) 59.54915 150 240.4509 Value per Study / (March) D44 RiskTrigen(5000,10000,15000,10,90,RiskStati c(10000)) 955 10,000 19,045 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 25 of 25 Page 54 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS EBRONLINE AND ARCPAD TM The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBROnline) and EBR ArcPad tools to the OTIA III Bridge Program and to consider future options for its use after completion of the Program in 2014. This report is part of a series of reports that also includes Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Construction Engineering/Inspection tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing system (EDS), GIS Infrastructure (GISI), Pre-Construction Assessment tool (PCA) and Work Zone Traffic Analysis system (WZTA). Each of these reports describes the background and development of the application, its operational logic and the alternative system(s) that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users of the technology who benefit from the tool but do necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. For EBROnline benefits were determined through interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) and users, an examination of log in records of those using the system, a survey of OBDP users and other research. In each report development and operational costs are evaluated from inception through 2010. Life cycle costs are evaluated through the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014, with a brief evaluation of potential uses of the tool after 2014. A benefit-cost analysis is performed for each tool using risk analysis software. Conclusions The purpose of EBROnline was to make a GIS version of the environmental baseline report (EBR) for OTIA III Bridges available online. While design and environmental consultants already had access to paper and DVD versions of the EBR, the online database was expected to be a primary source of information for design and environmental reviews. Also, while the tool was used by subconsultants, ODOT and OBDP staff, most subconsultants worked directly from the EBR in performing design and environmental work and used the website only for reference early in the process. Although the contents of EBRO were downloadable for use in the MicroStation CAD system, none of the subconsultants interviewed appear to have used it in this manner. ArcPad was expected to be used to update EBROnline database throughout the process. Most subconsultants, however, declined to use it. This analysis found neither EBROnline nor ArchPad met expectations. Benefit-cost (BC) analysis found EBROnline had a ratio of 0.6, indicating that for every dollar of investment it earned a return of $0.60. ArchPad had a ratio of 0.7. While these applications, as used in the OTIA III program, were not as successful as hoped, there is no reason to believe that similar applications could not be successful in the future. EBROnline was more expensive than warranted by the level of use and a less expensive version introduced January 2011 Page 55 of 199

earlier in the process may have had a positive BC ratio. Subconsultants reported they did not use ArcPad because it was redundant with surveys that were needed during the design phase. Such a tool is more appropriate to help build GIS databases during planning and scoping phases. A similar tool may yet prove valuable for post construction documentation. 1.0 BACKGROUND OTIA III Environmental Prior to the OTIA III Program, ODOT engaged in an effort to collect comprehensive environmental data on over 400 bridge sites. This collection of baseline data against which impacts could be calculated and the frontloading of the environmental effort allowed the OTIA Program to obtain a Programmatic Permit. This had significant beneficial with scheduling and budgetary impacts for the OTIA III Program (the ROI for this effort is detailed in another benefit-cost study). The baseline reports and associated environmental performance standards also allowed for better pricing in design contracts by reducing project unknowns and providing guidance to the design teams. The baseline reports presented details on key environmental considerations. Data in the baseline reports were intended to be available in GIS format to aid in both environmental planning and design. These baseline reports were so successful that they were intended to become standard operating procedure for ODOT Geoenvironmental on all of their projects going forward. Additionally, EBROnline was originally intended to be part of a planned Environmental Management System (EMS). The EMS would be a series of processes and procedures supported by a technology toolkit. The EMS would help OTIA III manage and improve its environmental performance over the life of the Program by providing quantitative support of planning decisions. OTIA III GIS With the new EBR and EMS processes, OBDP GIS engaged ODOT GIS and Geoenvironmental to adopt compatible standards in hardware, software, programming and data standards. A series of interactive GIS applications within ODOT were branded as Trans-GIS. These applications present different groupings of transportation data to users within the Agency and provide users the ability to navigate and query transportation GIS datasets. Typically these applications group data by function for example, traffic or crash data while sharing a common basemap backdrop for reference and orientation (e.g., the state of Oregon with highways and cities). EBROnline was designed to fit within the TransGIS family, with enhanced functionality to more directly serve the Design phase of the OTIA III Program. One of the key features of the site is that Environmental Baseline (EBR) gathers data in preparation for the bridge replacement and rehabilitation program. Unlike the ODOT s TransGIS, the EBROnline is hosted by OBDP and is accessible to authorized users outside of the Agency network. ArcPad is an ESRI mobile GIS application that uses a global positioning system (GPS) to establish the location of environmental and infrastructure features within the layers of EBROnline. The intention of EBRArcPad was to provide a tool that could continuously update EBR Online Page 2 of 23 Page 56 of 199

EBROnline database in the correct format and to provide a record of infrastructure and environmental changes as projects were carried out. This would provide an invaluable resource for ODOT operations even after the conclusion of OTIA III. Additionally, the OBDP development effort was coordinated with ODOT GIS to provide prototypes for the Agency s own mobile data collection development efforts. The ODOT GIS Manager estimated that this effort precluded a $75K contract effort. Program Effects Initially EBROnline was moderately successful. Many design and environmental subcontractors accessed the site to obtain preliminary background information for project design and environmental review. Built-in tools were available to download base data for use in their own GIS. However, only a few consultants continued to use the site as projects progressed and none of the consultants interviewed mentioned a significant use of downloaded data other design and environmental subcontractors used the hardcopy EBRs directly without accessing EBROnline. In addition to design and environmental subconsultants, OBDP Environmental and Design staff used the site for a variety of purposes. The ArcPad tool was used less than expected. Environmental data on only 25 bridges were updated using the tool. From the point of view of the subcontractor, the primary benefit would have been as a substitute for surveying wetlands and other environmental features. Environmental scientists and technicians who used the tool believed it saved time. In practice, many subcontractors already collected and used GIS in the manner consistent with the ArcPad tool. However, most firms considered the ArcPad tool to be redundant with required surveys and did not use it and did not update EBR data in GIS. As a consequence of lack of results from ArcPad, the EBROnline database was not kept up to date as construction and environmental mitigation took place. While it was used extensively during 2005 and 2006, it is seldom used today. Events Affecting Adoption Several developments affected the adoption and usage of the EBROnline suite, and therefore the overall value of the efforts related to this system: Environmental scoping was still required. While the EBR database facilitated the Programmatic permit and the broad-based scoping of environmental impacts, subcontractors were still required to collect original data in their Design efforts. One consequence was that data obtained directly from OBDP, whether used online or downloaded, had only limited value and was not used extensively after initial scoping. Project GIS data were not designated as deliverable. The system was designed to use Program efforts to augment an Agency-wide database through ongoing operations. However, subconsultants were not required to provide updates of environmental data in GIS format. Instead they were only required to provide the data if they generated it anyway for other reasons. Without contractual impetus to deliver, most GIS data were never updated. The EMS toolkit was abandoned. As the EBROnline was being developed, there was a movement away from the technology suite by the ODOT environmental team. This, in turn, EBR Online Page 3 of 23 Page 57 of 199

de-prioritized the toolkit components and effectively changed the emphasis of the application to data portal and reference tool. EBRs were discontinued. The Agency s plans for making the EBR a standard procedure was tabled indefinitely. This removed the pull to develop supporting tools. 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 EBROnline and ArcPad Figure 1 shows the logic of the EBR Online and ArcPad structure. This diagram is derived from the user perspective. A flow chart from the IT perspective is contained in Appendix A. The EBROnline database is accessible through the web to ODOT staff, OBDP, subconsultants and others who obtain permission from OBDP GIS staff. Design and environmental staff could view site information online or download it. Downloaded GIS information could be viewed in the MicroStation CAD system for use by designers; although none of the design subconsultants interviewed seem to obtain EBRO site data in this way. There are two parts to the database. First is the original EBR data provided by Parametrix with additional GIS data layers. A second, the database was also intended to contain environmental and construction updates. Both databases were to have been available to all users of the site. The updates that were to be provided by subconsultants in ArcPad or other geo-coded data and installed by OBDP IT staff. Figure 1 TransGIS/ArcPad Logic User Web Interface ArcPad Updates Other Updates Trans GIS Database Original EBR data Environmental and Construction Updates Original Input GIS data layers & Original EBR data OBDP IT Staff Updates Geo-coded data EBR Online Page 4 of 23 Page 58 of 199

2.2 Alternative System The alternative system which was, in fact, used by most design and environmental subconsultants, was to go directly to the original EBRs either in hard copy or on DVD. While they lost some of the convenience of viewing and mapping information in GIS layers, these firms work with this type of information regularly and reported no difficulty in using the EBR. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS Since its creation the EBROnline website has been accessed 3,762 times. Those accessing the system most often include OBDP staff, ODOT staff and subconsultants. Several hundred other individuals also accessed the site to obtain data or out of general interest. The database was put online and was to have been updated by OBDP GIS staff; however, there were few updates. In addition to use by design and environmental subconsultants, the site was also used by OBDP staff for orientation, project planning and scoping, review of environmental data other purposes. Direct users also include those who used ArcPad to provide site information. All design and environmental subconsultants were potential providers of ArcPad updates. Four firms provided data on 25 bridges within ArcPad. Indirect users of the system information include ODOT and OBDP who contract for design and environmental work for which the site is used. To these indirect users the existence of EBROnline or ArcPad probably made little difference to the design and environmental work they were reviewing since it could have been and in fact was generated by other tools without impact on the final product under review. Table 1 EBROnline and ArcPad Users Direct Users Database updates ArcPad updates Output (EBROnline) OBDP GIS Staff (3) Construction and OBDP environmental subcontractors ODOT (4 actual) Sub-Consultants (18 firms) Other users OBDP ODOT Indirect Users 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS The benefits of EBROnline and ArcPad are based primarily on time savings compared to other methods of obtaining the same data for use in project design and environmental planning. In addition to time saving benefits there are anecdotal examples of other benefits from having EBR data readily available in a GIS format; however, these were not quantified. EBR Online Page 5 of 23 Page 59 of 199

4.1 Time Savings 4.1.1 EBROnline Log in data reveals that the EBROnline was accessed 3,762 times by 104 different firms or individuals. A summary of log in information is shown in Table 2. Of those who accessed the site, 34% were subconsultants to OBDP, although there is no way of knowing if they were working on OBDP jobs when they accessed the site. OBDP accounted for 36% of hits and the State of Oregon, mainly ODOT for 14% of hits. Seventeen design and environmental subcontractors used the site. These included most of the 18 prime subcontractors and several of the environmental specialty firms. Only five firms appeared to make substantial use, hitting it more than 35 times over the seven years. These five subcontractors were responsible for design or environmental work on 39 bundles. While the number of hits is not the sole measure of site use, there is no evidence that any other firms made substantial use of the information contained within the site. In theory, a subcontractor could go online and download all required information; but there is no evidence this was done. Table 2 shows that most of the activity on the site occurred during 2005 and 2006. This was to be expected because the tool was designed to be most useful at the beginning of the design process. Table 2 User Access to Trans-GIS Us ers 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total (to 10/4) OBDP 26 538 388 228 87 69 27 1,362 Consultants 24 499 360 211 80 64 25 1,264 ODOT & Other State 10 215 155 91 35 28 3 537 Other 10 or more hits 7 142 102 60 23 18 6 357 Other casual 5 98 70 41 16 13 0 242 Total 71 1,492 1,075 631 240 192 61 3,762 In order to understand what benefits were derived from using the EBROnlinesite, several subconsultants were interviewed, both from firms that used the site and others that did not. The design and environmental firms who made regular use of the site all believed it saved time during initial reconnaissance. Savings resulted from reduced sight visits and more easily accessible information for conceptual designs and environmental assessments. Savings estimates ranged from two hours per bridge to 24 hours for some bridges. Once into design, however, they went back to the hard copy or DVD formatted EBR. The firms that did not use the site extensively viewed the site during initial scoping, but did not feel it saved time. They used hard copy or DVD versions of EBR to complete environmental and design work. The five firms that made substantial use of the tool were involved in the design of approximately one-half of the total bridges in the program. Therefore, this estimate of time savings per bridge can be applied to only half the bridges in the program. Availability of the EBRO tool also resulted in time savings for OBDP staff. A survey of regular OBDP users revealed that they used the site for a variety of purposes including: EBR Online Page 6 of 23 Page 60 of 199

Project reviews and construction impacts. Orientation. Review of environmental data. Resource checks. Planning and scoping. Negotiating. These users felt they saved six to eight hours per bridge by using EBR Online. The use of the tool was not widespread, so it cannot be assumed that this level of savings was achieved for every bridge on the program. On the other hand, if several people experienced a small savings at different times, an overall savings per bridge of six to eight hours is credible. 4.1.2 ArcPad There were two sources of potential time savings with ArcPad. One savings was the time required to delineate environmental features for assessment purposes. Second was the time required to update EBROnline using the geo-coded data obtained through ArcPad. Potential time savings in delineating environmental features was controversial. One person who had used the tool thought it saved considerable time. However, others observed that the physical location of the sites had to be surveyed anyway and found the use of ArcPad to be redundant. It appears the tool would be more valuable for producing environmental baseline reports or assessments prior to the beginning of design work. The tool might also be valuable for tracking environmental changes after construction. The sites which updated EBROnline environmental information was submitted, the data submitted by ArcPad proved to be much more efficient to load the GIS database. It took approximately four hours per site to load data supplied on survey sheets compared to one-half hour per site for data generated by ArcPad and submitted in GIS format. Only 25 sites were submitted in this format. In summary the ArcPad tool had the potential to save significant amounts of time if applied at a different point in the process. However, given the limited number of sites for which the tool was actually used, the savings were very limited. 4.2 Indirect and Unquantified Benefits of EBROnline The presence of EBR information in EBROnline format proved useful when a site overview was required. In addition to use by OBDP and by design and environmental subcontractors, the site was accessed by many others who probably derived some benefit from the site. No attempt was made to determine the purpose of these visits or to quantify the benefits. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS EBR Online Page 7 of 23 Page 61 of 199

5.1 Development Costs The database containing environmental baseline files and GIS coded site information was originally produced as a part of the Parametrix scoping project early in OTIA III implementation. When OBDP came onto the project they worked with ODOT to put the information online in a format that could be easily accessed and used by design and environmental subcontractors. In order to accomplish this, data was migrated to new servers, additional data layers added and a web access tool put in place. Development costs of EBR Online, as discussed here, only relates to putting the database online and not to the creation of the original files. EBROnline was implemented at the same time as GIS Infrastructure and depends on the same hardware and software. About $4,500 of that hardware and software was attributed to EBR Online in a brief allocation study. Another $7,500 was attributed to the ArcPad tool. Development of EBR Online and ArcPad was accomplished jointly with 1,938 hours of labor at an estimated cost of $135,570. Approximately $122,000 of these costs were estimated to be attributable to EBR Online, with the rest attributable to ArcPad. In addition to developmental cost to put the tool online, the migration of the original data is estimated to have cost $150,000. Total cost of creating EBR Online is estimated at $276,468, recognizing that EBR Online would not work without GIS Infrastructure. The cost of bringing ArcPad online is estimated at an additional $21,113, recognizing that ArcPad would not work without EBR Online and GIS Infrastructure. 5.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 5.2.1 EBROnline EBROnline has three categories of operating costs: 1. Software licenses, which cost $6,919 per year. 2. Staff time, which ranges from 10 to 254 hours per year. Most staff time requirements were in 2005 and 2006, shortly after the database was put online and during the time when it was used most heavily. 3. Date storage, which is estimated at $11,400 per year. In total, O&M averaged $27,600 per year for the six full years of operation from 2005 through 2009 and ranged from $21,400 in 2009 to a high of more than $46,000 per year in 2005. 5.2.2 ArcPad Operation and maintenance costs for the ArcPad tool itself were very small and included on 15 hours per year of IT staff time in 2005 and 2006. There are no licensing requirements and any data storage resulting from its use is included in EBROnline. EBR Online Page 8 of 23 Page 62 of 199

5.3 Annual Life Cycle Cost 5.3.1 Life Cycle Costs for EBROnline Life cycle costs for EBROnline were calculated both through 2010 and through the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014. Through the end of the Program this tool will have cost an approximately $54,000 per year. This includes all O&M cost through 2010 and continues data storage and backup costs at OBDP rates through 2014. Since the tool will be taken off line after 2010 it may be more appropriate to consider the costs from 2004 through 2010. After 2010 there will be no further staff cost. Licenses, which are owned by ODOT, would no longer be relevant to this application. Through 2010, annualized costs are estimated at nearly $82,000 per year. Year Devel opm ent Table 3: EBROnline Annualized Life Cycle Cost Lic ense s Ope ration and Maintenance In te rn al IT Staff Data Storage/ Backup To tal O&M Total s by Ye ar Annualized Totals Pres ent valu e (2010) 3.74% Annualized 2004 $ 287,256 $ 6, 919 $ 1,038 $ 11,400 $ 28,225 $ 315,481 $ 393,234 2005 $ 6,919 $ 21,806 $ 11,400 $ 22,087 $ 22,087 $ 26,538 2006 $ 6,919 $ 16,295 $ 11,400 $ 21,437 $ 21,437 $ 24,828 2007 $ 6,919 $ 9,906 $ 11,400 $ 19,310 $ 19,310 $ 21,558 2008 $ 6,919 $ 3,768 $ 11,400 $ 22,087 $ 22,087 $ 23,770 2009 $ 6,919 $ 3,118 $ 11,400 $ 21,437 $ 21,437 $ 22,239 2010 $ 6,919 $ 991 $ 11,400 $ 19,310 $ 19,310 $ 19,310 Through 2010 $ 153,892 $ 441,148 $ 531,476 $ 81,766 2011 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,198 2012 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,119 2013 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,042 2014 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ 1,969 OTIA III To tal $ 287,256 $ 163,012 $ 450,268 $ 539,803 $ 53,980 Post OTIA III costs for EBROnline will depend on how ODOT uses the site. It is unlikely there would be a use for the site in its present format. It could simply be discontinued since all relevant data exists in the EBR reports and other environmental documentation. Alternatively, ODOT could also choose to fold the data on this site into its other Trans-GIS suites. Since the EBROnline site was designed to be consistent with ODOT GIS databases there would likely be minimal migration cost associated with that alternative. 5.3.2 Life Cycle Costs for EBRArcPad ArcPad life cycle costs are shown in Table 4. Through the end of the OTIA III Program, the tool will have cost $3,600 per year. However since there were not costs after 2006, it is also useful to calculate life cycle costs through that year. For the two year period, the annual life cycle cost is estimated at just over $18,000. EBR Online Page 9 of 23 Page 63 of 199

Table 4: Annualized Life Cycle Cost for EBR ArcPad Developme nt O&M Costs Annualize d Cost Costs Discounted IT Staff Total to 2010 Annualized 3. 74% 2004 $ 26,527 $ 26,527 $ 33,065 2005 $ 1,287 $ 1, 287 $ 1, 546 2006 $ 1,287 $ 1, 287 $ 1, 491 Total through 2006 $ 29,101 $ 36,102 2007 $ $ 2008 $ $ 2009 $ $ 2010 $ $ 2011 $ $ 2012 $ $ 2013 $ $ 2014 $ $ OTIA III Total $ 29, 101 $ 36,102 $ 3, 610 There are no expected future costs to this tool. Any associated data storage is a part of EBROnline and any subsequent database generated from that tool. Even if ODOT decides to continue using ArcPad after 2014, it would need to be replaced and will need to have new licensing agreements completely unrelated to OTIA III. 6.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS A BC analysis was conducted separately for EBROnline and ArcPad. EBROnline covered the six years from 2004 through October 2010. While ArcPad analysis covered the same period; there were no reported costs after 2006 or benefits after 2007. In order to compare annual benefits with original development costs, all costs were discounted to 2010 for both tools. The analysis used the following sources of information: Development and operating cost obtained from OBDP IT staff. Interviews with direct users of EBROnline and ArcPad. EBROnline log in data. A survey of OBDP EBROnline users. The BC analysis was carried out using an Excel spreadsheet supplemented with Palisades @Risk software. Use of these tools allowed two important calculations. First, when precise data was unknown, such as time savings per site for EBROnline users, the program allows the entry of a range of data. Second, the process established bounds of accuracy around the output of the model. For EBROnline this analysis found a BC ratio of only 0.6, meaning for every $1.00 in expenditures on the system it is returning only $0.60 in benefits. Net present value (NPV) is EBR Online Page 10 of 23 Page 64 of 199

estimated at -$145,000. Applying risk analysis to the results indicates a level of confidence in the outcome and the probability that the benefits could be higher or lower than the central estimate. Table 5 summarizes these results. It shows there is a 10% probability that the BC ratio is as low as 0.3 and a 10% probability that it could be 1.4, in which case EBROnline would earn a positive return. Table 5 Benefit-Cost Calculations for EBROnline Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (90%) Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.6 0.3 1.4 Net Present Value -$145,258 -$255,000 $214,000 Internal Rate of Return -6% -14% 26% There are two factors contributing to the less than favorable BC ratio. First, the tool seems to have cost more than expected. In particular, if migration costs had not been so expensive the BC ratio would have been closer to 1.0. Second, the program was not used as extensively as expected. Even those who did use it, found it was a convenience but rarely saved significant amounts of time. Risk analysis indicates that the most significant factor affecting the range of results is hours saved per bridge. 1 For ArcPad, this analysis found a BC ratio of 0.7, meaning for each dollar invested in the tool it earned a return of only $0.70. NPV was -$8,109, indicating a loss on the investment. Applying risk analysis to the results indicates a level of confidence in the outcome and the probability that the benefits could be higher or lower than the central estimate. The table shows there is a 10% chance that the BC ratio for ArcPad was as low as 0.4 and a 10% chance it ratio of 0.9. The two factors that most influence the range of risk are estimated upload time savings for ArcPad data compared to other sources and field time savings for those who used ArcPad. Table 6 Benefit-Cost Calculations for ArcPad Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (90%) Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.7 0.4 0.9 Net Present Value -$8,109 -$15,300 -$3,300 Internal Rate of Return -14% -29% -4% 1 For more information on impact of time savings per bridge, see Risk Output in Appendix C. EBR Online Page 11 of 23 Page 65 of 199

7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Neither the EBROnline or ArcPad tools were used to the extent expected when they were launched in 2004. The EBROnline database was expected to be a primary source for obtaining EBR information generated earlier for use in design and environmental reviews. EBROnline was expected to be updated throughout the process using the ArcPad tool which allowed consultants in the field to geo-code features using GPS. Only five design and environmental subconsultants seem to have made significant use of EBROnline and only four made use of ArcPad. The few consultants that used EBROnline reported time savings in early scoping due to the convenience of the tool. On occasion, fieldtrips could be reduced. However, once design work began, all subconsultants used hard copy or DVD versions of EBR rather than EBROnline. In addition to use by design and environmental consultants it was discovered that OBDP staff used the site for a number of purposes that improved program oversight and saved time. The tool appears to be more relevant early in planning and scoping phase and might be more productive if applied earlier in the process than they were in OTIA III. ArcPad was used on only 25 bridge sites and did not have a favorable BC ratio. Consultants who used it found it useful for delineating environmental features without need of survey and data gathered in this way proved easy to upload to a GIS database. However, most engineering and environmental firms found it was redundant because surveys had to be carried out anyway. Some firms that did not use ArcPad thought it could be useful if applied during planning, environmental baseline process and preliminary design phases where engineering precision was not an issue. These findings do not indicate that future use of similar tools would not be valuable if applied earlier. Based on these findings, ODOT might consider augmenting its own GIS databases with the type of information contained in EBROnline and make it available both internally and to consultants for planning, baseline and conceptual design work. ODOT might also consider acquiring an ArcPad type tool to speed collection of this type of data on a systematic basis. EBR Online Page 12 of 23 Page 66 of 199

APPENDIX C: EBRO BENEFIT-COST DOCUMENTATION B/C ANALYSIS OF EBR ONLINE LOGIC DIAGRAM EBR Online Page 13 of 23 Page 67 of 199

Variable Trans GIS BC Analysis Sources and Logic Source Logic General Information 1 Tech/Pro Rate OBDP 2 Total Use (hits) Trans GIS Log Ins (OBDP) Design and Environmental Use 3 Design complete OBDP (BRS) 4 Bundles started OBDP (BRS) 5 Bridge designs complete OBDP (BRS) = v3 * average bridges per bunde 6 % using Trasn GIS MFA Analysis 50% 7 TransGIS used = v5 * v6 8 Hour savings per bridge MFA Interviews 9 Total hourly savings = v7 * v8 10 Value of savings = v9 * v1 OBDP Use 11 Hours per bridge MFA survey and interviews 12 Total hours = v5 * v20 13 Savings = v21 *D21 14 Total Benefit =v10 + v13 Operation and Maintenance 15 Licenses OBDP 16 Maintenance Hrs OBDP total distributed by MFA 17 Maintenance Cost = v17 * v1 18 Data storage (GB) OBDP 19 Data Storage and Backup = v19 * $1.9 * 12 20 Total O&M = v16 + v18 + v19 Net Benefits 21 Total = v14 v20 22 NPV of Net Benefits = v21 discounted to 2010 at rate v29 Development Costs 23 Hardware and Software OBDP with allocations by MFA 24 Development hours OBDP with allocations by MFA 25 Internal Development OBDP with allocations by MFA 26 Data migration OBDP 27 Total = v23 + v25 + v26 Discounted 28 Development Costs = v27 discounted to 2010 at rate v29 Benefit Cost Analysis 39 Discount Rate 3.00% 40 BC Ratio = v22 / v28 41 NPV = v22 v28 42 IRR Rate at which v40=1.0 and v41=0 Outcome Ranges Calculated by @Risk Mean Ratio/NPV/IRR Calculated by @Risk Not used BC/NPV/IRR used only "Most Likely" direct calcuation EBR Online Page 14 of 23 Page 68 of 199

TransGIS Benefit Cost Analysis 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 General Information Tech/Pro Rate $ 80.01 $ 85.91 $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 Total Use (hits) 71 1,492 1,075 631 240 192 61 Design and Environmental Use Design complete 11 9 11 12 12 12 11 Bundles started 10 10 12 12 12 12 6 Bridges started 61 50 61 67 67 67 61 Percent using Trans 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% EBROnline used 31 25 31 33 33 33 31 Hour savings per brid 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 Total hourly savings 237.34 194.19 237.34 258.92 258.92 258.92 237.34 Value of savings 18,989.87 16,682.89 20,390.20 23,069.81 23,893.18 23,893.18 22,656.83 OBDP Use Hours per bridge 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total hours 428.75 350.80 428.75 467.73 467.73 467.73 428.75 Savings 34,304.29 30,136.84 36,833.91 41,674.50 43,161.87 43,161.87 40,928.48 Total Benefit $ 53,294.16 $ 46,819.73 $ 57,224.11 $ 64,744.31 $ 67,055.05 $ 67,055.05 $ 63,585.31 Operation and Maintenance Licenses $ 6,919 $ 6,919 $ 6,919 $ 6,919 $ 6,919 $ 6,919 $ 6,919 Maintenance Hrs 12 254 183 107 41 33 10 Maintenance Cost $ 1,037.68 $ 21,805.89 $ 16,294.74 $ 9,906.00 $ 3,767.73 $ 3,118.06 $ 990.63 Data storage (gb) $ 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Data Storage and bac $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 Total O&M $ 19,356.68 $ 40,124.89 $ 34,613.74 $ 28,225.00 $ 22,086.73 $ 21,437.06 $ 19,309.63 $ 185,153.72 Net Benefits $ 33,937.48 $ 6,694.84 $ 22,610.38 $ 36,519.32 $ 44,968.32 $ 45,618.00 $ 44,275.68 Total $ 200,686.53 NPV of net benefits $ 42,301.63 $ 8,043.99 $ 26,187.42 $ 40,771.94 $ 48,394.85 $ 47,324.11 $ 44,275.68 Total $ 214,997.99 EBR Online Page 15 of 23 Page 69 of 199

Development Costs Hardware and softwa$ 15,288 Development hrs 1,768 Internal Developme $ 121,968 Data Migration $ 150,000 Total $ 289,024.16 Present Value (2010) $ 360,256.31 Benefit Cost Analysis Discount rate 3.74% Results Most Likely Low Range (10%) H. Range (90%) BC Ratio 0.6 0.3 1.4 NPV $ (145,258) $ (255,000) $ 214,000 IRR 6% 14% 26% EBR Online Page 16 of 23 Page 70 of 199

@RISK Output Report for BC Ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:02:40 PM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 9 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed OBRO BC 31de10.xlsx Latin Hypercube 1/3/11 12:59:39 00:00:16 Mersenne Twister 344268001 Summary Statistics for BC Ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum (0.2) 5% 0.2 Maximum 2.2 10% 0.3 Mean 0.8 15% 0.4 Std Dev 0.4 20% 0.4 Variance 0.183090471 25% 0.5 Skewness 0.327077904 30% 0.6 Kurtosis 2.470334021 35% 0.6 Median 0.8 40% 0.7 Mode 0.7 45% 0.7 Left X 0.3 50% 0.8 Left P 10% 55% 0.8 Right X 1.4 60% 0.9 Right P 90% 65% 1.0 Diff X 1.2 70% 1.0 Diff P 80% 75% 1.1 #Errors 0 80% 1.2 Filter Min Off 85% 1.3 Filter Max Off 90% 1.4 #Filtered 0 95% 1.6 Regression and Rank Information for BC Ratio / M Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Hour savings per 0.977 0.978 2 Hours per bridge 0.176 0.169 3 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.052 0.036 4 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.049 0.046 5 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.047 0.043 6 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.045 0.051 7 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.044 0.046 8 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.034 0.020 EBR Online Page 17 of 23 Page 71 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:03:09 PM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Hour savings per bridge Hour savings per bridge / 2004 C14 RiskTrigen(2,7.75,24,10,90,RiskStatic(7.75 )) (5.11) 12.28 34.20 Category: Hours per bridge Hours per bridge / 2004 C19 RiskTrigen(6,7,8,10,90,RiskStatic(7)) 5.19 7.00 8.81 Category: Tech/Pro Rate Tech/Pro Rate / 2004 C5 RiskNormal(80.01,8.001,RiskStatic(80.01)) $ 60.00 $ 80.01 $ 100.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2005 D5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2006 E5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2007 F5 RiskNormal(89.1,8.91,RiskStatic(89.1)) $ 65.00 $ 89.10 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2008 G5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2009 H5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2010 I5 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.46 $ 120.00 EBR Online Page 18 of 23 Page 72 of 199

APPENDIX D: EBR ARCPAD BENEFIT-COST DOCUMENTATION B/C ANALYSIS OF ARCPAD LOGIC DIAGRAM EBR Online Page 19 of 23 Page 73 of 199

Benefit coast Analysis Sources and Logic ArcPad Variable Source Basic Input 1 Tech/Pro Rate OBDP Logic ArcPad Results Field staff/sub time savings per 2 bridge MFA Interviews 3 Upload time savings per bridge MFA Interviews 4 Total time savings per bridge = v2 * v3 5 Bridges submitted in ArcPad OBDP 6 Time savings = v4 * v5 7 Cost Savings = v1 * v6 8 Total Benefits = v7 Operation and Maintenance 9 Licenses OBDP 10 Maintenance hrs OBDP 11 Maintenance Costs = v1 * v10 12 Total O&M = v9 + v11 Net Benefits 13 Annual = v7 v12 14 NPV of Savings = v25 discounted to 2010 15 Total = sum v26 2004 to 2010 Development Costs 16 Equipement OBDP 17 Internal dev hrs OBDP 18 Internal Development = v1 * v17 19 Total = v16 + v18 20 Present Value (2010) = v19 discounted to 2010 Benefit Cost Analysis Discount Value 3% Results BC Ratio NPV IRR Outcome Ranges Mean Ratio/NPV/IRR Calculated by @Risk Calculated by @Risk = v15 / v20 = v15 v20 The rate at which BC=1.0 and NPV=0 Not used BC/NPV/IRR used only "Most Likely" direct calcuation EBR Online Page 20 of 23 Page 74 of 199

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Basic Input Tech/Pro Rate $ 80.01 $ 85.91 $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 ArcPad Results Field staff/sub time savings per bridge 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Upload time savings per bridge 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Total time savings per bridge 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 Bridges submitted in ArcPad 10 10 5 Time savings 85.00 85.00 42.50 Cost Savings $ 7,302 $ 7,302 $ 3,787 $ $ $ Total Benefits $ 7,302 $ 7,302 $ 3,787 $ $ $ Operation and Maintenance Licenses Maintenance hrs 15 15 Maintenance Costs $ 1,289 $ 1,289 $ $ $ $ Total O&M $ 1,289 $ 1,289 $ $ $ $ Net Benefits $ 6,014 $ 6,014 $ 3,787 $ $ $ Total $ 15,814 NPV of Savings $ 7,226 $ 6,965 $ 4,228 $ $ $ total $ 18,418 Development Costs Equipment $ 7,511 Internal dev hrs 170 Internal Developme $ 13,601 Total $ 21,282 Present Value (2010) $ 26,527 $ 26,527 Benefit Cost Analysis Discount Value 3.74% ArcPad Benefit Cost Analysis Results Most Likely Low range (10%) High range (90%) BC Ratio 0.7 0.4 0.9 NPV $ (8,109) $ (15,300) $ (3,300) IRR 14% 29% 4% EBR Online Page 21 of 23 Page 75 of 199

@RISK Output Report for BC Ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:43:57 PM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 9 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed ArcPad BC Analysis 31de1 Latin Hypercube 1/3/11 13:43:27 00:00:12 Mersenne Twister 447152027 Summary Statistics for BC Ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum 0.2 5% 0.4 Maximum 1.3 10% 0.4 Mean 0.6 15% 0.5 Std Dev 0.2 20% 0.5 Variance 0.028331962 25% 0.5 Skewness 0.149135668 30% 0.6 Kurtosis 2.770476903 35% 0.6 Median 0.6 40% 0.6 Mode 0.6 45% 0.6 Left X 0.4 50% 0.6 Left P 10% 55% 0.7 Right X 0.9 60% 0.7 Right P 90% 65% 0.7 Diff X 0.4 70% 0.7 Diff P 80% 75% 0.8 #Errors 0 80% 0.8 Filter Min Off 85% 0.8 Filter Max Off 90% 0.9 #Filtered 0 95% 0.9 Regression and Rank Information for BC Ratio / M Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Upload time savi 0.839 0.840 2 Field staff/sub tim0.420 0.403 3 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.248 0.239 4 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.149 0.133 5 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.146 0.119 6 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.089 0.089 7 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.000 0.025145474 8 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.000 0.016343651 9 Tech/Pro Rate / 2 0.000 0.009059352 EBR Online Page 22 of 23 Page 76 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:44:26 PM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Field staff/sub time savings per bridge Field staff/sub time savings per bridge / 2005 D8 RiskTrigen(2,3,4,10,90,RiskStatic(3)) 1.19 3.00 4.81 Category: Tech/Pro Rate Tech/Pro Rate / 2004 C5 RiskNormal(80.00526465,8.000526465,Risk Static(80.00526465)) $ 60.00 $ 80.01 $ 100.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2005 D5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2006 E5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2007 F5 RiskNormal(89.1,8.91,RiskStatic(89.1)) $ 65.00 $ 89.10 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2008 G5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 15.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2009 H5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2010 I5 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.46 $ 120.00 Category: Upload time savings per bridge Upload time savings per bridge / 2005 D9 RiskTrigen(3.5,5.5,7.5,10,90,RiskStatic(6)) 1.88 5.50 9.12 EBR Online Page 23 of 23 Page 77 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ENGINEERING DRAWING SYSTEM (EDS) The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Engineering Drawing System (EDS) for the OTIA III Bridge Program and to consider future options for its use after work is complete in 2014. This report is part of a series of reports that also includes Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Construction Engineering/Inspection tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), GIS Infrastructure, Preconstruction Assessment tool (PCA), Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO) with EBR ArcPad, Work Zone Traffic Analysis (WZTA) tool. Each report describes the tool s background and development, its operational logic, and the alternative system that would have been used if the tool not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct and indirect users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. Benefits of EDS were determined through interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs), intended users of the system, ODOT design staff and other users of similar systems. A benefit-cost (BC) analysis is performed for each system using risk analysis software. In each report, developmental and operational costs are evaluated from inception through 2010 and life cycle costs are evaluated based on costs from development through the end of the OTIA Program scheduled for 2014. For EDS, alternatives for maintaining electronic documents after 2014 are also discussed. Summary and recommendations are presented at the end of the report. Conclusions EDS was intended to provide a central point of access to all Architectural Engineering Consultants (AEC) content needed to properly manage the Program. Unfortunately, a series of problems plagued the system from its beginning and it was never used as intended. In spite of this, OBDP has uploaded all available drawings and CAD files so ODOT will have the information for future reference and use. A benefit-cost analysis performed on this system found a BC ratio of -0.3, meaning the system lost $0.30 for every dollar invested. The result of this project does not mean the use of a similar system would not be valuable to ODOT in the future. Other state DOT s and engineering organizations have found this type of system valuable and this experience provided lessons learned that are discussed at the end of the report. 1.0 BACKGROUND As a central repository to architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) content, EDS was intended to allow for the storage, transfer, search and retrieval of design-related information. AEC content consists of technical drawings, three-dimensional models, maps, relational data and December 2010 Page 78 of 199

other information. The content is typically created, used and shared by a large number of individuals from many different organizations throughout the lifecycle of the Program. It also provided users with the ability to open, view and redline native files as well. In addition, individuals can open and share compound documents with layers of information. The EDS solution chosen for the Program was the Bentley platform named ProjectWise. ProjectWise is a collaborative content management and content publishing solution specifically designed to optimize AEC content, workflows and data types. ProjectWise provides full support to the two industry-leader design file formats: MicroStation DGN and AutoCAD DWG files. EDS was expected to have some of the same advantages as other electronic document management systems, including: Serving as the central AEC content repository for the Program. Allowing document searches using keywords and by browsing the folder filing structure. Allowing for integration with Electronic Data Management System (EDMS). Controlling security by managing user IDs and permissions to folders and files. EDS was also expected to have several advantages over other electronic document management systems by: Facilitating design review by providing a mechanism to review, redline and comment on drawings in their native file format. Allowing documents and files to be stored in their native file format. Allowing batch plotting of multiple CAD files. Allowing CAD documents to be scalable and retain their dimensional information. The system was put online in late 2005. Unfortunately several obstacles made it impractical to use and it was abandoned within the first year. In their recommendation to end the use of EDS, OBDP noted the following factors: EDMS seemed to be fulfilling the Program need. A&E subcontractors objected to the software required to be installed on their computers. Uploads took excessive time. Design packages had to be submitted to EDMS anyway because the PS&E submittals included more than drawings and OBDP still needed drawings in pdf format. Continued use would have required additional training of A&E subcontractors. In addition to these factors, two of the presumed benefits of EDS were lost as a result of other software considerations. First, one assumed benefit of EDS was the ability to use Axiom SpecChecker to speed the review of design drawings; however, SpeckChecker could be used without EDS. Second, because OBDP did not have access to MicroStation software, some of the advantages of using CAD files in the EDS environment were lost. It was determined early that the subcontractors would not be required to use EDS and this caused the Program to reconsider the overall usefulness of the EDS. In order to meet future ODOT needs and contract obligations, OBDP staff uploaded drawings to the EDS system and will turn the entire system over to ODOT at the conclusion of the OTIA III Bridge Program. Electronic Drawing System Page 2 of 14 Page 79 of 199

2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 EDS (ProjectWise) Process The EDS process was intended to allow collaborative access to design drawings and files with the belief this would speed reviews and revisions and result in better products. The process is depicted in Figure 1. It begins with the design contractors uploading Micro-Station drawings to EDS, where the drawings are reviewed, changed, approved, stored and are available to contracting and other OBDP staff, as needed. The process was to include: 1. Contractor uploads Micro-Station files and drawings to the OBDP server where it is stored in EDS. 2. Documents are stored as either active or approved. Active projects may be modified in EDS or updated through subsequent uploads from the design contractor. 3. Reviewers access drawings through the EDS. 4. The Axiom SpecChecker tool is used to check compliance with ODOT engineering drawing standards. 5. Required changes and SpecChecker review are sent to the design contractor and loaded into EDS. 6. Design contractor makes required modification to drawings. Modifications could be made by downloading red-lined drawings from EDS, modifying and uploading the revised drawings. The drawing could also be made outside of EDS and uploaded to EDS. 7. When final drawings are approved they are locked and designated as approved documents. 8. Approved documents in EDS may then be used by contracting and construction personnel. The final drawings are printed on Mylar for delivery to ODOT. When the project is complete as-constructed drawings may be added to the files. Electronic Drawing System Page 3 of 14 Page 80 of 199

Figure 1: EDS Logic Flow (1) Design contractor uploads Mirco- Station file to OBDP server (7) Contractor modification and resubmittal (2) Documents stored in ProjectWise (3) Reviewer accesses drawings (a) Working Files (4) Drawings reviewed in SpecChecker (5) Red line review and requested changes (6) Sent to design contractor (b) Approved Docs (8) Final approval (9) Final Docs used by contracting/construction 2.2 Alternative System The alternative process actually being used is depicted in Figure 2. In most respects the process is identical. Design subcontractors upload files to EDMS. Reviewers still download the drawings for review in SpecChecker and send red-lined drawings and requested changes back to the contractor. After final approval, Mylar drawings are created for delivery to ODOT. The difference is since reviews are taking place outside the document management system, red-line corrections are sent to the contractor rather than loaded into the system. This does not appear to create any problems. In addition to the process described in Figure 2, OBDP has been obtaining Micro-Station files from the design consultants and uploading them into EDS (ProjectWise) for delivery to ODOT, as required under contract. However, EDS is not used by OBDP design staff during the actual design and contracting process. Electronic Drawing System Page 4 of 14 Page 81 of 199

Figure 2: EDS Alternative Process (1) Design contractor uploads drawings to EDMS (FileNet P8) on the OBDP server (7) Contractor modification and resubmittal (2) Drawings stored in FileNet P8 (3) Reviewer accesses drawings (c) Working Files (4) Drawings reviewed in SpecChecker (5) Red line review and requested changes (6) Sent to design contractor (d) Approved Docs (8) Final approval (9) Final Docs used by contracting/construction 3.0 SYSTEM USERS EDS was originally developed to be used by design subcontractors to deliver engineering drawings and Micro-Station files and by reviewers to deliver red-line drawings and comments. Output of EDS would be used by contracting and construction as well as reviewers. The primary indirect users were to have been ODOT Contracting and Construction, which require hard copy (Mylars) of design documents - see Table 1. Electronic Drawing System Page 5 of 14 Page 82 of 199

Input Design Contractors Reviewers Direct Users Table 1: EDS System Users Reviewers Contracts Construction Output Indirect Users ODOT Contracting ODOT Construction 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS Most of the benefits of the EDS tool would have come from the ability of design, contracting and construction to see the same files and use the same database to transmit comments, requested changes, revisions and supplemental information. The final documents could have been viewed online by contracting and construction as well as designers. In fact, most of these benefits were captured by storing the design documents in EDMS. 4.1 Time Savings The EDS was not used as intended, so it did not generate time savings. The EDS should have realized time savings for reviewers, contracting and construction people because of the availability of both drawings and CAD files on the EDMS. The SpecChecker tool did, in fact, save substantial time. However, this tool was used without EDS, so that the resulting time savings cannot be ascribed to the EDS. OBDP has since migrated the Micro-Station files into the EDS. Doing so will increase total time, but it will meet contract requirements and may make the system more useful for ODOT. 4.2 Other Benefits Some benefit of the EDS may still be realized when the design files are delivered to ODOT in the ProjectWise database. ODOT will have both the CAD files in MicroStation and the drawings for reference and for future project development. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS 5.1 Development Costs Development costs amounted to $178,277 which included the following: Hardware: $11,234 for required server blade. Licensing and set up by Bently. o Licenses $8,113. o Other servers and hardware $38,750. o Set up and training $57,626. Internal IT development $62,530. Electronic Drawing System Page 6 of 14 Page 83 of 199

5.2 Maintenance and Operation Annual operations costs were primarily in the form of software licenses. The licenses are owned by ODOT and amount to $6,919 per year. In addition, a small amount of IT staff time was incurred during the first year of operation and approximately 200 hours of professional staff time were required in 2009 and 2010 for the purpose of uploading project files into the EDS. On average, this amounted to $10,750 per year for the six years from 2005 through 2010. Data storage and backup is very small because the design and CAD files contained in the EDS are vector files which are very efficient to store when compared to photographs or pdf files. 5.3 Average Annual Life Cycle Cost A life cycle cost analysis of the EDS shows annual cost of approximately $33,000 per year from 2004 through the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014. The annualized cost was calculated by adding all development and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs by year, discounting to 2010 and taking average annual cost. Year Development Costs Table 2 EDS Life Cycle Cost Elements Licensses Operation Cost Loading design docs (OBDP) Data Storage/ Backup Total Totals by Year Annualized Total 2004 $ 189,511 $ 189,511 236,217 2005 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 8,689 2006 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 8,375 2007 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 8,073 2008 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 7,782 2009 $ 6,919 $ 9,546 $ 312 $ 16,777 $ 16,777 17,405 2010 $ 6,919 $ 9,880 $ 312 $ 17,111 $ 17,111 17,111 2011 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 6,971 2012 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 6,719 2013 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 6,477 2014 $ 6,919 $ 312 $ 7,231 $ 7,231 6,244 OTIA III Total $ 189,511 $ 91,740 $ 281,251 330,064 Present value (2010) Annualized 3.7% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 33,006 One of the significant issues for the EDS is what ODOT intends to do with the files after 2014. There appear to be three options: 1. The files could simply be deleted on the basis that the final design documents are available in other formats. However, not all MicroStation files were loaded into EDMS, so this could result in the loss of some CAD files. 2. The files could be migrated to a non-proprietary tool (other than Bentley ProjectWise) and stored until ODOT decides what to do with the files. Unless ODOT is retaining the licenses for ProjectWise, this avoids licensing costs. 3. The files could be retained in EDS, based on ProjectWise software. If ODOT is maintaining the ProjectWise licenses, this would be an inexpensive option. For the second and third options there could be a small amount of migration cost and a small amount of continued storage. Electronic Drawing System Page 7 of 14 Page 84 of 199

6.0 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS A benefit-cost (BC) analysis was conducted with only developmental and operational costs but without benefits over the time period from 2004 through 2010. The resulting BC ratio was - 0.3. Net present value NPV was -$303,000, which, because there were no benefits in the calculation, is the present value of all development and O&M costs. Also, because there were no positive returns, a valid internal rate of return (IRR) could not be calculated. A risk analysis was conducted as a standard part of the spreadsheet used in the BC calculations. The results are shown in Table 3. Since most costs are known and there is little uncertainty about how the tool was used, there is very little potential variation within the results. Table 3: Benefit-Cost Summary for EDS Estimated Value 90% Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (90%) Benefit-Cost Ratio -0.3-0.3-0.3 Net Present Value -$303,000 -$306,000-301,000 The question could be asked, what level of benefits would have justified these costs? The answer is that benefits of $46,000 or more per year from 2005 through 2010 would have resulted in a break even BC ratio of 1.0. A time savings of 350 to 400 hours per year at typical consultant billing rates would have generated this level of benefit. Alternatively, now that drawings and related CAD files are loaded into the system, a value of $303,000 would yield a BC ratio of 1.0 and justify total costs. If ODOT places a value of more than this amount on having these files in the ProjectWise database, then from the agency point of view this might be regarded as a viable project even though the OTIA III Program earned no positive returns. 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The original concept behind EDS had merit in providing drawings and CAD files associated with OTIA III Bridges in a format that would allow for more efficient plan review, update and communication. Unfortunately, a series of problems plagued the tool from the beginning and the system was never used as intended. Despite this, OBDP has uploaded all available drawings and CAD files so ODOT will have the information for future reference and use. The unfortunate result of this project does not mean the use of a similar system would not be valuable to ODOT in the future. Other state DOTs and engineering organizations have found this type of system to be valuable. There are, however, three lessons learned: 1. For a system like EDS to be successful, it must be easily accessible at a reasonable cost to all parties involved in design, design review and contracting. Otherwise, its use will be limited. In this case the process broke down in the beginning because: (1) it was so difficult for design consultants to access the system and load files; (2) some firms objected to having to Electronic Drawing System Page 8 of 14 Page 85 of 199

use additional software to transmit documents; and (3) the cost of compatible software was a barrier to smaller firms. 2. If more than one system is used to process documents it will be seen as redundant by the users, especially those who are required to load information into the systems. In this case, since documents were already loaded into EDMS, loading files into EDS was considered by many to be redundant. 3. The system would be easier to sell to potential users if they saw an immediate benefit to their own work. EDS is described as allowing collaboration, yet those responsible for populating the files saw no particular benefit. If a future system could be developed in which each of the collaborating partners saw a benefit to their own activities it would likely be more successful. Electronic Drawing System Page 9 of 14 Page 86 of 199

APPENDIX A: EDS BENEFIT-COST DOCUMENTATION B/C ANALYSIS OF EDS LOGIC DIAGRAM Electronic Drawing System Page 10 of 14 Page 87 of 199

Variable Basic Input 1 Tech/Pro Rate OBDP EDS Benefit Cost Analysis Sources and Logic Source Logic 2 EDS Total Benefits No Value No Value Operation and Maintenance 3 Licenses OBDP Cost Analysis 4 Loading Design Docs hrs OBDP Design 5 Personnel Costs = v1 * v4 6 Data Storage and Backup OBDP IT 7 Total O&M = v3 + v5 + v6 Net Benefits 8 Total = v2 v7 9 NPV of Net Benefits v8 annual discounted to 2010 at rate v16 10 total = sum of annual v9 Development Costs 11 Equpemnt OBDP Cost Analysis 12 Licenses & set up OBDP Cost Analysis 13 Internal Development OBDP Cost Analysis 14 Total = v11 + v12 + v13 15 Present Value (2010) v 14 discounted to 2010 at rate v16 Benefit Cost Analysis 16 Discount Value 3.72% 17 BC Ratio = v9 / v15 18 NPV = v9 v15 19 IRR Rate at which v17 = 1.0 and v18 = 0 Electronic Drawing System Page 11 of 14 Page 88 of 199

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Basic Input Tech/Pro Rate $ 85.91 $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 EDS Total Benefits $ $ $ $ $ $ Operation and Maintenance Licenses $ 6,919.00 $ 6,919.00 $ 6,919.00 $ 6,919.00 $ 6,919.00 $ 6,919.00 Loading Design Docs hrs 100.00 100.00 Personnel Costs $ $ $ $ $ 9,546.00 $ 9,546.00 Data Storage and Backup $ 312.00 $ 312.00 $ 312.00 $ 312.00 $ 312.00 $ 312.00 Total O&M $ 7,231.00 $ 7,231.00 $ 7,231.00 $ 7,231.00 $ 16,777.00 $ 16,777.00 Net Benefits $ (7,231.00) $ (7,231.00) $ (7,231.00) $ (7,231.00) $ (16,777.00) $ (16,777.00) Total $ (62,478.00) NPV of Savings $ (8,688.20) $ (8,374.97) $ (8,073.04) $ (7,781.99) $ (17,404.46) $ (16,777.00) total $ (67,099.66) Development Costs Equpemnt $ 11,234.00 Licenses & set up $ 115,747.00 Internal Development $ 62,530.00 Total $ 189,511.00 Present Value (2010) $ 236,217.40 EDS Benefit Cost Analysis Benefit Cost Analysis Discount rate 3.74% Results Most likely Low (10%) High (90%) BC Ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 NPV $ (303,317) $ (306,000.00) 301,000 IRR NA NA NA Electronic Drawing System Page 12 of 14 Page 89 of 199

@RISK Output Report for BC Ratio / Most likely Performed By: Mark Date: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:37:21 PM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 6 Number of Outputs 2 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed EDS BC Analysis.xlsx Latin Hypercube 12/17/10 11:23:50 00:00:07 Mersenne Twister 1 Summary Statistics for BC Ratio / Most likely Statistics Percentile Minimum 0.3 5% 0.3 Maximum 0.2 10% 0.3 Mean 0.3 15% 0.3 Std Dev 0.0 20% 0.3 Variance 6.78247E 05 25% 0.3 Skewness 0.001674594 30% 0.3 Kurtosis 3.011005022 35% 0.3 Median 0.3 40% 0.3 Mode 0.3 45% 0.3 Left X 0.3 50% 0.3 Left P 10% 55% 0.3 Right X 0.3 60% 0.3 Right P 90% 65% 0.3 Diff X 0.0 70% 0.3 Diff P 80% 75% 0.3 #Errors 0 80% 0.3 Filter Min Off 85% 0.3 Filter Max Off 90% 0.3 #Filtered 0 95% 0.3 Regression and Rank Information for BC Ratio / Mo Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Tech/Pro Rate / 201 1.000 1.000 2 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.000 0.011473319 3 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.000 0.00612967 4 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.000 0.00449662 5 Tech/Pro Rate / 2000.000 0.00382607 Electronic Drawing System Page 13 of 14 Page 90 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:37:40 PM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Tech/Pro Rate Tech/Pro Rate / 2005 D5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2006 E5 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2007 F5 RiskNormal(89.1,8.91,RiskStatic(89.1)) $ 65.00 $ 89.10 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2008 G5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2009 H5 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2010 I5 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.46 $ 120.00 Electronic Drawing System Page 14 of 14 Page 91 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EDMS) The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partner s (OBDP) Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) for the OTIA III Bridge Program and to consider future options for its use after completion of OTIA III in 2014. This report is part of a series that also includes the Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Construction Engineering/Inspection tool (CEI), Engineering Drawing system (EDS), GIS Infrastructure, Preconstruction Assessment tool (PCA), EBR Online with EBR ArcPad, and Work Zone Traffic Analysis (WZTA) system. Each report describes the background and development of the tool by Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP), its operational logic, and the alternative system that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users of the technology who benefit from the tool but do necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. For EDMS, benefits were determined through interviews of subject matter experts in OBDP and ODOT, interviews and observation of users, a cost analysis of an alternative paper system and a survey of users. A benefit-cost analysis is performed for each tool using risk analysis software. In each report, developmental and operational costs were evaluated from inception through 2010 and life cycle costs are evaluated based on costs from development through the end of the OTIA Program in 2014. For EDMS, alternatives for maintaining electronic documents after 2014 are also discussed. Conclusions are presented at the end of the report. Conclusions The purpose of the EDMS is to provide a central repository for all documents associated with the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program managed by OBDP under contract with ODOT. The tool generated significant benefits to the OTIA Bridge Program in time savings for document storage, retrieval and management. The system: Reduced staff needs. Reduced the need for paper files and paper documents. Improved accessibility to documents from multiple locations. Improved document management, avoiding circulation of multiple or outdated versions of documents. Improved security. The benefit-cost (BC) ratio calculated for EDMS in this study is 6.1, meaning for every dollar of investment the tool returned $6.10 in benefits. The tool achieved this benefit even though copies of most documents still must be submitted to ODOT in paper form. This is because in most cases only a limited number of the final versions of paper documents need to be printed. January 2011 Page 92 of 199

1.0 BACKGROUND The EDMS system used by OBDP is IBM s FileNet P8 system. The system offers a means of adding documents to an online repository and associating properties with those documents to make them easier for users to locate and retrieve. It also provides a method to check-out and check-in documents so additional versions may be created and retained without overwriting previous versions. EDMS facilitates collaboration by allowing all parties to simultaneously locate and use the most recent version of an electronic document. Additionally, the system supports a wide variety of document and data formats. Documents stored in EDMS often include multiple pages and/or multiple versions which are stored and counted as a single document. EDMS users may upload, search, view, check-out and check-in documents according to the user group to which they belong, or the access rights specifically granted by the individual who added the document to the EDMS system. In coordination with the IT staff, access to EDMS is managed through OBDP s Document Control Unit, which is charged with managing all documents created and processed by the program. Access to specific documents is usually controlled by the template used to add/upload documents which specifies the groups of users who are allowed use or modify the document. Access control can also be added by the individual uploading the document or by the Document Control Unit. The FileNet version of EDMS went on line in September 2005 and initially contained 12,460 documents transferred from a temporary EDMS system set up by OBDP in 2004. It is the official repository for most of the records in the Program and, since 2005, the number of documents stored has increased to approximately 210,000. Under its contract with ODOT, most OBDP deliverables must still be delivered in paper and electronic form. Further, under its contract with ODOT, OBDP must provide all documents in hard copy and electronic formats which are required to be retained and kept accessible for a minimum of six (6) years. However, most working documents are not in paper and the existing paper documents are not managed in a comprehensive, active paper filing system. Thus, the benefits of EDMS are not significantly reduced. 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 Using EDMS (FileNet P8) Figure 1 shows a schematic of the EDMS system from a user s perspective. The process includes two basic tasks: uploading documents and retrieving documents. Uploading documents involves first creating an electronic version of the document. In some cases the document may already exist on the user s computer. When paper documents need to be entered into EDMS they must first be scanned to create electronic copies. In any case, EDMS is not a document creation tool. Once the document is created, the user goes online and finds the appropriate EDMS template to use to upload the document. The template contains data fields that must be filled-in by the user. The fields completed by the user provide the metadata, or indexing tags, associated with the specific document being uploaded this helps facilitate retrieval of the document. The template also assigns the user group(s), which also determines the type of access (e.g.: rights to view the Electronic Document Management System Page 2 of 26 Page 93 of 199

document, rights to add a new version, etc) the users have to the document. At this stage, naming the document correctly, using the correct naming convention, is critical so the document will be easier to retrieve after it is uploaded. Once the template has been completed, the document is uploaded into the EDMS. Figure 1: EDMS Schematic Document Entry Process EDMS (FileNet, P8) External Document preparation Web Based Interface Document Templates (Metadata) Search Engine Document Retrieval Process Web Based Interface Search engine identifies document Security settings determine if document is available to user Document opened on user screen Document Storage Security Protocols Document retrieval is the other critical function of any document management system. The user begins the retrieval process by logging into EDMS and either searching by entering information in the appropriate property criteria and executing the search, or browsing through file folders. If the user has the right to view the document or its properties, the document will appear in the search results or in the file folder. When documents are modified and uploaded as a new version to a pre-existing document, the document s metadata as entered through the template will indicate there is a revised document and display it as the newest version. A user with the appropriate access rights can always view previous versions. EDMS also is used to archive appropriate program email for OBDP. 2.2 Alternative System The alternative to EDMS is a combination of electronic and manual filing systems. The specific flow chart would depend on the specific component. For instance, the Construction Engineering/Inspection tool allows construction inspection documents to be created and stored electronically. However, since ODOT does not accept electronic signatures at this time, a hard Electronic Document Management System Page 3 of 26 Page 94 of 199

copy form is signed and placed in the appropriate field office s paper filing system for the bundle and stored in an off-site storage facility at the end of each project. In a typical paper filing system documents are sent to a specific location where the records are identified, classified and filed in an appropriate location. If a document must be retrieved from the official file a retrieval request is sent by the person needing the record to individuals in Document Control who physically retrieve it. If the request is for a record stored in an off-site facility, the request must be sent to another location and a copy must be made so the official copy is not lost. In some instances paper or computer files, without document management structures, can have initial advantages over EDMS. Sometimes it is faster to retrieve the filed document because there is no need for document preparation especially when the document to be filed only exists in paper form. Using paper systems also reduces the need for document templates and naming conventions, although good paper systems contain filing protocols which provide some of the same functions. The disadvantages appear in management and distribution of files. Without search engines, naming conventions and other metadata, documents can get lost in the system. Also, the user s ability to determine that they have the latest version is limited. Finally, paper copies are only available at specific physical sites during business hours. The EDMS files are available wherever there is internet service. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS Table 1 is a listing of direct and indirect users. Direct users are those who log into the EDMS system and include OBDP staff, ODOT Major Projects Branch (MPB) staff, other ODOT field staff and consultants working with OBDP. For most OBDP staff, EDMS is the day-to-day file system and almost all working and final documents are stored within the system. Staff uses the system to retrieve documents, as needed, to perform their work activities. MPB uses EDMS primarily to review or retrieve documents prepared by OBDP, sub-consultants, design contractors and construction project staff. ODOT construction field staff, working on OTIA III construction bundles, upload construction documents and design contractors upload drawings and design documents into EDMS. Other consultants, such as the program audit consultant, use EDMS to review document submittals and other information. Direct Users OBDP staff ODOT Major Projects Unit ODOT Construction field staff Design consultants Other OBDP sub consultants Table 1: EDMS Users Indirect Users OBDP Staff ODOT Environmental and regulatory agencies Interested parties requesting information Electronic Document Management System Page 4 of 26 Page 95 of 199

Indirect users are those who obtain or submit documents to the system but do not log in and include management or professional staff of the organizations already discussed who may have assistants upload or retrieve information. Indirect users also includes environmental agencies, other agencies and anyone who requests information about projects or programs that is stored in EDMS. The indirect users receive some of the same benefits as the direct users in terms of time savings in obtaining or storing information since requests can be fulfilled by anyone having access to the files, regardless of the physical location. 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS 4.1 Time Savings Time savings benefits of EDMS are substantial. Compared to a comprehensive active paper filing system, EDMS requires a few seconds or minutes to upload/add or retrieve a document from any location with EDMS access. With a proper paper filing system someone must be employed to place a record in the correct cabinet and folder or physically retrieve a document, which can take a few minutes at best. If the person actually adding or retrieving the record is at another location additional time is needed to send the document(s) to or from the filing system location. In addition to filing and retrieval time, a paper system also requires physical activities to organize documents, manage versions of the document and remove unnecessary records. Organizations may seek to reduced the inconvenience of paper files by keeping copies of needed files at multiple locations and by keeping copies on computers, even if not in a document management system. These approaches lose the benefits of EDMS in terms of document control and security, even though they may eliminate some, or all, of the management time differential. 4.1.1 Paper System Time Requirements Given the difficulty of direct comparisons, the approach taken by this analysis was to estimate the personnel costs associated with maintaining a comprehensive active paper filing system with the time requirements of using EDMS. A special analysis was undertaken to determine the requirements of a paper system to handle the same type and volume of documents generated by the OTIA III Bridge Program. The average document generated by the OTIA III program was estimated to be equivalent to five printed pages. The approach takes account of both the various sizes of documents stored as well as the fact that a paper system would only retain the latest draft of a document rather than all revisions. Using this sizing criteria and limiting the count to most recent drafts, the 210,000 documents now contained in EDMS would require 88 equivalent five drawer cabinets to house. (See Appendix A for more detail.) Consultations with experts on file management and archives established that a single file clerk can handle between 1.5 and 6 cabinets of active files. Since all OTIA III files are active, but recognizing that many of the files are not used on a regular basis, a conservative estimate of six cabinets per clerk was used in the analysis. The result is that to manage the volume of documents in the EDMS system today with paper files would require 14.5 clerks. Over the six years of this analysis staffing requirements for a paper system would have averaged 14,500 hours per year. Electronic Document Management System Page 5 of 26 Page 96 of 199

In addition to the cost of maintaining the central files is the cost to other staff of retrieving files. An assumption was made that submission of files would be handled by clerical staff associated with the central filing system already discussed. Using very conservative time requirements for retrieving files it was estimated that other staff would spend an average of 1,200 hours per year on this activity. 4.1.2 EDMS Time Requirements By comparison EDMS is estimated to have required an average of 6,600 staff hours per year, over the same period, to manage and administer the system. Additionally, the time of other staff members who upload and retrieve electronic documents was also taken into account. The activities, which are explained in Table 2, are estimated to have required an average of 2,500 hours per year since EDMS went into online. Uploading and retrieving documents is a function carried out by a variety of individuals throughout OBDP and ODOT. Observations of OBDP and ODOT staff using EDMS led to creation of Table 2 showing estimated time required to upload and retrieve documents. Table 2 EDMS User Time Requirements User characteristic Typical time requirements for uploading documents Typical time requirements for searches Frequent and experienced user 30 sec 2 min. 30 sec 2 min. Infrequent user of familiar documents 1 min. 10 min. 1 min. 15 min Infrequent user of unfamiliar documents 1 min 15 min 1 min 20 min First time user 5 min 30 min 2 min 20 min Has another experienced staff retrieve document instead Add 10 min The table shows that experienced users seem to navigate the system in a matter of seconds to upload or retrieve documents. Inexperienced and first time users, however, often find the process intimidating and frustrating because of the number of steps involved and specific requirements of templates, naming conventions and search requirements. In fact, it was discovered through interviews that a significant number of the documents downloaded by frequent users are actually being retrieved on behalf of people who find the system too difficult to use. In those cases another 10 minutes is typically added to the time requirements of the frequent user who fulfils the requested retrieval (5 minutes for the requesting party and 5 minutes for the assisting party). A survey of EDMS users found that 80% of access to EDMS was by frequent and experienced users who entered the system five times per day or more and those users almost universally indicate that EDMS saves time. 4.1.3 Summary of Time Comparison In summary, EDMS is estimated to have required a total of 9,100 hours per year including central staff time and the time other staff spend uploading and retrieving files. By comparison, a Electronic Document Management System Page 6 of 26 Page 97 of 199

paper system designed to handle the same quantity of files would have required 15,700 hours. Total estimated savings is 6,600 hours per year which is equivalent to 3.5 full time employees. It should be noted that benefit-cost calculations showed that in the first two years of the program a paper filing system might have actually required less time. This is due to the staff time required to implement EDMS, plus upload and retrieval time was more than the required staffing of a comprehensive paper system for the same number of documents. However, as the number of documents managed by OBDP has grown, the equivalent paper system would require more than 14 people to operate and would far exceed the cost of EDMS. 4.2 Other Direct Benefits Another direct benefit of EDMS is the reduction of office space and file cabinets that would otherwise have been required for a paper system. It was estimated that these would have cost an additional $7,000 per year without EDMS. There is likely to have been savings in paper costs as well, but since deliverables and documentation must still be produced in paper for contractual and legal reasons, the amount of savings is small. 4.3 Indirect and Unquantified Benefits Three of the most significant benefits were not quantified within this analysis. The first is the control of documents, including version management. The user of EDMS can be much more certain the document they have obtained through the system is the correct version. When working with contracts and in reporting, this can be valuable. Second, the fact that the documents can be shared easily and everyone viewing the document can be certain they are looking at the same information saves time in coordination, decision making and management. In the user survey, this feature of EDMS was most often identified as the most significant feature of EDMS besides time savings. Security is another significant benefit of EDMS. The system is set up so documents can be entered, retrieved and altered only by authorized users. Access rights can be set by document or type of document so users can view the records they need but restrict documents they should not be able to access. In addition users cannot alter documents unless they are authorized to do so. When documents are updated by authorized personnel a record is kept of the person making the change. The original document can be viewed to compare and identify the changes that were made on the subsequent version. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS 5.1 Development Costs EDMS replaced a previous document control system which, at the time of transition already contained 12,460 documents. EDMS cost $273,400 to bring online in 2005. The costs included: Equipment: $26,700 FileNet License: $104,200 Internal development costs (IS staff): $142,500. Electronic Document Management System Page 7 of 26 Page 98 of 199

5.2 Maintenance and Operation Operation and Maintenance and operation (O&M) cost an estimated $421,000 per year since the FileNet system was brought online. Annual operations and maintenance include: Central management and administration, including the Document Control Manager and staff dedicated to managing EDMS is estimated at 6,600 hours or approximately $376,000 per year. The costs include maintaining and modifying templates, managing files within EDMS, correcting errors and assisting other staff who are using EDMS. The costs do not include uploading and retrieving documents, which were included in calculation of time savings benefits. Licenses of $2,500 per year. System support averaging $21,500 per year. Data storage costs have grown from an estimated $3,700 in 2005 to nearly $37,000 in 2010. 5.3 Life Cycle Costs The life cycle costs of EDMS assume that OBDP operates the FileNet system until the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014. Over this period the annualized costs through 2014 are more than $435,000. Calculations are shown in Table 3, which extends estimated M&O costs through 2014, sums all costs by year and annualizes the cost over the 10 years the EDMS tool will have been implemented. Table 3: Life Cycle Calculation for EDMS Year Development Maintenance and Operation Total File Discounted Licenses IS Support Manaement Data Storage Total Total Value Annualized 4% 2004 $ 217,292 $ 217,292 $ 270,845 2005 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 347,901 $ 3,707 $ 375,643 $ 375,643 $ 451,343 2006 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 360,519 $ 10,476 $ 395,030 $ 395,030 $ 457,526 2007 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 373,872 $ 17,246 $ 415,153 $ 415,153 $ 463,497 2008 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 387,224 $ 24,015 $ 435,275 $ 435,275 $ 468,442 2009 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 387,226 $ 30,502 $ 441,763 $ 441,763 $ 458,285 2010 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 400,577 $ 36,988 $ 461,600 $ 461,600 $ 461,600 2011 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 359,594 $ 40,687 $ 424,316 $ 424,316 $ 409,019 2012 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 315,251 $ 44,756 $ 384,043 $ 384,043 $ 356,851 2013 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 267,364 $ 49,232 $ 340,631 $ 340,631 $ 305,102 2014 $ 2,507 $ 21,528 $ 215,865 $ 54,155 $ 294,055 $ 294,055 $ 253,889 OTIA III Total $ 3,967,510 $ 4,184,802 $ 4,356,399 $ 435,640 In addition to the annualized cost of operation through 2014, there will probably be costs to ODOT after the OTIA III program ends. All program deliverables including all design and construction documents will have been printed and delivered in hard copy. However, if ODOT wants to maintain access to the electronic files they must be migrated in some way. There appear to be three primary options to accomplish this: 1. Transfer the electronic files to ODOT servers and stop using FileNet. Individual files could be retrieved, but search and file management capabilities that depend on FileNet Electronic Document Management System Page 8 of 26 Page 99 of 199

would be lost. Under this scenario data migration costs would be small and there would be no additional FileNet licenses. 2. ODOT could continue to operate EDMS with a licensed copy of FileNet 3.5. Migration costs would be small or non-existent. A single license would have to be obtained to allow access and active file storage would have to be maintained on ODOT servers. 3. A third approach would be to integrate the EDMS documents into ODOT s FileNet 4.5 system. This is by far the most expensive option. Changes from FileNet 3.5, used by OBDP, to FileNet 4.5, used by ODOT, could require a great deal of file manipulation to make the existing EDMS files consistent with the ODOT FileNet system. Migration costs in this scenario could reach $500,000. However, once the files were moved there would be no need for a separate license. 4. A hybrid option would be to maintain the FileNet 3.5 license in the short term, migrate files to other ODOT systems as the need arise over the next five years and shut down the system after 2019. In all of these options a major cost will be data storage. By 2014 it is estimated that storage costs on OBDP servers will have reached more than $50,000 per year. ODOT s data storage costs are expected to be considerably higher. 6.0 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS A benefit-cost (BC) analysis was conducted for the six year period 2005 through 2010. In order to compare annual benefits with original development costs, all costs were discounted to 2010. The analysis used the following sources of information: Cost data obtained through OBDP IS staff in a one-day focus group session, with follow up as the analysis was completed. A study by Document Control Manager, Laurie Sletten, of the cost of replacing EDMS with a paper system. Interviews with system users, including observations of users actually using the system. A survey of EDMS users to determine use habits and impressions. A focus group on the use of EDMS for processing design documents. Annual benefits were calculated based on the following factors: Time savings compared to operating a paper system of equivalent size and complexity. Other costs savings compared to operating a paper system. Time requirements for users of EDMS to upload and retrieve documents (reduced benefits). The BC analysis was carried out using an Excel spreadsheet supplemented with Palisades @Risk software. Use of these tools allowed two important calculations. First, when precise data was unknown, such as upload time experience of EDMS users, the program allows the entry of a Electronic Document Management System Page 9 of 26 Page 100 of 199

range of data. Second, the process established bounds of accuracy around the output of the model. The analysis found a BC ratio of 6.1, meaning for every $1.00 in expenditures on the system it is returning $6.10 in benefits. Net present value (NPV) is estimated at approximately $1.3 million and the internal rate of return at 30%. Applying risk analysis to the results indicates a strong confidence in the results and a possibility that the benefits could be much higher than the initial estimate. Table 4 summarizes the results and shows there is a 10% probability that the BC ratio is lower than 5.1 and a 10% possibility that it could be as high than 24.3. The reason for the possibility that the BC ratio could be much higher, but not much lower has to do with the assumptions about an alternative comprehensive paper system. The costs of that system were estimated at the low range of possible costs. If the cost of that system were higher than the savings from EDMS, then the savings and BC ratio would rise. Table 4 Benefit-Cost Calculations for Construction Engineering/Inspection (CEI) Tool Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (10%) Benefit-Cost Ratio 6.1 5.1 24.3 Net Present Value $1.3 million $1.1 million $6.0 million Internal Rate of Return 30% 25% 94% Complete details on the benefit cost analysis are contained in Appendix B. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The BC analysis compared EDMS to a paper system in order to understand the benefits of the tool. The study concluded that EDMS has significant benefits to the OTIA III Bridge Program. Among these are: Reduced staff needs. Reduced the need for paper files and paper documents. Improved accessibility to documents from multiple locations. Improved document management, avoiding circulation of multiple or outdated versions of documents. Improved security. The system would be valuable in any situation in which a disbursed group of users need access to a file system that provided time savings and document management benefits. Among the benefits of EDMS, the ability to share documents is highly valued by most users. The system has been valuable even though work products and documentation still must be submitted in paper form. This is because the paper did not have to be retained in working files, Electronic Document Management System Page 10 of 26 Page 101 of 199

but, from the OBDP point of view, could be immediately archived. Even if paper files were being used, separate copies of work products would still have to be produced. A review of the process for managing design documents through EDMS found that it was effective, but there may be other more effective tools, such as Project Wise for managing these documents. In considering whether to adopt FileNet or other EDMS systems consideration should be given to whether a different system might be more effective for design. During the study a number of people described EDMS to be cumbersome because of search engines, file naming conventions and document templates. However, experienced users rarely voiced concerns about these issues. The difference in perspective serves to highlight two important considerations in developing and managing future EDMS systems. First, take into account the user s needs and abilities when designing the system and setting parameters such as naming conventions and template requirements. Second, recognize and address ongoing training and user assistance in order to gain acceptance and enhancing the value of an EDMS system. Electronic Document Management System Page 11 of 26 Page 102 of 199

APPENDIX A FILE SPACE NEEDS ESTIMATES FOR PAPER FILES Documents in P8, as of 07 07 2010 202,516 average pages per document, guestimate 5 pages in P8 1,012,580 pieces of paper fitting a box 2,000 no of boxes 506 boxes per 4 drawer filing cabinet 6 All records stored on-site - 1.5 file cabinets to one staff All records stored on-site - 6 file cabinets to one staff with 1/3 of records in storage - with 1/3 of records in storage - 1.5 cabinets to one staff 6 cabinets to one staff cabinets 84 84 56 56 cost per cabinet $170.00 $170.00 $170.00 $170.00 total cost of cabinets $14,344.88 $14,344.88 $9,563.26 $9,563.26 people to manage files 56 14 38 9 salary rate $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 annual salary costs $1,350,106.67 $337,526.67 $900,071.11 $225,017.78 salary costs for 4 years $5,400,426.67 $1,350,106.67 $3,600,284.44 $900,071.11 sq ft rate for office space in Salem - monthly $1.41 $1.41 $1.41 $1.41 sq ft per cabinet in office 5 5 5 5 total sq footage required 422 422 281 281 sq ft costs for file cabinets - monthly $594.89 $594.89 $396.59 $396.59 months in July 2010-June 2014 48 48 48 48 sq ft costs for file cabinets - for 4 years $28,554.76 $28,554.76 $19,036.50 $19,036.50 Storage at CRC costs boxes to be stored 169 169 cost of boxes - per box cost $2.50 $2.50 cost ot boxes -total $421.91 $421.91 moving boxes - per box cost $2.59 $2.59 cost of moving boxes $437.10 $437.10 pickup charge for 15 boxes $23.00 $23.00 # of trips at 15 boxes a time 11 11 pickup charges on 169 boxes $258.77 $258.77 put box on shelf at CRC - cost per box $3.25 $3.25 total cost of putting box onto shelf at CRC $548.48 $548.48 Electronic Document Management System Page 12 of 26 Page 103 of 199

storage of boxes - cost per box per month $0.40 $0.40 months in July 2010-June 2014 48 48 cost per box for storage for 4 years $19.20 $19.20 total storage cost $3,240.26 $3,240.26 number of retrievals per box per year 2 2 retreivals per year 338 338 cost per retrieval -cost per box $3.25 $3.25 retreivals costs per year $1,096.96 $1,096.96 retreival costs for 4 years $4,387.85 $4,387.85 delivery charge for up to 15 boxes $23.00 $23.00 assume 3 boxes are retreived per trip # of trips 113 113 total delivery costs per year $2,587.70 $2,587.70 delivery costs for 4 years $10,350.82 $10,350.82 number of returns per box per year 2 2 returns per year 338 338 cost per return -cost per box $3.25 $3.25 return costs per year $1,096.96 $1,096.96 return costs for 4 years $4,387.85 $4,387.85 delivery charge for up to 15 boxes $23.00 $23.00 assume 3 boxes are returned per trip # of trips 113 113 total delivery costs per year $2,587.70 $2,587.70 delivery costs for 4 years $10,350.82 $10,350.82 CRC costs - total 0 0 $34,383.84 $34,383.84 cabinets $14,344.88 $14,344.88 $9,563.26 $9,563.26 salary $5,400,426.67 $1,350,106.67 $3,600,284.44 $900,071.11 office space $28,554.76 $28,554.76 $19,036.50 $19,036.50 $5,443,326.31 $1,393,006.31 $3,663,268.05 $963,054.71 Citations for information sq ft rate for office space in Salem - monthly (see page 62) http://www.oregon.gov/das/bam/docs/publications/2011_13_budget_instructions/1113pricelistofgoodsservices.pdf charges for off-site storage based on current contract with off-site storage service provider industry norms pieces of paper fitting a box 2,000 Boxes for records storage measure 12" W x 15" L x 10" H boxes per 4 drawer filing cabinet 6 people to properly *manage files 1 person: 1.5-6 filing cabinets Unmanaged records of an office 1/3 are inactive and could be stored off-site Electronic Document Management System Page 13 of 26 Page 104 of 199

* Managing would include the following: - classifying (identifying what the record is and where it needs to be filed) - setting up the filing system - maintaining a file plan that is up-to-date - typing up filing labels - setting up file folders, cross-references and indexes - filing records - retrieving records (includes making copies, redacting personally identifiable information when necessary, and distribution of copies eg: mailing) - protecting records that have to be restricted from access to only specific individuals - keeping track of records that have been retrieved - re-filing records - qcing file system to make sure there are no misfiles - applying records retention schedules to the records - retiring records to storage on an annual basis - destroying records when the retention period has lapsed - managing litigation holds Electronic Document Management System Page 14 of 26 Page 105 of 199

APPENDIX B: EDMS BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION B/C ANALYSIS OF EDMS LOGIC DIAGRAM Electronic Document Management System Page 15 of 26 Page 106 of 199

Electronic Document Management System Page 16 of 26 Page 107 of 199

Electronic Document Management System Page 17 of 26 Page 108 of 199

EDMS Benefit-Cost Analysis Source and Logic Variable Source Logic Background Information 1 No. of docs EDMS Records 2 Docs entered = v1(yr n) - v1(yr n-1) 3 Pages per doc EDMS Staff Estimate 4 Total pages = v1 * v3 5 Pages per file box EDMS Staff Estimate 6 File boxes = v4 / v5 7 Boxes per cabinet EDMS Staff Estimate 8 Cabinets (w/o EDMS) = v6 / v7 9 Tech/pro billing rate OBDP average 10 Admin billing rate OBDP average 11 Ave OBDP billing rate for this evaluation only = ( 6v9 + v10 ) / 2 Staffing Requirements and costs (w/o EDMS 12 Cabinets per Staff EDMS Study varies from 1.5 to 6.0 13 Total staff = v8 / v12 14 Annual Cost = v10 * v13 Other Costs (w/o EDMS) 15 sq ft rate for office space in Salem EDMS Study 16 sq ft per cabinet in office EDMS Staff Estimate 17 total sq footage required = v8 * v14 18 sq ft costs for file cabinets MFA estimate 19 Annual Cost = v17 * v18 20 Cost per cabinet Office Supply Survey 21 New Cabinets = v8(yr n) - v8(yr n-1) 22 Annual File Cabinet Cost = v20 * v21 23 Total annual = v12 + v19 + v22 User retrieval costs 24 Documents retrieved - local MFA estimate v24 + v25 = v43 25 Documents retrieved - central MFA estimate v24 + v25 = v43 26 Total documents = v24 + v25 27 User time - local (min) MFA estimate 1 min 28 User time - central (min) MFA estimate 5 min 29 Total user time (hrs) =D37(( v24 * v27 ) + ( v25 * v28 ))/ 30 Cost = v11 * v29 31 Total hrs w/o EDMS = ( v13 * 1,872 ) + v29 32 Total cost w/o EDMS = v14 + v23 + v30 EMDS central admin 33 DC mgr hrs OBDP staffing plans 34 Admin staff hrs OBDP staffing plans 35 Total hrs = v33 + v34 36 Cost = ( D48v9 * v33 ) + ( v10 * v34 ) EDMS doc upload 37 Upload minutes per doc - 80% 38 Upload minutes per doc - 20% entry time for experience staff (from user survey and observations) entry time for other staff (user survey and observations) 39 Total time - 80% = v2 *.8 * v24 / 60 40 Total Time - 20% = v2 *.2 * v25 / 60 41 Total upload hrs OBDP average = v26 + v27 42 Total upload cost = v11 * v28 Electronic Document Management System Page 18 of 26 Page 109 of 199

EDMS doc retrieval 43 Docs retrieved Formula based on discussions with EDMS staff 44 Ave time for 80% retrieval time for experience staff (from user survey and 45 Ave time for 20% retrieval time for other staff (from user survey and observations) 46 Added time for others requests MFA based on discusions with user10 min 47 Retrieval time - 80% (hrs) = v43 *.8 * v44 / 60 48 Total time - 20% (hrs) = v43 *.2 * v45 / 60 49 Added time for other (10%) (hrs) = v43 *.1 * 10 / 60 50 Total retrieval hrs = v47 + v48 + v49 51 Total retrieval costs = v50 * v11 Other O&M Costs 52 IS Support OBDP IT Estimate 53 Licenses OBDP 54 Data storage (GBs) OBDP data & MFA calculations 55 Data storage costs = v45 * 1.9 * 12 56 Total other O&M = v52 + v54 + v56 55 Total EDMS hrs = v35 + v41 + v50 56 Total EDMS cost = v36 + v42 + v51 + v56 57 Hrs saved = v31 - v 55 58 Cost savings (benefits) = v32 - v56 59 Discounted to 2010 Using rate v67 (3.74%) 60 Total = sum of annual v59 Capital Costs 61 Equipment OBDP focus group 62 Licenses OBDP IT 63 Development hrs OBDP focus group 64 Development cost = v9 * v63 65 Total = v61 + v62 + v64 66 Discounted to 2010 using rate v67 (3.74%) BC Analysis 67 Discount rate from OTIA III bond sales interest 3.74% 68 BC ratio = v60 / v65 69 NPV = v60 - v65 70 IRR Rate at which v68=1 and v69=0 Electronic Document Management System Page 19 of 26 Page 110 of 199

Benefit-Cost Analysis for EDMS 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Background Information No. of docs 12,460 52,640 92,820 133,000 171,500 210,000 Docs uploaded 12,460 40,180 40,180 40,180 38,500 38,500 Pages per doc 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total pages 62,300 263,175 464,075 664,975 857,475 1,049,975 Pages per file box 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 File boxes 31.2 131.6 232.0 332.5 428.7 525.0 Boxes per cabinet 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Cabinets (w/o EDMS) 5.2 21.9 38.7 55.4 71.5 87.5 Ave tech/pro billing rates $ 80.01 $ 82.91 $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 Ave admin billing rate $ 46.01 $ 47.68 $ 49.41 $ 51.24 $ 53.07 $ 53.07 $ 54.90 Ave OBDP billing rate $ 63.01 $ 65.29 $ 67.66 $ 70.17 $ 72.67 $ 72.68 $ 75.18 Staffing Requirements and Costs (w/o EDMS) Cabinets per staff 6 6 6 6 6 6 Total staff 0.87 3.66 6.45 9.24 11.91 14.58 Annual Cost $ 77,233.12 $ 338,090.40 $ 618,259.28 $ 917,545.80 $ 1,183,161.15 $ 1,498,734.32 Other Costs (w/o EDMS) Monthly sq ft rate for office space in Salem $1.41 $ 1.41 $ 1.41 $ 1.41 $ 1.41 $ 1.41 sq ft per cabinet in office 5 5 5 5 5 5 total sq footage required 25.96 109.66 193.36 277.07 357.28 437.49 sq ft costs for file cabinets $ 36.60 $ 154.62 $ 272.64 $ 390.67 $ 503.77 $ 616.86 Annual Lease Cost $ 439.22 $ 1,855.38 $ 3,271.73 $ 4,688.07 $ 6,045.20 $ 7,402.32 Cost per cabinet $180 $ 180.00 $ 180.00 $ 180.00 $ 180.00 $ 180.00 New Cabinets 13.85 13.85 16.74 16.74 16.04 16.04 Annual File Cabinet Cost $ 2,493.00 $ 2,493.00 $ 3,013.50 $ 3,013.50 $ 2,887.50 $ 2,887.50 Total Annual $ 2,932 $ 4,348 $ 6,285 $ 7,702 $ 8,933 $ 10,290 User distribution retrieval costs Documents filed 12,460 40,180 40,180 40,180 38,500 38,500 Documents retrieved - local 6,230 22,582 28,749 30,447 31,546 34,044 Documents retrieved - central - - 623 2,321 4,260 7,094 Total documents 18,690 62,762 68,929 70,627 70,046 72,544 User time (not clerks) - filed and local (min) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 User time (not clerks) - central (min) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total user time (hrs) 312 1,046 1,201 1,370 1,522 1,800 Cost $ 20,339 $ 70,777 $ 84,253 $ 99,599 $ 110,639 $ 135,340 Electronic Document Management System Page 20 of 26 Page 111 of 199

Total Hours without EDMS 1,931 7,889 13,267 18,660 23,817 29,100 Total Cost without EDMS $ 100,504 $ 413,215 $ 708,798 $ 1,024,846 $ 1,302,733 $ 1,644,364 EDMS Central Administration DC Manager hrs 894 894 894 894 894 894 Admin Staff hrs 5,742 5,742 5,742 5,742 5,742 5,742 Total hrs 6,636 6,636 6,636 6,636 6,636 6,636 Cost $ 347,901 $ 360,519 $ 373,872 $ 387,224 $ 387,226 $ 400,577 EDMS doc upload costs Min per doc - 80% 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Min per doc - 20% 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Hours - 80% 249.2 1,004.5 1,004.5 1,004.5 962.5 962.5 Hours - 20% 207.7 669.7 669.7 669.7 641.7 641.7 Total upload hours 456.9 1,674.2 1,674.2 1,674.2 1,604.2 1,604.2 Total document upload cost $ 29,831 $ 113,277 $ 117,473 $ 121,668 $ 116,583 $ 120,601 EDMS doc retrieval cost Docs retrieved 6,230 22,582 29,372 32,767 35,805 41,138 Ave time - 80% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ave time - 20% 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 Added time for retrievals for others 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Retrieval time - 80% (hrs) 83.1 376.4 489.5 546.1 596.8 685.6 Retrieval time - 20% (hrs) 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 Added time for others (10%) 103.8 376.4 489.5 546.1 596.8 685.6 Total retrieval hours 280.35 846.18 1,072.52 1,185.68 1,286.95 1,464.70 Total retrieval cost $ 18,305 $ 57,254 $ 75,256 $ 86,168 $ 93,529 $ 110,116 Other O&M Costs IS support $ 21,528 $ 21,528 $ 21,528 $ 21,528 $ 21,528 $ 21,528 Licenses $ 2,507 $ 2,507 $ 2,507 $ 2,507 $ 2,507 $ 2,507 Data Storage (GBs) $ 163 $ 459 $ 756 $ 1,053 $ 1,338 $ 1,622 Data Storage Costs $ 3,707 $ 10,476 $ 17,246 $ 24,015 $ 30,502 $ 36,988 Total other O&M $ 27,742 $ 34,511 $ 41,281 $ 48,050 $ 54,537 $ 61,023 Total EDMS hrs 7,373.22 9,156.35 9,382.68 9,495.85 9,527.12 9,704.87 Total EDMS cost $ 423,779 $ 565,563 $ 607,882 $ 643,112 $ 651,875 $ 692,318 Hrs saved (5,441.92) (1,267.77) 3,884.00 9,163.98 14,289.62 19,394.69 Cost saved $ (323,274) $ (152,347) $ 100,916 $ 381,734 $ 650,858 $ 952,046 Total $ 1,609,933 Electronic Document Management System Page 21 of 26 Page 112 of 199

Discounted to 2010 3% $ (374,763) $ (171,468) $ 110,273 $ 404,982 $ 670,384 $ 952,046 Total $ 1,591,454 Capital Costs Equipment $ 26,726.00 Licenses $ 104,160.00 Development Hrs (IS Staff) 1,080 Development Cost $ 86,405.69 Total $ 217,291.69 Discounted to 2010 $ 259,457.64 Benefit-Cost Analysis Discount Rate 3.74% Output Ranges Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%) B/C Ratio 6.1 5.1 24.3 Net Present Value $ 1,331,996 $ 1,070,000 $ 6,030,000 IRR 30% 25% 94% Electronic Document Management System Page 22 of 26 Page 113 of 199

@RISK Output Report for B/C Ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:05:18 PM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 26 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed EDMS BCA 15de10.xls Latin Hypercube 12/16/10 13:03:37 00:00:17 Mersenne Twister 94382565 Summary Statistics for B/C Ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum 0.2 5% 4.2 Maximum 66.5 10% 5.1 Mean 12.8 15% 5.8 Std Dev 8.6 20% 6.4 Variance 73.3549624 25% 7.0 Skewness 1.782344054 30% 7.6 Kurtosis 6.862407024 35% 8.2 Median 10.2 40% 8.9 Mode 8.3 45% 9.5 Left X 5.1 50% 10.2 Left P 10% 55% 11.0 Right X 24.3 60% 12.0 Right P 90% 65% 13.1 Diff X 19.2 70% 14.4 Diff P 80% 75% 15.9 #Errors 0 80% 17.9 Filter Min Off 85% 20.4 Filter Max Off 90% 24.3 #Filtered 0 95% 30.9 Regression and Rank Information for B/C Ratio / M Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Cabinets per staff / 0.920 0.938 2 User time (not clerk 0.118 0.164 3 Min per doc 20% / 0.081 0.110 4 Ave admin billing ra0.074 0.084 5 Min per doc 80% / 0.070 0.103 6 Ave tech/pro billing 0.056 0.059 7 Added time for retr 0.054 0.075 8 Ave admin billing ra0.052 0.073 9 Ave time 80% / 2,0 0.052 0.076 10 Ave admin billing ra0.046 0.034 11 User time (not clerk 0.030 0.040 12 Ave admin billing ra0.018 0.035 13 Ave admin billing ra 0.011 0.012 14 Ave tech/pro billing 0.011 0.018 EDMS Page 23 of 26 Page 114 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:05:45 PM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Added time for retrievals for others Added time for retrievals for others / 2,000 D66 RiskTrigen(5,10,20,10,90,RiskStatic(10)) (0.26) 12.15 26.71 Category: Ave admin billing rate Ave admin billing rate / 2004 C15 RiskNormal(46.01182725,4.601182725,RiskSt atic(46.01182725)) $ 35.00 $ 46.01 $ 60.00 Ave admin billing rate / 2,000 D15 RiskNormal(47.68065,4.768065,RiskStatic(47. 68065)) $ 35.00 $ 47.68 $ 60.00 Ave admin billing rate / 2,000 E15 RiskNormal(49.41,4.941,RiskStatic(49.41)) $ 35.00 $ 49.41 $ 65.00 Ave admin billing rate / 2,000 F15 RiskNormal(51.24,5.124,RiskStatic(51.24)) $ 35.00 $ 51.24 $ 65.00 Ave admin billing rate / 2,000 G15 RiskNormal(53.07,5.307,RiskStatic(53.07)) $ 40.00 $ 53.07 $ 70.00 Ave admin billing rate / 2,000 H15 RiskNormal(53.07,5.307,RiskStatic(53.07)) $ 40.00 $ 53.07 $ 70.00 Ave admin billing rate / 2,000 I15 RiskNormal(54.9,5.49,RiskStatic(54.9)) $ 40.00 $ 54.90 $ 70.00 Category: Ave tech/pro billing rates 100 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2004 C14 RiskNormal(80.00526465,8.000526465,RiskSt atic(80.00526465)) $ 60.00 $ 80.01 $ 100.00 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2,000 D14 RiskNormal(82.90701,8.290701,RiskStatic(82. 90701)) $ 60.00 $ 82.91 $ 105.00 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2,000 E14 RiskNormal(85.914,8.5914,RiskStatic(85.914)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2,000 F14 RiskNormal(89.096,8.9096,RiskStatic(89.096)) $ 65.00 $ 89.10 $ 110.00 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2,000 G14 RiskNormal(92.278,9.2278,RiskStatic(92.278)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2,000 H14 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Ave tech/pro billing rates / 2,000 I14 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.46 $ 120.00 Category: Ave time - 20% Ave time - 20% / 2,000 D65 RiskTriang(1,4.5,10,RiskStatic(4.5)) 1.00 5.17 10.00 Category: Ave time - 80% Ave time - 80% / 2,000 D64 RiskTriang(0,1,2.5,RiskStatic(1)) - 1.17 2.50 Category: Cabinets per staff Cabinets per staff / 2,000 D19 RiskTriang(1.5,6,7,RiskStatic(6)) 1.5 4.833333 7 EDMS Page 24 of 26 Page 115 of 199

tegory: Cost per cabinet Cost per cabinet / 2,000 tegory: Min per doc - 20% D30 RiskTrigen(160,180,200,10,90,RiskStatic(180) ) $144 $180 $216 Min per doc - 20% / 2,000 D56 RiskTrigen(1,5,10,10,90,RiskStatic(5)) (2.49) 5.43 13.78 tegory: Min per doc - 80% Min per doc - 80% / 2,000 D55 RiskTrigen(0.5,1.5,2,10,90,RiskStatic(1.5)) (0.17) 1.28 2.53 tegory: Pages per doc Pages per doc / 2005 D8 RiskTrigen(4,5,6,10,90,RiskStatic(5)) 3.190983 5 6.809017 tegory: sq ft per cabinet in office sq ft per cabinet in office / 2,000 D26 RiskTrigen(4.5,5,5.5,10,90,RiskStatic(5)) 4.095491 5 5.904509 tegory: sq ft rate for office space in Salem sq ft rate for office space in Salem / 2,000 D25 RiskTrigen(1.269,1.41,1.551,10,90,RiskStatic( 1.41)) $1.15 $1.41 $1.67 tegory: User time (not clerks) - central (min) User time (not clerks) - central (min) / 2,000 D41 RiskTrigen(2,5,10,10,90,RiskStatic(5)) (0.9) 5.9 13.5 tegory: User time (not clerks) - filed and local (min) User time (not clerks) - filed and local (min) / 2,000 D40 RiskTrigen(0.5,1,2,10,90,RiskStatic(1)) (0.0) 1.2 2.7 EDMS Page 25 of 26 Page 116 of 199

APPENDIX C PEOPLE INTERVIEWED OR OBSERVED DURING EDMS ANALYSIS Date Name Organization/Title Multiple dates Laurie Sletten OBDP Document Control Manager 7/13/10 Nikki Park ODOT, The Dalles 8/8/10 Charlotte Davidson OBDP 8/9/10 Lisa Martinez ODOT Document Control Manager 8/9/10 Shannon Williams OBDP 8/24/10 Focus group on EDMS and design drawing Laurie Sletten Jim Hagar Byron Perry Charlotte Davidson David Beegle OBDP Document Controls OBDP OBDP Design Manager OBDP OBDP IT Services 9/27 Karen Tatum Quincy Engineering EDMS Page 26 of 26 Page 117 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS BRIDGE REPORTING SYSTEM (BRS) The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Bridge Reporting System (BRS) on the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program (Program) and consider future options for its use after the Program concludes in 2014. This report is part of a series of reports that also includes Construction Engineering Inspection tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing System (EDS), GIS Infrastructure, Preconstruction Assessment tool (PCA), EBR Online with EBR ArcPad, and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA). Each of these reports describes the background and development of the tool, its operational logic, and the alternative system that would have been used had the tool not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do not necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. For BRS, benefits were determined through interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs), a survey of users, and other research. In each report, development cost and operational costs are evaluated and the annualized life cycle cost of the tool estimated. A benefit-cost analysis is performed for each tool using risk analysis software. Conclusions BRS is a centralized database containing both historical background material for each bridge and current data. BRS adds substantial value to the Program because its users save time retrieving data over previous methods and the data sources are more efficient and reliable. BRS also improves the Program s credibility because communication deliverables such as the OTIA III MPR and Program dashboards are more timely, accurate, and reliable. A benefit-cost analysis performed on BRS found a ratio of 1.5. This means for every $1.00 of expenditures on the tool, it returned $1.50 in benefits. This analysis included only time savings and would have shown a higher result if intangible benefits (e.g., improved Program credibility) could have been calculated. 1.0 BRS BACKGROUND BRS was completed in June 2006 with the key purpose of providing a single source of consistent and validated information about the Program. To achieve this purpose, the following key objectives were identified: Provide a common source of Program data from which to provide information to stakeholders. January 2011 Page 118 of 199

Ensure data meets Quality Control criteria prior to release. Capture and maintain Program data, including scope definitions, cost estimates, and schedules, at specific events and points in time. Provide historical reporting and trend analysis. Capture an audit trail of changes to critical Program data. Provide web-based access to Program data. Control access to Program data based on the user s job requirements. Integrate with existing Program systems through data interfaces and dynamic links. Provide a set of standard reports that can answer the most common questions, including reporting at various roll-up levels. Provide ad hoc reporting capability. Synchronize with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) systems and provide systems for data reconciliation. Provide for future extensibility to the system. These objectives were met through an internal development process that included both ODOT and OBDP staff. Upon completion, BRS replace the previous Bridge List and Bridge Information Database systems discussed below. 1.1 The Bridge List and the Bridge Information Database (BID) Early in the Program, Major Projects Branch (MPB) and OBDP management recognized that there was an increasing need to share and control information about bridges, bundles, and the Program in general. This was already occurring, but each unit in OBDP had evolved its own files, systems, and techniques for managing information. As more and more data was collected, it became increasingly difficult to synchronize data values and reconcile differences. Requests for information often required significant time and manual effort which sometimes resulted in reporting incorrect data. Because the status of data, such as when and by whom it was approved, was not always clear a new solution was needed; as a result, developers created the Bridge List. The Bridge List was a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that contained various information associated with the Program s bridges and bundles. It allowed all information to be stored and maintained in a single location. Additionally, OBDP staff could generate reports from the Bridge List and present the data in a consistent format for ODOT. As helpful as this spreadsheet was, it had its limitations and a better long-term solution was needed. The ultimate goal was to implement a system that would store all information in a central database and have robust reporting features. However, because of the time required to develop such a system, another interim solution was implemented. In order to meet the immediate need of improving the data accuracy and providing limited standard reporting functionality, a Microsoft Access Database (Bridge Information Database [BID]) was created to store and maintain the Bridge List data. 1.2 The Bridge Reporting System Project The objectives of the BRS project were to define the requirements for a Program database, determine what product best met those requirements, and then implement the selected product. Since no existing off-the-shelf system provided the desired solution for the database, it was developed internally. Bridge Reporting System Page 2 of 19 Page 119 of 199

During BRS development, the project team consolidated Program data from multiple sources into a web-enabled database to allow all the appropriate groups to see and edit information for which they were responsible. Over a period of nine months to a year, OBDP developed a SQLbased, web-enabled system for OBDP and MPB that was segmented to allow each group to login and access information. It is secured so that only the people who need to view and make changes can do so. BRS has automated data updates for the MPR as well as numerous other reports, and has streamlined OBDP s data request process. OBDP has also added the functionality of an ad hoc reporting system that BRS and can be accessed by authorized users through the OBDP website. This allows individuals from outside the Program to access a list of standard and ad hoc reports through the secure website. 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 BRS Process Flow Figure 1 describes the data logic flow of the BRS. Input is provided by data owners either manually or by automated uploads from data sources maintained by these owners. Information includes: Bridge information, including: o Bridges o Bridge attributes o Bridge budget forecast o Bridge budget o Bridge dates o Bridge GIS o Bridge letter dates o Bridge mobility Bundle and project information, including: o Bundle narratives o Scope bundle contacts o Bundle dates o Bundle key numbers o Bundle maps o Bundle status Program information, including: o PE and CEI costs, and o TEAMS information Some of these inputs, for instance bridge numbers, are simply lists which do not change. Other data, for instance schedules from the project controls system, must be updated monthly from other sources. While the database contains more information than is contained in the MPR, the update cycle of that report provides the timeline for update of most other BRS data. Data is entered into a Bridge Reporting System Page 3 of 19 Page 120 of 199

change management structure that stores information until approved. Once approved, data can be utilized in the draft MPR and submitted to ODOT for approval. The MPR is reviewed and either approved or returned with comments. Comments are addressed by the data owners, which may result in an update to BRS data. When all comments have been addressed, the final monthly BRS data is published into a permanent file. The published file contains the data representing the status of the Program as of the most recent MPR. Historical monthly data sets are available for report generation for all previous months since the creation of BRS. The published database files are used to generate the final MPR and create a set of routine reports that system users view or print. They are also available for a wide variety of information needs and research. The structure of the published files also allows for the creation of ad hoc reports. Many users making manual queries go directly to the bundle pages of the web interface of BRS and then select additional detailed data on bridges or bundles as needed. One of the most significant advantages of BRS is that the various data sets within the working and published files are linked so that records associated with particular bridges or bundles cannot be mislabeled, separated, or inadvertently changed. For instance, if a bridge is changed from one bundle to another, all data associated with that bridge continues to be linked. A. For a detailed description of the relationship of the various inputs into the BRS see Appendix Bridge Reporting System Page 4 of 19 Page 121 of 199

Figure 1: BRS Logic Flow A. Web Interface B. BRS Data Sets C. External Reports (3) Change Manager (1) Manual Input (a) Working data sets: (2) Automated External Data Set Updates (4) Data Owner/ Manager Access (b) Data Owner Review and Approval (5) Draft Monthly Progress Report (6) Client Review/ Approval and/or Comments (9) Automated Report Updates (10) Manual Queries (7) Published File Updates a. Current month data (active) b. Historic reports (8) Final MPR (11) Other routine and ad hoc reports 2.2 Alternative System The Bridge Information Database (BID) The alternative to BRS would be the Bridge List and BID systems that were used previously. The process flow for these systems is described in Figure 2. Bridge Reporting System Page 5 of 19 Page 122 of 199

Figure 2: Alternative Logic Flow BID B. External Data Sets B. Bridge List C. Reports (2) Bridge List/BID (2) Manual Input (a) Working data sets: (b) Monthly lock (3) Draft Monthly Progress Report MPR (4) Client Approval/ Change Requests (6) Historic Files c. MPRs d. Associated locked backup files (5) Final Approved MPR (7) Standard and Ad hoc reports The Bridge List was originally a set of Excel files that later transitioned to an Access database known as BID. Working files were manually updated as new information became available. Prior to creation of the MPR, a locked copy of BID was created and used to generate the MPR. The draft MPR was sent to the client for review. Comments or data update requests Bridge Reporting System Page 6 of 19 Page 123 of 199

were then sent back to OBDP. Requested adjustments to data were made by the data owner and manually reentered into the working database. A new locked database and revised MPR were then created. There were a number of problems with this structure: It was time consuming to manually enter data from multiple sources. The need for manual entries and updates introduced the opportunity for errors and inconsistencies in the data. Corrections based on either internal or client requests could be time consuming. There was no audit trail for data changes After the permanent historic records were created there was only limited opportunity to query the data or to generate additional reports. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS There are four categories of BRS users as described in Table1. There are a group of direct users who provide input and approve data entered in the system. As of September 2010, there were 23 data owners who provided input and 11 top-level approvers who approved entries into the system. The system is managed by three people who can modify or update tables. Output users include virtually anyone within OBDP who wishes to access the BRS web interface through OBDP s intranet. Most indirect users include other ODOT staff, legislature, and the general public who do not have direct access to the BRS web interface application. These individuals may view the MPR and other reports online on OBDP s public website. They may also read a variety of special reports generated by the BRS database. Input 23 Data owners 11 Top level approvers (all of which are also data owners) Direct Users Analysts/Internal Management 3 staff who are also top level approvers Table 1: BRS Users Output All OBDP approved staff ODOT MPB Indirect Users Other ODOT Oregon legislature General public 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS Three approaches were taken to evaluating benefits of BRS. First, subject matter experts were interviewed to learn how the Program is carried out and what changes in oversight or usage may have occurred as a result. Second, a survey was taken of all those who have access to BRS. Bridge Reporting System Page 7 of 19 Page 124 of 199

The survey had a response rate of approximately 50%. Some of the key findings of the survey included the following: Of individuals who have access to BRS, 60% use it at least once a week. The most common way of using the system is to view information on screen; many people download standard or ad hoc reports. Of those searching for information, 55% use the system because, among other things, it is fast and efficient. Only a small number of employees upload to the system. Of those, 55% think it is fast and easy; 9% think it is slow and hard; and 36% think it is easy to use, but slow. When asked where they would find data if BRS were not available, most responded that they would either use EDMS, refer to published reports, or call someone. The average time savings reported by using BRS is a little over 41 hours per year per employee. This finding is described in more detail in Section 4.1.2. A third consideration in evaluating benefits was evaluation of consequences of the effectiveness of the Program in generating consistent accurate reports. This is discussed in Section 4.2. 4.1 Time Savings As discussed in Sections 1.0 and 2.0, BRS replaced the former BID and previous Bridge List. These were spreadsheets which contained less information while requiring more manual manipulation, coordination, and quality control. The time savings discussed here involves a comparison between time requirements to load and use BRS versus the requirements of the former BID system. 4.1.1 Management and Data Uploads Before BRS, Program data required a full-time manager and extensive preparation on the part of several data owners before it could be uploaded to the Bridge List or BID. That meant data had to be manually formatted so that it could be readily entered into Excel spreadsheets or Access databases. After BRS was introduced, the full-time manager was eliminated. (Even though staff members are still involved in managing BRS, those costs are accounted for under system costs.) And although data uploads are performed more efficiently under BRS, the current system contains extensively more data than the Bridge List or BID. It is therefore uncertain whether there is a net savings in data uploads into BRS compared to data entry into previous systems. The benefit-cost analysis conducted in this report assumes that the total time was approximately the same under either system. Since the creation of BRS, the number of data owners and top-level data approvers has been fairly constant. Currently, there are 23 data owners and 11 top-level approvers. A survey of users found that the people responsible for uploading to BRS spent an average of 71 hours per year in this activity or a total of 1,631 hours per year for all of OBDP. This does not count the time it Bridge Reporting System Page 8 of 19 Page 125 of 199

took to generate the information which would have been done anyway regardless of how it was stored. 4.1.2 Retrieving, Downloading and Using Reports and Information Prior to creation of BRS, certain information could be readily retrieved from the BID or the MPR. However, the information was not in a true database and access to the Bridge List/BID was very limited. As a result, it took more time to get needed information. In addition, because the BRS is more comprehensive and better formatted, the data retrieved is more readily useable. A survey of BRS users, including all OBDP employees found substantial time savings due to BRS. Reported time savings are shown in Figure 3. Of the employees surveyed, 50% either did not use the system, thought it saved no time, or thought it cost them up to one hour per week of extra time. On the other hand, regular users believe they are saving an average of 70 hours per year by using BRS. On average, OBDP employees and other users of BRS save an average of 41.1 hours per year. This amounted to nearly 7,000 hours per year at the peak of the Program. In the benefit-cost analysis described in Section 6.0, this savings is assumed to be proportional to total OBDP employees and has already begun to decline. Figure 3: Reported Time Savings for BRS Users 4.1.3 Change Management and Report Preparation Another evaluation of the use of BRS found that there was significant savings in report preparation with the implementation of BRS. The system has reduced the time required for preparation of change management and other reports by approximately 1,700 hours per year. This increased efficiency was the result of automating many reports and improving consistency has resulted both from automation of many reports and improved consistency which has reduced the amount of rework required for the MPR and other reports. These hours are part of the 7,000 hours being saved in retrieving, downloading, and using BRS data and reports. In the benefitcost analysis, these savings are assumed to be a part of the 41 hours per employee savings described earlier. Bridge Reporting System Page 9 of 19 Page 126 of 199

4.2 Intangible Benefits: Valuing Accountability and Reliability One of the goals of BRS and the previous Bridge List and BID tools was to improve accountability for Program management and consistency of reporting. The previous section on time savings considered tangible benefits of the BRS database by comparison to the Bridge List /BID procedure that preceded it. This section considers intangible benefits related to accountability and reliability. BRS improves accountability and reliability by making timely and accurate reports available to document progress in delivering the Program. The MPR and website Dashboards for projects and the CS 3 program all depend explicitly on BRS data. Other routine and ad hoc reports coming from the BRS system go to internal OBDP staff, ODOT, legislators, and interested parties on a regular basis. Several reports generated by BRS are featured on the OBDP and ODOT websites. Compared to the BID, or other methods of compiling required data, BRS increases the number of things that can be reported. Because it is a true database and can receive regular input both manually and by automated means, it contains more information that is readily retrievable. In addition, BRS improves both the internal consistency of these documents and their consistency over time. Once data is entered into the database it will be utilized and reported on the same way each time. This improved reporting appears to have increased the credibility of the Program, of ODOT, and of OBDP. In 2009, the Oregon Legislature had a favorable impression of the Program and ODOT, even as distrust among other elements of government was increasing. This resulted in new legislation including revenue increases at a time when other agencies were experiencing cutbacks. While BRS was not the cause or purpose of the new legislation, it clearly depended on accountability and reliability that was enhanced by the BRS. If ODOT and OBDP were publicly traded companies, some indication of the value of the credibility asset might be derived from examination of excess value of stock over tangible assets. If the Program s products were offered for general sale a market study might be able to place a value on the intangible credibility asset of the project. While no specific value was placed on this benefit it should be acknowledged when evaluating BRS. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS System costs for BRS were estimated by a focus group made up of IT and program staff of MPU and OBDP who had participated in its development. Costs were confirmed and/or revised during the preparation of the benefit-cost analysis and the life cycle cost analysis. 5.1Development Costs BRS development costs are estimated at $1.26 million in 2005 and 2006. These costs included: OBDP IT staff: 13,653 hours OBDP Program Staff: 848 hours ODOT Staff: 428 hours Bridge Reporting System Page 10 of 19 Page 127 of 199

In addition to this initial development additional system upgrades were made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 at a cost of more than $60,000 each year. No additional licensing, software or hardware was required for the application. 5.2 Maintenance and Operation Operation costs have run between $70,000 and $75,000 per year since the creation of BRS. These costs include IT staff to manage technology and assist in data uploads and a small amount of data storage and back up costs. 5.3 Average Annual Life Cycle Cost Average annual life cycle costs of BRS are calculated at approximately $274,000 as shown in Table 2. The life cycle costs of the BRS system include all development and operations costs through the end of the Program in 2014. Development costs occurred in 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009 as described in Section 5.1. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs include IT staff and data storage and backup as described in Section 5.2. O&M costs will continue to increase slowly through 2104 with inflation. There are no costs associated with shutting down the tool at the end of the Program. Total costs are summed annually through 2014, discounted to 2010, and annualized over the 8.5 years that the BRS system will have been in use when the Program ends in 2014. Year Internal Development IT Staff Table 2 Life Cycle Development and Operation Costs Development Costs Internal Development Other Staff Total Development IT Staff O&M Costs Data Storage/ Backup Present value (2010) Annualized 3.74% $ $ 1,513,740 $ $ 19,630 $ $ 141,854 $ $ 141,667 $ $ 136,613 $ $ 74,850 $ $ 74,702 $ $ 74,555 $ $ 74,410 $ $ 74,267 $ $ 2,326,289 $ 273,681 Total M&O Totals by Year 2005 $ 633,643 $ 626,211 $ 1,259,854 1,259,854 2006 $ $ 16,753 $ 196 $ 16,949 16,949 2007 $ 46,329.92 $ 10,989 $ 57,318 $ 69,495 $ 245 $ 69,740 127,058 2008 $ 47,984.56 $ 11,381 $ 59,366 $ 71,977 $ 294 $ 72,271 131,636 2009 $ 47,985.60 $ 11,381 $ 59,367 $ 71,978 $ 343 $ 72,321 131,688 2010 $ $ 74,459 $ 392 $ 74,850 74,850 2011 $ $ 77,065 $ 431 $ 77,496 77,496 2012 $ $ 79,762 $ 474 $ 80,236 80,236 2013 $ $ 82,554 $ 521 $ 83,075 83,075 2014 $ $ 85,443 $ 573 $ 86,017 86,017 Total $ 1,435,904 $ 632,954 2,068,859 Total Annualized Costs After 2014, the decision could be made to completely remove the BRS database and no costs would be incurred. In this case, basic Program information would be available in other formats, such as the Monthly Progress Reports, but the ability to retrieve and analyze data or prepare new reports through a database would be lost. If ODOT chose to keep BRS active in order to continue access to its database access, the only costs would be for data storage and backup. This could be roughly double the annual cost shown in Table 2. The costs of continuing to use the tool or modifying it for other purposes would depend on specific circumstances and were not calculated in this study. Bridge Reporting System Page 11 of 19 Page 128 of 199

6.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS This benefit-cost analysis covers development and operation from 2005 through 2010. In order to compare annual benefits with original development costs, all costs were discounted to 2010. The analysis used the following sources of information: Cost data obtained through OBDP IS staff in a one-day focus group session, with follow up as the analysis was completed; Interviews with direct users of BRS were conducted; A survey of all OBDP staff and ODOT staff with access to BRS was conducted to determine the amount of use and ranges of time savings achieved. Annual benefits were calculated based on the following factors: Staff reductions related eliminating the BID and replacing it with BRS, which could be managed with only IT staff; Time savings of BRS users resulting from ease of obtaining information and reliability of the information, especially in the areas of change management and report preparation; Annual operating costs including IT staff maintenance and minimal data storage; Initial development costs, which were estimated by a work group made up of OBDP IT and program staff and ODOT program managers, were assumed to have taken place mainly in 2005; and Additional development costs were incurred in 2007, 2008 and 2009 as upgrades were made to the system. The BC ratio was calculated as the value of annual net benefits discounted to 2010 divided by the total development costs discounted to the same year. Net benefits are total benefits less O&M costs. The benefit-cost analysis was carried out using an Excel spreadsheet supplemented with Palisades @Risk software. Use of these tools allowed two important calculations. First, when precise data was unknown, such as upload time experience of BRS users, the program allowed the entry of a range of data. Second, the process established bounds of accuracy around the output of the model. This analysis found a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5, meaning that for every $1.00 of expenditures on the system, it returned $1.50 in benefits. Net present value (NPV) is estimated at approximately $1.0 million, and the internal rate of return at 25%. Applying risk analysis to the results indicates a level of confidence in the results and the probability that the benefits could be higher or lower than the central estimate. Table 3 summarizes these results. It shows that there is a 10% probability that the benefit-cost ratio is only 0.2, in which case BRS would not have generate sufficient benefits to cover costs. The most significant variable affecting potential variability of the benefit-cost ratio was determined to be the hours saved per employee, which has a wide potential variation. Risk analysis also shows a 10% probability that the benefit-cost ratio is as high as 2.7 with NVP reaching $3.0 million. It must be emphasized that if intangible benefits, such as accountability and reliability of the Program could be considered, the benefitcost ratio would be higher. Bridge Reporting System Page 12 of 19 Page 129 of 199

Table 3 Benefit-Cost Calculations for Bridge Reporting System Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) (90%) Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.5.2 2.7 Net Present Value $1.0 million -$1.2 $3.0 million Internal Rate of Return 25% -7% 60% Complete documentation of the BC analysis are contained in Appendix B. 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS BRS adds substantial value to the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program because of time savings retrieving data and efficiency and reliable of the data sources. The tool improves credibility of ODOT, OBDP, and the Program because of the accuracy and reliability of MPRs and other information supplied through BRS. BRS accomplishes these results because it is a true database in which all files are linked. New information may be input manually or by automatic upload from other files. Monthly, information is reviewed and approved (or sent back for rework) by appropriate managers. When users retrieve reports and other information, they can be assured that it will be accurate and consistent. BRS was developed to track all variables necessary to manage a project through the entire ODOT project delivery process from development through design, construction and close out. For this reason, ODOT could use the system, with limited modifications, to manage other programs. It has already been adapted to track Oregon s ARRA funds, the Go Oregon economic development program and OWIN (Oregon Wireless Integrated Network).. Bridge Reporting System Page 13 of 19 Page 130 of 199

APPENDIX A BRS DATABASE ORGANIZATION DETAIL Bridge Reporting System Page 14 of 19 Page 131 of 199

APPENDIX B: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION B/C ANALYSIS OF BRS LOGIC DIAGRAM Bridge Reporting System Page 15 of 19 Page 132 of 199

BRS BC Analysis Data Sources and Logic Variable Source Logic Basic Input 1Employees FTE from OBDP records 2Data Owners From OBDP IT 3 Approvers From OBDP IT 4Ave Billing Rate OBDP 5Tech/Pro Rate OBDP 6ODOT Dev Rate IT Cost Focus Group Data Upload and Management Savings 7BID system (hrs) Assumed same as current level 8BRS System (hrs) From BRS user survey 9Hours saved = v7 + v8 = 0 10 Cost Savings = v4 * v9 = 0 11 Eliminate BID manager = 1 fte (1,872 hrs) 12 Cost savings = v5 * v11 Change mgt., report writing, data retrieval 13 Ave per employee From BRS user survey 14 Change mgt (BOC) From savings eval. 15 MPR From savings eval. 16 Other savings (hrs) = v18 v14 v15 17 Total hours per year = v2 * v13 18 Total value = v4 * v17 19 Annual BRS Time Savings = v10 + v12 + v18 20 Total Annual Benefit = v19 Operation and Maintenance 21 M&O hours OBDP IT focus group 22 M&O cost = v5 * v21 23 Data Storage and Backup (GB) OBDP IT with MFA distributionby year 24 Data Storage and Backup cost = v23 * 12 * $1.9 25 Total O&M = v22 + v24 Net Benefits 26 Total =v20 v25 = v26 discounted to 2010 at rate 27 NPV of benefits v32 28 Total sum of v28, '06 to '10 Development Costs Development hours 29 ODOT IT cost focus group 30 OBDP IT cost focus group for '05 and OBDP staff for '07, '08, '09 31 Development Cost = ( v6 * v29 ) + ( v5 * v30) = v32 discounted to 2010 a rate 32 Disocunted Value v43 Benefit Cost Analysis 33 Discount Value 3.74% (OITA III Bond Interest) 34 BC Ratio = v28 / v32 35 NPV = v28 v32 discount rate at which v34=1 and 36 IRR v35=0 Bridge Reporting System Page 16 of 19 Page 133 of 199

BRS Benefit Cost Analysis 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Basic Input OBDP Employees 158 167 170 120 99 Data Owners 23 23 23 23 23 Approvers 11 11 11 11 11 Ave Billing Rate $ 71.16 $ 73.72 $ 76.48 $ 79.21 $ 79.21 $ 81.94 Tech/Pro Rate $ 85.91 $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 ODOT Dev Rate $ 32.93 Data Upload and Management Savings BID System (hrs) 816 1,631 1,631 1,631 1,631 BRS System (hrs) 816 1,631 1,631 1,631 1,631 Hours saved Cost Savings $ $ $ $ $ Elimination of BID manager 936 1,872 1,872 1,872 1,872 Cost Savings $ 69,002 $ 143,171 $ 148,281 $ 148,281 $ 153,392 Change Management, Report Writing and Data Retrieval Savings Ave per employee savings vs BID 41.10 41.10 41.10 41.10 41.10 Change management (BOT Progress) (hr 347 694 694 694 347 MPR research, prep and writing (hrs) 624 1,248 1,248 1,248 624 Other savings (hrs) 2,266 4,922 5,024 2,990 3,077 Total hours per year 3,237 6,864 6,966 4,932 4,048 Total value $ 238,604 $ 524,936 $ 551,813 $ 390,664 $ 331,722 Annual BRS time savings $ 307,606 $ 668,106 $ 700,094 $ 538,945 $ 485,113 Total annual benefit $ 307,606 $ 668,106 $ 700,094 $ 538,945 $ 485,113 Operation and Maintenance IS O&M hrs 390 780 780 780 780 IS O&M cost $ 33,505 $ 69,498 $ 71,978 $ 71,978 $ 74,459 Data Storage and Backup (GB) 3.457 6.887 10.317 13.747 17.177 Data Storage and Backup cost $ 79 $ 157 $ 235 $ 313 $ 392 Total O&M $ 33,584 $ 69,655 $ 72,214 $ 72,292 $ 74,850 Net Benefits $ 274,022 $ 598,451 $ 627,880 $ 466,653 $ 410,263 Total $ 2,377,270 NPV of Benefits $ 317,374 $ 668,140 $ 675,724 $ 484,106 $ 410,263 total $ 2,555,606 Development Costs Development Hrs ODOT 428 OBDP 14,501 660 660 660 Staff Dev Costs $ 1,259,854 $ 58,806 $ 60,905 $ 60,905 Total 1,440,469 Disocunted Value $ 1,513,740 $ 65,654 $ 65,546 $ 63,183 Total $ 1,708,122 Benefit Cost Analysis Discount Rate 3.74% Output Ranges Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%) BC Ratio 1.5 0.2 2.7 NPV $ 1,041,866 $ (1,190,000) $ 3,020,000 IRR 25% 7% 60% Bridge Reporting System Page 17 of 19 Page 134 of 199

@RISK Output Report for BC Ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:20:12 AM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 17 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed BRS BC Analysis 14no10.xlsx Latin Hypercube 12/10/10 11:17:40 00:00:16 Mersenne Twister 913093319 Summary Statistics for BC Ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum (0.9) 5% (0.1) Maximum 5.1 10% 0.2 Mean 1.5 15% 0.4 Std Dev 0.9 20% 0.6 Variance 0.880501007 25% 0.8 Skewness 0.142107515 30% 0.9 Kurtosis 2.648713872 35% 1.1 Median 1.4 40% 1.2 Mode 1.4 45% 1.3 Left X 0.2 50% 1.4 Left P 10% 55% 1.5 Right X 2.7 60% 1.7 Right P 90% 65% 1.8 Diff X 2.5 70% 1.9 Diff P 80% 75% 2.1 #Errors 0 80% 2.3 Filter Min Off 85% 2.5 Filter Max Off 90% 2.7 #Filtered 0 95% 3.0 Regression and Rank Information for BC Ratio / Mo Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Ave per employee s 0.966 0.974 2 OBDP / 2005 0.141 0.141 3 Tech/Pro Rate / 200 0.132 0.124 4 Ave Billing Rate / 200.048 0.042 5 Ave Billing Rate / 200.043 0.039 6 Ave Billing Rate / 200.034 0.022 7 Ave Billing Rate / 200.029 0.017 8 Ave Billing Rate / 200.022 0.021 9 IS O&M hrs / 2007 0.020 0.030 10 Tech/Pro Rate / 200 0.009 0.003 11 Tech/Pro Rate / 200 0.009 0.003 12 Tech/Pro Rate / 200 0.008 0.007 13 Tech/Pro Rate / 201 0.005 0.007 14 ODOT 0.005 0.014 Bridge Reporting System Page 18 of 19 Page 135 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:20:42 AM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max ODOT C48 RiskTrigen(273.6,428.4,619.2,10,90,RiskStatic (428.4)) 139 444 764 Category: Ave Billing Rate Ave Billing Rate / 2005 C9 RiskNormal(71.16,7.116,RiskTruncate(30,110),RiskStatic(71.16)) $ 30.00 $ 71.16 $ 110.00 Ave Billing Rate / 2006 D9 RiskNormal(73.72,7.372,RiskTruncate(40,110),RiskStatic(73.72)) $ 40.00 $ 73.72 $ 110.00 Ave Billing Rate / 2007 E9 RiskNormal(76.48,7.648,RiskTruncate(40,120),RiskStatic(76.48)) $ 40.00 $ 76.48 $ 120.00 Ave Billing Rate / 2008 F9 RiskNormal(79.21,7.921,RiskTruncate(40,120),RiskStatic(79.21)) $ 40.00 $ 79.21 $ 120.00 Ave Billing Rate / 2009 G9 RiskNormal(79.21,7.921,RiskTruncate(40,120),RiskStatic(79.21)) $ 40.00 $ 79.21 $ 120.00 Ave Billing Rate / 2010 H9 RiskNormal(81.94,8.194,RiskTruncate(40,120),RiskStatic(81.94)) $ 40.00 $ 81.94 $ 120.00 Category: Ave per employee savings vs BID Ave per employee savings vs BID / 2006 D23 RiskTrigen(0,41.1,78,10,90,RiskStatic(41.1)) (32.15) 39.30 108.94 Category: IS O&M hrs IS O&M hrs / 2007 E35 RiskTrigen(680,780,880,10,90,RiskStatic(780) ) 599 780 961 Category: OBDP OBDP / 2005 C49 RiskTrigen(12546,14500.6,16684,10,90,RiskS tatic(14500.6)) 10,906 14,599 18,390 Category: ODOT Dev Rate ODOT Dev Rate / 2005 C11 RiskNormal(32.93,3.293,RiskTruncate(24,42), RiskStatic(32.93)) $ 24.00 $ 32.93 $ 42.00 Category: Tech/Pro Rate Tech/Pro Rate / 2005 C10 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskTruncate(65,110),RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 86.02 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2006 D10 RiskNormal(85.91,8.591,RiskTruncate(65,110),RiskStatic(85.91)) $ 65.00 $ 86.02 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2007 E10 RiskNormal(89.1,8.91,RiskTruncate(65,110),Ri skstatic(89.1)) $ 65.00 $ 88.96 $ 110.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2008 F10 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskTruncate(70,115),RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.30 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2009 G10 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskTruncate(70,115),RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.30 $ 115.00 Tech/Pro Rate / 2010 H10 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskTruncate(70,120),RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.43 $ 120.00 Bridge Reporting System Page 19 of 19 Page 136 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION TOOL (CEI) The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) tool for the OTIA III Bridge Program and to consider future options for its use after completion of OTIA III in 2014. This report is part of a series that also includes the Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing system (EDS), GIS Infrastructure, Preconstruction Assessment tool (PCA), EBR Online with EBR ArcPad and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA). Each of these reports describes the background and development of the tool by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP), its operational logic and the alternative system that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. Benefits of the CEI tool were determined through focus groups of users and managers, interviews with other users and interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs). A benefit-cost analysis is performed for each system using risk analysis software. In each report developmental and operational costs were evaluated from inception through 2010 and life cycle costs are evaluated through the end of the program. Conclusions The CEI tool is a web-based collection of construction engineering and inspection forms created to manage OTIA III Bridge Projects. Within the tool forms are linked to a database and made available to authorized users at multiple locations. The tool has generated benefits in excess of the cost of its development and operation. The benefit cost (BC) analysis found a BC ratio of 1.6, meaning that for every $1.00 invested in the tool it has returned benefits of $1.60 to the OTIA III Bridge Program. The measurable benefits of the CEI tool involved time savings generated by two factors: 1. The generation of reliable information immediately available to all construction staff including inspectors, project managers, environmental staff, design, contract managers and claims engineers. 2. The database feature through which daily information such as crew sizes and equipment may be easily extracted and processed has saved time in dealing with claims and disputes. The benefits identified in this analysis are based on the experience of OBDP. Its contractual relationship with ODOT requires increased accountability and creates different legal liabilities from those of ODOT. Also, OBDP uses a centralized project management structure which requires a higher level of information sharing between the field and central office than does December 29, 2010 Page 137 of 199

ODOT s region managed construction process. The CEI tool is adapted to these conditions and these findings may not apply to ODOT in the same way. If ODOT were to use such a tool in the future it should consider revising it to better match its own management and project delivery needs. 1.0 BACKGROUND The Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) system went on line in May of 2007. Previously, daily progress reports (DPR), surveillance reports, non-compliance reports and other project forms were completed on paper and uploaded to EDMS. An Excel log was kept of surveillance and non-compliance reports, but no other database was compiled from these reports. When the CEI tool went into use the surveillance and non-compliance reports were migrated into the new tool. As of November 2010, the CEI tool had been used on 42 project bundles and contained more than 34,000 records, including those migrated from the previous spreadsheet system. The system has three important purposes: 1. Automate the forms that must be submitted for on-site inspection and engineering in order to speed submission, review and retrieval of this information. 2. Improve consistency of documentation. 3. Improve communication by making reports immediately available to anyone involved in a project, whether in the field or central office. In order to develop the system OBDP contracted with Aurigo group which created the system based on their InSite product. The System consists of 33 forms which can be completed and accessed through the web or from a mobile client version of the program. Information is stored in a database which can be used to develop summaries and reports. The system is used extensively by inspectors, project managers and assistant managers, contract managers, environmental technicians, quality control specialists and ODOT construction managers. 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 CEI System A basic description of the CEI tool process is provided in Figure 1. The program generates forms used in the construction process, including the Daily Progress Report (DPR), checklists, Surveillance Reports, Request for Information (RFI) and other documents. The program stores both form templates and project specific information used to populate the templates when forms are requested for specific projects. Project specific information is entered centrally by the Contracts Section. When field personnel complete and save a form, the appropriate reviewer(s) are notified. The reviewer can then open and view the form. If approval is required the reviewer can either approve the form, in which case it is locked and moved to permanent files where it can be viewed by others. If the form is not approved, it is returned to temporary files and the author notified of the need to make amendments. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 2 of 24 Page 138 of 199

The basic CEI tool is intended to be used online. Where internet service is not available the AMP3 (Aurigo Mobile Project Portfolio Program) provides an alternative approach. The tool contains the same forms as the online version and may be loaded on a laptop or electronic notepad. The user can open and fill out a template, while in the field and without being online. When internet service becomes available the form may be uploaded to the CEI tool. At that time the form is logged into temporary storage and any required project data is added and the appropriate reviewers are notified. Users identified two advantages of AMP3. First, because forms can be completed in the field, inspectors can stay on the job site longer and/or avoid extra time at the project office. Second, some inspectors find the AMP3 forms easier to fill out because information that does not change from day to day can be retained in the forms rather than needing to be reentered each day. Others have found it cumbersome to use a laptop in the field and upload the documents at the end of the day. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 3 of 24 Page 139 of 199

Figure 1: CEI Process OBDP Construction enters project related information User logs into program and requests form: enters project name CEI Tool Forms Templates and Project Information CEI populates form with project information Form Generation Function User completes and saves form CEI notifies reviewers that form is available Reviewer calls up and views form Temporary Storage of Forms in Process CEI Database & Permanent Storage of Completed Forms Approve No Form returned to temp storage. CEI notifies author Form is locked and move to permanent storage Yes Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 4 of 24 Page 140 of 199

Two of the forms are particularly important to OBDP s management of OTIA III Bridge Program: 2.1.1 Daily Progress Report (DPR) The DPR form is completed daily by inspectors and used extensively by the PM, CPM and others associated with the project. The form can be viewed electronically by approved personnel associated with the project regardless of physical location. Certain project information, including equipment lists and subcontractors is pre-entered for each job and organized in pull-down check lists. These items and the number of employees on-site are compiled in a database and the information can be extracted by other programs such as Microsoft Access, which allows project summary and analysis. This pre-loaded information is intended to ensure that any unusual circumstances are documented and helps to make the form more efficient to use. Daily forms are created by the inspector and entered into the system for approval by the PM. When the PM approves the form it is locked and becomes a permanent record and part of the CEI database. The PM can request amendments prior to locking the form. The most common reasons for amendments are typographical errors and misspellings that make the meaning unclear, or additional requested information on activities that occurred. Once locked, the DPR is then accessible by approved staff and cannot be changed. Any subsequent amendments must be made though supplemental reports. For legal and contractual reasons, the DPR must be printed, signed and uploaded to OBDP s electronic document management system (EDMS). If not for these legal and contractual obligations then the PM approval could be in the form of an electronic signature and no paper processing would be required. 2.1.2 Request for Information (RFI) Having RFIs online is intended to speed up and document the process of obtaining and documenting clarifications by the engineer of record (EOR). Typically, RFIs begin with an email or written request from the contractor. When the form is completed and filed within the CEI tool all appropriate parties, including ODOT, OBDP construction and design managers, are notified. The design manager decides who should respond to the RFI and sends the request along electronically usually to the EOR. The response by the EOR, or others, and the notification to the contractor becomes part of a permanent record accessible to anyone associated with the project. For legal and contractual reasons the RFI must be printed, signed and uploaded to EDMS. 2.1.3 Other CEI Forms Among the other CEI documents are a variety of checklists and forms that are important to documenting specific on-site activity. In addition, surveillance and non-conformance reports can be important to environmental as well as design and construction compliance. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 5 of 24 Page 141 of 199

Finally, there are several CEI forms that either are not used or were not available at the time of this report. Of these, the most often mentioned was the contract change order (CCO), which could be useful if backed up by a distribution process similar to the RFI. 2.2 Alternative Systems The alternative to the electronic CEI tool would be to use a system comprised largely of paper in which forms are created by hand or on local computers, processed manually and stored in paper files or on local computers. Forms would be uploaded to EDMS in the same way as the printed copies of CEI forms. It is important to recognize that the alternative system is not simply the current ODOT system. OBDP has a more centralized management structure that requires more communication with people not on-site. In addition, as the contractor, OBDP has obligations and liability exposure that do not exist within ODOT. Due to these differences, DPRs must be regularly reviewed by people not on the project site and RFIs must be processed for questions that ODOT staff might be able to resolve over the phone or through email. 2.2.1 Daily Progress Report (DPR) DPRs would be completed by hand or electronically. If filled out electronically, they would not be part of a database. The reports would be printed and provided to the project manager for review and approval. Forms may be approved or returned to the inspector for changes. Approved forms are signed and filed at the construction office. Versions of the forms, in PDF format, may by uploaded and stored on local servers along with photographs and other attachments. At the end of the project the DPRs become part of the project record and are archived in Salem. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 6 of 24 Page 142 of 199

Figure 2. Alternate DPR System User obtains paper form from file or electronic form from computer file Form is completed and paper copy transmitted to reviewer Form is revised by author. Reviewer reads paper form Approved No Yes Form is signed and filed The alternative paper method has three characteristics that can make it faster to generate the initial copy. First, unlike the CEI system, if the inspector fills out the form on a computer then they can copy information from a previous form onto a new form, saving entry time. With the CEI system any information not preloaded by the system must be reentered, even if it is the same as the previous day. Second, users report that uploading attachments into the CEI tool is slower than moving them directly to project files on servers. Third, most inspectors have found they can fill out paper forms as they work throughout the day but it is impractical to fill out electronic forms on site. This can require extra time at the end of the day to complete electronic forms. Once the forms are completed, the CEI tool has two advantages over the alternative approach. First, in the CEI tool the DPR and other forms are immediately available for review at other locations. In a paper system they must be saved in PDF format servers and then be e- mailed or looked up on line. The CEI system is faster and more likely to be used on a regular basis by people off site. As a result, with the CEI tool it will often take less time to get everyone up to speed when an issue arises. Another advantage of the CEI system is that information from the forms are automatically compiled as a database. In the alternate process reports including more than one form must be compiled manually, or a database created for a specific purpose. This is discussed further in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 7 of 24 Page 143 of 199

2.2.2 Request for Information In the alternate system RFI forms would be either generated by hand or on computers from stored blank templates. The forms would be faxed or emailed to the appropriate parties without an automated notification system. Decisions made by the OBDP design engineer or the EOR would be returned by fax or email to the PM. Either the PM or the OBDP design engineer would have to ensure the message containing the decision was signed and uploaded into EDMS. As noted previously, this alternative is not simply the current ODOT process and, because ODOT is the project owner, they have more authority to make interpretations and because the EOR on an ODOT project is often internal, there are many more opportunities to use a less formal process. In the case of OBDP managed projects, once a question is raised its response must be fully documented in consultation with the EOR. 2.2.3 Other Forms The alternate system for other forms would be similar to DPR and RFI. With respect to specific checklists and on-site inspection forms the alternative would require that paper forms be either filed or scanned and uploaded into the project computer files. Computer generated forms would simply be uploaded. The major disadvantage would be that they would not automatically become part of a database. The alternate system with respect to surveillance and compliance forms would not be as efficient because forms would not immediately be available for viewing by persons off-site. The forms would need to be emailed or faxed to the appropriate parties. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS Table 1 describes the user categories for CEI. Direct users are those who physically enter, retrieve or review forms within the CEI tool. Input refers to those who enter data directly into the system and include construction staff who enter project information that automatically populate forms, inspectors and others who fill out the automated forms at job sites or other offices. Output users refer to those who download or read specific forms on a regular basis. Indirect or less frequent users are those who occasionally use the output of the CEI tool but will not necessarily log in or have direct access to the program and include the EOR, some environmental agencies and the OBDP claims engineer. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 8 of 24 Page 144 of 199

Input Construction Section Staff (for project information) Inspectors Environmental Contract Administrator PM Asst PM Direct Users Table 1 CEI Tool Users Output PM Asst PM Contract Administrator Design Manager Indirect or Less Frequent Users Engineer of Record Environmental Agencies Claims Engineer Program Auditors 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS Data used to estimate the benefits of OBDP s CEI tool were gathered in two ways. First, interviews were conducted with subject matter experts, CEI tool users and ODOT staff who reported without the system; these include IT staff who maintain the CEI tool, managers who regularly use the tool, environmental staff, claims engineer and the inspectors who fill out most of the forms. This process included observing users filling out forms within the CEI tool. Second, focus groups were held with inspectors and managers. The inspector focus group included five OBDP inspectors who used the tool and who were familiar with other reporting tools. One of the participants was a former ODOT inspector. A second focus group was held with OBDP PMs, assistant PMs and administrative staff to evaluate the system from the managers points of view. One of the PMs and one assistant PM were former ODOT PMs and were familiar with ODOT practices. In estimating benefits, only those projects managed by OBDP were considered. ODOT Region managed projects were not included because, in many cases, they chose not to use the CEI tool. In those instances in which they did use the tool, the ODOT management structure and work processes were different from those of OBDP and it was concluded that some of the findings used to estimated benefits to OBDP managed projects were not relevant to ODOT. 4.1 Time Impacts Three sources of time impacts were identified in working with focus groups and from interviews. Certain aspects of the CEI tool take more time than using a paper system, while others save time. 4.1.1 Preloading Project Information The CEI tool requires that some project information be preloaded so, that as forms are pulled down with proper preloaded information and the database in which the forms are stored, is properly functioning. OBDP construction staff responsible for this activity reported that it takes between one and two hours to initiate a project and approximately two hours per year to keep it current. During this analysis (May 2007 through 2012) an average of 52 hours per year were spent populating the CEI tool with project specific information. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 9 of 24 Page 145 of 199

4.1.2 Filling out Daily Progress Reports (DPR) For the DPR there was consensus among inspectors that it took longer to process these reports in the CEI tool than producing it in paper form or using electronic versions with no preloaded data. Some inspectors reported taking up to an extra hour per day to fill out the CEI tool version of the DPR compared to the ODOT paper or computer forms. However, the focus group consensus put the extra time at about 15 minutes per form compared to using paper forms. The focus group also expressed a feeling that the wet signature requirement and the need to produce hard copies of DPRs was redundant, but this is a result of requirements outside of the CEI tool and would have to be done with or without the tool. Nevertheless, the use of electronic signatures, which are currently not allowed, would make the process more efficient. One of the goals of the CEI tool was to allow inspectors to fill out DPRs and other forms in the field using laptop computers or electronic data pads. AMP3 was created to allow use of the system in the field where computers could not be online. Some of the inspectors had attempted to fill out forms in the field using laptops, but they reported that laptops were too cumbersome and fragile. As a result, they normally returned to the construction office at the end of the day to fill out forms. This is another area where the CEI tool could be made more efficient if an effective piece of hardware could be found. During the period covering this analysis it was estimated that inspectors, on OBDP managed projects, spent an extra 329 hours per year completing DPRs compared to the time required to fill out paper forms. 4.1.3 Time Savings Communication and Coordination Savings While the DPR required more time for the inspectors to complete, there are two significant sources of time savings identified with the CEI tool version and other inspection forms. First, the presence of the online CEI forms saves significant time in coordination and communication because all parties can see the forms and associated attachments and fewer meetings are required to review progress. When meetings and phone calls are necessary they typically take less time because better information is available before the meeting or call occurs. Communication about problems is shorter because the DPRs and other forms can be reviewed by all parties prior to or during discussions. Without the CEI tool, the forms would either be in paper files at the job sites or filed electronically on servers, requiring additional effort to access and review. PMs estimated that having the forms and attachments readily available online saved the project manager, inspectors, contract manager and design managers a combined total of 8 to 12 hours per week on each project. Recognizing this includes four to five affected people for each project, this amounts to a savings 20 to 36 minutes per day per individual. At the height of the program it was estimated that this improved communication and coordination was saving more than 3,900 hours per year for the 18 OBDP managed projects that were in progress at that time. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 10 of 24 Page 146 of 199

Claims Management A second source of time savings directly related to the DPR is in claims management. The OBDP claims manager noted the CEI database saves significant time in responding to claims or disputes. In order to establish facts of the case it is often necessary to construct tables of crew size, equipment on site, quantities of materials and other information. The database aspect of the CEI tool saves significant time because most of this information can be extracted using MS Access, Excel or similar tools. Without the CEI tool, spreadsheets would have to be created. Having this information readily available when deciding how to respond to a claim is an advantage for all claims and disputes. For major claims, compiling required information from paper forms can require weeks. The ODOT claims manager noted that, in these cases, it is sometimes necessary to hire additional help to compile spreadsheets. OBDP claims manager and associated project manager gave a specific example of a $400,000 damage claim on an OBDP managed project. Comparing this claim to a similar claim processes prior to CEI, it was estimated that the availability of DPRs online, which were used to electronically analyze and summarize, saved between 80 and 120 hours. OBDP successfully settled the claim for $140,000, due in part to information obtained through the CEI tool versions of DPR. In conducting the benefit cost analysis a figure of 40 hours savings per major claim was used. Based on OBDP records, these claims occur on 8 to 9 percent of projects on an annual basis. At the height of the program this was likely saving more than 100 hours per year. The OBDP claims manager also believed that the improved information through the CEI tool allowed better cases to be made and thereby reduced claims paid. However, because of the difficulty of documenting this, it was not included in the benefit-cost analysis. Requests for Information A review of the RFI process found it to be an efficient process of documenting decisions. However, there was no consensus that it saved time over a paper process using email to transmit forms. Therefore, no time savings was attributed to the handling of these forms in CEI. 4.2 Indirect and Unquantified Benefits One of the key benefits of the CEI tool was in providing a higher level of documentation. The documentation is particularly beneficial as the Program was outsourced and probably allows ODOT to oversee the Program with fewer staff, although this would be difficult to measure. The CEI tool produces more consistent documentation through reports like surveillance, noncompliance, RFI and DPR. Online processing and the use of preloaded information and pull down menus also improves consistency of reports. In addition, the automatic notification and distribution system associated with the RFI provides documentation of the communication process as well as the decisions. Another unquantified benefit of the CEI system is that some environmental agencies have been able to access to the CEI tool for the purpose of reviewing surveillance reports, nonconformance reports and RFIs. Also, the CEI tool will generate summaries of surveillance reports by project. This information is obtained more quickly through the CEI tool than through a paper process and is beneficial to compliance monitoring of the programmatic permit; although there are no specific estimates of time savings or other benefits. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 11 of 24 Page 147 of 199

5.0 SYSTEM COSTS 5.1 Development Costs Development costs of the CEI tool fell into three categories. First, OBDP entered into a $413,000 contract with Aurigo Company to develop the application. The contract also included 75 software licenses carried through the program for several years before the cost had to be added to O&M. Second, development of the system required extensive input from ODOT and OBDP construction staff, who spent an estimated 700 hours working on its development. Finally, OBDP IT staff required approximately 375 hours in development and bringing the project online. An estimated total cost is approximately $527,000. 5.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) There were three categories of O&M costs. Internal IT support costs between $5,500 and $6,000 per year. Data storage and backup costs approximately $1,000 per year. No software licensing costs exist from 2004 through 2009 based on the Aurigo software development agreement. However, beginning in November 2010 the OTIA III program exceeded the number of licenses originally negotiated and new licenses were required. Additional licenses were purchased at a cost of $51,690. Approximately $2,000 of these costs are allocated to 2010 and approximately $12,500 to 2011 bringing the total O&M costs to approximately $6,000 for 2008 and 2009 and rising to nearly $20,000 by 2011. 5.3 Annualized Life Cycle Costs In computing life cycle costs of the CEI tool this analysis assumes the tool is not used after the end of the OTIA III Bridge Program in 2014. Development and O&M costs are summed by year, discounted to 2010 and annualized based on the 7.5 years the CEI tool will have been used by the end of the OTIA III Program; also, there are no shut down costs for this tool. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis and calculates that this tool will have cost an average of approximately $88,000 per year by the end of the program. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 12 of 24 Page 148 of 199

Table 2. Life Cycle Costs of CEI Tool Overall costs Year Development Contract and License Development Costs Internal IT Development Total Development Operation and Maintenance Data Licenses Internal IT Staff Storage/ Backup Total O&M Totals by Year Annualized Totals 2007 $ 413,000 $ 114,100 $ 527,100 $ 3,119 $ 978 $ 4,096 $ 531,196 593,053 2008 $ 5,537 $ 982 $ 6,519 $ 6,519 7,016 2009 $ 5,537 $ 987 $ 6,523 $ 6,523 6,767 2010 $ 3,585 $ 5,730 $ 991 $ 10,307 $ 10,307 10,307 2011 $ 12,549 $ 4,448 $ 996 $ 17,993 $ 17,993 17,344 2012 $ 12,549 $ 3,085 $ 1,000 $ 16,634 $ 16,634 15,456 2013 $ 12,549 $ 3,193 $ 1,005 $ 16,747 $ 4,198 3,760 2014 $ 10,458 $ 3,304 $ 1,055 $ 14,817 $ 9,588 8,279 Total $ 527,100 $ 93,636 $ 602,959 661,982 Present value (2010) Annualized 3.74% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 88,264 If ODOT wished to keep the CEI database active without entering more data in the system, it may be able to keep the Aurigo software for queries-only without additional licensing costs; however, storage costs would approximately double. The result is ODOT could probably keep the database active for approximately $2,000 per year. If ODOT wished to use the program for other projects post-otia III, then additional licenses would have to be purchased and the Agency would likely want to make modifications to better meet its own needs; these costs were not calculated. 6.0 BENEFIT COST CALCULATIONS Benefit-cost (BC) calculations were based on five-year and eight-month period from May 2007, when the system went online, through 2012. All developmental costs are shown in 2007. 1 The time period was selected for two reasons: First, this time period is comparable to time period for evaluations of other IT tools, most of which went online in 2005 or 2006 and were evaluated through 2010. Second, five-years was considered to be a reasonable timeframe for evaluation of IT tools since the rate of change for an IT tool must justify its cost within that timeframe. Annual input categories included: Levels of use in terms of projects started and underway. Time costs and savings for forms and data input. Time savings in responding to claims. Coordination and communication savings due to availability of the tool Operation and maintenance costs (O&M). Development costs. 1 Normally a B/C analysis would be prospective, looking only at future changes, or retrospective, considering some past time period. In this case the analysis includes both future and past years. It is also normal to think of the process of calculating present value of benefits or costs as discounting from some future year to the present. In this case, both past and future costs and benefits are discounted to a present value in 2010 for comparison. Neither of these methodological adjustments affects the validity of the analysis. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 13 of 24 Page 149 of 199

Net annual benefits were calculated by subtracting O&M costs from total annual benefits. The present value of these net benefits were summed and divided by development costs to calculate the BC ratio. The discount rate used to calculate 2010 present value was 3.74%, which is the average interest on OTIA III bonds and therefore represents the opportunity cost of making investments in the Program earlier or later. Net present value (NPV) was calculated as the difference between total net benefits and development costs. An internal rate of return (IRR) was calculated by determining the discount rate at which the project would just break even. Calculations were made using a spreadsheet program augmented by risk analysis software. Results are summarized in Table 3. The use of risk software for these calculations had two significant advantages. First, many input variables were entered in ranges where precise point values were unknown. The model then calculated the results in terms of potential ranges based on the inputs. For instance, the inspector focus group consensus on extra time required to fill out the DPR in the CEI tool was 15 minutes. However, some believed it took no additional time while others thought it took up to one additional hour. Risk analysis software permitted consideration of these factors in calculating the results. The second advantage of a risk based approach is that output is calculated in ranges with probability bounds and shows which variables have the most influence on the outcome. The risk based approach does this by using a Monte Carlo simulation to run 10,000 iterations of different combinations of inputs based on their probabilities. The calculations show a BC ratio for the CEI tool of 1.6, meaning that for every $1.00 spent developing the tool it is earning a return of $1.60 in terms of time savings and other benefits. The model also calculated NPV at $317,000, indicating that the tool returned more than it cost to develop. The internal rate of return was 22%. As shown in Table 4 there is a 10% probability that the BC ratio could be as low as 0.7 which would indicate that investment in the tool did not break even. The 90% probably ratio shown in Table 3 indicates there is a 10% probability that the BC ratio is higher than 1.7. Table 3 Benefit-Cost Calculations for Construction Engineering/Inspection (CEI) Tool Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (90%) Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.6 0.7 1.7 Net Present Value $317,000 -$154,000 $407,000 Internal Rate of Return 22% -10% 27% There were two factors that accounted for most of the potential downside variation: the potential volatility in estimated management time savings and the wide range of estimates for extra time required to fill out DPRs. All details of the calculations are described in Appendix A, including model logic flow, sources and logic of input variables, calculations, risk analysis of output and ranges and distribution of input variables. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 14 of 24 Page 150 of 199

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The CEI tool has generated positive benefits to the OTIA III Bridge Program. Most of the benefits related to two factors: 1. The generation of reliable information immediately available to all construction staff including inspectors, project managers, environmental staff, design, contract managers and claims engineers. This has reduced communication and coordination time and costs and improved the ability to deal with contractor claims. Due to the differences in management and legal accountability, these factors have probably not affected ODOT in the same way they affected OBDP. 2. The database feature, through which daily information such as crew sizes and equipment may be easily extracted and processed, has saved time in dealing with claims and disputes. While the CEI tool has demonstrated the benefits of a centralized forms processing and storage system for construction management, it is not clear whether this specific tool should be adopted by ODOT in its present form. If ODOT were to adopt such a tool, it should be geared to its region management style of project delivery and its own legal requirements as project owner. During this analysis numerous opportunities were discovered for improving the efficiency of CEI. If the tool is adopted by ODOT, it should consider making specific improvements and setting up a continuous quality improvement process around the tool to ensure that it stays updated and is as efficient as possible for all users. Among the specific suggestions that come from system users during this analysis: Improve the efficiency of the AMP3 application to make the tool easier to use in the field. Consider making the AMP3 application compatible with note pad type technology. Revise the forms in the AMP3 application to be identical to the forms in the online CEI tool Modify the DPR process to allow inspectors to keep information on the form from one day to the next, thereby reducing the amount of data entry required. Change naming conventions for uploaded attachments to improve the efficiency of uploading the DPR. Review each form in the system to ensure it is useable. (Staff seemed unable to use some forms that are supposed to be in the system). Work with the Attorney General to create electronic signatures. Consider allowing contractors to submit RFIs electronically to project managers in order to minimize reentry of data. Augment the RFI circulation procedure to notify participants of the response to RFIs as well as their submission. Change the RFI numbering system to make it easier to track and consider creating an automatic RFI log. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 15 of 24 Page 151 of 199

Add change order to the CEI. If this has already been done then some staff are either unaware or unable to use the process. Provide training on an annual basis to improve skills with the tool and make users aware of new applications or improved methods of using the CEI tool. Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 16 of 24 Page 152 of 199

APPENDIX A: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION CEI BENEFIT-COST CALCULATION PROCESS LOGIC Construction Engineering/Information Tool Page 17 of 24 Page 153 of 199

CEI Benefit Cost Calculations Sources and Logic Variable Base Data 1Projects started 2Average projects in process 3OBDP Projects Started 4 OBDP Average projects in process 5Construction value ($thousands) 6 Potential construction days (OBDP) Source Calculation Construction start and end dates, BRS MFA estimate based on BRS data Construction start and end dates, BRS MFA estimate based on BRS data Construction start and end This value was not used in BC dates, BRS final BC calculation MFA estimate based on BRS data = v4 * 5/7 7 Adjustment Factor 8Actual Construction Days MFA estimate based on history of DPRs vs potential const. days = v6 * v7 9OBDP tech/pro billing rate OBDP 10 OBDP admin rate OBDP Time requirements (project set up) 11 Entering contract data MFA based on interviews 12 Hours per start up MFA based on interviews 13 Hours per ongoing MFA based on interviews 14 Total hours = ( v4 * v12 ) + ( v3 * v13 ) 15 Total Cost = v9 * v14 Inspector entry time savings (cost) DPR 16 Time difference per form (OBDP) MFA based on interviews and focus groups 17 Total savings (loss) (OBDP) = v8 * v16 Other Forms 18 Total savings (loss) None identified 19 Total change completing forms = v17 + v18 20 Total value of change = v9 * v19 Coordination/communication savings 21 Hours per week From focus groups 22 Construction weeks = v8 / 5 23 Hours saved = v21 * v22 = ( v9 *.75 * v23 ) + 24 Value of hours saved ( v10 *.25 * v9 ) January 2010 Page 154 of 199

Protests, disputes and claims time savings From interviews and focus 25 Time savings per claim group 26 Probability of claim MFA from OBDP claims data 27 Number of claims = v5 * v27 28 Hours saved = v26 * v28 29 Value of savings = v9 * v28 Net Savings 30 Hours = v14 + v19 + v23 + v28 31 Value = v15 + v20 + v24 + v29 Operations and Maintenance = v33 * v34 32 Tech hours OBDP cost analysis 33 Value = v9 * v32 34 Data Storage and Backup (GB) OBDP Information Systems 35 Data Storage and Backup cost = v34 * 12 * $1.9 36 Total O&M = v33 + v35 37 Net Benefits = v31 v36 38 Present value of benefits (2010) = v36 discounted at rate v45 39 Total = sum of v38 years Development Cost 40 Development Contract OBDP cost analysis 41 OBDP/ODOT time OBDP cost analysis 42 OBDP/ODOT labor cost = v9 * v41 43 Total development cost = v40 + v42 = v43 discounte to 2010 at rate 44 Disounted (forward to 2010) v 45 Benefit Cost Analysis 45 Discount Rate OTIA III average bond rate 3.74% Results 46 B/C ratio = v39 / v44 47 NPV = v39 v44 Discount rate at which v46 = 1.0 48 IRR and v47 = 0 Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Page 19 of 24 Page 155 of 199

Benefit Cost Analysis of Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base Data (May Dec) Projects started 6.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 2.0 1.0 Average projects in process 14.6 29.0 29.0 24.0 14.5 6.0 OBDP Projects Started 6.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 OBDP Average projects in process 10.7 15.0 18.0 11.5 4.5 2.5 Construction value ($thousands) $ 182,626 $ 184,845 $ 177,924 $ 153,346 $ 123,804 $ 92,019 Potential construction days (obdp) 2,667 3,750 4,500 2,875 1,125 625 Adjustment factor 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.55 0.67 0.67 Actual construction days 1,151 1,619 1,943 1,579 750 417 OBDP tech/pro billing rate $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 $ 98.80 $ 102.26 OBDP admin rate $ 51.24 $ 53.07 $ 53.07 $ 54.93 $ 56.85 $ 58.84 Time requirements (project set up) Entering contract data Hours per start up (1.25) (1.25) (1.25) (1.25) (1.25) (1.25) Hours per ongoing (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) Total hours (29) (39) (44) (28) (12) (6) Total Cost $ (1,477) $ (2,056) $ (2,309) $ (1,538) $ (654) $ (368) Inspector data entry added time DPR Time difference per form (0.25) (0.25) (0.25) (0.25) (0.25) (0.25) Total time savings (loss) (287.8) (404.8) (485.7) (394.9) (187.6) (104.2) Other Forms Total time savings (loss) 0 0 0 0 0 Total added time, inpsectors (287.8) (404.8) (485.7) (394.9) (187.6) (104.2) Total value of added time $ (25,647) $ (37,353) $ (44,823) $ (37,694) $ (18,534) $ (10,657) Coordination/communication savings Hours per week 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Construction weeks 230.3 323.8 388.6 315.9 150.1 83.4 Hours saved 2,302.7 3,238.2 3,885.9 3,158.9 1,500.8 833.8 Value of hours saved $ 29,498 $ 259,357 $ 320,497 $ 262,009 $ 128,776 $ 76,208 Protests, disputes and claims time savings Time savings per claim 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Probability of claim 8.67% 8.67% 8.67% 8.67% 8.67% 8.67% Number of claims 1.26 2.51 2.51 2.08 1.26 0.52 Hours saved 50.58 100.57 100.57 83.23 50.29 20.81 Value of savings $ 4,506 $ 9,281 $ 9,281 $ 7,945 $ 4,968 $ 2,128 Net Savings Hours 2,036.64 2,895.27 3,457.21 2,819.31 1,351.94 744.09 Value $ 6,880.14 $ 229,228.76 $ 282,645.35 $ 230,721.93 $ 114,555.64 $ 67,311.05 Operations and Maintenance Licenses $ 2,092 $ 12,549 $ 12,549 IT staff hrs 35 60 60 60 45 30 Value of IT staff hrs $ 3,119 $ 5,537 $ 5,537 $ 5,728 $ 4,446 $ 3,068 Data Storage and Backup (GB) 42.88 43.08 43.28 43.48 43.68 43.88 Data Storage and Backup cost $ 978 $ 982 $ 987 $ 991 $ 996 $ 1,000 Total O&M $ 4,096 $ 6,519 $ 6,524 $ 8,810 $ 17,991 $ 16,617 Net Benefits $ 2,784 $ 222,710 $ 276,122 $ 221,912 $ 96,565 $ 50,694 Present value of benefits (2010) $ 3,108 $ 239,680 $ 286,449 $ 221,912 $ 93,083 $ 47,105 Total $ 891,337 Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Page 20 of 24 Page 156 of 199

Development Cost Development Contract $ 413,000 OBDP/ODOT time 1,141.00 OBDP/ODOT labor cost $ 101,663 Total development cost $ 514,663 Disounted (forward to 2010) $ 574,595 Benefit Cost Analysis Discount Rate 3.74% Results Output Ranges Most Likely Low (28%) High (90%) B/C ratio 1.6 0.7 1.7 NPV $ 316,742 $ (154,000) $ 407,000 IRR 22% 10% 27% Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Page 21 of 24 Page 157 of 199

@RISK Output Report for B/C ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:32:02 PM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 16 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed CEI BC analysis 13de10.xls Latin Hypercube 12/14/10 12:29:04 00:00:20 Mersenne Twister 325621029 Summary Statistics for B/C ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum 0.0 5% 0.6 Maximum 2.6 10% 0.7 Mean 1.2 15% 0.8 Std Dev 0.4 20% 0.9 Variance 0.138057392 25% 1.0 Skewness 0.021832121 30% 1.0 Kurtosis 2.830072649 35% 1.1 Median 1.2 40% 1.1 Mode 1.2 45% 1.2 Left X 0.7 50% 1.2 Left P 10% 55% 1.3 Right X 1.7 60% 1.3 Right P 90% 65% 1.4 Diff X 1.0 70% 1.4 Diff P 80% 75% 1.5 #Errors 0 80% 1.5 Filter Min Off 85% 1.6 Filter Max Off 90% 1.7 #Filtered 0 95% 1.8 Regression and Rank Information for B/C ratio / M Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Hours per week / (M0.753 0.740 2 Time difference per 0.591 0.564 3 Adjustment factor / 0.167 0.164 4 OBDP/ODOT time / 0.166 0.160 5 OBDP tech/pro billin0.089 0.097 6 Adjustment factor / 0.087 0.063 7 OBDP admin rate / 20.073 0.048 8 Time savings per cla0.062 0.068 9 OBDP tech/pro billin0.056 0.059 10 OBDP tech/pro billin0.016 0.012 11 OBDP tech/pro billin0.014 0.025 12 OBDP admin rate / (0.014 0.026 13 Time savings per cla0.011 0.010 14 IT staff hrs / 2010 0.004 0.008 Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Page 22 of 24 Page 158 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:32:30 PM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Adjustment factor Adjustment factor / (May-Dec) D11 RiskTrigen(4800.6,5334,5867.4,10,90,RiskSta tic(5334)) 4,369.07 5,334.00 6,298.93 Adjustment factor / 2011 H11 RiskTrigen(0.6003,0.667,0.7337,10,90,RiskSt atic(0.667)) 0.55 0.67 0.79 Category: Hours per ongoing Hours per ongoing / (May-Dec) D19 RiskTriang(-2.5,-2,-1,RiskStatic(-2)) (2.50) (1.83) (1.00) Category: Hours per start up Hours per start up / (May-Dec) D18 RiskTriang(-2,-1.25,-0.5,RiskStatic(-1.25)) (2.00) (1.25) (0.50) Category: Hours per week Hours per week / (May-Dec) D34 RiskTrigen(8,10,12,10,90,RiskStatic(10)) 6.4 10.0 13.6 Category: IT staff hrs IT staff hrs / 2010 G52 RiskTrigen(60,60,90,10,90,RiskStatic(60)) 55 73 105 Category: OBDP admin rate OBDP admin rate / (May-Dec) D14 RiskNormal(51.24,5.124,RiskTruncate(40,65), RiskStatic(51.24)) $ 40.00 $ 51.37 $ 65.00 OBDP admin rate / 2008 E14 RiskNormal(53.07,5.307,RiskTruncate(40,65), RiskStatic(53.07)) $ 40.00 $ 53.00 $ 65.00 Category: OBDP tech/pro billing rate OBDP tech/pro billing rate / (May-Dec) D13 RiskNormal(89.1,8.91,RiskTruncate(65,110),Ri skstatic(89.1)) $ 65.00 $ 88.96 $ 110.00 OBDP tech/pro billing rate / 2008 E13 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskTruncate(70,115),RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.30 $ 115.00 OBDP tech/pro billing rate / 2009 F13 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskTruncate(70,115),RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.30 $ 115.00 OBDP tech/pro billing rate / 2010 G13 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskTruncate(70,120),RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.43 $ 120.00 Category: OBDP/ODOT time OBDP/ODOT time / (May-Dec) D65 RiskTrigen(848,1141,1652,10,90,RiskStatic(11 41)) 557.15 1,234.72 2,006.02 Category: Time difference per form Time difference per form / (May-Dec) D25 RiskTriang(-1,-0.25,-0.25,RiskStatic(-0.25)) (1.00) (0.50) (0.25) Category: Time savings per claim Time savings per claim / (May-Dec) D40 RiskTriang(4,40,80,RiskStatic(40)) 4.00 41.33 80.00 Time savings per claim / 2008 E40 RiskTriang(4,40,80,RiskStatic(40)) 4.00 41.33 80.00 Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Page 23 of 24 Page 159 of 199

APPENDIX B Log of Contacts in Preparing CEI Benefit-Cost Analysis Date Name Position Interview/Focus Group Purpose 7/2/10 Andrea Moffit OBDP Had original administrative responsibility for CEI tool. 7/13/10 Benny Cox ODOT Inspector Observe how CEI tool is used and compare to process using ODOT forms 7/13/10 Nikki Parke ODOT Administrative Assistant, The Dalles Project Office 7/20/10 Inspector Focus Group Brandon Thompson OBDP Inspector Siva Ancha OBDP Inspector Charles Gavna OBDP Inspector David J McGhee OBDP Inspector Louis M Bolinger OBDP Inspector 8/10/10 Project Manager and Admin Assistant Focus Group Larry Lewter Project Manager Brent Pearson Assistant PM Tom Marzoff Project Manager Angela Nix Admin Assistant Kelly Griffin Admin Assistant Learn how CEI is used and forms processed Get inspector input on value and issues with CEI. Estimate time requirements for using forms. Obtain project manager and construction office perspective and gather benefit/cost information 8/16/10 Shannon Williams OBDP Environmental Assistant Understand environmental side of CEI tools 8/16/10 Bob Brown ODOT Environmental Technician, La Grande Use of CEI tool for surveillance and non-conforming forms 8/18/10 Byron Perry OBDP Design Manager Use of RFI form 8/18/10 Burak Evrenosuglu OBDP Claims Engineer Identify impact of CEI on claims 8/23/10 Steve Narcowicz ODOT Consultant Construction Manager Review experience with CEI tool, compare to ODOT process 8/24/10 Sue Grabowski OBDP Contracts Manager Loading contract data into CFI tool. Time and issues 8/25/10 Bob Pappe ODOT Contract Administration Engineer 8/26/10 Pat Cimmiyotti ODOT District Manager, formerly Project Manager for several bundles Get point of view of higher level ODOT manager in the process Get views of and ODOT project manager who had worked with CEI 8/27/10 Dan Anderson ODOT Claims Engineer ODOT experience with DPRs and typical rates of claims and claim settlements 12/10/10 Ron Reisdorff MPB Statistics and use levels of CEI Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool Page 24 of 24 Page 160 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS PRE-CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT APPLICATION AND REPORTING TOOL (PCA) The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Preconstruction Application and Reporting Tool (PCA) for the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program (Program) and to consider future options for its use after completion of the Program in 2014. This report is part of a series that also includes Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Construction Engineering/ Inspection tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing system (EDS), GIS Infrastructure, Environmental Baseline Online with EBR ArcPad and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA). Each of these reports describes the background and development of each system, its operational logic and the alternative method that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct and indirect users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. Benefits of the PCA were determined through interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) and users, and review of previous application and reporting processes. A benefit-cost analysis is performed for each tool using risk analysis software. In most of the reports, the benefits, developmental costs and operational costs were evaluated from inception through 2010. In the case of PCA, the evaluation was extended through 2011 to allow a five-year time horizon for evaluation from the time the tool went online in 2007. Life cycle costs are evaluated through the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014, with a brief evaluation of potential uses of the tool after 2014. Conclusions The PCA was originally conceived as a way to consolidate reporting and application processes under the OTIA III programmatic permit. The purpose of the online version was to create a single database to be used in preparing permit applications and in tracking and reporting compliance with programmatic agreements. The analysis carried out in this study found a benefit-cost (BC) ratio of 7.7, meaning the tool generated $7.70 in benefits for each dollar invested in its development. The benefits were the result of time savings in generating joint environmental permit applications and in preparing annual reports on the status of the programmatic permit. While all aspects of PCA did not work as smoothly as hoped, carrying out the requirements of the programmatic permit would have been more difficult and costly without this tool. In particular, the availability of the PCA database to prepare annual compliance reports more than justified the relatively modest expense of creating the tool. December 2010 Page 161 of 199

The high BC ratio was in large part due to the modest cost of creating and maintaining the tool. The use of this type of tool, customized to the particular set of projects, should be considered when a programmatic permit is negotiated. 1.0 BACKGROUND The PCA was originally conceived between ODOT and the resource agencies during the development of the Program s Programmatic Biological Assessment. It represents the compilation of approximately ten forms required by the multiple natural resource agencies involved in environmental permitting known as a Pre-Construction Assessment (PCA). For projects with standard issues, this single form is intended to replace the other agency forms and increase efficiency. The PCA is intended to capture all aspects of environmental permitting, including cultural and natural resource issues by: Creating a paperless and efficient method of communication between OBDP, ODOT, A&E contractors and natural resource agencies. Standardizing and consolidating of the information requested on natural resource permitting forms. Streamlining processing time. Collecting information in a single database to measure against Performance Standards. OBDP has developed an online version of the PCA. This method of data entry logs the environmental information for each bridge project into a single database that will be used to monitor and report on the performance of the Program. The tool is also used to track the Program's compliance with programmatic agreements, including wetland fill quantities and the total amount of incidental "take" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION FLOW Two elements of the PCA have significant process impacts: the preparation of permits and the preparation of environmental impact reports. The logic flow of each process is discussed separately below. Each process of the PCA tool is first presented then followed by the process that would be used if the tool were not available. 2.1 Permit Preparation In order to understand the logic of the PCA tool for preparing environmental permits, it is first necessary to understand the permitting processes under the OTIA III programmatic permit. The PCA document combines many separate permitting documents into one. Prior to the PCA, the permitting documents required for a simple project with minor impacts would include a joint permit application (JPA) for Clean Water Act (CWA) and Removal-Fill Law permitting and a biological assessment for the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The JPA was the original streamlined permitting application, addressing many agency concerns into one form. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 2 of 23 Page 162 of 199

The PCA serves as a single permit application form used for OTIA III programmatic permitting process and is required for all bridges in the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program. The goal of the application is to ensure correct environmental permitting for each construction project. The online entry and database links also expedite the permitting process. The PCA submittal process begins when the assigned design sub-contractor receives Notice to Proceed (NTP): Environmental Tech Memo: Forty-five days after NTP; the design contractor starts the PCA process by submitting the Environmental Tech Memo. Level 1 PCA: The design contractor will design and submit the PCA, in draft form, at the 30- percent design stage (Design Acceptance Package (DAP)). OBDP will review the information and provide feedback to the contractor regarding initial compliance and further information. Level 2 PCA: At the 60-percent design stage (Progress Plans), a revised draft tracks progress of design and compliance. Level 3 PCA: At the 90-percent design stage (Advanced Plans), a final draft is required that includes all required information, plans, and mitigation. Once the PCA is deemed complete by OBDP, it will then be distributed to the appropriate federal and state agencies for approval. At each PCA level, a complete report must be submitted to ODOT. 2.1.1 Process with PCA Tool The process using the PCA tool is diagrammed in Figure 1. In this process OBDP acts as an agent for ODOT on projects under the Oregon State Bridge Delivery Program. ODOT performs oversight in the process described below. 1. The process is initiated when a (roadway) project begins that requires reporting on environmental impacts. The A&E Contractor is required to scope the site in relation to the project impacts. 2. The A&E Contractor logs onto the PCA application and answers a series of project specific questions. 3. The record is populated with known, publicly-accessible information that has been prescreened and stored in related tables. Alternately, some of this information is converted on the fly. For example, once a project's location has been entered in coordinate data, information corresponding to the project's county, roadway, watershed, etc. are instantly known; this eliminates the effort and possible error of calculating and entering the same data for each form. Furthermore, there is only a single data entry for the A&E to work with, reducing opportunity for error. 4. The values from Step 5 can be compared to the Program's environmental performance standards (EPS), alerting the reviewer to potential problems. 5. The OBDP reviewer (environmental design coordinator) reviews the application and compares the input against the EPS. The process adds more quantitative evaluation than the current process. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 3 of 23 Page 163 of 199

6. Based on the review in Step 5, the reviewer must decide if the application is complete in its description of the project, its site and its impacts. If it is not, the permit(s) is returned to the A&E for further clarification. 7. Based on the review in Step 5, the reviewer must decide if the application is accurate in its description of the project, its site, and its impacts. In addition, permits are checked for consistency of information. If the application has errors, it is returned to the A&E for further clarification. At the discretion of the environmental design coordinator, the application is submitted to ODOT for Quality Assurance (QA) review. 8. ODOT reviews the document and decides if the application is accurate in its description of the project, its site and its impacts. 9. At the discretion of the ODOT reviewer, the application is submitted to the different regulatory agencies for review. 10. The regulatory agency reviewer must interpret the application. Steps 10-13 are conducted by each agency involved in the permit process. Several advantages exist to the online PCA process. First, entries are made only once for each question in the application. Once an entry is made the information populates all fields requiring the same information. Second, the use of a single entry to populate all identical fields reduces the opportunity for error. Third, once data is entered, it is carried through each step from 1 to 3 and does not have to be reentered. Finally, a single permit application meets the requirements of all participating regulatory agencies, eliminating separate applications. There are two drawbacks of this process. First, the full process must be followed for all projects covered by the OTIA programmatic permit, even in cases where it would have been easier to create separate applications. Second, the resulting document is typically several hundred pages; these are discussed in section 4.3. The process has also been criticized because applications must be submitted even where findings of no effect would otherwise have been made; this is a more complicated issue. According to the programmatic permit a pre-construction assessment must be conducted for each project. ODOT, OBDP and the permitting agencies agreed the joint, batched permit would fulfill this requirement. Therefore, if this process were not used for all projects then another process for complying with the pre-construction assessment requirement would have to be developed. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 4 of 23 Page 164 of 199

Figure 1: Preparation of Joint Environmental Application Using PCA Tool Pre-Construction Assessment Page 5 of 23 Page 165 of 199

2.1.2 Process without the PCA Program Tool The process that would be used without the PCA program is shown in Figure 2. 1. The process is initiated when a (roadway) project begins that requires reporting on the environmental impacts. The A&E Contractor is required to scope the site in relation to the project impacts. 2. Prior to preparing the permit application, the A&E Contractor is required to compile information about the site and the project. The information is gathered from many different resources, including public agency GIS resources, guidance documents and field work. Different agencies require different reporting of the same information. For example, the project location may be reported as latitude/longitude, Public Land Survey System (PLSS), taxlot number, county or combination of sources. 3. The A&E Contractor must manually prepare the application, using information gathered in Step 2. One application must be prepared for each agency involved in the approval process. 4. The prepared application is submitted to ODOT for review. Since the application describes the process, the reviewer must interpret the narrative for effects. Additionally, this process also acts as a quality control stage, with the reviewer flagging errors. 5. Based on the review in Step 4, the reviewer must decide if the application is complete in its description of the project, its site and its impacts. If it is not, the permit(s) is returned to the A&E for further clarification. 6. Based on the review in Step 4, the reviewer must decide if the application is accurate in its description of the project, its site and its impacts. In addition, permits are checked for consistency of information among the forms. If the application has errors, it is returned to the A&E for further clarification. At the discretion of the ODOT reviewer, the application is submitted to the different regulatory agencies for review. Note steps 7-10 are conducted by each agency involved in the permit process. 7. The regulatory agency reviewer must interpret the narrative for impacts. Each agency must complete this process independently. 8. The regulatory agency reviewer must decide if the application impacts are acceptable to the regulatory agency's standards. 9. The regulatory agency reviewer must verify, in addition to the accuracy of the information, that the application was submitted on the correct and current form for that agency. Forms are subject to frequent changes, at the discretion of each agency - failure to submit application on the proper form invalidates the application. 10. If the application is acceptable, ODOT issues an acceptance of the proposed action. 11. The acceptance is copied to ODOT. Information regarding the project both quantitative and qualitative is manually entered into different spreadsheets setup to track project impacts across the state. The spreadsheets can later be used to generate environmental reports. 12. A permit is issued to the A&E contractor who can then proceed with the work. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 6 of 23 Page 166 of 199

Figure 2: Joint Environmental Permit Preparation Without Preconstruction Assessment Tool Pre-Construction Assessment Page 7 of 23 Page 167 of 199

2.2 Annual Environmental Compliance Report 2.2.1 Compliance Reporting with PCA Program Tool The other major use of the PCA Program Tool is for generation of compliance reports. The process, in so far as it depends on the PCA program, is depicted in Figure 3. 1. Regulatory agencies request a performance report. Reports are created on regular timetables (e.g., annually), but can be requested at any time and ODOT must respond. 2. Once a request is received from ODOT, OBDP prepares to respond to the request. 3. OBDP generates a report directly from the database containing all of the project metrics. Tables are organized and text added by staff. 4. The report is forwarded to the requesting agency. Since all applications and site data have been entered into the same database, summary tables and analysis can be prepared without evaluating each application separately. The process saves significant amounts of time and increases the accuracy of the reports. Figure 3: Annual Environmental Compliance Report Using Pre-Construction Assessment Pre-Construction Assessment Page 8 of 23 Page 168 of 199

2.2.2 Compliance Reporting without PCA Program Tool The key difference in assembling compliance reports without PCA is in the alternative to Step 3 as shown in Figure 3. Instead of being assembled from pre-populated databases, separate spreadsheets must be assembled from separate applications for each project and then summed to an annual report. In addition, the program and environmental baseline information is not linked to the application and report preparation templates. The resulting data gathering and report preparation process requires significantly more time than using the PCA Program. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS The following table describes direct and indirect users. Direct users are those who access and use the PCA tool. Relatively few people enter data and prepare applications and reports. Most joint permit applications created in the PCA tool are developed by one of eight subcontractors, and all compliance reports are prepared by OBDP environmental staff. Any other input is automatically uploaded from other sources. The output is reviewed by the OBDP Environmental Manager and ODOT environmental reviewers. In addition, most permitting agencies view the permit applications online. Indirect users include: Department of State Lands (DSL), Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and other permitting agencies. ODOT and OBDP environmental and design managers who verify designs against permit specifications for compliance. Direct Users Table 1 PCA Users Indirect Users Input OBDP Environmental Manager OBDP Environmental staff Environmental/Design Consultants Output OBDP Environmental Manager ODOT Environmental Reviewers Permitting Agencies ODOT and OBDP Environmental and Design Managers Department of State Lands and other permitting agencies 4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS 4.1 Time Savings Two sources of time savings result from using the PCA program. One is in preparation of permit applications and the other in the preparation of annual compliance reports. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 9 of 23 Page 169 of 199

4.1.1 Preparation of Permit Applications In order to determine time savings impacts of the PCA program OBDP staff, several subconsultants and two ODOT staff responsible for preparing the applications were interviewed. Based on their responses, applications were grouped into four categories: Applications that would have gone to no effect were it not for the programmatic permit - there is considerable controversy around these applications. Those interviewed have taken one of three positions: (1) the applications would have needed to be completed anyway because of the programmatic permit and therefore should be treated as any other application; (2) even without the PCA tool, there would have to be a pre-construction assessment which would require at least some additional effort beyond a finding of no effect; or (3) either the bridges should have been excluded from the programmatic permit or there could have been a much simpler process for compliance with the programmatic permit. In view of the controversy neither savings nor additional cost was ascribed to these applications. Of the 235 applications developed under the PCA 106 were assumed to fall into this category based on the number of repair only bridges without in-water work. First time applications for the firm or individual filling out the application. A steep learning curve exists for this process. The first time an individual or team fills out an application it will likely take longer than without the tool. In the benefit-cost analysis it was assumed the extra time required was equal to the time savings for third and subsequent applications. It was estimated that 16 applications fell into this category. Second time applications were assumed to take the same amount of time as applications without the PCA tool. An estimated 14 applications fell under this category. Third and subsequent applications for bridges would have had environmental conditions needing to be addressed. Ninety-nine (99) of the 235 applications fell into this category. Table 2 shows estimated hours for completion of applications with and without the PCA tool. For both technical staff and administrative staff the estimated required hours are shown for completing applications using the PCA tool and without the tool. The range column shows the assumed range within which the required time would fall 80% of the time, recognizing that for certain situations more or less time might be required. Noting that most of those interviewed found it easier to discuss differences in time rather than total time requirements, the final column shows the average time differential between the two processes. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 10 of 23 Page 170 of 199

Table 2: Application Development Time Comparison between PCA Tool and Bridge by Bridge Process Personnel Type Environmental Staff Administrative Staff Average Time Requirement (hours) With PCA Without PCA Average Difference Range (80%) Average Range (80%) 41 36-47 56 53-63 15 40 30-50 65 60-80 15 Two clarifications are needed for this data. First, the attempt was to show the time required to fill out the application and not the time to research conditions and impacts. Research time is assumed to be the same regardless of the reporting mechanism. Second, these time savings estimates appear to be very conservative given the potential for rework in the three-level process setup for compliance with the programmatic permit. 4.1.2 Time Savings in Annual Compliance Reporting The other major source of PCA time savings is in the annual environmental compliance report where the tool appears to be saving between 1,500 and 2,400 hours per year. The primary reason for the savings is that most of the information necessary to produce the report has been stored in the PCA database during the application process. Without PCA, data would have to be gathered from applications and other sources. The time requirements for producing the Annual Compliance Report with and without the PCA Program are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Annual Compliance Reporting Time Requirements Personnel Time Requirement (hours) Time Difference with Type PCA (hours) With PCA Without PCA Environmental Staff Administrative Staff 70 90 hrs 16 24 hrs per bridge 1,600 2,400 hrs 1,530 2,310 hrs savings per report 16 24 hrs 60 100 hrs 44 76 hrs per report Total 1,574 2,386 per report 4.2 Indirect and Non-quantified Benefits In addition to direct time savings, the PCA tool provides a level of consistency in application submittals not previously possible. Among the specific non-quantified benefits: The PCA database has been a valuable source of data for responding to questions from MPB, Geotechnical Branch and permitting agencies. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 11 of 23 Page 171 of 199

Regulatory agencies can quickly ascertain whether each condition of the programmatic permit has been addressed. The process is likely faster, though no specific data is available. All required information for the application is in one place. Errors in the joint permit application are virtually non-existent. Because of the certainty that each regulatory issue is addressed and because of the certainty provided by the programmatic permit, ODOT and OBDP can better plan activities requiring environmental approval. 4.3 Issues with the PCA tool In addition to quantified and non-quantified benefits, this analysis also uncovered several issues with the process that could be addressed in similar future applications. First, because applications typically were 300 to 600 pages long, they required extra time for the contractor to assemble and created problems for some reviewing agencies. Some environmental agencies questioned the need for such large documents and noted that initial versions of the joint permits were difficult to navigate although this did not seem to have significantly affected the speed or certainty of approval. One suggested solution to this problem would be to segment the application in a way that allowed regulatory agencies to download only those elements they needed for their specific review. A second problem was the full pre-construction assessment and application had to be completed even for projects which would otherwise proceed under findings of no effect. As discussed previously there is controversy around the inclusion of those projects in the programmatic permit and the PCA process. Regardless of that controversy, a number of interviewees suggested creating a streamlined process for these projects within the PCA tool. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS 5.1 Development Costs The PCA tool cost $101,087 to develop. The cost included a share of servers and other Information Systems (IS) capital dedicated to this activity. The hardware was valued at $16,197 and the remainder of the cost was staff time to develop templates and access tools to retrieve information from databases. The tool did not require the purchase of software licenses. 5.2 Maintenance and Operation Annual costs are estimated at $5,000 per year. The cost includes approximately $2,680 per year in IT charges and 24 hours per year of an IS technician s time. Data storage and backup costs are very small, since most data used by the tool and the applications and reports generated by the tool are actually stored within other applications. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 12 of 23 Page 172 of 199

5.3 Life Cycle Costs The annual life cycle cost of the PCA tool through the end of the OTIA III program in 2014 is estimated at approximately $17,000 per year. As shown in Table 4, this includes development costs and annual costs of equipment, IT staff maintenance and data storage, valued in 2010 dollars. The total also includes migration costs to move the program onto ODOT computers in 2014. The PCA tool should be kept active through 2019. The programmatic permit requires annual compliance reports on construction and mitigation for five years after construction is complete. When the program is moved to ODOT, equipment costs would probably disappear as the program could probably be placed on existing ODOT equipment. Likely, this would still require a limited amount of annual maintenance. Data storage could go up if it is necessary to move additional databases along with the PCA program itself. TABLE 4 PCA LIFE CYCLE COSTS Development Year Costs Annual Costs Migration Grand Total Present value (2010) Annualized Equipment IT Staff Data Storage and Backup Total 4% 2005 $ 101,087 $ $ 101,087 $ 108,790 2006 $ 2,680 $ 2,043 $ 10 $ 4,733 $ 4,733 $ 4,910 2007 $ 2,680 $ 2,138 $ 10 $ 4,828 $ 4,828 $ 4,828 2008 $ 2,680 $ 2,215 $ 10 $ 4,905 $ 4,905 $ 4,728 2009 $ 2,680 $ 2,215 $ 10 $ 4,905 $ 4,905 $ 4,557 2010 $ 2,680 $ 2,291 $ 10 $ 4,981 $ 4,981 $ 4,462 2011 $ 2,680 $ 2,371 $ 10 $ 5,061 $ 5,061 $ 4,370 2012 $ 2,680 $ 2,454 $ 10 $ 5,144 $ 5,144 $ 4,281 2013 $ 2,680 $ 2,540 $ 10 $ 5,230 $ 5,230 $ 4,196 2014 $ 2,680 $ 2,629 $ 10 $ 5,319 $ 10,000 $ 15,319 $ 11,847 OTIA III Total $ 45,107 $ 156,194 $ 156,970 $ 17,441 Post OTIA III 2015 $ 998 $ 1,000 $ 1,998 $ 1,998 $ 1,489 2016 $ 1,033 $ 1,000 $ 2,033 $ 2,033 $ 1,461 2017 $ 1,069 $ 1,000 $ 2,069 $ 2,069 $ 1,433 2018 $ 1,106 $ 1,000 $ 2,106 $ 2,106 $ 1,406 2019 $ 1,145 $ 1,000 $ 2,145 $ 2,145 $ 1,381 6.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS A benefit-cost analysis was conducted for a five-year period following the introduction of PCA in December 2006. Benefits were estimated for 2007 through 2011 based on time savings compared to producing joint permit applications and annual compliance reports without the PCA tool. 1 All benefits were discounted to year 2010 using a discount rate of 3.74%. 2 Calculations 1 Normally a B/C analysis would be prospective, looking only at future changes, or retrospective, considering some past time period. In this case the analysis includes both future and past years. It is also normal to think of the process of calculating present value of benefits or costs as discounting from some future year to the present. In this case, both past and future costs and benefits are discounted to a present value in 2010 for comparison. Neither of these methodological adjustments affects the validity of the analysis. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 13 of 23 Page 173 of 199

used the @Risk simulator to allow entry of ranges of data where appropriate and to provide risk assessment of the results. The analysis is shown in detail in Appendix A. Calculations of the BC ratio, Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return are shown in Table 5. The benefit cost (BC) ratio for the PCA tool was calculated at 7.7 indicating that $7.70 in benefits are being generated for every $1.00 of investment. Risk analysis indicates there is a 90% probability that the BC ratio is at least 6.7. Net present value was estimated at $902,000 and an internal rate of return of 209% was calculated. The potential variation in the BC ratio is primarily due to variations in estimates of time requirements for applications produced with and without the PCA program. Table 5 Benefit-Cost Calculations for Pre-Construction Assessment (PCA) Tool Estimated Value 90% Confidence Interval Low Benefit-Cost Ratio 7.7 6.6 8.3 High Net Present Value $902,000 $772,000 $969,000 Internal Rate of Return 209% 172% 234% 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis concludes that the PCA tool has been an effective way to save time and cost while meeting the permit application and reporting requirements of the OTIA III programmatic permit. The same type of tool should be considered for other programmatic permits. While each programmatic permit will have unique requirements the PCA tool could serve as a model for future similar tools. In creating new PCAs for future programmatic permits there are two types of improvements that should be made: Revise the structure for ease of assembly. This could include the creation of an automated table of contents linked to modules of supporting data, improved pull down windows and improved links to the project related database. Create an online version that would allow permitting agencies to download only those elements that are within their jurisdiction and responsibility. Consider creating a process to shorten data entry requirements when projects would go forward with findings of no effect were it not for the programmatic permit. 2 3.74% is the average interest rate on OTIA III bonds and therefore represents the cost of moving expenditures earlier and the value of experiencing benefits earlier. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 14 of 23 Page 174 of 199

APPENDIX A PERSONS INTERVIEWED FOR PCA ANALYSIS Name Position Issues Discussed Shelley Richards OBDP Environmental Manager Purpose and level of use of PCA tool Shannon Williams OBDP Details of using the tool Mike Bianci Environmental Science, HDR Experience with use of the tool. Compliance issues. Rick Jerofke Environmental Coordinator, ODOT Region 5 Experience using the tool. Zach Toledo Environmental Manager, HDR Purpose of tool and development process Bill Ryan Division of State Lands (formerly worked for ODOT) Experience from both ODOT and natural resource agency. Russ Klaussen Division of State lands Major role in review of joint environmental permits Dominic Yballe Army Corps of Engineers Experience from key resource agency. Austin Bloom Mark Hansen Environmental Group Manager, OBEC Environmental Project Manager, Mason, Bruce & Girard Joint permit applications and use of the PCA tool by consultants. Efficiency of PCA tool, including problems and relation to programmatic permit. Pre-Construction Assessment Page 15 of 23 Page 175 of 199

APPENDIX B: PCA BENEFIT-COST DOCUMENTATION PCA BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS MODEL LOGIC Pre-Construction Assessment Page 16 of 23 Page 176 of 199

General Data 1Total JPAs 2Bridges in annual report 3Consult tech rate 4Consult admin rate 5ODOT tech rate 6ODOT admin rate Pre Construction Assessment Application Benefit Cost Analysis Source OBDP OBDP OBDP OBDP MFA MFA Logic Impact of JPA and PCA for projects that would have been "no effect 7PCAs for no effect bridges MFA Estimate from OBDP data 8Net hr savings MFA = 0 9Net value of savings = 0 Impact on first time applications 10 Number MFA Estimate from OBDP data 11 Hrs/bridge saved (lost) MFA from interviews 12 Hrs saved (lost) inverse of v25 per bridge 13 Value of savings (loss) = v10 * v12 Impact of second time applications 14 Number MFA Estimate from OBDP data 15 Hrs saved MFA = 0 16 Value of savings = 0 Impact of applications when three or more 17 Number = v1 v7 v10 v14 18 Tech hrs w/o PCA MFA From interviews 19 Admin hrs w/o PCA MFA From interviews 20 Tech hrs with PCA MFA From interviews 21 Admin hrs with PCA MFA From interviews 22 Net tech hrs saved = v18 v20 23 Net admin hrs saved = v19 * v21 24 Total hours saved =v22 + v23 25 Value of Savings = ( v2 * v22 ) + ( v4 * v23 ) Net JPA savings 26 Hours =v9 + v13 + v16 + v25 27 Value = v10 + v14 + v17 + v26 Savings for annual reports 28 Tech hrs per bridge w/o PCA MFA From interviews 29 Total tech hrs w/o PCA = v2 * v28 30 Admin hrs w/o PCA MFA From interviews 31 Total hrs w/0 PCA = v2 * v30 32 Cost w/o PCA = v29 + v31 33 Tech hrs with PCA MFA From interviews 34 Admin hrs with PCA MFA From interviews 35 Total hrs with PCA = v33* v234 36 Total Cost with PCA = v3 * v33 + v4 * v34 37 Hours saved with PCA = v31 v35 38 Cost saved with PCA =v 32 v36 39 Total hours saved = v26 + v37 40 Total Savings = v27 + v38 Pre-Construction Assessment Page 17 of 23 Page 177 of 199

Operation & Maintenance 41 IS Charges OBDP 42 Tech hours OBDP 43 IS tech costs =v3 * v42 44 Data storage MFA from OBDP data 45 Total M&O = v41 + b43 + b44 46 Net benefits = v40 v45 47 Total sum of annual v46 2007 to 2011 48 Net benefits discounted to 2010 = v46 discounted to 2010 by rate v55 49 Total discounted benefits Sum of annul v48 Capital Costs 50 Equipment OBDP 51 Licenses OBDP 52 Development cost OBDP 53 Total Capital = v50 * v51 * v52 54 Discounted capital = v53 disocunted to 2010 at rate v55 BCA Analysis 55 Discount Rate MFA = 3.74% 56 BC Ratio = v59 / v54 57 Net Present Value = v59 v54 58 IRR Rate at which v56=1 and v57=0 Pre-Construction Assessment Page 18 of 23 Page 178 of 199

Pre Construction Assessment Application Benefit Cost Analysis 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 General Data Total JPAs 33 110 28 36 28 0 Bridges in annual report 80 80 80 80 40 Consult tech rate $ 85.91 $ 89.10 $ 92.28 $ 92.28 $ 95.46 $ 96.50 Consult admin rate $ 49.41 $ 51.24 $ 53.07 $ 53.07 $ 54.90 $ 55.94 ODOT tech rate ODOT admin rate Impact of JPA and PCA for projects that would have been "no effect PCAs for no effect bridges 15 50 13 16 13 Net hr savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net value of savings $ $ $ $ $ $ Impact of first time applications Number 8 4 2 1 1 Hrs/bridge saved (lost) (72) (72) (72) (72) (72) Hrs saved (lost) (576) (288) (144) (72) (72) Value of savings (loss) (21,274) (11,031) (5,713) (2,856) (2,955) Impact of second time applications Number 6 4 2 1 1 Hrs saved Value of savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Impact of applications when three or more Number 4 53 11 18 13 0 Tech hrs w/o PCA 56 56 56 56 56 56 Admin hrs w/o PCA 66 66 66 66 66 66 Tech hrs with PCA 40 40 40 40 40 40 Admin hrs with PCA 40 40 40 40 40 40 Net tech hrs saved 16 16 16 16 16 16 Net admin hrs saved 26 26 26 26 26 26 Total hours saved 298.8 3780 820.8 1281.6 964.8 0 Value of Savings $ 11,036.03 $ 144,783.24 $ 32,561.82 $ 50,842.14 $ 39,593.78 $ Net JPA savings Hours (277) 3,492 677 1,210 893 Value $ (10,238) $ 133,752 $ 26,849 $ 47,986 $ 36,639 Pre-Construction Assessment Page 19 of 23 Page 179 of 199

Savings for annual reports Tech hrs per bridge w/o PCA 20 20 20 20 20 Total tech hrs w/o PCA 1600 1600 1600 1600 800 Admin hrs w/o PCA 80 80 80 80 80 Total hrs w/0 PCA 1680 1680 1680 1680 880 Cost w/o PCA $ 146,652.80 $ 151,893.60 $ 151,893.60 $ 157,128.00 $ 81,670.80 Tech hrs with PCA 80 80 80 80 80 Admin hrs with PCA 70 70 70 70 70 Total hrs with PCA 150 150 150 150 150 Total Cost with PCA $ 10,714 $ 11,097 $ 11,097 $ 11,480 $ 11,635 Hours saved with PCA 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,530 730 Cost saved with PCA $ 135,938 $ 140,796 $ 140,796 $ 145,648 $ 70,036 Total hours saved (277) 5,022 2,207 2,740 2,423 730 Total Savings $ (10,238) $ 269,690 $ 167,646 $ 188,782 $ 182,287 $ 70,036 Maintenance and Operation IS Charges $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 Tech hours 24 24 24 24 24 IS tech costs $ 2,138.30 $ 2,214.72 $ 2,214.72 $ 2,291.04 $ 2,315.88 Data storage $ 9.14 $ 9.14 $ 9.14 $ 9.14 $ 9.14 Total M&O $ 4,827.45 $ 4,903.86 $ 4,903.86 $ 4,980.18 $ 5,005.02 Net benefits $ (10,238) $ 264,863 $ 162,742 $ 183,878 $ 177,307 $ 65,031 $ 843,582 Net benefits discounted to 2010 $ (11,858) $ 295,706 $ 175,142 $ 190,755 $ 177,307 $ 62,686 Total discounted benefits $ 901,597 Capital Costs Equipment $ 16,197 Licenses $ Development cost $ 84,890 Total Capital $ 101,087 Discounted capital $ 117,079 BCA Analysis Discount Rate 3.74% Results Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%) BC Ratio 7.7 6.6 8.3 Net Present Value $ 901,597 $ 772,000 $ 969,000 IRR 209% 172% 234% Pre-Construction Assessment Page 20 of 23 Page 180 of 199

@RISK Output Report for BC Ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Friday, December 24, 2010 8:57:17 AM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 21 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed PCA BC 20de10.xlsx Latin Hypercube 12/24/10 8:53:53 00:00:17 Mersenne Twister 1802747981 Summary Statistics for BC Ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum 5.0 5% 6.4 Maximum 10.2 10% 6.6 Mean 7.4 15% 6.8 Std Dev 0.7 20% 6.9 Variance 0.433357227 25% 7.0 Skewness 0.066659226 30% 7.1 Kurtosis 2.998818961 35% 7.2 Median 7.4 40% 7.3 Mode 7.6 45% 7.3 Left X 6.6 50% 7.4 Left P 10% 55% 7.5 Right X 8.3 60% 7.6 Right P 90% 65% 7.7 Diff X 1.7 70% 7.8 Diff P 80% 75% 7.9 #Errors 0 80% 8.0 Filter Min Off 85% 8.1 Filter Max Off 90% 8.3 #Filtered 0 95% 8.5 Regression and Rank Information for BC Ratio / Mo Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Admin hrs with PCA 0.471 0.472 2 Tech hrs with PCA / 0.410 0.399 3 Tech hrs w/o PCA / 0.410 0.409 4 Tech hrs per bridge 0.340 0.313 5 Consult tech rate / 20.284 0.272 6 Consult tech rate / 20.280 0.262 7 Admin hrs w/o PCA 0.236 0.231 8 Consult tech rate / 20.210 0.220 9 Consult tech rate / 20.203 0.197 10 Consult admin rate 0.094 0.078 11 Tech hrs with PCA / 0.036 0.038 12 Consult admin rate 0.033 0.033 13 Admin hrs with PCA 0.027 0.025 14 Consult admin rate 0.023 0.000 IT Benefit Cost Analysis: PCA Tool Page 21 of 23 Page 181 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Friday, December 24, 2010 8:57:43 AM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: Admin hrs w/o PCA Admin hrs w/o PCA / 2006 C32 RiskTrigen(61,66,71,10,90,RiskStatic(66)) 56.95491 66 75.04508 Admin hrs w/o PCA / 2007 D47 RiskTrigen(72,80,88,10,90,RiskStatic(80)) 65.52786 80 94.47214 Category: Admin hrs with PCA Admin hrs with PCA / 2006 C34 RiskTrigen(30,40,50,10,90,RiskStatic(40)) 21.90983 40 58.09017 Admin hrs with PCA / 2007 D51 RiskTrigen(60,70,80,10,90,RiskStatic(70)) 51.90983 70 88.09017 Category: Consult admin rate Consult admin rate / 2006 C9 RiskNormal(49.41,4.941,RiskStatic(49.41)) $ 35.00 $ 49.41 $ 65.00 Consult admin rate / 2007 D9 RiskNormal(51.24,5.124,RiskStatic(51.24)) $ 35.00 $ 51.24 $ 65.00 Consult admin rate / 2008 E9 RiskNormal(53.07,5.307,RiskStatic(53.07)) $ 40.00 $ 53.07 $ 70.00 Consult admin rate / 2009 F9 RiskNormal(53.07,5.307,RiskStatic(53.07)) $ 40.00 $ 53.07 $ 70.00 Consult admin rate / 2010 G9 RiskNormal(54.9,5.49,RiskStatic(54.9)) $ 40.00 $ 54.90 $ 70.00 Consult admin rate / 2011 H9 RiskNormal(1.035,0.1035,RiskStatic(1.035)) $ 0.75 $ 1.04 $ 1.30 Category: Consult tech rate Consult tech rate / 2006 C8 RiskNormal(85.914,8.5914,RiskStatic(85.914)) $ 65.00 $ 85.91 $ 110.00 Consult tech rate / 2007 D8 RiskNormal(89.096,8.9096,RiskStatic(89.096)) $ 65.00 $ 89.10 $ 110.00 Consult tech rate / 2008 E8 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Consult tech rate / 2009 F8 RiskNormal(92.28,9.228,RiskStatic(92.28)) $ 70.00 $ 92.28 $ 115.00 Consult tech rate / 2010 G8 RiskNormal(95.46,9.546,RiskStatic(95.46)) $ 70.00 $ 95.46 $ 120.00 Consult tech rate / 2011 H8 RiskNormal(1.035,0.1035,RiskStatic(1.035)) $ 75.00 $ 1.04 $ 1.30 IT Benefit Cost Analysis: PCA Tool Page 22 of 23 Page 182 of 199

Category: Tech hours Tech hours / 2007 D62 RiskTriang(20,24,28,RiskStatic(24)) 20 24 28 Category: Tech hrs per bridge w/o PCA Tech hrs per bridge w/o PCA / 2007 D45 RiskTrigen(18,20,20,10,90,RiskStatic(20)) 17 19.11111 20.33333 Category: Tech hrs w/o PCA Tech hrs w/o PCA / 2006 C31 RiskTrigen(51,56,61,10,90,RiskStatic(56)) 46.95491 56 65.04508 Category: Tech hrs with PCA Tech hrs with PCA / 2006 C33 RiskTrigen(35,40,45,10,90,RiskStatic(40)) 30.95491 40 49.04509 Tech hrs with PCA / 2007 D50 RiskTrigen(72,80,88,10,90,RiskStatic(80)) 65.52786 80 94.47214 IT Benefit Cost Analysis: PCA Tool Page 23 of 23 Page 183 of 199

FINAL REPORT OREGON BRIDGE DELIVERY PARTNERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS WORK ZONE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SYSTEM The purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of the Work Zone Traffic Analysis (WZTA) system for the OTIA III Bridge Program and to consider future options for its use after completion of OTIA III in 2014. This report is part of a series that also includes the Bridge Reporting System (BRS), Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing system (EDS), GIS Infrastructure, Preconstruction Assessment tool (PCA) and EBR Online with EBR ArcPad. Each report describes the background and development of each system, its operational logic and the alternative method that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct and indirect users of the technology who benefit from the tool. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits. Benefits of the WZTA were determined through interviews and a survey of authorized users of the system. A benefit-cost analysis was performed for each system using risk analysis software. In each report, developmental and operational costs were evaluated from inception through 2010 or through the first five years of operation. In the case of WZTA, the evaluation period was 2009 through 2013. Conclusions The WZTA System was developed in response to traffic management goals and needs of the OTIA III Bridge Program. WZTA brings together the data sources and analytical tool to evaluate the impact of alternative approaches to traffic management during construction. The analysis found that the system dramatically reduces the time required to perform the analysis and is already extensively used for numerous programs on the State Highway System. A benefit cost analysis found a benefit-cost (BC) ratio of 3.6 for all uses of the tool, which indicates that for every $1.00 invested in the system a benefit of $3.60 was returned. However, when benefits were restricted to OTIA III bridges, the BC ratio fell to 0.7, indicating that for the program alone, the benefits did not cover developmental costs. The reduction in the BC occurred because the system was developed late in the program after most of the OTIA III analysis had been completed. Additionally, road users benefit by reduced delay and construction contractors can better achieve target work windows and traffic management, which save time and expense. These benefits were not measured in this study. 1.1 BACKGROUND The WZTA System provides a reporting and analysis repository for information related to roadway traffic and potential delays. It combines information from several sources into a single January 2011 Page 184 of 199

location. The Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP) developed the online WZTA web system to provide users greater access to mobility-related data throughout the state. The system allows users to view roadway and roadway traffic data to determine the effects on mobility created by lane closures related to construction and roadwork. The system was developed in response to the special needs created by the OTIA III State Bridge Program. A specific aim of the program is the minimization of traffic interference due to construction. Initially, OBDP developed a spreadsheet for work zone traffic analysis. The spreadsheet standardized the approach and improved the speed of calculations. The WZTA System performs two functions, which are an improvement to the spreadsheet approach. First, it creates a data library that may be directly accessed from the web site. Previously data was obtained from multiple sources and entered into the spreadsheet. Second, the tool automates the traffic analysis calculations so users can use the website to make calculations quickly and download results for use in project planning. The system is web-based and organized through a GIS interface. Access to the database is available to anyone; however, access to the analysis package is restricted to those who obtain necessary training through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and/or OBDP. Currently there are 78 registered users with access to the analysis package. The WZTA System has three important benefits: 1. Consistent data on roads and traffic can be obtained quickly by users; reducing traffic analysis costs. 2. The reduced time necessary for analysis of work zone traffic flow allows analysis at several stages of project development, design and construction; resulting in better traffic management during construction. 3. Improves traffic management, which reduces disruption and delay experienced by road users during construction. 2.0 SYSTEM LOGIC AND INFORMATION FLOW 2.1 OBDP IT System Figure 1 is a depiction of the WZTA System and consists of three parts: (1) The system contains data sets that are updated annually by the system administrator from a variety of sources. Data sets contain all information required to perform work zone traffic analysis, including information on road classification, geometry and traffic. A survey of users found that obtaining this information from the WZTA web site rather than the original data sources saved an average of two hours and could sometimes be as high as 40 or more hours depending on the specific information being sought. The information is available to the general public as well as authorized users. (2) The second element of WZTA is the analytical package. This allows the analyst to enter assumptions about lane closures, diversions or other changes in traffic management and quickly calculate the results in terms of traffic flow and delay. Due to concerns over commercial impacts of delays, the analytical package is set up to evaluate truck traffic as Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 2 of 16 Page 185 of 199

well as general traffic impacts. This package is based on the spreadsheet developed earlier by OBDP traffic analysts. Experienced users can often complete analysis of a work site in 30 minutes with updates possible in as little as five minute. A survey of authorized users found that this function saves an average of two hours over alternate methods. (3) The third component of the system is the report writing function. This element contains standard data reports available to general users, standard traffic impact reports available to authorized users and also allows authorized users to generate custom reports. Figure 1. WZTA Logic Diagram WZTA System Administrators (Data updates and system management) (1) Data Sets Authorized users (Standard and Custom Reports) (2) Analytic Package General Users (Standard Reports) (3) Report Writer a. Standard Reports b. Custom Reports (Analysts Only) 2.2 Alternate System Prior to the creation of WZTA, traffic analysts needed to go directly to each required data set and forecast to compile required information and then perform analysis using spreadsheets or hand calculations. The ODOT staff, who performed most of the analysis, required approximately four hours to calculate the impacts of a work zone traffic modification, including the time to obtain data and calculate impacts of alternative traffic configurations. Consultants and others less familiar with the data sets and road system often required more time. Updates involving only one or two factors will typically require 30 minutes or more depending on the extent of required calculations and input changes. Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 3 of 16 Page 186 of 199

In addition to increased time requirements, previous analysis methods were subject to data inconsistencies because the various data sets and forecasts were updated on an ongoing basis. 3.0 SYSTEM USERS This system has both direct and indirect users. Any of these users could be associated with OTIA III Bridge Program. In Section 4.0, activity on the site is divided between OTIA III application and other uses. The direct users are those who directly access the WZTA web site and include: Administrators who update data sets and maintain the system. As of this report, there were four administrators, three worked for OBDP and one for ODOT. Authorized users who have permission to use the analysis portion of the system and to download information from the site. As of this report there were 78 authorized users. Authorized users must participate in a two-day training session before being granted access to the analysis package. Analysts may use alternate data forecast assumptions and may create custom reports as well as standard reports and analysis. Currently the authorized users include 50 ODOT staff, 5 local agency staff, 2 OBDP staff (including administrators) and 21 other consultants. Any of these personnel can work on OTIA III Bridge analysis as project owners (ODOT), contractors or affected parties. Guest users include those who go to the site and are not authorized users. These users may download information but may not use the traffic analysis package. The number of these users is unknown. Table 1. WZTA Users Direct Users Input Analysis Output Administrators 4 Authorized Users Authorized users 78 ODOT 50 Guest users unknown Local Agencies 5 OBDP Staff 2 Other Consultants 21 Indirect Users Designers Contractors Project Managers ODOT Region Mobility Managers (may also be analysts) Contract specification writers Indirect users are those using the output generated by the WZTA system but do not necessarily go directly to the web site. These include designers, contractors, project managers, ODOT Region Mobility Managers (who may also be authorized users) and contract specification writers. Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 4 of 16 Page 187 of 199

4.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS 4.1 Time Savings 4.1.1 Direct User Benefits In order to determine user time savings attributable to the WZTA web site, the 78 authorized users, who were not OBDP administrators, were also surveyed. The survey response rate was 27.6%. Based on survey results overall time savings were calculated. Then, based on discussions with system administrators, time savings was divided between work related to OTIA III Bridges and other uses. In addition to allocating between OTIA III and other uses, savings were estimated for other years, recognizing that the survey would be indicative of only 2010. These users accessed the WZTA web site an average of 51 times during the past year. During the period, 57% of the time they were performing analysis and 43% they were only seeking data. In terms of time savings related only to obtaining data, responses ranged from -20 minutes (indicating it took twenty minutes longer to use the system) to 60 hours. After the most extreme estimates were removed, the average time savings for obtaining data was estimated to be slightly more than 2 hours. A sample standard deviation of 3.7 hours indicates a very wide range in responses. Likely, there are two reasons for this extreme variation. First, the types of data sought could vary significantly. No distinction was made between accessing the site for the purpose of obtaining a single specific piece of data versus obtaining all data required for a complete impact analysis. Second, those more familiar with the alternative data sets would save less time compared to others. In terms of time savings for performing a work zone traffic analysis, estimates ranged from zero to 40 hours. When extremes were removed, the average time savings was slightly less than two hours with a sample standard deviation of 1.4 hours. This indicates a more consistent pattern than that observed when only obtaining data. Considering both data and analysis, total annual savings per survey respondent is 101.4 hours per year. Assuming the rate of savings for all 76 users surveyed, yields an annual savings of approximately 7,004 hours per year. As noted previously, this is conservative because it does not include the general users accessing the site to obtain data. At a blended rate, proportionate to the various user types, this translates into an annual savings of more than $446,000 per year. The survey also asked users to estimate the percentage of time they were working on ODOT projects (either directly or through OBDP). On average, 81.6% of their work on the site was for ODOT. The time savings for work otherwise be paid for by ODOT, would be more than $364,000 per year. In allocating by year it was assumed that total use, and thus savings, would vary with the overall size of the construction Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). An exception was made for 2009 based on the assumption that there would be a learning curve associated with the new site and would reduce saving achieved by 33% for that year only. In allocating between OTIA III Bridge Program and other activities, after a review of the number of bridges and bundles in design and construction, the following percentages of total benefits were applied to OTIA III activities: 2009: 50% 2010: 33% Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 5 of 16 Page 188 of 199

2011: 25% 2012: 10% 2013: 5% Based on these figures the total savings for the OTIA III Program was estimated at 8,700 hours, or $465,000, two-thirds of which occurred in 2009 and 2010. 4.1.2 Indirect User Benefits Benefits to indirect users results from two sources. First, calculations using WZTA are more consistent and require less rework. Second, when design considerations or construction plans, which were not anticipated during initial project assessment require recalculation of traffic impacts, the time required and potential project delays are reduced. As noted earlier, once analysis has been performed for a particular site, the WZTA system can often update the analysis in a matter of minutes. Both of these factors reduce or eliminate delays due to rework of traffic analysis. These benefits could not be quantified. 4.2 Benefits of Improved Traffic Management During Construction WZTA also has an impact on traffic flow. Prior to the creation of WZTA, the time required for data collection and analysis meant an analysis was often performed only once during project development and traffic management strategies were seldom altered. The speed of WZTA analysis allows multiple analyses during development and construction, permitting modifications as new information becomes available and allowing the testing of alternative management strategies. This improves the potential for reducing travel delay during construction, which is a benefit to road users. It also improves the ability of construction contractors to better plan for traffic management and schedule work during times that minimize traffic disruption. The benefits could not be quantified within the scope of this analysis. 5.0 SYSTEM COSTS 5.1 Development Costs The WZTA system required no additional equipment, software or licenses to develop. ODOT and OBDP staff created the site using 4,009 hours of labor at a cost of $370,000. 5.2 Maintenance and Operation Ongoing maintenance and operation consists primarily of updating the sites databases with information from multiple ODOT sources. In 2009, the first year of operation, the site required 480 hours of work including updating data sets and making adjustments to the tool. Total hours of maintenance in 2010 are expected to reach 300 hours, of which 40 will be data updates. In future years only data updates will be required and annual maintenance will drop to approximately $4,000 per year. The system does not use significant amounts of storage space or specialized equipment. The tool uses GIS Infrastructure, which is already on the servers housing the program. Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 6 of 16 Page 189 of 199

5.3 Life Cycle Analysis Annual life cycle costs were calculated by summing all development and operations costs for each year through the end of the OTIA III program, discounting these costs to 2010, summing and dividing by the years of operation. A life cycle analysis found the annual life cycle cost of the WZTA from its development though the end of the OITA III Bridge Program will be approximately $81,000. If the tool is taken out of service at the end of OTIA III there would be no shut down costs. However, it is assumed that ODOT will take over the tool in 2014. Year Table 2. Life Cycle Costs for WZTA Development Operations and Maintenance Total Programming Information Systems Staff Data Storage and Backup Total Grand Total Present value (2010) Annualized Hours Total Hours Cost 3.74% 2008 4,009.00 $ 369,942.50 $ 369,942.50 $ 398,131.66 2009 480 $ 44,294.40 $ 178.98 $ 44,473.38 $ 44,473.38 $ 46,136.68 2010 300 $ 28,638.00 $ 178.98 $ 28,816.98 $ 28,816.98 $ 28,816.98 2011 40 $ 3,952.04 $ 178.98 $ 4,131.02 $ 4,131.02 $ 3,982.09 2012 40 $ 4,090.37 $ 178.98 $ 4,269.35 $ 4,269.35 $ 3,967.06 2013 40 $ 1,552.21 $ 178.98 $ 1,731.19 $ 1,731.19 $ 1,550.62 2014 40 $ 1,606.53 $ 178.98 $ 1,785.51 $ 1,785.51 $ 1,541.62 Total $ 455,149.93 $ 484,126.76 $ 80,687.79 There will likely be costs associated with ODOT s assumption of operation of WZTA. ODOT will be operating the tool on its own servers in a different environment, so there may be costs associated with transferring the WZTA system onto ODOT servers since they do not currently have some of the GIS layers used by the system. Since the tool is already in use by ODOT staff and most of the data used to populate the tool comes from ODOT sources, these costs will probably be relatively minor. 6.0 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS Benefits and costs of WZTA were calculated for the five-year period following the development of the tool. The tool was developed in 2008 and calculations of benefits were made for 2009 through 2013. All benefits related to time savings using the WZTA web site and system were compared to obtaining traffic and roadway data from other sources and making work zone traffic calculations using other tools. Many of the savings factors were determined based on a user survey conducted in August 2010. The time savings benefits identified in the survey were substantial. In conducting the BC analysis they were actually reduced by three factors: 1. It was assumed, in 2009, there would have been a learning curve associated with the web site and modeling tool such that savings would have been reduced by one-third from the level otherwise achieved. 2. From interviews with traffic analysts it was discovered, previous to creation of WZTA, the analysis was performed only once or twice from preliminary engineering through the end of construction. The analyses are now performed four or five times during the same process. It would not be appropriate to assume every one of the additional traffic analyses saves the same amount of time since without WZTA the analysis might not have been Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 7 of 16 Page 190 of 199

performed at all. Recognizing this, savings per users were reduced by 50% in recognition of procedural adjustment. 3. The total savings identified by the survey respondents was not assumed to occur at the same level for all 78 authorized users. In surveys of this type those who use the tool more are also more likely to respond to the survey and the results therefore tend to be biased in favor of the more active users. Recognizing this, the number of uses per authorized user was reduced by 25%. 4. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the benefits to the OTIA III Bridge Program, so an estimate of the percentage of total savings that was truly related to bridges was made and were discussed in Section 4.1.1. The calculation of the BC ratio is made by first calculating the total benefits for each year, in this case, time savings. Annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are subtracted from total benefits to obtain net benefits by year, which were then discounted to 2010 and summed for comparison with development costs. The ratio of total net benefits to development costs is the BC ratio. Net present value (NPV) is calculated by subtracting development costs from benefits. An internal rate of return (IRR) is calculated as the interest rate at which BC = 1 and NPV = 0. The discount rate used was 3.74%, corresponding to the average rate on OTIA III bonds, an indicator of the opportunity cost of using versus saving funds. Calculations were made using a spreadsheet augmented by risk analysis software - results are summarized in Table 3. The use of risk software for these calculations had two significant advantages. First, many input variables were entered in ranges where precise point values were unknown. For instance, WZTA users experienced a range of different time savings. The risk analysis tool allows the use of the range rather than an average only. In calculating the results the risk software indicates the range of possible results. Based on these calculations, the benefit to cost ratio for the OTIA III Program was 0.7, meaning that $0.70 of benefits were generated for every dollar of development costs. Net present value (NPV) of the program was -$107,000 and the internal rate of return (IRR) was only -10%. The reason for the low return was that most of the OTIA III traffic work was completed prior to introducing WZTA. The risk analysis also determined the potential range of results based on variations in the inputs - results are shown in Table 3. There is a 10% chance that the BC ratio was as low as.3. There is a 10% (100% - 90%) probability that the BC ratio was as high as high as 1.3 in which case WZTA did in fact break even. The primary reason for the variability is the lack of certainty as to the number of times the model will be used for OTIA III analysis in the future. Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 8 of 16 Page 191 of 199

Table 3 Benefit-Cost Results for WZTA Estimated Value Confidence Interval Low (10%) High (90%) Benefit-Cost Ratio.7.3 1.3 Net Present Value -$107,000 -$262,000 $100,000 Internal Rate of Return -10% -24% 17% Recognizing there were significant benefits beyond those accruing to OTIA III, a second model run was made in which all benefits were included. The second run found a BC ratio of 3.6 for all uses of the tool. As noted earlier in the discussions of benefits, these estimates are conservative in that they do not include benefits to road users from better traffic management or of construction benefits from better planning. Full details of the benefit-cost calculations are contained in Appendix A. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The WZTA web site and traffic analysis tools have clearly demonstrated their value by saving enough time in work zone traffic analysis to permit more frequent analysis. This allows better management of traffic to the benefit of both road users and construction contractors. Since many ODOT staff already use the tool and all the data on the site comes from ODOT, it is recommended that ODOT adopt and continue to operate the site after the OTIA III State Bridge Program is complete. Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 9 of 16 Page 192 of 199

APPENDIX A: WZTA BENEFIT-COST DOCUMENTATION WZTA BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS LOGIC FLOW Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 10 of 16 Page 193 of 199

WZTA Benefit Cost Model Sources and Logic Variable Source Logic Time Savings Calcs 1 Times accessed per user Survey 2 No. data only access Survey 3Hrs saved per data access Survey 4 Data hours saved per user Survey 5 Sample no. of model access Survey 6 Procedural adjustment MFA 50% 7 Net no. of model access = v5 * v6 8 Hrs saved per model access Survey 9 Model hours saved per user = v 7 * v8 10 Total hrs saved per user = v4 + v9 Number of users calc 11 2010 authorized users OBDP IT unit 12 Active users (sample bias adjustment) MFA based on user logs and survey = v11 25% 13 STIP $ (millions) ODOT 2010 2013 draft STIP 14 Ratio : 2010 = target year construction / 2010 construction 15 Users = v12 * v14 16 Learning curve adjustment MFA based on interviews =.67 for 2009, = 1.0 for other years 17 Total Users = v15 * v16 18 Total hrs saved = v10 * v17 19 % ODOT/OBDP Survey =.82 20 Net = v18 * v19 21 % OTIA III MFA based on interview and use logs 2009=.5, '10=.33, '11=.25, '12=.10, '13=.05 22 OTIA III hours = C31v18 * v21 Average hourly cost cals 23 ODOT/Local agency users User log 24 ODOT Wage MFA analysis 25 Constult users User log 26 consult Rate OBPD 27 Blended Rate = ( v23 *D35 + v25 * v26 ) / ( v23 + v25 ) 28 Value of total savings = v22 * v27 Annual O&M Costs 27 Hours OBDP 28 Rate OBDP billing rates 29 Staff cost = v27 * v28 30 Data storage and backup (GB) OBDP IT 31 Cost of storage and backup = v30 * 1.9 * 12 32 Total = v29 + v31 33 Net benefits = v28 v32 34 Discounted Value Calculation = annual v33 discounted to 2010 35 Total = sum v34 Development Cost 36 Hours OBDP focus group 37 Rate OBDP billing rates 38 Total Cost = v36 * v37 39 Present Value = v38 discounted to 2010 at rate v40 Benefit Cost Analysis: OTIA III Only 40 Discount Rate average interest on OTIA III bonds = 3.74% Measure 41 B/C Ratio = v34 / v39 42 NPV = v34 v39 43 IRR discount rate at which v41=1.0 and v42=0 Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 11 of 16 Page 194 of 199

Benefit Cost analysis: All uses of WZTA 44 Hours saved = v18 45 Value of savings = v18 *v27 46 O&M = v32 47 Net Benefits = v45 v46 48 Present value of benefits = v47 discounted to 2010 49 total = sum of annual v48 Output Measures 50 B/C Ratio = v49 / v39 51 NPV = v49 v39 52 IRR = rate at which v50=1.0 and v51=0 Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 12 of 16 Page 195 of 199

Benefit Cost Analysis of WZTA 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Time Savings Calcs Times accessed per user 49.86 No. data only access 19.63 Hrs saved per data access 3.55 Data hours saved per user 69.69 Sample no. of model access 30.23 Procedural adjustment 0.50 Net no. of model access 15.11 Hrs saved per model access 1.95 Model hours saved per user 29.47 Total hrs saved per user 99.17 99.17 99.17 99.17 99.17 Number of users calc 2010 authorized users 78 Active users (sample bias adjustment) 58.5 STIP $ (millions) $ 278 $ 192 $ 199 $ 188 $ 196 Ratio : 2010 1.45 1.00 1.04 0.98 1.02 Users 84.70 58.50 60.63 57.28 59.72 Learning curve adjustment 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Users 57 59 61 57 60 Total hrs saved 5,628 5,801 6,013 5,680 5,922 % ODOT/OBDP 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% Net 4,615 4,757 4,930 4,658 4,856 % OTIA III 50.0% 33.0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% OTIA III hours 2,814 1,914 1,503 568 296 Average hourly cost cals ODOT/Local agency users 55 55 55 55 55 ODOT Wage $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 36.23 $ 37.49 $ 38.81 Constult users 23 23 23 23 23 consult Rate 92.28 $ 95.46 $ 98.80 $ 102.26 $ 105.84 Blended Rate $ 51.89 $ 52.83 $ 54.68 $ 56.59 $ 58.57 Value of total savings $ 146,015 $ 101,135 $ 82,190 $ 32,146 $ 17,343 Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 13 of 16 Page 196 of 199

Annual O&M Costs Hours 480.00 300.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Rate $ 92.28 $ 95.46 $ 98.80 $ 102.26 $ 105.84 Staff time $ 44,294 $ 28,638 $ 3,952 $ 4,090 $ 4,234 Data storage and backup (GB) 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 Cost of storage and backup $ 179 $ 179 $ 179 $ 179 $ 179 Total $ 44,473 $ 28,817 $ 4,131 $ 4,269 $ 4,413 Net benefits $ 101,541 $ 72,497 $ 78,238 $ 28,055 $ 13,110 Discounted Value Calculation $ 105,339 $ 72,497 $ 75,417 $ 26,069 $ 11,742 Total $ 291,064 Development Cost Hours 4,009 Rate $ 92.28 Total Cost $ 369,943 Present Value $ 398,132 Benefit Cost Analysis: OTIA III Only Discount Rate 3.74% Output Ranges Measure Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%) B/C Ratio 0.7 0.3 1.3 NPV $ (107,067) $ (262,000) $ 100,000 IRR 10% 24% 17% Benefit Cost analysis: All uses of WZTA Hours saved 5,628 5,801 6,013 5,680 5,922 Value of savings $ 292,029 $ 306,469 $ 328,760 $ 321,457 $ 346,866 O&M $ 44,473 $ 28,817 $ 4,131 $ 4,269 $ 4,413 Net Benefits $ 247,556 $ 277,652 $ 324,629 $ 317,188 $ 342,454 Present value of benefits $ 256,815 $ 277,652 $ 312,925 $ 294,730 $ 306,735 $ 1,448,857 Output Ranges Measure Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%) B/C Ratio 3.6 2.0 5.8 NPV $ 1,050,725 $ 415,000 $ 1,890,000 Work IRR Zone Traffic Analysis 70% 53% 116% Page 14 of 16 Page 197 of 199

@RISK Output Report for B/C Ratio / Most Likely Performed By: Mark Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:53:08 AM Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 10 Number of Outputs 6 Sampling Type Simulation Start Time Simulation Duration Random # Generator Random Seed WZTA BC Analysis 14no10 alt Latin Hypercube 12/15/10 11:48:10 00:00:09 Mersenne Twister 1898701714 Summary Statistics for B/C Ratio / Most Likely Statistics Percentile Minimum 0.0 5% 0.3 Maximum 2.5 10% 0.3 Mean 0.8 15% 0.4 Std Dev 0.4 20% 0.5 Variance 0.124488796 25% 0.5 Skewness 0.532106368 30% 0.6 Kurtosis 3.16608756 35% 0.6 Median 0.7 40% 0.6 Mode 0.6 45% 0.7 Left X 0.3 50% 0.7 Left P 10% 55% 0.8 Right X 1.3 60% 0.8 Right P 90% 65% 0.9 Diff X 0.9 70% 0.9 Diff P 80% 75% 1.0 #Errors 0 80% 1.1 Filter Min Off 85% 1.1 Filter Max Off 90% 1.3 #Filtered 0 95% 1.4 Regression and Rank Information for B/C Ratio / M Rank Name Regr Corr 1 Times accessed per 0.623 0.620 2 Hrs saved per mode0.533 0.528 3 Hrs saved per data a0.521 0.519 4 consult Rate / 2010 0.093 0.090 5 ODOT Wage / 2010 0.084 0.078 6 ODOT Wage / 2009 0.059 0.047 7 consult Rate / 2009 0.042 0.045 8 Hours / 2011 0.000 0.009183675 9 Hours / 2012 0.000 0.007481991 10 Hours / 2013 0.000 0.003401607 Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 15 of 16 Page 198 of 199

@RISK Model Inputs Performed By: Mark Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:54:09 AM Name Cell Graph Function Min Mean Max Category: consult Rate consult Rate / 2009 D35 RiskTrigen(75,92.28,115,10,90,RiskStatic(92. 28)) 59.63869 94.61638 131.9305 consult Rate / 2010 E35 RiskTrigen(75,95.46,115,10,90,RiskStatic(95. 46)) $ 58.69 $ 95.07 $ 131.05 Category: Hours Hours / 2011 F41 RiskTrigen(36,40,50,10,90,RiskStatic(40)) 31.34 42.59 56.42 Hours / 2012 G41 RiskTrigen(36,40,50,10,90,RiskStatic(40)) 31.34 42.59 56.42 Hours / 2013 H41 RiskTrigen(36,40,50,10,90,RiskStatic(40)) 31.34 42.59 56.42 Category: Hrs saved per data access Hrs saved per data access / 2010 E7 RiskTrigen(1.92,3.55,5.18,5,95) 1.17 3.55 5.93 Category: Hrs saved per model access Hrs saved per model access / 2010 E12 RiskTrigen(0.5,1.95,4,10,90,RiskStatic(1.95)) (0.82) 2.21 5.50 Category: ODOT Wage ODOT Wage / 2009 D33 RiskTrigen(30,35,40,10,90,RiskStatic(35)) $ 25.95 $ 35.00 $ 44.05 ODOT Wage / 2010 E33 RiskTrigen(30,35,40,10,90,RiskStatic(35)) $ 25.95 $ 35.00 $ 44.05 Category: Times accessed per user Times accessed per user / 2010 E5 RiskTrigen(35,50,65,10,90,RiskStatic(49.86)) 22.86474 50 77.13525 Work Zone Traffic Analysis Page 16 of 16 Page 199 of 199