Difference between revisions of "Help Article"

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="480px" align="right"  
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="480px" align="right"  
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Helpful EPG Videos'''  
+
|'''[http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]'''
 
|-
 
|-
|[[media:Logging into the EPG.wmv|Logging into the EPG]]
+
|Form to Propose [[#Level 1 Approval|Level 1, 2 and 3 Revisions]] for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards
|-
 
|[[media:Help Finging EPG Info.wmv|Finding Info in the EPG]]
 
|-
 
|[[media:Article History and Receiving.wmv|Article History & How to Receive EMails When Articles are Revised]]
 
|-
 
|'''Form to Propose [[#Level 1 Approval|Level 2 and 3 Revisions]] for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards'''
 
|-
 
|[http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 41: Line 33:
  
 
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
 
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
 
===[[media:Help Finging EPG Info.wmv|Searching the EPG]]===
 
 
'''Google.''' Although this document has been organized in a logical manner (at least to the writers), it does contain a huge amount of information that can make finding a specific idea difficult.  Therefore, a Google search engine is available on the left near the top of every article.  It functions in the same manner as a conventional search engine on the worldwide web and is very effective!
 
 
'''Find (on This Page).''' Once the reader has used the Google search engine to arrive at an article, it may still be difficult to find the reference’s exact location since some EPG articles are large.  In the upper left of each EPG article, next to “File”, we recommend the reader click “Edit”, then, in the drop-down menu, “Find (on This Page)” and type in the desired key word(s).  The hot key for "Find (on This Page)" is "Ctrl-F".  If the entry is in the article, it will be highlighted.
 
  
 
===How best to view the articles===
 
===How best to view the articles===
Line 86: Line 72:
  
 
===EPG Approval Process===
 
===EPG Approval Process===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="320px" align="right"  
+
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="360px" align="right"  
|-
 
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''On behalf of my division, I am to propose a textual revision that clarifies (that is, does not greatly change policy) an EPG article.  What do I do?'''</center>
 
|-
 
|Just copy and paste the affected portion of your division's EPG article into a Word file.  Place the Word file into revision mode and make your proposed changes to the file. 
 
|-
 
|Then email the Word file, along with any other necessary information (such as the fiscal impact, why your division wants the change, etc.) to the Engineering Policy Group. 
 
|-
 
|If your division’s info is already in the EPG, do not email Word files of revisions to your division’s old manual.  Base your division's proposed revisions on EPG text, not the old manuals.
 
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''On behalf of my division, I am to propose an EPG revision that changes policy in an EPG article or affects more than one division or the districts. What do I do?'''</center>
+
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''I would like to propose a specific, authoritative revision. What do I do?'''</center>
 
|-
 
|-
|Proposals that change policy will need to be submitted on the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Along with the actual proposed textual revision of the EPG, provide:
+
|Proposed revisions are submitted on the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Just copy and paste the affected portion of your division's EPG article into a Word file.  Place the Word file into revision mode and make your proposed changes to the file. (If your division’s info is already in the EPG, do not email Word files of revisions to your division’s old manual.  Base your division's proposed revisions on EPG text, not the old manuals.) Attach this proposal to the form with the "Click here to attach a file" button. Along with the actual proposed textual revision of the EPG, provide:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1) Any other standard affected by the revision,
 
| 1) Any other standard affected by the revision,
Line 104: Line 82:
 
| 2) The name of the proposal's sponsor,
 
| 2) The name of the proposal's sponsor,
 
|-
 
|-
| 3) The proposal's summary and  
+
| 3) The proposal's summary,
 +
|-
 +
| 4) The proposal's fiscal impact and
 
|-
 
|-
| 4) The proposal's fiscal impact.
+
| 5) A description of any effort to engage industry and FHWA in the revision development.
 
|}
 
|}
Revisions are provided to the Chief Engineer and the Senior Management Team on a bimonthly schedule via electronic ballot. Each District Engineer and Division Engineer has the opportunity to comment on revisions to their respective Director. The Program Delivery and System Management Directors submit the final decision on Level 2 revisions to the Engineering Policy Administrator.
+
Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions.   
 
 
Proposed EPG revisions can also be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group from a divisionThe proposal must reflect information approved by the division head.  Proposed revisions will be submitted for approval.
 
  
Every submittal must also document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
+
Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
  
 
:'''1) Any other standard affected by the revision.'''  Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (Standard Plans, specs, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the proposal.  Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes.  Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
 
:'''1) Any other standard affected by the revision.'''  Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (Standard Plans, specs, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the proposal.  Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes.  Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
Line 122: Line 100:
 
:'''4) Fiscal Impact.'''  Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT.  Include whatever calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions are necessary to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact.  The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value, not simply a vague financial discussion.
 
:'''4) Fiscal Impact.'''  Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT.  Include whatever calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions are necessary to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact.  The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value, not simply a vague financial discussion.
  
Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Engineering Policy Administrator based on the following guidelines:
+
:'''5) Involvement.''' Provide a summary of any efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how that the involvement occurred. This may not be applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.  
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
 
'''Level 1 Approval.''' If the idea is a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Engineering Policy Administrator without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.
 
 
 
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If the idea is a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the idea will need to be submitted on the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form] and then it will be reviewed by the district and division engineers. They will provide their comments to the appropriate Director(s) who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Engineering Policy Administrator. The Federal Highway Administration will also be given 20 working days to provide comment to the Engineering Policy Administrator. The EPG will be revised as necessary.  
 
  
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If the idea is a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business it goes directly to the Chief Engineer after initial review and comment. The idea will need to be submitted on the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. The EPG will be revised to reflect the Chief Engineer's decision. The Federal Highway Administration requires 20 working days to provide comment to the Engineering Policy Administrator on any proposed EPG revision.
+
Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:
 
 
In order to speed the approval process, district and division engineers should have at least one alternate team member with full authority to act when they are absent.  This will avoid the districts' and divisions' forfeiting their right to comment.
 
  
 +
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
 +
'''Level 1 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Policy and Innovations Engineer without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary. 
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
 
|-style="background:#99ffff"   
 
|-style="background:#99ffff"   
 
|align="center"|'''Tips on Text'''
 
|align="center"|'''Tips on Text'''
 
|-
 
|-
|While the Engineering Policy Group edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
+
|While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Assure/Ensure/Insure:'''  The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation.  “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful.  “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
 
|'''Assure/Ensure/Insure:'''  The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation.  “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful.  “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
Line 145: Line 119:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Fewer/less:'''  Use “few” or “fewer” for something comprised of a small number of countable components (such as fewer dollars, fewer gallons of water, etc.).  Use “less” for amounts that are not being counted (less money, less water, etc.).
 
|'''Fewer/less:'''  Use “few” or “fewer” for something comprised of a small number of countable components (such as fewer dollars, fewer gallons of water, etc.).  Use “less” for amounts that are not being counted (less money, less water, etc.).
|-
 
|'''Gage/Gauge:'''  Gage is the size or thickness.  Gauge is the instrument for measuring.
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Gender:'''  Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
 
|'''Gender:'''  Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
Line 154: Line 126:
 
|Also refer to [[Help:Contents#Use of Terms in the EPG|Use of Terms in the EPG]], above.
 
|Also refer to [[Help:Contents#Use of Terms in the EPG|Use of Terms in the EPG]], above.
 
|}
 
|}
Once a substantive Level 2 or 3 revision is approved, a notice (with effective date if required) will be posted on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.
 
  
The Engineering Policy Group also receives proposed EPG corrections or improvements from districts, although most significant technical revisions would normally go through the divisionsWe will gladly receive emails with your specific correction.
+
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or approve the Engineering Policy Administrator. The revision is submitted on the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary. 
 +
 
 +
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot itemThe District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 working days to provide comment or approve the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.
 +
 
 +
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by [https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/de/DSL/Forms/ByYear.aspx Design Standards Letters]  and posted both internally and externally.  Substantive EPG changes are documented on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.  
  
 
====EPG Ballot Cycles====
 
====EPG Ballot Cycles====
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="545x" align="center"  
+
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="965x" align="center"  
 +
|-
 +
!style="background:#99efff" colspan="5"| 2019 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
 +
|-
 +
!style="background:#99ffff" width="250"| Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services  !!style="background:#99ffff" width="200"| Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer !!style="background:#99ffff" width="200"| Ballot Items Due to FHWA !!style="background:#99ffff"|Publish Revisions !!style="background:#99ffff"|Effective Date
 
|-
 
|-
!style="background:#99ffff"| ||style="background:#99ffff"|Deadline for Revision Proposal to Engineering Policy Group||style="background:#99ffff"|Approved Revisions Available for Use but not Effective||style="background:#99ffff"|Revisions become Effective for all Subsequent Lettings
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 21, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 28, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 28, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 22, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2019
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF" width=90|'''Cycle 1'''||style="background:#FFFFFF"| 1-Jan||style="background:#FFFFFF"| 1st week of Feb ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|1-Apr
+
|December 21, 2018 ||December 28, 2018 ||December 28, 2018 ||January 22, 2019 ||April 1, 2019
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Cycle 2'''|| 1-Apr|| 1st week of May ||1-Jul
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 22, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 29, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 29, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|April 22, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|July 1, 2019
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|'''Cycle 3'''||style="background:#FFFFFF"| 1-Jul|| style="background:#FFFFFF"|1st week of Aug ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|1-Oct
+
|June 19, 2019 ||June 26, 2019 ||June 26, 2019 ||July 22, 2019 ||October 1, 2019
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Cycle 4'''|| 1-Oct || 1st week of Nov ||1-Jan
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 20, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 27, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 27, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 21, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2020
 +
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
====Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions====
 
====Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions====
  
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group?
+
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to Engineering Policy Services?
  
 
The division should usually begin by referencing the current contents of the EPG article to be revised.  Submit a Word document in revision mode showing both proposed additions and deletions to the EPG article.  The proposed revision should use complete sentences and paragraphs as much as possible.  Bullets are permissible, but they are typically used sparingly.  
 
The division should usually begin by referencing the current contents of the EPG article to be revised.  Submit a Word document in revision mode showing both proposed additions and deletions to the EPG article.  The proposed revision should use complete sentences and paragraphs as much as possible.  Bullets are permissible, but they are typically used sparingly.  
Line 180: Line 160:
 
If changes are proposed to EPG figures, provide the new .jpg files for photos and .pdf or MicroSoft Word documents for the textual figures.  The EPG wiki can accommodate a number of other types of files, but .jpg, .pdf and .doc files tend to be most efficient.
 
If changes are proposed to EPG figures, provide the new .jpg files for photos and .pdf or MicroSoft Word documents for the textual figures.  The EPG wiki can accommodate a number of other types of files, but .jpg, .pdf and .doc files tend to be most efficient.
  
===[[media:Logging into the EPG.wmv|Logging into the EPG]]===
+
===Division Contacts===
[[image:Help Article EPG Login.jpg|550px|right]]
 
Just viewing the EPG, without logging into it, opens the single reference for all MoDOT engineering and engineering-related guidance.  But logging into the EPG permits the reader access to a number of capabilities including viewing the history of an article, leaving comments on a discussion page, tracking revisions through "my watchlist", accessing a printable version of an EPG article and viewing the "what links here" (that shows all the other articles linked to the chosen article).
 
[[image:Help Article Log in.jpg|right|125px]]
 
To log in to the EPG, MoDOT employees simply click the "Log in" (located at the top of any EPG article).  The "Username" required by the EPG is the same as the username entered when logging into a MoDOT computer.  The "password" required by the EPG is also the same as your computer password.  Yes, every time your computer's password changes, so will your EPG password.
 
 
 
====Benefits of Logging into the EPG====
 
Your engineering and engineering-related information is already incorporated into the EPG, but logging into the EPG will make this information handier and more useful.
 
[[image:Help Article history.jpg|right|175px]]
 
=====History=====
 
Would it be useful for you to be able to find when and how an article that you are interested in changed?  Or view exactly what an EPG article stated and how it looked in the past?  Log into the EPG and a “History” tab is available at the top of every article, providing a view of any previous versions of the EPG article or comparing any two versions of the article on a line-by-line basis.
 
 
 
Many of the revisions will have a brief explanation.  A bold “m” indicates a minor change (either a [[Help Article#Level 1 Approval|Level 1 Approval]] or editorial change).
 
[[image:Help Article watch.jpg|right|375px]]
 
=====Watch and My Watchlist=====
 
 
 
Would you find it useful to easily gather the articles in which you are interested and also be able to view the changes to these articles?
 
 
 
Log into the EPG and  a “watch” tab is located at the top of every article in the EPG.  By simply clicking the “watch” tab (and causing it to become “unwatch”), the article is added to your watchlist (those articles of which you want to keep track). 
 
 
 
How are the revisions to your watchlist articles viewed?  At any time you may open “my watchlist”, located above the EPG article’s tabs, and choose whether you want to view the changes to your selected articles that occurred during the past hour, 2 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, day, 3 days, 7 days or all the changes that have occurred.  Minor changes to a “My watchlist” article are identified with a bolded “m”.  New articles are identified with an “N”.  A brief description is provided for notable revisions.
 
 
 
=====My Preferences=====
 
Would you find it useful to have an email inform you every time an EPG article of interest to you has been changed? 
 
 
 
This email would not provide the details of the revision, but that the article was revised in some manner.  Log in to the EPG and you will be able to check the article’s history to view the actual revision.
 
[[image:Help Article my preference.jpg|right|375px]]
 
To obtain an email alert every time an EPG article of interest has been revised, click “My Preferences”, located above the EPG article’s tabs.  This leads to a “User Profile” tab.  Near the bottom of the “User Profile” is the “E-mail” portion in which you may choose the various revision situations to send you an email.
 
 
 
=====Discussions and Suggestions =====
 
Those logged into the EPG are encouraged to use the discussion capability of the EPG.  If you have a question, it is likely others may, too.  Any suggestions you have may also be very helpful to another reader, as well.  Use the “Discussion” capabilities of the EPG to contribute questions and suggestions for all other readers. The Engineering Policy staff monitors all articles so that your comment can be addressed.
 
[[image:benefit discussion.jpg|left|275px]]
 
After logging in, simply go to the article of concern and select the “Discussion” tab at the top of the article.  If your comment or question is the first discussion for the article, you will be shown an edit screen.  Type in your comment or question.  Otherwise, an existing discussion will be shown.  Additional comments can be added by selecting the “+” tab.
 
 
 
====Division Contacts====
 
 
Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input.  Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
 
Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input.  Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
  
 
::'''''Bridge:''''' Greg Sanders
 
::'''''Bridge:''''' Greg Sanders
  
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Ardita Roark
+
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Adam Brown
  
 
::'''''Construction and Materials'''''
 
::'''''Construction and Materials'''''
Line 225: Line 171:
 
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
 
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
  
:::Construction Engineering: Jeremy Kampeter
+
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt
  
 
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
 
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
Line 245: Line 191:
 
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Teel
 
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Teel
  
::'''''Planning:''''' Renate Wilkinson, Machelle Watkins
+
::'''''Planning:''''' Machelle Watkins
  
::'''''Traffic:''''' Julie Stotlemeyer
+
::'''''Traffic:'''''

Revision as of 12:05, 27 December 2018

Engineering Policy Revision Request Form
Form to Propose Level 1, 2 and 3 Revisions for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards

The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities. It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. The information is presented in numerous articles having as simple a layout as possible. These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from the spec book, Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.

The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specs. Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the Missouri Standard Specifications are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications." References and links to the Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction are "Standard Plan XXX.XX".

EPG articles are not referenced as "sections" but as EPG XXX.X or "articles" to avoid confusion with MoDOT specs.

Organization

Articles are grouped into the spec book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in EPG 100 General mirror Division 100 specs, articles in EPG 300 Bases mirror Division 300 specs, etc.). Many articles have been subdivided into additional articles. For example, the reader may notice that EPG 903.6 Warning Signs and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of EPG 903 Highway Signing.

In most articles the reader will notice numerous words in blue. These words are links to another article, figure or website with related information. This allows the reader to effectively navigate.

While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specs, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specs. For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items. Some of these are:

Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.

How best to view the articles

The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:

Click on any picture to view
17-in. Monitors:
1024 x 768 pixels screen area
Medium text size in wiki "View" settings
Wide Screen Monitors:
1680 x 1050 pixels screen area
Medium text size
Larger text size in wiki "View" settings
125% zoom in wiki "View" settings

How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article

1) Highlight the selected article or portion of article
Help Article Print 1.jpg
2) Click “File”
Help Article Print 2.jpg
3) Click “Print Preview”
Help Article Print 3.jpg
4) Select “As selected on screen”
Help Article Print 4.jpg
5) Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.
6) Print the selection.

Use of Terms in the EPG

Shall and Will indicate a required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice. Shall and will statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study.
Should indicates a recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations. Deviations are allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate.
May indicates a permitted practice and carries no requirement or recommendation.

EPG Approval Process

I would like to propose a specific, authoritative revision. What do I do?
Proposed revisions are submitted on the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Just copy and paste the affected portion of your division's EPG article into a Word file. Place the Word file into revision mode and make your proposed changes to the file. (If your division’s info is already in the EPG, do not email Word files of revisions to your division’s old manual. Base your division's proposed revisions on EPG text, not the old manuals.) Attach this proposal to the form with the "Click here to attach a file" button. Along with the actual proposed textual revision of the EPG, provide:
1) Any other standard affected by the revision,
2) The name of the proposal's sponsor,
3) The proposal's summary,
4) The proposal's fiscal impact and
5) A description of any effort to engage industry and FHWA in the revision development.

Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions.

Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:

1) Any other standard affected by the revision. Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (Standard Plans, specs, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the proposal. Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes. Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
2) Sponsor. The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required. The sponsor is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
3) Summary. Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit). This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
4) Fiscal Impact. Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT. Include whatever calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions are necessary to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact. The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value, not simply a vague financial discussion.
5) Involvement. Provide a summary of any efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how that the involvement occurred. This may not be applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.

Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:

Level 1 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Policy and Innovations Engineer without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.

Tips on Text
While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
Assure/Ensure/Insure: The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation. “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful. “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
Dimensions: Typically use “high”, “wide” and “long” instead of “in height”, “in width” and “in length”.
Farther/Further: Use “farther” to express a physical distance, such as 10 miles farther, and “further” for a non-physical dimension, such as further thought.
Fewer/less: Use “few” or “fewer” for something comprised of a small number of countable components (such as fewer dollars, fewer gallons of water, etc.). Use “less” for amounts that are not being counted (less money, less water, etc.).
Gender: Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
High/Tall: Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high. Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
Also refer to Use of Terms in the EPG, above.

Level 2 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item. The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or approve the Engineering Policy Administrator. The revision is submitted on the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.

Level 3 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item. The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 working days to provide comment or approve the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.

Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by Design Standards Letters and posted both internally and externally. Substantive EPG changes are documented on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.

EPG Ballot Cycles

2019 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer Ballot Items Due to FHWA Publish Revisions Effective Date
September 21, 2018 September 28, 2018 September 28, 2018 October 22, 2018 January 1, 2019
December 21, 2018 December 28, 2018 December 28, 2018 January 22, 2019 April 1, 2019
March 22, 2019 March 29, 2019 March 29, 2019 April 22, 2019 July 1, 2019
June 19, 2019 June 26, 2019 June 26, 2019 July 22, 2019 October 1, 2019
September 20, 2019 September 27, 2019 September 27, 2019 October 21, 2019 January 1, 2020

Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions

When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to Engineering Policy Services?

The division should usually begin by referencing the current contents of the EPG article to be revised. Submit a Word document in revision mode showing both proposed additions and deletions to the EPG article. The proposed revision should use complete sentences and paragraphs as much as possible. Bullets are permissible, but they are typically used sparingly.

If changes are proposed to EPG figures, provide the new .jpg files for photos and .pdf or MicroSoft Word documents for the textual figures. The EPG wiki can accommodate a number of other types of files, but .jpg, .pdf and .doc files tend to be most efficient.

Division Contacts

Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input. Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:

Bridge: Greg Sanders
Chief Counsel's Office: Adam Brown
Construction and Materials
Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt
Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
Materials:
Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
Design:
Environmental & Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
Right of Way:
Maintenance: Tim Jackson
Motor Carrier:
Multimodal: Michelle Teel
Planning: Machelle Watkins
Traffic: