A key initiative identified by the Project Delivery Task Force (PDTF) was to create a tool to assist local sponsors with the evaluation of project feasibility and the risks associated with project delivery. This tool is intended to enhance the resiliency and reliability of the scopes, schedules, and budgets utilized to develop the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The tool is not intended to be used by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) to identify federal funding awards. Rather, the tool is to be utilized by local sponsors to guide and support their decision-making processes as they define their projects; identify the constraints/risks within their project corridor; and determine the best approach to successful project delivery.

The Project Deliverability, Risk Assessment, and Feasibility Tool applies to all projects that are considering the utilization of federal funds, thus, subject to GDOT’s Plan Development Process (PDP) and the Local Administered Projects (LAP) certification rules and requirements. This tool can be utilized and coordinated with ARC at any time during the early project planning stages and updated/revised as needed. Multiple concept considerations can be evaluated utilizing separate assessments for each. It is required that a Final Version and results of this tool are to be submitted to ARC prior to consideration of any new project to be programmed into the TIP. It is required that the preparer have prior transportation project delivery experience. The finalized version should be signed by the local sponsor official who will be responsible for the project’s delivery. Upon receipt of either the draft or final version, ARC will review and provide comments, if applicable. Once accepted as final, the risk assessment will become part of the project file and submitted as a supplemental document to the local sponsor’s project application or funding request.

To use the tool, the local sponsor should complete each section with the best available information known at that time. Since it is likely the assessment will be completed with few project specific details (such as ROW requirements), the assessor should evaluate each risk straightforwardly and not devalue any risk. In cases of uncertainty, assume that you will have to deal with a risk rather than the risk being avoidable. The key is the early identification of risks that can affect your project and the development of early strategies to mitigate potential impacts.

The local sponsor should closely evaluate their project with the purpose of: (a) improving overall project definitions/descriptions of TIP projects; (b) early and clear identification of the project justification statement; (c) identifying the major risks or impediments so that early mitigation strategies can be developed; and (d) instituting more realistic and reliable cost and schedule estimates prior to programming the project with federal funds into the TIP. Once completed, the local sponsor will have a detailed risk analysis that can be utilized to facilitate dialogues with both the ARC and GDOT as funding, scheduling, and scope decisions are being made prior to inclusion into the TIP.

Please craft a Project Justification Statement (PJS) that explains the project’s direct need (What is the problem?). The PJS should be brief (1-2 sentences) and not provide any technical detail such as traffic counts. (Examples: Project would improve capacity on State Route 101 from Atlanta Road to Georgia Drive or Project would improve the turning movements of Peach State Road at the intersection of Apple Road.)

Please briefly detail the project’s existing conditions (# of lanes, turning lanes, sidewalks/bike lanes, major structures, type of parcels (commercial/residential) and known major utilities). While the Tool is intended for projects seeking federal funding, local sponsors should evaluate their 100% locally funded projects during their existing conditions inventory to ensure that there are no mandatory federal actions requiring some level of NEPA compliance (Air Rights over the Interstate; Encroachment into Interstate ROW; Encroachment into Federal properties, etc.)

The description should be brief and provide only the relevant details that could affect project delivery. This will allow you to complete the risk
assessment more fully and evaluate alternatives, if needed. (Example: Proposed widening of State Route 101 from Peachtree Street to
Georgia Avenue. Widening would occur mainly to the north side of the current roadway. Anticipate adding bike and pedestrian features
throughout.)

Major risks or impediments to project delivery have been identified below and divided into categories of Project Management, Environmental, Rights-of-Way, Utilities, and Constructability. While other risks do exist, this assessment covers the common reoccurring risks that every sponsor should evaluate prior to project programming.

1. For each risk identified below, please read the question and choose the risk level you think best applies to your project.

2. Each answer has an assigned point value. Please enter that value in the Risk Register. If you need to add a comment on your scoring choice, please do so in the Risk Register.

3. Places to access additional information and risk mitigation strategies have been offered to assist.

Risk 1 -  Federal Funding

This tool assumes you, as the local sponsor, plan to use federal funds (or at least evaluating the use) for your project. If so, please select “Yes” and continue forward. This tool is focused on the risks related to federal funded projects specifically since state and locally funded projects require different perspectives
and some risks only apply dependent on the type of funding to be used. If you use this tool to assist with the scoping of a state or locally funded project, please select “No”; note which risks do not apply to locally or state funded projects; and remove those risks from your consideration.

Risk Management Tips:

The use of federal funds in any phase of a project will require you to be in compliance with all federal rules and regulations including GDOT’s PDP and Environmental (NEPA) requirements. The added project delivery costs (time and money) associated with the utilization of federal funds should be considered early, especially for smaller projects where the added costs may outweigh the benefits. In addition, switching from 100% local funds to a blend of federal money at any time during project delivery should be evaluated to determine the impact to the scope, schedule, and budget. If your project is seeking STP-Urban (M230) funding, additional evaluation will also be conducted requiring a justification for the funding. Federally funded projects are required to follow GDOT’s PDP which prescribes the steps which must be followed as to not jeopardize federal funding. Switching funds midstream may require a local sponsor to take steps backwards before moving forward with respect to the project schedule and delivery. To assist with projects of a variety of sizes, GDOT has developed tools such as the Limited Scope Concept Report; NEPA Programmatic CE (PCE) agreement; and others to help streamline delivery. GDOT’s Office of Program Delivery (OPD) or Program Control (OPC) can assist with developing early scope requirements.

Risk 2 -  Local Sponsor Match 

For most projects, the use of federal funds requires a funding match from the local sponsor. The match is a percentage (typically a minimum of 20%) of the overall funding and is typically negotiated during the execution of the Project Framework Agreement (PFA). As the local sponsor, is your local match projected to be in place in advance of PE authorization?

Risk Management Tips:

If federal funds will be used, the sponsor match commitment should be considered when a funding application request has been submitted. Local sponsors should evaluate the cost of PE, ROW, Utilities, and Construction phases and include the appropriate amount of contingency funds for unexpected project overruns. Once a project is placed in the TIP, the local match is considered to be a commitment in moving forward with the project (even as the local administration may change). To avoid project delays or stoppages: Identify your funding obligation early; maintain your commitment to have the necessary funds in place when needed; and set up contingency funds.

Risk 3 -  Project Sponsor Experience 

Federal funds require projects to utilize GDOT’s PDP which prescribes the design, ROW, utilities, and environmental certifications required to deliver your project. As the project sponsor, you should identify the type of project you are proposing, identify how the PDP applies to that project, and determine whether or not Local Administered Project (LAP) Qualification Certification is required or not (Not required for Transportation Enhancement (TE), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), for example). GDOT maintains the LAP Manual with its purpose being to establish uniform practices for authorizing qualified Local Sponsors to manage certain core activities for Federal-aid funded projects. As a Local Sponsor, does your Project Manager (internal staff or on-call consultant) have recent experience successfully delivering federally funded projects within scope, on budget, and on time?

Risk Management Tips:

GDOT’s PDP is continually updated and maintained as procedures and policies are revised or as new federal or state regulations are required. To keep your project moving forward, your project manager (internal or external) must be knowledgeable of the PDP process and know the key agency requirements (FHWA, FTA, USACE) required to deliver a project. If assistance is needed during the early project development activities, please contact an ARC staff member who may be able to offer support to the local sponsor in the creation of the scope, schedule, and budget. Early consideration should be given to project elements including off-site detour requirements; railroad crossings; and others that can impact a project’s schedule.

Additional Information May Be Found At: TIP Blueprint and the GDOT Local Administered Project (LAP) manual.

Risk 4 -  Logical Termini 

All federally funded projects must demonstrate compliance with FHWA’s Logical Termini (LT) requirements. FHWA has three guiding principles that should be considered:

1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope;

2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and

3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

Capacity projects, widening projects that stop at county/city lines, or widening projects with additional adjacent widening projects are examples of difficult LT evaluations. 

Risk Management Tips:

Common examples of projects with LT concerns include: (1) multiple widening projects along one corridor with the want to clear with multiple environmental documents; (2) widening projects that end at the city limits or county line; and (3) projects where needs (capacity, operational) exist immediately adjacent to your proposed termini. For projects with LT concerns, a LT Justification Report (LJR) can be prepared during the concept development phase and submitted to FHWA for approval. The LJR typically includes the Purpose and Need, detailed traffic, a sense of the environmental constraints, and an evaluation to demonstrate your project can stand alone. The LJR can be an intensive exercise. But if completed early, the LJR allows you to gain FHWA’s concurrence on termini in the planning stages to avoid risk further into project development.

Additional information may be found at:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/Environmental/GDOT-EPM-Chap02.pdf

Risk 5 -  Historic Resources

Federally funded projects must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NHPA protects both historic resources and archaeological sites along with contributing features associated with each (historic trees/landscaping, walls, fences, ect). For Risk #5, please only consider historic resources and do not consider archaeological resources since they are evaluated under Risk #8.

Any impacts to historic resources (either structure or property displacement or physical harm to features that add to the historic character) require consultation processes with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that could lead to project changes or extensive mitigation efforts.

Risk Management Tips:

Early identification of historic resources & contributing features, such as trees that contribute to the eligibility of a resource, is critical to ensure your project’s design avoids or minimizes impacts to the greatest extent possible. For projects that are likely to adversely impact historic resources by either removing contributing features (such as historic landscaping, historic trees, or historic characteristics such as a majority of the setback or fence) or potentially requiring demolition of the resource, the design and environmental phase of the project should allow time and allocate budget to consider complete avoidance (completely avoids an adverse effect) and minimization of harm (reduces the harm to either some or all of the identified resources) alternatives. Both type of alternatives will have to be developed and studies to demonstrate to the lead federal agency (FHWA or FTA) that the least damaging alternative has been developed. If the impacts to the historic resources cannot be completely avoided, mitigation strategies will need to be developed; approved by the SHPO and GDOT; and time and funds added to complete the agreed upon mitigation measures. Close attention should be given to trees, landscaping features, or steps that contribute to the eligibility of a resource and might be removed while the historic structure can remain. Often, removal of contributing features, such as trees, can require additional subject matter experts, such as arborists, and result in an overall adverse effect resulting in significant project delay.

Resources:

http://georgiashpo.org/review/transportation

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/Environmental/GDOT-EPM-Chap05_3.pdf 

 

Risk 6 -  Permitting

All projects regardless of funding can require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) if physical impacts (impacts to buffers considered in Risk #7) to streams, wetlands, or other waters under this jurisdiction (lakes, ponds) are impacted. Impacts to these types of resources can include placement of a culvert in a stream, extending an existing culvert, or adding fill within a stream/wetland boundary.

Risk Management Tips:

Impacts to waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE require a permit. The USACE have several types of permits with the highest level being an Individual Permit (IP). An IP requires extensive coordination efforts and evaluation of alternatives to avoid and minimize the amount of impact (typically requires 6 to 12 months over the entire project schedule to accommodate the coordination and application requirements). In addition, any impact to a wetland, stream, or open water will likely require mitigation in the form of purchasing mitigation credits (typically funded by the local sponsor). Dependent upon the amount of impact, the costs of mitigation credits can range from very small (~$10k) to very large (over $1 million). Typical costs range in the tens of thousands range. If impacts are likely as a result of your project, consider design options early to avoid and minimize impact and evaluate if the project has options to reduce the permitting level required.

While identifying permit needs, project sponsors should also identify if their projects fall within floodplains or floodways. If so, consideration should be given to any special design criteria or FEMA/GEMA coordination that will be required and the schedule should accommodate those processes.

Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/Environmental/GDOT-EPMChap05_4.pdf 

 

Risk 7 -  Stream Buffer Variance

Projects can be subject to Georgia EPD’s (GA-EPD) protection of buffers and may require a buffer variance.

Risk Management Tips:

Variances can be acquired with little impact to the schedule as long as design and environmental are scheduled appropriately. The design plans and variance need to be submitted to GDOT OES, if required, approximately 9 months prior to the let month so the variance can be submitted to GA-EPD approximately 6 months prior to the let month. The key mitigation strategy is to identify the need for buffer variances early and make sure the design plans (including erosion and sedimentation control plans) will be developed to the level required in time for the environmental lead to submit a complete
variance for review.

Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/Environmental/GDOT-EPMChap05_4.pdf 

Risk 8 -  Section 4(f)

Public recreation facilities (city/county owned parks, playgrounds open to the public, public amphitheaters) and Wildlife refuges (including Wildlife Management Areas) are protected under Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act. Historic resources/districts and some Archaeological sites are protected too. If adverse impacts occur to these type resources, the environmental documentation requires extra time and costs.

Risk Management Tips:

It is strongly advised that avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies are considered early in the process. Adversely impacting Section 4(f) protected resources will significantly impact your project’s scope, schedule, and budget. Adverse effects will require an intensive Section 4(f) evaluation which typically requires at least an additional 12 months added to the environmental schedule and will likely result in costly mitigation efforts. In addition, your design team will have to develop detailed avoidance and minimization alternatives and additional environmental studies will be required on those alternatives as well.

Time saving measures can be achieved by utilizing any applicable Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation or reducing impacts. Adverse impacts to Historic bridges can utilize FHWA’s Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation which reduces the amount of time required (should not add any more than 3 months to the typical project schedule, if any). For other resources, evaluating alternatives to reduce impacts to achieve a no adverse determination (from the official with jurisdiction over that resource) will likely allow the use of FHWA’s De Minimis determination (should not add any time to the project schedule).

Resources:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/4fpolicy.asp 

Risk 9 -  Environmental Justice

Federally funded projects must evaluate the negative and positive impacts to low income and minority communities.

Risk Management Tips:

 

If low-income or minority communities are identified, public outreach should be factored into your project delivery schedule. Depending on project scope, the detail and scope of public outreach will vary. Key factors to consider when determining the level of public outreach include displacements, literacy, noise impacts, and other impacts to community resources such as churches, civic centers, and community businesses. In addition, please evaluate whether or not translators may be required (at the meeting and for presented materials) and consider meeting locations (transit dependent communities).

Resources:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/env_just.asp

http://www.atlantaregional.com/transportation/community-engagement/social-equity

 

Risk 10 -  Public Controversy

In early project development, local sponsors should evaluate the potential for controversy or if significant opposition exists. If identified, a Public Outreach Plan should be developed with the consideration of appropriate time allotted in the schedule.

Risk Management Tips:

Transportation projects can be considered controversial for a variety of reasons and can be the main reason the lead federal agency requires higher level of NEPA documentation. Long off-site detours, residential displacements, school bus disruption, impacts to emergency services/response or general public non-support can all be reasons for controversy. Past projects in the vicinity can be used as a gauge but you, as the local sponsor, will likely be most in tune with your community’s sentiment for the proposed project. Public Outreach can take on a wide variety of types; opportunities to “piggy-back” off existing meetings will present themselves; and the outreach can typically occur concurrently with other activities. Early on, evaluate the required public outreach and ensure the schedule allows time for completion.

Resources:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpubinv2.asp 

Risk 11 -  NEPA

Federally funded projects must comply with NEPA requirements. The type of project and the intensity of impacts will determine the level of documentation required. The higher the level of documentation will require more intensive coordination with resource agencies, more public outreach, increased schedule and costs.

Risk Management Tips:

Ultimately, the lead federal agency (FHWA or FTA) will decide the level of NEPA documentation required. The Code of Federal Regulations 23 CFR 771.117 provides broad project definitions with likely anticipated NEPA documentation category. In addition, the level of impacts likely to incur (or lack of impacts), can influence the level of NEPA documentation. The purpose of an EA is to determine whether you need to complete an EIS or if the project does not have significant impacts. Also, FHWA’s and GDOT’s Programmatic CE agreement can be reviewed to determine project types and impact thresholds that mandate whether a project can be approved as a PCE by GDOT staff (or has to go to FHWA for review as a CE).

Resources:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd4document.asp 

Risk 12 -  ROW and Displacements

Most transportation projects require ROW or Easements as part of the Project Delivery Process. The acquisition process can become complicated if displacements to residences or businesses will be required. The number of driveways, fences, landscaping, and trees should all be considered early when scheduling the ROW process.

Risk Management Tips:

Several factors must be considered when determining the amount of time and costs required to acquire and certify rights-of-way (timeline typically starts at ROW authorization and ends at the let date). For a 0 to 8 parcel count project with a simple fee deed, no displacements, no consequential damages, and no government owned properties; the average time to acquire ROW is 9 months. As more parcels are required and as more complications are incurred (consequential displacements, federally owned properties), more time is needed with the average time required for a 200+ parcel project being 30 months. When developing your project schedule, please allocate a realistic timeframe and cost estimate for all ROW acquisition activities. In addition, considerations for contingency ROW funds should be considered early to cover items such as the cost to cure expenses or costs due to business loss (customer parking space losses).

Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Public/Documents/AcquisitionGuide_2008_10-23-08.pdf 

 

Risk 13 - Condemnation

When the acquisition of ROW cannot be settled, condemnation may be required. If so, this could add time to the schedule or halt the project if the acquisition entity is not willing to condemn.

Risk Management Tip:

For any project that requires ROW or easement, the condemnation process could be required. When needed, FHWA’s (23CFR 710 and 49CFR 24) and GDOT’s (Title 32 Official Code of GA) policies should be followed with reasonable timeframes granted to the property owner during negotiation.Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/ROW/05Acquisition.pdf 

 

Risk 14 - Federal and/or State Properties

Evaluate your project and determine if any federal and/or state properties would require easements (National Park Service, US Post Office, US Army Corps of Engineers, GA Dept of Natural Resources). If so, these type of properties typically require additional coordination and deliverables prior to ROW authorization.

Risk Management Tip:

Projects requiring ROW or easements from federally or state owned properties typically require additional time and processes (such as additional environmental compliance) to complete project delivery. Requiring an easement from an entity such as the National Park Service will require you to meet their NEPA standards. Properties under control of entities such as the State Properties Commission or the GA Department of Natural Resources might require legislation action prior to property transference. The early identification of government owned property, the evaluation of their requirements, and schedule allotment must be considered early. 

Risk 15 - Utilities

Utility discovery and possible relocation must be factored into your project delivery schedule. All projects in GDOT’s Construction Work Program require certification even if no utilities will be relocated.

Risk Management Tip:

Both underground and above ground utilities must be considered early when evaluating your project. Local sponsors should identify both small and large scale facilities such as major gas lines. Prior rights and agreements with utilities, such as Franchise Agreements (collection of fees from utilities in order to utilize the public ROW), need to be reviewed to determine who is responsible for the funding to relocate utilities. In addition, major costs can be associated with impacting telecommunication substations, gas regulators, or power stations.

Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/utilities#tab-1 

Risk 16 - Railroads

Evaluate your project to determine if new railroad crossings will be required or if improvements will be made within the vicinity of the railroad ROW (generally defined as within 200 feet). Railroads can typically require “clear zones” for future additional track which require you to consider longer bridges or alignment alternatives to limit encroachment.

Risk Management Tip:

FHWA and GDOT have several policies and regulations to help facilitate railroad coordination. Railroads should be identified early with coordination typically required for any railroad within 200 feet of your proposed project. If improvements to existing crossings or new crossings are required, have you identified the appropriate level of coordination required? Can you avoid the addition of a new crossing (new crossings can require multiple closings of existing crossings)? Will your project require flagging during construction, railroad personnel present during construction, fees paid to the railroad for their reviews, or other costs associated with the railroad involvement? Costs with these activities should be incorporated into your budget.

Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/utilities#tab-3 

Risk 17 - Major Transmission Line

Evaluate your corridor to determine if any conflicts with major transmission lines will be required.

Risk Management Tip:

Conflicts with major transmission lines can require additional schedule and significantly increase your project’s cost. Typically relocation of major transmission poles requires at least 3 poles to be relocated to keep them in the proper alignment. If one or more major transmission lines are located within your project, evaluation should occur early to determine the required utility coordination and if relocations are necessary

Resources:

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/utilities#tab-1 

Risk 18 - Constructability

In determining the feasibility of MS4 compliance, you need to evaluate the need to acquire additional ROW or easement for the installation of wet or dry detention ponds.

Risk Management Tip:

Projects must meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit, which include incorporating permanent water quality control and detention measures (best management practices [BMPs]) into the design where appropriate, where those BMPs have not been determined to be infeasible based on the infeasibility criteria identified in Section 1.4 of the GDOT Guidelines for Design of Post-Construction BMPs (GDOT Guidelines) issued February 22, 2013, and where required in accordance with the GDOT Guidelines. MS4 feasibility requirements must be considered early when potential impacts to ROW and resources can be evaluated and incorporated into the schedule.

 

Risk 19 - Staging

Based on the type of project, do you foresee constructability issues (staging, increased work limits, lane closures)?

Risk Management Tip:

Do you foresee any constructability issues? Depending on your project type and the surrounding environment, how you plan to construct your project can impact your project delivery costs and schedule. Lane closures can require additional public outreach to the community and emergency services. Work in the water of protected species may require additional environmental coordination. Increasing the work limits late in the plan development process can make a schedule unrecoverable.

 

Preliminary Schedule

GDOT creates and maintains a variety of schedules that can be used for federal, state, and locally funded projects. In order to promote reliability, a GDOT template should be used. Upon identifying type of project, contact the GDOT Office of Program Control for the schedule template most applicable to your project. Once the schedule template is received, evaluate the tasks that would more than likely be required for your project and remove tasks that you determine not to be needed. It is recommended that you leave in tasks if you are unsure.

Notes

• Fiscal Years are based off GDOT Fiscal Years which start on July 1st and run through June 30th (example: July 25, 2015 is within Fiscal year 2016. February 2, 2016 is also within Fiscal Year 2016.)
• PE - Please list the proposed month/year in which PE would be authorized (Example: August 2016). Remember that a delay in PE authorization can affect your Env and ROW dates.
• Environmental - Please list the proposed start date and end date for the NEPA document (CE, EA, EIS). (Example: August 31, 2016 to December 23, 2018).
• Rights-of-Way - Please list the proposed Fiscal Year for ROW authorization and end date for ROW completion. (Example: January 15, 2019 to March 28, 2020).
• Utilities - Please list the proposed start date for UTL authorization and end date for UTL completion, if applicable. (Example: January 15, 2019 to March 28, 2020).
• Construction - Please project the proposed start date for CST authorization and end date for CST completion. (Example: January 15, 2019 to March 28, 2020).

Preliminary Budget

Please project a budget for feasibility purposes. As part of your planning process, it is understood that not all elements that are required to provide detailed cost estimates will be available and more detailed cost estimates will be generated as the project continues forward. It is recommended that GDOT’s cost estimating tools be used and the user makes the best decisions possible. Your cost estimate should consider contingencies and all risks (including costs associated with impacts).

Above is the overall risk score for this project, calculated from the responses provided for each identified risk. Based on your score, the following actions should occur:

1. Score of between 0 and 1 : Based on the identification of few risks, no further action is recommended but any change to the scope or assumptions should be reevaluated as the project continues forward.
2. Score between 1 and 2 : Based on the moderate set of risks identified, it is recommended that further coordination occur between the local sponsor, ARC, and GDOT to determine if risks can be avoided or mitigated. Further evaluation of the project’s scope, schedule, and budget should occur prior to project programming.
3. Score of 2 or greater : Based on the risks identified, it is recommended that a detailed engineering and environmental screening be performed, along with a detailed scope and schedule, to further evaluate risks. Additional coordination should take place between the local sponsor, ARC, and GDOT to evaluate the scope of the project and determine if risks can be avoided or mitigated. The end result of this coordination should be an ARC and GDOT accepted scope and schedule.