Principle 6

Monitor Progress and Increase Efficiency

Verify the quality of contractor work and ensure long-term program sustainability.
Key Action 1

Establish strong protocols for construction oversight

Compiling a detailed work record is the best practice to confirm construction has been completed as per specification and to ensure lead service lines are no longer in service. If the work is not properly documented, it can require post-construction inspections that are time-intensive, costly, and cause disturbances to residents.

Urge your utility to document contractor work

Your water utility should document contractor work by using photos and/or video to create a verified account of lead service line removal. Documenting preconstruction and post-construction activities reduces risk to the utility and its contractors by maintaining support documentation to refute false claims regarding property damage.

Monitor project performance

Assess the progress of lead service line replacement (LSLR) projects by frequently checking in with your water utility. Water utilities should collect detailed information in an asset management system to document completed work for future reference.

Toolbox

Documentation tools

Detroit set workforce requirements for LSLR via executive order

Executive Order 2021-02 requires all construction projects greater than $3 million to have 51% of the workforce be bona-fide Detroit...

New Service Connections

Vyntelligence provides a platform used by utilities in the UK to collect customer information and document new service connections. The...
Key Action 2

Aim for continuous improvement & innovation

For those localities with significant numbers of lead service lines, replacement programs may take several years or more to get all of the lead pipes out. During that time, mayors can continuously improve their program’s efficiency, stretch each dollar, and optimize lead service line replacement programs.

Partner with neighboring communities

Partner with neighboring communities by engaging in cooperative purchasing agreements, joint procurement activities, or equipment-sharing arrangements. While setting up joint procurement between utilities requires some upfront effort, it can enable collaborative purchasing of materials and services and lead to lower costs through economies of scale.

Apply for larger federal funding packages

Apply for larger federal funding packages (see: Water Utilities’ Roadmap, Principle 2, Key Action 2) by submitting applications for multi-year funding awards, if allowed by the state. Securing multi-year funding can help attract more interest from contractors, given the additional security around multi-year resource commitments that can allow contractors to ramp up construction schedules.

Improve contracting terms

Improve contracting terms by following best practices for contract language that increases efficiencies (see: Water Utilities’ Roadmap, Principle 3, Key Action 1), accelerates the pace of replacement, and reduces per-pipe replacement costs. When crafting contracts, you may consider including terms to:

  • Ramp up contractor capacity by offering smaller bids to small contractors who may need to gain experience.
  • Increase bid package sizes to lower per-pipe replacement costs through economies of scale.
  • Incentivize contractors to finalize projects more efficiently by incorporating “pay for success” language.

Consider public-private partnerships

Community-Based Public Private Partnerships (CBP3s) can be an effective model for increasing speed, cost-effectiveness, and equity through a de-risked delivery. Community-based private-public partnerships (CBP3s) are a collaborative model where government, private companies, and community-based organizations work together to meet public service needs. In a CBP3, the private partner would be responsible for financing, planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation and replacement of lead service line infrastructure.

By pooling resources, expertise, and funding from both public and private sectors, CBP3s have the potential to increase the ability to leverage public funds while minimizing impacts on a municipality’s debt capacity. Municipalities can get a start on figuring out whether a CBP3 approach would be an effective strategy by using this CBP3 calculator.

Key Action 3

Celebrate milestones and boost community visibility

In addition to due diligence and documenting activities internally, maintaining momentum in a lead service line program requires highlighting and celebrating successes. Engaging the community to gather feedback not only improves the program’s effectiveness but also fosters greater public support and participation over time.

Celebrate key milestones

Celebrate key milestones by publicly sharing news and media about project successes with the community (see: Principle 4). This sort of media attention can raise public awareness of the program and highlight progress, increasing the likelihood of customer participation and trust.

Share success stories

Share success stories by collecting and sharing resident testimonials. Real stories from residents in the community are a powerful way to elevate your program’s success and help you gain traction in your community. When community members hear positive experiences directly from their neighbors and the people they know, it increases their trust in the community and program enrollment rates.

PRINCIPLEGrow a Skilled Workforce and Contractor Base
PRINCIPLECommit to Action: Set Goals to Eliminate Lead Pipes

Milwaukee is one of the few cities in the country with a prioritization plan to ensure neighborhoods likely to suffer the most severe impacts from lead poisoning get their pipes replaced first. In consultation with a community-based group, Coalition for Lead Emergency (COLE), and following a public engagement process, Milwaukee included in an ordinance three indicators to prioritize where LSLs will be removed first:

  1. The area deprivation index (ADI), which is a compilation of social determinants of health
  2. The percentage of children found to have elevated lead levels in their blood when tested for lead poisoning
  3. The density of lead service lines in the neighborhood.

Read more here.