1

New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection

CM Quality Management on NYCDEP Mega-Project

July 19, 2010

2

Scheduled Speakers

George Schmitt, PEChief, Facilities Construction North

CAT/DEL UV FacilityNYCDEP

Mark Hanson, CCM, PEProject Director

CAT/DEL UV FacilityMalcolm Pirnie, Inc.

Paul Whitener, PEDeputy Project Director

CAT/DEL UV FacilityCH2M HILL

Ruth DouzinasProject Engineer

CAT/DEL UV FacilityCH2M HILL

3

New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection

Overview of NYCDEP and CAT/DEL UV Program

July 19, 2010

4

• 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

5

• 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 6

New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Catskill and Delaware Systems

• 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

Catskill Watershed

Kensico Reservoir

7

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: 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

Catskill Aqueduct

KensicoReservoir

UEC

Shaft 18

Shaft 19

Eastview Site

Delaware Aqueduct

CCC

Shaft 19

Eastview Site

The Eastview Site was the planned location of a future filtration facility when the Catskill Aqueduct was constructed in the 1920s

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

UV Plant

KENSICO

Shaft 19

Catskill Connection

Chamber

Delaware Aqueduct

Catskill Aqueduct

KENSICO

KENSICO

El. 355

HILLVIEW

El. 292

12

UV Facility Rendering

North Forebay

UV Building

Shaft 19Generator Building

13/72

UV Plant Layout

Existing Shaft 19

North Forebay

South Forebay

144” Flow Split

Header

To Delaware

To Catskill

Future KCT Connection

144” Raw Water Headers

144” Treated Water Headers

48” UV Unit(s)

Future Filter Plant

Connection

84” Energy Dissipating

Valves

14

144" Steel Pipe

15

Giardia cyst

Cryptosporidiumcyst

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

17

Cat/Del UV Site 2008

18

Cat/Del UV Site 2009

19

Cat/Del UV Site 2010

New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection

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 ControlContinuous 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 AssuranceApplication 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

Standard Operating Procedures

25

26

Challenge #2: Internal CM Consultant Structure

• Staff of 65• Joint Venture between CH2M HILL

and Malcolm Pirnie• Large firms with

independent internaldelivery 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

CM Team’s Plan- Timeline

28

Develop CM SOPs & Program Manual

Bi-weekly training – Administrative & Field Inspection

Develop Audit

Perform Internal Audit

Corrective Action Plan

High Performing Project &Satisfied

Client

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

RO

LE

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

Development of Audit

• 86 aspects of program reviewed

• Source to validate documentation listed

• Contract requirements and NYCEP SOPs guided audit criteria

33

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

34

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

New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection

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 inaccordance 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 2010Current View