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

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

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

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

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

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

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 1937 and 1964 Both the Catskill and Delaware Aqueducts discharge to Kensico Reservoir Catskill and Delaware Aqueducts continue to Hillview Reservoir and NYC distribution system Delaware Watershed Kensico Reservoir Hillview Reservoir

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.

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

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

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

UV Facility Rendering North Forebay Shaft 19 Generator Building UV Building

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

144" Steel Pipe

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

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

Cat/Del UV Site 2008

Cat/Del UV Site 2009

Cat/Del UV Site 2010

Methodology for Developing Quality Management Plan July 19, 2010

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

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.

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

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

Standard Operating Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audit Findings July 19, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Summer 2010 Current View