Download pdf - OH Cleveland Asset Management 1-25-2008

N O R T H E A S T O H I O R E G I O N A L S E W E R D I S T R I C T

Proposal

Asset Management Implementation Phase I

January 25, 2008

C O N T I N U O U S I M P R O V E M E N T

C O N T I N U E D P A R T N E R S H I P

S T E A D Y P R O G R E S S

C O M M I T M E N T T O Q U A L I T Y

O R I G I N A L

The Diamond Building 1100 Superior Avenue, Suite 620 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 tel: 216-579-0404 fax: 216-579-0414

January 25, 2008 Julius Ciaccia, Executive Director Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 3900 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115-2504 Attn: Frank P. Greenland, Director of Capital Programs

Subject: Proposal for Asset Management Implementation Phase 1

Dear Mr. Ciaccia and Mr. Greenland:

Between January, 2005 and March, 2007, CDM worked closely with the District to design an asset management improvement program. The time has come for implementation of this exciting program, and CDM is eager to help the District take this great step forward.

We are pleased to submit our proposal to commence implementation of your asset management program in accordance with the thoughtful and detailed requirements provided in the request for proposals. The approach CDM proposes is designed to:

Justify and prioritize your capital expenditures in light of increased investment requirements and their financial implication,

Develop state-of-the-industry risk management tools and processes to help guide decision-making and priority-setting as the District navigates through CSO compliance requirements and the creation of a new stormwater program.

Improve the level of service the District provides its customers through engagement of staff and managers in the application of powerful new approaches to environmental and infrastructure stewardship.

Our proposed team is structured to include many of the same individuals involved in helping to design the program (Phil Chernin, Mike Kenel, Ed LeClair, Joe Ridge) as well as some individuals who are intimately familiar with your infrastructure assets (John Schroeder, Ed St. John, John Aldrich).

We have engaged two specialty resources to bring focus and authority to the capital planning and risk management elements of the program. They are:

J. Ciaccia January 25, 2008 Page 2

Warren Kurtz, Former Deputy Commissioner of NYCDEP and Client Manager for Asset Management Program Implementation Project: Warren served on the client’s side of CDM’s work for the Asset Management Implementation project in New York City. He understands the people, process, and technology challenges of asset management program implementation, but also has realized the end results, including increased capital budgets and improved staff morale.

Jefferson Wells, Risk Management Specialist: A risk management firm based in Cleveland, Jefferson Wells will provide expertise in establishing risk policies and procedures. They have provided this service to businesses nationwide, helping clients protect their assets through best management practices.

We invite you to read our proposal in detail. We have made every effort to make clear the interdependencies between each task in the program, the level-of-effort required of District and CDM Team staff during each and every month of the project and have offered some optional scope items that we believe may enhance the project outcomes.

The project manager, assistant project manager, task managers, and key project personnel assigned to this project are making personal commitments see this project through completion. Moreover, the project team is ready, eager, and excited to begin this project. We look forward to speaking with you regarding our proposal.

Very truly yours,

Edward J. St. John, P.E. BCEE Phil Chernin Officer-in-Charge Project Manager Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.

A i

Contents

Section 1: Technical Approach 1.1 Asset Management Program Structure and Goals ................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Structure and Goals ................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Vision: NEORSD in 2011...................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Project Approach ................................................................................................... 1-4

Section 2: Qualifications

Section 3: Preliminary Schedule

Section 4: Resume of Project Manager

Section 5: Key State Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes

Section 6: Availability

Section 7: Required Information MBE/WBE Participation Percentage of Work to be Performed by Local Staff Location of Work to be Performed Equal Employment Opportunity Examination of Available Data Conflict of Interest Statement Labor Effort Requirements Receipt and Review of Supplements

Section 8: Task and Hour Summary Forms

1-1

S E C T I O N O N E

Technical Approach

1.1 Asset Management Program Structure and GoalsAs envisioned in the Asset Management Improve-ment Plan (AMIP) adopted by the District in March 2007, the District’s asset management program is designed to:

Justify and prioritize capital expenditures in light of increased investment requirements and their fi nancial implications;

Document and transfer knowledge about the District’s infrastructure maintenance and opera-tional practices before key staff members retire from the organization; and

Improve the level of service to District custom-ers while enhancing job satisfaction.

The AMIP is comprised of 40 individual work plans that achieve specifi c outcomes to addressa documented gap that exists between the District’s current asset management practices and the achievement of the program goals. Of the 40 recommended work plans, 18 have been selected by the District to be conducted together, as a single project: the Asset Management Implementa-tion, Phase I.

Figure 1 displays the path of the entire asset management program, emphasizing the amount of gap closure be achieved as part of this project and future projects (years 1-4) during Phase 1.

Table 1-7 at the end of the section presents an overview of tasks, deliverables, and District roles and responsibilities.

S E C T I O N 1

Figure 1-1. CDM’s knowledge of the underlying performance improvement goals of the District provides con nuity and consistency to the asset management program.

S E C T I O N 1 Technical Approach

1-2

1.2 Project Structure and GoalsThe 18 work plans that comprise Phase 1 are referred to as tasks in the RFP. The tasks can be categorized into four task-groups:

Foundation tasks (B,D,I) – Information Tech-nology (IT), Risk Management (RM), Financial Planning (FIN). These tasks create policies and tools that will support the asset renewal and capital planning practices that will be improved as a result of this project.Renewal planning tasks (E,F,G) – Asset Hier-archy (AH), Asset Criticality (AC) and Asset Renewal (RR). These tasks will improve the District’s ability to maintain existing infrastruc-ture in a state of good repair.

Capital planning tasks (C) – Capital Improvement Planning (CIP). This task will improve the District’s ability to make sound and justifi able capital improvement invest-ments.Support tasks (A,H,J) – Asset Management Coordination (AM), State of Infrastructure Reporting (IR) and Project Administration (Task J). These tasks provide program and project management support to the other task groups, as well as an annual State of Infrastruc-ture Report that summarizes the overall condi-tion and capability of the District’s assets as necessary for it to achieve its goals, objectives, and mission.

The relationship between the tasks and the program goals is summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Program GoalsTask Group Jus fy and Priori ze Capital

ExpendituresDocument and Transfer Infrastructure Knowledge

Meet Level of Service Require-ments While Enhancing Job Sa sfac on

Founda onal Tasks (Tasks B, D and I)

Create fi nancial, risk manage-ment, and IT policy to support a transparent and consistent CIP development process

Document the data stored, pro-cesses supported and long-term use objec ves of the District’s as-set management-related so ware

Create a fi nancial planning pro-cess that balances investment allowances to level of service objec ves and risk manage-ment policies

Develop a plan to fully support maintenance and opera ons staff with the so ware required to support renewal planning

Renewal Planning (Tasks E, F and G)

Iden fy long-term infrastructure renewal priori es that must be considered as part of a compre-hensive fi nancial planning and cap-ital projects priori za on process

Promote knowledge reten on by documen ng standardized pro-cesses related to asset hierarchy, cri cality, and renewal determina- on

Involve District staff directly in rela ng the maintenance and renewal priori es of the District’s infrastructure to the level of service goals of the District

Capital Planning (Task C) Provide a means of ensuring the right investment are made at the right me with special emphasis on balancing renewal needs for ag-ing infrastructure with investment needs related to the CSO and stormwater programs

Formalize and modernize 36 years of engineering and management best judgment into a transparent and consistent investment deci-sion-making process

Develop a means to explicitly consider level of service obliga- ons when jus fying invest-

ments and se ng investment priori es

Support Tasks (Tasks A, H and J)

Ensure achievement of capital expenditure outcomes through scope, budget and quality controls

Develop a library of asset manage-ment business models, standard opera ng procedures and industry best prac ces

Ensure the project achieves the required gap closure

Report annually to stakehold-ers on the state of the District’s infrastructure and the level of service it is providing its cus-tomers


1-3

The District has invested consid-erable time to prepare the AMIP, develop this Phase 1 RFP, and communicate the goals and objec-tives of this program to board members and stakeholders. This project is part of a long-term program of continuous improvement in asset management. While it will provide clear and timely benefi ts to the District, it will also be provid-ing incremental improvement over current practice, with further improvements to be achieved in future phases. The pace of improvement that is designed into this project is consistent with the amount of staff time that the District is able to provide each year over the project’s duration. The pace is also consistent with the capacity of the District organiza-tion to internalize and institutionalize the improve-ments.

1.3 Vision: NEORSD in 2011When this project is completed in 2011, the District will have adopted asset management practices that demonstrate sound stewardship of the District’s assets and that allow the District to make infrastruc-

ture investment decisions based on business risks and lifecycle cost considerations. As a result, the District will be better positioned to enjoy:

Sustainable rates and revenueHealthy infrastructure maintained in a state of good repairSatisfi ed customers who are informed about District stewardship and cost minimization activitiesCompliance with regulations An engaged modern workforce motivated by advanced asset management practices that utilize their hands-on knowledge of District infrastructure.

The project will produce an “end-state” in which

Figure 1-3. The complex interplay of tasks that comprise Phase 1 will produce a effi cient and consistent process for making investment de-cisions that ensure that the District maintains a sustainable business well into the future.

Figure 1-2. By structuring Phase 1 into task groups, CDM can help the District keep a keen focus on achieving desired outcomes in four program areas of founda onal work, capital plan-ning, renewal planning and program support.


1-4

business requirements are assessed in terms of risk management and stewardship responsibility; deci-sion-making about how to meet those requirements will be consistent and effective and the appropriate amount and type of information about the District’s infrastructure will be communicated to appropri-ate stakeholders. Figure 1-3 illustrates the end-state representing the 2011 asset management vision for NEORSD.

Table 1-2 summarizes the current state – or baseline – of asset management practice and the end-state that will be achieved as relates to each task group.

1.4 Project ApproachFigure 1-4 provides a simplifi ed illustration of the sequence of tasks as CDM proposes to execute them. Figure 1-5 is a detailed illustration of the inputs to and outputs from each task in the project as well as the key activities within each task. This

project view highlights the relationship between consultant work (creation of the inputs) and the fruits of District labor (production of outputs). It also illustrates where outputs of one task become inputs to another. A complete resource-loaded project schedule illustrating all project staff and task dependencies is provided in Section 3 of this proposal.

Each task group is discussed on the following pages.

Founda on TasksThe Foundation task group includes tasks B,D and I – Risk Management (RM), Information Tech-nology (IT) and Financial Planning (FIN). These tasks create policies and tools that will support the renewal and capital planning practices that will be improved during the project.

Figure 1-4. Sequence of Phase 1 tasks as CDM proposes to execute them.


1-5

Table1-2: Descrip ons of the current baseline and future end-state that the District will achieve at comple on of each task in this project.

Task Baseline End State

FOUNDATIONAL TASKS

Task BCorporate Risk Management

An internal audit procedure exists. A fi nancial capability assessment proce-dure exists.

A formal, corporate risk management program is in place that guides busi-ness con nuity, risk management and investment priori za on.

Task DInforma on Technology

Mul ple so ware systems maintain redundant data and are confi gured to deliver minimum diagnos c/decision support capability.

A single, enterprise asset register will be implemented with plans drawn for integra on with the Financial informa- on system, GIS and asset management

decision-support tools.

Task IFinancial Planning

Long-term planning is based upon short-term views of infrastructure renewal requirements.

Long-term planning based upon histori-cal data and analysis of lifecycle infra-structure renewal requirements.

RENEWAL PLANNING

Task EAsset Hierarchy

It is unnecessarily me-consuming and some mes not possible to understand the capacity and useful life of infra-structure assets because of the way they are categorized, classifi ed and stored in informa on systems.

Infrastructure data will be structured into a standard hierarchy designed to facilitate data inspec on, repor ng and analysis using the same procedures for all three plants and the collec on systems tributary to them.

Task FAsset Cri cality

Maintenance priority-se ng is based on resource availability and “worst-fi rst.”

Maintenance priority-se ng and deci-sion-making will take into considera on the consequence of failure of an asset.

Task GRepair and Renewal Planning

No vehicle exists to predict, es mate and plan for the cost of infrastructure repair and replacement beyond a 3-year window.

Renewal plans with 50-year predic ve horizons will be produced for all three treatment plants and the collec on system tributary to them.

CAPITAL PROJECTS PLANNING

Task C Capital Planning

Investment priori es are arrived at through expert judgment and execu ve decision-making.

Investment decisions are informed by a transparent, repeatable business case analysis. Decisions are made through expert judgment and execu ve deci-sion-making.

SUPPORT TASKS

Task AAsset Management Coordina on

An asset management knowledge base and gap closure plan exists.

An asset management knowledge base will be in produc ve use and gap closures in accordance with AMIP will be achieved.

Task HState of Infrastructure Report

No vehicle exists for communica ng the economic value of and level of service delivered by the District’s infra-structure assets.

An annual report will communicate the economic value of and level of service delivered by the District’s infrastructure assets.

Task JProject Administra on

An RFP has been issued. The fi rst group of comprehensive asset management improvements tasks will be complete.

1-6

Interdependencies Table


1-7

The subtasks that comprise the foundation task group, the District Task Managers and CDM Task Managers assigned to each are identifi ed in Table 1-3.

Tasks B, D1, and I can begin simultaneously upon contract execution

Key ChallengesThe key challenges to success with the foundation task group are as follows:

Being highly productive with the time made available to CDM by the District’s executive group and senior staff by being concise, articu-late and effi cient in establishing policy state-ments and guidelines;

Fully engaging the District’s IT staff and busi-ness analyst(s) in understanding the role and requirements of IT systems from an asset management and end-user perspective;

Translating best practice in enterprise risk management in the private sector to appropriate policy and guidance for the District; and

Reaching consensus with senior staff on the role of lifecycle cost analysis in the project nomina-tion and budgeting process.

Task B: Corporate Risk Management (RM-1)Task B is intended to develop the means by which the District will identify, assess, prioritize, miti-gate and monitor all risks confronting the District, including those related to asset failure. CDM is suggesting three options for Task B, which are discussed following our task-by-task discussion.

This task will produce a risk policy and mission statement that will guide risk-based decisions made at the strategic, tactical, and operational level, including those:

Strategic risks associated with fi nancial, political, and social decisions such as mergers, long-term investments, outsourcing, acquir-ing insurance, or how best to meet stakeholder expectations;

Table 1-3. NEORSD and CDM Task Managers

Task Program Designa on

NEORSD Task Manager CDM Manager

B Corporate Risk Management RM-1 John Wasko Tom Boras

D1 Documenta on of Data Storage and Repor ng IT-1 Donice Bell Marianne MacDonald

D2 Enhancement Plan for UWAMS (SPL) IT-2 Humberto Sanchez/ Donice Bell

Marianne MacDonald

D3 Asset Management Systems Planning IT-3 Humberto Sanchez Marianne MacDonald

I Enhance Financial Planning Process FIN-1 TBD Joseph Ridge


1-8

Tactical risks where existing risk-based programs (e.g., health and safety, environmen-tal compliance, security) will be integrated into an overarching management system structure (Corporate Risk Management) that allocates resources across all such programs in consid-eration of achieving the maximum reduction in risk for each dollar spent; and

Operational risks that relate to more specifi c events such as infrastructure failure, lack of performance on important work activities, and loss of key individuals to the organization.

The Program will provide answers to the following questions:

What are the most signifi cant risks facing the District?

Which risks should get our limited resources fi rst?

How do we promote a risk management consciousness across all levels of the organiza-tion?

How do we demonstrate to our customers and stakeholders that we have exercised due dili-gence in assessing the risks associated with the outcomes of our decisions?

GoalsGoals for the Corporate Risk Management program include:

Creation of a risk policy that refl ects the District’s core values and defi nes the District’s level of risk tolerance,

Developing a risk identifi cation procedure that ensures all appropriate risks competing for the District’s limited resources are identifi ed, and

Producing a risk scoring methodology that will allow the District to prioritize their risks based

on the likelihood of occurrence and the poten-tial impacts.

To make meaningful comparisons, the risk scor-ing methodology chosen to assess the District’s infrastructure assets must be useful in determining not only the criticality and renewal priority of an infrastructure asset but must allow for meaningful comparison with non-infrastructure events such as natural disasters, acts of sabotage, etc.

CDM’s approach will minimize the impact on the daily activities of District staff, yet engage them suffi ciently so that they will take full ownership of the program and continue to build the program using the developed policies, procedures, and tools.

Deliverables from Task B include:

Risk iden fi ca on and priori za on procedures that allow District staff to consistently iden fy and assess those risks facing the District.

Risk mi ga on and monitoring procedures that will describe the means for selec ng and monitoring risk control measures to ensure the District’s risks are being controlled as intended.

Performance measurement and internal audi ng procedures that allow District staff to self-correct observed devia ons from approved procedures and to measure the progress of the overall Corporate Risk Management program in controlling or lowering the District’s risks.

A Risk Register spreadsheet for District staff to store informa on related to the iden fi ed risks.

A Risk Mi ga on Library consis ng of a spreadsheet by which District staff would store informa on related to mi ga ve measures that might be applied to future risks.

A Risk Scoring applica on consis ng of a spread-sheet that will query staff for specifi c informa on related to a par cular risk and then calculate a rela- ve risk priori za on score.


1-9

The successful implementation of the Risk Manage-ment Program involves designating an NEORSD Risk Manager supported by a Risk Management Team of three or four individuals of relevant back-ground and interest. To minimize impact to the Risk Manager’s time, the following implementation strategy will be followed.

CDM will complete a fi rst draft of the document for review with the Risk Manager and the Risk Management Team.

Based on the comments received, CDM will edit the document for use by the Risk Manager in discussions with the District’s senior leadership.

Comments from the senior leadership will be addressed in the document and as a fi rst step in implementation the document will be presented to a combined meeting of the Risk Management Team and Department/Business Unit Leaders.

Any outstanding issues will be resolved before fi nal signoff by the Risk Manager and assignment of a document control number per the District’s Docu-ment Retention Policy.

The fi nal document will be the basis of internal auditing and development of any subsequent train-ing material.

Task B1 (RFP Step 1-A): Establishment of a Risk Management PolicyThe purpose of this step is to develop a Corporate Risk Management Policy and Mission Statement whereby the senior leadership commits the orga-nization to identifying and assessing risks as part of an ongoing continuous improvement program aimed at risk reduction. This step will assign responsibility for the program to the Risk Manager, present the overarching goals and objectives of the program, and provide information on the District’s level of risk tolerance

A risk tolerance questionnaire will be developed and distributed to the District’s senior leadership. Survey results and example policies will open

discussions with the Risk Management Team and the District’s Department/Business Unit Leaders in a two-hour workshop. The draft policy will be submitted by the District’s Task Leader to senior leadership for approval.

This will produce a formal Corporate Risk Management Policy and Mission Statement with a clear understanding of the District’s tolerance to risk for use in developing decision-making proce-dures.

Task B2 (RFP Step 1- B): Designate of Risk Man-ager and Risk Management TeamIn this step a Risk Manager and a supporting Risk Management Team are designated by the senior leadership. The Risk Management Team will provide internal support to assist in identifying and assessing those risks confronting the District. The roles and responsibilities of the Risk Manager/Risk Management Team will be documented, including:

Ongoing oversight of the program’s develop-mentAdhering to all risk policies and proceduresIdentifying and assessing risksSetting and monitoring performance metrics and goals as part of an ongoing continuous risk reduction programPeriodically reviewing any action plans and/or internal controls implemented to reduce the District’s risks, and Reviewing internal audit reports as part of overseeing management of the Corporate Risk Management program.

CDM will draft roles and responsibilities and present them during a two-hour consensus-build-ing and awareness workshop with the Task Leader and the Department/Business Unit Leaders. If requested, CDM will help the task leader identify candidates to fi ll needed positions.

This step will result in clearly identifi ed and docu-mented roles and responsibilities in conducting the Corporate Risk Management program and an


1-10

awareness of these roles by the District’s senior leadership, managers, and supervi-sors.

Task B3 (RFP Step 2-A): Risk Iden fi ca on Procedure and Risk RegisterThis step will detail the business process to be followed in the District’s identifi cation and recording of risks, including business, legal, fi nancial, operational, strategic, envi-ronmental, safety and security risks facing the District. In addition, this procedure will provide for:

Clear identifi cation of where the risk identifi cation procedure is to be integrated into the District’s existing business processes.

A Risk Register spreadsheet where District staff will store information related to identifi ed risks (see Approach Options for the Risk Register consisting of an Access database with search and reporting capabilities). The Risk Register (Figure 1-6) will be designed to store the follow-ing types of risk-related data: location, involved business units, probably of occurrence, positive and negative consequences.

This step will produce a documented procedure leading to risk identifi cation and an electronic Risk Register spreadsheet able to store risk-related infor-mation.

Task B4 (RFP Step 2-B): Risk Quan fi ca on and Priori za on ProcedureThis step will create a relative risk scoring meth-odology that will support the District’s decision-making process regarding fi nancial investments and resource allocation. The scoring methodology will be part of a documented procedure for assess-ing/quantifying the District’s risks using a relative scoring scheme that facilitates cross-comparisons of diverse risks (e.g., natural disaster, knowledge drain, supply chain disruption, interceptor failure). The resulting prioritization of risk is not intended to dictate the order of resource allocation, but

instead is intended to provide a systematic means for ensuring adequate risk related information is integrated into the decision-making process. This capability will allow the District to act proactively versus reactively in addressing risk and enhance the decision-making process by providing addi-tional risk-related information.

The risk scoring methodology and the associated procedure will be based on the Risk Policy and the results from a 4-6 hour workshop involving senior, department, and business unit leaders as well as members of the Risk Management Team. The risk scoring methodology will identify the means (quantitative or semi quantitative) for assessing the probability that a particular event will occur and the means for assessing the consequences of the event. The methodology will be incorporated into the risk quantifi cation and prioritization procedure.

In addition, CDM will provide the District with a list of advanced risk management tools and capa-bilities (e.g., uncertainty analysis and forecasting tools, see Figure 1-7) that could be used to further characterize the District’s risks. This added docu-ment will identify the tool or capability, the source or vendor, any associated costs, and benefi ts to the District. These tools and capabilities would provide more accurate and detailed information that might prove useful in:

Examining the up-side and down-side uncer-

Figure 1-6. CDM off ers an op onal task to produce an MS-Access® risk register similar to the one pictured here.


1-11

tainties (i.e., risks) associated with long-term revenue or expense projections.

Identifying those factors most likely to lead to capital project overruns or schedule slippage, as part of forming a mitigation strategy to prevent these events from occurring.

Determining the amount of retainer or insurance needed to address risks created by the uncertain-ties associated with fi nancial forecasting.

Assembling additional analytical information that might be needed to demonstrate due dili-gence in assessing risk.

This task will result in a documented procedure for quantifying the risks identifi ed by District staff and identifi cation of advanced risk assessment tools that might be used to support the District’s decision-making processes.

Task B5 (RFP Step 3): Con nuous Improvement and Performance MetricsThis step implements an ongoing risk management system that continuously identi-fi es and implements activities that will reduce the District’s risk exposure. CDM will help the Risk Manager and the Risk Management Team develop program performance metrics that will provide evidence of the accomplishments achieved. The risk management system will be described in a documented procedure whose conformance will be monitored as part of the internal auditing effort as a means for ensuring the risk management program is sustained and that deviations from the guidelines are self-corrected.

We will present a draft of proce-

dure and performance metrics to the Risk Manager and Risk Management Team for open discussion and editing. The Risk Manager will then seek senior leadership approval. The process map and guidelines will be submitted to the asset manage-ment coordinator for quality assurance and compli-ance with document control requirements.

Figure 1-7. Uncertainty analysis to es mate revenue short-falls and expense overruns.

In Cincinna , CDM developed a risk management plan for the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinna (MSDGC) to help it to manage its $2 billion wet weather program.

CDM developed a risk manage-ment plan by preparing an ini al inventory and assessment of risks, then developing strategies to manage the inventory of risks. The management plan was founded on the basic risk management principles of risk transfer, ensure, or retain/manage.

The plan created a posi on for a Risk Coordinator who will rou- nely evalute known and emerg-

ing risks to the wet weather program. Constant a en on to trends and immediate interpre-ta on of changing risk priori es will ensure the fl exibility and re-sponsiveness necessary to keep risk alloca ons current.

P R O J E C T E X A M P L E

Relevant Staff : Mike Kenel, Phil Chernin, Joe Ridge


1-12

This step will result in guidelines and instruction for implementing an ongoing continuous risk reduction management system across all levels of the organi-zation along with identifying the means for collect-ing and reporting on those performance metrics as part of the internal audit program.

Task B6 (RFP Step 4): Annual Risk Management ReportThis step involves the development of a template and procedure for creating an “Annual NEORSD Risk Management Report.” The procedure would be used by the Risk Manager and the Risk Manage-ment Team to update the District’s senior leader-ship and any interested parties on the Corporate Risk Management program and the risks facing the District. CDM will outline the reporting process, identify information sources, describe necessary analyses, and distribute the fi nal controlled docu-ment. The annual report template would identify the greatest risks facing the District, report on the control measures implemented to minimize those risks, and report the level of any residual risks. A suggested graphic of those risks (see Figure 1-8) would summarize their associated probability of occurrence and adverse consequences in an over-view fashion that can be modifi ed to depict both the original and residual risks following implementa-tion of control measures. Key short- and long-term goals and performance metrics will be included in the annual report. Finally, the annual report would recommend risk management program improve-ments as well as the costs and benefi ts for imple-menting those recommendations.

CDM will draft a template and procedure to initi-ate discussions with the Risk Manager and the Risk Management Team. The Risk Manager would then present an edited procedure and template to the senior leadership. Any outstanding issues or concerns would be addressed before fi nalizing both the procedure and the template.

The outcome of this subtask will be a template for development of a clear and concise annual report conveying the status of the District’s Risk Manage-

ment program and the risks confronting the District.

Task B7 (RFP Step 5): TrainingThis step addresses the training needs associated with implementing the Corporate Risk Manage-ment Program. Specifi cally, we will develop train-ing material, identify individuals to receive the training, and conduct the training under this step. Training objectives will be established for four key areas:

The District staff’s general awareness of the Risk Management Program, their role in help-ing to identify risks, and the diligence needed to control risks if so assigned;

The key roles individual Department and Busi-ness Unit Leaders will play in integrating risk management processes and procedures into their everyday activities;

The role the Risk Manager, Risk Management Team, and the Internal Audit Team will play in implementing the continuous improvement risk management system; and

Figure 1-8. Summary of associated probability of risk


1-13

Executive and specialized training related to the identifi cation/mitigation of strategic risks and use of risk scoring methodologies, respectively

The Risk Manager and the Risk Management Team will identify individuals for training. The general awareness training is envisioned to occur in several (3-5) half-hour sessions and focus on risk policy and risk identifi cation. Department and Busi-ness Unit Leaders will receive additional training through two three-hour sessions focusing on risk identifi cation, prioritization, and mitigation. The Risk Manager and Risk Management Team will receive focused instruction (one 4-hour session) on the continuous improvement risk manage-ment system, including the setting of performance metrics.

Task B8 (RFP Step 6): Internal Audi ng The internal auditor training is intended to focus on the risk-management polices, procedures, and continuous improvement activities. Checklists will be provided to assist these activities.

Draft checklists will be developed by CDM with input from the Risk Manager. It is anticipated that general internal auditing and corrective action procedures already exist as part of the District’s current audit capabilities and that those conducting the audits will have been trained on these general procedures.

This step will result in an internal audit team knowledgeable of both internal auditing and risk management procedures, including the issuance of audit reports and corrective action notices.

Approach Op ons:Option 1: Access Database. Rather than use a spreadsheet to store risk related information, the District may desire to invest in an Access database with a graphical interface that enhances search and report capabilities. An example graphical interface for such system is provided in Figure 1-6.

Option 2: Risk Identifi cation and Quantifi ca-tion. District staff may benefi t from hands-on experience with the actual identifi cation of risk and prioritization. This option proposes that CDM work with District staff to identify and assess 30 risks (fi nancial, legal, security, environmental, etc.) that are likely to represent the greatest risks facing the organization. These risks and associated information would be entered by CDM into the Risk Register.

Option 3: Actual First Internal Audit. CDM will oversee and coordinate with District Staff the fi rst internal audit of the adopted risk management procedures. This fi eld experience will include the actual audit, issuing of corrective notices, and a follow-up debriefi ng meeting.

Task D: Informa on Technology Planning (IT-1, 2 and 3)Effective asset management requires a structured approach to planning and decision-making. Infor-mation management tools are a critical enabler for this because they are the source of data upon which plans and decisions are made. To support asset management, data must be easily available in a timely manner, and must be of unquestionable quality.

The types of plans and decisions to be made during this project require the compilation of different types of information from a variety of software systems. In some instances the District does not have a specifi c software system in place to support its information needs. Structured decision-making and system integration require business and data standards and structures. System coordination, and potentially integration, is required to eliminate data


1-14

redundancy and to support multi-criteria decision making and reporting.

There are three guiding principles that CDM will apply to Task D.

Strive for Simplicity - The application of technology for asset management should be as simple as possible for end-users providing data, and for end-users consuming data for decision-making. Technology should be an enabler, not a burden.

Driven by Business Needs – To ensure that the value of technology is maximized for the District, it should be applied appropriately and for the purpose of meeting specifi c asset management goals.

Minimize Customization – Technology appli-cation should conform to commercial software vendors’ recommended practices to avoid costly and complex customization.

GoalsWith the above guiding principles in mind, the IT work plans will achieve the following:

Knowledge management for asset manage-ment information systems – CDM will guide the development of standardized docu-mentation of the information access system (IAS), operational data management system (ODMS), geographic information system (GIS) and computerized maintenance management (CMMS) systems, all of which manage and/or report on infrastructure data. We will focus on supporting business needs and keeping technol-ogy as simple as possible for end-users. During the renewal, planning, and capital planning task groups, CDM will work with the District to provide comprehensive and understandable documentation about the supporting systems and data. In addition, CDM will structure the activi-ties to provide a mechanism for communicating the role of IT systems in the asset management

program from a business/end-user perspective.

Maximize the value of existing systems to support asset management – CDM will work closely with the District’s IT staff and our subcontractor, Oracle, to develop a set of action plans that supports the enhanced use of infor-mation systems in a consistent and uniform manner, and as a means for collecting data in support of asset management.

Provide a road-map for continuous improve-ment of information systems to support asset management – Through the execution of all of the work plans, the CDM team will work with District stakeholders to communicate the need for functionality and systems to support the asset management program. A road map will be used to develop an IT strategic planning process that outlines and prioritizes technology investments for the next fi ve years, and creates a process for on-going updates of the IT Stra-tegic Plan. This will include absent functional-ity necessary to support the asset management program as well as an implementation plan for functionality already owned but not fully deployed, such as Oracle/SPL enhancements.

ApproachThe activities associated with each of the three projects D-1, D-2, and D-3 will be executed as requested in the RFP. CDM proposes to approach Task D as a unifi ed task in phases, combining some activities of D-2 and D-3 with D-1. This will enable the team to complete this work effi -ciently, minimize the burden on NEORSD staff, and ensure that the IT planning is driven by asset management business needs.

The overall approach to Task D is to begin with a thorough evaluation of existing conditions, defi ne the desired future state, and develop a specifi c implementable plan to achieve that desired future state. The assessment of existing condi-tions includes gathering details about the existing


1-15

system data and the busi-ness functionality that they support. Some of these tasks are currently specifi ed in all three of the IT work plans. While the current plan has much of this work beginning in year two of the project, beginning this work earlier and conducting some tasks from each plan concurrently will integrate information from this task with the other tasks in the fi rst year. This will result in less of a burden on District staff time and provide an integrated busi-ness and IT perspective on asset management issues. In addition, if simple opportu-nities for improvement are identifi ed earlier, they can be implemented on a faster track, providing more value to the District sooner.

Task D-1 – Establish Exist-ing Conditions: It is possible to begin aspects of all three IT work plans concurrently because there are discus-sions and data gathering that can be done simultaneously to minimize meetings and District staff time.

The fi rst step is to establish a working group of 8-15 individuals with detailed knowledge of one or more of the systems associated with this project. This includes the IAS, ODMS, GIS, and CMMS. Group members will review the work plan, documentation templates

Phase RFP Task

RFP Task Descrip on

D-1

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.1 Establishing Working Group

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.2 Enhance Data Matrix

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.3 Characterize System Func ons

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.4 Document Standard Reports

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.5 Summarize Ad-Hoc Reports

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.6 Data Transfer\Transforma on Maps

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.7 Produce Applica on Summary Reports

Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons D-1.8 Produce Execu ve Summary

D-2

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.1 Review Exis ng Informa onReview Repair and Renewal Repor ng Specifi ca ons

Year 1 - with D-1.4 D-2.2 Review Exis ng Informa onReview Repair and Renewal Repor ng Specifi ca ons

Year 1 - with D-1.3 and Task E1 and C1 D-2.3 Process Interviews

Year 1 - with D-1.3 and Task E1 and C1 D-2.4 SPL Process Mapping

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.5 Condi on Process Mapping

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.6 Valida on Sessions

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.7 Revise Data Matrix

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.8 Determine SPL Technical Requiremen

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.9 Implementa on Plan

Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-2.10 Cost Es mate

D-3

Year 1 - with D-1.3 and Task E1 and C1 D-3.1 Conduct User Requirements Survey

Year 2/3 – Establish Desired Condi ons D-3.2 Develop Vision and Values Statement

Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals D-3.3 SWOT Analylsis and Strategic Goals

Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals D-3.4 Oracle U lity Systems Day

Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goal D-3.5 Summary of Improvement Require-ments

Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals D-3.6 Project Priori za on Workshops

Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals D-3.7 AM Systems Plan

Table 1-4.


1-16

drafted by CDM for Step 2, and objectives. In concert with the District, we will determine the optimal approach and distribu-tion of duties for assessing the existing databases to support the asset management program. To maximize the value of these early steps throughout for all three IT workplans, CDM recommends establishing a sub-group that will focus specifi -cally on the CMMS. Additional participants may be brought in to support this group.

The primary focus of the work in this Phase will be information gathering about existing systems as outlined in Subtask D-1 of the RFP. Since much of this work will involve meeting with system end-users and power users, it is the best use of the District’s staff time to also gather information about existing conditions as specifi ed in Subtask D-2.2, D-2.3, D-2.4 and D-3.1. This task will be coordinated with the process mapping activities in Task C-1 and E-1.

Team members will gather information to complete system documentation for the IAS, ODMS, GIS, and CMMS. CDM will prepare and outline and sample structure for review by the working group. The group will modify as necessary and assign-ments will be made to complete the summary for each system. Documentation will include:

System functionality as scoped in Subtask D-1 and D-2. The content will include the software func-tions provided by each system and their relation-ship to the business functions of NEORSD. For the CMMS in particular, CDM will conduct process mapping interviews and work sessions with those knowledgeable of the Oracle/SPL system and those dependent on its use in a decision-making capac-ity. This will consist of approximately four work

sessions and fi ve to 10 individual interviews. CDM will prepare process maps and descriptions, includ-ing interface descriptions.

Categorization of major software systems according to the business functions they support. Using Appendix H of TM#1 as a starting point, the CDM team will meet with user groups to obtain feedback on current system functionality, adequa-cy of technical support, and anticipated future requirements. While this is a step that is part of Subtask D-3, it will be most effi cient for this to be done as part of the assessment of existing condi-tions to provide the most value to all of the work plans.

System data for each system in the form of enhanced data matrices will be completed, build-ing on the data matrix included as Appendix H in TM#1.2. This will address some of the needs of both Subtasks D-1 and D-2. It will include the classes of infrastructure assets managed and a dictionary that describes the data stored in busi-ness terms. The source of each data element will

The Har ord Metropolitan District Commission (the MDC) in Con-nec cut has been planning for the execu on of a major capital program of $1.6 billion over the next 15 years. MDC hired CDM to improve business processes and informa on systems, assessing procurement, design manage-ment, grant tracking and data management.

Cri cal to project success were well defi ned and understood staff roles, incen ves and processes to capitalize on technological capa-bili es.

CDM performed business pro-cess analyses and reviewed data tracking needs to enable MDC to be er manage their program. A major outcome of CDM’s work was the re-implementa on of several SAP modules to sup-port procurement, asset man-agement, and capital projects tracking.


Relevant Staff : Marianne MacDonald, Joe Ridge, Phil Chernin


1-17

be described in enough detail to understand data acquisition responsibilities and the degree of consis-tency applied during acquisition and input of each data element.

Standard reports summary – The team will produce a description of standard paper reports that are regularly produced by the systems and used to support decision-making within the District. The emphasis will be on paper and emailed reports, because they are traceable and repeatable. Report descriptions will be developed to document the data fi elds, computed data, and business rules applied to the data for the report as well as its frequency of generation, users, and uses. This is a requirement of D-1, however much of this information will be gathered during process workshops and meetings for many of the tasks in this program to minimize the burden of questions on District staff.

Ad-hoc reports summary – The team will produce a general, written description of ad-hoc reports that are frequently generated. The descriptions will be brief, providing an overview of ways in which systems can be used to query and compile data to produce useful information. As with the Standard Report Summary, this is a requirement of D-1. Much of this information will be gathered during process workshops and meetings for all of the tasks to minimize the burden of questions on NEORSD staff.

Application summary – This will include relevant information from each of the prior steps as well as system age, source (vendor), acquisition and upgrade history; licensing cost and usage terms; profi le (or listing by job description/role) of typical and super-users; application support mechanisms in place; known user concerns about the application; and general summaries of user needs for improve-ments. This is a requirement of D-3, however, as with the categorization documentation, it will be most effi cient for this to be done as part of the assessment of existing conditions to provide the most value to all of the work plans.

Using the information gathered in Step 2, a data transfer/transformation mapping will be done. The purpose of this is to identify redundant data fi elds, and cases where data in one area is derived from other data. Where applicable, data fl ow diagrams will be used to illustrate the transformation of data as it moves between systems.

An Executive Summary will present the results of the existing conditions assessment work. This will be based on the information produced in steps 2 and 3 to provide an executive overview describ-ing the relationship between the four systems and opportunities to consolidate systems and/or improve the usage/function of each system.

Task D-2 – Establish Desired Condi onsThe activities in this task complete the work for Subtask D-2 and initiate the work for Subtask D-3 in the RFP. These activities will be closely aligned with Tasks C and E focused on the Capital Improvement Planning and Repair and Renewal needs in order to keep the focus of technology on supporting the asset management program business needs. The specifi c activities are those outlined in the scope for Subtask D-2, with the exception steps 2, 3 and 4 which will be completed with the Existing Conditions Assessment work.

The CMMS sub-group that was created during the assessment of existing conditions will be re-convened to review Repair and Renewal Reporting Specifi cations developed from RR-1. The CDM team will then draft recommended future condi-tion process maps for the CMMS. Oracle will be involved in this effort to ensure the future condi-tion is consistent with Oracle/SPL best practices and recommended confi guration. Recommenda-tions will address how condition assessments will be performed, including which data is to be collected, stored, and reported within Oracle/SPL. The CMMS sub-group will then participate in future condition validation sessions with staff representing various levels of the organization, including business end-users and technical staff supporting Oracle/SPL.


1-18

As required by the RFP, outputs of this activity will include:

A Revised Oracle/SPL Data Matrix based on the completed process mapping, including responsi-bilities for data collection and QC.

An Oracle/SPL Confi guration Document that will include technical confi guration requirements for Oracle/SPL to support repair and renewal reporting as specifi ed in project RR-1 and for Oracle/SPL’s asset management module to support the process as designed.

Oracle/SPL Implementation/Work Plan detailing a strategy for SPL confi guration and business process changes necessary to support the asset management program. This will include:

Workplan;Cost estimate;Oracle/SPL upgrade, confi guration and/or customization requirements, timing and process; Recommended data collection, QC and data maintenance work fl ows and responsibilities; Long-term Oracle/SPL integration consider-ations far beyond the 3-year plan; Service level expectations for Oracle/SPL support from the IT group to O&M;Oracle/SPL database administration duties and frequencies;A strategy for employee training and consis-tent use of Oracle/SPL;Referencing of the District’s Records Reten-tion Policy

The fi nal step of this phase is to develop the Asset Management Systems Vision and Value Statements. This is the point in which all of the business needs for asset management are compiled and the team works together, across tasks and workgroups, to specify the most appropriate role for technology in supporting these needs. At the point in which

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

this activity is executed, much of the Renewal Planning and Capital Planning work plans will be completed. The activities and business decisions resulting from these will be considered by the IT Working Group to develop mission, vision and values statements to guide the IT Department and its internal clients in making effective investments in IT resources over a fi ve-year period.

Task D-3 – Design IT Approach to Meet GoalsThis phase completes the activities in Subtask D-3 of the RFP, with the exception of D-3.1 and D-3.2, which were done with the prior activities. These activities are focused on defi ning a specifi c approach to evolve District systems from their existing to their desired states.

CDM will facilitate a working session with District staff to conduct and analyze system strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) and to establish strategic IT goals to support asset management. CDM will then lead the review of the SWOT and user requirements and will relate them to AMIP Outcomes assigned to future proj-ects. A summary of requirements and outcomes will be developed in the form of a working list of potential projects that address user-requests and that can achieve AMIP outcomes not yet assigned to projects.

To educate District staff involved in this work plan, CDM will work with the District and Oracle to organize an Oracle Utility Systems Education Day. This will provide an authoritative view from Oracle Corporation of the potential integration and enhancement growth paths that leverages the exist-ing Oracle products now in use in the District.

Following this educational activity, CDM will facilitate and provide guidance to the IT Work Group in Project Prioritization Workshops. Using information from prior activities there will be 2 to 3 workshops to solidify project descriptions and priorities. The results of this work will be summa-


1-19

rized in the asset management systems plan for review by Department heads, AMT and approval by SST.

Task I: Enhance Financial Planning Process (FIN-1)Enhanced fi nancial plans are one of the major posi-tive outcomes of an asset management program. The purpose of this activity is to develop a set of standard operating procedures and protocols to ensure that the District maximizes the program benefi ts, with the development of multi-year budgetary planning. Critical improvements will result from a better understanding of the District’s repair and replacement needs (including the timing and level of such expenditures) and an enhanced and thoughtful process to ensure that the District is proceeding with the right capital project at the right time. To improve its fi nancial planning process, the District needs to:

Establish poli-cies and imple-ment procedures to obtain and maintain within the asset regis-try a consistent cost basis for the value of assets that will drive replace-ment cost plan-ning.

Procedures and a planning process so the

District consistently characterizes expenditures as to maintenance versus capital repair and replacement and then understands options for funding such expenditures. There are strong reasons for implementing a pay-as-you-go capital program to support revenue requirement stability, meet bond covenant requirements related to debt service coverage, and address bond rating agency expectations.

Create and promote informed use of a capital projects lifecycle cost analysis template and methodology, so that the District is certain that it is implementing the best project to address a certain situation.

CDM is proposing an optional task, which is discussed following our approach.

GoalsThe Financial Enhancement workplan will be focused on creating and implementing a process that:

Supports business needs and keeps technology as simple as possible for end users. The District has an existing process that has a number of procedures, protocols and tools in place. The goal of this workplan is to enhance that existing process and minimize the disruptions in busi-

Figure 1-9. As part of Task I3, CDM will reconfi gure the Easterly Blower lifecycle analysis tool to be a user-friendly tool that can be applied to all lifecycle analyses conducted by the District in the future.


1-20

ness procedures and activities.

Ensures the acceptance and sustainability of the modifi ed/improved approach by providing comprehensive and easy-to-use documenta-tion about the fi nancial protocols and why they are necessary. This effort will require soliciting input from existing staff and working through transitional issues with staff and managers.

Provides a mechanism for communicating the role of fi nancial tools in the asset management program from a business/end-user perspective. This will include developing fl exible tools that can address the wide range of issues facing the District, but ensuring that each situation is evaluated and a determination is made in a clear and consistent manner. This will likely require packaging processes and tools that the District currently uses in a potentially different manner and improving the functionality to perform func-tions and developing standard rules.

Task I-1 RFP (Step 1): Iden fy and track current related business processes and data sourcesThe purpose of this step is to assess the current District business processes related to the use of asset values and the value base used in these processes. These processes will include capital budgeting, operating budgeting, and establishing revenue requirements. Work groups will be formed to describe and conceptually map out the processes. The purpose of the mapping is to understand where critical data enters the system and where it can be maintained to minimize the impact on existing workloads.

We will convene a workgroup, including staff from fi nance, engineering, and operations who are responsible for developing and updating operat-ing and capital budgets. We propose to meet with organizational subgroups to obtain their perspective on how the current process (the “as-is” process) is structured and operates. The critical item in this will be to understand what data each generates to

support what is going into the budget process. Our primary focus will be on the basis for maintenance costs and the estimated costs associated for repair-ing and replacing existing assets. In these group meetings, we will also seek information on the guidance and protocol they follow for developing their budgetary estimates.

Upon completing the subgroup meeting and inter-view process, CDM will synthesize the informa-tion into fl ow diagrams and a PowerPoint presen-tation that will serve as the basis for a workshop that will include participants cutting across the subgroups. We anticipate that this workshop will require a full day and may be best undertaken by splitting into to two half-day workshops. The fi rst half of the workshop will be focused on validat-ing the CDM synthesis of the group meetings and to verify all critical input has been incorpo-rated. CDM will identify common and dissimilar elements from each group and this workshop will focus on understanding why the different groups have different processes and approaches (or appear to). The second half of the workshop will then focus on establishing, at least on a conceptual level, proposed/projected procedures to ensure uniformity across groups and to support and sustain the goals and needs of the asset manage-ment program.

At the completion of the workshop, CDM will distribute meeting notes and a technical memoran-dum that synthesizes the conclusions of the work-shop and begins to formalize the proposed/recom-mended rules and procedures. We will then hold a second meeting with key participants to review and reach consensus on more formalized rules and procedures.

The outcome of this task will be a PowerPoint presentation and Process Flow, and technical memoranda on necessary improvements to those processes.


1-21

Task I-2 (RFP Step 2): Replacement Value ProtocolsTask I-1 will establish the basic policy and proce-dures for establishing and maintaining replacement values within the District’s information and budget-ing system. Replacement values and the reasonable-ness of these estimates are critical inputs to under-standing and making decisions about the District’s mid- and long-term capital requirements. They are critical elements of the data required to generate an accurate repair and rehabilitation plan that will be an element that will be factored into both the renewal and capital planning task groups. By having reasonable estimates of anticipated replacement costs, the District can develop fi nancial plans that are based on accurate cost information.

It can then appropriately measure needs and its fi nance plan can mitigate adverse rate impacts and appropriately fund District necessary expenditures. The path this task actually follows will depend on the results of Task I-1, but in general, the work in this task will consist of the following subtasks.

A formal protocol for establishing replace-ment value of existing assets will be estab-lished in Task I-1. In this subtask, we will develop a standard operating procedure that lays out how the protocol will be imple-mented and then maintained. (The details of these procedures will be established in coordination with Task E.) CDM will collect and organize the external information (e.g.,

−

We have been assis ng the Narraganse Bay Commission (NBC) to develop its asset manage-ment system over the past 3 years. The develop-ment of an R&R plan has been a central element of that eff ort. The NBC like many u li es has not historically collected/kept cost records ed to specifi c assets. Like many u li es, the capital asset records contained in the fi nancial system have created “assets” for accoun ng purposes related to construc on projects. So a par cular asset may include several pump sta ons and sev-eral thousand feet of interceptors or it may in-clude mul ple process trains within a treatment plant depending on how the original construc- on and upgrades were packaged. This approach

is not useful rela ve to asset management and the need to have cost informa on at the asset management defi ned asset level.

It has been necessary at NBC to es mate current replacement values to at least have a star ng point. We have been involved in a similar eff ort in Johnson County, KS, where we have more than 5,000 assets to assign a current year replacement value. This is a major undertaking. In both cases, we have developed simplifi ed cost curves and applied the cost curves to like assets where the values can be correlated to some asset a ribute,

P R O J E C T E X A M P L E S

such as motor horse power or pump capacity. These cost curves have been devel-oped by research-ing new purchase costs for a range of assets and adjust-ing these curves to refl ect so costs and likely diff er-ences in instal-la on costs. The process provides a

fi rst order reasonable approxima on for ini al planning. Importantly, business processes have been put in place that capture actual data from the actual replacement of assets (which can then be used to calibrate the ini al gross es mates) and to ensure that when new capital projects are implemented, the right type of asset level informa on is captured. In the lat-ter case, modifi ca ons have been made to the NBC’s contrac ng documents to ensure that the informa on is captured and reported by the general contractor in a form that can be directly input to the asset registry.

Relevant Staff : Marius Basson, Ed LeClair, Jeff Claus, Phil Chernin, Joe Ridge


1-22

historical capital cost infl ation indices, asset useful lives). CDM will then work with the fi nancial enhancement work group to imple-ment the procedures for assets that each subgroup is responsible for. This will focus on approximately 5 to 10 percent of the District’s existing assets. This will include creating/utilizing and/or modifying the data creation and tracking protocols. Quality control will be performed on a representative sample of the work, and the task group will revise protocols as appropriate. Upon comple-tion of this activity, we will conduct a review workshop with participating staff to fi ne tune and modify any elements of the procedure that proved to be problematic.We will work with engineering staff and possibly procurement staff to develop a proto-col and procedure for capturing the replace-ment values of assets that are newly acquired. Based on our experience with other utilities, the most cost-effective approach to achieve this is by modifying the District’s standard construction documents so that contractors provide the District that information in a form that can be directly entered into the District’s asset registry. This will require direct utiliza-tion of the District’s asset hierarchy as well as procedures that enable contractors to consis-tently allocate soft costs and labor associated with the creation of new assets. These procedures will seek to ensure that project development costs (planning and engineering) are refl ected in the original cost for new assets, which will be the start-ing point for future replacement values. We propose to conduct a day-long workshop with appropriate staff to identify alternative approaches and reach consensus on the most appropriate approach within the District’s existing procedures. Prior to fi nal acceptance of the proposed procedures, we propose that it be pilot tested on at least two CIP projects going out to bid. The intent of the pilot testing is to ensure that the contractors understand

−

what is being requested of them and that they are receiving the necessary guidance from the District to comply.

The fi nal subtask will be to develop proce-dures such that all replacement costs are updated on a periodic basis and to eliminate the need to undertake any historical research. The primary focus of this subtask is reaching agreement on the external index or indices that will be used to update replacement costs and most importantly who or what group will be responsible for this process.

Task I-3 (RFP Step 3): Develop Lifecycle Cost Analysis ToolTo ensure that the District meets its renewal and capital projects planning goals, it is necessary to develop and implement a lifecycle cost evaluation tool. This tool will enable the District to determine on a systematic basis whether it is moving forward with the least costly alternative for any CIP or replacement project. This tool would be available and used for any project that will subject to the CIP validation activities described in Task C.

This task will build from the process evalua-tion work in Task I-1, which will lay out current District procedures. We propose to form a subgroup from the staff involved in Task I-1 that will work with CDM to develop this tool and pilot test its use. We suggest that the work group include representatives of both engineering and budget/fi nance. The starting point of Task I-3 will be a half-day workshop with the subgroup to review the lifecycle cost analysis tool developed as part of the Easterly blower pilot project and analysis during the asset management program development proj-ect. The intent of this workshop is two-fold:

Educate the group on the structure of the analy-sis and how that analysis has been embodied in this particular tool

Develop agreement on the key parameters and methodology for such a tool and then to create a working version that is generic and able to

−


1-23

be used for in the analysis of any anticipated NEORSD project.

Based on the results of the workshop, CDM will develop a test version of the tool (which will be in the form of an Excel spreadsheet that will allow inputs but will freeze/protect the calculating modules to ensure that the tool is not inadvertently damaged). The tool will be tested on several current year budgetary examples, which will be reviewed in a live session with the subgroup. Upon completion of this testing cycle, the tool will be modifi ed as appropriate.

We will then develop a draft guidebook incorporat-ing the evaluation procedures and business process as established in this task and the CIP validation task. The draft workbook will be submitted to the subgroup and other stakeholders and within two weeks of receiving consolidated written comments from the District.

The outcome of this task will be a production version of the lifecycle cost analysis tool and a procedures guidebook.

Task I-4 (Steps 4 and 5): Modify Budgetary Proce-dures and Document ChangesThe workgroup will reassemble to develop modi-fi ed workfl ows that refl ect the additional steps associated with updating asset values and apply-ing the Lifecycle cost analysis tool developed in Task 3. This workgroup will be supplemented, as appropriate, with participants in Task C. The intent of this task is to take the process maps for the as-is condition and to modify them to recommend the “to-be” processes. We anticipate coordinating this work with the pilot CIP validation task discussed later in this section. We expect this updated process mapping and further refi ning of the procedures to be straightforward. All participants will have a base-line understanding of what the District’s historical procedures have been as well as the results of the pilot recommended changes.

We propose to hold two or three half-day work-

shops to complete the basic mapping revision and reach consensus on modifi ed procedures. Other changes may be necessary once the previous steps are implemented, especially those items related to data maintenance as it relates to elimination of redundant entry. This will overlap with other tasks being undertaken.

We will then draft a guidebook that summarizes the work performed in earlier steps. This will include incorporation of all protocols, business process diagrams, and background/justifi cation for recommended approaches. We will submit a draft of the guidebook; then within two weeks of receiv-ing comments, we will fi nalize the guidebook. If the comments are extensive or contradictory, we would hold a meeting with key staff to determine the most appropriate means of resolving the issues and fi nalizing the guidebook.

The outcome of this subtask will be a fi nal version of a guidebook.

Op onCDM proposes an optional task to work with the District fi nancial staff to determine the way in which the District’s renewal plans – being produced in the renewal task group – can directly fi t into the District’s fi nancial plans. Under this enhanced approach, we would work with District staff to develop business rules for the maximum size of its annual pay-as-you-go capital program and the type of restrictions that would be imposed on what projects could be fi nanced through bond issuances. Based on these rules, we will then adjust the rehabilitation and replacement plan formats developed in task G1, so that they can be directly fed into the District’s fi nancial plan and provide a more complete assessment of the future rate revenue requirements. We are also prepared to work with the fi nance staff to evaluate whether timing shifts of renewal projects are appropriate given its current anticipated plan for new capital, such as that associated with the CSO abatement program. The intent would be to mitigate signifi -cant rate spikes and to fi t the necessary improve-


1-24

ments with the District’s capital funding constraints.

Renewal PlanningThe renewal planning task group includes RFP Tasks E, F and G. This task group’s goal is to improve the District’s ability to maintain exist-ing infrastructure in a state of good repair. The sequence of activities within this task group is illus-trated in Table 1-5.

There are two threads within the renewal plan-ning group: collection systems and treatment plants. While both classes of assets will conform to the same renewal planning standards, the nature of renewal planning for buried assets within the collection system vs. above-ground assets in the treatment plants is very different. Those differences are refl ected in the approach to this task group discussed on the following pages.

Key ChallengesThe key challenges to success with the renewal planning task group are as follows:

Minimizing the time commitment required of District staff by performing as much prepara-tory work on hierarchy and asset attribution as possible;

Establishing criticality and risk measures that are consistent between all assets, including treat-

ment plant assets and collection system assets; and

Developing workfl ows and interim software tools that can be translated into information system requirements for use in the IT task series as part of the foundation task group.

Figure 1-10. The renewal task group contains a treatment plant track and a collec on systems track, both of which are guided by the same set of hierarchy and renewal planning guidelines.

Table 1-5. District and CDM Task Managers


NEORSD Task Manager CDM Task Manager

E1 Asset Hierarchy Standards AH-1 Humberto Sanchez Ed LeCLair

E2 Asset Hierarchy for Collec on Systems AH-1.1 Tom Madej John Schroeder

E3 Asset Hierarchy for Treatment Plants AH 1.2 Robert Bonne Ed LeClair

F1 Asset Cri cality Iden fi ca on for Treatment Plants AC-1 David McNeeley Ed LeClair

F2 Asset Cri cality Iden fi ca on for Collec on Systems AC-2 Ronald Czerski John Schroeder

G1 Repair and Renewal Repor ng Guidelines RR-1 Andrea Remias Phil Chernin

G2 Easterly Treatment Plant Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.1 Paul Svoboda Ed LeClair

G3 Westerly Treatment Plant Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.2 Joe Kunzler Ed LeClair

G4 Southerly Treatment Plant Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.3 Patricia Mar nak Ed LeClair

G5 Collec on Systems Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.4 Richard Switalski John Schroeder


1-25

Task E: Asset Hierarchy Development Task E1: Asset Hierarchy Standards (AH-1)Task E1.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy A Standards Development Work GroupCDM suggests a small workgroup consisting of the Task Managers for hierarchy development tasks E2 and E3 (or their delegates), an individual familiar with the District’s DIIMS data model and a main-tenance representative from each of the treatment facilities.

Task E1.2 (RFP Step 2): Iden fy the Asset Types To Be Included in the HierarchyCDM will review relevant material and prepare a summary of asset types in current systems, includ-ing:

DIIMS collection system assets,

Assets within SPL,

Assets upon which condition assessments were performed for the Southerly and Easterly treat-ment facilities, and

Any and all other databases that the District provides to CDM that may not have been reviewed during the AMIP project or may have been changed since the development of RFP Attachment E

From this information, CDM will develop an asset hierarchy model. This hierarchy will identify asset types with a nomenclature that will support unlim-ited parent-child relationships as they are developed during Tasks E2 and E3. The hierarchy at this point will be a hierarchical model, not an asset registry. The registry will be conducted in Tasks E2 and E3, based upon the hierarchical model.

Once a draft hierarchy model is developed and reviewed, CDM will meet with the District’s stormwater consultant to discuss stormwater hierarchy requirements. We will incorporate stormwater hierarchy requirements into the hierar-chy design so that the stormwater consultant can construct the stormwater hierarchy as required in their scope of work. Note that the stormwater consultant hierarchy development task is analo-gous to tasks E2 and E3; that is, the stormwater registry will need to comply with the standards developed in this task E1.

CDM will present a draft hierarchy model design to the NEORSD workgroup. Based on workgroup feedback, a fi nal hierarchy model will be devel-oped.

Task E1.3 (RFP Step 3): Map the Hierarchy Regis-ter Development ProcessCDM will document primary, secondary and tertia-ry data requirements to support renewal planning and will augment the hierarchy design to include target data types by hierarchy level. This work will be conducted in coordination with the fi nancial planning (Task I) workgroup, which will be simul-taneously establishing guidelines for the develop-

Figure 1-11. CDM’s partnership with Oracle for this project will provide the District direct access to defi ni ve informa- on and trusted advice regarding the evolu on of SPL to

UWAM and the op ons available for integra ng UWAM with the District’s Oracle Financials.


1-26

ment of replacement values of assets.

CDM will meet with the asset hierarchy workgroup to discuss data sources for each data type. We expect much of the data for the collection systems to be present within DIIMS. Data for treatment plants is in dozens of locations, but one of the more important sources of data will be the Southerly and Easterly condition assessments included as appen-dices H and I of the RFP. Because CDM authored the work plans upon which those condition assessments were based, we are very famil-iar with the quality and level of detail in them and will be able to effi ciently determine data elements that are appropriate for inclusion in the District’s asset registry.

Following the workgroup meeting, CDM will prepare a draft process map illustrating the asset hierarchy development process. We will then meet with the workgroup to review the process and discuss Task E2 and E3 implementation implica-tions.

Following this meeting, we will prepare fi nal process maps and draft guidelines for execution of Task E2 and E3. The process map and guidelines will be submitted to the asset management coor-dinator for quality assurance and compliance with document control requirements.

Task E1.4 (RFP Step 4): Develop and map the SPL and GIS ini a on processThis subtask will be performed in coordination with the information technology (Task D) work-group. With considerable support from the District’s IT department and the engineering information systems group, we will review and document Oracle/SPL [sometimes referred to by the newly-released name Oracle Utilities Work and Asset Management (UWAMS)] software and GIS asset registry structures. In consultation with our subcon-tractor, Oracle, we will determine the nature and magnitude of changes, if any, that will be required to the District’s UWAMS database to accommodate the hierarchy design.

Task E1.5 (RFP Step 5): Asset Hierarchy Standard RevisionIn this subtask, CDM will facilitate two 4-hour workshops with District staff who will be involved in subtasks E2 and E3. During this workshop, we will explore scenarios under which the asset hierarchy model may need to be amended as District business needs change. We will also use these sessions to validate the registry develop-ment process, to identify software integration and database redundancy issues that we must consider as part of Task D, and to determine the degree and type of training that will be required in Tasks E2 and E3. The result of this subtask will be an amended hierarchy guideline and a recommended interim software tool for development of the District’s asset hierarchy in Tasks E2 and E3.

Task E1.6 (RFP Step 6): Iden fy Training NeedsA training plan will be developed in this subtask for execution in Tasks 12 and 13.

Task E2 Asset Hierarchy for Collec on Systems (AH-1.1)Task E2.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy Hierarchy Evalua- on Team

CDM will work with the District’s task leader and key senior staff to identify the appropriate staff to help develop the total hierarchy for the NEORSD collection system. The staff will need to be famil-iar with operation and maintenance of:

Sanitary sewer collection system

Interceptors and regulators

Bypasses and/or overfl ows

Pump stations

Instrumentation and controls

Sewer maintenance, including vehicle mainte-nance associated with sewer maintenance

Sewer assessment and NASSCO PACP defect codes


1-27

District infrastructure information management system (DIIMS) GIS

UWAMS (formerly SPL)

District staff need to understand their roles and responsibilities regarding hierarchy determination and must receive training on the asset hierarchy standard and any related processes or tools appli-cable to determining the hierarchy of assets within the collection system.

Task E2.2 (RFP Step 2): Hierarchy Team TrainingCDM’s goal is to train District staff to completely understand and be able to utilize and update the collections system hierarchy. CDM will develop standard templates so that the data are consistent and accurate. CDM will hold three hands-on train-ing sessions with District staff to implement this task.

Task E2.3 (RFP Step 3): Assignment of Team Tasks The District manages three primary collection systems associated with the Westerly, Easterly and Southerly areas. CDM will break down the collec-tion system assets into manageable elements that can be assigned to the District team members who will be responsible for collecting the detailed data and entering it into data collection templates. A detailed estimate of hours, scope and deadlines will be identifi ed.

Task E2.4 (RFP Step 4): Conduct Hierarchy Evalua- ons

CDM will work with the District to specify and evaluate the hierarchy levels, classifi cations, defi -nitions and level of detail required to evaluate all collection system assets. CDM will work along-side District staff to conduct validation and quality control on the collection system registry. It is antici-pated that the registry for pipes is virtually complete within DIIMS and that most of the effort required of District staff will be completion of hierarchies for the remaining collection system asset types.

At the completion of Task E2, a single asset regis-

try, conforming to the hierarchy data model standard developed in Task E1, will exist for the collection system.

Task E3 Asset Hierarchy for Treatment Plants (AH-1.2)Task E3.1 (RFP Step 1) Iden fy Hierarchy Evalua- on Team

CDM will work with the District’s task leader and key senior staff to identify the appropriate person-nel to help develop the asset registries for each of the treatment facilities.

District staff will need to understand their roles and responsibilities for risk management and to receive the necessary training on the specifi c procedures and tools applicable to their individual roles.

CDM intends to involve appropriate treatment plant staff at a level that:

Trains them how to develop and modify their plant’s asset hierarchy initially and moving forward.

Ensures long-term consistency and accuracy of plant’s asset hierarchy.

Does not interfere with their accomplishing regular work duties.

It is recommended that members of the Easterly Blower Pilot team be a part of this project team. It is strongly recommended that individuals from the Southerly maintenance group participate on this team because of the level of information already maintained at Southerly within Oracle/SPL.

Task E3.2 (RFP Step 2): Hierarchy Team TrainingThe current plant asset hierarchies differ with regard to assets included in their hierarchy, and the completeness and accuracy of existing data. Also, staff familiarity with asset hierarchy requirements differ. As a result, the level of effort for each facil-ity will differ. During the plant training modules, special attention will be spent identifying those


1-28

unique circumstances at each plant that may require amendments to the hierarchy during plant expan-sion or modifi cation .

Plant business process workfl ows for amending their asset hierarchies will be reviewed along with the corresponding staff roles and responsibilities. CDM will provide District staff with data collec-tion templates. Special training considerations will be made for treatment plant staff regarding how to build out the hierarchy so that it balances the level of component detail required for maintenance management decisions, asset lifecycle costing, valu-ation and condition monitoring against the ongoing effort to input and track asset related data. Collec-tion system staff should participate in this training because some similarities may apply.

An asset hierarchy framework that encompasses the entire set of treatment plant assets that the District owns and manages (including rotating mechani-cal, electrical distribution, structural, building and grounds, and rolling stock) will provide a more full understanding of the operational, maintenance and capital investment requirements for continued system performance.

Task E3.3 (RFP Step 3): Assignment of Team Tasks Even with asset hierarchy development training, the greater the number of NEORSD plant staff involved in this effort will likely impact the consistency and accuracy of the data collected. We will work closely with lead representatives of each treatment facil-ity to assign teams to unit processes at the third or forth level in the asset hierarchy. Each team will be provided a scope and schedule and direct access to CDM representatives to assist and answer ques-tions.

Task E3.4 (RFP Step 4): Conduct Hierarchy Evalua- ons

CDM will work with the District to specify and evaluate the hierarchy levels, classifi cations, defi -nitions and level of detail required to evaluate all treatment plant assets. CDM will work alongside District staff to construct the registries. As with

Task E2, CDM’s work will focus on data quality control.

At the completion of Task E3, there will be three asset registries — one for each treatment facil-ity — conforming to the hierarchy data model standard developed in Task E1. The registries will support both high-level asset management deci-sion-making and more immediate or local mainte-nance management decision-making, including:

Maintenance management-related reporting and analysis for repair/replace decision-making, tracking failure modes and repair activities, and overall maintenance costing/budgeting.

Ability to assign work orders to the appropri-ate asset and/or component and track that work history over time.

Ease of search for assets and related informa-tion for UWAMS system users.

Task F: Asset Cri cality Iden fi ca onThe purpose of the Asset Criticality Identifi ca-tion process is to devote the appropriate level of resources to inspect, maintain, and rehabilitate assets differently depending upon the consequenc-es of those assets failing. The appropriate use of fi nite resources is to focus immediate maintenance and rehabilitation investments on higher priority assets and to monitor areas/assets that are a lower priority. In addition to this short-term focus, it is important to create a long-term rehabilitation strat-egy that can be updated regularly and that results in phased, prioritized rehabilitation of all infra-structure assets.

The assignment of criticality measures to the


1-29

District’s infrastructure requires a common under-standing of risk and a risk identifi cation and mitiga-tion policy that ensures all criticality measures can be normalized to a standard risk benchmark. For this reason, Task F cannot be initiated until Task B, Risk Management Program, is completed.

Task F1: Asset Cri cality Iden fi ca on for Treat-ment Plants (AC-1)The objective of this project is to establish an ap-propriate and consistent approach to ranking vari-ous District treatment assets’ impact on the ability of the District’s Easterly, Southerly and Westerly treatment plants to meet their respective service requirements. CDM will work with the District staff stakeholders and technical experts to develop the criticality determination procedure and oversee the use of that procedure in determining the criticality of the District’s treatment plant assets. The key fac-tors for success in this task include:

CDM must help the District devote the appro-priate level of resources to inspect, maintain, and rehabilitate different areas of the treatment plants. The appropriate use of fi nite resources means to focus immediate maintenance and rehabilitation investments on higher priority areas of the treatment plant and to monitor areas/assets that are a lower priority. Asset criticality will also help in developing a long-term rehabili-tation strategy that can be updated regularly and that results in phased, prioritized rehabilitation of all treatment plant components.

CDM must help develop consensus across the treatment plants regarding which areas/assets to invest in than other areas/assets. Because criti-cality factors can be unique to each utility and/or manager based on perceived risk or personal experience, an objective standard for assigning asset criticality helps ensure investments are made where they are most needed for overall service provision.

Task F1.1 (RFP Step 1) Iden fy Staff Stakeholders and Technical ExpertsCDM will work with the District’s task leader and department heads to identify the appropriate personnel to help develop the criticality deter-mination procedure for the District’s wastewater treatment plants. CDM will work the District to assemble a team of personnel known as the Criti-cality Work Group to develop the criticality deter-mination procedures that will be used to assign a consequence of failure score for each relevant treatment plant asset. The group will consist of CDM engineers, District engineers, and treatment maintenance and operations staff.

The NEORSD staff will collectively need to be familiar with:

District wastewater treatment plant processes, systems and sub-systems,

Electrical distribution system,

Treatment plant facilities, and

Oracle/SPL and SCADA

CDM will work with the District’s task leader and department heads to recruit the work group that has the breadth of collective experience to determine the appropriate criticality procedure for NEORSD.

Task F1.2 (RFP Step 2): Iden fy Consequence of Failure FactorsA key element of the NEORSD’s asset manage-ment program is to classify its assets by rank-ings of importance or criticality to achieving the district’s mission. This starts by understanding the District’s business objectives and related perfor-mance expectations, and recognizing that all assets are not of equal importance. Determining criti-cality requires a qualitative assessment of assets’ failure events, and the impact of failure on the


1-30

District’s business goals. Consequence of failure (COF) generally follows assessment criteria based on health and safety, economic loss and statutory obligations that looks at the resultant effects if a particular asset fails.

The starting point for the criteria are those used for the prioritization/validation pilot study, described in RFP Appendix F. These criteria will be modifi ed, enhanced and/or completely revisited based on the output of Task B. The Criticality Work Group will assemble a list of factors/criteria to be used when assessing criticality and assign a weight score for each factor.

Task F1.3 (RFP Step 3): Data Needs AssessmentCDM will lead the Criticality Work Group in iden-tifying the data and sources of data for developing criteria. These data sources will include asset infor-mation and performance data from Oracle/SPL, and the SCADA systems. Initially the Criticality Work Group will rely on the institutional knowl-edge and experience of the work group members (and perhaps other employees) to ascertain assets’ historical failure events, and the impact of failures. While basic asset information is normally captured in a utility’s CMMS, often asset failure histories and the consequences of those failures related to environmental, safety, and economic may not have been recorded there or elsewhere. As such, we may have to enlist other employees that are not on the Criticality Work Group on a limited basis to help reconstruct consequence of failure impact histories.

Each asset will have been given an asset registry number in Task E and assigned a criticality score as discussed in Task F. The asset criticality data needs requirements developed in this task will be utilized in Task D2.

Task F1.4 (Step 4): Map the Cri cality Determina- on Process

The criticality determination process will identify how all the assets are collected, stored, analyzed and reported as part of the overall rating process. CDM will lead the Criticality Work Group in identi-

fying the respective staff roles and responsibilities in performing such activities. CDM will develop the business process maps that record the specifi c steps of the overall process, the timing of those steps, and related staff responsibilities.

The criticality of an asset in achieving business goals does not remain constant, and a process for reviewing and updating asset criticality ratings must be implemented. CDM will lead the Critical-ity Work Group in identifying a reasonable sched-ule for review and update, and/or those triggering events (new construction, asset replacement, etc.) that may compel updates. In addition to mapping this determination process, the Criticality Work Group will examine how this activity will link to the capital and renewal planning task groups.

Task F1.5 (RFP Step 5): Cri cality Assessment Team TrainingIt is CDM’s goal to train the District’s Criticality Assessment Team to completely understand how the treatment plant asset criticality fi ts within the overarching asset management program by:

Defi ning the procedure by which the District will identify critical treatment plant assets based on the consequence of their failure,

Identifying the criticality factors that will be used to assign the overall ranking,

Identifying the frequency or conditions under which the criticality rankings are to be reas-sessed,

Training them how to enter criticality data in SPL, GIS, or any other appropriate database, and

Applying that procedure to the District’s treat-ment plants so that all appropriate plant assets are scored for their criticality,

Task F1.6 (Step 6): Conduct Cri cality AssessmentAfter developing the process and training the treat-ment plant criticality assessment team, CDM will


1-31

guide the criticality assessment team in assigning each appropriate treatment plant asset a criticality rating score. This information will be input into a criticality log for use across the various NEORSD departments. A consistent approach for prioritizing and developing maintenance activities (corrective, preventive, and predicting) will result in renewal plans across the utility.

Task F2: Asset Cri cality Iden fi ca on for Collec- on System (AC-2)

As with Task F1, the collection system critical-ity determination is used to support the collection system renewal planning activities of Task G5. Assets whose failure creates a large impact on the community and environment and whose condi-tion is the poorest will receive immediate inspec-tion and/or rehabilitation. Pipes and facilities that receive a lower criticality and condition rating will receive some level of continued monitoring but no immediate action or rehabilitation.

Keys to success for this task are:

Identify the criticality factors that refl ect the unique values and circumstances of the commu-nity. For example, the District might identify sensitive water bodies that could potentially be affected by a sewer system failure as most critical while other municipalities might identify downtown business impacts as being the most critical. We will guide the District in developing criteria that refl ect your unique needs.

Collect data that will be used to evaluate each factor. For the initial system assessment, existing data is typically used in the evaluation. Where additional data is needed, surrogate data is used in the interim and the ranking system is used as a means of identifying the highest priorities for further data collection.

Utilize a criticality scale that enables pipes and facilities to be differentiated in terms of either condition or criticality, or both.

Make good use of the DIIMS data structure and the asset hierarchy guidelines so that each pipe is assigned a representative criticality value.

Use the ratings to prioritize the system and determine renewal requirements in Task G.5.

ApproachMost utilities have similar objectives and charges that suggest similar criticality criteria, but there are variations based on location, conditions and availability of information to set the factors. These factors are best identifi ed and weighted as part of a facilitated stakeholder involvement process. When this approach is used, the values and objectives of all interested parties are considered, including different departments, customers, regulatory offi -cials, and environmental and public health inter-ests. CDM proposes to start the criticality process with the criteria and ratings we have used success-fully with other clients.

Once the factors to be used in setting criticality are established, then levels must be established to differentiate between pipes or facilities related to that factor. Typically, a higher level is assigned to a facility that is more critical or that is in poorer condition.

Once all assets have a relative criticality rating, a detailed plan for prioritizing maintenance and renewal and replacement can be developed in Task G1.

The criticality nomenclature will be consistent with Oracle/SPL and DIIMS. It will allow the maintenance department to plan and track work orders in Oracle/SPL and allow engineering to plan CIP projects for sewers that need structural improvements such as sewer rehabilitation, using the procedures to be developed in Task C.

Task F2.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy Staff Stakeholders and Technical ExpertsCDM will work with a Criticality Work Group to develop the criticality determination procedures


1-32

and then implement the procedures to assign a score for each relevant collection system asset.

Task F2.2 (RFP Step 2): Iden fy Consequence of Failure FactorsThe Criticality Work Group will assemble a list of factors/criteria and assign a weight score for each factor. The factors chosen may be up to ten unique factors such as size, location, proximity to struc-tures or rivers to assess which may have a greater impact on the public or the environment should that pipe or pump station fail. Figure 1-12 is a sample scoring system utilized for a large sewer system with more than 150 miles of sanitary sewers.

Task F2.3 (RFP Step 3): Data Needs AssessmentThe Criticality Work Group (CWG) will identify the data and sources of data for developing the list of criterion such as the DIIMS, Oracle/SPL, SCADA system. Each asset will be given an iden-tifi cation number that will be unique for use within the database and all assets will be organized into a single database that will have an assigned criticality score as discussed in Step 2.

Task F2.4 (RFP Step 4): Map the Cri cality Deter-mina on ProcessThe Criticality Determination process will identify how all the assets are collected, stored, analyzed and updated. Each member of the Criticality Work Group will be assigned various responsibilities. The Criticality Work Group will also determine how other information management systems such as DIIMS will be utilized and updated. Assets do not remain a constant and thus a process of updat-ing this program as time goes on and as additional assets are obtained must be implemented.

Task F.5 (RFP Step 5): Train the Cri cality Assess-ment TeamCDM will identify and train a Criticality Assess-ment Team consisting of District staff on the proce-dures utilized for this task. CDM will hold a four- to eight-hour hands-on workshop to train the team how to utilize, access, enter, and update data within the District’s SPL and GIS computer systems.

Task F3.6 (RFP Step 6): Conduct Cri cality Assess-mentAfter developing the process, each collection system asset will be assigned a criticality score. This information will be input into a master data-base for use in the various the District’s depart-ments. With all assets having a relative scoring system, a detailed plan for prioritizing all opera-tions and maintenance (O&M) and renewal and replacement (R&R) can be developed.

Task G: Repair and Renewal PlanningProduction of 50-year renewal plans for all District infrastructure is the ultimate objective of the renewal planning task group. The importance of renewal plans cannot be overstated. Renewal plans that are regularly updated and improved over time with more and better-quality data will greatly

Figure 1-12. Example of scoring criteria u lized for a large sewer system


1-33

reduce the District’s reliance upon consul-tants to produce Facili-ties Plans.

A renewal plan will specify the actions and anticipated invest-ment needs necessary to maintain infra-structure to support the District’s level of service goals. The plan identifi es the time horizon during which a renewal activity is likely to be required and the risk that would be assumed by the District by not performing the required renewal. A detailed listing of required renewal actions, by date, type, priority and cost (Figure 1-13) will be one of the many vehicles utilized by the District to convey the renewal requirements to be established in this task.

Projecting both expenditures and asset risk into the future provides a clear and compelling view of infrastructure investment and risk management requirements, both of which are critically important to near-term rate-setting and capital projects plan-ning.

Task G1: Repair and Renewal Repor ng Guidelines (RR-1)Task G1.1 (Step 1): Iden fy and Assemble Asset Renewal Project TeamCDM recommends that the renewal project team include maintenance and operations representatives from each of the three treatment facilities, a senior individual familiar with DIIMS, plant engineers responsible for each treatment facility and repre-sentatives from the collection systems maintenance group.

Task G1.2 (Step 2): Develop the Asset Condi on Assessment PlanAn important part of renewal planning is setting types and frequencies of asset inspections. The Easterly and Southerly treatment facilities have recently been inspected and the collection system is regularly inspected in accordance with sewer system evaluation and infi ltration/infl ow control protocols. The Westerly Treatment Plant, which has not been recently inspected, will be inspected in this subtask.

In addition to conducting the Westerly condi-tion assessment, this task will produce guidelines for condition assessment frequencies by asset type and proposed condition assessment respon-sibilities by District labor category. CDM will

Figure 1-13, Renewal planning will enable the District to predict how infrastructure is likely to degrade in me, and schedule rehabilita on or replacement early enough to responsibly man-age the risk of failure.


1-34

meet with workgroup members to discuss the guidelines and staff workload implications. The guidelines will be submitted to the asset management coordina-tor for quality assur-ance and compliance with document control requirements.

Task G.1.3 (Step 3): As-set Valua on PlanThe objectives of this task will be accomplished through conduct of Task I2.

Task G1.4 (Step 4): Process MapCDM will develop a complete set of process maps and standard operating procedures for the creation of asset renewal plans. The procedures and maps will become the basis for the work plans for Tasks G2, G3, G4 and G5. The renewal planning process will follow the general fl ow depicted in Figure 1-14. CDM proposes utilizing a risk metric – the Asset Risk Index (ARI) that is the asset-level equivalent of the business risk exposure (BRE) metric used in the prioritization/vali-dation project.

Task G1.5 (Step 5): Analy cal ToolCDM proposes to use a non-propri-etary MS-Access database called the CAMPTool to manage the renewal planning data and reporting. The CAMPTool will be given to the District free of charge. CDM will train District staff in using it and will work with the District’s IT depart-ment to customize the tool to meet your requirements. In this subtask, we will hold fi ve CAMPTool review sessions where we will discuss and agree on changes to CAMPTool and a version-control process to manage deployment of the tool. CDM will

them implement the required CAMPTool changes. Figure 1-15 shows the main asset data manage-ment screen of the CAMPTool.

Task G.1.6 (Step 6): Develop the Annual Asset Renewal Plan TemplateIn this subtask, CDM will develop a template for the renewal plan to be utilized in Tasks G2,3,4 and 5. The template will include charts, graphs and an annotated outline for text. The template will be submitted to the asset management coordinator for quality assurance and compliance with document control requirements.

Figure 1-15. The CAMPTool is a simple asset renewal planning tool that provides all asset informa on on a single screen to simplify the some mes daun ng task of storing and analyzing infrastructure data.

Figure 1-14. CDM’s asset renewal planning tool, called CAMPTool, produces a risk measure – the Asset Risk Index – for every asset based upon its cri cality and probability of failure.


1-35

Tasks G-2, G3 and G4 Asset Repair and Renewal Plan for Treatment Plants (RR-1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4)All assets have an expected service life, a related lifecycle cost and a rate of decline. The Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Repair and Renewal Plans will identify how different maintenance strategies impact the lifecycle of an asset (or group of assets). In addition, when an asset needs be rehabilitated and/or replaced, the plan provide a process for each plant’s staff to examine alternatives, the fi nancial implications of those alternatives, and also provide for a decision-making process for determining the lowest lifecycle cost alternative that achieves busi-ness requirements.

The renewal plans will:

Provide a forecast that will detail both the upcoming year’s anticipated asset renewal activities and expenses, and also annual cost projections out to a 50-year horizon.

Provide the framework for long-term asset lifecycle strategies to be built into the fabric of the treatment plant’s operation and maintenance activities.

Identify plant asset renewal projects that are candi-dates for inclusion into the District’s capital planning process.

ApproachCDM proposes to execute tasks G2, G3, and G4 independently, as requested in the RFP. Rather than reiterate the details of each task below, the discussion that follows is organized by the steps provided in the RFP.

At the discretion of the District, CDM will conduct Step 2 train-ing collectively, with represen-

tatives of all plants working through the training exercises together.

Task G2.1 (Step 1): Iden fy the Easterly/South-erly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evalua on TeamCDM will work with the District’s task leader and department heads to identify the appropriate personnel that will oversee and conduct a repair/renewal evaluation of the Easterly/Southerly/West-erly treatment plants. The Asset Renewal Evalu-ation Team will likely consist of CDM engineers, District plant engineers, and treatment mainte-nance department staff.

The District’s staff team will collectively need to be familiar with:

District wastewater treatment plant processes, systems and sub-systems,

Electrical distribution system,

Treatment plant facilities and structures, and

Maintenance of:

Wastewater treatment plant process system −

During an infrastructure asset evalua on for Daytona Beach, Fla., CDM reviewed all signifi cant infra-structure components, processes and procedures and made recom-menda ons that support sustain-able safe, reliable and cost-eff ec- ve opera on, maintenance and

management of the City’s water, wastewater and reuse water facili- es.

CDM assessed the condi ons of 8,000 assets and created a data-base applica on for users to popu-late with asset data. Once the data was entered, CDM applied condi on assessment techniques

and ra ng defi ni ons to assign condi on codes and recommen-da ons for improvement.

CDM developed budget-level cost es mates for major assets that were recommended for re-pair and/or replacement within fi ve years or less.


Relevant Staff : Phil Chernin


1-36

and sub-systems,Electrical distribution system,Buildings and grounds,Basic maintenance management practices, andOracle/SPL and SCADA

CDM will work with the District’s task leader and department heads to recruit the work group that has the breadth of collective experience to determine the appropriate asset renewal plan for the District.

Step 2: Asset Renewal Evalua on Team TrainingIt is CDM’s goal to train the Easterly/South-erly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team to completely understand how asset renewal plan-ning fi ts within the overarching asset management program by:

Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team in the asset renewal standard operating procedures (developed in RR-1) such as:

The District’s ongoing asset condition assess-ment program and the subsequent recalcula-tion of asset criticality rankings based on changed condition status.The methods and staff responsibilities for determining asset values, rehabilitation and/or replacement costs, assigning and updating reasonable asset useful life estimates and/or failure curves, and also the tracking and/or estimating of annual asset maintenance costs.A detailed process and corresponding staff responsibilities to be used to identify the most appropriate renewal option for the targeted assets taking into account an assessment of asset and non-asset solutions, as well as capi-tal, maintenance, and operations options.

Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team in the use of the asset renewal analytical tool.

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team in Optimal Renewal Decision Making techniques that will help iden-tify which alternative asset strategies (mainte-nance, rehabilitation, replacement) is the most appropriate.

Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team in fundamental maintenance work management and asset information recording techniques that support renewal planning using the Oracle/SPL system.

Supporting maintenance management-related reporting and analysis for repair/replace deci-sion-making, tracking failure modes and repair activities, and overall maintenance costing/budgeting.

Step 3: Assignment of Evalua on Team Tasks Working with the task leader and each individual plant team, CDM will break down the repair/renewal evaluation of the Easterly/Southerly/West-erly treatment plants into manageable elements that can be assigned to the District team members that will be responsible for collecting the detailed data and entering into the asset renewal analytical tool and/or the Oracle/SPL system.

Step 4: Input Data to the Asset Renewal Analy -cal Tool CDM will work with the District’s task leader and the Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team to collect the appropriate asset data (install date, estimated useful life, replace-ment cost, condition, etc) and input data into the CAMPTool discussed under RR-1: Repair and Renewal Reporting Guidelines. CDM will perform the initial data migration into the asset renewal analytical tool and train District staff to perform updates within the system.

Step 5: Analyze Reports and Summarize DataCDM will work with the District’s task leader and the Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team to generate and analyze reports,


1-37

and summarize data using the asset renewal analytical tool developed under RR-1: Repair and Renewal Reporting Guidelines. After the data is collected, organized and input into the CAMPTool, tables, graphs and charts will be developed to help support the optimal renewal strate-gies and forecast future expenses. Figure 1-16 shows how the CAMP-Tool models asset degradation; one type of report to be produced describ-ing the District’s assets.

Step 6: Complete Annual Asset Re-newal PlanCDM will guide and assist the Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team in devel-oping an annual asset renewal plan for each of the District’s treatment plants. The plan will include:

List of assets pending renewal by process area or building/grounds locationFailure modes and projected remaining useful lifeAlternative renewal strategies, associated life cycle costsJustifi cation for selected renewal strategy, andImplementation costs and proposed schedule for any selected strategies.

Projected annual costs will include:Total district costs by year,Annual projected costs by asset type,Annual projected costs by district plant,Annual projected costs by process area, or building/grounds location.

In addition, the plan will identify and package those treat-ment plant renewal projects that qualify for consideration in the upcoming capital project planning process. An important exercise that goes into the renewal planning is the determination of equivalent annual investment requirements for asset groups in specifi c time horizons. Figure 1-17 illustrates this concept.

Figure 1-17. CDM an cipates developing a procedure that produces an-nual equivalent funding requirements to simplify the fi nancial planning process.

Figure 1-16. CAMPTool produces asset reports that illustrate asset degrada on and recommended ming of renewal ac ons


1-38

Subtask G-5: Collec on Systems Repair and Re-newal Plan (RR-1.4)This District’s collection systems consists of approximately 1 million feet (~200 miles) of large diameter separate and combined interceptor sewers, several pump stations, communication systems and more than 1,000 manholes. This system, which collects sewage and some stormwater from over 60 communities, conveys sewage to its Easterly, Southerly and Westerly treatment plants. These assets — which have a combined value of more than $1 billion dollars — must be fully assessed, maintained, rehabilitated and replaced over time. By properly managing these assets, the District will be able to minimize maintenance costs; maximize lifespans; minimize pollution to receiving waters; minimize disruption to businesses, homeowners and motorists; develop accurate funding forecasts; and reduce the level of manhours needed to operate the entire system.

CDM will work with the District to properly assess the condition of the collection system, understand the modes of failure, quantify the current and future maintenance plans, estimate the remaining useful life of each asset, identify the alternative renewal strategies and develop annual costs to maintain, operate, renew and replace the entire collections system.

Task G5.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy Collec- on System Asset Renewal Evalua on

TeamCDM will work with the District’s task leader and key senior staff to identify the appropriate personnel to be part of the “Collection System Asset Renewal Evalu-ation Team” help develop the total hierar-chy for the NEORSD Collection System. The staff will need to be familiar with operation and maintenance of:

Sanitary sewer collection systemInterceptors and regulatorsBypasses and/or overfl ows

Pump stationsInstrumentation and controlsSewer maintenance including vehicle mainte-nance associated with sewer maintenanceSewer assessment and NASSCO PACP defect codesDistrict infrastructure information management system (DIIMS) GISSPL system Computerized maintenance ,management system (CMMS)

District staff will need to understand their roles and responsibilities regarding risk management and receive the necessary training on the specifi c procedures and tools applicable to their individu-al’s roles.

Task G5.2 (RFP Step 2): Asset Renewal Evalua on Team Training CDM’s goal is to train the District’s staff how to utilize the process developed for optimizing the operations, renewal, repair and maintenance of the collections system. CDM will hold two to three hands-on training sessions with District staff to

Figure 1-18. Example matrix of recommended courses of ac on based on cri cality and condi on.


1-39

implement this task with regards to understanding both the concepts, data, computer tools and comput-er interfaces.

Task G5.3 (RFP Step 3): Assignment of Asset Evalu-a on Team Tasks The District manages three primary collection systems associated with the Westerly, Easterly and Southerly treatment plants. CDM will break down the collection system assets that feed each of the plants into manageable elements that can be assigned to the District team members who will be responsible for developing the replacement and renewal plan for each subarea. A detailed estimate of hours, scope and deadlines will be identifi ed.

Step 4: Input Data to the Asset Renewal Analy cal Tool The Collection System Asset Renewal Evaluation Team will collect all necessary data and input the data into the asset renewal analytical tool. Currently the District has a very sophisticated and user-friend-ly GIS system (DIIMS database) that will provide the bulk of the detailed information associated with the sewers and manholes such as size, length, location, age, material and date of repairs/renew-als. The District began collecting CCTV video of their entire system beginning in 1996 with the Westerly system. In 1998, the Easterly system was videotaped and assessed and in 1999-2001 the Southerly system was videotaped. All of the sewers were assessed using Water Research Council codes. More recent CCTV data has been and will be collected in NASSCO Pipeline Assessment and Certifi cation Program (PACP) format. The video tapes have been converted to digital media (.mpg fi les) for use with the GIS and can be watched from NEORSD person-nel’s desktop computers. As the District continues to collect CCTV digital video and PACP inspec-tions, this data can be added to the

comprehensive PACP database and subsequently evaluated with the CAMPTool.

CDM will utilize the CAMPTool to manage all of the database inputs. This tool will allow the Team to develop all of the necessary projections for renewal, repairs and replacement. All of the input and reporting capabilities of CAMPTool, discussed in Task G2.4, above, will be utilized for Task 5 as well. Among the many features of the tool, its ability to aggregate risk and to help the renewal planner model the future risk (ARI) of the entire infrastructure assets of a subarea or pipe type based on the proposed renewal actions is of particular importance to the District’s collection system renewal program. This feature is illustrated in Figure 1-19.

CDM will work with the District to optimize the value of this existing data for understanding and quantifying the condition and expected life of all the sewers.

Figure 1-19. CAMPTool’s ability to aggregate risk up through the asset hier-archy helps the renewal planner model the future risk (ARI) of collec ons of infrastructure assets and op mize renewal investment ming so that overall risk profi le remains balanced.


1-40

Task G5.4 (RFP Step 5): Analyze Reports and Summarize DataAfter the data is collected, orga-nized and input into the Analyti-cal Tool, summary tables, maps and graphs will be developed to help support the optimal renewal strategies and forecast future expenses. Figure 1-20 shows how the CAMPTool projects annual costs for maintenance, rehabilita-tion, and replacement for a various group of assets such as pipelines or a pump station. This will be grouped in logical, manageable assets such as the Southerly Inter-ceptors.

Figure 1-21 shows an example map from a similar project that shows the locations and prioriti-zation of pipes that require open-cut point repairs. With all of the data in a database and GIS system, creating, updating and presenting maps is extremely simple.

Task G5.6 (RFP Step 6): Complete Annual Asset Renewal PlanCDM will develop an annual asset renewal plan for the District’s entire collection system. We will incorporate all of the District’s proposed CIPs into the plan. The ulti-mate goal is to develop a comprehensive, accurate plan for each asset that will project annual costs by various categories including:

Asset type

District plant (Southerly, Westerly, Easterly)

Location

The District’s assets have immediate, short-term, and long-term needs. The needs include maintenance, repairs,

rehabilitation and replacement. The assessment information, CCTV video, database, maintenance records, complaint records, overfl ow/surcharge records, CIP projects and other data will be used to develop this comprehensive plan.

Op on: Use of CDM’s Pipeline Renewal Planning Decision TreeCDM proposes an option to enhance the collection

Figure 1-21. Pipeline renewal priori za on using GIS

Figure 1-20. Risk and cost aggrega on is clearly illustrated by CAMPTool, which exports a master renewal plan into a Microso Excel ® spreadsheet.


1-41

system renewal plan with an action-specifi c assess-ment process that uses state-of-the-art decision logic to make short-term (next fi ve years) project nominations for CIP projects.

This option includes translating the District’s current condition rating system to the standards set forth by the National Association of Sewer System Companies (NASSCO). The condition ratings may range of from 1-10 depending upon the methodol-ogy chosen. With NASSCO PACP, a rating of 1 to 5 indicates used with 1 indicating the asset (pipe) is good while 5 is a pipe that has collapsed or is in immediate danger of collapsing.

The combination of condition and criticality ratings determines priorities for repair or replacement of system assets. This will provide the utility with a plan for focusing the available resources and fund-ing on the most immediate needs. The actions identifi ed by this type of matrix should be tailored to individual utility situations, and so the recom-mendations contained in each box of the matrix will vary by utility.

Condi on and Cri cality Ra ngsEach of the recommended courses of action are briefl y described below. The specifi c investigative techniques or rehabilitation will vary based on the type of asset: gravity sewer, force main, or pump station.

Immediate Ac onPipes or facilities that are both very critical (critical-ity rating = 4 to 5) and in poor condition (condition rating = 4 to 5) are placed as the highest priority for immediate action. These assets are both more likely to fail and have high consequences if a failure were to occur. The action may include additional data collection to determine actual condition, or if enough information is known, the action would be rehabilitation.

Program Rehabilita onPipes or facilities that are suspected to be in poor condition (condition rating = 4 or 5), but are not

as critical (criticality rating =1 to 3) should be part of an on-going rehabilitation program. These assets could be prioritized within the rehabilita-tion program as “High Priority Program Rehab” or “Mid Priority Program Rehab.” Those under the high priority rehab program are those that have a higher consequence of failure than those in the mid priority rehab program.

Frequent AssessmentPipes or facilities that are in fair condition (condi-tion rating = 2 or 3), but are still very critical (criti-cality rating = 4 to 5) should have their condition assessed frequently since the consequences of a failure are high. The purpose of frequent assess-ment is to check if the condition has deteriorated to a point that the asset would be moved to the immediate action category. In many cases, assets in the frequent assessment category had a condi-tion rating of about 3 due to unknown information about the condition. Once condition is known, and if it is determined to be poor condition, then these assets would move up to the immediate action category.

Regular MonitoringThe assets in the regular monitoring category cover a span of condition and criticality ratings that fall between the frequent assessment and low priority categories. Assets in this group cover the conditions ratings 1, 2, and 3 as in the low prior-ity group. However, they are more critical than the

Figure 1-22. Sliplining in the NEORSD Westerly sewer system


1-42

low priority category since they received a critical-ity rating of at least 3. Because of their higher criti-cality, they require regular monitoring. Some of the assets in this category are still very critical (rating 4 to 5), but are in better condition than the frequent assessment category because their condition rating is a 1 as opposed to 2 or 3. The activities performed under regular monitoring are the same as those performed under frequent assessment. However, the activities are not performed as often.

Low PriorityThe low priority category includes assets that are believed to be in good to fair condition (condi-tion rating = 1 to 3) and that are not considered critical (criticality rating = 1 or 2). The assets in this category will receive some level of condition

monitoring to see if they need to be included in the program rehabilitation group.

Sewer Improvement Decision ToolWith the standard defects codes associated with NASSCO PACP, CDM has developed several other decision tools to help automate what sewer problems will require what type of solutions.

CDM has developed a GIS-based decision system to automate a signifi cant portion of the recom-mendations based upon the comprehensive CCTV inspection database and the defect codes/values within this database. The decision “Tree” is a logi-cal sequence of yes or no queries of the database to develop a structural and/or operation and main-tenance recommendations for each pipe segment.

CDM has been been working with a private en ty that has a long term contract to operate and main-tain a Midwestern city wastewater system. The Vendor’s contractual responsibili es includes repair and replacement of system assets over the 20-year me frame.

As part of the ini al contract nego a ons and development, the City and the Vendor developed an ini al renewal and replacement plan based on major system elements and their “best judgement” at the me as to how frequently the assets would be re-

placed and the costs to complete such replacements.

We suspect that the replacement costs were based on an engineer’s es mate of the current value of the assets at that me. However, as the vendor has moved into its 5th year of opera ng and maintaining the plant, the actual replacement costs are mate-rially higher than what had been included in the contractual documents. The vendor is at risk if such costs are higher.

As we have reconstructed the basis for the mis-match, there appears to be two primary factors that have contributed to the situa on:

P R O J E C T E X A M P L E S

The replacement cost es mates that were used as the basis for the ini al planning were some combina- on of original cost

(where such data was available) and quick and dirty es mates of then current replacement costs. Neither party conducted a thorough though ul evalua on to establish the values and consider how those costs might change over me.

In developing the 20 year plan, the allowed for costs did not factor in basic cost infl a on. This has also resulted in seriously eroding the con-tractual allowance for repair and replacement and what the vendor is incurring.

As a result of not systema cally and thought-fully thinking through the issue of replacement values, the two par es signifi cantly under-es mated the costs required to ensure the system is maintained in a state of good repair. Nego a ons are ongoing to try to correct this defi ciency.

Relevant Staff : Ed LeClair, Joe Ridge


1-43

The decision tree application is organized in several sections.

From the top down these are:

Defi nitionsDecisionsPrioritizationEngineer OverridesRecommendations

Defi ni onsThe defi nitions section as shown in Figure 1-23 contains branches of the tree that update fi elds in the pipe GIS layer, which will be referenced in subsequent sections of the tree. This makes the other sections much simpler and makes it easy for the user to locate and modify the criteria used in the decision process.

DecisionsThe actual decision tree of this application is in the decision section, labeled in Figure 1-24 as “Decision Model.” The fi rst criterion considered is the recommendation from the hydraulic modeling. If the pipe is recom-mended to be removed and replaced because of hydraulic defi ciency or other reasons, then the decision process is directed down a branch resulting in the recommendation “Short Term New Replacement Pipe.” If the pipe is not recommended to be replaced, then the decision process moves to the structural score node, where there are three branches: Low, Medium, and High. Here the “Structural Quick Rating” from the PACP database is used to categorize the pipes as either Low (Structural Quick Rating starting with a 0, 1, or 2), Medium (Struc-tural Quick rating starting with a 3 or a 4), or High (Structural Quick Rating starting with a 5). The fi rst character of the Structural Quick Rating is the numerical level of the worst defect recorded for that pipe. Possible scores range from 0 for a pipe with no defects to 5 for a pipe with one or more of the worst-rated structural defects.

The “Low Structural Score” branch of the tree considers sags, signifi cant roots, signifi cant infi l-tration and infl ow, signifi cant deposits, and offset joints in turn, and generally results in a recom-mendation of long-term pipe rehabilitation CIP if any of these criteria are met. If none are met, the pipe falls in the category of periodic cleaning and inspection. The frequency of the inspections will be dictated by the criticality.

The “Medium Structural Score” branch, develops a recommendation for the level 3 and 4 structural defects including multiple cracks, longitudinal and

Figure 1-23. Defi ni ons in the Decision Tree

Figure 1-24. Decision Branch of the Decision Tree


1-44

multiple fractures and some other miscellaneous types of level 3 and 4 structural defects.

Any pipes having the highest scoring defects (level 5 defects such as broken pipes, holes, deformed pipes, collapsed pipe or any indication of imminent failure) are reviewed by an experienced engineer. The engineer’s recommendations will be loaded into a fi eld in the pipe GIS layer.

Priori za onThe prioritization section ranks each pipe based on its criticality, or generally how important the pipe is, or how much inconvenience or expense it would represent in order to repair or replace it in an emer-gency situation. Prioritization is split into structural and O&M categories in this process. As the recom-mendations are developed, the Team will choose several criteria to rank and prioritize each pipe segment within each group of recommendations. In general, the recommendations will be prioritized for future action such as below:

A – Immediate: These pipes are in immedi-ate need of repair or replacement and should be done as soon as feasible and defi nitely within 1 year.B – Short Term: These pipes should be repaired, rehabilitated or replaced within 1 to 3 yearsC – Intermediate Term: These pipes should repaired, rehabilitated or replaced within 3 to 5 yearsD – Long Term: These pipes should repaired, rehabilitated or replaced within 5 to 10 years

These recommendations can be manually or auto-matically entered into the CAMP analytical tool and given realistic cost estimates based upon best avail-able cost indexes and recent local bid tabulations.

The methodology of performing O&M recommen-dations is very similar but the types of solutions will consist of cleaning, inspection, root control

programs, grease control programs, or possibly more aggressive street sweeping in combined sewer areas. The criteria chosen to prioritize these actions will be very different and be developed by the Collection System Asset Renewal Evaluation Team.

Engineer OverridesAll pipes with signifi cant structural Level 5 defects, as well as several other pipes, should be reviewed by an experienced engineer. The next section of the tree copies the recommendations from the decision tree above to the fi nal recom-mendation fi eld in the database, and then copies the engineer’s recommendation to that fi eld as well. This ensures that the engineer’s recommen-dation takes precedence over any decisions recom-mended in the automated portion of the applica-tion.

Recommenda onsThe last section of the tree allows the user to easily review all of the fi nal recommendations in the system. Each possible outcome is represented as a node in the tree that the user can select and then, by pushing the “Test Selected Query” button, see all of the pipes in the GIS layer with the selected recommendation.

The recommendations are separated into various categories including: capacity related recommen-dations, structural recommendations and O&M recommendations. These include:

Pipe replacement Point repairs (open cut)Spot repairs (trenchless)Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) or slipliningChemical root control Fats, oils, and grease control Periodic maintenance and inspectionStreet sweeping (in combined sewer areas)


1-45

This data is all managed in the GIS and allows the user to instantly modify and update maps, and annual costs.

Capital Projects Planning

The renewal planning task group includes RFP Task C. This task has the goal of improving the District’s ability to make sound and justifi able investment decisions.

CDM’s task manager for this task is Warren Kurtz, formerly the deputy commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and a CDM client at the time CDM initiated NYC’s asset management program described in Section 2 of this proposal. Mr. Kurtz will work with the District’s capital projects planning task leader.

Task C: Capital Improvement Program (CIP-2, 3)CDM’s proposed work plan builds upon the requirements of the District’s CIP – 2/3 CIP work plan to provide a new capital planning process model within the fi rst year of the asset management program. CDM based its approach on collabora-tion with District management and staff throughout the organization to redefi ne the process by which it makes capital investment decisions. Such a collab-orative effort offers the best chance to successfully implement diffi cult and challenging process chang-es that will result in increased confi dence in District decision making.

CDM offers a small modifi cation to the CIP 2/3 workplan in the RFP. We also offer an alternative.

The modifi cation combines Steps 2 and 3 into Subtask C.1 and Step 1 changes to Subtask C.2. The alternative is to perform the validation and prioritization work in RFP Step 5 for the entire list of construction projects in the 2008 four-year CIP. This alternative will help the District address a potential capital budget shortfall of nearly 30% should the District implement all proposed capital projects1. We believe that executing a complete validation and prioritization process in the initial project stages is both feasible and benefi cial.

Capital Planning in ContextThe District’s proposed asset management program utilizes business case methods to make decisions about how to most effi ciently and effec-tively allocate available investment resources to achieve its programmatic goals. Long-term invest-ment in capital facilities through repair, rehabilita-tion, or new construction is one type of investment that regularly competes with other types of invest-ments in human resources for operations or main-tenance expenditures. The District must routinely make decisions relating to its capital facilities in its annual and four-year capital improvement plans, including:

How much should be invested in repairing or replacing existing capital facilities?

How much must be invested in building new facilities needed to address CSO, stormwater, and other new program goals or requirements?

How can its investments in capital facilities best be prioritized to reduce the District’s busi-ness risks and address its strategic goals?

What are the timing requirements of competing investment demands?

1 The 4-year CIP includes $580 million in investment requirements. Discussions with District staff and review of the recommenda ons of the Easterly and Southerly facili es plans suggest that approximately $750 million in investment requirements have been iden fi ed for this 4-year period. CDMs approach to this task recognizes that some form of real priori za on resul ng in real ac onable recommenda- ons will provide immediate benefi ts to the District.


1-46

Figure 1-25 illustrates the central role played by the capital planning process in validating the long-term renewal needs of the District and prioritizing those needs relative to other business needs.

The capital planning phase of this project pres-ents challenges to current organizational, human resource, and management practices within the District; adjusting to change will be diffi cult for some staff. The sidebar on page 1-48 highlights some of these challenges and how the District and CDM might resolve them.

Tenets of the Capital Planning ProcessBy using a consistent and transparent capital plan-ning process model that routinely validates the need and justifi cation for capital investments and stra-tegically prioritizes those investments will reduce the District’s business risk, save money in the long term, and instill confi dence in the District’s funding decisions.

Consistency is a quality of the planning model and system that standardizes the decision-making process, and makes it reproducible by District staff currently as well as in the future. The model must provide a written record of the data and logic

used to make decisions, so that they are able to be revisited in the future, and be updated based on then current information. The model must establish systematic rules for evaluating competing needs, that is grounded in good industry practice, and thus promotes confi dence in the resulting decisions.

Transparency is quality of the planning model and process that allows others to understand the decision-making process and makes the informa-tion that formed the basis of the decisions avail-able for review. Transparency is desirable both internally and externally to the District. Staff in various District organizational units (including operations, engineering, planning, fi nance, execu-tive management or public outreach) may need to understand and communicate the basis for deci-sions concerning the facilities the District relies on. District staff will also periodically have the need to communicate to elected offi cials, citizens, or the press, reasons why some projects are funded and others not, what projects are intended to do, or how certain capital facilities fi t into the overall picture of managing wastewater and improving water quality. Information contained within the asset management system will provide this infor-mation and add to the transparency of the capital

Figure 1-25: The capital planning pro-cess proposed by CDM will introduce a comprehensive approach to invest-ment planning. Asset renewal plans – updated annually – will be reviewed by plant engineers who will nominate projects to be considered for the CIP. Those projects will be combined with other projects such as new CSO facili- es and will be validated through a

process that will either determine a project is not jus fi ed at this me or that the project is jus fi ed and should be priori zed and considered for inclu-sion in the CIP.


1-47

CDM is aware that the Asset management pro-gram challenges current organiza onal, human resource and management prac ce within the District, and that the process of change will be diffi cult for some staff to adjust and adapt to.

Project Nomina on needs to be a non-threat-ening process. Staff at several levels and within various organiza onal units of the District should be encouraged to raise issues that lead to the considera on of capital projects. While the pro-cess of reviewing and valida ng capital projects will be rigorous, appear to be daun ng (to some), and at mes may be diffi cult and complex to get through, the process of taking the ini a ve to raise issues that may be important in iden- fying and reducing risk is one that should be

encouraged by District management. Therefore, the capital planning process model should have mul ple entry points for project nomina on. The opportunity and process for District staff to raise issues and suggest solu ons that may involve capital projects, should be one that is easy to begin at many levels throughout the organiza on and rewarded or recognized, when though ul or innova ve ideas are suggested. Such a process of nomina ng projects, through issue iden fi ca- on, may also be considered for sources external

to the District; including ci zens, environmental organiza ons, community groups, or elected offi -cials. At the end of the nomina on and valida on process, a feedback mechanism to the ini a-tor should be inserted, le ng them know the outcome of their sugges on, and in the case of rejec on, the reason(s) why.

The valida on procedure must be rigorous because of scarcity of funds and desire to have enough of a basis to establish priori es, and yet the process requirements for data, basis of need, alterna ves assessment, cost es ma ng, etc., should not be so insurmountable that it s fl es or precludes ini a on of ideas for improvements or nomina on of capital projects. Part of the eff ort

to defi ne a new capital planning process model should be targeted to determining resource needs for obtaining data and planning resources needed to get through the valida on process. In addi on to addressing what those planning resources might be, and how they should be pro-vided or accessed, the new Model should con-sider where the best appropriate organiza onal loca on should be for these responsibili es and resources to reside. Organiza onal changes and turf protec on issues may arise, and the District needs to be ready to deal with them.

Informa on requirements to make the planning process consistent and transparent, will chal-lenge staff organiza onal and record keeping skills and prac ces. Training in administra ve func ons, and project management techniques, may be as important as advanced engineering educa on and training.

Priori za on in a funding limited environment, will, of necessity, lead to rejec on or deferral of validated projects that internal and/or exter-nal stakeholders will consider very important. Consistency and transparency of decision making will not necessarily lead to unanimity of opinion about priori es. Furthermore, a rigid and purely mechanical and mathema cal system of priori -za on should not be the District’s goal because non-quan ta ve factors will have to be taken into account, par cularly by execu ve manage-ment. CDM will iden fy those factors as part of this process development task, and will try to develop qualita ve and quan ta ve methods to bring such factors into the priori za on decision-making process. Coordina on of this ac vity with overall Risk Management Policies (set through RM-1) and/or District strategic planning ac vi es will assist in this eff ort.

KEY CHALLENGES TO TASK C


1-48

funding process. A capital planning process and system that builds in transparency is critical to the District’s long-term success.

Validation is the process by which potential future capital projects are screened to determine whether their need is real, and whether the proposed capital investment is economically and programmatically justifi ed. The validation process builds in crite-ria that: evaluates whether suffi cient evidence or data has been obtained to determine need; consid-ers whether alternative methods of addressing the issue have been examined; and determines whether suffi cient confi dence exists that the project is economically warranted. A business case analysis using lifecycle costs should be provided as part of the validation process, so that resulting validated capital projects provide assurance that they are economically advantageous relative to alternative approaches.

Prioritization is the process of evaluating compet-ing asset investments, in this case, capital projects, to determine which ones should be funded before others. The prioritization process is to be based in larger part on risk management and strategic plan-ning policies as a means for the District to establish funding priorities, and funding schedules. Properly prioritized projects, in the form of established and adopted capital improvement plans and annual budgets, will provide assurance that the District is optimizing its available resources and investing them in a manner that strategically reduces risk to the District and its customers.

Approach The primary objective of this portion of the asset management program is to establish a capital plan-ning process model that is consistent and improves the confi dence and transparency with which the District determines its capital investment priorities each year. That consistent and transparent model is intended to contain a formal process for nominat-ing and approving capital projects through steps that validate project needs, and prioritize projects through a schedule of funding in capital improve-

ment plans.

The new capital planning process will involve many organizational units of the District, and it will encompass the entire process from identifi -cation of need and proposal of projects, through proposal and adoption of the District’s capital improvement plan. Because many organizational units of the District will have a role in the ultimate proposal and adoption of the District’s CIP, the successful development and implementation of a new capital planning process should involve a substantial participation by those organizational unit managers in the model development process. This will include staff involved in operations, engi-neering, capital planning, fi nance and executive management, as well as staff involved in the new functions of asset management and risk manage-ment that have been proposed in conjunction with the introduction of the new asset management program. This process will involve meetings and workshops within specifi c organizational units, as well as across organizational units to understand:

The need and requirements for each step in the process; Each unit’s role and function within each step; The critical dates and time schedules for each step; and Consensus agreement on the adoption of an overall process model for the District.

Task C1 (RFP Step 2 and 3): Review the Current Capital Planning Process and Characterize Cur-rent CIP Projects This activity will review the current capital plan-ning process and CIP to:

Identify aspects that may mesh with, or fall short of, capital planning process needs required for the new asset management program framework; and

Characterize projects in the current CIP as to goals, objectives, priorities, requirements, and


1-49

need.

This step will ensure that all organizational units involved in and affected by the new capital plan-ning process model understand:

The entire current process;

The inputs to it; The information and methods currently used within each organizational unit and each step of the process;

The outputs from each step;

Key dates and timeframes that are imposed; and

The resulting goals, objectives and priorities of the current Capital Improvement Plan that was generated through the existing process.

This understanding should precede any discussion of what the new capital planning process should be.

A half-day meeting will be held with each of the major organizational units that currently have a role in the existing capital planning process. Prior to these meetings, CDM will distribute a question-naire for distribution to key managers who partici-pate in the current capital planning process and CIP development. The intent is to solicit information about staff rationale and methods for setting poli-cies, goals, objectives and priorities for current CIP projects. The questionnaire will be provided to the Director of Capital Programs for review and approval prior to distribution to managers. We will request that completed questionnaires be returned prior to the meetings. If necessary, meetings may be held with individual managers to review the ques-tionnaire and develop a better understanding of the current CIP process, their perception on how that process works and how it has been used.

The meetings with each organizational unit will confi rm that unit’s role and responsibilities in the current process and develop a basic understand-ing of the information, procedures, and methods typically used to identify capital needs, evaluate

alternative solutions, develop scopes and cost esti-mates of projects, validate identifi ed projects, and prioritize projects, to the extent those activities are relevant or appropriate to that step in the process or that organizational unit. Separate meetings (estimate one to two hours for operations, engi-neering and capital planning) with key staff may be required, after each group meeting, to obtain additional and more detailed information about the process or the materials available or used within each step of the process, and to further discuss the rationale that has been used in selecting and priori-tizing projects in the current CIP.

After meeting with each organizational unit and developing a more detailed understanding of the current capital planning process, CDM will prepare a more detailed fl ow diagram of the current capital planning process, and a written description of the drivers that determined the prior-ities of projects, as evidenced by projects in the current CIP and discussions with managers. CDM will distribute that fl ow diagram and CIP descrip-tion to each organizational unit for their review, and for them to confi rm or modify any details enumerated. CDM will then identify those points in the current process that would not appear to satisfy the defi ned goals and objectives (consisten-cy, transparency, validation and prioritization) of a new capital planning process model that would be used within the asset management program.

At the conclusion of this task, CDM will prepare a PowerPoint presentation and memo report that: defi nes and describes the current capital planning process (“as is” process) and CIP priorities; identi-

The District established the goals of consistency, transparency, valida on, and priori za on in its proposed asset management improvement plan. We will make these objec ves the same goals of the CIP process model.


1-50

fi es how the new capital planning process model (the “to be” process) will fi t within the asset manage-ment program; and identifi es target areas where the current capital planning process model does not appear to support the proposed asset management program.

Task C2 (RFP Step 1): Execu ve Re-view of CIP Issues and Objec vesThis critical step will obtain execu-tive level consensus on the objec-tives of the new process, and to gain insights from the District’s executives into the issues they see as diffi cult or problematic in making a transition to a more rigorous process. This task cannot be initiated until completion of the risk policy to be developed in Task B.

One or two half-day workshops will be held with representative executive staff from all organiza-tional units involved in the current capital planning process, as well as staff from any additional units who will likely be involved in the new process but don’t have a defi ned role in the current process.

One purpose of the fi rst workshop would be to review the current capital planning process and to generate discussion about its good and bad points; particularly in relation to its new role as part of an asset management program. The PowerPoint presentation prepared by CDM in the previous step would be the fi rst part of the agenda of this fi rst workshop. CDM would quickly review the existing process; describe how the new process is intended to fi t within the asset management program; and identify the gaps that it sees in the current process as it relates to the proposed asset management program.

The second purpose of this fi rst workshop would be to attempt to obtain executive consensus on the goals and objectives of the new capital planning process model. Discussion would progress from:

Existing capital planning process practices that have worked well, and not worked well,

Changing business climate in the District, and need to reassess the process,

Proposed or changing policies or expectations related to capital planning;

Beginning to describe the nature of any proposed changes to the process, and trying to generate understanding and consensus on those proposed changes.

It may or may not be possible to obtain consensus on executive level concerns and proposed changes to the process at this fi rst workshop. Should either lack of time, or lack of consensus be evident, the workshop would adjourn; CDM would write up minutes of the meeting, including description of the remaining issues to be discussed, and any action assignments made.

A second workshop would then be convened, if needed, within one or two weeks to further discuss remaining items, or issues of contention. CDM would distribute minutes of the fi rst work-shop in advance, and prepare an agenda. Should there be any research or support work requested by participants to further the discussions, CDM would undertake or assist that effort. The second workshop would conclude upon obtaining execu-tive level direction to CDM to address defi ned concerns in the new process.

Figure 1-26. The team will establish roles and responsibili es during a series of mee ngs with each of the District’s organiza onal units. This worked successfully for an asset management implementa on project in Johnson County, Kansas.


1-51

The output from this task will be a policy statement providing goals, objectives and direction as to items or issues to be addressed within the new capital planning process model.

Task C3 (RFP Step 4): Develop New Capital Planning Process ModelThis step is focused on the production of the new capital planning process model that has been conceived of and agreed to in the prior step. This will include documenting procedures for project nomination, project vali-dation, and project prioritization. The development process will be conducted in an inclusive manner. Consultation with each involved organizational unit will occur, and will be an iterative process, as required by District staff reac-tions to CDM proposed steps and requirements. Drafts will be presented, comments documented, and all work will be provided to the asset manage-ment coordinator. The roles of each organizational unit will be clearly spelled out for each step in the process, as will descriptions of expected outputs from each step. Estimates of resources required to implement the new process will be developed. A timeline will be established for phasing in the new model, and incremental implementation steps will be estimated. When completed, the proposed process will be presented at a meeting with all parts of the organization involved in the new process.

Key steps in the new model will be based on meth-odologies previously suggested and developed by CDM, and endorsed by the District, as part of the AMIP, including the following.

Project Validation – This procedure will docu-ment the District’s best and preferred practice by

which a CLR (Confi dence Level Rating) score is derived based on the amount and quality of information collected in support of the nomi-nated project.Project Prioritization – This procedure will document the District’s best and preferred practice by which a BRE (Business Risk Evalu-ation) score is derived based on the probability of occurrence and associated consequences of not implementing the project.

Note that the project nomination process will be developed without benefi t of prior piloting by the District. CDM will recommend nomination guidelines that have worked for similar organiza-tions and will tailor these guidelines to be sensible and implementable for the District. Considerable effort will be invested in specifying, clarifying and ensuring that project nomination guidelines and procedures are clear and accepted

New York City’s Department of Environmental Protec on faced a mul -billion dollar shor all in funds needed to maintain a state of good repair at its 14 waste-water treatment plants. Years of deferment of maintenance and renewal work had created a crisis in confi dence that the plants could fulfi ll their permit requirements. Faced with nutrient removal, CSO and other new capital investment requirements made the valida on and priori za on of projects a necessity.

CDM helped the Department es-tablish a risk-based valida on and priori za on process to support a 10-year capital plan that received approval from the City’s Offi ce of Management and Budget. One of the methods used to convey the

rela ve priority of one invest-ment over another was the prepara on of asset risk sche-ma cs. These schema cs – one for each treatment plant and several for sub-areas within the collec on system – illustrated the opera onal risk associated with assets and components within each facility and also illustrated the aggregate risk as-sociated with each unit process at each plant (and each subarea within each collec on system district).


Relevant Staff : Warren Kurtz, Phil Chernin, Ed LeClair, Joe Ridge


1-52

At the completion of this task, a fl ow diagram of the procedures developed will be produced for the entire capital planning process. We will develop software tools and templates to implement the process. The process map and implementation guidelines will be submitted to the asset manage-ment coordinator for quality assurance and compli-ance with document control requirements.

A task report will accompany the fl ow diagram and will outline: the rationale behind each of the process activities, the organizational unit respon-sible for each activity, use of tools and templates, expected outputs, estimated activity durations, esti-mated resource requirements, estimated schedule for phased implementation, and a listing of the CIP projects to be evaluated in Subtask C4.

Task C4 (RFP Step 5): Applica on of New Capital Process Planning Model to a Group of ProjectsThe capital process planning model developed in the previous step will be applied to 15 nominated projects.

This step would be undertaken with the active assistance and participation of District staff. A kick-off meeting would be held with Departmental managers to: fi nalize a determination of all projects for which the Model would be applied, assign staff to participate in this effort, schedule the work, and understand the limitations and constraints under which this effort will be undertaken, and resulting funding decisions able to be made at the conclusion of the effort.

After the kick-off meeting, CDM, with the assis-tance and participation of District staff, will begin to review project fi les and documents, discuss project drivers and scopes, and undertake site visits for a representative group of projects in the Capital Plan. The purpose of this initial sampling would be to ascertain what types of information is generally available, and to obtain consensus on the meth-ods to be applied, and level of detail to be used, in performing validation/prioritization analyses. Based on the results of that sample effort, CDM will pres-

ent the methodology and assumptions to Depart-ment managers at a meeting, and obtain approval to proceed with the entire task.

CDM would take the lead in, and responsibility for, applying the new Model and performing the required validation and prioritization analyses and calculations. CDM is allocating 32 hours per CIP project to perform this work.

District staff would be included, as available, and as desired at the time, to participate as a team in this work. Approximately one third of the way through the completion of this effort (after approximately 5 projects are reviewed, validated and prioritized), a workshop would be held with District staff to review the work performed to date. CDM would prepare a presentation outlining progress to date, experience and lessons learned in gathering information and performing the analy-ses, and illustrate key points using actual project examples. The workshop would bring District staff up to date on the effort and provide a forum to discuss if any mid-course corrections should be made to the methodologies or calculations.

Upon completion of the application of the model to all defi ned projects, CDM would conduct a fi nal workshop to review the results of the total effort, present fi ndings, and discuss funding decisions that might be made from those fi ndings. CDM would also outline lessons learned from this initial

CDM proposes to base the new model on the founda on established during the priori za on/valida on project (CIP-1) done during development of the AMIP. Our focus during this task will be on the process and on building assurances that it will be accepted by all stakeholders and implemented with the support of the asset management coordinator, all division directors and the en re senior staff .


1-53

implementation effort, and identify any suggested modifi cations to the previously submitted plan for phased implementation of the process. At this point, the District may decide whether or not to undertake the option to have CDM perform the same assess-ment on the remainder of the CIP.

A task report will be prepared, documenting the experience, and outlining issues the District will need to address in order for successful future phased implementation to take place. Revisions to the estimates previously made, for activity dura-tions, resource requirements, and schedule for phased implementation, as well as recommenda-tions for any process model modifi cations, based on the experiences learned from this exercise.

Task C5 (RFP Step 6): Project ReportThe Project Report will summarize:

All completed work.

The outcomes and related gap closure achieved in the AMIP as a result of this project.

Suggestions for any future work to improve the process model, and/or integrate it into the asset management program.

Op onTo support the current need to prioritize projects in the current CIP, CDM proposes and option to conduct Step 5 for all of the construction projects in the District’s 4-year capital plan. Based upon the currently-published 4-year CIP, it is estimated that the number of projects the Model would be applied to would be in the range of 50 to 60. We propose to leave out the small (undefi ned) projects that are funded under “Miscellaneous” categories, as well as IT system purchases, emergency repairs, or other non-construction type projects such as studies, inspections, easement or land acquisitions, etc,. Funding provided for design or construction management of future construction projects would be aggregated into the costs for the related construc-tion project.

Support TasksThe Support task group includes tasks A, H and J – Asset Management Coordination (AM), State of Infrastructure Reporting (IR) and Project Admin-istration (Task J). These tasks provide logistical support to the other task groups, provide program controls and continuous improvement monitoring to ensure the project is meeting the District’s asset management gap closure objectives

The subtasks that comprise the renewal planning task group, the NEORSD Task Managers and CDM Task Managers assigned to each are identi-fi ed below

Figure 1-27. Following a series of steps to rank project ne-cessity and urgency, New York City DEP developed a CIP and corresponding forecast for fi nancial needs.


1-54

Key Challenges

The key challenges to success with the support task group are:

Maintaining consistency and standardization of work products. Each of the eighteen tasks in this Phase 1 implementation program will produce written documents and some will produce software products. All documents and software must conform to strict quality and consistency standards; they must be version-controlled and accessible to District staff. With so many indi-vidual District Task Managers and such varied subject matter among the eighteen tasks, the AM coordinator must be ever mindful of this chal-lenge.Communicating program progress and benefi ts. The responsibility to communicate program progress and benefi ts will demand most of the will occupy most of the time of the support task group. The AM coordinator will be the source of information for department managers, senior staff, task leaders and District employees. A plan for regular and meaningful communica-tions to each of these stakeholder groups must be followed religiously.Coordinating program activities with other District projects and initiatives. During devel-opment of the asset management improvement plan, the District was engaged in the Southerly and Easterly facilities plans. Considerable coor-dination was needed to ensure consistent treat-ment of scope items in each facilities plan with the evolving principles of asset management that are now being implemented in this project. An even more challenging coordination effort will

be required during this project to ensure consis-tent treatment of scope items in the stormwater and CSO programs and with the forthcoming adoption of program management practices and consulting support to the Engineering Divi-sion.

Task A: Asset Management Coordina on for 3-Year Plan (AM-1)Task A establishes a governance system for moni-toring and controlling the District’s asset manage-ment program. The role of the District’s asset management coordinator – the task leader for this task – is to guide, support and report to stakehold-ers on the progress of this project – not just as it relates to the traditional measures of scope, sched-ule and budget, but as it relates to the gap closure and continuous improvement goals established by the District in the AMIP.

It is critical that the District’s asset management coordinator embrace the District’s asset manage-ment vision and exhibit a shared commitment to success with each of the District’s task manag-ers. Similarly, it is imperative that CDMs Project Manager – the task manager for this task – be able to support the asset management coordina-tor in moving the vision forward, communicating

Table 1-6. NEORSD and CDM Task Managers


NEORSD Task Manager CDM Manager

A Asset management Coordina on for 3-year Plan AM-1 Andrea Remias Phil Chernin

H State of Infrastructure Annual Report IR-1 Andrea Remias Phil Chernin

J Project Administra on Andrea Remias Mike Kenel


1-55

complex technical issues in understandable terms to all stakeholders and in providing immediate and useful responses to District questions and requests as they arise throughout the project.

Task A1 (RFP Step 1): Develop and Monitor Mas-ter ScheduleAs part of our proposal effort, CDM has developed an MS-Project ® schedule that is resource-loaded and available to NEORSD immediately. The proposed consultant and NEORSD staff hours, by task and subtask and all activity durations are included in the project fi le. Both the project sched-ule (Section 3 of the proposal ) and cost proposal (Section 8 of this proposal) were generated from this project fi le. In this task we will:

Meet with the AM coordinator, review, modify and agree on the master Phase 1 implementation schedule;

Orient the AM coordinator to the MS-Project® model prepared for the project and train (if necessary) the AM Coordinator —or delegate – to modify, maintain and develop reports from this fi le; and

Prepare a procedures document for schedule monitoring and maintenance using MS-Project ®

Our cost proposal assumes that schedule monitoring and maintenance will be performed by the District, with as-needed support from CDM, including formal, 2-day, quarterly review meet-ings with a CDM project scheduler.

Task A2 (RFP Step 2): Estab-lish Document Standards and Maintain Document LibraryCDM proposes to continue to utilize the eRoom® (by

Documentum) established during AMIP develop-ment as the document library. In this task, we will produce a new eRoom content map, reorganize all current eRoom documents and templates, and conduct the following activities:

Develop standardized documentation templates

Prepare a procedures document describing document control and records retention proce-dures;

Train the AM coordinator – or delegate -- in use of eRoom for document control and issues tracking

Our cost proposal assumes that maintenance of eRoom will be performed by the District, with as-needed support from CDM, including formal, half-day, monthly review meetings

Task A.3 (RFP Step 3) Develop and Maintain La-bor and Expense Monitoring SystemIn this Task, CDM will help NEORSD to devise and implement a pragmatic method of monitoring labor and expenditures of NEORSD staff. The tracking of labor and expenses of the CDM team will be handled under Task J, and combined in this task with a complete Phase 1 implementation labor

Figure 1-28. CDM proposes to u lize the AMIP gap analysis database to track gap closure and store audit results.


1-56

and expense monitoring system. In this task, CDM will:

Review existing NEORSD labor-tracking proce-duresRecommend an NEORSD labor tracking method appropriate for this projectPrepare a procedures document and companion software tool to facilitate labor and expense monitoring and summary reporting;Submit consultant team labor and expense infor-mation in required formatProvide as-needed support for labor and expense monitoring, including formal, half-day, monthly review meetings.

Task A4 (RFP Step 4): Monitor Project Scope and Outcomes AchievementAs set forth in the District’s asset manage-ment improvement plan, the framework for the asset management program is one of continuous improvement in which the District’s performance objectives are measured against specifi c outcomes that are designed to close performance gaps. In this task, CDM will establish an audit procedure based upon the gap analysis performed during the AMIP project. All the data from which the gaps and outcomes were established are contained within an MS-Access® database. This database will be enhanced during this task to track the achievement of the outcomes associated with each project. Our subcontractor, Jefferson Wells – a professional audit fi rm – will establish an independent audit procedure and train District staff in executing the procedure. For this task , CDM recommends that the District perform 3 audits during the program, spaced at approximately 12 month intervals. The level of effort we assume the District to invest in each audit is 150 hours. The following activities will be conducted during this task:

Review task objectives and outcomes with the AM coordinator and each NEORSD task lead-ers responsible for leading a task. The result of this review will be agreement on the baseline

that defi nes the existing condition relative to expected outcomes;Develop internal audit procedure that will produce a valid, independent, reliable audit trail on progress toward outcome achievement;Train NEORSD auditors in conducting audits;Provide guidance and as-needed support to the District during conduct of three project audits.

Task A5 (RFP Step 5): Hold AMT Mee ngsDuring this task, CDM will work with the AM coordinator to prepare for, conduct and docu-ment quarterly meetings to be held with the asset management team. CDM’s budget for this activity assumes that the CDM Project Manager, or other relevant team member will attend these meetings along with the AM coordinator.

Task A6 (RFP Step 6): Conduct SST Briefi ngsDuring this task, CDM will work with the AM coordinator to prepare for, conduct and document senior staff briefi ngs. CDM’s budget for this activ-ity assumes that an SST briefi ng will be conducted every other month and that the CDM Project Manager will attend these briefi ngs along with the AM coordinator.

Op onsCDM offers two options for Task A.

Asset Management University. To maximize the value to District staff in participating in Asset Management Implementation Phase I activities, CDM is proposing this optional sub-task to provide continuing education units (CEUs). CDM is proud to have our own University, CDMU. Through certifi cation by the International Association of Continu-ing Education and Training (IACET), CDMU is able to help employees pursue and main-tain their professional registrations. CDMU is authorized to award continuing education units (CEUs) for training performed under the auspices of our IACET Authorized Provider status. CDM believes that a great amount of


1-57

education of staff will take place during this project. To recognize the Districts’ staff commit-ment to continuing education for this project, CDM will provide 16 distinct courses, with 4 contact hours each, as part of the workshop and meeting activities presented in our proposed scope. The time for this task will be spent on preparing the necessary course documentation and learning materials, beyond what is typical for a project workshop or meeting. CDM will track the attendance at the training sessions and provide a record for participating staff to support their professional certifi cation requirements.

Quarterly Newsletters. CDM will work with the District’s public outreach department to develop quarterly newsletters to inform District staff on the progress of the asset management program. These newsletters will support the messages of the asset management coordinator while stressing the end-use benefi ts of the imple-mentation steps.

Task H: State of the Infrastructure Annual Report (IR-1)

The state of infrastructure report will be the prin-ciple vehicle for communicating the benefi ts of the asset management program to the NEORSD Board and other stakeholders. It will document the most current knowledge (at the time of each report issuance) of the District’s infrastructure assets, the strategies and actions planned for the coming year to maintain a state of good repair and the fi nancial obligations recognized by the District to achieve its plan of action.

ApproachCDM proposes to share equally with the District the responsibility for compilation and production of the report. We recommend, and have budgeted for the issuance of two reports during the Phase 1 program. The fi rst report will be produced prior to completion of the renewal planning task group. The second report will be completed following completion of the renewal planning work. The intent of producing two reports is to establish – with report 1 – an early benchmark of what information is known and what actions are in place. Then, in report 2, to be able to illustrate the advancements in knowledge and planning that will have been achieved through this project.

Task H1 (RFP Step 1): Report OutlineCDM will recommend a report outline to that is consistent with the District’s reporting objectives and that can be implemented based on information that will be made available throughout the project.

H2: Iden fy Data SourcesCDM will work with the AM coordinator to identify data sources that will contribute informa-tion to the report. Whereas data for Section 4 will ultimately come form the annual renewal plans, the fi rst report will utilize data from information currently existing in the Easterly and Southerly

facilities plans, DIIMS and a source to be determined (likely Oracle/SPL) for the Westerly Plant.

Task H3 (RFP Step 3): Pro-cure Consultant ServicesIt is assumed that the consul-tant selected for

Dra OutlineState of Infrastructure Report

1. Introduc on and Purpose

2. Commitments to Our Customers and Regulators > Regulatory Obliga ons > Levels of Service to Customers

3. Asset Management Program Achievements > Program Goals > Progress toward Goals in Past Year

4. Current State of Our Infrastructure > Classes of Assets > Replacement Values > Asset Risk Indices > Financial Requirements to Maintain a State of Good Repair

5. Quality and Completeness of Informa on

6. Priority Ac ons For the Coming Year


1-58

this project is the consultant that will provide this assistance.

Task H4 (RFP Step 4): Dra ReportCDM will assist the District to produce drafts of 2 reports. We have allotted 180 hours per report.

Task H5 (RFP Step 5): Review CommentsCDM will work with the AM coordinator to review comments to each draft report that are provided by NEORSD reviewers. It is assumed that the AM coordinator will coordinate the distribution of the draft and the compilation of comments.

Task H6 (RFP Step 6): Present Report to SSTCDM will be available to assist the AM Coordinator in making a presentation of the report to the SST.

If the District chooses not to have CDM present, we will dedicate the time allocated to this activity to helping prepare the AM Coordinator to make the presentation.

Task J: Project Administra onThe purpose of this task is to provide coordination between the District and the CDM team to carry out project tasks. CDM understands that we are respon-sible for the overall quality of task work, including

tasks performed by our subconsultants. CDM’s approach to Project is to provide an assistant proj-ect manager who is experienced in Asset Manage-ment supported by a local contact to assure the District’s project objectives are met. Mike Kenel (CDM) is the proposed assistant project manager. Mike’s main objective in this task will be to:

Maintain clear channels of communication between the District and the project team. Maintain direct lines of responsibility for work components.Ensure timely completion of work according to an established schedule of activities.Keep the project costs within the established budget.Provide regular checks on project technical control.Maintain and deliver project documents.

Project cost controls are provided through CDM’s computerized management information system, which has been refi ned over the years to best meet our clients’ needs.

A key element of the system is its fl exibility in producing project reports—tailored to suit indi-vidual clients—for a variety of purposes.

Weekly, biweekly, and monthly status reportsInvoices and supporting cost detail reportsMonthly fi nancial reportsAdditional or ad hoc reports

CDM’s project cost estimating and tracking system is integrated into our fi nancial accounting and payroll system, reducing administrative procedures and associated expenses to our clients.

J1: Project Organiza on and ManagementJ1.1 Master Project ScheduleThe requirements of this task will be fulfi lled in Task A1.J1.2 Monthly Invoicing

Figure 1-29. CDM had the pleasure of recommending asset management program improvements to the Portland Water Bureau. Their annual, self-produced Water System Status and Condi on report is exemplary and is recom-mended by CDM to be used as a go-by for the District’s State of Infrastructure Report


1-59

CDM will prepare monthly master invoices for the project. CDM and each of our subconsultants are responsible for assuring and certifying that invoices are correct and meet District invoicing standards for format and allowable costs. Our invoices will be submitted within two (2) months of the effort being billed unless the District authorizes an extension. A narrative summary of the effort being billed will accompany the invoices. A cumulative summary of durable goods purchased as Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for the project will be maintained on an Excel spreadsheet developed in cooperation with District staff. A hard copy of the current durable goods summary spreadsheet will be included in each Project Invoice as an appendix, identifying the item; its cost, the Project Invoice number and Project Invoice page number where the item was billed, and its current status and location. CDM will address all project budget, management and schedule issues. If District action is required, CDM will recommend a suggested course of action. J1.3 Project Contracts and Invoice LibraryCDM will maintain a complete project library and master fi les of all contract and subcontract actions and reports. CDM will develop a District-approved, PC-based master spreadsheet on which all contract and subcontract budgets, billings, contract modifi -cations and invoice actions will be tracked through the project. A hard copy of the most current spread-sheet will be submitted with proposals for budget revisions or contract modifi cations.

J2: Progress Mee ngsProgress meetings between the District and CDM will be held on a monthly basis. CDM will prepare monthly status reports to be submitted to the District at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. The project status reports will include the following information:

Current scope of work completion status versus anticipated status,Updated project schedule,

Summary of budget status,

Project information and decision needs includ-ing the anticipated source, expected response time and any issues or problems that could delay the expected response,

Anticipated tasks and accomplishments for the coming month,

Questions, comments, problematic issues and suggestions,

Identifi cation of out of scope task work, and

Invoicing issues and proposals to address such issues.

CDM will prepare agendas for progress meet-ings to be submitted with the monthly progress report and will also prepare meeting minutes to be submitted to the District for review within two (2) working days following the meeting. Once they are reviewed and approved by the District, the minutes will be distributed to the project team.

J3: Document and Data ManagementAll meeting minutes will be distributed to all meeting attendees. CDM will submit fi ve (5) hard copies of all reports and technical memorandums indicated in Tasks A-I. Hard copies of all required reports and technical memoranda will be submit-ted in 3-ring notebook format and one copy will remain unbound. Additionally, all documents and data will be submitted to the District in accordance with the standards outlined in Attachment B of the RFP. CDM realizes how proper document and data management can be used on future projects and to provide valuable information on how and why decisions were made. As discussed in Task A, CDM will host an eRoom® that provides on-line access to all documents produced during the project.


1-60

Deliverables and District Responsibili esTable 1-7 presents an overview of all tasks noted in this Technical Approach, as well as roles and responsiblities of District staff.

Task Deliverables District Responsibility/Role

FOUNDATIONAL TASKS

Task B:Corporate Risk Man-agement (RM-1)

Corporate Risk Policy and Mission Statement

Risk Management Mission Statement Risk Iden fi ca on and Register Proce-

dure Risk Quan fi ca on and Priori za on

Procedure Risk Management Internal Audit

Procedure Annual Risk Management Report

Oversee direc on of risk management program; make assignments to risk management team; gain senior leadership approval on new policies and pro-cedures; par cipate in development of procedures; integrate risk management thinking into the Districts strategic planning and capital projects process.

Subtask D-1:Documenta on of Data Storage and Repor ng in IAS, ODMS, GIS, and CMMS (IT-1)

System Documenta on Data Transforma on Diagram

Assist in data gathering; review documenta on; provide end-user perspec ve on exis ng and new systems.

Subtask D-2:Develop Plan for En-hancement of SPL Use (IT-2)

Desired State Process Maps Oracle Interface Descrip ons Revised Data Matrix Technical Specifi ca on for Repair and

Renewal Repor ng Requirements Oracle Confi gura on Implementa on

Plan

Support process mapping; provide guidance rela ve to current Oracle confi gura on; review submi als; plant reps and SSMO rep shall provide input on desired role of system.

Subtask D-3:Asset Management Systems Planning (IT-3)

Asset Management So ware Systems Strategic Plan

Compile informa on; review submi als; workgroup members shall provide input on priori es; IT support staff shall provide input on planned technical ac vi- es outside of AM.

Task I:Enhance Financial Planning Process (FIN-1)

Guidebook Capital Project Evalua on Tool

Orient to fi nancial planning process; test life-cycle planning tool; specify infl a on/discount factors; map exis ng process budge ng process in a high level of detail.

RENEWAL PLANNING

Subtask E-1:Asset Hierarchy Stan-dards (AH-1)

Asset Hierarchy Standard Asset Hierarchy Register

Par cipate in learning how to develop and modify asset hierarchy ini ally and moving forward; per-forming the manual data collec on, entry and orga-niza on of asset informa on into the Oracle WAM system; detailing the business process workfl ow for amending asset hierarchy and the corresponding staff roles and responsibili es.


1-61


Subtask E-2:Asset Hierarchy for Collec on Systems (AH-1.1)

Asset Hierarchy (AH) Register: Collec- on System

Summary Report for Collec ons Sys-tem AH that explains hierarchy and how they should be used

Training Documents

See above.

Subtask E-3:Asset Hierarchy for Treatment Plants (AH-1.2)

Asset Hierarchy Register: Easterly, Westerly, and Southerly Treatment Plants

See above.

Subtask F-1:Asset Cri cality Iden -fi ca on for Treatment Plants (AC-1)

Cri cality Determina on Procedure Treatment Plant Cri cality Log

Par cipate in defi ning the procedure by which the District will iden fy cri cal treatment plant and col-lec on system assets based on the consequence of their failure and their current condi on; iden fying the cri cality factors that will be used to assign the overall ranking; applying that procedure to the Dis-tricts facili es so that all appropriate plant assets are scored for their cri cality; genera ng a cri cality log that will list, the ranked assets, their consequence of failure, and their derived cri cality ranking; learning how to assign and update asset cri cality ranking ini- ally and moving forward; and learning how to enter

cri cality data in SPL, GIS, or any other appropriate database.

Subtask F-2:Asset Cri cality Iden -fi ca on for Collec on Systems (AC-2)

Cri cality Determina on Procedure Collec on System Cri cality Log con-

sis ng of an Access database with all Collec on Assets & Cri cality Scores

Training Documents

See above.

Subtask G-1:Repair and Renewal Repor ng Guidelines (RR-1)

Asset Renewal Standard Opera ng Procedure

Asset Renewal Analy cal Tool Annual Asset Renewal Plan

Par cipate in developing plant and collec on system staff capabili es for performing key renewal plan-ning elements such as: NEORSD’s ongoing asset condi on assessment program, and the subsequent recalcula on of asset cri cality rankings based on changed condi on status; methods and staff respon-sibili es for determining asset values, revalua ons and/or replacement costs, assigning and upda ng reasonable asset useful life es mates and/or failure curves, and also the tracking and/or es ma ng of annual asset maintenance costs; and a detailed process and corresponding staff responsibili es to be used to iden fy the most appropriate renewal op on for the targeted assets taking into account an assessment of asset and non-asset solu ons, as well as capital, maintenance, and opera on op ons.

Subtask G-2:Easterly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.1)

Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Easterly Treatment Plant Component)

See above.

Subtask G-3:Westerly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.2)

Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Westerly Treatment Plant Component)

See above.


1-62


Subtask G-4:Southerly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.3)

Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Southerly Treatment Plant Component)

See above.

Subtask G-5:Collec on Systems Re-pair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.4)

Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Collec- on System Component)

Camp Tool for Plan Implementa on Decision Tool for developing sewer

improvements

See above.

CAPITAL PROJECTS PLANNING

Task C:Capital Improvement Program (CIP-2/3)

District Input: CIP Planning Summary Current CIP Project Reviews Capital Planning Process Model Project Report and Annual Capital

Improvement Plan

Par cipate in workshops; provide a new capital plan-ning process model; apply the model.

SUPPORT TASKS

Task A: Asset Management Coordina on for 3-yr Plan (AM-1)

AM Policies and Procedures AM Project Monitoring AM Implementa on Plan and Status

Upgrades AM Data and Document Manage-

ment AM Training and Staffi ng Needs As-

sessment AM Internal Audi ng Annual AM Report

Maintain master project schedule; provide overall project coordina on; conduct 3 project audits; and facilitate AMT and SST mee ngs.

Task H:State of Infrastructure Annual Report (IR-1)

Annual Report Level of Service Infrastructure Inventory Maintenance Management Financial Requirements Asset Management Implementa on

Status

Assist in producing the report.

Task J:Project Administra on

Recipients of status reports, documents, mee ng minutes for the purposes of tracking program prog-ress as well as repor ng on that progress to others.

Subtask J-1:Project Organiza on and Management

Detailed Master Project Schedule for AM Phase I

Monthly Master Invoices Project Library and Master Files

District staff will not be used for this task.

Subtask J-2:Progress Mee ngs

Monthly Status Report Agenda for Monthly Mee ng Mee ng Minutes


Subtask J-3:Document and Data Management

Five (5) Hard Copies of all Final Deliv-erables Tasks A through I

Ensure that all Subconsultants Submit Final Reports and Data in Accordance with A achment B



1-63

2-1

S E C T I O N O N E

Qualifi ca ons

The implementation of an asset management proj-ect involves carefully orchestrating a process to be followed for accurate documentation as well as obtaining staff buy-in. Executing installation, defi n-ing and establishing user acceptance testing criteria, testing the system, and performing fi nal system acceptance are all critical elements.

Table 2-1 demonstrates CDM’s experience in asset management development and implementation, as well as key asset management components focused on in those projects.

Of these examples, we present three projects to demonstrate our ability to meet the District’s goals:

Asset Management Implementation, New York City, NY

Asset Management Implementation, Narragan-sett Bay Commission, Providence, RI

Asset Management Implementation, Columbus, OH

Moreover, we have selected these three projects to showcase because of their ability to meet the District’s goals, including the need to:

Validate the need for and justify the prioritiza-tion of capital expenditures,

Document and transfer staff knowledge about infrastructure maintenance and operational practices, and

Improve the level of client service.

S E C T I O N 2

S E C T I O N 2 Qualifi ca ons

2-2

Project Dates Cost Ass

et H

iera

rchy

Cri

calit

y

Rene

wal

Pla

nnin

g

Capi

tal P

lann

ing

Fina

ncia

l Pla

nnin

g

IT P

lann

ing

Risk

Man

agem

ent

Asset Management Implementa on, New York City, NYHighlighted in this sec on

2003 - 2009 $6 million • • • • • •

Asset Management Implementa on, Narraganse Bay, RIHighlighted in this sec on

2005 - 2007 $900,000 • • • • • • •

Asset Management Implementa on, Columbus, OHHighlighted in this sec on

2005 - ongoing $7 million • • • • •

Asset Management Program Development and Implementa- on, Collier County, FL

Improving effi ciency in infrastructure crea on and renewal ac vi es, level of service agreements and performance, and revenue genera on to support business

8/07 - 8/09 $450,000(Phase I only)

• • • •

Business and Asset Management Plans, Johnson County, KS Development of a strategic business plan and an AM plan for one of the most rapidly growing Midwest areas.

2/06 - 12/08 $910,000• • • • • • •

Asset Management Work Plan DevelopmentKansas City Water Service Dept., MODeveloping asset management program for water services department with future extension to wastewater and storm-water

2002 - ongoing $450,000

• • • • • • •

Asset Management Evalua on, Springfi eld Water and Sewer Commission, Springfi eld, MAImplementa on of CMMS and GIS, integra on of customer billing systems and fi eld-based applica ons

1/05 - ongoing $525,000

• •

Comprehensive Asset Management Program, Hillsborough County, FLDeveloped and implemented AM program to help priori ze improvements and meet regulatory drivers

2002 - 2004 $600,000

• • • • • • •

Infrastructure Asset Evalua on, City of Daytona Beach, Daytona Beach, FL Reviewed and catalog assets in support of repair and replacement

11/06 - 10/07 $437,383• • •

U lity Management So ware System, Port Authority of NY/NJ, JFK Airport, New York, NYFast-track development of AM to increase effi ciency in support of capital projects

1999 - present $5.1 million

• • •

Asset Management Program Enhancements, St. Johns County, FLEnhancements of ongoing asset inventory and assessment, work order management, asset crea on/replacement proce-dures and performance measurements

2004 - 2005 $150,000

• •

Asset Management Needs Assessment, Marco Island, FLPrepared AM strategic plan

3/05 - 9/05 $58,400 • •

Asset Management Evalua on Protocol, Sioux City, IADeveloped AM protocol to improve O&M of facili es

1/05 - 5/05 $265,000 • • • •

Capital Wastewater Collec on System Renewal and Replace-ment Program, Orange County, FLSystema c methodology to iden fy, rank and priori ze capital sewer system repairs and/or replacement projects, and develop a projected list of poten al capital projects with as-sociated cost es mates.

9/05 - 6/07 $125,381


2-3

Asset Management Implementa on, New York CityNEW YORK CITY, NY — CDM developed a prioritization and risk mitigation program to help New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) address its aging infrastruc-ture. The asset management system for the Bureau of Wastewater Treatment is complete; programs for the Bureau of Water Supply and the Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations are in development. Based on SPL software installed by CDM and Ora-cle, the asset management program gives NYCDEP the means to develop their own defensible 10-year plan for infrastructure improvements.

To address the needs of the City’s aging system, CDM developed a step-by-step risk mitigation program to serve as a blueprint and checklist for extensive repairs and upgrades.

Step 1: Prepare a comprehensive list of assets for prioritization. The team focused on NYCDEP’s existing projects, evaluating the criticality of each project, and organizing them into a comprehensive hierarchy in a database that allowed the data to be sorted, measured, and manipulated for reporting results.

Step 2: Organize business rules and measurement tools. NYCDEP and CDM stan-dardized the process for recording data. They then prepared and adopted measurement tools:

Severity, which is a relative measure of the consequence of failure based on regulatory, legal, fi nancial, environmental, and opera-tional considerations and on maintenance or ability to meet future capacity. This is measured on a scale of 1-10, with the latter being the worst case

−

The large turn-key implementa on of Oracle UWAM (formerly Syner-gen) for New York City has benefi ted from extensive end-user training for NYCDEP staff .

“Your Firm’s excellent work has provided the majority of the backup for our budget requests and jus fi ca ons… CDM was invaluable in the iden fi ca on of future asset management needs.”

—James G. Mueller P.E., Director, Facili es Planning and Design NYCDEP


2-4

Probability of failure, which is the likelihood of an asset to fail to perform its required func-tion. This is also measured on a scale of 1-10.A risk matrix, which demonstrates the appli-cation of risk scores to determine an asset risk index value. The resulting scores relate to a risk matrix table that is used to determine the ARI value in a range between 1 and 100.

The projects that fall into the highest priority category are identifi ed as needing the most immediate repair; yellow are moderate risk, and green have the least risk of failure.

Step 3: Review the list of long-term improve-ment objectives. NYCDEP and its engineering consultants evaluated each facility and identifi ed long-term, strategic objectives.

Step 4: Visit each facility. Site visits were conducted at each NYCDEP facility and all fi ndings were recorded by asset aligned by either severity or probability of failure. CDM met with staff several times to assist in identifying the issues that weren’t apparent through a visual inspection. The fi ndings were recorded as part of the rationale for scoring an asset’s condition.

Step 5: Create a database using the results of Steps 3 and 4. The database will provide a complete picture of the potential risk of failure and the resulting amount of public and/or regula-tory risk exposure. The system includes:

−

−

A common hierarchy of NYCDEP assets,Identifi cation of individual assets/process elements,The rationale for determining an ARI value that portrays individual asset priority,A proposed project for correcting the prob-lem,A current year’s construction cost estimate, andAn escalated planning-level construction cost estimate based on the proposed year of construction.

Step 6: Present results. The database results were then presented to senior management and senior operations personnel for validation at a common meeting. This facilitated a common understanding of each facility’s challenges in relation to other comparable facilities and to get consensus on the process followed for deter-mining the level of risk exposure for each asset.

The asset management system produces standard-ized reports, fl ow schematics, and maps to help NYCDEP quickly set priorities and assess risks. Based in large on the risk-prioritization project, the Offi ce of Management and Budget raised the ini-tial 10-year budget from $17 billion to $24 billion. The NYCDEP has adopted the risk-prioritization process as the driver for this multi-year budget to focus on the highest risk assets fi rst.

−

−

−

−

−

−

Project Start and End Dates2003-2009

Consultant Fees: $1.4 million

Overall Project Budget: $6 mil-lion

CDM’s Role: Implementa on of a Computerized Maintenance Management System, related staff training

Personnel Involved / RolePhil Chernin / Technical Director

Joe Ridge / Risk Economics

Ed LeClair / Oracle/SPL Implementa on

Warren Kurtz / DeputyCommissioner

ReferenceJim Mueller,Chief, Maintenance Manage-ment Sec on, NYCDEP718-595-4845

Project Specifi cs


2-5

CDM has been assisting Narragansett Bay Commis-sion (NBC) in the evaluation and implementation of an Asset Management Program for nearly three years. The project is now in its third phase, focusing on completing the condition assessment and valu-ation for almost 60 percent of NBC’s assets. The previous phase involved developing pilot processes for valuation, condition assessment and modifi ca-tion of the NBC’s CMMS to accommodate needs.

NBC’s budget now refl ects the repair and replace-ment needs identifi ed through the pilot phase and will be expanded over this fi scal year. CDM developed and implemented an appropriate asset management program that provides a more detailed timely assessment of the condition of NBC’s assets, identifi es assets most likely to fail based on condi-tion and age, and ensures that suffi cient allowances have been included in the budget to meet ongoing repair and replacement needs. We also standardized an approach for assessing the condition of NBC as-sets and then using that to determine their estimated remaining useful life.

CDM has led NBC focus groups to develop strate-gies in key asset management program areas. These work groups were critical to identifying weaknesses in current processes and obtaining employee accep-tance of signifi cantly modifi ed business processes:

Asset Hierarchy / CriticalityAsset Condition

Maintenance practicesCMMS implementation / modifi cationAsset valuation

These task groups worked with CDM to develop the basic approach and detailed protocols that were piloted on the initial 25 percent of NBC’s assets. In the current phase of the work, the procedures are being examined and modifi ed as appropriate.

The last aspect of this project has been to develop an asset management tool that interfaces with the NBC’s CMMS to produce a repair and replace-ment budget and priority list as well as other man-agement reports.

Asset Management Implementa on, Narraganse Bay Commission

Project Start and End Dates2005-2007

Consultant Fees: $900,000

Overall Project Budget: $900,000

CDM’s Role: Evalua on and Implementa on of an Asset Management Program

Personnel Involved / RoleJoe Ridge / Project Manager

Ed LeClair / Assistant Project Manager

Marius Basson / Strategy Task Manager

ReferenceRay Marshall, P.E. Execu ve Director, NBC One Service RoadProvidence RI 02905401-461-8848, ext 321

Project Specifi cs

“CDM’s people are highly skilled and extremely responsive. Through all phases of work, they are perceived as good communicators who successfully implement projects on schedule and within cost. Their work stands for itself in terms of project cost savings. NBC sees CDM as their premier fi rm for complex projects.”

— Ray Marshall, Execu ve Director, NBC


2-6

Asset Management Implementa on, Columbus, OhioCDM developed a unique long-term, risk-based renewal program for the City of Columbus. To help develop, categorize, and prioritize improvements, CDM developed a custom-built geographic infor-mation system (GIS) application that links digital closed caption television (CCTV) inspection data in a pipeline assessment certifi cation program (PACP) database to GIS pipes by way of a customizable interactive decision tool.

The system features:

National Association of Sewer System Compa-nies (NASSCO) PACP Database. The PACP database houses CCTV inspection data, digital CCTV video links, and digital photographs. This comprehensive and reliable sewer condi-tion database can be used to plan and priori-tize improvements to its wastewater collection systems.

“With great apprecia on, I want to tell you and anyone concerned about the stellar work provided by the CDM Team for this project. From the beginning, the CDM team has proven capable to handle each of the huge project tasks; thorough in devising and implemen ng methods to accomplish associated tasks; and willing to entertain new ideas to aid and extend the accuracy and applicability of the work they were tasked to perform.”

— C. Timothy Fallara, P.E., Program/Project Manager for the

Sewer Systems Engineering Sec on of DOSD


2-7

GIS. ESRI ArcMap software is utilized as the engine for this tool, and it enables users to obtain immediate information about the locations of defects and proposed improvements. This visual output will enable users to rank criticality of infrastructure problems and recommended solu-tions.

Decision Tree. The decision tree provides a standard evaluation process for users to query the PACP sewer defect database, and develop and prioritize improvement projects. The tree is a logical sequence of yes or no queries of the database to develop structural and/or opera-tion and maintenance recommendations for each pipe segment.

The decision tree application is organized in several sections, including:

Defi nitions: Defi nes whether the defects in a pipeline are signifi cant enough to require an improvement/solution.

Decisions: Recommends a solution for each pipe segment based upon identifi ed problem.

Prioritization: Rates pipeline improvements based on criticality (impact of failure such as effects to public, traffi c, environment).

Engineer overrides: Allows the engineer to override the automated recommendation based upon engineering judgement.

Project Start and End Dates2005-ongoing

Consultant Fees: $7 million

Overall Project Budget: $7 million

CDM’s Role: Asset Assessment, Process Development, Alterna ve Development and Evalua on of Improvements

Personnel Involved / RoleJohn Schroeder / Project Manager

ReferenceC. Timothy Fallara, P.E.Engineer/Project Manager1250 Fairwood Ave.Columbus, OH 43206Tel: 614 645-6728 [email protected]

Project Specifi cs

Pipeline data was collected using NASSCO standards and entered into a PACP database. Once updated, the informa on was imme-diately available to system users and could be used to produce a visual map of infrastructure challenges and recommended solu ons.

Recommendations: The last section of the tree allows the user to group all improvements into cat-egories such as replacement, rehabilitation, repair or cleaning/inspection.

The tool has been successfully applied to major improvement projects with PACP data. However, this automated decision tool is a powerful way to develop prioritized solutions in a GIS environment that can be easily customized to any asset manage-ment program.

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish

Asset management Implementation Phase 1 126.14 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Foundational Tasks 101 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 11/16/10

Task B 17.43 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 8/19/08

Task B 17.43 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 8/19/08

88 B Corporate Risk Management (RM-1) 17.43 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 8/19/08

89 B.1 Establishment of Risk Policy 15 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/21/08

90 B.2 Designate Risk Manager & Team 5 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/7/08

91 B.3 Risk Identification & Registry 40 days Mon 3/10/08 Fri 5/2/08

92 B.4 Risk Quantification & Prioritization 40 days Mon 3/10/08 Fri 5/2/08

93 B.5 Continuous Improvement and Performance Metrics 15 days Mon 5/5/08 Fri 5/23/08

94 B.6 Annual Management Report 22 days Fri 5/23/08 Tue 6/24/08

95 B.7 Training 25 days Wed 6/25/08 Tue 7/29/08

96 B.8 Internal Auditing 15 days Wed 7/30/08 Tue 8/19/08

Task D 101 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 11/16/10

Subtask D-1 16.56 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 8/11/08

8 D-1 Documentation of Data Storage and Reporting in IAS,ODMS, GIS and CMMS (IT-1)

16.56 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 8/11/08

9 D-1.1 Establish Working Group 15 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/21/08

10 D-1.2 Enhance Data Matrix 40 days Fri 3/7/08 Fri 5/2/08

11 D-1.3 Characterize System Functions 50 days Fri 3/14/08 Fri 5/23/08

12 D-1.4 Document Standard Reports 15 days Fri 3/21/08 Fri 4/11/08

13 D-1.5 Summarize Adhoc Reports 30 days Fri 4/11/08 Fri 5/23/08

14 D-1.6 Data Transfer/Transformation Map 30 days Fri 5/23/08 Fri 7/4/08

15 D-1.7 Produce Application Summary Reports 40 days Fri 5/23/08 Fri 7/18/08

16 D-1.8 Executive Summary 16 days Fri 7/18/08 Mon 8/11/08

Subtask D-2 26.29 wks Tue 6/23/09 Mon 3/8/10

17 D-2 Develop Plan for Enhancement of SPL Use (IT-2) 26.29 wks Tue 6/23/09 Mon 3/8/10

18 D-2.1 Review Existing Information 5 days Tue 6/23/09 Tue 6/30/09

19 D-2.2 Review Repair and Renewal Reporting Specifications 15 days Tue 6/30/09 Tue 7/21/09

20 D-2.3 Process Interviews 22 days Tue 7/21/09 Thu 8/20/09

21 D-2.4 Prepare SPL Process Mapping 22 days Thu 8/20/09 Mon 9/21/09

22 D-2.5 Prepare Condition Process Mapping 22 days Mon 9/21/09 Wed 10/21/09

23 D-2.6 Validation Sessions 22 days Wed 10/21/09 Fri 11/20/09

24 D-2.7 Revise Data Matrix 22 days Fri 11/20/09 Tue 12/22/09

25 D-2.8 Determine SPL Technical Requirements 22 days Tue 12/22/09 Thu 1/21/10

26 D-2.9 Produce Implementation Plan 22 days Thu 1/21/10 Mon 2/22/10

B Corporate Risk Management (RM-1)

B.1 Establishment of Risk Policy

B.2 Designate Risk Manager & Team

B.3 Risk Identification & Registry

B.4 Risk Quantification & Prioritization

B.5 Continuous Improvement and Performance Metrics

B.6 Annual Management Report

B.7 Training

B.8 Internal Auditing

-1 Documentation of Data Storage and Reporting in IAS, ODMS, GIS and CMMS (IT-1)

-1.1 Establish Working Group

D-1.2 Enhance Data Matrix

D-1.3 Characterize System Functions

D-1.4 Document Standard Reports

D-1.5 Summarize Adhoc Reports

D-1.6 Data Transfer/Transformation Map

D-1.7 Produce Application Summary Reports

D-1.8 Executive Summary

D-2 Develop Plan for Enhancement of SPL Use (IT-2)

D-2.1 Review Existing Information

D-2.2 Review Repair and Renewal Reporting Specifications

D-2.3 Process Interviews

D-2.4 Prepare SPL Process Mapping

D-2.5 Prepare Condition Process Mapping

D-2.6 Validation Sessions

D-2.7 Revise Data Matrix

D-2.8 Determine SPL Technical Requirements

D-2.9 Produce Implementation Plan

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep2009 2010 2011

Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Page 1

Project: NEORSD Rev 1_AE_01_23_08 Rev PCDate: Thu 1/24/08


27 D-2.10 Cost Estimate 10 days Mon 2/22/10 Mon 3/8/10

Subtask D-3 15 wks Wed 6/23/10 Tue 11/16/10

28 D-3 Asset Management System Planning (IT-3) 15 wks Wed 6/23/10 Tue 11/16/10

29 D-3.1 Conduct User Requirements Survey 40 days Wed 6/23/10 Tue 8/17/10

30 D-3.2 Develop Asset Management Systems Vision and ValueStatements

10 days Tue 8/17/10 Tue 8/31/10

31 D-3.3 Conduct SWOT Analysis & Establish Strategic Goals 10 days Tue 8/31/10 Tue 9/14/10

32 D-3.4 Hold Oracle Utility Systems Eductation Day 5 days Tue 9/14/10 Tue 9/21/10

33 D-3.5 Develop Summary of AM System Improvement Requirements 10 days Tue 9/21/10 Tue 10/5/10

34 D-3.6 Conduct Project Prioritization Workshops 10 days Tue 10/5/10 Tue 10/19/10

35 D-3.7 Produce AM Systems Plan 20 days Tue 10/19/10 Tue 11/16/10

Task I 28 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 12/1/08

Task I 28 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 12/1/08

118 I Enhance Financial Planning Process (FIN-1) 28 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 12/1/08

119 I.1 Identify and Track Current Related Business Process andData Sources

20 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/28/08

120 I.2 Replacement Valuation Protocols 66 days Mon 3/31/08 Mon 6/30/08

121 I.3 Develop Lifecycle Cost Analysis Tool 44 days Tue 7/1/08 Fri 8/29/08

122 I.4 Modify Budgetary Procedures 33 days Mon 9/1/08 Wed 10/15/08

123 I.5 Develop Guidebook 33 days Thu 10/16/08 Mon 12/1/08

Capital Projects Planning 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

Task C 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

Task C 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

1 C Capital Project Validation and Prioritization (CIP-2/3) 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

2 C.1 Executive Review of CIP Issues & Objectives 22 days Tue 8/19/08 Thu 9/18/08

3 C.2 Review of Current Capital Projects Planning Process 22 days Fri 9/19/08 Mon 10/20/08

4 C.3 Characterize Current CIP Projects - Select 2008 CIP Projects 22 days Tue 10/21/08 Wed 11/19/08

5 C.4 Develop Capital Planning Process Model 44 days Thu 11/20/08 Tue 1/20/09

6 C.5 Application of Capital Process Planning Model to 2008 CIPProjects

135 days Mon 5/4/09 Fri 11/6/09

7 C.6 Project Report 44 days Mon 11/9/09 Thu 1/7/10

Renewal Planning 113.27 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 3/16/11

Task E 48.84 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 6/23/09

Subtask E-1 26.84 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 11/19/08

43 E-1 Asset Hierarchy Development Standards (AH-1) 26.84 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 11/19/08

44 E-1.1 Identify a Standards Development Workgroup 22 days Mon 3/3/08 Tue 4/1/08

45 E-1.2 Identify Asset Types 22 days Wed 4/2/08 Thu 5/1/08

46 E-1.3 Map the Asset Hierarchy Register Process 44 days Fri 5/2/08 Wed 7/2/08

D-2.10 Cost Estimate

D-3 Asset Management System Planning (IT-3)

D-3.1 Conduct User Requirements Survey

D-3.2 Develop Asset Management Systems Vision and Value Statements

D-3.3 Conduct SWOT Analysis & Establish Strategic Goals

D-3.4 Hold Oracle Utility Systems Eductation Day

D-3.5 Develop Summary of AM System Improvement Requirements

D-3.6 Conduct Project Prioritization Workshops

D-3.7 Produce AM Systems Plan

I Enhance Financial Planning Process (FIN-1)

I.1 Identify and Track Current Related Business Process and Data Sources

I.2 Replacement Valuation Protocols

I.3 Develop Lifecycle Cost Analysis Tool

I.4 Modify Budgetary Procedures

I.5 Develop Guidebook

C Capital Project Validation and Prioritization (CIP-2/3)

C.1 Executive Review of CIP Issues & Objectives

C.2 Review of Current Capital Projects Planning Process

C.3 Characterize Current CIP Projects - Select 2008 CIP Projects

C.4 Develop Capital Planning Process Model

C.5 Application of Capital Process Planning Model to 2008 CIP Projects

C.6 Project Report

-1 Asset Hierarchy Development Standards (AH-1)

-1.1 Identify a Standards Development Workgroup

E-1.2 Identify Asset Types

E-1.3 Map the Asset Hierarchy Register Process


Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Page 2



47 E-1.4 Develop and Map the SPL and GIS Initiation Process 44 days Fri 7/18/08 Thu 9/18/08

48 E-1.5 Asset Hierarchy Standard Revisions 22 days Thu 9/18/08 Mon 10/20/08

49 E-1.6 Training Needs Assesments 22 days Mon 10/20/08 Wed 11/19/08

Subtask E-2 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09

50 E-2 Asset Hierarchy for Collection Systems (AH-1.1) 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09

51 E-2.1 Identify Evaluation Team 22 days Wed 11/19/08 Fri 12/19/08

52 E-2.2 Hierarchy Team Training 44 days Fri 12/19/08 Thu 2/19/09

53 E-2.3 Assignment of Team Tasks 22 days Thu 2/19/09 Mon 3/23/09

54 E-2.4 Hierarchy Evaluations 66 days Mon 3/23/09 Tue 6/23/09

Subtask E-3 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09

55 E-3 Asset Hierarchy Development forTreatment Plants(AH-1.2)

22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09

56 E-3.1 Identify Team 22 days Wed 11/19/08 Fri 12/19/08

57 E-3.2 Hierarchy Team Training 44 days Fri 12/19/08 Thu 2/19/09

58 E-3.3 Assignment of Team Tasks 22 days Thu 2/19/09 Mon 3/23/09

59 E-3.4 Conduct Hierarchy Evaluations 66 days Mon 3/23/09 Tue 6/23/09

Task F 33 wks Wed 11/19/08 Thu 10/8/09

Subtask F-1 33 wks Wed 11/19/08 Thu 10/8/09

36 F-1 Asset Criticality Identification for Treatment Plants (AC-1) 33 wks Wed 11/19/08 Thu 10/8/09

37 F-1.1 Identify Stakeholders and Technical Experts 33 days Wed 11/19/08 Mon 1/5/09

38 F-1.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria 33 days Mon 1/5/09 Thu 2/19/09

39 F-1.3 Data Needs Assessment 33 days Thu 2/19/09 Tue 4/7/09

40 F-1.4 Map Criticality Determination Process 33 days Tue 4/7/09 Fri 5/22/09

41 F-1.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team 33 days Fri 5/22/09 Wed 7/8/09

42 F-1.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment 66 days Wed 7/8/09 Thu 10/8/09

Subtask F-2 25.34 wks Wed 11/19/08 Mon 7/27/09

97 F-2 Asset Criticality Identification for Collection Systems(AC-2)

25.34 wks Wed 11/19/08 Mon 7/27/09

98 F-2.1 Identify Staff Stakeholders and Technical Experts 22 days Wed 11/19/08 Fri 12/19/08

99 F-2.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria 22 days Fri 12/19/08 Tue 1/20/09

100 F-2.3 Data Needs Assessment 22 days Tue 1/20/09 Thu 2/19/09

101 F-2.4 Map Criticality Determination Process 22 days Thu 2/19/09 Mon 3/23/09

102 F-2.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team 22 days Mon 3/23/09 Wed 4/22/09

103 F-2.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment 66 days Fri 4/24/09 Mon 7/27/09

Task G 113.27 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 3/16/11

Subtask G-1 40.38 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 4/1/09

104 G-1 Repair and Renewal Reporting Guidelines (RR-1) 40.38 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 4/1/09

E-1.4 Develop and Map the SPL and GIS Initiation Process

E-1.5 Asset Hierarchy Standard Revisions

E-1.6 Training Needs Assesments

E-2 Asset Hierarchy for Collection Systems (AH-1.1)

E-2.1 Identify Evaluation Team

E-2.2 Hierarchy Team Training

E-2.3 Assignment of Team Tasks

E-2.4 Hierarchy Evaluations

E-3 Asset Hierarchy Development forTreatment Plants (AH-1.2)

E-3.1 Identify Team

E-3.2 Hierarchy Team Training

E-3.3 Assignment of Team Tasks

E-3.4 Conduct Hierarchy Evaluations

F-1 Asset Criticality Identification for Treatment Plants (AC-1)

F-1.1 Identify Stakeholders and Technical Experts

F-1.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria

F-1.3 Data Needs Assessment

F-1.4 Map Criticality Determination Process

F-1.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team

F-1.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment

F-2 Asset Criticality Identification for Collection Systems (AC-2)

F-2.1 Identify Staff Stakeholders and Technical Experts

F-2.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria

F-2.3 Data Needs Assessment

F-2.4 Map Criticality Determination Process

F-2.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team

F-2.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment

-1 Repair and Renewal Reporting Guidelines (RR-1)


Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Page 3



105 G-1.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Mon 3/3/08 Tue 4/1/08

106 G-1.2 Develop Asset Condition Assessment Plan 22 days Fri 3/21/08 Tue 4/22/08

107 G-1.3 Asset Valuation Plan 44 days Tue 7/1/08 Fri 8/29/08

108 G-1.4 Develop and Map Process 44 days Thu 8/28/08 Wed 10/29/08

109 G-1.5 Develop and Asset Analytical Tool 88 days Wed 10/29/08 Mon 3/2/09

110 G-1.6 Develop Annual Asset Renewal Plan Template 44 days Thu 1/29/09 Wed 4/1/09

Subtask G-2 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11

60 G-2 Easterly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.1) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11

61 G-2.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Thu 10/8/09 Mon 11/9/09

62 G-2.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training 22 days Mon 11/9/09 Wed 12/9/09

63 G-2.3 Assign Tasks 22 days Wed 12/9/09 Fri 1/8/10

64 G-2.4 Input Data 132 days Fri 1/8/10 Tue 7/13/10

65 G-2.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data 132 days Tue 7/13/10 Thu 1/13/11

66 G-2.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal Plan 44 days Thu 1/13/11 Wed 3/16/11


67 G-3 Westerly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.2) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11








74 G-4 Southerly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.3) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11





79 G-4.5 Analysis Reports and Summarize Data 132 days Tue 7/13/10 Thu 1/13/11



81 G-5 Collection Systems Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.4) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11




-1.1 Identify Project Team

G-1.2 Develop Asset Condition Assessment Plan

G-1.3 Asset Valuation Plan

G-1.4 Develop and Map Process

G-1.5 Develop and Asset Analytical Tool

G-1.6 Develop Annual Asset Renewal Plan Template

G-2 Easterly Repair and Renewal Pl

G-2.1 Identify Project Team

G-2.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training

G-2.3 Assign Tasks

G-2.4 Input Data

G-2.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data

G-2.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal

G-3 Westerly Repair and Renewal Pl



G-3.3 Assign Tasks

G-3.4 Input Data



G-4 Southerly Repair and Renewal



G-4.3 Assign Tasks

G-4.4 Input Data

G-4.5 Analysis Reports and Summarize Data


G-5 Collection Systems Repair and



G-5.3 Assign Tasks


Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Page 4






Support Tasks 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task A 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task A 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

128 A Asset Management Coordination for 3-yr Plan (AM-1) 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

129 A.1 Develop and Monitor Schedule 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

130 A.2 Establish Document Standards and Maintain DocumentLibrary

882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

131 A.3 Develop and Maintain Labor and Expense Monitoring System 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

132 A.4 Monitor Project Scope and Outcome Achievement 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

133 A.5 Hold AMT Meetings 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

134 A.6 Conduct SST Briefings 761 days Wed 8/20/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task H 12.85 wks Wed 3/16/11 Wed 7/20/11

Task H 12.85 wks Wed 3/16/11 Wed 7/20/11

111 H State of Infrastructure Annual Report (IR-1) 12.85 wks Wed 3/16/11 Wed 7/20/11

112 H.1 Report Outline 5 days Wed 3/16/11 Wed 3/23/11

113 H.2 Identify Data Sources 20 days Wed 3/16/11 Wed 4/13/11

114 H.3 Procure Consultant Services 40 days Wed 3/30/11 Wed 5/25/11

115 H.4 Draft Report 20 days Wed 5/25/11 Wed 6/22/11

116 H.5 Review Comments 20 days Wed 6/22/11 Wed 7/20/11

117 H.6 Present Report to SST 20 days Wed 6/22/11 Wed 7/20/11

Task J 126 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task J 126 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

124 J Project Administration 126 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

125 J.1 Project Organization and Management 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

126 J.2 Progress Meetings 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

127 J.3 Documents and Data Management 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

G-5.4 Input Data



A Asset Ma

A.1 Develop an

A.2 Establish D

A.3 Develop an

A.4 Monitor Pr

A.5 Hold AMT

A.6 Conduct S

H State of I

H.1 Report Outline

H.2 Identify Data Sources

H.3 Procure Consultant

H.4 Draft Report

H.5 Review Co

H.6 Present Re

J Project A

J.1 Project Org

J.2 Progress M

J.3 Documents


Task

Split

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Page 5


4-1

S E C T I O N O N E

Resume of Project Manager

To provide continuity of service with a trusted, seasoned, proven project manager, we propose Phil Chernin to lead Phase I of the District’s as-set management implementation. Phil led CDM’s team during the development of the District’s asset management proposal. As such, he is eager to guide the implementation of the program, working with

familiar District staff and CDM team members, as well as facilitating discussions and engaging the full breadth of District personnel.

This section presents Phil’s resume as well as a recent interview with Phil on the evolution of CDM’s asset management program.

S E C T I O N 4

Mr. Chernin is a management consultant with specialized expertise in infrastructure asset man-agement, business process analysis, and technology planning. He is responsible for providing enterprise business consulting services to public, private and non-profi t clients throughout the globe, assisting organizations in meeting their complex, interdis-ciplinary business, organizational, fi nancial and engineering challenges.

Representative project management experience follows.

Utilities. Mr. Chernin is the Technical Services Manager (TSM) for the New York City risk mitiga-tion and infrastructure investment program. This program of continuous improvement in the renewal and capital planning processes of the Department of Environmental Protection produced a fi rst-ever (fi scal year 2008), risk-based project prioritization scheme for repair and renewal of roughly $28 bil-lion of installed water and wastewater assets. Mr. Chernin established the prioritization framework and decision-making process and oversaw develop-ment of specialized software that manages program data, produces risk profi les and establishes recom-mended project priorities based upon program costs and risk-mitigation benefi ts.

Mr. Chernin served as Project Manager for an Asset Management Improvement Program (AMIP) for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD). The plan was a collabora-tive effort between District staff, management and CDM, resulting in a 10-year plan for continu-ous improvement in asset management practice throughout all levels of the organization.

Mr. Chernin served as Project Director for an infrastructure renewal and capital projects priori-tization program for the Colorado Springs Utili-ties Water Department. This project produced the Utility’s fi rst 50-year horizon infrastructure renew-al plan, which is now serving as the template for annual state of infrastructure reports planned for release by the wastewater and electric utilities.

Mr. Chernin served as Project Director for an asset management strategic plan for the Collier County, FL Department of Public Utilities. This 3-year program includes coordination of County Finance Department’s SAPs Preventive Maintenance module implementation with the requirements of the water, wastewater, solid waste and reclaimed water utility infrastructure management practices.

For the Metropolitan District Commission of Hartford, CT, Mr. Chernin served as Task Manager

Philip R. Chernin, Project Manager

S E C T I O N 4

S E C T I O N 4 Resume of Project Manager

4-2

Educa onB.S. - Civil Engineering, Tu s University, 1982

Registra onProfessional Engineer: Massachuse s (lapsed)

Professional Ac vi esWater Environment Federa on

American Water Works Associa on

Geospa al Informa on Technology Associa on (GITA)

Past Director, New England Region, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

Interna onal Water Associa on

Urban and Regional Informa on Systems Associa on (URISA)

for development of a strategic plan for the use of geographic information systems data and software to support the $1.6 billion consent-decree-driven Clean Water Program. In Cincinnati, Ohio, Mr. Chernin provided technical review for business process documentation to guide management of the CSO Control Program of the Metropolitan Sewer Department.

Mr. Chernin managed a business process analy-sis and systems needs assessment project for the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. The project modeled the construction-related business practices of this municipal utility serving about 700,000 customers in Boston, Massachusetts. Thirty-three performance improvement recommendations were made including the development of a new unit devoted to infrastructure asset management and the implementation of a construction management system.

Mr. Chernin provided consultation to the Taunton Municipal Light Department on fi eld data collection methods and creating an asset inventory that will integrate with SAP-R3. He established the quality management program for the planning, procurement and implementation of a new customer information and billing system (CIS) for the Reading Munici-pal Light Department. Mr. Chernin managed the design, implementation and upgrade of the Massa-chusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) GIS program, including the automation and inventory of approximately 4,000 miles of water and sewer assets.

Airports. Mr. Chernin was the Technical Director for an 18-month design, development and imple-mentation program for an underground asset man-agement system for John F. Kennedy International Airport. The system – which won the year 2001 Platinum Award of the New York Association of Consulting Engineers – manages approximately 2 million attribute records on about 120,000 indi-vidual structures, delivering desktop access through a browser interface to an Oracle database of un-derground utilities. The project included compre-

hensive, organizational visioning and alignment exercises resulting in the establishment of a new unit responsible for acquisition and dissemination of underground asset data to a 500-person staff of design engineers, maintenance management per-sonnel and construction supervisors.

Mr. Chernin served as Deputy Project Manager for the Logan Utilities Master Plan, for which he developed planning criteria, established an asset register, created statistically-based asset condition assessments, executed capacity models and evalu-ated alignment alternatives for capital improve-ments of 6 utility systems (water, stormwater, wastewater, electric, gas and steam) to accommo-date growth and expansion of the Airport.

Industry. Mr. Chernin is the Service Delivery Manager of the Sewer Wastewater Information System (SWIS) for a confi dential Fortune 100 cli-ent. SWIS is a decision support system that helps establish repair and replacement priorities for underground assets carrying industrial wastewater and hazardous waste. Mr. Chernin is responsible to the Kodak Supplier Relationship Board to report on CDM performance as the outsource agent for this mission-critical program. For the Campus Consortium for Environmental Excel-


4-3

lence, Mr. Chernin directed a project to produce executive guidance on the application of fi eld force automation to improve the performance of environ-mental health and safety (EHS) compliance man-agement programs.

State Programs. Mr. Chernin designed and man-aged development of the Clean States Initiative Matter Ranking and Compliance Management system for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This decision-support system manages confi dential information for all state agencies regarding the en-vironmental condition of thousands of state proper-ties, providing scientifi cally justifi able means of prioritizing compliance management efforts.

Municipal Systems. Mr. Chernin was Project Man-ager for an Asset/Work Management Assessment project for the City of Philadelphia. The project produced an implementation program for integrat-ing the work management activities, processes and software tools among the Streets Department, Water Department, Public Property the Fairmont Parks Commission and Licensing and Inspection Services. The work involved extensive facilitation and collaborative decision-making and included the development of an analytical decision-support tool to guide city leaders through technically, fi nancially and politically complex decision-making.

Mr. Chernin has completed approximately 50 municipal information technology (IT) projects for small communities and large cities. Representa-tive projects include evaluating and selecting a permit management system and award-winning (Year 2000-best municipal GIS in New England, American Congress of Survey and Mapping) GIS program for the Town of Brookline, MA; designing, converting and deploying a land records manage-ment system for Monroe County, NY; and creating a digital mapping system for the City of Elgin, IL. Mr. Chernin has managed over a dozen GIS data conversion projects; building cadastral, infrastruc-ture, environmental, geologic, planimetric and photogrammetric databases at source scales of be-tween 1”= 40’ and 1”= 20,000’.

Publica ons/Presenta onsChernin, P.R. and Meakin, “How to Load Your Cargo When the Train Has Le the Sta on: Developing New York City’s Water and Sewer Infrastructure Asset Management Program.” Asset Management Sustains Infrastructure: New England Water Envi-ronment Associa on Annual Conference, Boston, MA. January 29, 2007 (pending)

Chernin, P.R., “Remarks on the State of Asset Man-agement in the United States” UIM Conference Series: Asset Management for Water and Waste-water Systems, Washington, D.C. November, 2006

Chernin, P.R. , and Mueller, “the Language of Risk: Responsibly Managing Infrastructure Risk Through Informed Decision-making”, Underground Infra-structure Management, November/December, 2006

Chernin, P.R., “System, Organiza on and People Issues in Successful Asset management”, presented at the Asset Management Approach to Sustainable Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Dublin, Ireland, June 2006

Chernin, P.R., “Is Your U lity Ready for the Technol-ogy Challenges of the Future”, presented at the AWWA Water Industry Leadership Conference, Manchester, NH, April 2006

Chernin, P.R., “Managing Organiza onal Change”, presented at the Northeast ARCInfo User’s Group, June 2004

Chernin, P.R and Burna, “IT Strategic Planning: Naviga ng Treacherous Waters”, Instructor IACET accredited course. AWWA/WEF IMTECH; Santa Clara, CA, April 2003.

Chernin, P.R., “Understanding Asset Management” Instructor IACET accredited course, CDM Univer-sity; Dedham, MA, October 2002

Chernin, P.R., Plante, S.V., Peterson, C.B., “Manag-er’s Guide to Successful GIS Implementa on”. In-structors IACET accredited course, CDM University; Pi sburgh, PA, May 2001

Chernin, P.R., “Scale, Cost and Accuracy: Under-standing the Basics of GIS” Public Works, May 1999

Smargiassi, S., G.J. Vicens, P.R. Chernin, “GIS Helps Water Supplier Meet Objec ves Cost Eff ec vely.” Public Works, February 1996.


4-4

Twenty-six years ago, Phil Chernin joined CDM upon gradua ng from Tu s University with a degree in civil engineering. He began his career in water resources, taking special interest in the applica on of geographic informa on systems (GIS) to water resources management. The combina on of the two capitalized on Phil’s strengths: analyzing data while visualizing the big picture. He developed GIS programs with databases for sewer system evalua on surveys, system capacity analyses, and renewal planning.

Founding a Strategic Ini a veWhen businesses began to develop state-of-the-art applica ons to help increase their profi tability, Phil applied this concept to our clients’ opera ons – primarily municipal u li es who faced increasing pressure to fulfi ll customer needs while maintain-ing and improving aging infrastructure. Phil has developed and implemented asset management programs na onwide, working with many of the team players you will read about in Sec on 5.

We’ve grown from helping u li es perform bench-marking analyses and organiza onal assessments to helping massive u li es – such as the New York City Department of Environmental Protec- on Priori za on and Risk Management Program

– develop programs to evaluate their facili es and project fi nancial needs to support short- and long-term projects.

“In today’s high-tech environment, turning large volumes of data into useful informa on is the cornerstone of success,” Phil said. “Asset manage-ment systems can turn volumes of data into pow-erful tools for decision-making and risk minimiza- on.”

On Nov. 27, 2006, Phil was invited to provide plenary remarks at the na on’s fi rst symposium on the “State of Asset Management in the United States” in Washington DC. This symposium, sponsored by Benjamin Communica ons and the Journal of Underground Infrastructure Manage-ment, was held coincident with the publica on of

Phil’s UIM ar cle, “The Language of Risk,” which explored the importance of risk management in jus fying capital expenditure decisions in public organiza ons.

Knowledge TransferOne of the most effi cient benefi ts of asset manage-ment is the ability to capture decades of knowledge that may exist only in the minds of employees.

“The exci ng thing about asset management is that it starts organiza ons on the path to true knowl-edge reten on,” Phil said. “In a me as we are in now where there’s massive genera onal change in leadership and there’s a huge amount of informa- on that needs to be captured, this is an exci ng

proposi on for these organiza ons because they not only have a reason to collect and manage this informa on, but they have a process in which they can start slowly, modestly, and inexpensively.”

An Educa onal Management StylePhil is passionate about his job and it is evident when he takes me to explain informa on man-agement processes to his client-leadership teams. Clients rou nely compliment his ability to describe a complex process in a manner that is understand-able to the everyday user.

“The only way to obtain buy-in from users is to help them understand how an AM program will benefi t them,” Phil said. “We take every opportunity to engage u lity staff on their involvement in the proj-ect, empowering them to own the system. The only way they will feel they understand the system is to spend me educa ng them on how the program will make their jobs easier and how they can make the program successful.

“It’s equally important to partner with a champion on the client’s side, who will support the message and serve as a resource for staff as they help de-velop the program,” Phil said.

Commi ed to Guiding Projects to Comple onPhil s ll exhibits the same enthusiasm that he held four years ago when CDM submi ed our proposal for asset management assessment. He represented the team’s enthusiasm, “Comple ng this project will fulfi ll the District’s and CDM’s aspira ons to con nuously improve service to our clients.”

IN STEP WITH PHIL CHERNIN

5-1

S E C T I O N O N E

Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes

Developing an asset management program that meets the District’s needs was an exciting and challenging task. Even more complex will be the implementation of the District’s program. Selecting our team – who developed the program and knows your staff’s preferences – will make the transition to implementation seamless.

CDM proposes the same core team players that developed the framework for the District’s current project (Figure 5-1). This section presents qualifi -cations and resumes for these key team players as well as subconsultants and additional staff. Project Manager Phil Chernin’s resume is included in Sec-tion 4, as requested in the RFP.

S E C T I O N 5

S E C T I O N 5 Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes

5-2

SubconsultantsJeff erson WellsJefferson Wells is a national company with a Cleveland-based offi ce that provides technology risk management. Its professionals are trained in information security, IT audit and compliance, and business community approaches. Examples of their services include technology risk assessment, threat and vulnerability assessment, web security assess-ment, attack and penetration assessment, computer forensics, information technology audits, policies and procedures evaluation, and security integration. Jefferson Wells will take the lead on risk manage-ment, as well as assist on auditing procedures for this project.

OracleOracle is an industry leader in platforms for enter-prise computing, helping companies collect and use precision business information at the lowest cost. While CDM will lead the project, technical work on application confi guration and extended con-fi guration of the Oracle/SPL software (sometimes referred to as UWAM) will be handled by experts from Oracle itself, working as a subconsultant to CDM. Staff on our project team from the Managed Services Division within the Oracle Utilities Busi-ness Unit of the company—set up specifi cally to service utility customers who already have the Or-acle/SPL product—will handle the technical work “under the hood” of the software. This arrange-ment with Oracle will ensure effi cient expertise for confi guration and optimization enhancements to the software while keeping the overall direction of the project with an engineering fi rm, CDM, that knows how wastewater utilities do business.

New Dimension Solu ons, Inc.New Dimension Solutions (www.nd-solutions.com) has outstanding expertise in Reliability Centered Maintenance programs (RCM), a maintenance management protocol developed by Aladon and licensed to New Dimension Solutions and others. RCM is an internationally accepted gold standard

for maintenance strategy methodology and is considered one of the advanced elements of asset management programs. New Dimension has de-veloped a specialty in reliability and asset man-agement improvement programs in utility orga-nizations; among its many worldwide clients, the fi rm worked recently with CDM on a project for the Narragansett Bay Commission where we are implementing NBC’s RCM program. NDS asset management and maintenance management proj-ects also include the Facilities Asset Management Program with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

RNR Consul ngRNR is a small business enterprise and a minority owned enterprise with headquarters in Cleveland. RNR specializes software/application selection and implementation, business process reengineer-ing based on best industry practices, information technology strategic planning, and workfl ow analysis. RNR approaches all of its projects from a people, process, technology perspective; em-ployees work closely with stakeholders to identify needs and deliver solutions. RNR will assist on the IT task for this project.

DLZDLZ, a minority-owned business enterprise, is a full-service multidisciplinary professional corpora-tion that has been providing complete architectur-al, engineering, and environmental services to both public- and private-sector clients for well over 50 years. DLZ serves the Midwest and Great Lakes Region. Its multidisciplinary staff work together to solve problems and achieve optimal solutions that save clients money and deliver sound designs and systems. DLZ has worked closely with the District for many years and will provide detailed knowledge of the District’s wastewater treatment plants and collection system. For this project, DLZ will assist on Renewal Planning Tasks E, F, and G with emphasis on the asset condition assessment program.


5-3

United Interna onal Consultants (UIC)UIC is an MBE fi rm with extensive O&M related experience. UIC will be the source of personnel who will add value via efforts related to asset hier-archy, criticality, and renewal planning. UIC is very familiar with the District’s wastewater treatment plants and staffi ng having worked on facility plans and O&M manuals.

Water Resources and Coastal EngineeringWRCE is a WBE-certifi ed fi rm located in Solon, Ohio. WRCE provides specialized engineering services in the fi eld of water resources and coastal engineering. The fi rm’s experience with the Dis-trict includes CSO planning, modeling, and stream restoration. For this proposal, WRCE will provide staff to assist in the Westerly condition assessment as well as administration support (e.g., technical writing – QA/QC). WRCE provided staff support to CDM for facility plans/condition assessments for three Cleveland Water plants.

Overview of Team MembersTeam members recognize the strategic and fi nancial elements of asset management, yet ground their focus on the day-to-day need to operate and main-tain a complex, integrated, and reliable system that must meet legal requirements and customer expec-tations. Furthermore, our team understands that the system only works if employees ultimately embrace it, so our individuals will spend signifi cant time on educating and obtaining employee buy-in.

Phil Chernin, Project ManagerPhil leads the Enterprise Business Consulting group in CDM’s national management consulting prac-tice. He personally performed or led more than 50 municipal information technology projects for municipalities across the United States. He now focuses on asset management and other manage-ment consulting work. Phil managed the develop-ment of the District’s Asset Management Strategic Plan, collaborating with District management and plant staff. He also managed technical services for a New York City CIP Prioritization Program (pro-

ducing a risk-based project prioritization scheme for repair and renewal of $20 billion of water and wastewater assets). For the Colorado Springs Utili-ties, CO, Phil just completed full implementation of a CAMPTool-based 50-year renewal plan for the utility’s water distribution reservoirs. For the Cincinnati’s CSO program management assign-ment, Phil provided technical review of CDM’s organizational design, business process analysis and risk register development. For Hartford MDC, Phil developed the strategic plan for coordinat-ing GIS data development activities among eight member communities so that spatial data manage-ment tools could be incorporated into the project controls systems governing the program. For NBC, Phil supervised implementation of the CAMPTool-based renewal plan.

Mike Kenel, Ph.D., Assistant Project ManagerMike is a management consultant who specializes in risk management and security for municipali-ties. During the development of the District’s asset management program, he coordinated the comple-tion of more than 20 work plans describing the steps and deliverables associated with implement-ing the program, focusing on major improvements in the capital improvement planning process, implementation of a risk management program, and incorporation of an internal auditing program to ensure asset management best practices are adopted by all levels of the organization. Mike worked closely with administrators during the development.

Thomas Bolas, Risk Policy Task ManagerTom has 25 years of experience, both domestically and internationally, as a fi nancial executive and auditor. He routinely performs risk assessments for domestic and international clients. Recently he implemented a comprehensive risk manage-ment program at a $5 billion Cleveland company, including interview and surveys of all senior man-agement personnel (worldwide).

Joseph Ridge, Financial Planning Task ManagerJoe is an economist with experience in assessing the fi scal and economic impacts of capital projects


5-4

on municipal governments and authorities. He has more than 30 years of experience assisting clients in assessing and implementing programs to im-prove competitiveness and determining the fi nancial feasibility and economic impact of proposed proj-ects. Recently, he managed the Asset Management Program Implementation for the Narragansett Bay Commission in Rhode Island, and was technical di-rector on the Business Plan and Asset Management Program for the Johnson County wastewater utility in Kansas.Ed LeClair, Opera ons and Maintenance Track Task Leader, Treatment Plants Task ManagerEd has more than 25 years experience in wastewa-ter and water utility operations and management. His expertise includes developing and leading business process reengineering efforts, including developing maintenance strategies and condition assessment protocols as elements of asset manage-ment evaluations. This includes the District’s Asset Management project as well as asset management for Narragansett Bay Commission.John Schroeder, P.E., BCEE, Collec on Systems O&M Track SupportJohn is a civil/environmental engineer who has focused his 16-year career on planning and design and construction of pipeline projects. He is a certi-fi ed trainer in the NASSCO pipeline assessment and certifi cation program (PACP). John has worked on inspection, assessment, infi ltration reduction, rehabilitation and construction of stormwater and sanitary sewers across the country. John co-devel-oped a unique long-term, risk-based renewal pro-gram for the City of Columbus. The custom-built, GIS application enables users to view and query the NASSCO PACP defect code database and link photos and video to a GIS. This data is then rated for condition and criticality, and solutions and costs are developed and prioritized that are then imme-diately linked to the GIS for mapping of problems and solutions.

Marius Basson, Maintenance Strategy LeadMarius is an experienced Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Reliability Centered

Spares (RCS) specialist. He has focused most of his career on developing asset care and mainte-nance programs and performing asset criticality assessment and gap analysis, equipment failure analyses, and root cause investigations. Marius employs design review methodology using reli-ability centered maintenance principals and pro-vides client training on this topic. Warren Kurtz, P.E., Capital Program Track Task ManagerWarren spent much of his 36-year career with New York City government. His public service experience enables him to be more client-focused, creative and responsive in their facilities and man-agement planning work products; to better control projects and programs; and to improve their com-munication of meaningful project development in-formation and results to a wide range of interested stakeholders. As a former Deputy Commissioner of New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection, he supervised 400 planning, design and construction management staff. Having served in staff functions to commissioners of an operating department, and directors of oversight agencies, as well as a line function manager of engineering organizations, he brings experience and insights to assignments that involve: engineering management of projects and programs; organizational analysis and dynamics; work fl ow analysis; strategic plan-ning; capital planning and budget prioritization; and efforts to improve communication methods and skills.

Ed St. John, P.E., BCEE, Client Service Manager, Capital Program Track SupportEd has been actively engaged in wastewater treat-ment facilities evaluation and design for more than 17 years and has either managed or designed improvements for over 10 District projects, includ-ing the Southerly incineration, Southerly aeration, Southerly biofi lter, Westerly modifi cations, East-erly fi nal settling tank return sludge lines, tunnel biofi lters, and the CSO fl oatables control projects. This experience has allowed him to gain thorough knowledge of the District’s people, facilities, and policies.


5-5

Ed is also an offi cer-in-charge of projects performed in CDM’s Cleveland offi ce; he is directly respon-sible for project delivery for all of CDM’s northeast Ohio clients. As a senior leader in the fi rm, Ed will provide support and assistance to the project task leaders, fully commit CDM’s local and national resources to the District’s needs, and be responsible for contractual issues. Furthermore, he will pro-vide coordination assistance to Phil by virtue of his intimate knowledge of the District organization, his full-time presence in CDM’s Cleveland offi ce, and his expert coordination and administration skills. Marianne MacDonald, Ph.D., Informa on Technology Track Task ManagerMarianne leads CDM’s Business Analysis group and is CDM’s sub-discipline leader for Business Process, Technology Planning and Management Systems. She reviews clients’ business processes; assesses their challenges, opportunities and threats; and works with them to defi ne an approach to align their activities and initiatives with their organi-zational goals. This often includes conducting workshops to identify goals. Marianne is working with the Hartford Metropolitan District Commis-sion (CT) to identify, evaluate and develop busi-ness processes necessary to support a $1.6 billion clean water project. This work will produce a set of processes for the Program Management Unit of the District to follow to execute its aggressive program over the next 12 to 15 years.Deacon Schupp, Informa on Technology Track SupportDeacon is a consultant for RNR Consulting with expertise in management and procedures for waste-water and water utilities. He has worked with municipal utilities on IT system imple-mentation, process enhance-ment, Standard Operating Guidelines development and training programs. Corey Shrefl er, Informa on Technology TrackCorey has comprehensive experience as a consultant for

information technology acquisition and assess-ment projects for the governments and utilities. He has created requirements defi nition and system specifi cations for the development of RFPs utiliz-ing intensive and detailed as-is process maps, data fl ow maps, and document shadowing. Corey led multiple focus groups and interview sessions to capture stakeholder input and ensure project buy-in. He analyzed business processes and managed a team of six consultants to delineate compatibility with an enterprise wide software implementation for a large County Water Authority. Corey is also helping to create a training curriculum and pro-gram as well as a large-scale process improvement project for this same authority.Jeff rey Claus, IT Track SupportJeff specializes in requirements development, business process mapping, user training, system testing, and system support. He restructured the data collection process for managing the PMinet dashboard at The Metropolitan District (MDC) in Hartford to assist with the District’s $1.6 billion capital program to clean its waterways. His work involves identifying the best sources of contract, invoice, MBE/WBE, change order, and status information for each of the several dozen projects that are part of the program. The goal is to stream-line the data collection process to make it more accurate and effi cient.

Addi onal ResourcesWhile CDM has no intention of substituting any names on the organization chart, we have provided a list of potential backup resources for key project staff to assure the District that we have resources

available in the event that the individual is unable to per-form the work due to unan-ticipated confl icts. While we do not believe that anyone on the organization charge will be unable to perform their roles, we have made these backup assignments to be responsive to the concerns expressed in the RFP.

Staff Backup

Phil Chernin Mike Kenel, Ph.D.

Mike Kenel, Ph.D Ed St. John, P.E., BCEE

Ed St. John, P.E., BCEE John Aldrich, P.E.

Tom Bolas Mike Kenel, Ph.D.

Joe Ridge Dianne Mills

Ed LeClair Seth Garrison

Warren Kurtz Bill Gilmore

Marianne MacDonald, Ph.D Stan Plante, P.E., BCEE

Table 5-1: Backup Resources

Michael F. Kenel, Ph.D. Assistant Project Manager Twenty-five years of experience helping organizations achieve their goals through the application of sound business practices and management systems in the areas of asset management (water and wastewater treatment and distribution systems), emergency, security, capital improvement planning, financial forecasting, and risk management. Dr. Kenel has worked on complex projects that required significant public interaction, problem-solving, and consensus-building skills.

Education Ph.D. ‐ Toxicology, University of

Michigan, 1983

M.S. ‐ Industrial Health, University of Michigan, 1981

B.A. ‐ Mathematics, Wayne State University, 1971

Dr. Kenel was retained by the State of Michigan’s Homeland Protection Board evaluate over 120 critical infrastructure sites, assessing each sites vulnerability to all hazards, current protection and response capabilities, and recommending emergency management and security design improvements. This project included evaluating water and wastewater facilities.

Management Consultant, NEORSD Asset Management Assessment. On behalf of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District (NEORSD) coordinated the development of 20 work plans describing related to asset management best practices involving condition assessments, asset renewal strategies, capital improvement planning, risk management, internal auditing, etc.

Project Manager, State of Michigan, Critical Infrastructure and Asset Protection Program. Following 9/11, the State of Michigan needed to determine how to best improve security across a diverse array of critical infrastructure sites, all competing for the same limited funds. Representatives from various State Agencies and the private/public sector were assembled and a consensus “vision” developed on the need to allocate funds based on addressing the greatest risks first. Dr. Kenel worked full time to assess, from an “all-hazards” perspective, the vulnerabilities associated with the States most critical infrastructures.

Management Consultant, Greater Cincinnati Water Works Risk Management Program. Confronted with a multimillion-dollar, ten-year combined sewer overflow project, the Water Works wanted to avoid cost overruns and schedule delays that could arise during the course of the project. Dr. Kenel identified risks and categorized them as legal, fiscal, environmental, technical, and managerial. He developed semi-qualitative estimates of the negative consequences and probability of occurrence. This facilitated the creation of a four-quadrant matrix that would guide decision-makers to accept the risks; or to transfer, avoid, or mitigate those risks of highest probability and highest consequence. In addition to addressing risk before the project began, the analysis facilitated creation of a risk management program, in which certain risks would be monitored and action taken only if the risk was imminent.

A

Joseph T. Ridge Financial Planning Task Manager

Mr. Ridge is an economist with extensive experience in assessing the fiscal and economic impacts of capital projects on municipal governments and authorities. He has nearly 30 years of experience in assisting clients in assessing and implementing programs to improve competitiveness and in determining the financial feasibility and economic impact of proposed projects. Recently, Mr. Ridge has been involved in many of CDM’s major asset management projects as a project manager, director or reviewer.

Education MCRP ‐ Public Finance, Harvard

University, 1979

B.A. ‐ Economics, Seattle University, 1977

Mr. Ridge has developed financing plans, assessed financial capability, and conducted financial feasibility and marketing analyses for more than 80 projects. These have included wastewater facilities (including secondary and advanced treatment, CSO, and collection systems), stormwater utilities, solid waste facilities (such as resource recovery facilities, composting and recycling plants), and other public facilities. These studies frequently require the creation, evaluation, and implementation of inter-municipal agreements to support and secure financing packages.

Project Manager, Asset Management Program Implementation. Since 2005, Mr. Ridge has assisted the Narragansett Bay Commission (RI) in implementing its asset management program. The initial effort was focused on defining an appropriate program given the NBC’s history, available history and business processes. A pilot project was developed to test how the preferred program would function and whether it would meet the Commission’s requirements. The pilot is currently being expanded to incorporate approximately 70 percent of the Commission’s assets.

Technical Director, Business Plan and Asset Management Program. Beginning in 2006, Mr. Ridge undertook a gap analysis and evaluated business processes for the Johnson County (KS) Wastewater (JCW) utility to determine the modifications necessary to meet the JCW’s future business needs.

Technical Director/Reviewer, Asset Management Programs. Mr. Ridge has also served as technical director or reviewer of CDM asset management programs, including the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District; Sioux City, IA; Marco Island and Hillsborough County, FL.

Papers/Presentations “Implementing Asset Management Programs” (with R. Marshall, P. Nordstrum, A. Heil). Presented to the annual New England Water Works Association Conference, September 2006.

A

Edward J. St. John, P.E., BCEE Client Service Manager, Project Analysis Mr. St. John has been actively engaged in civil and environmental engineering for more than 17 years, with expertise in project management, wastewater treatment facilities evaluation and design, and construction management of those designs. He is experienced in the planning, evaluation, design, construction, and startup of wastewater and water treatment facilities, combined sewer overflow control facilities, and odor control facilities. He has worked at the District’s facilities for many years, including on the following projects:

Education B.S. in Civil Engineering, Case

Western Reserve University, 1990

B.A. in Pre‐Engineering, DePauw University, 1987

Task Leader, Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Aeration System Rehabilitation Project. For the NEORSD, Mr. St. John was a task leader for the second stage aeration replacement project at the 175-mgd Southerly WWTP.

Registration Professional Engineer: Ohio (1996)

and Michigan

Design Engineer, Westerly WWTC Modifications, NEORSD. Mr. St. John served as the design engineer for modifications at the 100-mgd Westerly WWTC. The project included new grit removal facilities; modifications to the existing sludge handling building drainage and non-potable water systems; and design of a new chlorine contact tank, sodium hypochlorite disinfection system, and a new sodium bisulfite dechlorination system. Project Manager, Biofilters, NEORSD. Mr. St. John served as project manager for the design and construction of the new Forest Hills Boulevard Biofilter, BTRS Biofilter, and Southerly Biofilter. Project Engineer, Engineering Analysis and Design of Final Settling Tank Return Sludge Lines, NEORSD. Mr. St. John conducted field evaluations and observations along with engineering analyses to help determine the extent of damage to structures, which may have been affected by leaking final settling tank’s return sludge lines at the Easterly WWTP. Mr. St. John served as the design engineer for the rehabilitation work. Project Manager, Phase 2 Floatables Control Facilities Design & O&M, NEORSD. Mr. St. John managed the design and construction work at five CSO outfalls designated by the District as priority locations for floatables control. Mr. St. John managed the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the five CSO floatables control facilities. Project Engineer/Design and Project Manager/Construction, Phase 1 CSO Floatables Control Facilities, NEORSD. Mr. St. John served as the project engineer for the design work done at five CSO outfalls designated by the District as priority locations for control of floatables. Project Engineer, Media Replacement, Five Biofilters, NEORSD. Mr. St. John assisted the District in the media replacement of five existing biofilters that treated odors generated from the sewage collection system and interceptors.

A

Thomas E. Bolas Risk Management Task Manager Mr. Bolas has over 25 years of experience, both domestically and internationally, as a Financial Executive and Auditor. His work with clients in a variety of SEC compliant industries included the following accomplishments:

Education B.B.A. – Accounting and Finance,

St. Bonaventure University

M.B.A. – International Finance, Baldwin Wallace College Directed specific business reviews of contractor bidding practices and

construction management and costs.

Identified misstatements in financial data leading to a $500 million reduction in the cost of an acquisition.

Identified, documented and supported prosecution of fleet fraud which cost an employer over $5 million per year.

Registration Cert. Public Accountant – New York

Identified, documented and resolved an hourly payroll timekeeping fraud which cost the employer over $6 million.

Conducted acquisition due diligence for a number of successful corporate acquisitions, with a total value of over $10 billion.

Implemented a comprehensive Risk Management Program at a $5 billion Cleveland Company, in 2007, including interview and surveys of all senior management personnel (worldwide).

Professional Activities Member, Institute of Internal Auditors

Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Member, New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants

IIA QAR Qualified Internal Assessor/Validator

Jefferson Wells

Edward C. LeClair Operations and Maintenance Track Task Manager, Treatment Plants Lead Mr. LeClair has more than 25 years experience in various capacities of water and wastewater utility operations and management. His expertise includes the development and leadership of business process reengineering efforts responding to the challenge of providing more effective, efficient and responsive public utility service.

Education M.P.A. – Public Administration, Metropolitan State University,

2004

B.A. – Labor Relations, Metropolitan State University,

2000 Changing Work Environments. Mr. LeClair was involved in and helped lead numerous initiatives that address the related issues of change management, managed competition, labor/management collaboration, performance management, and employee involvement. In particular, he has experience in developing participative initiatives that lead to successful work system redesign to improve overall service delivery. These reengineering efforts effectively address the resulting impacts on employees filling new roles and responsibilities within the organization, in a way that reduces the deep-seated resistance to change. Mr. LeClair also has experience in public/private partnering/managed competition having led an initiative that successfully combined private management of a publicly owned treatment facility staffed by public employees.

Honors/Awards Honors Graduate;

Metropolitan State University (2000)

Registration Wastewater Facility Operator;

Class B

Engineer’s License‐Second Class; Grade A

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District’s (NEORSD), Asset Management Project, Ohio (2005-2006). Mr. LeClair is currently

performing a review of NEORSD business/work practices that will contribute to developing asset management options, strategy and an implementation plan geared to meet NEORSD’s distinct situation.

Experience Highlights

Has more than 25 years of experience in all areas of Treatment Plant operations.

Project Manager of employee training and manual development tasks for NYC/DEP’s CMMS implementation. In addition, has worked on a number of CMMS implementations recently in various capacities.

Is currently working on Asset Management projects at the NEORSD and NBC regional sewerage authorities, and at Stillwater, Oklahoma Water Utilities. Has also worked recently on the UOSA and Sioux City, Iowa asset management projects.

Has been involved in many employee development and training efforts.

Asset Management Project, Narrangasset Bay Commission, Rhode Island (2004-Present). Mr. LeClair helped perform the baseline organizational assessment of NBC’s current business practices, staff skill sets, asset inventory and information technology capabilities necessary for a successful asset management implementation. In addition, he is the task leader for developing the utility’s asset hierarchy, criticality rating, and condition assessment program moving forward.

Department of Environmental Protection, CMMS Implementation, New York (2003-Present). Mr. LeClair is currently the CDM project manager for employee Synergen computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) training and manual development components, and system configuration tasks for this 17 plant system-wide CMMS implementation.

A

John P. Schroeder, P.E., BCEE Collection Systems O& M Task Lead Mr. Schroeder is a civil engineer with more than 15 years of experience in planning, design and construction of stormwater, water and wastewater systems. His specific qualifications include: sewer system design, pipeline rehabilitation, infiltration/inflow (I/I) studies, trenchless pipe planning and design, wastewater pump stations, construction inspection and cost estimating. Mr. Schroeder has significant hands-on experience working with and overseeing general contractors and specialized contractors associated with: pipeline construction, pipeline and manhole rehabilitation, flow monitoring, CCTV inspections, and dye/smoke testing.

Education B.S. ‐ Civil Engineer, University

of Cincinnati, 1992

Registration Professional Engineer: Ohio

(1996)

Mr. Schroeder serves as CDM’s discipline leader for trenchless technologies. In this role, he provides technical guidance for pipeline rehabilitation and organizes CDM experts nationwide in various aspects of trenchless technology such as sewer rehabilitation, microtunneling, directional drilling, jack and boring, and pipe bursting. He is a certified trainer in the NASSCO pipeline assessment and certification program (PACP) and has been training engineers across the country in this program.

Certifications 40‐Hour Health & Safety Training for Hazardous Waste Operations

16‐Hour Confined Space Entry Training Course

NASSCO Pipeline Assessment & Certification Program (PACP)

Project Engineer/Task Manager, Sanitary Sewer I/I Study. For the Livingston James I/I Study in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. Schroeder was the field work manager consisting of sewer cleaning and inspection, flow monitoring, and private/public I/I testing. The study is being conducted to determine the locations and causes of I/I, pinpoint problem areas of flooding and sewage back-ups, and recommend cost-effective corrective actions, including how to mitigate or prevent infiltration from entering the system. Over 130 miles of 8- to 60-inch sanitary sewers were cleaned and inspected as part of this I/I study. To manage and evaluate this vast amount of sewer inspection data, CDM is using specialized software and hardware to view and query the NASSCO PACP defect code database and link photos and video to a GIS. With the PACP database and video, short-term and long-term prioritized recommendations are being efficiently developed and mapped for each pipe by implementing a sophisticated GIS-based decision matrix.

Honors/Awards Board Certified Environmental

Engineer (BCEE), American Academy of Environmental Engineers

Young Engineer of the Year FCC, OSPE, 2000‐2001

Publications/Presentation "Solving complicated sanitary sewer problems with innovative engineering, fieldwork and computer software” NODIG 2007 San Diego, CA “Efficient Sewer Assessment Using PACP and GIS to Enhance Operations and Maintenance of Collection Systems”; New Jersey Water Environment Association Annual Conference 2006

A

Schroeder

Marius Basson Maintenance Strategy Lead

Mr. Basson is an experienced Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Reliability Centered Spares (RCS) specialist. As a project manager and engineer, he has focused his career on developing asset care and maintenance programs, operating philosophies for complex systems, and design review methodology using RCM principles. Mr. Basson supplied a variety of clients with asset criticality assessments, gap analyses, root cause analysis investigations, and equipment failure analyses. He also consulted on projects interfacing RCM with Computerized Maintenance Management Systems from development and blueprinting through implementation.

Education M.S. – Mechanical Engineering

South Africa, 1986

Higher Diploma – Mechanical Engineering, South Africa, 1985

Diploma – Mechanical Engineering, South Africa, 1984

RCM Consultant and Project Manager, Reliability Program, Denver Water Board. Mr. Basson provides ongoing support for a number of programs with the Denver Water Board. These include a RCM2 training and facilitator mentoring program he established, a system criticality assessment; and failure management strategies for critical assets.

Registration RCM2 Certified Practitioner (1998)

Principle Investigator and Project Manager, Water Resource Study, American Water Works Association. Mr. Basson is working with the American Water Works Association, an international non-profit association dedicated to improving the water quality and supply of North America, on a research project studying the implementation of RCM in the water industry. In addition to developing failure management strategies, he provides RCM training and RCM facilitator training. Mr. Basson’s services include conducting feasibility studies and reporting.

RCM Consultant and Project Manager, Wastewater Reliability Improvement Program, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. For the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Mr. Basson works to optimize maintenance programs, trains on RCM principles and mentors new RCM facilitators. Mr. Basson is developing failure management strategies as well as conducting feasibility studies and criticality analyses.

RCM Consultant and Project Manager, Wastewater Management Reliability Program, Orange County Sanitation District. Mr. Basson assists the Orange County Sanitation District manage assets through design review services, life cycle costing, and development of failure management strategies for critical assets. He also provides ongoing training on RCM principles for users and facilitators.

New Dimension Solutions

Marianne MacDonald, PH.D. Information Technology Track Task Manager

Dr. MacDonald leads the Business Analysis group within CDM’s Management Consulting Division, and is CDM’s sub-discipline leader for Business Process, Technology Planning and Management Systems. She provides support to municipal, federal, private sector and university clients to review business processes, assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and to work with them to define an approach to align their activities and initiatives with their organizational goals. This includes conducting workshops to identify goals and map business processes, developing recommendations and action plans to implement appropriate changes, and assisting in the selection of technology tools to improve business performance.

Education Ph.D. ‐ Systems Engineering,

University of Pennsylvania, 1994

M.S. ‐ Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, 1993

B.A. ‐ Economics, Bucknell University, 1988

B.S – Mathematics, Bucknell University, 1988

Task Leader and Senior Business Analyst, Business Process Development for Clean Water Project. For the Hartford Metropolitan District Commission (The District), Dr. MacDonald is working with the District to identify, evaluate and develop business processes necessary to

support a $1.6 Billion Clean Water Project. Processes include Procurement, Capital Budgeting, Engineering Design, Permitting and Project Controls, as well as the identification of important stakeholder roles and responsibilities and key technology tools to support these processes including SAP, Document Management, GIS and workflow tools. The result of this work will be a set of processes for the Program Management Unit of the District to follow to execute their aggressive program over the next 12 to 15 years.

Project Manager/Senior Business Analyst, Permit Management Business Process and Improvement. For the City of Bridgeport, CT, Dr. MacDonald has been working with the City of Bridgeport to evaluate their permit

management business processes, develop recommendations for improving the process, and to specify and select a permit management system that fits with the City’s vision for the permit process. This project has involved meetings and workshops with dozens of staff throughout 8 different departments to develop consensus regarding organizational goals, appropriate process improvements, and identification of technology tools.


Business process assessment and training for MIT

Process assessment and Technology planning for many municipal clients

Practice leader for Business Process, Management Systems and Technology Planning at CDM.

Senior Business Analyst, Ireland’s River Basin Management System. Dr. MacDonald worked with subject matter experts and application developers to guide the design and development of a web-portal and decision support system for Ireland’s Eastern River Basin. The tools focus on assisting local authorities in Ireland in the meeting the goals of the European Union’s Water Framework directive with an Environmental Management System approach.

A

Corey Shrefler Business Process Mr. Shrefler is a senior consultant/project manager with RNR Consulting. He has comprehensive experience as a consultant for information technology acquisition and assessment projects for the public sector including Municipal and County Governments and a Water Utility. Created requirements definition and system specifications for the development of Request for Proposals utilizing intensive and detailed “As-Is” process maps, data flow maps, and document shadowing. Lead multiple focus groups and interview sessions to capture stakeholder input and ensure project buy-in. Analyzed business processes and managed a team of six consultants to delineate compatibility with an enterprise wide software implementation for a large County Water Authority. Mr. Shrefler is also currently involved in the creation of a training curriculum and program as well as a large scale process improvement project for this same Water Authority.

Education MBA, Baldwin‐Wallace College,

2008

B.A., Business and Communications, University of

Pittsburgh, 1998

Senior Consultant/Project Manager, SAP IS-U Post Implementation Analysis, Standard Operating Guideline Development and Training, Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA.

Researched, mapped and analyzed business processes

Conducted interviews at all levels throughout the Utility and County government to delineate current activities

Researched and developed Best Practices of top performing utilities across the United States with a focus on Strategic Planning, Customer Service and IT capabilities

Created and disseminated a benchmarking survey involving over 20 similar utilities across the United States

Developed Standard Operating Guidelines for common business processes as well as an employee training curriculum based upon the Guidelines

City-wide Web Procurement, City of Cleveland, OH Conducted a detailed analysis and mapping of all City procurement

processes

Mapped the complete data flow within each City procurement process

Facilitated interviews with high level City Department personnel

Developed and led focus groups with City of Cleveland vendors who provide services and commodities to all City Departments.

Researched and developed Best Practices for top performing U.S. City Web Procurement practices

RNR Consulting

Deacon Shupp Business Process Mr. Shupp is a consultant for RNR Consulting with expertise in management and procedures for water and wastewater utilities. He has experience consulting with municipal water and wastewater utilities on IT system implementation, process enhancement, Standard Operating Guidelines development and training programs. Mr. Shupp recently served as a consultant for a project with the Gwinnett County (Georgia) Department of Water Resources.

Education B.A., Miami University

University Dolobois European Center (Luxembourg)

Consultant, SAP Implementation Project, Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA. Engaged in a project to initiate process improvement and standardization for all water and wastewater procedures in the Gwinnett County service area. Tasks include: 1) An assessment of all internal “as-is” processes 2) identification and examination of all existing redundancies 3) Current “as-is” business processes were mapped and improvement opportunities were identified in the context of best practices. 4) Designed the “to-be” business processes which were mapped.

Consultant, Standard Operating Guideline Development, Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA. Developed Standard Operating Guidelines for business procedures of the Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources. Utilized the “to-be” processes that were mapped in order to create a standard method based on best business practices by which all procedures are to be performed by employees of the Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources.

Consultant, Standard Operating Guideline Training Program, Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA. Led development of detailed training materials and program based on the Standard Operating Guidelines that were developed. Tasks included 1) Development of all materials to be used in training including step-by-step guidelines for SAP usage as related to all procedures 2) Development of a training program and 3) Training all Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources employees.

Consultant, Accounts Receivable Management Project, Cleveland Clinic Eastern Region, OH. Led project to maximize reimbursement, reduce receivables, minimize revenue cycle time and implement best business practices. Tasks included 1) Assessment of current “as-is” business practices 2) Assessment of revenue streams 3) Development of methodology for increasing revenue from government payers 4) Development and subsequently implemented of “to-be” processes based on best practices. 5) Development of methods by which revenue cycle time is monitored

RNR Consulting

Jeffrey R. Claus Information Technology Requirements Mr. Claus is a business analyst with several years of experience in requirements development, business process mapping, user training, system testing, and system support.

Education B.S. – Mechanical Engineering,

Virginia Tech, 2000

U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 1995‐1997

Business Analyst, Restructuring of Data Collection Process. Mr. Claus restructured the data collection process for managing the PMinet dashboard at The Metropolitan District (MDC) in Hartford, CT. The MDC has begun a 15-year, $1.6 billion capital program under a federal consent decree to clean its waterways. His work involves identifying the best sources of contract, invoice, MBE/WBE, change order, and status information for each of the several dozen program projects. The goal is to streamline the data collection process to make it more accurate and efficient. The dashboard provides online access to progress reports which provide information on status, progress, schedule, cost, and compliance.

IT Assessment Task Leader, Collier County, FL Asset Management. Mr. Claus is evaluating the Collier County’s software systems and

workflows as they relate to Asset Management. He is acquiring a complete understanding of whether, and to what extent, asset data is maintained and how the data moves between the client’s various software systems. As part of this task, Mr. Claus is meeting with IT representatives, customer service, purchasing, finance, engineering, water and wastewater management, and field crews. Part of this effort includes reviewing the county’s SAP configuration, GIS geodatabases, existing maintenance management system, and utility billing system. The analysis will guide the selection and design of a new Asset Management system in Phase 2 of the project.


Development of functional requirements

Liaison between application developers and client

Structured requirements‐based testing

IT Assessments

Implementation Manager, Belmont, MA. Mr. Claus coordinated the implementation of a new utility billing system for electric, water, and sewer services. The Belmont Municipal Lighting Department contracted MUNIS to convert their existing data and to configure, test, train, and deploy the new system. Mr. Claus oversaw the implementation to ensure that requirements were met, the application was thoroughly tested, and issues were tracked and completed.

Business Analyst, Utility Billing Data Conversion. Mr. Claus is assisting the Hingham Municipal Lighting Plant with the data conversion as they migrate to a new utility billing system. The data conversion is from a flat file database to a relational database and considerable effort is required to generate the load files. Mr. Claus creates reports for the client to identify missing/incorrect information. He evaluates the level of effort for the client to manually make corrections and where he can be more efficient, creates scripts to automatically correct the data.

A

Document Code

6-1

S E C T I O N O N E

Availability

S E C T I O N 6

Based on the project’s needs, CDM has assigned personnel with the most appropriate experience for the District’s Asset Management Implementation Phase I Project. In doing so, we have also consid-ered team members’ current work loads. Based on these projections, the staff members assigned to this project are available to begin the project in March 2008 and are committed to see this project through to its successful completion.

The project manager, assistant project manager, task managers, and key project personnel assigned to this project have made personal commitments to make the required time available to carry out the scope of work identifi ed in this proposal.

Moreover, the project team is ready, eager, and excited to begin this project.

7-1

S E C T I O N O N E

Required Informa on

S E C T I O N 7

The RFP lists several requirements for specifi c statements and assurances that proposing fi rms must make to the District, and certain corporate information that must be provided. These requirements are addressed below.

MBE/WBE Par cipa on(RFP Item Requirement No. 7)The CDM Team is fully committed to working with qualifi ed MBE and WBE fi rms to meet the 15 percent and 5 percent required goals, respectively. We propose to work closely with these selected fi rms during the course of this project.

CDM has a long history of subcontracting particular elements of projects to local fi rms and, in particular, to client-approved MBE/WBE busi-nesses. Although in many instances we have the ability to perform these tasks, we elect to use local qualifi ed fi rms to meet the specifi c requirements of our clients. For this project we commit to meeting the MBE/WBE goals for the District.

Local Staffi ng and Loca on of Work to be Performed(RFP Item Requirement Nos. 8 and 9)The CDM team will conduct more than 30 percent of the work effort using individu-als located in the Dis-trict area. The project will be undertaken from CDM’s Cleveland offi ce, supplemented by consultant team members from RNR Consulting, DLZ, and Jefferson Wells, who will perform work at their own Cleveland offi ces. WRCE and UIC will perform a portion of their

work in the CDM Cleveland offi ce. As a result, the project team will not experience any diffi culty meeting the 60 percent requirement for work effort within the NEORSD service area. Table 7-2 on the following page provides addresses of subconsul-tant offi ces.

Equal Employment Opportunity(RFP Item Requirement No. 10)At the end of this section, a completed District Equal Employment Opportunity form is included, which sets forth the composition of CDM’s re-gional work force and compliance with EEO poli-cies. Other team members have previously submit-ted MBE or WBE documentation and are certifi ed in the District’s MBE/WBE program.

Examina on of Available Data(RFP Item Requirement No. 11)Much of the data provided with the RFP was authored by CDM. Thus, we have examined all data made available by the District, and we under-stand and agree that any additional data needed to perform all aspects of the work as outlined in the

CDM Local Offi ce1100 Superior Avenue, Suite 620 Cleveland, Ohio 44114(216) 579-0404

Firm and ContactStatus and Percentage Role

WRCEMs. Shirly Schlucter(440) 248-6215

WBE(5 percent)

Assist in condi on assessment; data collec on and entry; administra on support

RNR Consul ngRahim Rahim(216) 621-8977

MBE(7 percent)

IT support and hierarchy/cri -cality ID support

DLZMr. Tom Sisley(216) 248-6215

MBE(6 percent)

Field support; condi on as-sessment

United Interna onal ConsultantsFarooq Nazir, P.E.

MBE(2 percent)

Field assistance; staff inter-views; O&M support

Table 7-1: Subconsultants’ contacts, roles, and project percentage allo ed

S E C T I O N 7 Required Informa on

7-2

request for proposal will be acquired by CDM or its team members.

Confl ict of Interest Statement(RFP Item Requirement No. 12)CDM, its subconsultants, and individuals proposed for this project confi rm that no personal or organi-zational confl icts of interest are known to exist.

Labor Eff ort Requirements(RFP Item Requirement No. 13)The Task and Hour Summary Forms for CDM

and subconsultants by task, and a summary of all project hours, are included in Section 8. The task efforts are as described in Section 1, Technical Approach. This approach follows all required ele-ments of the District’s RFP.

Receipt and Review of Supplements(RFP Item Requirement No. 14)CDM has received and reviewed proposal Supple-ment Nos. 1 and 2.

Firm Address

Jeff erson Wells1375 E 9th St # 1800Cleveland, OH 44114

New Dimensions Solu ons600 Mamaroneck Ave, Suite 400Harrison, NY 10528

Oracle500 Oracle ParkwayRedwood Shores, CA 94065

Water Resource and Coastal Engineering(WBE)

5882 Briarhill DriveSolon, Ohio 44139

United Interna onal Consultants(MBE)

P.O. Box 3358North Royalton, Ohio 44133

RNR Consul ng(MBE)

1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 1330Cleveland, Ohio 44114

DLZ(MBE)

1000 Rockefeller Bldg.614 West Superior AvenueCleveland, Ohio 44113

Table 7-2: Subconsultant addresses.

1100 Superior Ave.

Suite 620

Cleveland, OH 44114

www.cdm.com

C O N T I N U O U S I M P R O V E M E N T

C O N T I N U E D P A R T N E R S H I P

S T E A D Y P R O G R E S S

C O M M I T M E N T T O Q U A L I T Y