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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. 144" Steel Pipe

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

16. UV Facility Flow Path 48” UV Units
12-foot dia, concrete encased steel pipe conduits (typ.)

17. Cat/Del UV Site 2008

18. Cat/Del UV Site 2009

19. Cat/Del UV Site 2010

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

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

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

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

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

25. Standard Operating Procedures

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

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

28. CM Team’s Plan- Timeline
High Performing Project &
Satisfied Client
Develop CM SOPs & Program Manual
Bi-weekly training – Administrative & Field Inspection
Develop Audit
Perform Internal Audit
Corrective Action Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37. Audit Findings
July 19, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Questions?
Summer 2010 Current View