ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority ENGINEERING EXCHANGEacecnj.org/pdf/Engineering Exchange Recap Presentation.pdf · 2015-02-28 · ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority ENGINEERING EXCHANGE

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority

ENGINEERING

EXCHANGE

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Forsgate Country Club, Monroe Township, NJ

Procurement: Ana Tatoris, John Keller,

Joe Danyo, Chris Nash, Neal Toglia, Russell Saputo

• Review of NJTA Procurement Process

• 5 Discussion Topics

– Consultant Rating System?

– Debriefings and Disclosure

– Outstanding Work with the Authority

– Submittal Time Frames and Format

– Suggestions for Improvements

• Next Steps

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority Engineering Exchange

Procurement: – Consultant Rating System? NO

– Debriefings and Disclosure – Positive compared to other agencies.

– Outstanding Work with the Authority - We will be considering prorating and separating CI/Design

– Submittal Time Frames and Format – More time for EOI/Proposal and Interview, more pages for EOIs, allowance for graphics, page limits for Proposals, specific detail on font sizes, line spacing, etc.

– Suggestions for Improvements - Sooner notifications for consultants NOT selected, On time submittal list

• Next Steps – Further discussions internal/external for consistency and improvement


Stakeholder Coordination: Jean Laird,

Mike Grant, Mike Morgan, and Tony Fulco

• Internal Screening /Start Process Early

• Need for Formal Process

• Project Specific

• Follow Through to Construction


Regulatory Agency Coordination: Steve Buente, Maynard Abuan, Jim Heeren, and Michael Folli


Environmental Permits Pre-Application Meeting

• Bridge Maintenance GP

• Incorporate adequate staging areas into LOD of permit application for construction and maintenance

• Consider use of Environmental Plan in contract documents to reinforce permit conditions

• Timing of permit application submittals

Mitigation

• Banking

• Time to acquire

• Turnkey mitigation

• Consider on-site options for placement of excess ID-27 soil

• Coordinate with public officials relative to environmental remediation activities

• Due diligence on AOCs

Linear Construction

Project Delivery / Risk ID & Mitigation: Lisa Navarro, Lamis Malak, Sima Jasani

Bob Thiel, and Jim Homoki

NJTA Capital Project Delivery Process




NJTA Senior Leadership Poll Results




#1: Positive & Negatives of Current CPDP


Positives Negatives

• Schedule certainty • Proactive/engaged NJTA PMs

• Possible disconnect between Senior Leadership viewpoints and NJTA PMs/Consultants

• GSP and TPK roadways are handled differently



#2: Consultant’s Risks Based on CPDP

• When scopes are not well defined – Lead to schedule, scope creep

• Outside influences – outside control of team




#3: Interpretation of NJTA Poll Results

• “Triple threat” issues (permitting, utilities, ROW) are out of direct control of NJTA/consultants

• All items are schedule critical




#4: Changes to CPDP to Minimize Risks

• Constructability – More detailed analysis

• Stakeholder coordination (external and internal) – Earlier buy-in

– Onboard review meetings with departments (engineering, Ops, construction)

– Earlier involvement with outside agencies

• Fully defined preliminary engineering product




#5: Introducing Risk Evaluation into CPDP

• Risk management reviews – conducted at each phase (planning, design, construction)

• Hire on-call risk evaluation consultant

• Detailed risk evaluation during planning phase




Action Items

• Evaluate feedback received (handout sheets)

• Possible Considerations Moving Forward

– Assess the Project Delivery Process

– Assess Risk Evaluations conducted by NJTA

– Evaluate constructability in NJTA process


Constructability: Bill Wilson, Mike Garofalo,

Glen Schetelich, David Rue and John Tan

• Need formal procedure for Constructability • Define Constructability

– Can the project be built – Identify fatal flaws

• Levels of Review – In-house/sub – Independent reviews – Constructability workshop – Early selection of project CM – Use GEC constructability reviewers


Constructability: Bill Wilson, Mike Garofalo,

Glen Schetelich, David Rue and John Tan

• Establish triggers for the level of review

• When to perform review – Early enough to allow incorporation of changes

– Design charette at Phase A level

• Combine with MPT report

• Document formal review by all reviewers

• Issues to consider – Access/Lane closures

– Schedule constraints, e.g. environmental


Construction Services: John Withers, Frank Corso, Steve Dempsey, and Tony Lagala


• Construction Reporting – Need formal electronic process (eliminate paper) example FACS, ELVIS, EBuilding

– All encompassing (IR’s, Progress Payments, CO, etc)

• Shop Drawing Review Process – Matrix is working …ongoing refinement

– Need pre-arranged schedule of submissions…complete submissions

• CM/CI Procurement – All favor Page Limits in CM/CI RFP’s by complexity

• Safety – Consultant vs Authority provided? Majority favor Authority On-Call for Safety Monitoring

– Clear scope on safety responsibilities

• Change Orders – DelDOT and NJ Transit have Drawdown Items to Allow Payment as CO is processed

• CPM Progress Schedules – Resource loading a positive tool

– Need more consequences for late monthly Updates

• Lessons Learned – Debrief at end with CM, DE, Contractor ….good idea. Formal “lessons learned” report in RFP.

• Inspection Staff Training – More industry sponsored training

– Enhance communications skills of inspectors

Documents

ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority ENGINEERING EXCHANGEacecnj.org/pdf/Engineering Exchange Recap Presentation.pdf · 2015-02-28 · ACECNJ and NJ Turnpike Authority ENGINEERING EXCHANGE