CM Quality Management on NYCDEP Mega-Project

1. CM Quality Management on NYCDEP Mega-Project July 19, 2010

2. George Schmitt, PE Chief, Facilities Construction North CAT/DEL UV Facility NYCDEP Paul Whitener, PE Deputy Project Director CAT/DEL UV Facility CH2M HILL Mark Hanson, CCM, PE Project Director CAT/DEL UV Facility Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Ruth Douzinas Project Engineer CAT/DEL UV Facility CH2M HILL Scheduled Speakers

3. Overview of NYCDEP and CAT/DEL UV Program July 19, 2010

4. New York City Department of Environmental Protection • Bureau of Water Supply – manages, operates and protects upstate water supply system (1.3 BGD to 9 million residents) • Reservoirs, Dams, Roads and Bridges, Shafts and Water Tunnels, Chemical Addition Facilities, WWTFs, Watershed Protection • Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations - maintains and operates in-city drinking water and wastewater collection (sewer) systems • Water Tunnels, Distribution Shafts, Water Mains, and Sewers • Bureau of Engineering Design and Construction - planning, design and construction of major water quality related capital projects

5. New York City Department of Environmental Protection • Current Capital Plan • $11 Billion Active Construction • Includes major investments in Water Supply and Water Quality Protection Projects • $3+ Billion Planning and Design • New 10-Year Capital Plan • $14.6 Billion staring in 2011 • Agency outsources most design/construction management to third party consultants

6. New York City Department of Environmental Protection • On-going BEDC goals • To improve the agency’s project delivery and clarify expectations for its staff and consultants on how it conducts business • To have more predictability in terms of what our contractors’ expectations should be when they work for the DEP • Prepared and Issued Delivery Manuals and Sharepoint portal • Instant access to SOPs and project reports • Metrics across program

7. Catskill and Delaware Systems Catskill Watershed Delaware Watershed Kensico Reservoir Hillview Reservoir • Catskill and Delaware Watersheds provide ~90% of the water to New York City • Catskill system built between 1915 and 1928 • Delaware system built between 1937 and 1964 • Both the Catskill and Delaware Aqueducts discharge to Kensico Reservoir • Catskill and Delaware Aqueducts continue to Hillview Reservoir and NYC distribution system

8. CAT/DEL UV Disinfection Facility USEPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) requires treatment of surface waters used as potable drinking water USEPA has granted NYC a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) based on NYC’s long-term watershed protection program The LT2ESWTR requires all systems avoiding filtration to install UV (or other specific disinfection method) to inactivate Cryptosporidium by April 1, 2012.

9. CAT/DEL UV Disinfection Facility Design Capacity: • Max: 2.02 billion gallons a day • Average: 1.30 billion gallons a day Construction Cost: • Site Preparation: $54,000,000 (completed) • Cat/Del UV Facility: $1,271,000,000 (under construction) • Wetlands Mitigation: $12,600,000 (under construction) • Mt. Pleasant Water Main: $12,300,000 (under construction) • Mt. Pleasant UV Facility: $4,000,000 (est.) • Aqueduct Pressurization: $333,000,000 (est.)

10. UV Facility – Eastview Site The Eastview Site was the planned location of a future filtration facility when the Catskill Aqueduct was constructed in the 1920s UEC Catskill Aqueduct Shaft 18 Kensico Reservoir Delaware Aqueduct The UV Facility is being constructed at the Eastview Site and is designed with future filtration plant in mind Eastview Site Eastview Site Shaft 19 Shaft 19 CCC Catskill Connection Chamber

11. Flow Between Kensico & Hillview Delaware Aqueduct Shaft 19 HILLVIEW KENSICO KENSICO KENSICO UV Plant El. 355 Catskill Connection Chamber El. 292 Catskill Aqueduct

12. UV Facility Rendering North Forebay Shaft 19 Generator Building UV Building

13. UV Plant Layout North Forebay Future Filter Plant Connection Existing Shaft 19 144” Raw Water Headers South Forebay 48” UV Unit(s) 144” Treated Water Headers To Delaware 84” Energy Dissipating Valves Future KCT Connection 144” Flow Split Header To Catskill

14. 144" Steel Pipe

15. CAT/DEL UV Units Giardia cyst Cryptosporidiumcyst • 56 – 48” UV Units (largest ever built) each rated at 40 mgd • 40mJ dose, providing 2-log inactivation of Cryptosporidium and 3-log inactivation of Giardia • UV units each equipped with 210 low pressure high output (LPHO) lamps

16. Cat/Del UV Site 2008

17. Cat/Del UV Site 2009

18. Cat/Del UV Site 2010

19. Methodology for Developing Quality Management Plan July 19, 2010

20. Cat/Del UV CM Goal • Standardize processes • Provide training • Analyze audit results • Take corrective and proactive actions To develop a Quality Management Plan that addresses both quality control of internal operations as well as field inspections of the construction contractor’s installation

21. Quality Control Continuous review, inspection, and testing of project components, including persons, systems, services, techniques, and workmanship to determine whether or not such components conform to the applicable standards and project requirements. Quality Assurance Application of planned and systematic reviews which demonstrate that quality control practices are being effectively implemented. What do we mean by Quality?

22. Quality Management Plan The four areas of focus of this QMP are: • Quality Control within CM Team – Develop the Program Manual • Quality Assurance of the Contractors • Quality Assurance of CM Team – Check validity of Program Manual and team compliance with instructions • Provide DEP feedback on clarity and applicability of SOPs

23. Challenge 1: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Series of SOPs to standardize how 3rd party CMs & contractors deliver projects Being continuously refined CM consultants expected to stay informed and perform in compliance with SOPs

24. Standard Operating Procedures

25. Challenge #2: Internal CM Consultant Structure Staff of 65 Joint Venture between CH2M HILL and Malcolm Pirnie Large firms with independent internaldelivery practices 9 subconsultants

26. Challenge #3: Coordination Issues Project is being constructed under multiple phases with each project subject to New York State’s Wicks Law Separate prime contracts for each major discipline (General, Electrical, HVAC, and Plumbing) 4 prime UV Facility contracts 4 additional multi-million dollar ancillary contracts

27. CM Team’s Plan- Timeline High Performing Project & Satisfied Client

28. CM SOPs and Program Manual • Started effort in May 2008 • Organized SOPs by departments of CM Team that did the work • Resident Engineering • Compliance • H&S • Administration • Project Controls

29. Development of CM SOPs CM ROLE CM ROLE • CM team staff functions compared with client SOP • Documented who and how procedure got done

30. Training Sessions Kept to lunch hour – every other week Presented 3-5 SOPs at each session Varied presenters – person that did the work day to day often explained the process After initial program overview, refresher classes held for specific SOPs

31. Development of Audit • Sought out example audits from other programs • 2 Senior Program Managers from each firm (total – 4 auditors) • 2 day timeframe for audit • Developed audit matrix using • Client SOPs • CM SOPs • CM Contract • Series of meetings held to identify content of audit and develop audit criteria

32. Development of Audit • 86 aspects of program reviewed • Source to validate documentation listed • Contract requirements and NYCEP SOPs guided audit criteria

33. Development of Audit • Each auditor assigned specific areas to review • Given “Audit Book” to take notes, reference materials, audit matrix • Prepped staff to make themselves available for interview

34. Performing Audit • Guidance to Auditors • Collect information – stay focused on audit criteria & don’t get bogged down on unlisted issues • Job of auditor to document findings & job of Project Management Team to develop Response plan and rank audit findings

35. Lessons Learned on Process 2 days was rushed and kept audit high level but minimized distraction and kept concise and moving Up front preparation paid off How much advance prep to give project team – pros/cons Distilling SOPs & contract took longer than anticipated Interviewing employees was extremely important – paper alone won’t tell story

36. Audit Findings July 19, 2010

37. Audit Findings • Three General Categories of Findings: • CM Procedures not accurately reflecting DEP SOP • CM Procedures correlate with DEP SOP but CM execution is not compliant • An ambiguity or contradiction in DEP SOP and/or contract requirements was indentified

38. Audit Findings • CM Procedures not accurately reflecting DEP SOP Initial translation of DEP SOP by CM into working instructions was not entirely accurate CM Project Instructions have a ‘built-in” error CM Team is delivering services daily inaccordance with the CM Project Instructions Results deviate from the DEP SOP Can be also be a symptom of a revision to DEP SOP not being incorporated into CM Project Instructions

39. Audit Findings • CM Procedures not accurately reflecting DEP SOP Example: Field Orders • CM Team initially decided to use other communication vehicles such as CM Field Memos, Non-Conformance Reports and CM Letters in lieu of Field Orders to direct contractor action regarding deficient work or safety issues • CM Project Instructions push some Field Order functions to the other communication methods • The CM Team was found to be executing each of the communication devices in accordance with the CM Project Instructions • However, as a consequence, CM was not fully compliant with DEP SOP 222 Field Orders

40. Audit Findings • CM Procedures correlate with DEP SOP - but CM execution is not compliant Initial translation of DEP SOP to CM Project Instructions is accurate CM staff does not consistently deliver in accordance with the Project Instructions and therefore is non-compliant with DEP SOP Project Instructions may not be clear Can be a symptom of “drift” over time where such things as changes in personnel or infrequent exceptions becoming standard practice result in actual practice diverging from written instructions

41. Audit Findings • CM Procedures correlate with DEP SOP - but CM execution is not compliant Example: Inconsistent Use of NCR’s • CM Project Instructions accurately translate DEP SOP 400 for processing Non-Conformance Reports (NCR) into working instructions for each involved staff position • Spot check of NCR’s shows that some were fully processed and completely compliant • Others had either no CM concurrence of resolution, no DEP acknowledgment or other step in the identification and authorization process not documented • In some cases NCR’s had appropriately evolved to a Request for Deviation (DEP SOP 238), leaving the NCR incomplete. Example of an infrequent exception creating a drift from the written instructions

42. Audit Findings • An ambiguity or contradiction in DEP SOP and/or contract requirements was indentified Example: Price Indexing • Construction and CM contract requires CM to evaluate price index adjustments to specific commodity materials at the time the material is delivered to the project • DEP SOP’s do not provide clear guidance on how the CM is to perform this function • CM Team developed instructions for a procedure to consistently perform and document this duty • The CM Team’s work in this regard has been found acceptable by DEP Audits for contractor payment processing • The Cat/Del UV CM Price Indexing instructions are offered as the suggested basis for a new DEP SOP Feedback to the Client

43. Moving Forward … • Refine the Data Assessment Process • Rank for priority • Establish a method to determine if non-compliance is: • Infrequent anomaly or error not actionable • Systemic problem revise procedure, additional training, reconcile SOP • Individual performance address with individual • CM Project Management Team to develop and implement corrective actions

44. Questions? Summer 2010Current View