BWI Marshall Airport Taxiway B Reconstruction

John L. Martin Partnered Project of the Year

2020 Award Application

Civil Construction Projects, under $25 M

MARYLAND AVIATION AD MINISTRATION

BWI Marshall Airport Taxiway B Reconstruction

International Partnering Institute 2020 John L. Martin Partnered Project of the Year Award Taxiway B Reconstruction

Table of Contents

I. Application Form

II. Project Stakeholders

III. Project Summary

IV. Judges’ Criteria

V. Project Charter

VI. Exhibits Letter of Support

Project Photos

Project Scorecard

The BRAVO Award


Page | 1

I. Application Form

Category

Category 1 (Under $25M) x Civil Construction

Buildings/Public Infrastructure

Project Team IPI Member(s): Paul Shank, PE, CM; Neal Flesner; Eileen Sien, PE

Applicant Information

Date Application Package Submitted for Consideration: February 3, 2020

Project Name: Taxiway B Reconstruction

Project Location: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport

Team Members

Owner: Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Aviation Administration

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8766 BWI Airport, MD 21041

Contact Name and Title: Paul Shank, Chief Engineer

Telephone Number: 410-859-7061

Email: [email protected]

Program Management: Airport Design Consultants, Inc. (ADCI)

Mailing Address: 6031 University Blvd., Suite 330 Ellicott City, MD 21043

Contact Name and Title: Alan Peljovich, Program Manager



Prime Contractor: Allan Myers

Mailing Address: 1805 Berks Road Worcester, PA

Contact Name and Title: Laurie Bryan, Project Manager




Page | 2

Designer: Michael Baker International

Mailing Address: 1304 Concourse Drive, Suite 200, Linthicum, MD 21061

Contact Name and Title: Tracy Hollida, Vice President - Aviation



Construction Manager: Parsons Transportation Group

Mailing Address: 6958 Aviation Blvd, Suite J, Glen Burnie, MD 21061

Contact Name and Title: Vladimir Vinluan, Resident Engineer



Partnering Facilitator: Ventura Consulting Group

Mailing Address: 966 Peninsula Street, Ventura, California 93001

Contact Name and Title: Neal Flesner, Senior Facilitator



Project Stakeholder List: See Section II

Schedule Outcome:

A) Original planned start date: March 11, 2019

B) Original planned completion date: November 25, 2019

C) Planned number of work days: 260-calendar days

D) Actual start date (Notice to Proceed): March 11, 2019

E) Actual completion date: October 25, 2019

F) Actual number of work days: 229-calendar days

Days Ahead or Behind Schedule (F-C): 31-calendar days (ahead of schedule)

Please explain any schedule anomalies or considerations: N/A


Page | 3

Project Budget Outcome:

A) Original Contract Amount: $11,555,777.00

B) Final Contract Amount: $10,381,469.03

C) Project Cost (Under or Over Budget A-B): $1,174,307.97 (under budget)

D) Cost Increase Associated with Owner Initiated Change Orders: $300,847.40

Please explain any budget amendments or considerations: The project team partnered with

MAA on value engineering items such as replacing full depth pavement sections with

econocrete for a savings of nearly $15,000. In addition, the combining of phases 4/5 resulted in

a savings of nearly $50,000 in temporary striping and eradication.

Change Order Outcome:

Number of Change Orders Processed: 12

Number of Owner Initiated Change Orders: 8

Number of Field Initiated Change Orders: 4

Claims Outcome:

Number of Claims Accepted: 0

Number of Unresolved Claims (at close-out, ongoing?): 0

Safety Outcome:

OSHA Recordables: 0

Lost-Time rate: 0

Number of Fatalities: 0

Comments regarding safety issues that occurred in the project: Throughout construction, the

contractor utilized a myriad of strategies to ensure the safety of the workers and airfield

operations, including required safety training before site access, continuous reoccurring

training, tool box talks prior to initiation of any new item of work, initiating weekly

meetings with a “safety moment,” and discussions during partnering on how we as a

team make sure no one becomes complacent with the work and everyone has an eye

open for the safety of all.


Page | 4

Personal Fulfillment Outcome (from participant surveys):

Initial Participant Project Satisfaction Level: 7.5

Final Participant Project Satisfaction Level: 9.6

Partnering Expense Analysis:

Total Cost of Project Partnering: $41,485.38

Final Project Cost: $10,381,469.03

Partnering Expense as a % of Project Budget: 0.4%

Estimated Savings due to Partnering: $1,174,307.97

Partnering Expense / Saving Expense Ratio (e.g. $1/$40): $1/ $28


Page | 5

II. Project Stakeholders

Note – Names in italics denote members of the Executive Team.

NAME ORGANIZATION TITLE EMAIL ADDRESS

Alan Peljovich PMT Program Manager [email protected]

Alex Ollerman MAA MAA Design [email protected]

Andy Conlon MAA Operations [email protected]

Ben Martinez MAA Operations [email protected]

Bob Boblitz MAA Security [email protected]

Brian Smith MAA Maintenance [email protected]

Buddy Vinluan PTG Resident Engineer [email protected]

Christine Varney PMT Task Manager [email protected]

Corey Duane AM QC [email protected]

Eileen Sien PMT Task Manager [email protected]

Eric Eastin AM Construction Manager [email protected]

Fran Purcell AM General Superintendent [email protected]

Greg Solek MAA Operations [email protected]

Greg Trusty MAA Grounds Maintenance [email protected]

Jeff Kolb Baker Technical Manager [email protected]

Jeff Tyley PTG Project Manager [email protected]

John Hurt MAA Environmental Plan. & Comp. [email protected]

John Stewart MAA Operations [email protected]

Joyce Olive AM Security Coordinator [email protected]

Kathleen Leahy AM Project Controls [email protected]

Keith Fritz ADCI Senior Engineer [email protected]

Kieva Rodriques MAA Dep Chief Engineer [email protected]


Page | 6

Laurie Bryan AM Project Manager [email protected]

Lordian Turner Baker Pavement Engineer [email protected]

Mark Garrett PTG Electrical Inspector [email protected]

Matt Koss AM Health/Safety Envir. Specialist [email protected]

Michael Harris, Jr. Glen Elg Electrical Contractor [email protected]

Mike Kennedy MAA Office of Fire Marshal [email protected]

Neal Flesner Ventura

Consulting Facilitator [email protected]

Nick Chiffons AM Survey Manager [email protected]

Patty Hollar MAA Commercial Management [email protected]

Paul Bobson MAA Air Service Development [email protected]

Paul Shank MAA Chief Engineer [email protected]

Peggy Summers Mimar Construction

Manager [email protected]

Randall Paton PTG Sr. Resident Engineer [email protected]

Rich Dungan AM Vice President [email protected]

Robin Bowie MAA Environmental Plan. & Comp. [email protected]

Ryan Frame AM Superintendent [email protected]

Scott Proudfoot FAA BWI ATCT Manager [email protected]

Terence Wright Hill Intl. Civil Inspector [email protected]

Thomas Hayden MAA Office of Fire Marshal [email protected]

Tom Priscilla FAA [email protected]

Tom Varughese MAA MAA Eng & Constr. [email protected]

Tony Libonate PTG Civil Inspector [email protected]

Tracy Hollida Baker Project Manager [email protected]

Wayne Pennell MAA Operations [email protected]


Page | 7

III. Project Summary The Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Aviation Administration (“MDOT MAA”)

Taxiway B Reconstruction project was critical to MDOT MAA’s ongoing operations at

Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI Marshall). Taxiway B is the

primary access from the north cargo apron and international areas of the terminal to the airfield.

As such, the taxiway experiences traffic from some of the heaviest aircraft traveling through BWI

Marshall. The taxiway had become a recurring problem with rutting and subgrade failures

occurring in the existing asphalt pavement. After several resurfacing/ patching projects, it became

apparent that a full concrete reconstruction of the taxiway was needed for the future aircraft traffic.

The project was selected by MDOT MAA as eligible for an Airport Improvement Program (AIP)

grant from the FAA. The project was part of the airport’s overall Pavement Management Program

and required enabling work on a parallel taxiway to be completed the year before in order to detour

aircraft during construction. The Design Team and Program Management Team worked diligently

to meet the FAA deadline and secure the grant from the FAA, which covered up to 75% of the

project costs. A contract duration of 260 days was specified to complete the reconstruction of the

1350’ long taxiway. In addition, several airline and gate relocations were required to provide a safe

construction site and ensure uninterrupted operations for the three carriers affected. Clear

expectations were established at initial partnering sessions regarding the schedule, phasing, airline

impacts, and stakeholder communication. The team worked together from the start to maximize

efficiency by identifying product substitutions, proposing phasing modifications, and coordinating

with all stakeholders to ensure smooth transitions between construction phases. Requests for

Information (RFIs) and product submittals were returned expediently, and often issues were

discussed and resolved in meetings or the field before a confirming RFI was written.

The dedication and exceptional teamwork displayed by the team was paramount to the success

of the project. The team, who had worked together previously on projects, leveraged deep working

relationships to ensure the project moved smoothly. As result, all work was substantially complete

31 days ahead of the contract completion date. The Project Team beat the schedule, came in

under budget, and maintained a safe workspace that produced a high-quality product. The Team

also came away with the added benefit of creating strong partnerships with all team members. The

Team achieved all of its Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs) initially set and scored itself as a

world class team with a final rating of 9.6.


Page | 8

IV. Judges’ Criteria 1. How Did You Partner This Project? (15 points)

Did you use a Professional Neutral Facilitator? For how many sessions? Please specify if you held a kick-off session, interim follow-up sessions and/or a close out lessons learned session, and if these sessions were facilitated. A previous MDOT MAA project, Runway 15R-33L Runway Safety Area, was a difficult experience

for the entire team. During that project with Allan Myers (Myers), MDOT MAA sought to find ways

to address the issues the team was having and find a better way to work together. It was through

this initiative that MDOT MAA began formal collaborative partnering. By partnering on that project,

team stress was reduced and collaboration increased, resulting in benefits to the schedule, project

costs, and team relationships. In subsequent projects with Myers the team has learned to

communicate and work together, culminating in their excellent performance on this project five

years later, rating themselves as a world class team.

Because of this positive initial experience, MDOT MAA recognizes the value of formal partnering

and requires construction projects over $10 million to utilize partnering through a neutral partnering

facilitator. For this project, Myers hired Ventura Consulting as the partnering facilitator for the

project. There was a total of eight facilitated partnering meetings held: four of the meetings were

with the entire project team and four of the meetings were with the Executive Team. The larger

group meetings were facilitated by Neal Flesner* and the Executive meetings were facilitated by

Eileen Sien* (ADCI). The four larger group sessions were held quarterly, including a kick-off in

February 2019 and a close out lessons learned session in October 2019. (*IPI Professional

Facilitators)

Did the project use Surveys? If so, how many did your team use?

The team used electronic surveys for the project. A total of four surveys were completed during the

months in between the larger group meetings (March, April, June and July).

How did your team follow up on survey findings? If applicable, include an example of a decision the team made based on survey findings.

The monthly survey results were shared with the team at the progress meetings and the executive

partnering meetings. Attention was given to any areas where there was a dip in the ratings from

the team. For example, the budget BHAG showed a decrease in rating from the March to April

survey. The change was discussed by the group and it was noted that invoices were taking longer


Page | 9

than expected to be processed and payment received. This discussion created an action item for

the team to track the invoices on a weekly basis at the progress meetings with dates of submitted

and updates on the progress. Another example of the value of the survey findings is that the

Executive Team noted how high the team was scoring themselves during a critical construction

phase and made a point to acknowledge the team as a whole at the next progress meeting as well

as plan a Safety Celebration for the Team. (See Photos in Exhibits)

2. Goals and Outcomes of the Partnership (35 points) - What were the team’s goals relative to scope, schedule, quality, safety & budget? What project-specific goals did your team set?

As part of the initial partnering meeting, all parties of the team worked together to establish the Big,

Hairy, Audacious Goals (BHAGs) that the team would strive to achieve on the project. The BHAGs

identified were:

1. Safety: Zero recordable incidents and zero lost time accidents. Start all meetings with safety

as the first topic.

2. RFI: Proposed solution and verbal discussion prior to written RFIs.

3. Quality: 100% PWL (passing within limits) for project pavement.

4. Schedule: Taxiway open to operations by November 19th, 2019 – project completion.

5. Budget (Updated): All parties achieve projected profit and the team doesn’t have to go back

to board of public works.

6. Operations: No unplanned interruptions to airport operations. No incursions or incidents. No

security violations.

7. Teamwork: Build lasting relationships and we want to work together again. Team wins

awards.

8. Environmental: Environmental corrective actions taken within 24 hours of notification.

Were the partnership’s goals updated/amended throughout the project? The partnership goals were evaluated by the team in each large partnering meeting. Updates were

made to the goals as necessary to remain relevant to the current stage of the project. For example,

the wording of the budget goal was updated to remain relevant mid-project. The monthly surveys

also included a section for team members to score the progress toward each goal from 1-10.


Page | 10

What were the outcomes of your goals? Did the project exceed expectations in terms of scope, schedule, budget, safety, quality, personal fulfillment, etc.? If so, please provide details. Scope – The purpose of the Taxiway B Reconstruction project was to restore a primary taxiway

supporting the international concourse and north cargo area of the airport. The Designer, Michael

Baker (Baker), developed the project documents to specify how the taxiway would be

reconstructed to reliably support existing and future aircraft traffic. The MDOT MAA and Program

Management Team (ADCI) worked with the designers to procure the contractor and secure the

FAA AIP grant. The contractor, Allan Myers (Myers), performed the work according to the plans

and specifications with management and inspection by Parsons, the CMI. Each of these important

roles played a part in the team’s ability to deliver the high-quality product needed by MDOT MAA

to ensure the reliability and longevity of this portion of the airfield for use by the airlines and FAA.

Schedule – At the initial partnering meeting, MDOT MAA project stakeholders and team members

decided that one of the goals of the project would be an early completion ahead of the

Thanksgiving holiday when the airport is extremely busy. Myers proposed combining two of the

project phases (Phases 4 and 5) in order to work more efficiently in a larger area and therefore

save time on the schedule. The proposed phasing changes also involved working in a taxiway

intersection (Phase 5) during daytime hours when the contract called for that work to be performed

at night. The project team and MAA stakeholders reviewed the proposal and accepted the phasing

revisions, with the understanding that Phase 5 area would be worked first and returned to

operations as soon as possible. Combining the phases resulted in greater production for Myers to

make critical gains on the project schedule. Close coordination with their concrete supplier was

required to schedule the necessary deliveries throughout the summer season, often with concrete

pours starting at 3 am. Myers and their subcontractors worked 15-16 hour shifts, 6 days a week,

to complete 34 total concrete pours through the summer. The hard work and dedication of the

construction team along with the teamwork displayed by the partnering team helped the project

significantly exceed its schedule goal by completing 31 days early.

Quality – The project was over $10M and had only 45 RFIs. This was remarkable and was a result

of the specific efforts by the whole team to work with confirming RFIs. The project had minimal

rework, a few minor repairs at the end of the project. The team support of the econcrete substitution

aided in the quality of the overall project. Recognizing that concrete supply was a significant


Page | 11

component of the project’s success, the team coordinated with the concrete supply subcontractor

and included them in the partnering process. This allowed the subcontractor to see firsthand how

their one task of supplying concrete had an overall impact on the success of this project that was

critical to BWI airport operations.

Budget – The project was successfully completed under the budget. The early completion saved

the project $1,174,307.97. Myers made their expected profit and there were no outstanding

claims. Additionally, the smooth execution of the project and lack of excessive change orders and

issues allowed MDOT MAA to fully leverage an AIP grant from the FAA to cover 75% of the project

costs to improve this critical section of the BWI airfield.

Safety – The project team prioritized safety of the construction team members and all users of the

airfield throughout the project duration. At the initial partnering workshop, the project team decided

that one of the goals of the project would be to incur no recordable safety incidents during the life

of the project. To promote the culture of safety within the team, Myers began each weekly project

meeting with a safety moment covering a safety topic relevant to their construction work.

Additionally, Myers would hold monthly “Safety Standowns” with their entire crew and

subcontractors. These safety meetings would cover the risks involved with each phase of the

project and how to be vigilant on the project site to ensure that no injuries or mishaps occurred.

The construction team worked hard to eliminate complacency for a project with 25,000 manhours

(March- November), a high volume of deliveries, and a tight work site on active airfield. The

constant focus on safety by the whole team resulted in the achievement of the team’s safety goal.

Project Specific Goals – The project team set project specific goals related to operations,

teamwork and environmental. The team was successful in achieving the goals of no unplanned

interruptions to operations, and environmental corrective action taking place within 24 hours of

notification. The last target, to win awards for the team, is why this application is being submitted

to IPI. This is the final piece of a very successful team effort pushing to be World Class. The MDOT

MAA recognizes that this team emphasized the spirit of partnering and is looking forward to building

upon the success accomplished with this project.

Personal Fulfillment

During the close-out lessons learned partnering session there was a general consensus among

the team that this project was enjoyable to work on. The team focus was present and felt by all

the members of the team. There was great satisfaction in the hard work completed and the way


Page | 12

the team worked together. The recipients of the prestigious BRAVO award were honored to have

their partnering efforts recognized by the project team.

2. Issue Resolution (25 points) - Describe issues your team overcame through Partnering. One of the major goals identified from the partnering sessions was to complete the project ahead

of the contract schedule. With this goal in mind, an emphasis was made by Baker to review and

return product submittals, shop drawings, and RFIs as quickly as possible. The partnering sessions

and weekly progress meetings helped to open the line of communication between the designers

and contractor. Issues were often discussed in the meetings with follow up site visits scheduled as

needed to resolve issues before an RFI was even written. Due to this ongoing communication

between the design and construction teams, the project experienced a remarkably low number of

RFIs (45) and field revisions (7).

The project site was on an active airfield which needed to maintain operations throughout

construction. Extensive coordination occurred during the partnering meetings to accommodate the

needs of the contractors, airport operations, and air traffic control (ATC). This coordination ensured

that operations were not interrupted and a safe worksite was maintained throughout each phase

of construction. In order for the mainline of Taxiway B to be constructed, the Essential Air Service

(EAS) carriers had to be relocated to the other side of the commuter terminal at the end of

Concourse D. This effort required much coordination with the airlines and contractors to ensure

the transition to the new gates went smoothly. Parsons and ADCI worked closely with the airlines

to plan this move at the beginning and end of that project phase. As a result of a field walk with the

EAS representatives, the team made changes to the contract to reinstall striping at their existing

gates along with crosswalks in order to make their operation safer.

Phase 1 of the project originally called for soil cement to be placed as the pavement base.

However, the work area in this phase was too narrow to be able to fit the soil cement equipment to

complete the installation. Myers proposed to utilize an alternate base material, econocrete, which

would allow them to place the pavement base using smaller equipment and incur a shorter cure

time before placing the final surface course of the pavement. The substitution request was

discussed with the design team during partnering sessions, and the request was approved.

Econocrete was then decided to be utilized as the base for all of the project pavement due to the

reduced cure time required prior to placing the final surface course. The substitution resulted in

schedule savings to the project at no added cost to MDOT MAA.


Page | 13

In the initial partnering session, Myers noted that the schedule was quite aggressive for the large

amount of work called for in the project. They identified an opportunity to save time on the schedule,

combining phases 4 & 5, working the phases during the day shift, rather than the night work, as

specified for phase 5 in the contract. Through discussions with MDOT MAA airport operations in

partnering, the phasing modification was approved and is the primary reason for the completion

31 days ahead of schedule. A major by-product of the onsite issue resolution process was a very

small punchlist at final completion. Excellent communication in the field meant that any quality

control issues were identified by the inspectors and addressed by the construction team prior to

punchlist generation. This effort resulted in an expedient project closeout process.

What was your team’s issue resolution procedure? Provide examples. The team worked to create the Issue Resolution Ladder at our Kick-off partnering session,

identifying individuals at every level, within each organization, to own the decision making. As

issues were identified the intent was to resolve issues at the lowest level with the staff who are

most knowledgeable about the issue. However, certain issues needed to be elevated because

they were either too complex, required additional input, or could add costs/time to the project.

When an issue was noticed in the field, it would first be discussed between the Myers field

managers and Parsons onsite inspectors. If a solution was not determined or direction was needed

from the Engineer, the on-site team would elevate the issue to the next level of the resolution

ladder. There were numerous instances in which an issue was noticed, a conference call was held

between Myers, Parsons, Baker, and ADCI, and the issue was resolved during that call within the

same day. The team worked daily with the motto: “If you can meet, don’t call. If you can call, don’t

email or write.” One issue facing the team pertained to the timeliness with which the contractor

was getting paid. As the project was progressing the contractor noted their payments were delayed

and they had concerns with this impacting their subconsultants. The topic was discussed during

the progress meetings with a follow action item from MDOT MAA. Due to the complexity of the

State’s payment process and the end of the fiscal year, several invoices were late in being paid.

This sensitive and complex issue was elevated to the Executive Level, where the Chief Engineer

agreed to a review of the invoicing procedures and recommended Allan Myers submit for the

interest on the late payments based on the contract. A possible solution of weekly invoicing was

discussed but never implemented. The review of the process proved helpful and the subsequent

eight progress payments were received on time.


Page | 14

Did you use Facilitated Dispute Resolution or any other form of ADR? No. Estimate the value of the issues resolved (in terms of cost and of schedule). The contract underrun is valued at $1,174,307.97 and 31 calendar days ahead of schedule.

4. Teamwork (15 points) - How did you develop team member relationships? Describe those relationships and how you maintained them. The team entered into the project with a commitment to improve the team morale from their

previous difficult project together. Working relationships were developed through constant

communication and seeing each other at the weekly progress meetings and partnering events.

The valuable discussions held in the partnering sessions helped to develop the team from a “Good

Project Team” to a “World Class Team.” At the onset of the project, the team wanted to make sure

they were finding ways to get together outside of the job site and celebrate the team members.

The creation of the BRAVO Committee was formed, with representation from the key parties of

the team. This committee worked to plan events and present awards for team members who went

above and beyond in their work to ensure the spirit of partnering. There were three BRAVO

Awards presented during the duration of the project. The winners were nominated by their

teammates and the comments included on those nominations really showed how everyone was

noticing the hard work of others. (Examples on the Exhibits).

How did you inform, educate and/or engage the public, third parties, or other project stakeholders? Describe those relationships and how you maintained them. Due to the critical location of the project site on the airfield, it was very important to keep third parties

at the airport (Operations, FAA, ATC, airlines, etc.) up to date on the project schedule, phasing and

durations. Weekly progress reports were shared with the entire stakeholder list including the

contractor’s 2-week look ahead schedule and visual exhibits of the progress to date. (See Exhibits)

In addition, monthly updates were given at the airport-wide construction briefings as well as

monthly updates with exhibits at the Airline Accommodations meetings. Parsons attended the

weekly closure meeting with MAA Operations and FAA/ATC to keep them up to speed on the

project progress and answer questions or concerns.

Provide specific examples of your partnership added value for the team and the stakeholders, including the end-users?

One morning the partnering committee visited the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC) bearing donuts

and coffee. In between take-offs and landings, the partnering team gave the controllers the BRAVO


Page | 15

partnering award in recognition of their cooperation in directing aircraft around the construction

area. More importantly, the stakeholders were able to find out more about each other’s roles and

responsibilities. This action assisted greatly as the project progressed towards completion and

helped to integrate an atypical partner (the actual controllers) into the partnering process.

5. Innovations and Lessons Learned (10 points) - What “out of the box,” innovative /creative ideas were implemented on this project and/or in your partnering program?

Since the quality of asphalt pavement is of such high importance to the airport, Myers decided to

utilize their new Caterpillar paver with Trimble UTS 3D grade control system. On-site training was

arranged for the crew with experts from the equipment manufacturer. First the experts ran through

the basics and calibrated the equipment with Myers’ paving crew, mechanics, and surveyors. Then

it was time to do a test run with stone, followed by placement of an asphalt test strip. The training

paid off as the team passed the test strip with flying colors and went on to place 12,000 tons with

no pavement requiring replacement due to grade tolerances.

Explain any special adaptations or refinements that were made to improve the project partnering process to fit this particular project. To strengthen communication and relationships for the team, monthly Executive Team meeting

were held. This allowed the leadership of the project team to “break bread” and discuss the project

off site, looking for ways to make the project better or address issues that had been elevated.

During casual conversation at one of these meetings, a team member shared a challenging

personal event with a recent suicide. While the topic was not specific to the project it developed

into the conversation for all, providing valuable insight and shared knowledge as well as resources.

Myers noted that they had more employees die from suicide then work accidents company wide

and that is a big problem in the construction industry. Over the duration of the project the topic

became more impactful for the group, discussing the role leaders have in their organization to shed

light on these issues. That year Myers included mental wellness as part of their overall Safety

Program company wide. The group appreciated their sharing of information as a resource.

What were your lessons learned and how will you use them to improve future projects? The project was a success on many fronts and some of the lessons learns will be used as best

practices on future projects. They included: 1) Safety Topic to start all progress meetings – carried

the theme for the team. 2) Targeted meetings when issues arise for a solution with group buy

in/support 3) If you can meet don’t call - if you can call don’t email or write - use confirming RFIs.


Page | 16

6. Bonus Points (2 points)


Page | 17

V. Project Charter


Page | 18

What will make this a great project? 1. Proactive QC - ahead of curve avoid

delays 2. Win awards 3. Working through phasing with

operations 4. Avoid operations impacts - result of

construction 5. No safety recordables - only confirming

RFIs 6. Happy client

7. Good weather / adaptable 8. Finish in 260 or less 9. No rework 10. Profitable and within budget 11. Better friends 12. 100% within limits for paving 13. Maintain environmental compliance 14. Good partnering 15. No property or equipment damage

Challenges, Concerns, Opportunities? 16. Risk registry - accountability matrix 17. Contract/phone chain - confirming RFIs

who to call 18. Phasing of the project - can we it

better? 19. Substitution for econocrete

20. Fun committee 21. Coordination with airlines 22. Issues resolution 23. Schedule/state date - Sunday 3/10 24. Long lead items 25. Exec partnering

Project Focus

Progress Meetings Phasing Material Substitute

Coordination with Airlines Executive Partnering RFIs

Fun Committee

Issue Resolution Ladder

Allan Meyers Parsons Baker PMT JMT/ADCI

MAA

Field Manager Tony/Mark Lordian / Sunil Christine Peggy

Ryan - Super Tony/Mark/Terance Lordian / Sunil Christine Peggy

Laurie - PM Buddy / Randall Jeff K Christine Alex Eric - CM Jeff Tracy Alan Tom

Rich - Pres Jeff Tracy Cedrick Paul

3 Rules for Issue Escalation: Elevate when you agree to disagree

Elevate when it is outside your authority or experience to make a decision

Elevate when not making a decision will delay the project


Page | 1

VI. Exhibits Letter of Support

Project Photos

Project Status Updates

The BRAVO Award

Dear IPI Awards Committee:

January 29th 2020

Towards the end of 2018 the BWI Airport reached out to set up an initial partnering session for a contract that would kick off in early 2019 and would hopefully finish by the end of 2019. BWI had and their team had worked with the contractor, Allan Myers in the past. From my initial conversations, it was shared that the stakeholders had worked together in the past, however the results had not met expectations.

This frank discussion, by both parties, on the commitment to put the past aside and make the Taxiway Bravo project extraordinary opened the way for some stretch goals to finish the project prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. This would produce a win for all parties and minimize disruptions to the airport and holiday travelers.

This team celebrated the success with the entire team. During the hot summer months of project they brought together the field and office staff by serving Hawaii Style Shave Ice at the job site. At each partnering review meeting they came up with a Bravo Award (as the project was on Taxiway Bravo) to recognize a team member that had gone above and beyond.

One interesting note, was that in one of the final partnering sessions, the team was rating their ability to hit the early completion date quite high. The question was asked if they could beat their original stretch goal. With hesitation and a little apprehension the team agreed to shoot for an even earlier date, which they ended up hitting.

Not only do I recommend this team for an award for their high levels of communication, collaboration, teamwork and the ability to work through challenges, but this is one of those teams that you hope gets a chance to work together again, soon.

Sincerely,

S. Neal Flesner

Taxiway B Reconstruction: Project Photos

April 1, 2019: Phase 1 of the project widened the shoulder and turning radius to parallel Taxiway S in order to maintain operations during Taxiway B closure.

Contractor Allan Myers chose to utilize new paving equipment with innovative grading control technology.

Econocrete base course was utilized as the base for the Taxiway S widening due to the narrow width. Econocrete has a shorter cure time required between paving lifts and resulted in schedule gains for the construction team.

April 24, 2019: An on-site preparatory meeting was held with the essential air service (EAS) airlines to go over their gate relocations necessary for the construction of the mainline Taxiway B.

June 1, 2019: Phases 1, 2, and 3 complete. Connecting Taxiway N is reopened and markings are installed on the opposite side of the Commuter Terminal for the EAS airlines.

June 7, 2019: Taxiway N reconstruction complete. Aircraft from North Cargo apron are redirected to parallel Taxiway S around the Phase 4 work area on mainline Taxiway B .

July 6, 2019: Excavation of Phase 4 and 5

August 31, 2019: Finishing up concrete pours on Taxiway B

Project Complete and Taxiway B reopened to air traffic on October 25, 2019

October 16, 2019: Final punchlist walkthrough

Taxiway B Reconstruction: Project Photos

September 5, 2019: Safety Celebration held on-site with Kona Ice

Taxiway B Reconstruction: Project Status Updates

Each week, the Progress Meeting minutes were shared with the entire stakeholder list via email. The minutes also included the Contractor’s 2-week look ahead schedule, identifying which trades would be working and any upcoming milestones. Another useful tool for the project stakeholders was the location sketch, which graphically displayed the areas of the site which were under construction and completed.

Lordian Turner of Michael Baker International was the recipient of the first BRAVO Award, presented at the general partnering session on May 2, 2019 (top left). Lordian was commended for going the extra mile to respond to submittals and RFIs extremely quickly. The next BRAVO award went to Buddy Vinluan, Resident Engineer with Parsons (above). Buddy was acknowledged for his exceptional organizational skills and communication with the project team and stakeholders. The final BRAVO Award went to the Air Traffic Control Tower Operators for their adaptability and cooperation throughout the various closures and phasing changes of the project (left).

At every general Partnering session for the Taxiway B Reconstruction project there will be a presentation of the BRAVO Award. This award was presented to a person who has gone above and beyond, in the spirit of Partnering, to ensure the success of the project and making this a “world-class” team.

The actual BRAVO Award was made from a slice of a concrete test core,

fitting for this large concrete reconstruction project.

Taxiway B Reconstruction: The BRAVO Award

Documents

BWI Marshall Airport Taxiway B Reconstruction