ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority
ENGINEERING
EXCHANGE
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 of 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 out 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