On construction sites, it always takes time to sort out network information and organize displays. If the process
network data retrieval does not work or the response time and quality of the response to the information request cannot be determined
to anticipate, this will result in unforeseen costs for contractors, including additional waiting for employees and machine resources and possible separate display requests.
Case: VN/912/2025
Assessment memorandum on solution and regulatory options for a system to be implemented to respond to location clearance requests
Overview
For an excavation contractor requesting a location survey, the basic functionalities that are important for the service's features include the following:
- The person conducting the location survey (excavating contractor) can use the service to find out all the network owners in the contract area, along with their contact information, in a "one-stop shop" or, alternatively, a location information request is sent to all network owners with this single request.
- The results of the location investigation are received immediately after completing the request.
- The map data obtained as a result of the request for clarification is sufficiently accurate and of sufficient quality to perform the work correctly.
- Regarding maps, it is important that the map and other information provided is of uniform quality, that the maps are consistent, accurate and clearly readable in terms of high-quality implementation of the work.
- If displays are needed for networks in the excavation area, the displays must be arranged without delay, and in an excavation area where there are networks from multiple network owners, all networks will be displayed at once.
Regarding the different options for the evaluation memorandum, we state the following:
1. Which of the above options do you think is best for your organization or the entity and industry you represent and why?
All options allow information about the location request to be sent to all network owners/network operators through a single window.
If we look at it purely from the perspective of the excavation contractor, without taking into account other aspects, such as system security, the best options in terms of ease of work for the contractor are: a centralized model, a decentralized model (variation A) or a hybrid model (centralized).
In these models, the location survey response is provided in a unified and uniform format, such as a multi-line map. The response includes information on the networks located in the survey area and information on the possible need for demonstration. The quality of the map data and excavation instructions can be prepared with joint control to be uniform across the board. This reduces the risk of unintentional damage to underground infrastructure.
2. Which options do you see as particularly challenging to implement and why?
In terms of overall security, we recognize the challenges associated with a well-centralized model, and we naturally do not support any model (centralized or decentralized) that is inherently vulnerable to hybrid influence. On the other hand, we also recognize that all unwanted influence is always present, regardless of the operating principle and ownership of the system (centralized, decentralized, hybrid), so special attention must be paid to the sufficient information and overall security of the system. Intentional and systematic influence by unwanted parties can cause unpleasant consequences, so these effects must be prevented by all available means.
From the perspective of the smoothness of the excavation contractor's work, a problematic aspect of the decentralized model can be considered that the delivery time for the location survey request generally increases if the practical implementation chain of the location survey extends to several actors, and if the location survey tasks are not coordinated in a controlled manner between different actors.
3. How do you see the costs of different options for your organization or the entity and industry you represent?
On construction sites, it always takes time to clarify network information and organize displays. If the process for clarifying network information does not work, i.e. the response time and quality of the response to the information request cannot be predicted, this will cause unforeseen costs for contractors, including additional waiting of employees and machine resources and possible separate display requests.
Since the starting point is that no construction site is implemented without the client's need, it would be advisable for the client to contribute to the costs of preventing damage to their own underground infrastructure for the network they own. The system will certainly incur costs for the network owners and authorities, but not all of these can be directly passed on to the contractors.
4. Do you identify other benefits or challenges in the alternatives that have not been assessed in the assessment memorandum?
Liability for damages and their distribution among different actors would be an issue that would perhaps be worth examining as a separate entity. In practice, there are situations in contracts where the advance information obtained about the networks in the contract area may be incorrect or incomplete for various reasons. If the relevant legislation is being revised, the preparation of the law should also take a closer look at liability issues between different actors, so that the current partly varied practices can be made more uniform and the damage caused to the networks by damages can be minimized.
Paavo Syrjö
INFRA Association / Construction Industry Association