DISSERTATION QUALITY CONTROL OF FRONT-END PLANNING FOR ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION: A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS-BASED APPROACH USING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING Submitted by Frank Bao Thai Nguyen Department of Systems Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2024 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Neil Grigg Co-Advisor: Rodolfo Valdes-Vasquez Erika Gallegos Scott Glick Copyright by Frank Bao Thai Nguyen 2024 All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT QUALITY CONTROL OF FRONT-END PLANNING FOR ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION: A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS-BASED APPROACH USING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING Controlling construction costs in the electric power industry will become more important as the nation responds to new energy demands due to the transition from gasoline to electric vehicles and to emerging trends such as artificial intelligence and use of cryptocurrency. However, managing electric utility construction project costs requires that the risk of field change orders (FCOs) during construction be controlled. In the electric power industry, utility companies face increasing risk from FCOs, due to conversion from overhead to underground systems required by security and climate change factors, and subgrade work is more challenging and less predictable than the more visible overhead work. Change orders cause cost overruns and schedule slippages and can occur for reasons such as changes in scope of work, unforeseen jobsite conditions, modifications of plans to meet existing field conditions, and correction of work required by field inspectors to meet safety standards. The best opportunity to control FCOs comes during front-end planning (FEP) when conditions leading to them can be identified and mitigated. This study utilized systems engineering methodologies to address risk of FCOs in three phases: (1) defining the root causes and identifying severities of FCOs, (2) evaluating stakeholder responsibilities to find and mitigate root causes of FCOs, and (3) developing a process to identify and find solutions for the risk of FCOs. iii The first phase involved using a descriptive statistical analysis of the project database of an electric utility company to identify and analyze the magnitude, frequency, and causes of FCOs in overhead and underground electrical construction. The results showed that FCOs with added scopes occurred more frequently in underground projects than in overhead projects. The analysis also indicated that most causes of FCOs could be managed during the FEP process, and it laid a foundation for the next phase, to promote collaboration among stakeholders to allocate responsibility to identify and mitigate risk of FCOs. In the second phase, the study used Analytical Hierarchy Process methodologies to distribute weights of stakeholder votes to create an integrated metric of front-end planning team confidence that a desired level of quality had been achieved. This study was significant in that it showed how effectiveness of collaborative working relationships across teams during front-end planning could be improved to create a quality control metric to capture risk of FCOs. In the third phase, the study used results from the first two phases and additional tools based on Swimlane diagrams and logical relationships between tasks and stakeholders to formulate a quality control roadmap model. This model is significant because it creates a roadmap to enhance the effectiveness of interdisciplinary teamwork through a critical path of the FEP process. The roadmap model shows a streamlined process for decision-making in each phase of front-end planning to minimize risk of FCOs through a logical path prior to final design. While there have been efforts to improve the design process, this study is the first one known to the researcher to address quality control of FEP using a roadmap process for quality control in electric power construction projects. The primary contribution is to enrich the body of knowledge about quality control of FEP by creating a roadmap model based on systems iv engineering and enhancing the effectiveness of collaborative working relationships in a logical process that captures risk of FCOs early in the FEP process. Besides the contribution of a method to reduce the risk of FCOs, the study points to another important concern to the construction industry about safety on the jobsite. The contractor normally requires a time extension to complete the work due to an FCO, but to reduce the impact to the project schedule, overtime is normally provided to the construction workers to perform the task. Additional research on this issue is required, but it is apparent that due to the fatigue of long working hours, this overtime may impact the task performance as well as the physical and psychological well-being of the construction workers, and they may lose safety awareness and have higher risk of accidents on the construction site. Thus, reducing the risk of FCOs will lead to less overtime and is an effective way for the construction project team to reduce the risk of construction accidents. v ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I would like to thank many people for advising and supporting me during my doctoral research at Colorado State University (CSU). I would specifically like to thank my academic advisor and co-advisor, Dr. Neil Grigg and Dr. Rodolfo Valdes-Vasquez, for their invaluable guidance and dedication throughout the completion of this dissertation. They have advised me to do research in a practical and professional way. Their expertise and mentorship have been instrumental in my academic and personal growth. Without their support and advice, I would not be where I am today. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Erika Gallegos and Dr. Scott Glick for accepting and serving on my doctoral committee and for their constructive comments and support. I would like to thank my professors (Dr. Ron Sega, Dr. John Borky, Dr. Erika Gallegos, Ann H. Batchelor, and Dr. Jim Adams), who taught me the advanced Systems Engineering courses at CSU (Foundations of Systems Engineering, Engineering Risk Analysis, Engineering Project and Program Management, Human Systems Integration, Cost Optimization for Systems Engineers, and Systems Engineering Architecture). I am also incredibly thankful to Ingrid Bridge for her administrative help during my study time with CSU. I would especially like to thank the ABC Electric Company, which is a pseudonym to maintain the anonymity of the operating utility, as well as the managers within the company for allowing and supporting me with the cost data gathering. Finally, I am especially grateful to my Dad (Tam Nguyen) and my Mom (Lich Nguyen) for their eternal sacrifice in every step of my life. I would like to thank all my extended family and friends for their continuous support (Christine, Chi, Jane, Sean, Tam, Tien, Hoan, Michael Minh, Thanh, Tin, Katherine, Timon, Binh, Han, Calvin, Dylan, and Angelina). vi DEDICATION I dedicate this to my parents (Tam Lich Nguyen), my children (Jane Nguyen, Sean Nguyen, and Christine Nguyen), and my extended family. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... v DEDICATION ……………………………………………………….......................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need for Research ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Problem Statement and Research Objectives ............................................. ………………. 3 1.4 Main Assumptions / Boundaries ........................................................................................ .. 5 1.5 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Benefits and Research Target Audience .............................................................................. 6 1.7 Dissertation Organization .................................................................................................... 7 1.8 References…………………………………………………………………………………. 8 CHAPTER 2: Electric Utility Construction: Causes and Types of Field Change Orders ...……10 2.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ ………10 2.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Background ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.3.1 Definitions of Change Orders ...................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Impacts of Change Orders ............................................................................................ 13 2.3.3 Causes of Change Orders .............................................................................................. 14 2.3.4 Change Order Models ................................................................................................... 20 2.3.5 Change Orders in Electrical Utility Projects ................................................................ 21 2.3.6 Conclusions from the Literature of Construction Change Orders ............................... 22 2.4 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 23 2.4.1 Data Source and Tools ................................................................................................ 24 2.4.2 Profile of the Projects in the Analysis.......................................................................... 24 2.5 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 25 2.5.1 Magnitude of FCOs...................................................................................................... 25 viii 2.5.1.1 Overhead Construction Projects ........................................................................... 25 2.5.1.2 Underground Electrical Projects ........................................................................... 26 2.5.1.3 Discussion of Magnitude of FCOs ........................................................................ 27 2.5.2 Frequency of FCOs ...................................................................................................... 28 2.5.2.1 Overhead and Underground Electrical Projects ................................................... 28 2.5.2.2 Discussion of Frequency of FCOs ......................................................................... 29 2.5.3 Risk Factors and Causes of FCOs …………………………………………………… 30 2.5.4 Possible Interrelationships Between Change Orders and Planning and Design Processes ………………………………………………………………………….... 32 2.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 33 2.7 References .......................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER 3: A Proposed Quality Control Process for Front-End Planning to Minimize Risk of Field Change Orders in Underground Electrical Construction ………………………………… 43 3.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 43 3.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 43 3.3 Background ……………………………………………………………………………… 46 3.3.1 The importance of Front-End Planning (FEP) in Construction Projects .................... 46 3.3.2 The impacts of FEP on Change Orders........................................................................ 47 3.3.3 Construction Project Life Cycle and the Importance of Early Collaboration ............. 48 3.3.4 Systems Engineering and Project Management .......................................................... 49 3.3.5 Conclusions about the Literature on Construction Change Orders ............................ 50 3.4 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 51 3.4.1 Data and Analysis Tools .............................................................................................. 51 3.4.2 Framework and Methods for Data Collection and Analysis ....................................... 51 3.4.2.1 Identify the FCO causes ......................................................................................... 52 3.4.2.2 Identify Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 53 3.4.2.3 Distribute FEP Responsibility among Stakeholders .............................................. 54 3.4.2.4 Distribute Weight of each Stakeholder’s Responsibility for each FCO Category and its Validation ……………………………………………………….…………………….. 55 3.4.2.5 Organizing the FEP Voting Evaluation Process among Stakeholders ................. 57 3.5 Quality Control Process: Results ...................................................................................... 58 ix 3.5.1 The Distribution of the Stakeholder Responsibility for overall FEP ........................... 58 3.5.2 Classification of Stakeholders Responsible for each FCO Category........................... 59 3.5.3 The Distribution of the Weight of the Stakeholder’s Responsibility for each UG Electrical FCO Category …………………………………………………………………… 60 3.5.4 Overall Validation of Consistency ............................................................................... 61 3.5.5 FEP Voting Evaluation Process and Simulation Data among Stakeholders ................ 61 3.6 Quality Control Process: Discussion of three Case Studies .............................................. 64 3.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 67 3.8 References………………………………………………………………………………... 69 CHAPTER 4: A Proposed Quality Control Roadmap for Front-End Planning Process to Minimize the Risk of Field Change Orders in Underground Electrical Construction ..…………79 4.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 79 4.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 79 4.3 Background ....................................................................................................................... 81 4.3.1 Data and Analysis Tools [previous work] .................................................................. 81 4.3.2 Identify Stakeholders and Their main Tasks in the FEP [previous work] ................... 82 4.3.3 Identify Combined ranking of Severity of Frequency & Magnitude [previous work] 83 4.3.4 Stakeholders Responsibility Distribution [previous work] ......................................... 83 4.3.5 Phases and Tasks of FEP in the Project Life Cycle ..................................................... 84 4.3.6 Critial Path Method (CPM) .......................................................................................... 86 4.3.7 Swimlane Diagrams and Roadmap Processes in Construction Projects ...................... 86 4.3.8 Conclusions about the Literature Review ..................................................................... 88 4.4 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 89 4.4.1 Framework and Methods for Data Collection and Analysis ...................................... 89 4.4.2 Develop a Proposed Quality Control Roadmap for FEP Process .............................. 90 4.5 Quality Control Roadmap for FEP Process: Results, Demonstration, & Primavera (P6)...93 4.5.1 Mapping Tasks to the Stakeholder’s Responsibility (Step 1) ........................................ 93 4.5.2 Logical Relationship between the Tasks and Analyze the Critical Path of the four Phases in FEP (Step 2) ........................................................................................................... 94 4.5.3 The proposed Swimlane quality control Roadmap FEP Process (Step 3).................... 94 4.5.4 Demonstration of the Roadmap with the Relevant Project Data .................................. 95 x 4.5.5 Application of Primavera Scheduling Software (P6) in the Logical Roadmap Model for FEP [Demonstration]……………………………………………………………………....102 4.6 Discussion of the Proposed Quality control FEP Roadmap and a Project Case Study…….106 4.7 Conclusion and Future Directions ……………………………………………….…….....108 4.8 References ……………………………………………….……........................................110 CHAPTER 5: Conclusions, recommendations, and research needs ………...…………………116 5.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 116 5.2 Contributions .................................................................................................................... 118 5.3 Future Research ............................................................................................................... 120 APPENDIX A - Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Method .................................. 122 A.1 Overview of the AHP method .......................................................................................... 122 A.2 How AHP was Used in the Paper .................................................................................... 123 A.3 The AHP Intensity Scale .................................................................................................. 124 A.4 Use of the AHP Intensity Scale for FEP Responsibility among Stakeholders ............... 125 A.5 Distribute the Weight of the Stakeholder’s Responsibility for each FCO ....................... 127 A.6 Calculation of Weight Vectors ......................................................................................... 129 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...…...…………………………………………………………...132 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 The cause and description of field change orders (FCOs) for electrical projects ....... . 19 Table 2.2 Percentage change in construction contract costs for all projects ............................... 25 Table 2.3 Percentage change in construction contract costs with FCOs ..................................... 25 Table 2.4 Statistics of FCO combinations for overhead (OH) and underground (UG) electrical construction ……………………………………………………………….…….. 28 Table 2.5 Summary statistics of the number of field change order occurrences of added scopes for overhead and underground electrical construction ……………………………………. 29 Table 2.6 Summary statistics of the number of field change order occurrences of deleted scopes for overhead and underground electrical construction ……………………………………. 29 Table 2.7 Frequency percentage of causes of field change orders for overhead and underground electrical construction ........................................................................................................... 31 Table 3.1 Frequency, magnitude and combined ranking of causes of field change orders for 113 underground electrical projects ................................................................................ 53 Table 3.2 Stakeholders in the FEP process ................................................................................. 54 Table 3.3 Sample of pairwise comparison of the stakeholder responsibility for overall FEP ..... 55 Table 3.4 Sample of pairwise comparison of stakeholder responsibility for each FCO categories……………………………………………………………………………………57 Table 3.5 Pairwise comparison of the five stakeholder’s responsibility for overall FEP ……… 59 Table 3.6 The judgements of responsibilities of each stakeholder for each FCO category for UG electrical Projects …………………………………………………………………. 60 Table 3.7 Distribution of Procurement Team responsibility for each FCO category …..……… 60 xii Table 3.8 Responsibility distribution validation ………………………………………..……… 61 Table 3.9 Front-End Planning FCOs Quality Control Model ………………………………….. 63 Table 4.1 Eleven Stakeholders and Responsibilities ……………………………….…..……… 82 Table 4.2 Frequency, magnitude, and combined ranking of causes of field change orders for underground electrical projects ……………………………….…..…………………… 83 Table 4.3 Responsibility distribution validation ……..……………………………….……...… 84 Table 4.4 Front-end planning phases and activities ..……………………………….…..……… 84 Table 4.5 Four phases and tasks of FEP in the project life cycle ..……………………..……… 85 Table 4.6 Sample of mapping tasks to stakeholder responsibilities ..…………………..…….....91 Table 4.7 Four phases of the proposed logical process mapping …..…………………..……….94 Table 4.8 Four phases of proposed logical process mapping …..…..…………………..……….97 Table 4.9 The critical path of 4 phases …………………….…..…..…………………..……....102 Table 4.10 Tasks, Predecessors and Relationships, and Durations …………...………….…....103 Table A-1 AHP Intensity Scale ………………………………………………………...………125 Table A-2 Sample of pairwise comparison of the stakeholder responsibility for overall FEP ..........................................................................................................................126 Table A-3 Distribution of Design/Planning Team responsibility for each FCO category…......128 Table A-4 Distribution of Civil Team responsibility for each FCO category …………...…….128 Table A-5 Distribution of Field Engineering Team responsibility for each FCO category …...129 Table A-6 Distribution of Project Management Team responsibility for each FCO category……129 Table A-7 The AHP calculation ……………………………………………………………….131 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Histogram of overhead electrical construction percentage change in cost ………..... 26 Figure 2.2 Histogram of underground electrical construction percentage change in cost ……... 27 Figure 3.1 Proposed process for quality control during FEP …….…………………………….. 52 Figure 3.2 Fishbone Diagram to classify stakeholder responsibilities for each FCO category ... 56 Figure 3.3 The Underground (UG) Electrical causes with FCOs associated with the stakeholders ………...………………………………………………………………… 59 Figure 4.1 Proposed process for quality control roadmap FEP process ……………………...... 89 Figure 4.2 Proposed logical path of phase 1 in the FEP roadmap process …………….............. 92 Figure 4.3 Proposed logical FEP Swimlane roadmap between the stakeholders and their tasks for phase 1 …………….............................................................................................. 95 Figure 4.4 Demonstration of proposed logical FEP Swimlane roadmap between the stakeholders and their tasks for phase 1……………........................................................... 98 Figure 4.5 Demonstration of proposed logical FEP Swimlane roadmap between the stakeholders and their tasks for phase 2 …………….......................................................... 99 Figure 4.6 Demonstration of proposed logical FEP Swimlane roadmap between the stakeholders and their tasks for phase 3 …………….........................................................100 Figure 4.7 Demonstration of proposed logical FEP Swimlane roadmap between the stakeholders and their tasks for phase 4 …………….........................................................101 Figure 4.8 Demonstration of proposed quality control roadmap for FEP process in Primavera ………………………………………………………………..105 Figure A-1 Framework for overall AHP ……………...……………………………………......124 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The electric power industry provides most of the energy used in global commerce (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), and controlling its capital costs of construction to mitigate rising energy charges is important for households and businesses. These costs consist of original contract amounts and any additions caused by field change orders (FCOs) during the construction process. Controlling total capital costs and energy charges requires effective front-end planning (FEP) to capture the risk of FCOs in the early phase of the project life cycle. Cost overruns occur in other industries, but the problem stands out in the electric power utility industry (Gharaibeh, 2013) due to the technical complexity of unidentified items or scopes in original contracts caused by issues like existing field conditions, lack of jobsite visits, or poor collaboration between stakeholders during design and planning (Serag et al., 2010, Gharaibeh, 2013, Shrestha, 2018, Alshdiefat et al.,2018, Khalifa et al., 2019, and Senouci et al., 2019). To mitigate these problems, the electric power utilities must understand these risks, provide an effective FEP process, and take other measures and corrective actions to avoid change orders. This study addresses risks of FCOs through analysis of their causes and development of quality control methods. The methods will be applicable to electric utility construction in overhead and underground systems. The primary focus is on underground systems, which involve more complexity due to the need to bury system components to avoid risk of wildfires and increase security. The overall study has been conducted in three phases. The first phase addresses overhead and underground cases with an analysis of FCOs with respect to their magnitude, frequency, risk factors and causes, as well as how they are affected by planning and design processes in FEP. 2 Subsequent phases involve only underground systems because of concerns over migration from overhead to underground systems due to security and climate change factors. 1.2 Need for Research For a higher confidence level about cost and schedule control of any project, it is necessary to identify all the scopes executed and the potential changes at an early phase of the planning and design processes. Academic and industry studies have been conducted of construction change order issues to identify reasons and consequences for diverse types of construction. For example, Mehany et al. (2014) found that road and highway construction projects have unanticipated conditions and changes that cause claims and cost overruns due to diverse causes. The electric utility field is also facing construction change orders issues due to the nature of the construction work, which has many detailed technical scopes and rigorous safety standards. A study by Gharaibeh (2013, p.1) stated that “the problem of cost overrun occurred in several industries; however, among the industries that gain considerable attention during the past few years is the power utility industry.” Therefore, in addition to looking at the reasons and consequences of the change orders, it is necessary to focus on preventing and recognizing the potential change orders at an early phase of the project life cycle. Besides the importance of the study on how electric utility companies can control the risk of FCOs to control project costs, the benefits of this research may extend to another important concern for the construction industry and academia, the safety of the job site. More study is needed of this issue, but overtime work is usually granted to the construction team to avoid delays in the overall project schedule due to the FCOs. In particular, construction workers might experience fatigue from long working hours, impacting their task performance and physical and psychological well-being. The reduction of risk of FCOs could also improve safety at job sites. 3 1.3 Problem Statement and Research Objectives Existing low voltage distribution circuits need upgrading to higher load capacity to ease the high demand of the electric usage in many regions, and the cost effectiveness of making changes is a high priority to most utility companies. The nature of upgrades and the expansion of scope of old electrical substations are complicated. The project life cycle must involve a comprehensive management process that includes planning and engineering design, close work with local and public regulators to get permits to construct, active communication between all stakeholders, construction bidding strategy, procurement, and project execution with testing procedures and final project completion. Studies have focused on cost impacts of construction change orders to the total project cost, but there is a lack of peer-reviewed literature about construction change orders for electric utility projects. The research addresses this gap by conducting a study on the severity of electrical field change orders and development of a quality control roadmap of the FEP process to recognize the potential risk of FCOs in the early phase of the project life cycle. The findings will prove the following hypothesis: The construction field change order is the “symptom” and not a “norm”, and its impacts are significantly reduced by well-prepared initial planning and design processes. The roadmap should help the electric utility company owner to plan and manage their project costs more effectively. To develop it, the research objectives are: 1. Quantify and analyze the magnitude and frequency of construction FCOs in electrical construction projects. 2. Analyze the risk factors and the causes of FCOs in electrical construction projects. 4 3. Analyze the interrelationships between the causes of change orders and the phases of the planning and design processes. 4. Develop explanations for how the FEP process mapping model can help to recognize and identify the potential change orders that may happen in the field. 5. Develop a proposed underground quality control FEP roadmap model to provide the possible preventive solutions to the risk of FCOs. 6. Provide recommendations for how utility companies can improve their FEP. The objectives were pursued in three phases. The first study (Nguyen et al., 2023) focuses on addressing objectives 1 and 2 by using a descriptive statistical analysis of the project database of an electric utility company. It quantifies and analyzes the magnitude, frequency, and causes of FCOs of both overhead and underground electrical construction projects. The result lays the foundation for the next phase to promote collaboration among stakeholders. The results of this study were published in the Electricity Journal/Elsevier (Nguyen et al., 2023). The second study focuses on objectives 3 and 4. Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodologies, the weights of stakeholder votes were distributed based on responsibilities for each category of FCOs to obtain an integrated metric of FEP team confidence. The important features of the study are to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative working relationships across teams during the FEP process and to provide a quality control metric to capture risk of FCOs during the initial phase of the project life cycle. The results of the second study were reported in a paper that is currently under review by the Electricity Journal/Elsevier (Nguyen et al., 2024). The third study focuses on research objective 5, using the results from studies 1 and 2. It maps the tasks to the stakeholder’s responsibilities and establishes a logical relationship between the tasks and stakeholders to develop a proposed quality control roadmap of the FEP process. The 5 significance of the roadmap model is to enhance the effectiveness of interdisciplinary teamwork through a critical path of the FEP process. This last study will be submitted to a journal in summer 2024. 1.4 Main assumptions/boundaries 1. In Chapter 2, when records showed multiple causes with the lump sum of the FCO costs, the assumption was made that costs can be distributed evenly in this study. 2. The study identified nine root causes of FCOs in Chapter 3. However, to simplify the analysis and concentrate on the riskiest ones based on their frequency and cost magnitude, the top five causes were distributed to the stakeholder’s responsibility. The top five of FCOs represent 85% of the frequency and 90% of the cost magnitude of the original nine causes. 3. The project management team will own the Proposed Quality Control Process for Front- End Planning as discussed in Chapter 3, and the Proposed Quality Control Roadmap for Front-End Planning Process as discussed in Chapter 4. 1.5 Limitations 1. The dataset of this study was based on the projects completed in 2016-2020 from one utility company. The study indicated the importance of the collaborative working relationship between the stakeholders during the FEP process. The lasting effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led industry practitioners to implement a remote or hybrid working model for FEP, may impact the effectiveness of communication and collaborative working relationships among stakeholders in the future. Future research should examine the severity of the frequency and magnitude of FCOs for projects from different utility companies 6 where FEP occurred during the pandemic to ascertain effects on FCOs. The results may indicate additional needed features in the quality control roadmap methods. 2. This study used expert opinion by one person with over 20 years of experience in the construction industry with frequent participation with stakeholders in construction and power utility companies to do the judgement on the AHP. In practice, the power industry practitioners should gather the input from project team members and team leader from each discipline with sufficient experience to judge the distribution of the relative degree of each stakeholder’s responsibility for the causes of FCOs as well as the ranking of each stakeholder in the FEP process. 3. The unknown condition is defined in this study as concealed or unknown physical conditions at the jobsite or bad weather that prevents work at the jobsite. The electric utility companies should record the different type of unknown conditions in the project database such as bored piping variations, old and unrecorded infrastructure, which are not in the existing drawings of record. Such an unknown/unexpected field condition database will help the project team be aware of the possible risk scenarios during the FEP process to minimize the risk of this FCO category. 1.6 Benefits and Research Target Audience The conducted research provides benefits in three areas. i) Identifies and quantifies the magnitude and severity of FCOs for electric utility construction. ii) Demonstrates how to achieve better teamwork and communication among FEP stakeholders to work cooperatively to reduce FCO risks. 7 iii) Assembles these advances into a proposed quality control roadmap for the FEP process to reduce FCOs during the construction phase. The findings should benefit electric utility company owners, planners and designers, cost program managers, cost engineers, and investors. These participants in the electric power industry can test the roadmap model with their data and make appropriate changes to fit their situations. The model should help to control costs for consumers, and it can pave the way for other researchers to explore process mapping for the planning and design phase to eliminate the change orders for other fields such as, wastewater, highway, airport, and refinery construction. In addition, the research fills a gap in the literature on how to use the process mapping model method in the planning and design phases for the electric utility construction projects. Finally, the three phases have led the researcher to recognize the potential effects of minimizing FCOs on site safety and have indicated an avenue for possible future research. 1.7 Dissertation Organization The three phases of the work are presented in five chapters. This first chapter presents the background, need for research, problem statement and research objectives, and methodologies. Chapter 2 quantifies and analyzes the causes and types of FCOs to lay down a foundation the next research phase to promote collaboration among stakeholders. Chapter 3 distributes the weights of stakeholder votes based on responsibilities for each category of FCOs to obtain an integrated metric of FEP team confidence that can be utilized in the quality control roadmap. Chapter 4 proposes a quality control FEP roadmap model to enhance the effectiveness of interdisciplinary teamwork through a critical path of FEP process to reduce the risk of FCOs; and Chapter 5 summarizes the major research findings, solutions and discussions, limitations, and provides recommendations for electric power companies and other construction industry sectors, and future research. 8 1.8 References Alshdiefat, A., Aziz, Z. (2018). Causes of Change Orders in the Jordanian Construction Industry. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 6, 234-250. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88450 Gharaibeh, M. (2013). Managing the Cost of Power Transmission Projects: Lessons Learned. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(8), 1063-1067. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943- 7862.0000665 Khalifa, W., Mahamid, I. (2019). Causes of Change Orders in Construction Projects. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 9, No. 6, 2019, 4956-4961. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346751362_Causes_of_Change_ Orders_in_Construction_Projects/link/602cfe98299bf1cc26cf9c6f/download Mehany, M., Grigg, N. (2014) "Causes of Road and Bridge Construction Claims: Analysis of Colorado Department of Transportation Projects." Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 7, no. 2. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LA.1943-4170.0000162 Nguyen, B. T. F., Grigg, N., Valdes-Vasquez, R. (2023). Electric utility construction: Causes and types of field change orders. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2023.107332) Senouci, A., Unal, H., Eldin, N. (2019). Change Order Management System for Charter School Construction Projects. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 8(2): 56-69 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijcem.20190802.03. Retrieved from http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijcem.20190802.03.html https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88450 9 Serag, E., Oloufa, A., Malone, L., Radwan, E. (2010). Model for Quantifying the Impact of Change Orders on Project Cost for U.S. Roadwork Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(9), 1015-1027. Shrestha, P. P., Zeleke, H. (2018, p. 2). Effect of Change Orders on Cost and Schedule Overruns of School Building Renovation Projects. The Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 10(4), 0451-8018. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LA.1943-4170.0000271 U.S. Department of Energy - Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (2015). United States Electricity Industry Primer. Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/indianenergy/articles/united-states-electricity- industry-primer https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LA.1943- https://www.energy.gov/indianenergy/articles/united-states-electricity- 10 CHAPTER 2 Electric Utility Construction: Causes and Types of Field Change Orders 2.1 Summary The electric power industry provides most of the energy for global commerce, and controlling its construction costs is important to provide affordable energy. Controlling original contract costs and any added costs due to change orders requires effective planning and design of projects. While cost overruns due to change orders occur in other industries, the electric power utility industry faces technical complexity, poor understanding of field conditions, lack of jobsite visits, and poor collaboration among stakeholders during design and planning. Although published data exist for costs of change orders in other industries, almost none are available for the electric power sector. To mitigate these problems, project managers must understand these risks, provide better cost forecasts, and take other measures to avoid change orders. Using a descriptive statistical analysis of the project database of an electric utility company, this study addresses the data gap by analyzing the magnitude, frequency, and causes of field change orders of both overhead and underground electrical construction. The results identified nine causes of field change orders (FCOs) during construction. The percentage increases in the electrical construction contract costs appear to be higher than in other industries, which is an alarming finding considering the tendency to bury transmission lines due to fire hazards. The result showed that FCOs with added scopes occurred more frequently in underground projects than in overhead projects. The analysis indicated that most causes of field change orders could be managed during planning and design and through the construction phase. The findings of this study can be used by electric utilities when they convert from overhead to underground systems due to security and climate change factors. 11 2.2 Introduction Electric utilities own and operate overhead and underground infrastructure systems. The underground systems are more complex due to the need to bury system components, often in response to threats from natural disasters and fires. Clearly, controlling the construction costs of both types of systems is important to assure the financial viability of utilities and the energy costs to consumers. The costs of the systems include those in the construction contracts and any added costs due to field change orders (FCOs). The FCOs are any additions, deletions, or revisions in scopes of original construction contracts that increase charges by cost overruns, schedule slippages, and other negative effects on project performance (Hanna et al., 2007). This study draws on the project database of an operating electric utility company to report on an analysis of the magnitude, frequency, risk factors, and causes of FCOs, as well as their dependence on the effectiveness of the planning and design processes in preventing them. The analysis is intended to lay the foundation for a future study on how planning and design processes can be improved to reduce FCOs and control the overall capital cost of construction. The paper reports on an initial study in a research program aimed at the use of systems engineering to create a quality control program for electric power utility companies. The study began with a literature review of background knowledge about construction FCOs to include their definitions, causations, and impacts, especially for electric power construction. The project database of the electric utility company provided information that was used to assess the magnitude, frequency, risk factors, and root causes of the FCOs that it has experienced. Results were analyzed and presented by a descriptive statistical display to highlight the dimensions of the problem and the principal driving forces. The analysis and statistical display enabled the 12 identification of key factors to reduce FCOs that will be analyzed subsequently to improve planning and design processes. The findings reported here can help project electrical utility owners and managers understand the main reasons for the occurrence of FCOs during construction and detect potential problems during the initial phases of the project lifecycle. Once these reasons are understood, project owners and managers will be better positioned to minimize them during the construction phase. The findings also contribute to the body of knowledge about cost concerns when electric utilities convert from overhead to underground systems due to security and climate change impacts, such as cold and snow events, wildfires, and intense rainfall and storms (Alonso and Greenwell, 2013; Csanyi, 2017; Public Works, Disaster and Fire Safety and Transportation Commissions, 2018; and Mcarthur, 2022). Such events can cause significant damage, resulting in expensive repair and replacement costs. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (2018) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) have reported that energy disruptions from them harm the economy and require billions of dollars to repair the damaged electricity generation, transmission, and distribution systems. These issues indicate the likelihood that relocating overhead systems to underground systems will increase in frequency (NEI Electric Power Engineering, 2008). 2.3 Background 2.3.1 Definitions of change orders Definitions of change orders are found in publications of academic and construction professional organizations. For instance, Shrestha et al. (2018, p. 2) defined change orders as “any changes that occur in construction projects after the detailed designs of the projects are completed and accepted by the owners.” These changes create events where the owner and the contractor 13 agree to add, delete, or reduce the scope of work, change the design, revise the project schedule, adjust the project price, or modify any provision of the original construction contract agreement. In 2007, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC, p. 3) and the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NADFA) defined a change order as “a written order signed by the Owner and the Contractor after execution of this Agreement, indicating changes in the Scope of the Work, the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and Date of Substantial Completion and/or Date of Final Completion, including substitutions proposed by the Contractor and accepted by the Owner.” The American Institute of Architects (AIA 2007, p. 20) also defined a change order as “a written instrument prepared by the Architect and signed by the Owner, Contractor, and Architect stating their agreement upon all the following. - The change in the scope of work; - The amount of the adjustment, if any, in the Contract Sum; and - The extent of the adjustment, if any, in the Contract Duration/Time.” Based on these definitions, change orders are defined here as the addition and/or deletion of scopes, accommodation of field conditions, design error, omission from bidding, time extension, and unknown site condition, among others. 2.3.2 Impacts of change orders How change orders affect construction depends on the contract type (Gunhan et al., 2007). Studies show that change orders can cause cost overruns, schedule slippages, or both, impacting project performance and labor productivity. They also can cause frustration and conflict among stakeholders as the project team identifies responsibilities for their root causes. The frustrations and disputes caused by change orders were also noted by Taylor et al. (2012, p. 1360), who wrote that “change can make life frustrating for project stakeholders, and many projects experience 14 significant performance degradation because of change.” They suggested that the well- documented negative impacts of change orders on project performance incentivize owners to avoid change orders. In 2018, Collins et al. published similar results in a qualitative study of electrical- related change orders of university projects. They found that “change orders are rarely seen in a positive light; considered a necessary evil at best..., as well as the heightened possibility of litigation between project stakeholders” (Collins et al., 2018, p. 649). The literature on the impacts of change orders indicates that projects with them are usually prone to delays, cost increases, and reduced labor productivity. Owners feel the impacts, as well as contractors. Increased costs require more significant budget contingencies, delayed projects necessitate rescheduling, and conflicts between the parties add to costly disputes. 2.3.3 Causes of Change Orders Finding the root causes of FCOs can help industry practitioners consider risk factors during the design and planning phases and thus help to control construction costs. Many factors may cause a change order, such as design errors, design changes, additions to the scope, or unknown conditions in the field that entitle contractors to equitable adjustments to base contract prices and schedules (Hanna et al., 2007). Using data from Kentucky highway projects, Taylor et al. (2012) found causes that include contract omissions, owner-induced enhancements, and contract item overruns. Their research contributes to the body of knowledge that the high-risk change orders on roadway construction can be avoided through improved front-end planning. Their study shows not only distinctive trends that were useful for constructability reviews on future projects, but also indicates the need for new directions in front-end planning and project scoping to minimize change orders on highway projects. 15 In a study of the Jordanian private construction industry, Alshdiefat et al. (2018) listed the causes of change orders in building projects as engineering causes, causes related to the client, and causes due to the circumstances of the project. The engineering causes include design errors, incomplete designs, estimation errors, and inconsistency between contract documents. The causes related to the client include the changes initiated by the client, lack of communication between project parties, and time lags between the design and construction phases. The causes related to the project's circumstances include the different site conditions and shortages of materials. In a study of construction projects in Saudi Arabia, Khalifa et al. (2019) found that the most frequent causes of change orders from the contractors’ view are: the owner’s additional works; errors and omissions in design; lack of coordination between construction parties; defective workmanship; and owner’s financial difficulties. They found that consultants’ views showed the same causes, but with additional attention to differing site conditions. In a study of charter school construction, Senouci et al. (2019) found that the leading causes for change orders were owner- directed changes, unforeseen conditions, design errors/omissions, code requirements, and value engineering. In 2020, Herrera et al. analyzed frequency and importance of cost overrun causative factors in road infrastructure projects. The authors reported that the ten most important and frequent cost overrun factors were: (1) failures in design, (2) price variation of materials, (3) inadequate project planning, (4) project scope changes, (5) design changes, (6) unrealistic contract duration, (7) inadequate bidding method, (8) legal issues, (9) late decision making by the owner, and (10) political situation. The results show a strong influence of design and planning aspects on the occurrence of cost overruns in road projects, and the authors concluded that the cost overrun 16 phenomenon could be widely mitigated through modifications and greater controls to traditional processes developed in the project’s early stages. In a study of the key causes and impacts of variation orders in Iraqi construction projects, Ismaeel et al. (2021) reported that the size of variation orders in Iraqi construction projects was high, and found 13 key causative factors led to variation orders are (1) late a contractor in execution, (2) errors and omissions in the design, (3) the consultant's lack of judgment and experience, (4) different site conditions, (5) incomplete design at bidding time, (6) owner financial problems, (7) the consultant lacks historical data for the project, (8) the financial difficulties of the contractor, (9) the contractor's desire to improve his financial condition, (10) lack of skills, (11) change in work quantities, (12) lack of design documentation, (13) not to use a consultant for advanced engineering design programs. The authors concluded that minimizing the variation orders is very important to reduce the cost impacts in the construction projects, and the authority management and project managers must make a plan to address these key causes in future projects to ensure their success. In a more recent study by Amini et al. (2023), the authors reported that poor site management, improper planning, fluctuation of prices of materials, lack of experience, and poor economic conditions are the critical reasons for cost overruns in Iranian construction projects. The findings also indicated that among the studies conducted in Asian countries, the first three factors have the highest frequency. The authors recommend that the project management section should be especially considered and modified for effective and efficient cost control of construction projects. Also, the planning in different stages, material management, resource planning and management, and proper financial management should be emphasized. In addition, all stakeholders should work together to achieve successful projects within the stipulated budget and exceed the anticipated quality standard. 17 In the study of evaluating the causes and impacts of change orders on the construction projects performance in Oman, Maamari et al. (2021) found that the variations have more impacts on the project and the change orders harm the project most. The research result was revealed that ‘Change in specifications’, ‘Alterations in design and drawing’ and ‘Time lag in the project implementation’ were considered to be the primary causes of change orders. Additionally, the research result was also revealed that ‘Change of scope’, ‘Errors and omissions in design’ and ‘Insufficient Logistics’ were the primary causes of variations affecting the construction projects in Oman. Apparently, an adequate front end planning could help to capture the risks to minimize the impacts of change orders as the authors indicated in their research. In 2021, Setiawan et al. studied on the risk evaluation causes of contract change order to improve cost performance on railway construction project in Indonesia. The authors reported that the risk factors can be seen from three aspects that consist of technical, legal, and environment aspects. The authors also reported that the high risk variable are as follows: (1) error and omissions in design, (2) inadequate drawings & details, (3) change of scope, (4) accelerated construction, (5) replacement of material, (6) change in specifications, (7) change in design, (8) different site conditions, (9) there is a utility network, (10) land acquisition problems. The authors suggested a risk controlling process is needed to improve the cost performance of railway projects. Waty et al. (2022) examined the causes for the change orders in road construction in Indonesia: reviewed from the owner. The authors reported that a mismatch between design drawings and field conditions is the main factor causing change orders for the planning and design. The authors suggested that the project team should periodically monitor the pictures and field conditions before implementation. The contractor should pay more attention to the work contract 18 provisions as the executor of the road construction project, and more attention should be paid to the field safety factors. Tayyab et al. (2023) studied factors influencing cost overrun in high-rise building construction across India. The authors reported that the top ten critical factors influencing cost overruns were frequent change orders during construction by the owner, delay in construction, escalation of material prices, market inflation or deflation, rework, frequent changes in design, inaccurate evaluation of the project timeline, unforeseen ground condition, inaccurate quantity take-off, and delay in progressive payment by the owner. These results were expected to help construction professionals minimize cost overruns, improve cost control measures, and initiate future research. Drawing from previous studies, Table 2.1 shows a classification of the causes of change orders for electrical overhead and underground projects that were experienced in the electric utility company that was studied. Each cause is assigned a number that correlates with its description. The table provides a framework to organize the findings from the literature review about these types of FCOs. Other electric utilities may experience different types of FCOs. 19 Table 2.1 The cause and description of field change orders (FCOs) for electrical projects FCOs Reason No. Cause and description Previous studies from the literature 1 Cause - Business Operating Hours. Description - Contractors must perform nighttime work to avoid daytime traffic congestion and operations of public offices, businesses, or schools during business hours. No studies were located. 2 Cause - Accommodate Existing Field Condition. Description - Construction crews find damaged electrical materials, faulty electrical equipment or unsafe site condition requiring attention before continuing with the original work. Gunhan et al. (2007), Serag et al. (2010), Alaryan et al. (2014), Shrestha (2016), Alshdiefat et al. (2018), Khalifa et al. (2019), Ismaeel et al. (2021), Setiawan et al. (2021), Waty et al. (2022), Amini et al. (2023), Tayyab et al. (2023). 3 Cause - Correction of Work Due to Design Error. Description - Construction crews find mistakes in design, requiring the working scope to be corrected before continuing with work. Gunhan et al. (2007), Hanna et al. (2007), Alaryan et al. (2014), Alshdiefat et al. (2018), Shrestha (2018), Khalifa et al. (2019), Senouci et al. (2019), Herrera et al. (2020), Ismaeel et al. (2021), Maamari et al. (2021), Setiawan et al. (2021), Waty et al. (2022), Tayyab et al. (2023). 4 Cause - Project Schedule Constraint. Description - The utility company must pay additional premium time for the contractor to meet schedule deadline. Alaryan et al. (2014), Herrera et al. (2020), Maamari et al. (2021), Setiawan et al. (2021), Tayyab et al. (2023). 5 Cause - Change of Construction Methodology. Description - Need for shoofly construction or for a helicopter to fly materials to the jobsite. No studies were located . 6 Cause - Omission from Bidding. Description - Scopes required not included in the original design Gunhan et al. (2007), Taylor et al. (2012), Alshdiefat et al. (2018), Khalifa et al. (2019), Senouci et al. (2019), Herrera et al. (2020), Ismaeel et al. (2021), Maamari et al. (2021), Setiawan et al. (2021), Waty et al. (2022). 7 Cause - Code Compliance/Permit/Testing. Description - The utility company must pay for additional work modification, permit, and testing fees during the construction phase. Gunhan et al. (2007), Alaryan et al. (2014), Senouci et al. (2019), Herrera et al. (2020), Setiawan et al. (2021), Tayyab et al. (2023). 8 Cause - Remove Scopes. Description - Scopes not needed are eliminated or reduced. Gunhan et al. (2007), Shrestha et al. (2018). Herrera et al. (2020), Setiawan et al. (2021). 9 Cause - Unknown/Unexpected Field Condition. Description - Concealed or unknown physical conditions at the jobsite or bad weather that prevents work at the jobsite. Hanna et al. (2007), Serag et al. (2010), Alaryan et al. (2014), Senouci et al. (2019), Shrestha (2018), Ismaeel et al. (2021), Setiawan et al. (2021); Waty et al. (2022), Amini et al. (2023). 20 Most of the FCO types are supported by studies found in the literature, with the exception of business operation hours and change of construction methodology. While no studies of these were located in the power utility construction, the typical FCO causes should be studied for possible addition to industry standards. The business operation hour change represents the cause that contractors must perform nighttime work to avoid traffic congestion and making negative impacts on the operations of public offices, businesses, or schools during standard business hours from 8am to 5pm due to power outages. In the change of construction methodology, the contractor must needs to change the normal construction method to the shoofly construction method, or there is a need for a helicopter to fly materials to the jobsite. 2.3.4 Change order models Serag (2006) used site data on heavy road construction projects to quantify productivity loss due to change orders. Two models were developed to assess the impact of change orders, one to quantify the percent increase in the contract price and the second to quantify the productivity loss of drainage piping work. The author found that the most common cause for a change order was to account for unforeseen conditions and alterations in the plan, which frequently occur because much of the work occurs underground in heavy construction. The author also found that change order issues might be due to poor design caused by lack of a thorough study of the area before preparing the design. In a later publication using the same data, Serag et al. (2010) used a regression model to quantify the impact of change orders on project cost for roadwork construction. The authors also found that the change order due to unforeseen conditions was one of the most significant variables when the percentage increase in the contract price exceeds 5%. This finding has significance for underground electrical projects that encounter unforeseen conditions due to geotechnical issues. 21 In a study of the magnitude of construction cost and schedule overruns in public works projects, Shrestha et al. (2013) found that cost and schedule overruns increased as project sizes and complexity increased. Shrestha (2016) found that the causes of change orders and impacts on road maintenance contracts were due to changes in work scope, errors in the estimate, and failure to verify work site conditions before signing a contract. The solutions suggested were to review specifications, prepare exact estimates, and review design drawings before bidding. In addition, the author developed a change order contingency estimation tool and a schedule-crashing tool to predict cost contingency and to reduce the negative impact on schedule-growth. Shrestha and Zeleke (2018) studied change orders in school building renovation projects and found that unforeseen conditions and design-related change orders had a significant effect on the cost, greater than that of owner-initiated change orders. The authors suggested investigating existing conditions to design projects with fewer change orders and effects on costs and schedules. Chen (2015) developed a model to predict the number of change orders for building, infrastructure, heavy industry, and manufacturing projects. While the model allows users to explore different input values and their effects, change order issues should be detected and addressed early in projects and the potential risk should be identified and reduced through more effective planning and design. 2.3.5 Change Orders in Electrical Utility Projects Only a few studies of cost overruns in power transmission and infrastructure projects have been published. For instance, in a study of power transmission projects, Gharaibeh (2013) identified internal and external factors that created complexity. These include government involvement, project execution strategy, corporate rate culture, organizational processes, corporate information systems and tools, and human behavior. The author suggested that project teams 22 improve individual, group, and organizational learning skills. Sovacool et al. (2014) also studied construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure and made an international comparison. They found that the construction of electricity infrastructure has a substantial risk of cost overruns and suggested that investors, electric utilities, public officials, and energy analysts should reevaluate the methodologies they use to predict construction timetables and calculate budgets. In another study of electric power projects, Kim et al. (2018) assessed construction cost overruns in transmission grid projects in Vietnam. They used factor analysis and identified seven key factors: management of human and construction resources; competence of stakeholders; policies of the Government; construction policies; relationships among main contractors, subcontractors, the workforce; cost of materials and equipment; and adverse objective attributes (like natural disasters). The attributes causing the highest cost overruns were the incompetence of the project manager, the incompetence of construction supervision consultants and design consultants, unstable interest rates, and unstable construction policies. 2.3.6 Conclusions from the literature of construction change orders Despite the studies cited about the causes and effects of change orders, a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of change orders in the electrical utility sector is still lacking because the literature includes no comprehensive studies about them. Modeling studies like those by Serag (2006), Chen (2015), and Shrestha (2016) do not indicate comprehensive approaches to solutions. A more comprehensive study is needed to capture the risk of change orders from the front-end planning and design processes to reduce the impacts of change orders in construction for electrical utility companies and their customers. To fill that need, this study is a first step to analyze the magnitude and frequency of FCOs, examine their causes and risk factors, and make preliminary observations about the roles of planning and design processes in reducing them. It lays the 23 groundwork for further research on enhancing planning and design processes using systems engineering tools like the V-model, stakeholder map, and functional modeling (U.S. Department of Transportation - FHWA, 2007; Walsh, 2023; and UC Berkeley | ITS/PATH, 2023). Tools such as these can help model and evaluate project management functions, promote collaboration among stakeholders, and identify issues and solutions early in the project lifecycle (Kossiakoff et al., 2011). 2.4 Research Methodology This section presents the framework, methods, and data collection and analysis procedures during this initial study. The steps in the research process are: 1. Extract original unit price contract cost and final payment cost data. The difference is the field change order cost. 2. Classify field change orders by types. The categories are general and not specified as underlying reasons or root causes of the changes. 3. Review narratives of the changes from project records to identify their root causes. 4. Quantify and analyze the magnitude and frequency of overhead and underground construction field change orders during the construction phase. 5. Analyze risk factors related to causes of field change orders in the construction contracts. The causes and their frequency percentages are identified and analyzed respectively in this step. 6. Perform preliminary analysis of interrelationships between causes of change orders and the planning and design processes based on the descriptive statistics and risk analysis. This will serve as a basis for the next phase of the research. 7. Provide results and recommendations. 24 2.4.1 Data Source and Tools The data are of instances of change orders from the database of an operational electric power utility. The utility’s pseudonym is the ABC Electric Company, which maintains the anonymity of the operating utility. Cost data were extracted from a database using SAP software for overhead and underground projects completed in 2016-2020, in which existing old and low voltage distribution circuits needed expanding and upgrading to higher load capacities to meet demands. The data include the project description, location, narrative of the change, number of additions and/or deletions of FCOs, and project initial and final costs. The analysis used the Minitab Statistical Analysis from Minitab Company (Academic Sector Solutions, 2023). 2.4.2 Profile of the Projects in the Analysis The dataset comprises 301 total projects, with 179 overhead and 122 underground projects. Each type was analyzed separately, but the comparisons and analyses were aligned so industry practitioners could see the differences. In general, the projects in the database have a duration of two years: six months for preliminary engineering design; six months for final engineering design; five months for permitting; two months for bidding and construction; and five months for construction and testing. The overhead and underground project sizes are between $2.5M to $5.0M and $3.0M to $5.5M, respectively. A total of 53 (30%) of the overhead construction projects and 18 (15%) of the underground construction projects had zero cost of field change orders. These were retained in the database because projects without change orders should yield helpful information about planning and design methods for later phases of the research. Three overhead projects and one underground project were removed from the dataset because they were considered outliers with percentage changes 25 exceeding 190%. As a result, 176 overhead and 121 underground projects, or a total of 297 projects, were included in the analysis. 2.5 Results and discussion 2.5.1 Magnitude of FCOs Tables 2.2 and 2.3 show statistics for the construction costs of all overhead and underground projects, including those with zero FCOs (Table 2.2) and all projects except those with zero FCOs (Table 2.3). Percentage change is based on the final minus initial cost divided by the initial cost. The inclusion of projects with zero FCO modifies the mean values, as shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Percentage change in construction contract costs for all projects Type Min Max Mean Median Standard Deviation Overhead -87.3% 163.7% 14.5% 6.1% 27.8% Underground -44.6% 165.0% 31.9% 20.2% 37.1% The dataset includes 176 overhead projects and 121 underground projects. Table 2.3 Percentage change in construction contract costs with FCOs Type Min Max Mean Median Standard Deviation Overhead -87.3% 163.7% 20.8% 17.9% 31.2% Underground -44.6% 165.0% 37.4% 27.9% 37.6% Without the projects with zero cost of FCOs, the dataset includes 123 overhead projects and 103 underground projects. 2.5.1.1 Overhead construction projects Figure 2.1 shows the distribution of the percentage change in the cost of all overhead projects, including those with zero FCOs. The results show a positive skew with more projects with positive changes than with negative changes. Positive changes indicate added costs due to added scopes or services, while projects with negative changes indicate reduced scopes or services 26 from the original construction contracts. As shown by the added bell curve, if the projects with zero change order cost were removed, the distribution would be closer to normal, but the mean value would be shifted to the right to show a mean of 20.8% for all projects with field change orders as referenced in Table 2.3. Figure 2.1 Histogram of overhead electrical construction percentage change in cost 2.5.1.2 Underground Electrical Projects Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of the percentage change in the cost of underground electrical construction projects. The results also have a positive skew with more projects with added costs than reduced costs. As shown by the added bell curve, if the projects with zero change order costs were removed, the normal distribution also does not work. There is still a positive skew, but the mean value would be shifted to the right to show a mean of 37.4% for all projects with field change orders, as referenced in Table 2.3. The scatter shown by the histogram indicates the uncertainties inherent in underground projects (Serag, 2006; Serag et al., 2010; and Sovacool et al., 2014). 27 Figure 2.2 Histogram of underground electrical construction percentage change in cost. 2.5.1.3 Discussion of Magnitude of FCOs Since there is a lack of literature on electric utility project costs, the results cannot be compared with other utilities. Still, the percentage increases in the electrical construction contract costs appear to be higher than in other industries. For example, Chen (2015) found an average construction percentage change of 6.95% for building, infrastructure, heavy industry, and light industry construction projects. Anees et al. (2013) reported average cost overruns due to change orders between 11% and 15% of the original contract value in large building construction. Alaryan et al. (2014) reported change order increases in Kuwait's public and private construction projects as an average of 6% to 10% of the contract value. In one study of university projects, Collins et al. (2018) reported electrical change orders were disproportionately high (11%-16%) as compared to general contracting (5%-10%) or mechanical (5%-8%) construction-related change orders. 28 The higher percentage (31.9%) of change orders in underground electrical projects compared to overhead electrical projects (14.5%) is apparently caused by their greater challenges due to invisible site conditions and requirements for more field investigations during the planning and design phases (Serag, 2006; Hanna et al., 2007; Serag et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012; Shrestha, 2016; and Senouci et al., 2019). Lack of field condition information will lead to inevitable design errors or missing scopes, which result in more field change orders during construction. The high positive percentage changes in both overhead and underground electrical projects clearly indicate that costs can be reduced if the planning and design processes are improved to reduce the frequency of field change orders (Serag et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012; Gharaibeh, 2013; Shrestha et al., 2013; Alshdiefat et al., 2018; and Shrestha, 2018). 2.5.2 Frequency of FCOs 2.5.2.1 Overhead and Underground Electrical Projects A project can have varying numbers of scope changes, where the work to be done is either increased (added scope) or decreased (deleted scope). Table 2.4 shows descriptive statistics of four scenarios of combinations of field change orders. Table 2.5 shows statistics for added scopes when the number of occurrences increase. Table 2.6 shows similar statistics for deleted scopes. Notes for clarification are shown below the tables. Table 2.4 Statistics of FCO combinations for overhead (OH) and underground (UG) electrical construction Field change order scenario OH number of projects OH distribution (%) UG number of projects UG distribution (%) Projects have FCOs with both added and deleted scopes 18 10.2% 12 9.9% Projects have FCOs with added scopes only 87 49.4% 89 73.6% Project have FCOs with deleted scopes only 18 10.2% 2 1.7% Projects have no FCOs 53 30.2% 18 14.8% Total 176 100.0% 121 100.0% 29 Table 2.5 Summary statistics of the number of field change order occurrences of added scopes for overhead and underground electrical construction Number of FCO occurrences of added scopes OH number of projects OH distribution (%) UG number of projects UG distribution (%) 1 to 2 82 46.6% 82 67.8% 3 to 4 13 7.4% 16 13.2% 5 to 6 4 2.3% 2 1.7% > 6 6 3.4% 1 0.8% Referenced notes below 18 1 10.2% 2 3 1.7% 53 2 30.1% 18 4 14.8% Total 5 176 100.0% 121 100.0% Notes: 1. 18 OH projects have deleted scopes only; 2. 53 OH projects have no FCOs; 3. 2 UG projects have deleted scopes only; 4. 18 UG projects have no FCOs; 5. The 18 OH and 12 UG projects with both added and deleted scopes are shown with the data on FCO type, see Table 2.4. Table 2.6 Summary statistics of the number of field change order occurrences of deleted scopes for overhead and underground electrical construction Number of FCO occurrences of deleted scopes OH number of projects OH distribution (%) UG number of projects UG distribution (%) 1 29 16.5% 10 8.3% 2 5 2.8% 4 3.3% 3 1 0.6% 0 0.0% > 3 1 0.6% 0 0.0% Referenced notes below 87 1 49.4% 89 3 73.6% 53 2 30.1% 18 4 14.8% Total 5 176 100.0% 121 100.0% Notes: 1. 87 OH projects that have added scopes FCOs only; 2. 53 OH projects that do not have FCOs; 3. 89 UG projects that have added scopes FCOs only; 4. 18 UG projects that do not have FCOs; 5. The 18 OH and 12 UG projects with both added and deleted scopes are shown with the data on FCO type, see Table 2.4. 2.5.2.2 Discussion of Frequency of FCOs The data in the tables show that most overhead and underground projects have one to two FCOs with added scopes (Table 2.5). Overhead projects have relatively more FCOs with deleted or zero scope changes, as compared to underground projects (Table 2.6). Most underground 30 projects have added scopes only, which indicates that their increases complexity and costs, as compared to overhead projects (Serag, 2006; Serag et al., 2010; and Sovacool et al., 2014). While added scopes occur more frequently than deleted scopes for both types of projects, they occur more frequently in underground projects than overhead projects. The indication is that underground work is more challenging than overhead work, and this should alert utility companies to spend more time in the design and planning phase to minimize FCOs during the construction phase (Serag et al., 2010 and Shrestha, 2016). 2.5.3 Risk Factors and Causes of FCOs Knowledge of risk factors and causes of the FCOs can provide a foundation to improve the planning and design processes. The causes were classified in Table 2.1 in the background section for nine instances of field change orders for both overhead and underground projects. Table 2.7 shows the frequency percentage of overhead and underground electrical projects due to each change description. Each project can have more than one field change order and each field change order can be due to more than one cause of change. For example, the project can have one or more than one field change, and the FCOs can be due to several causes, such as adding cost payment due to business operating hours, adding scope to accommodate the current field condition, and adding scope for correction of work due to design error. 31 Table 2.7 Frequency percentage of causes of field change orders for overhead and underground electrical construction FCOs Reason No. The change descriptions OH frequency percentage UG frequency percentage 1 Business Operating Hours 14.1% 10.0% 2 Accommodate Current Existing Field Condition 24.6% 36.8% 3 Correction of Work Due to Design Error 12.9% 5.0% 4 Project Schedule Constraint 11.3% 24.1% 5 Change of Construction Methodology 5.2% 4.6% 6 Omission from Bidding 10.1% 5.4% 7 Permit/Testing 1.6% 1.9% 8 Remove Scopes 13.3% 3.1% 9 Unknown/Unexpected Field Condition 6.9% 9.1% As displayed in Table 2.7, the top five change descriptions for overhead projects with the highest frequency percentages are: (1) accommodation of current existing field condition with 24.6%, (2) business operating hours with 14.1%, (3) remove scopes with 13.3%, (4) correction of work due to design error with 12.9%, (5) project schedule constraint with 11.3%, respectively. Similarly, the top five change descriptions for underground projects with the highest frequency percentages are (1) accommodation current existing field condition at 36.8%, (2) project schedule constraint at 24.1%, (3) business operating hours at 10.0%, (4) unknown/unexpected field condition with 9.1%, (5) omission from bidding at 5.4%, respectively. FCOs, due to business operation hours, frequently happen in both overhead and underground electrical construction, and utility practitioners can plan for night shifts when power cannot be off during the daytime. This cause of change orders can be added to industry standards. Correction of work due to design errors, omission from bidding, and removed scopes of overhead electrical construction also show the importance of initial planning and design. The removed scopes are not necessarily beneficial for the utility because they indicate that the scopes are not properly planned, and they add cost and time to manage the FCOs for the utility and contractor. 32 The project schedule constraints also present significant concerns because electrical construction is a practical field that requires effective scheduling to avoid delays and paying for premium time to complete the scopes and meet deadlines. The underground electrical work appears to occur frequently FCOs due to project schedule constraints, which indicates that underground work is more complicated than the overhead electrical work, as discussed previously. 2.5.4 Possible Interrelationships Between Change Orders and Planning and Design Processes The causes of the nine types of change orders (Table 2.1) can be recognized during the initial planning and design processes (Serag et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012; Gharaibeh, 2013, Shrestha et al., 2013; Alshdiefat et al., 2018; and Shrestha, 2018). For instance, business operating hours as a cause of a FCO can be recognized in the permitting phase then the city or county informs the utility about areas where power outages impact commercial buildings or public offices. In addition, accommodation to current existing field conditions can be recognized and reduced by an effective front-end process, especially with jobsite visits and investigations for both overhead and underground electrical construction work (Gharaibeh, 2013 and Shrestha, 2016). The correction of work due to the design errors cause is directly related to the planning and design processes. The overhead electrical construction has a higher design error than the underground electrical construction. It can be mainly due to the large number of existing overhead electrical distribution lines and the complex configuration of distribution networks. Project schedule constraints, change of construction methodology, omission from bidding, and permit/testing causes of FCOs can be reduced by an effective project management plan that recognizes them prior to issuing the construction contracts. Removal of scopes is also directly related to the planning and design processes. Recognizing unknown/unexpected field conditions may be challenging, but an effective front end 33 of planning and design will be the best solution (Serag et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012; Gokulkarthi et al., 2015; and Alshdiefat et al., 2018). Lack of field condition information inevitably leads to design errors or missing scopes, resulting in more field change orders during construction (Hanna et al., 2007; Alshdiefat et al., 2018; Khalifa et al., 2019). Additionally, the high positive percentage changes in both overhead and underground electrical projects raise a serious concern that the planning and design processes should be improved to reduce field change orders. The job walks between the power utility company and the contractor during the planning and design phase are highly recommended to ensure both parties have a mutual agreement and responsibility on both scopes and costs of the planning projects. This agreement can help to avoid field change orders in the construction phase. 2.6 Conclusion This study supports electric power utilities work in controlling capital construction costs and reducing the impact of cost overruns from field change orders (FCOs). The results show that underground projects have higher risk of FCOs in both magnitude and frequency than overhead projects. This important finding alerts practitioners as conversion from overhead to underground electric systems proceeds due to security and climate change. Underground systems are exceedingly complex, and the scatter shown by Figure 2.2 is evidence of the uncertainties inherent in such projects. Furthermore, the higher percentage change in the costs of underground electrical projects compared to overhead electrical projects is apparently caused by their more significant challenges due to their invisible systems and requirements for more field investigations during planning and design. Since there is a lack of literature on electric utility project costs, the results cannot be compared with other utilities. Still, the percentage increases in the electrical construction contract costs appear to be higher than in other industries. 34 The study also indicated that both overhead and underground electrical construction have a much higher frequency of positive changes than negative changes. These results should alert the power utility companies to spend more time in the front-end design phase to ensure the scope of work is being designed and tasked accurately to avoid FCOs during the construction phase. The job walks between the project team and the contractor during the planning and design phase are highly recommended to ensure both parties have a mutual agreement and responsibility on both scopes and costs to avoid variations in the execution phase. Within the classification of nine causes of FCOs found from this study, the top five for overhead projects were accommodation of existing field conditions, business operating hours, removal of scopes, correction of work due to a design error, and project schedule constraint. Similarly, the top five change order descriptions for underground projects were accommodation of existing field conditions, project schedule constraints, business operating hours, unknown/unexpected field conditions, and omission from bidding. Additionally, underground FCOs, due to the accommodation of existing field conditions, showed the highest percentage among the causes, mainly due to existing damaged electrical materials, faulty electrical equipment, or unsafe site conditions. Therefore, industry practitioners should be aware of this cause and clearly understand conditions below the subgrade during the planning and design stages to mitigate risk for underground distribution systems and/or conversion from overhead to electrical underground systems. Furthermore, the underground project schedule constraints are a noticeable concern to the project management team. Since electrical construction is a practical field, it requires adequate planning and scheduling of the projects to avoid delays; otherwise, utility companies must pay 35 extra costs for contractors to meet deadlines. The scheduling task is also crucial in planning and designing processes to ensure the projects are completed within budget and schedule. To reduce the number of construction FCOs for power utility company owners, future research should focus on exploring the link between the causes of FCOs and the planning and design processes. This will identify which project stakeholders are associated with the root causes of FCOs. Systems engineering methods, such as V-model, stakeholder map, and functional modeling, can be used to analyze solutions to FCO issues. This study provides valuable implications for both professional practice and scholarly research. In professional practice, the study identified and analyzed the root causes of FCOs in terms of magnitude and frequency helping the practitioners be aware of the risks during the planning and design phase to avoid FCOs, especially the comparison between the overhead and underground electricity projects allows the practitioners having a comprehensive vision about the factors causing the cost overruns as well as the concerns about costs when electric utilities convert from overhead to underground systems due to security and climate change factors. This study lays the foundation for the next phase of research on quality control in the front-end planning process, promoting collaboration among stakeholders, and identifies issues and solutions early on in the project lifecycle. 36 2.7 References AIA Document A201TM-2007, p. 20. General Condition of the Contract for Construction. Retrieved from https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/AIA-A201-2007- Free- Sample-Preview.pdf Alaryan, A., Emadelbeltagi., Elshahat. A., Dawood, M. (2014). Causes and Effects of Change Orders on Construction Projects in Kuwait. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 7 (Version 2), July 2014, pp.01-08. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277814438_Causes_and_Effects_of _Orders_on_Construction_Projects_in_Kuwait/link/5574617408aeacff1ffcbc5b/download Alonso and Greenwell (2013). Underground vs. Overhead: Power Line Installation-Cost Comparison and Mitigation. Retrieved from https://www.power-grid.com/td/underground-vs-overhead-power-line- installation-cost-comparison/#gref Alshdiefat, A., Aziz, Z. (2018). Causes of Change Orders in the Jordanian Construction Industry. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 6, 234-250. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88450 Amini, S., Rezvani, A., Tabassi, M. (2023). Causes of cost overruns in building construction projects in Asian countries; Iran as a case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 30 No. 7, 2023, pp. 2739-2766 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0969-9988, DOI 10.1108/ECAM-05-2021-0445. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ECAM-05-2021- 0445/full/pdf?title=causes-of-cost-overruns-in-building-construction-projects-in-asian- countries-iran-as-a-case-study https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/AIA-A201-2007-%20Free-Sample-Preview.pdf https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/AIA-A201-2007-%20Free-Sample-Preview.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277814438_Causes_and_Effects_of https://www.power-grid.com/td/underground-vs-overhead-power-line-installation-cost-comparison/#gref https://www.power-grid.com/td/underground-vs-overhead-power-line-installation-cost-comparison/#gref https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88450 37 Anees, M. M., Mohamed, H. E., Razek, M. E. A. (2013). Evaluation of change management efficiency of construction contractors. HBRC Journal. 9.77-85. 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.02.005. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687404813000060 Associated General Contractors of America and National Association of State Facilities Administrators (2007, p. 67). Joint Publication, Second Edition. CM/GC Guidelines for Public Owners. AGC Publication 2912 and NASFA Publication F-3007. Accessed March 13, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20 Industry%20Relations/CM_GC_Guidelines.pdf Burge Hughes Walsh (2023). Systems Engineering Tools and Techniques Retrieved from https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/Systems-Engineering/Tools.aspx Chen, C. (2015). A Proactive Approach for Change Management and Control on Construction Projects. PhD dissertation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/content/qt721871gq/qt721871gq_noSplash_ 6e3c80ae2a7fb5a5e0e52ace9fd76e3c80ae2a7fb5a5e0e52ace9fd7bfac.pdf Collins, W., Bugg, R., Layson, A. (2018, p. 649). Qualitative analysis of electrical-related change orders on university projects. Creative Construction Conference. DOI 10.3311/CCC2018-086 Retrieved from https://repozitorium.omikk.bme.hu/handle/10890/5748 Csanyi, E. (2017), Overhead vs. Underground Residential Distribution Circuits. Which One is ‘Better’? Retrieved from https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/overhead-vs-underground Gharaibeh Hani M. (2013). Managing the Cost of Power Transmission Projects: Lessons Learned. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(8), 1063-1067. https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26 https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/Systems-Engineering/Tools.aspx https://escholarship.org/content/qt721871gq/qt721871gq_noSplash_ 38 Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943- 7862.0000665 Gokulkarthi, M., Gowrishankar, K. S. (2015). A Study On Impacts of Change Order in Construction Projects. International Journal of Science and Engineering Research (IJ0SER). Vol 3, Issue 4, April - 2015, 3221 5687, (P) 3221 568X. Gunhan, S., Arditi, D., Doyle, J. (2007). Avoiding Change Orders in Public School Construction. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(1), 67-73. Hanna, A. S., and Swanson, J. (2007). Risk allocation by law - Cumulative impact of change orders. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(1), 60-66. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133:1(60) Herrera, R. F., Sanchez, O., Casteneda, K., Porras, H. (2020). Cost Overrun Causative Factors in Road Infrastructure Projects: A Frequency and Importance Analysis. Applied Sciences. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5506; doi:10.3390/app10165506 Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/16/5506 Khalifa, W., Mahamid, I. (2019). Causes of Change Orders in Construction Projects. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 9, No. 6, 2019, 4956-4961 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346751362_Causes_of_Change_ Orders_in_Construction_Projects/link/602cfe98299bf1cc26cf9c6f/download Ismaeel, A. W., Naji, I. H., Zehawi, N. R. (2021). Identifying the Key Causes and Impacts of Variation Orders in Iraqi Construction Projects. Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences Vol (14) No 2, 2021: 18-27. DOI: 10.24237/djes.2021.14202 Retrieved from https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/c1863cdff7163e03 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/16/5506 39 Kim, S. Y., Pham, H., Luu, T. V. (2018). Construction Cost Overrun in Transmission Grid Projects. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. ISSN 0974-3154 Volume 11, Number 12 (2018), pp. 1923-1948 © International Research Publication House Retrieved from http://www.irphouse.com/ijert18/ijertv11n12_08.pdf Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W.N., Seymour, S.J., and Biemer, S.M. (2011). Systems Engineering: Principles and Practice (Second Revised Edition). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470405482 Maamari, A. M. A., Khan, R. F. (2021). Evaluating the Causes and Impacts of Change Orders on the Construction Projects Performance in Oman. International Journal of Research in Entrepreneurship & Business Studies eISSN-2708-8006, Vol. 2, issue. 1, 2021, pp. 41-50 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349815338_Evaluating_the_Causes _and_Impact_of_Change_Orders_on_Construction_Projects_Performance_in_ Oman/link/ 6072e4c8299bf1c911c28946/download Mcarthur, T. (2022). Making Underground Transmission and Distribution a Reality with All-In Project Delivery. Retrieved from https://blog.burnsmcd.com/making-underground-transmission-a-reality-with- all-in-project-delivery NEI Electric Power Engineering (2008). Appendix B - Overhead to Underground Conversion. Retrieved from https://www.energy.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt551/files/inline- documents/sonh/final-nei-report-appendix-b-overhead-to-underground-conversion.pdf Public Works, Disaster and Fire Safety and Transportation Commissions (2018). Conceptual Study to Underground Utility Wires in Berkeley. Retrieved from https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conceptual-Study-for- Undergrounding%20%281%29.pdf http://www.irphouse.com/ijert18/ijertv11n12_08.pdf https://blog.burnsmcd.com/making-underground-transmission-a-reality-with-all-in-project-delivery https://blog.burnsmcd.com/making-underground-transmission-a-reality-with-all-in-project-delivery https://www.energy.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt551/files/inline-documents/sonh/final-nei-report-appendix-b-overhead-to-underground-conversion.pdf https://www.energy.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt551/files/inline-documents/sonh/final-nei-report-appendix-b-overhead-to-underground-conversion.pdf 40 Senouci, A., Unal