New York City Department of Environmental Protection CM Quality Manageme nt on NYCDEP Mega- Project 1 July 19, 2010
Mar 28, 2015
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