gold shovel standard excavation damage prevention metrics...

© 2018 Gold Shovel Standard®, All Rights Reserved GSS-GUI-023 Rev 3 - May 2018 Excavation Metrics Update.docx | Page: 1

ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Gold Shovel Standard Excavation Damage Prevention Metrics

Update on Committee, Pilot and Program Work

May 1, 2018

How to get more information or offer comment

Changes in this document are anticipated to begin in June 2018. The program would like to hear comments from all interested parties at any time, but particularly during May 2018, in advance of the anticipated June 2018 start.

To schedule a follow-up call or provide comments on the contents of this document, please use the following email address:

[email protected].


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Introduction Standardized measurements for excavation performance in damage prevention continue to progress. This document details changes and addresses many common questions.

What is changing? The Excavation Damage Prevention Metrics Committee believes the excavation metrics portion of the Gold Shovel Standard (GSS) program is ready to move to a customer-driven-rollout phase.

Gold Shovel Standard, at the recommendation of the committee (comprised primarily of excavation contractors)1, will begin to allow select member companies (owner / operators) to request metrics information (from January 2018 forward) from their contractors2 and subcontractors.

GSS is staffing to support its excavation customers (owner / operator in-house crews, contractors and subcontractors) in successfully preparing this metric information.

ShovelSafeÔ is the software tool architected at the direction of contractors on the committee and pilot teams to support excavators in achieving damage prevention excellence. ShovelSafe Version 1.0 will be released to excavators3 at no additional costs beginning in June 2018.

When is this change occurring? The program expects to begin implementing this change beginning in June 2018.

Why is this important to GSS-Certified contractors? Based on feedback from a pilot testing phase between October 2017 and March 2018, contractors should anticipate that an increasing number of their member owner / operator customers will begin requesting metrics information, delivered in the standardized format and cross-checked within the GSS system.

At the same time, as a performance metric, excavators can begin to use this same new information to seek improved performance within their ongoing operations.

1 Appendix A lists the people who participated in the development and pilot testing of these metrics 2 The term “contractors” means contractors and / or subcontractors with a contractual relationship with owner / operators alone and does not include owner / operator in-house crews. 3 In this document, the term “excavators” means both contractors and the in-house excavation crews of owner / operators.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Why is this important to GSS owner / operators? GSS member owner / operators should begin tracking the metrics information for their own excavation crews, if applicable.

Owner / operators in the GSS program are gaining access to a new set of tools to reduce risk to their networks. GSS will prioritize requests to assist owner / operator members and help integrate these tools into their operations.

What are excavators being asked to do differently? Excavators (in-house and contractor crews) should begin preparations to respond to requests for standardized GSS-formatted damage prevention performance data.

The Committee has settled on a specific set of attributes by which to categorize damages. The publication of which damage attributes are tracked (see figure 5, page 17) means that excavators should add these items to their investigation procedures (if not already there) to ensure easy entry into the ShovelSafe software.

How to get more information or offer comment Changes in this document are anticipated to begin in June 2018. The program would like to hear comments from all interested parties at any time, but particularly during May 2018, in advance of the anticipated June 2018 start.

To schedule a follow-up call or provide comments on the contents of this document, please use the following email address:

[email protected].


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

About Gold Shovel Standard Gold Shovel Standard (GSS) is a nonprofit organization committed to improving workforce and public safety and the integrity of buried infrastructure. GSS believes that greater transparency in all aspects of damage prevention among buried-asset operators, locators and excavators is essential to drive continuous improvement, and vital to increasingly safe working conditions and communities.

Why standardized damage prevention metrics Standardized damage prevention measurements are a key part of the GSS mission, and the establishment and broad deployment of metrics are core components of Gold Shovel Standard’s efforts to improve public and workforce safety. Continuous improvement by all responsible parties (owner/ operators, excavators, locators) is critical to achieve a dramatic reduction in damages, and measurements underpin continuous improvement.

Standardizing the measurement process is a first step to drive performance improvement and increase public and workforce safety. To achieve this ambitious plan, GSS is working with balanced teams (owner/ operators, excavators, locators) of damage prevention experts to draft, refine and broadly deploy damage prevention metrics for all stakeholders.

That which gets measured, can be managed. Human health and safety measurements have been established and broadly adopted over the last two decades, resulting in undeniable improvements in the safety of workers and the public alike. GSS raises the bar by establishing and working towards broad adoption of similar measurements for damage prevention that will result in a significant reduction in the frequency of line strikes.

In much the same way that measuring worker safety has paved the way for significant improvement (40 percent in 12 years; source: U.S. Department of Labor), measurements are a necessary ingredient to a dramatic reduction in excavation-related damages.

Statement of Intent (purpose of the system) 1. To establish a set of excavator-developed metrics4 that all excavators

(contractors and owner / operators across multiple disciplines) can use that would be accepted by the industry and allow for continual improvement in safe excavating.

2. To develop a system which allows industry to reap the benefits of standardization, offers benchmarking performance against industry, and incorporates cross-checking5 to improve the reliability of self-reported data.

4 Appendix A lists the excavators who participated in the development and pilot testing of these metrics 5 Appendix B discusses self-reporting and cross-checking more fully


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Policy statements

Excavator controls access to its information Release of performance information is controlled by the excavator. Only the excavator can provide performance information to another party. Gold Shovel Standard will protect an excavator’s information and not allow performance information to be shared unless directed to do so by the excavator that provided the information.

GSS does not interpret data, judge or score GSS relies on non-punitive reporting and judgment-free presentation of factual data. GSS will not produce a score, rating or other value-based indicator.

In-house crews to use same system of measurement Gold Shovel Standard owner / operator members’ in-house excavation crews will be GSS-Certified and required to adhere to the same policies and procedures as contractors.

Maintain portability; no custom one-offs To maintain the portability of the system, minimize burden on excavators, and avoid misinterpretation of information, Gold Shovel Standard will support delivery of information in standardized committee-approved format(s) only. Requests for custom or “one-off” presentations, templates or parameters will be routed to the committee for consideration as enhancement to the standard offering available to all recipients.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Excavator-developed metrics To accomplish the goal of being excavator-developed, the committee and pilot teams were comprised of excavators (predominantly contractors). The list of committee members and pilot team participants is provided in Appendix A.

Committee charter The charter of the Excavator Metrics Committee is to create a system of reporting that results in a single metric or series of combined metrics with the following attributes:

• Is truly representative of the level of caution that an excavation company uses relative to its peers;

• Is perceived as fair by all excavators, contractors and owner / operators for their crews alike;

• Is clear and understandable, such that businesses know what to do to affect their metrics;

• Is reliable and not easy to be gamed, tricked or fooled;

• Does not create new or increase existing litigation liability either for contractors or owner / operators;

• Has low compliance overhead (reporting effort / time); and

• Has low negative impact on productivity while lowering costs and risks of excavation damages.

Other objectives of the metrics system • Maintain the portability of the system. Avoid the challenges of lack of

portability commonly found in the Operator Qualification rule applied to pipeline operators.6

Methodology and Process • Plan-do-check-adjust;

• Contractors to drive the development; and

• Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Phases of the metrics development process (PLANNING) January 2017 – September 2017: establish on paper and make recommendations

(PILOT) September 2017 – March 2018: pilot or beta test in three regions

(CHECK AND ADJUST) April 2018 – December 2018: customer-driven rollout; ShovelSafe software releases

6 Portability of Operator Qualification (OQ) – or the lack thereof – is a long-standing issue which often requires contractors to qualify their employees for the same task separately for different Operators.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Pilot: General information The pilot phase was conducted between October 2017 – March 2018 in pilot regions of Michigan, Virginia and Northern California. Each pilot team consisted of contractors and owner / operators in the region and the regional one-call system. A list of people involved with the various pilot activities is provided in Appendix A.

Pilot: Objectives of the pilot phase The three pilot teams were convened to answer specific questions:

Do people reporting understand clearly how and what to report?

Is there consistency with what incidents are being reported?

How much burden does the reporting place on the excavator?

Are there features or functions that should be added or included to make the tools more beneficial to excavators?

Does the output paint a realistic picture of the excavation practices?

Is the output understood correctly by others?

Other – establish the ability to get data from the one-call centers


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Pilot phase results

Pilot Adjustment #1 Reformat presentation of metrics The most substantive change resulting from the beta or pilot phase was establishing a new and clearer format for the presentation of data. During the pilot review, particularly with procurement staff, it became clear that the original format was likely to be misinterpreted by users. The underlying categorization of data, and the questions used to categorize the data is unchanged, but how the information is presented was substantially modified.

First version proposed by committee:

Figure 1


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Revised version after pilot:

Figure 2


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Pilot Adjustment #2 Replace “field” man-hours with “total” man-hours The committee had originally planned to use “field” man-hours as one of the factors used to normalize performance between entities. “Field” man-hours are the percent of total man-hours when administrative and executive staff have been removed. Use of “field” man-hours has been replaced with “total” man-hours to better conform with pre-existing, established data

Pilot Adjustment #3 Remove one-call tickets for normalization; use notifications only The committee had originally proposed using one-call tickets to normalize measurements, along with notifications and man-hours. After reviewing data, and confirming accessibility of notifications data, it was determined that one-call ticket volume was not necessary, as notifications were a better indicator of density. One-call tickets as a normalization factor were therefore removed.

Pilot Adjustment #4 Usability changes A number of “usability” enhancements were made during the pilot or beta phase. Examples include the removal of redundant questions, flexibility in navigation of the application, graphical map presentation of data and refinements to the monthly update.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Normalization: How are measurements normalized between excavators? In order to be as fair as practical, damage prevention measurements must be normalized7 against the opportunity to damage infrastructure. For example, an excavator operating in a forest where no buried infrastructure exists would have no opportunity to damage buried infrastructure, while the opposite is true for one working in downtown New York City.

In essence, a fair model requires normalizing for the amount of work that an excavator does, and the density of the infrastructure buried where that excavator works.

In a theoretically perfect but practically impossible application, an exact number of utilities buried in an excavation zone could be established, and damages could be normalized by using the verified, actual number of “crossings.” Given that there is currently no good way to do this, the committee was tasked with developing alternate factors for normalizing damages between excavators.

The committee explored using a number of possible normalization factors:

Man-hours

Field man-hours (% of total man-hours applied to field work)

One-call ticket volume

Crossings determined by actual pot-hole inspection

Number of utilities notified on one-call tickets (“Notifications”)

After a number of iterations, the committee established the use of man-hours and notifications as the two factors for normalization. Both items can be obtained without a significant burden on excavators, and both are largely verifiable (they do not easily lend themselves to manipulation.)

• Man-hours was selected as a fair indicator of work-force or company size. Although different types of companies (say gas distribution contractors, utilities and engineering firms) have different personnel structures and, hence, different percentages of field to total man-hours, the differences were determined to be both relatively minimal and consistent when comparisons are made between like companies.

7 Normalization refers to the creation of shifted and scaled data or ratios, allowing for the comparison of corresponding normalized values in a way that eliminates the effects of certain gross influences, like less or more infrastructure in the area being excavated or more or less excavation activity.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

• “Notifications” was selected because it provides an excellent reflection of density. The notifications data comes directly from the one-call center and is specific to each company. For example, in the month of September, Company A might have had 10 one-call tickets, each (for simplicity) with 10 utilities notified on each ticket, for a total of 100 notifications. In the same month, Company B might have had 10 one-call tickets, each (for simplicity) with 2 utilities notified on each ticket, for a total of 20 notifications. Those numbers would be applied as normalization factors to each company’s metrics.

It is important to note the committee’s format presents metrics normalized using both methods on the same page rather than offering to isolate one method and ignore the other. This is important, as each normalization factor may reveal different information, but together they allow for a more meaningful and nuanced understanding than either can provide independently.

State-to-state comparison limitation The committee exhaustively discussed the challenges associated with state-to-state comparisons which rely on one-call data. The issue is that every state has different rules surrounding the duration and size of the one-call tickets for the state. As such, an excavator in one state may have many more, or many less tickets than an equivalent excavator in a different state, making state-to-state comparisons less than straightforward. This is a known limitation attached to comparisons which rely on one-call ticket volume (for example, damages per 1,000 locate requests). The limitation extends to derivatives of one-call ticket volume, like “notifications” discussed above to normalize the metrics. This limitation is one of the primary reasons for presenting metrics normalized by both man-hours and notifications in tandem, as man-hours does not carry this limitation.

What are the metrics? The “metrics” are more completely defined as a committee-approved presentation of damages, itemized with specific attributes (below) and normalized by man-hours and notifications.

• Whether there was a valid one-call ticket;

• Whether the operator of the damaged facility participates in the one-call process;

• Whether the damage was inside or outside the tolerance zone;

• Whether the damage was related to incorrect location marks;

• Whether the damage was done with non-mechanized hand tools or something else; and

• Whether the damage was during removal of the strata or related to a previous improper installation.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Metrics: Categorization of damages The committee recommended that damages be categorized with certain attributes listed below:

Figure 3


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

ShovelSafe uses a question wizard shown in the following image to aid in the categorization of damages.

Figure 4


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Metrics: Committee-approved presentation

Figure 5


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Fault and root cause There was considerable discussion in the committee on whether to incorporate root cause or fault into excavation metrics. Numerous models with and without incorporation of fault were explored. In the end, fault and its associated subjectivity have been removed from the committee’s metrics. Instead, facts with minimal subjectivity have been used. No assignment of blame, fault or root-cause has been incorporated into the standardized format.

What is changing? The Excavation Damage Prevention Metrics Committee believes the excavation metrics portion of the Gold Shovel Standard (GSS) program is ready to move to a customer-driven-rollout phase.

Gold Shovel Standard, at the recommendation of the committee (comprised of excavators and operators), will begin to allow select member companies (owner / operators) to request metrics information (from January 2018 forward) from their contractors and subcontractors.

GSS is staffing to support its excavation customers (owner / operator in-house crews, contractors and subcontractors) in successfully preparing this metric information.

ShovelSafe is the software tool architected at the direction of contractors on the committee and pilot teams to support excavators in achieving damage prevention excellence. ShovelSafe Version 1.0 will be released to excavators at no additional costs beginning in June 2018.

Uniform date and geographic size The program has standardized two factors to help streamline the process and help balance the burden on contractors and the appetite of their customers for metrics information.

• The program will use January 1, 2018 as the earliest date that the program will provide or request normalization data.

Note: While all excavators in the Gold Shovel Standard program previously agreed as part of their participation in the program to investigate and preserve all records of damages for possible entry in the system later, it seems likely that some work would need to be done to apply the damage attributes or categorization listed above before that information could be entered into ShovelSafe and it is this burden that is being balanced against the desire for historical information farther into the past than January 1, 2018.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

• The program will use states and provinces as the most granular size that the program will support with normalization data. Although the capability to filter data in many different ways exists within the ShovelSafe tool, the smallest geographic filter and the corresponding normalization data (man-hours and notifications) is state or province.

Practically speaking, excavators working only within a single state or province will deliver and use information for their entire operation (all man-hours and damages for the whole company, for example). Excavators working within multiple states or provinces will deliver and use information on a state-by-state basis (man-hours by state and all damages in the state, for example). While the software allows for analysis at a more granular level – for example, by customer – the normalization data is at the state level.

How will requests from “select” owner / operators be prioritized? Gold Shovel Standard is working with various owner / operators to prioritize their requests for support. Most likely, requests from owner / operators located within the pilot states of California, Michigan and Virginia will be supported first.

Do excavators need to change their procedures? The program is not making any policy changes as part of this announcement. However, the publication of which damage attributes are tracked means that excavators should add these items to their investigation procedures (if not already there) to ensure easy entry into the ShovelSafe software. For reference, those attributes are shown in the graphic below:

Figure 6


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Do excavators need to input older data? ShovelSafe supports entry by excavators (owner /operator and contractor/subcontractor alike) of data from earlier periods for internal usage, but normalization data may not be provided for dates earlier than the start of 2018.

Is there support for excavators to respond to data requests? Yes, Gold Shovel Standard has added staff to support its excavator members and contractors / subcontractors with successfully responding to their data requests. As with any rollout, last minute requests are likely to create bottlenecks, and GSS customers are encouraged to ask for help early to avoid delays in responding to requests.

Excavation DP Metrics Committee: Ongoing duties During this customer driven rollout phase, the Excavation DP Metrics Committee will:

• Continue to Check and Adjust

• Monitor and evaluate the self-reporting with cross-checking model

• Committee to review user feedback and prioritize ShovelSafe roadmap based on user feedback and suggestions

• Committee to establish best practices for owner / operator use and implementation


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Introduction to ShovelSafe

ShovelSafe is the software tool architected at the direction of contractors on the committee and pilot teams to support excavators in achieving damage prevention excellence. ShovelSafe Version 1.0 will be released to excavators at no additional costs beginning in June 2018.

Figure 7

NOTE – Avoiding Double Reporting Note – Many jurisdictions have requirements for excavators to report damages to other regulatory entities or to the CGA DIRT tool. For example, the Texas Railroad Commission requires all damages to underground facilities be reported to the Texas Damage Reporting Form (TDRF) system. Gold Shovel Standard is working to ensure that these types of compliance regulations are met with minimal effort. ShovelSafe can help excavators meet these requirements, while also giving the excavator insight into their business that is not generally available from the data collection tools of enforcement entities. Whenever technically possible, ShovelSafe is committed to providing the fastest and best user experience for entry and keeping excavators in compliance without double entry. ShovelSafe Version 1.0 is fully integrated with the CGA DIRT tool and future releases will integrate with other systems.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Why ShovelSafe? Good software is critical to success Standardized damage prevention measurements are a key part of the GSS mission, and the establishment and broad deployment of metrics are core components of Gold Shovel Standard’s efforts to improve public and workforce safety. GSS believes that no significant reduction in damages will be achieved unless all responsible parties (owner / operators, excavators, locators) continually improve, and measurements underpin improvement.

Successfully managing operations using measurements requires tools such as good software. Gold Shovel Standard exists to equip its stakeholders with the necessary tools to reduce damages and measure progress.

Good software is critical to success. ShovelSafe is the software that the GSS program is making available to all its excavation customers at no additional costs. The software is strictly for use by excavators (not owner / operators except in their role as an excavator). ShovelSafe is the software tool architected at the direction of contractors on the committee and pilot teams to support excavators in achieving damage prevention excellence. The planned feature set includes the ability to store all damage information (attributes, files, etc.), analyze damages and graph and trend them with attributes specific to their business, assess particular crews, gauge performance for individual clients, and compare performance history against industry averages based on location, type of client or individual task. It also includes the metrics display, industry benchmarking, company statistics, a notifications engine, map display of incidents, downtime tracking and so forth. Not all of these features are available in Version 1.0 and development is ongoing with regular releases anticipated every few months.

As noted in our Policy Statements, Release of performance information is controlled by the excavator. Only the excavator can provide performance information to another party. Gold Shovel Standard will protect an excavator’s information and not allow performance information to be shared unless directed to do so by the excavator that provided the information.

We recognize that some companies (particularly some larger companies) may already have a measurement software in place that they wish to continue using and may not find a benefit to using ShovelSafe. One roadmap item is development of import functionality that allows for the standardization of formatting and cross-checking without using the other features and benefits of the full ShovelSafe program.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

ShovelSafe screen shots


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

INDEX Introduction ................................................................................................ 2

What is changing? ....................................................................................... 2

When is this change occurring?.................................................................... 2 Why is this important to GSS-Certified contractors? ..................................... 2 Why is this important to GSS owner / operators? ......................................... 3 What are excavators being asked to do differently?........................................ 3

How to get more information or offer comment .............................................. 3

About Gold Shovel Standard ........................................................................ 4 Why standardized damage prevention metrics .............................................. 4 Statement of Intent (purpose of the system) .................................................. 4 Policy statements ......................................................................................... 5 Excavator-developed metrics ........................................................................ 6 Committee charter ....................................................................................... 6 Other objectives of the metrics system .......................................................... 6 Methodology and Process ............................................................................. 6 Phases of the metrics development process ................................................... 6 Pilot: General information ............................................................................ 7

Pilot: Objectives of the pilot phase ................................................................ 7 Pilot phase results ....................................................................................... 8 Normalization: How are measurements normalized between excavators? ...... 11 What are the metrics? ................................................................................ 12 Metrics: Categorization of damages............................................................. 13 Metrics: Committee-approved presentation ................................................. 15

Fault and root cause .................................................................................. 16 What is changing? ..................................................................................... 16 Uniform date and geographic size ............................................................... 16

How will requests from “select” owner / operators be prioritized? ................. 17

Do excavators need to change their procedures? ......................................... 17 Do excavators need to input older data? ..................................................... 18 Is there support for excavators to respond to data requests? ....................... 18

Excavation DP Metrics Committee: Ongoing duties ..................................... 18 Introduction to ShovelSafe ......................................................................... 19 Why ShovelSafe? Good software is critical to success .................................. 20


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

ShovelSafe screen shots ............................................................................. 21 Appendix A: Committee and Pilot Team members........................................ 27

Appendix B: Industry concerns and issues ................................................. 31

Appendix C: What to report ........................................................................ 40


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Appendix A: Committee and Pilot Team members Excavation DP Metrics Committee

Brad Vitale, Manager, PSCo Damage Prevention – Xcel Energy

Christopher Dombrowicki, Associate General Counsel – Michels Corporation

Jeff Boss, Chief Operating Officer – West Valley Construction

Jeffrey Schmidt, Executive Vice President, MasTec North America, Inc.

Jemmie Wang, Partner – Bizmetrix, LLC

Joe Woomer, Director, Construction – Dominion Energy

Kevin Miller, President – Miller Pipeline

Kirk Steinberger, Director Damage Prevention – Kinder Morgan

Mark Borges, Vice President – ARB, Inc. (Primoris Services Corporation)

Mike Kemper, Executive Vice President – Quanta Services

Mike Robirds, Chief Executive Officer – Accu-bore Directional Drilling

Peter Moriarty, Senior Director, Underground Utilities – Henkels and McCoy

Steven Perkins, Program Director / Health and Safety Lead – ERM

Stuart Buhrendorf, Vice President – Hallen Construction

Tom Kaczmarski, Business Development Manager – Badger Daylighting Ltd

Toni Lynn Pascal, Owner, Pascal Construction (later stage participant)


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Michigan Pilot Team: Brad Vitale – Xcel

Bill Fisher – MISS DIG 811

Dave Mauerman – Gold Shovel Standard

Scot Runke – DTE

Bethany Brooks – DTE

Samantha Williams – DTE

Kurt Golding – Consumers Energy

Brian Arbuckle – DTE

Allen Champion – Badger Daylighting Corp

Kyle Kremer – Barton Malow

James Moskal – Corby Energy Services, Inc.

Ben Wright – Dig-It

Chris Murphy – Henkels & McCoy

Butch McAreavy – Infrasource Michigan

Jacob Beauchamp - Infrasource Michigan

Chris Brown – J. Ranck Electric

Doug Maciejewski – M. U. E. Inc.

Kevin Housner – M. U. E. Inc.

Thomas Satkowiak – R. B. Satkowiak’s City Sewer Cleaners

Randy Willard – R. Roese Contracting Co., Inc.

Ed Hare – R. Roese Contracting Co., Inc.

Becky Bowers – RC Directional Boring, Inc.

Ron Musial – RC Directional Boring, Inc.

Keith Schillo – Taplin Group, LLC

Kyle Johnson – The Hydaker-Wheatlake Company


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Northern California Pilot Team:

Bob Madison – Gold Shovel Standard

Casey Anderson – Seton Pacific Construction

Chandler Harrison – Cal Excavation & Underground

Christopher Hitchcock – InfraTerra

Dane Lobb – PG&E

David Flin– SF&S

Doug Hanford – Hanford ARC

Eric Hanson – Precision Directional Boring, Inc.

Gail Neighbors – Hanford ARC

Mike Robirds – Accu-bore

Robert Flores – Vulcan Construction and Maintenance

Ronald Gomez – Quality General Engineering

Ryan White– USA North 811

Steve Bicknell – Silverado Contractors


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Virginia Pilot Team

Alfred Scott, City of Richmond, Department of Public Utilities

Andy Brooks, Dominion Energy

Dave Thompson, Henderson, Inc.

Francois Boston, FCE

Guy Butts, Draper Aden Associates

Jason Linzi, Willbros T&D Services East

John Palladino,Team Fishel

John Robertson, Draper Arden Assoc.

Kris Kelley, Washington Gas Light Company

Noel Travis, SEC

Ralph Miller, Miller Pipeline

Randy Quesenberry, Leo Construction Co

Ron Heath, Badger Daylighting Corp

Steve Roark, S&N Communications

Stu Buhrendorf, The Hallen Construction Company, Inc.

Tracey Lamb, VA 811


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Appendix B: Industry concerns and issues Self-reporting The self-reporting model used throughout industry safety metrics is imperfect. Many of the contractors on the committee shared real-world examples of abuse from other safety metrics. Self-reporting is the most common model in use, despite its imperfections. The expressed concern is that honest excavators will be disadvantaged relative to dishonest excavators. The committee wrestled with this issue and discussed the topic in lengthy sessions. There was consensus not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The success of human health and safety measurements that rely exclusively on self-reporting with no verification step is undeniable. Human health and safety measurements, based exclusively on the self-reporting model, have been established and broadly adopted over the last two decades. Despite whatever abuse of the self-reporting model that has occurred or continues to occur, measurements have resulted in undeniable improvements (40 percent in 12 years; source: U.S. Department of Labor) in the safety of workers and the public alike.

Standardized metrics for damage prevention proposed in this document rely on an enhanced version of self-reporting, “self-reporting with cross-checking.”

As part of membership agreements, all owner / operators in the program agree to provide information to enhance the self-reporting model:

“Gold Shovel Standard is underpinned by the incident-report-mandate, requiring all excavators to report all incidents. To ensure compliance, all members allow GSS to cross-reference the member’s damage data, to incidents reported to the program by excavators. That is, private member incident data that details which companies have incidents on their network is leveraged to ensure compliance with the reporting mandate. Member data remains private but is used for the cross-reference purpose.”


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

By cross-checking that incidents have been reported against member data, the proposed system improves upon the model used by OSHA, which despite its flaws has resulted in undeniable improvements. Until perfect data is available from every owner / operator against which to cross-check, the system will remain imperfect, despite being a marked improvement over the successful model used by OSHA.

One argument for self-reporting in regulatory driven reporting (like OSHA) is that OSHA preserves the power to enforce fines if records are inaccurate, which creates an incentive towards accurate reporting. An industry driven model (like Gold Shovel Standard) model has its own powerful incentive for accurate reporting. Vendors who deceive their customers with false information may permanently lose their customer. (Note – this is strictly an issue between vendor and customer and not related to Gold Shovel Standard)

Gold Shovel Standard is committed to continuing to monitor the fairness and reliability of the reporting model used by the program. Note – Many jurisdictions have requirements for excavators to report damages to other regulatory entities or to the CGA DIRT tool. Gold Shovel Standard’s reporting model is enhanced in states where regulation requires reporting. For example, the Texas Railroad Commission requires all damages to underground facilities be reported to the Texas Damage Reporting Form (TDRF) system. Gold Shovel Standard is working to ensure that these types of compliance regulations are met with minimal effort. ShovelSafe can help excavators meet these requirements, while also giving the excavator insight into their business that is not generally available from the data collection tools of enforcement entities. Whenever technically possible, ShovelSafe is committed to providing the fastest and best user experience for entry and keeping excavators in compliance without double entry. ShovelSafe Version 1.0 is fully integrated with the CGA DIRT tool and future releases will integrate with other systems.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Metrics for other stakeholders (owner / operators and locators) Gold Shovel Standard believes that no significant reduction in damages will be achieved unless all responsible parties (owner / operators, excavators, locators) continually improve, and measurements underpin improvement.

Metrics for all stakeholders has been part of the GSS vision from the onset. The committee that is tasked with measurements for owner / operators and the locators that they employ is known as the “Pre-excavation Damage Prevention Metrics Committee.” The participants in that initiative to date have included the following individuals.

Rob Bedics, PECO (Excelon)

Scott Brown, Manager, Washington Gas

Buzz Fant, Director, Kinder Morgan

Josh Hinrichs, President, ELM Locating

Sean Nicholson, Vice President, Michels Corporation

Ron Peterson, Executive Director, NULCA

Eric Swartley, Director, UGI Utilities

Dennis Tarosky, President, Utiliquest

Dustin Ziere, Director, USIC


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

The charter of the Pre-excavation Damage Prevention Metrics Committee is to create a program with these results:

• Delivers industry standard metrics which are representative of the quality of the services provided by in-house staff or contracted damage prevention services;

• Delivers industry standard metrics which are representative of the timeliness of the services provided;

• Can be used by small and large locate companies alike as a tool to manage their businesses;

• Is an industry standard language for comparing oneself to industry averages and promoting excellent performance to potential customers;

• Is clear and understandable, such that businesses know what to do to affect their metrics and is actionable;

• Is consistent across all locate entities, small and large, in-house and contract;

• Creates transparency about the subsurface utility engineering (SUE) done during the design phase of projects by owner /operators;

• Creates transparency about the assistance provided by owner / operators to others to assist their efforts to properly perform subsurface utility engineering (SUE) during the design phase;

• Creates transparency about the quality of prints provided to locate companies;

• Creates transparency about the print maintenance practices of owner / operators;

• Is reliable and not easy to be gamed, tricked or fooled;

• Does not create new or increase existing litigation liability either for locators or owner / operators;

• Has low compliance overhead (reporting effort / time); and

• Has low negative impact on productivity while lowering costs and risks of excavation damages.

And also to

• Architect the quality software tools needed to support program participants with this effort; and

• Communicate progress professionally and thoroughly throughout industry as progress is made.

While some of these are inherently conflicting, it is the goal of the committee to find the right balance


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Root cause or fault There was considerable discussion in the committee on whether to incorporate root cause or fault into excavation metrics. Numerous models with and without incorporation of fault were explored. In the end, fault and its associated subjectivity have been removed from the committee’s metrics. Instead, facts with minimal subjectivity have been used. No assignment of blame, fault or root-cause has been incorporated into the standardized format.

More specifically, the committee selected the following attributes, which, when presented, appear to paint the correct picture:

• Whether there was a valid one-call ticket;

• Whether the operator of the damaged facility participates in the one-call process;

• Whether the damage was inside or outside the tolerance zone;

• Whether the damage was related to incorrect location marks;

• Whether the damage was done with non-mechanized hand tools or something else; and

• Whether the damage was during removal of the strata or related to a previous improper installation.

Although no system is perfect, and the committee works under the iterative approach of Plan, Do, Check and Adjust, all of these selected items are minimally subjective if not completely objective. The use of these criteria eliminates the use of fault within the proposed metrics.

No assignment of blame, fault or root-cause has been incorporated into the committee’s standardized format.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Attorney client privilege The committee spent a significant amount of effort on the topic of litigation liability. More specifically, information entered into any third-party system is outside the protection of attorney-client privilege. Members of the committee consulted with their corporate attorneys during consideration of the topic. The committee chose a multi-faceted approach to addressing the issue.

The first approach was to try not to keep sensitive information in the first place. The absence of sensitive information erases risk. The contractors on the committee felt strongly that the metrics needed to include certain attributes to properly architect the system, but those same attributes could potentially lead to liability.

Example 1:

The contractors on the committee felt strongly that when an incident was the result of an error in the location marks, that attribute should be applied to the incident, allowing incidents to be sorted and categorized by mismarks. The challenge is that by answering the question, the user also therefore could potentially be declaring the location marks to be correct on the incidents that do not have the attribute applied. The solution in this particular example, was to use very careful wording of the input:

Text of question “Has your investigation determined if the location marks were incorrect, inaccurate, misplaced or otherwise improper?”

YES text “Yes – the location marks were incorrect, inaccurate, misplaced or otherwise improper”

NO text “No – it has not yet been determined OR the location marks were correct”

Through careful wording of the NO text above, the user does not declare the location marks to be correct.

The second approach to handling sensitive information is to not preserve certain information at the end of its utility.

Example 2:

The GSS program felt that it was important to integrate the system with the Common Ground Alliance DIRT tool. More specifically, to ensure that double entry is not required, but to increase the volume of excavator generated reporting to the DIRT tool. The DIRT tool requires a root-cause to be entered, unless the “Root Cause Not Listed Above” is selected.

As a result, ShovelSafe will accept the input necessary to integrate with the DIRT tool, but permanently delete that information after the incident is submitted (electronically without user interaction) to the DIRT database.

Liability is minimized by not possessing sensitive information, either by not obtaining that information or removing it after using it.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Scoring or rating GSS does not interpret data, judge or score. GSS relies on non-punitive reporting and judgment-free presentation of factual data. GSS will not produce a score, rating or other value-based indicator.

Timeliness of reporting There have been concerns with reporting some information related to a line strike, as the full details are still being gathered. In rare, very complicated instances it’s possible for a complete investigation to take many months. However, the basic details needed to enter a line strike into the committee’s proposed system should be easily obtained in a relatively short timeframe. That being said, Gold Shovel Standard has adopted a policy the allows for flexibility in handling fringe cases that may take much longer:

“Participation in the Gold Shovel Standard program requires that all damages8 to any buried infrastructure (gas, electric, water, sewer, telecom, etc.) be reported to Gold Shovel Standard within five (5) business days of an incident with the following general information: (1) that a damage occurred (2) the date and (3) the approximate or general location, with more complete information input as details become available.”

Mandatory one-call participation (municipal, water and sewer) Gold Shovel Standard advocates for universal one-call participation.

“The vision of Gold Shovel Standard is a safer North America, achieved by greater transparency in damage prevention performance, through the use of performance measurements, technology, and universal participation in the one-call process. Furthermore, Gold Shovel Standard Communities are safer, and infrastructure buried below Gold Shovel Standard Communities is at reduced risk from line strikes.”

The metrics in this document play a key role in the strategy driving towards universal participation in the one-call process. The metrics committee established as one of its damage attributes to include whether the damaged facility owner participates in the one-call process. The aggregate data produced by this attribute will give a voice in data to the long-held issue of non-participating facilities. This data, generated by excavators, will establish a new tool to drive participation in the one-call process.

The metrics proposed by the committee establish a new tool – a first of its kind data set – to drive universal participation in the one-call process.

8 See Appendix C for a more detailed description of “all damages”


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Confidentiality, data access and privacy policy Policy statement – excavator controls access to its information. Release of performance information is controlled by the excavator. Only the excavator can provide performance information to another party. Gold Shovel Standard will protect an excavator’s information and not allow performance information to be shared unless directed to do so by the excavator that provided the information.

Data security Gold Shovel Standard takes data security very seriously and retains third-party specialist, Verification Labs (www.verificationlabs.com) to evaluate the security of its systems by performing extensive penetration tests. Verification Labs evaluates the Gold Shovel Standard systems for conformance with the most recent industry published guidelines and best practices. A copy of the most recent Verification Labs report on Gold Shovel Standard’s systems can be found on the Gold Shovel Standard website.

Activist organizations Concern has been raised in the past that measurements for stakeholders will create a tool for leverage by activist organizations opposing construction of pipelines. The argument is that the measurements could be distorted to give the perception that pipelines are unsafe because they can be damaged during excavation.

This argument is difficult to support. All releases from excavation damage to interstate pipelines and nearly all releases to intra-state pipelines are already a matter of public record. Furthermore, line-strike performance related to pipelines is well established and highly visible; the addition of private metrics which can be benchmarked for performance does little to change that dynamic.

On the other hand, the absence of standardized measurements for damage prevention is a glaring absence, a void which many regulators have suggested will be filled by regulation, if not satisfactorily addressed by industry. It seems likely that an industry-derived solution like that presented by Gold Shovel Standard will have superior safeguards against distortion by activist organizations versus a regulatory-derived solution.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Cost disadvantaged by participating Numerous contractors have expressed concern that the costs of the program will disadvantage their business relative to non-participants.

Gold Shovel Standard has costs associated with participation, both direct and indirect. A driving goal from the beginning of the program was to ensure cost to participate was never a barrier to entry.

Direct costs are from an annual fee that is scaled based on the size of the entity, ranging from $900 to $2400 annually.

Indirect costs to members are recognized only if they do not already meet the program commitments. Annual training for all employees on job sites with excavation, preparing an initial Damage Prevention Safety Management System (DP-SMS) and costs associated with investigating and performing corrective actions on any damage that occurs are typically the categories where indirect costs are recognized.

Investing in safety saves money. To argue that that a Gold Shovel Standard Certified excavator is cost disadvantaged by the indirect costs is difficult to support. All actions associated with these indirect costs (training, having a DP-SMS and investigating damages) lead to fewer incidents. An excavator that does these things is cost advantaged9. Reduction of a single lost time incident or damage to buried infrastructure through engagement with Gold Shovel Standard quickly outpaces these indirect costs associated with the investment in safety required for Gold Shovel Standard participation.

To make the argument that a Gold Shovel Standard Certified excavator is cost disadvantaged by the direct enrollment costs is also difficult to support. A Gold Shovel Standard Certified excavator would have the benefits of program participation which vastly outweigh the small direct costs.

For a full review of those benefits please visit the Gold Shovel Standard website: www.goldshovelstandard.org/industry/excavators.

9 The National Safety Council does an excellent job making the business case for safety in the whitepaper located at the following link: https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/MembershipDocuments/JSE-Invest.pdf


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Appendix C: What to report "Damage" - Any action that results in the need to repair an underground conductor, pipe or structure used in providing electric or communications service, or used in carrying products (oil, gas, water, sewage, storm drainage, etc.), including to the coating of any oil, gas or other hazardous material pipeline.

Report all damages to the following facilities:

PIPELINE - All pipelines carrying liquid or gas petroleum or CO2 products, including those pipelines used for gathering

GAS - All mains and all services before the line enters a building, or where the access to the line terminates

COMMUNICATION (fiber, CATV, telephone, etc.) - All communication facilities before the line enters a building, or where the access to the line terminates

ELECTRIC - All electric facilities before the line enters a building, or where the access to the line terminates

WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINS - All mains and all services before the line enters a building, or where the access to the line terminates

Do not report the following:

Damages discovered later, after the work has concluded

Damages to private lines after the line enters a building or access to the line terminates (examples: driveway heating, direct buried electric to out-buildings, HVAC lines, landscape lighting, irrigation, barbeque and swimming pool lines)

Damages to abandoned or retired lines that don’t result in a need to repair

Question: Should damages where the owner does not participate in the one-

call process be reported? Answer: Yes. The software will ask you about that item during reporting, so

the damage can be classified as a “damage to a facility where the owner does not participate in the one-call process.” These damages will be clearly identified in a separate tabulation.

Question: Should damages caused by my subcontractors be reported? Answer: No. As a participant in GSS, your company is agreeing to use

subcontractors who are also GSS certified, with few exceptions. As such, your subs will report their own damages and metrics do not include damages caused by subcontractors.


ww

w.g

olds

hove

lsta

nda

rd.o

rg |

855

-676

-725

2

Prev

ent.

Em

pow

er. P

rote

ct.

Question: Should damages that occur on private property be reported? Answer: Yes, except those after the line enters a building, or where the

access to the line terminates as noted above. Question: Should damages where a repair was completed on site by our

company be reported? Answer: Yes. Question: Should damages that occur during backfill or compaction be

reported? Answer: Yes. Question: Should damages to conductors for streetlights, ramp metering, loop

control, etc. be reported? Answer: Yes, damages to all electrical facilities should be reported. Question: Should damages discovered, but related to pre-existing conditions,

be reported? Answer: No, only damages related to an action by your company that

resulted in a need to repair should be reported. Damages discovered by your company and related to a pre-existing condition should not be reported.