ENGINEERING ENGINEERING EX EXCHANGE CHANGE Thursday, October 23, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority

ENGINEERING ENGINEERING EX EXCHANGE CHANGE

Thursday, October 23, 2014 Forsgate Country Club, Monroe Township, NJ

Procurement: Ana Tatoris, John Keller,

Joe Danyo, Chris Nash, Neal Toglia, Russell Saputo

• Review of NJTA Procurement Process
• 5 Discussion Topics

– Consultant Rating System? – Debriefings and Disclosure – Outstanding Work with the Authority – Submittal Time Frames and Format – Suggestions for Improvements

• Next Steps

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Procurement:

– Consultant Rating System? NO – Debriefings and Disclosure – Positive compared to other agencies. – Outstanding Work with the Authority - We will be considering prorating and separating CI/Design – Submittal Time Frames and Format – More time for EOI/Proposal and Interview, more pages for EOIs, allowance for graphics, page limits for Proposals, specific detail on font sizes, line spacing, etc. – Suggestions for Improvements - Sooner notifications for consultants NOT selected, On time submittal list

• Next Steps – Further discussions internal/external for

consistency and improvement

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Stakeholder Coordination: Jean Laird,

Mike Grant, Mike Morgan, and Tony Fulco

• Internal Screening /Start Process Early
• Need for Formal Process
• Project Specific
• Follow Through to Construction

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Regulatory Agency Coordination:

Steve Buente, Maynard Abuan, Jim Heeren, and Michael Folli

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Environmental Permits Pre-Application Meeting

• Bridge Maintenance GP
• Incorporate adequate staging areas into LOD
• f permit application for construction and

maintenance

• Consider use of Environmental Plan in

contract documents to reinforce permit conditions

• Timing of permit application submittals

Mitigation

• Banking
• Time to acquire
• Turnkey mitigation

• Consider on-site options for placement of

excess ID-27 soil

• Coordinate with public officials relative to

environmental remediation activities

• Due diligence on AOCs

Linear Construction

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

NJTA Capital Project Delivery Process

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

NJTA Senior Leadership Poll Results

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

#1: Positive & Negatives of Current CPDP

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Positives Negatives

• Schedule certainty
• Proactive/engaged NJTA PMs
• Possible disconnect between

Senior Leadership viewpoints and NJTA PMs/Consultants

• GSP and TPK roadways are

handled differently

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

#2: Consultant’s Risks Based on CPDP

• When scopes are not well defined – Lead to

schedule, scope creep

• Outside influences – outside control of team

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

#3: Interpretation of NJTA Poll Results

• “Triple threat” issues (permitting, utilities, ROW) are
• ut of direct control of NJTA/consultants
• All items are schedule critical

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

#4: Changes to CPDP to Minimize Risks

• Constructability – More detailed analysis
• Stakeholder coordination (external and internal) –

Earlier buy-in

– Onboard review meetings with departments (engineering, Ops, construction) – Earlier involvement with outside agencies

• Fully defined preliminary engineering product

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

#5: Introducing Risk Evaluation into CPDP

• Risk management reviews – conducted at each phase

(planning, design, construction)

• Hire on-call risk evaluation consultant
• Detailed risk evaluation during planning phase

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation:

Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

Action Items

• Evaluate feedback received (handout sheets)
• Possible Considerations Moving Forward

– Assess the Project Delivery Process – Assess Risk Evaluations conducted by NJTA – Evaluate constructability in NJTA process

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Constructability: Bill Wilson, Mike Garofalo,

Glen Schetelich, David Rue and John Tan

• Need formal procedure for Constructability
• Define Constructability

– Can the project be built – Identify fatal flaws

• Levels of Review

– In-house/sub – Independent reviews – Constructability workshop – Early selection of project CM – Use GEC constructability reviewers

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Constructability: Bill Wilson, Mike Garofalo,

Glen Schetelich, David Rue and John Tan

• Establish triggers for the level of review
• When to perform review

– Early enough to allow incorporation of changes – Design charette at Phase A level

• Combine with MPT report
• Document formal review by all reviewers
• Issues to consider

– Access/Lane closures – Schedule constraints, e.g. environmental

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Construction Services: John Withers, Frank

Corso, Steve Dempsey, and Tony Lagala

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

• Construction Reporting

– Need formal electronic process (eliminate paper) example FACS, ELVIS, EBuilding – All encompassing (IR’s, Progress Payments, CO, etc)

• Shop Drawing Review Process

– Matrix is working …ongoing refinement – Need pre-arranged schedule of submissions…complete submissions

• CM/CI Procurement

– All favor Page Limits in CM/CI RFP’s by complexity

• Safety

– Consultant vs Authority provided? Majority favor Authority On-Call for Safety Monitoring – Clear scope on safety responsibilities

• Change Orders

– DelDOT and NJ Transit have Drawdown Items to Allow Payment as CO is processed

• CPM Progress Schedules

– Resource loading a positive tool – Need more consequences for late monthly Updates

• Lessons Learned

– Debrief at end with CM, DE, Contractor ….good idea. Formal “lessons learned” report in RFP.

• Inspection Staff Training

– More industry sponsored training – Enhance communications skills of inspectors