Cost Savings

The proper use of Subsurface Utility Engineering (S.U.E.) can make the process easier, expedient, and cost effective. AEI’s S.U.E. services can aid the engineering design process by researching and designating subsurface utilities as dictated by scope.

Documented Cost Savings

Today’s engineering projects involve more than design for improving and altering the physical surface.  Due to the increasing amount of utilities being placed underground and the lack of accurate recordings of these utilities, projects have become much more complex for engineers, designers, and contractors. The proper use of Subsurface Utility Engineering (S.U.E.) can make the process easier, expedient, and cost effective.

The following are examples of S.U.E. studies performed:

• Average cost savings of $10 in project delays for every $1 spent on S.U.E. (Florida DOT)
• A total of $4.62 in savings for every $1.00 spent on S.U.E. according to studies done by Federal Highway Administration
  In a similar study in Canada from 2005 and commissioned by the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association, the University of Toronto's Centre for Information Systems in Infrastructure and Construction discovered an average savings of $3.41 (Canadian) for every dollar spent on S.U.E.

Virginia DOT Studied 9 projects – total construction value of $42M
Costs savings of QL B / QL A mapping over QL D /QL C mapping was a minimum of 412%
Project delivery time savings of 12 percent-15 percent
Quality level B mapping identifies an average of 10 percent - 50 percent more utilities than traditional mapping (QL D and QL C).

North Carolina DOT Studied 21 projects – total construction value of $205M
Costs savings of QL B mapping over QL D /QL C mapping was a minimum of 663%
SUE budget is approximately 2 % of the total state DOT budget for engineering and construction
The majority of projects utilizing SUE showed no delays due to utility conflicts, an improvement over past data.

Ohio DOT Studied 14 projects – total construction value of $284M
Costs savings of QL B / QL A mapping over QL D /QL C mapping was a minimum of 521%
SUE was initially used to solve field utility conflict questions / Could be more effective if used earlier in design

Texas DOT Studied 28 projects – total construction value of $606M
Costs savings of QL B / QL A mapping over QL D /QL C mapping was a minimum of 427%
Projects only used on Interstate projects.  Urban municipal projects not evaluated, but savings on these types of projects should be even more.