apwa florida proj award_uep

2010 AWPA Public Works Project of the Year AwardSubmitted by MWH Constructors, Inc. and City of Cape Coral

2010

APW

A P

rofe

ssio

n A

war

ds

Public Works Project of the Year AwardNomination Form

Deadline March 1, 2010(received, not postmarked)

Project Name

Project Completion Date

Public Agency

Project Category Structures Transportation Environment Historical Restoration/Preservation Disaster or Emergency Construction/Repair

Project Division Less than $5 Million $5 Million, but less than $25 Million $25 Million–$75 Million More than $75 Million

Managing Agency

Name

Title

Agency/Organization

Address (if post office box, include street address)

City State/Province Zip/Postal Code

Phone Fax

E-mail

Primary Contractor

Name

Title

Agency/Organization


City State/Province Zip-Postal Code

Phone Fax

E-mail

Primary Consultant

Name

Title

Agency/Organization



Phone Fax

E-mail

Continued...

Must be substantially completed (90%) and available for public use as of December 31, 2009.

2010

APW

A P

rofe

ssio

n A

war

ds

Public Works Project of the Year AwardSupporting Data Form

Please address each of the following areas in your supporting documentation, adhering to the sequence below when possible.

• Completion date contained in contract. Any time extensions granted should be addressed in the submittal.

• Construction schedule, management, and control techniques used.

• Safety performance including number of lost-time injuries per 1,000 man-hours worked and overall safety program employed during the construction phase.

• Environmental considerations including special steps taken to preserve and protect the environment, endangered species, etc., during the construction phase.

• Community relations—a summary of the efforts by the agency, consultant and contractor to protect public lives and property, minimize public inconvenience and improve relations.

• Unusual accomplishments under adverse conditions, including but not limited to, adverse weather, soil or site conditions, or other occurrences over which there was no control.

• Additional considerations you would like to bring to the attention of the project review panel, such as innovations in technology and/or management applications during the project.

NOTE: Supporting documentation is limited to 20 pages, exclusive of photographs and nomination form. This submittal will not be returned. When possible, please provide original photographs (color preferred), as photographs will be used for promotional purposes by the association. Original submittal and all copies should include nomination form and supporting docu-mentation. Six copies of submittal are required.

Nominated by: (Can only be nominated by managing public agency or APWA chapters.)

Name

Title

Agency/Organization



Phone Fax

E-mail

These materials should be sent to:

Public Works Project of the Year Awards ProgramAmerican Public Works Association2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 700Kansas City, MO 64108-2625

Narrative

2010 APWA Public Works Project of the Year AwardSubmitted by MWH Constructors, Inc. and City of Cape Coral

1

Once marketed as a “waterfront wonder-land,” the City of Cape Coral (City) contains over 400 miles of dredged canals and is the third largest city, by area, in Florida. The City’s population growth has been rapid in recent decades, at one time making it one of the fastest growing communities in the U.S. With this rapid growth came a responsibility to develop the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the expanding popula-tion. Over the past 20 years, the City em-barked on two utility extension programs to address their need for expanded infrastruc-ture. The first phase was delivered using a traditional design-bid-build (DBB) approach; the other using progressive design-build. While both phases were similar in scope and construction challenges within the same community, the two programs, and corresponding delivery methods ended with very different results.

In 1957, the Rosen Brothers purchased swampland in Southwest Florida to market a “waterfront wonderland” with abundant residential development lots and started the largest earth-moving operation in Florida to form Cape Coral. Over 350,000 pre-platted residential building sites were established with little regard to adequate infrastruc-ture to support the future population. The population growth was extensive, from 500 in 1959 to approximately 167,917 currently, and forecasted to reach 203,000 by 2014. As the City reached a size and population

CAPE CORAL UTILITIES EXTENSION PROGRAM (UEP)CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA

density where the installation of a collective water and wastewater system became vital, it found itself faced with the major burden of developing an adequate infrastructure system.

In the 1990s, the City commenced an ag-gressive expansion of its utility infrastructure to meet increased demands through a tra-ditional DBB approach. This resulted in the national bidding of six separate contracts, one for engineering and five with contrac-tors. Though considered an engineering success, this DBB approach did not allocate responsibility for coordination between the various contracts with the planning and scheduling of works left to the contractors – whose interests and objectives were not necessarily those of the City and its resi-dents. The outcome, as described by City officials, was an “atom bomb” effect within the residential community with significant impacts on safety, traffic and neighborhoods with little to no coordination between adja-cent contractors. When the City attempted to reschedule works to reduce resident impact, they were exposed to claims for delay and time extensions. The City was left with over 70,000 complaint calls from affected residents, over 250 formal disputes for poor restoration or property damage and an assessed value to residential proper-ties that did not cover the final cost of utility construction. By 1999, the City was left scrambling for a way forward.

The City needed a new strategy to deliver core objectives beyond the mere installa-tion of the utilities. These core objectives included the reduction of contractual risk; increased the City’s control over quality and scheduling of work; revitalized focus on customer service with increased quality and minimal disruption; and participation in decision-making. These core objectives were considered key to the success of future utility extensions.

Please refer to the Construction Schedule section on page 4 for information on the construction date contained in the con-tract, and MWH’s success in meeting that schedule.


2

In 1999, the City selected a new delivery method, Program Management-at-Risk, to address these core objectives on the next phase of their utility extension program. This method integrated a single engineer-ing and construction firm (MWH) to work as an extension of City staff, managing the delivery of the work. The approach, also known as progressive design-build, allowed the City and MWH to focus on critical core objectives for program delivery and allocate responsibilities and risk appropriately. MWH delivered design and construction-at-risk of a $450M utility extension program, which included seven major construction projects, as well as additional infrastructure improve-ments for the City. Through the imple-mentation of a single, integrated Program Manager, the City was able to place the risk for implementation of design and construc-tion with a single entity and concentrate City resources on planning, development strategy, permitting and the financial as-sessment schedule with their customers.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES

Program Management Services for UEP

Program Management• Policy and Procedures• Program Management Information System (PMIS)

• Design Standard Details

Construction Management• Subcontractor Coordination• Maintenance of Traffic• Change Management• Daily Field Quality Control

Design Management• Detailed Design for Scope of Work• Technical Specifications• Land Survey• Geotechnical Survey• Plan and Profile Drawings• Buildable Lot Review• Hydraulic Modeling

ConstructionManagement

ProgramManagement

DesignManagement

• Design Standard Details• Permitting

• Safety• Schedule• Permitting• Customer Service• Financial Reporting• Quality Control

• Bidding Support• Submittal Reviews• Requests for Information• Record Drawings• Technical Review Committee• Acceptance Testing

• Milestone Establishment• Document Control• Turnover Documentation

The City needed a strategy to deliver core objectives beyond the mere installation of the utilities, and the Program Management-at-Risk approach allowed the focus of the following core objectives to deliver success:

Safety Objectives

Achieve zero lost time incidents for both ▪construction staff and the general public

Involve the public in the education of the ▪hazards of utility construction to minimize the risks of these hazards

Quality Objectives

Engage City operations and maintenance ▪staff in the design and construction process

Establish clear expectations for restora- ▪tion of disrupted areas

Provide quality construction product ▪

Customer Service Objectives

Maintain safe construction areas ▪

Keep residents informed ▪

Keep homes accessible ▪

Restore property to pre-existing ▪conditions

Establish ongoing coordination between ▪agencies

Protect the environment ▪

MWH prequalified a team of skilled utility contractors, with the necessary proven abil-ity to construct the work within a residential community and meet the core objectives. These contractors were effectively involved in a “partnering process” from the outset of the program creating open communication from the earliest stage; encouraging open discussion about complex construction issues such as detailed work scopes, tech-nical differences between projects, resident accessibility issues, canal crossing details and existing utility connection details.


3

The team met weekly to discuss the progress of each utility contract area and identified action items to consistently reflect the core objectives of safety, quality and customer service, and to deliver each area on or ahead of schedule. The team openly discussed items such as interfaces with adjacent contracts, specialist assistance required and conflict within the team – any item that might impact the program’s ef-ficiency. This “no secret” attitude and open communication to meet a common goal was key to the program’s success. In develop-ing a close working team of specialist local subcontractors and suppliers, MWH was able to successfully deliver a sequenced utility extension program to an approved master plan.

The progress of each subcontractor was reviewed at monthly coordination meetings, where senior leadership for each of the part-nering organizations personally reviewed subcontractor results on their project area and compared the results against their peers in other project areas. The meetings provided the Program Manager, City and stakeholders the opportunity to see the “big picture” and the combined team’s perfor-mance. Specific examples of tools used to track goal progress in the three key areas included, but were not limited to:

Safety ▪ – To track safety performance, as with any construction project, MWH’s safety team tracked total manhours worked, as well as frequency and severity rates as they compared to the industry average.

Quality ▪ – To address restoration of disrupted areas, the team developed the “90/90/90” rule and tracked the progress of each project area, and reported the progress at the monthly coordination meeting. The expectation for the subcon-tractors was to complete 90% of the work in 90% of the area within 90 days.

Customer Service ▪ – To address custom-er satisfaction, the team tracked customer complaints received through the 24-hour hotline to ensure that each complaint was addressed and resolved to MWH’s and the customer’s satisfaction.

While these tools efficiently tracked the progress of the program, goal achievement was primarily due to the open communica-tion and clarity of purpose within the team partners. MWH developed incentives to reward outstanding goal achievement and program delivery with an approach that was the “carrot” instead of the “stick.” For ex-ample, the customer service goals required

that there be minimal disruption to the City residents. Therefore, the utility contractors developed an incentive to directionally bore pressure piping under decorative residential driveways and even some ornate planters and mailboxes. This incentive significantly minimized the property disruption and established a greater acceptance of the construction program within the residential community. Where new residential con-struction was identified in a utility area, the installation of driveway piping sleeves were incentivized to minimize disruption once the property was built.

The team achieved results directly related to the core objectives, as summarized in Attachment A, as a direct result of the successful development of a partnership of stakeholders committed to the delivery of the program objectives. The team suc-cessfully completed more than 750 miles of utility piping installation within residential communities, construction of more than 240 miles of residential road and provision of potable water, irrigation and gravity sewer to more than 23,000 properties ahead of schedule and demonstrated more than $26M in cost savings.

MWH met an aggressive schedule to deliver the City’s published utility extension master plan, which defined the extension of the utilities to residential areas, as shown in the table on the following page. MWH devel-oped tools to effectively report and measure installed daily quantities that could be easily reconciled with the utility contractor and Owner’s representatives. Instead of review-ing a complex detailed schedule at the weekly meetings, the team reviewed a basic

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

three-week look ahead and then measured critical path piping production, displayed as a basic production curve, on a weekly basis (developed from the daily measurement of piping quantities) to quickly assess the effectiveness of the utility resources to the baseline activity of gravity sewer and pres-sure piping installations.

The unique program approach allowed the team to focus beyond complex schedul-ing; simplifying the review of actual piping production to the planned baseline nature of project repetition and focused the partner-ing teams to maximize efficiency. As a result, MWH met or exceeded the published schedule in every project area, exceeding the overall construction schedule by more than three months, as displayed in the table on the next page.


4

“MWH has delivered all of the City’s projects on schedule, on budget and with a responsiveness and flexibility that is rare in any company these days. I also appreciate your honesty and candor and making me feel like a part of one big team. Your spirit of co-operation and partnership has made a huge difference in the productivity of the teams, our staff and the ultimate quality of the projects.”

Wayne Wolfarth, UEP Manager, City of Cape Coral

The UEP was a unique series of overlap-ping projects that allowed the team to review the current project (determine what went well, what could be done differently, etc.) prior to the start of each consecutive

Project Area Notice to Proceed Date Contract Completion Date

Actual Completion Date

ConstructionSchedule

Savings (Days)

Southwest 1 April 2002 April 2004 April 2004 -

Southwest 3 February 2003 December 2004 November 2004 34

Southwest 2 December 2003 July 2005 April 2005 88

Southeast 1 May 2005 August 2006 August 2006 -

Southwest 4 June 2006 February 2008 January 2008 30

Southwest 5 July 2007 January 2009 December 2008 30

North Central Loop November 2007 December 2008 December 2008 10

Total Days Saved 192

phase, providing key input into the develop-ment of the next project. Open communica-tion/feedback was essential to delivering an improvement in the somewhat repetitive process for the design and construction of the utility system, energizing team members to seek continual improvement.

In addition to the defined program scope, MWH completed more than $8M of addition-al improvement projects for the City. While these projects were additions to the original contract, MWH was able to complete them, as well as those in the original contract, within the original schedule by utilizing the efficiency and skill within the already mo-bilized team. Many of these infrastructure improvement projects were on hold within the City because of the complexity and ex-pense of delivering one-time small projects.

MWH successfully combined them with the current project schedule allowing for cost effective completion. The projects included:

North East Loop Utility Expansion – ex- ▪tend the potable water and gravity sewer utilities;

Pump Station 363 Relocation – rebuild a ▪failing gravity sewer pump station;

Surfside Blvd. Utility Expansion – extend ▪potable water and gravity sewer lines for a development;

Viscaya Pump Station – relocate a failing ▪15-yr-old sewage pump station; and,

Cornwallis Force Main and Pump Station ▪Repair – emergency repair project to a failing existing wastewater pump station and force main.

The UEP team’s safety record was exemplary, particularly when considering the hazards associated with underground utility work within a residential neighbor-hood. At the peak of construction, MWH recorded 65,144 manhours in a single

SAFETY PERFORMANCE

month (September 2007), with the workers in the field ranging from 250 to 320. From the program’s inception to the closeout in August 2009, MWH achieved a peak safety record of 1,915,536 hours worked without a lost time incident. In total, the team

completed 3,295,690 manhours with only one lost time incident and without injury to the general public. A summary of our safety statistics are included on the next page.


5

Safety is deeply embedded and prominent in MWH’s culture and is a top-down and bottom-up driven value within the organi-zation. MWH used the same approach to deliver a high level of safety from the incep-tion of each project. Induction training of the entire workforce was performed to identify key hazards and implement a common understanding of the key goals. This was further supported by daily field supervi-sion and through weekly safety activities in “Toolbox Talks.” MWH delivered the safety, productivity, quality and start-up (SPQS) plan to the field, which is a pre-task plan-ning process for complex construction ac-tivities and a formal approach to evaluating the SPQS components of upcoming work. The plan preparation was developed by the stakeholders (MWH, utility contractors, en-gineering, and the Owner’s representatives). Furthermore, a STAR (Safety Task Analysis and Review) card was implemented for

UEP Program Industry Average MWHManhours N/A April 2004Frequency Rates (TRIC) 5.7 .48Severity Rates (DART) 3.0 .06

more routine utility work for simple inclusion with the weekly Toolbox Talks to focus the craft workers on the particular work ahead in that week.

Both the City and MWH held frequent safety picnics to recognize the accomplishments of the team and teaming partners. Stakehold-ers were invited, including key suppliers, multiple tier-subcontractors and City staff (City Manager and Council Members) to congratulate the team. Team members were recognized for outstanding perfor-mance and drawings were held to reward stakeholders for their efforts. These were held approximately every six months, at the completion of a significant safety milestone.

In recognition of its outstanding safety performance, MWH received the follow-ing awards. These awards were shared

throughout the entire workforce, including craft workers:

2007-2012 Occupational Safety and ▪Health Administration (OSHA) SHARP (Safety and Health Achievement Recog-nition Program) Award – exempted the team from OSHA inspection

2009 American Road and Transporta- ▪tion Builders Association Roadway Work Zone Safety Awareness Award

2008-2009 – University of South Florida ▪(USF) Safety/Florida, Sunshine State Safety Award

2008 National Underground Contractors ▪Association William H. Feather Safety Award

2009 Associated General Contractors ▪of America (AGC), Marvin M. Black Excellence in Partnering Award, Special Recognition (to be announced March 19, 2010)


6

From the inception of the program, cus-tomer service was identified as a core ob-jective to determine program success. Due to the impact of previous utility extensions, both the City and MWH understood the importance of community relations to true program success. This was an area where the previous utility extension undertakings had either failed or, at the very least, fallen short. The previous utility construction program had resulted in more than 70,000 complaint calls from affected residents, over 250 formal disputes and restoration that took years to complete at many residences. From the outset, both the City and MWH were sensitive to the impact of a major un-derground construction effort within a local residential community.

The City was committed to the strategic planning of the future utility areas and the methodology for assessment funding along with developing economic hardship pro-grams to assist various resident abilities to pay. MWH was committed to managing the public understanding of what to expect dur-ing the construction process. Both the City and MWH developed multiple homeowner meetings and community/stakeholder meet-ings to publicly address concerns about the program and any misconceptions. To resolve any concerns from the City and the residential community, MWH implemented the “Customer First” program, as further described in Attachment B. The “Customer First” program included:

COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Neighborhood ‘street’ meetings to provide ▪a forum for discussing issues particular to the affected areas

Public information meetings to inform the ▪public about the program

Distribution of factsheets, which offer ▪more detailed information about the program

Door hangers to notify residents of spe- ▪cific construction activities and schedules

24-hour hotline available for citizens to ▪call with questions or concerns (averaged 300 calls/month)

Program website (www.capecoralutilityex- ▪pansion.com) to provide information on the program and deliver construction sta-tus updates as the program progressed (averaged 2,000 hits/month)

Follow-up to customer concerns and ▪requests to the hotline

Outreach to numerous committees and ▪agencies

The “Customer First” program was par-ticularly successful in keeping residents, including a large number of seasonal resi-dents, informed about project status down to a street by street level. The result was a reduction in customer calls to approximately 5,000 during the seven-year program, and the closeout of all residential complaints to the 23,000 properties served to date. The success of the “Customer First” program was critically dependent upon the coop-eration of the entire subcontracting team, including the craft workers in the field. Due to the true partnering approach of the team, the resident complaints in each individual project area were shared throughout the team and great pride was taken by the con-tracting firms to resolve resident complaints

promptly and within the 90-day restoration goals.

Since the adoption of the Program Manage-ment-at-Risk model, the City has not faced a single claim. In addition, the number of customer calls was reduced dramati-cally with the number of formal complaints reduced from 250 to five. In a formal survey in 2003 to measure customer satisfaction on the program, an astounding 83% rated the project positively proving the partnering approach delivered a successful outcome.

“It is my opinion that a company is only as good as its people and I believe you (MWH) and your team are doing an extraordinary job. …I feel not only have we been kept very well informed during each step of the process, but we also have meaning-ful input. I speak with operators, supervisors, and managers from other municipalities quite often who are at a point in their operation that we were a year or two ago. They need expansion of some sort and are looking for “the right” engineering and construction firm for help. I mention my experience with you and your team and recom-mend MWH without reservation.”

Michael G. Fisher, Acting Water Reclamation Superintendent,

City of Cape Coral

Were you satisfied with the construction of your water and sewer utilities?

satisfied83%


7

Cape Coral has the unique feature of having 400 miles of dredged canals, close proxim-ity to the Gulf of Mexico and a sensitive coastal environment with tropical sandy beaches. The South Florida Water Manage-ment District (SFWMD) expressed concern regarding completion of a major utility con-struction project with significant dewatering functions to install the utilities below the wa-ter table. The City and MWH worked closely with SFWMD to address their concerns and develop a self-policing of the discharges to the storm water and associated canal systems. The team proactively addressed this challenge by taking measures to protect more than 3,500 individual storm structures and track the turbidity and chlorides in the surrounding canal systems. The results were regularly inspected by SFWMD representatives in the field, with quarterly meetings at SFWMD offices to continually ensure that the program approach met and addressed environmental concerns. SFWMD now uses the UEP as the flagship example of storm water protection for other local community developments.

The extension of the City’s centralized pota-ble water and gravity sewer system required close communication with the local Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Department of Health. Both the City and MWH worked closely with these

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

agencies to ensure that approvals to con-struction were ultimately placed into service and matched the agencys’ understanding of population forecasts, existing plant capaci-ties and future planned expansions.

Endangered SpeciesCape Coral is home to five species classi-fied as endangered: Florida burrowing owl, gopher tortoise, indigo snake, scrub jay and nesting bald eagle. MWH worked closely with the City’s environmental resources department to ensure that the habitats of classified or endangered species were known in the earliest design phase and the planning of the construction was understood by the entire team. Particular examples of proactive utility work around classified or endangered species include:

Nesting Bald EagleThe nesting bald eagle presented a signifi-cant impact to the construction schedule, limiting construction work within a 1,500-foot radius during the nesting season be-tween October 1 and May 15 of each year. MWH successfully worked around eight nest trees to install the utilities to guidelines and procedures developed by US Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commision (FFWCC), Friends of Wildlife and the City’s environmental resources department.

Florida Burrowing OwlCape Coral is home to the largest popula-tion of Florida burrowing owls. The FFWCC lists the owl as a “species of special con-cern.” Collaborating with the City’s environ-mental resources department and a local non-profit environmental group, Friends of Wildlife, MWH surveyed the projected route of the utility infrastructure to identify active burrows in the vicinity and to determine the best approach for utility realignment, establishment of protective measures or, in rare cases, relocation. MWH successfully managed more than 200 burrows during the course of the program.

Gopher TortoiseAnother “species of special concern” is the gopher tortoise, which is protected by state law. The gopher tortoise is unique in that it is one of the few tortoises to actually make large burrows on lots. Again, MWH worked with FFWCC and the Friends of Wildlife to perform surveys to identify burrows and de-termine the best approach for utility realign-ment, establishment of protective measures or, in rare cases, relocation. MWH success-fully managed more than 25 burrows during the course of the program, developing a unique method for tortoise protection with local specialists.

UNUSUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER ADVERSE CONDITIONS

Cape Coral is an upscale residential com-munity with an extensive canal system and a high water table, coupled with sizeable summer rainfall. This setting presented unique challenges for a major utility construction undertaking to overcome and still successfully deliver the project. While

challenges, including major hurricanes, work within a residential community and an exceptionally high water table presented a unique mix of adverse conditions, they were major accomplishments that the team proudly overcame.


8

Construction during HurricanesDuring the 2004-2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season, Southwest Florida saw an unusu-ally high level of hurricane activity, with Hurricanes Charley, Rita, Wilma and Katrina and other named tropical storms - all threat-ening the community. The 2005 season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history with a record 28 tropical and sub-tropical storms formed; 15 became hurricanes. MWH had up to 30 miles of residential roadway under construc-tion when these storms threatened with extensive stockpiles of PVC pipe, piles of limerock or dirt and numerous traffic signs that all posed hazards under extreme wind conditions. In addition, the storm drainage systems were under construction through-out the project areas.

MWH and its team of contractors proved, on multiple occasions, that their hurricane pre-paredness plans were effective. When Hur-ricane Charley severely impacted the Cape Coral community, every contractor was back to work within one week of the storm. Even during the 2004 to 2005 season, projects were completed ahead of schedule and without a single claim to the City.

Construction within a Residential CommunityThe “Customer First” Program delivered an understanding of the expectations for the residents during the construction process. Conducting the extensive utility construc-tion work within a residential community requires cooperation and commitment from all stakeholders to minimize inconvenience. Team contractors, tier-subcontractors and suppliers worked together to ensure that deliveries and construction noise was limited to the City’s ordinance of Monday to Saturday 7 am to 7 pm.

One of the initial activities to place the utilities on a street involved the milling of the existing soil/cement pavement. Until the final primed road surface was placed, the community was exposed to dust created by the utility construction process. Team contractors worked together to ensure that water-trucks continuously circulated throughout the community to limit the dust impact to homes.

Construction within a High Water TableThe UEP included the excavation of more than 250 miles of residential roadway to install potable water, irrigation and gravity sewer piping. This extensive excavation threatened the surrounding 400 miles of dredged canals, which feed the Gulf of Mexico. During utility construction, MWH completed utility construction and replace-ment of more than 3,500 storm drainage in-lets. MWH prepared a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for each individual project area to identify and apply best man-age practices to protect the local surface water. Particular focus was placed on:

Eliminating Erosion ▪ - With construction encompassing more than 30 miles of ex-cavated roadway each year, the existing drainage swales were protected with silt fencing control measures within the swale and protection of the storm drainage inlet. Prompt installation of sod or seed/mulch within the construction sequence allowed the establishment of natural ero-sion control measures for the residential community.

Protecting the Local Watercourse ▪ - The residential community was devel-oped on a drainage swales basis with numerous storm drainage inlets. MWH specified a Department of Transportation (DOT) storm inlet to better protect the local water courses by retaining the initial rainfall within the roadside swales. This replaced the previous 1950s throat inlet design that had allowed contaminants to be flushed into the surrounding canals within the first few minutes of any storm.

Working Closely with Local Regula- ▪tors. MWH was proactive in contacting the local Water Management District to review the program scope of work and to then develop a master dewatering permit for the City. This master permit allowed the prompt processing of dewatering permits on a project basis and estab-lished an excellent line of communication for the regulator to have a single point of contact for the protection of the 3,500 storm inlets.


9

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS DEEMED OF IMPORTANCE

Project Area GMP Final Revenue Direct Material Purchased Cost Savings

Southwest 1 $43,973,505 $36,074,976 $3,740,905 $4,157,624

Southwest 3 $45,649,775 $39,344,658 $3,441,662 $2,863,455

Southwest 2 $44,563,840 $37,777,309 $3,829,473 $2,957,058

Southeast 1 $47,977,934 $42,062,642 $2,927,341 $2,987,951

Southwest 4 $94,514,650 $81,278,652 $6,463,453 $6,772,545

Southwest 5 $66,057,430 $55,992,457 $4,771,873 $5,293,100

North Central Loop $22,033,116 $13,480,376 $7,404,581 $1,148,159

Total $364,770,250 $306,011,070 $32,579,288 $26,179,892

The progressive design-build approach al-lowed the City and MWH to place emphasis on establishing a high level of quality and engineering the best products, while main-taining overall best value and encouraging construction innovation.

Maintaining Best ValueThe UEP comprised seven large project ar-eas, all of which were completed under the City’s budget. MWH worked with the City to establish a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the construction of each project and completed each project using a full open-book approach throughout construc-tion. This allowed the City cost certainty for the program. The prequalified utility contractors competitively bid multiple utility packages to 100% design documentation allowing MWH to provide the Owner with a guaranteed maximum construction price. The team demonstrated more than $26M in construction savings, which was returned to the City (and the impacted residents). In addition, Cape Coral was awarded nearly $17M in Alternative Water Supply Grants developed by MWH.

As a result of the sequencing of multiple projects, MWH accelerated the design and bidding to provide planned overlap that re-sulted in efficiencies in field resources. The main utility piping construction crews were able to roll directly from one project to the next, leaving the restoration, service piping and clean-up crews behind to complete the previous project while the next deep gravity sewer construction area commenced. This provided field efficiencies, subsequent savings in construction bidding of future projects and a reduction in management overhead costs, leading to demonstrated savings for the City. Based on the success of this program, the Owner added smaller infrastructure improvement projects, totaling $8M in construction, which the City had otherwise been unsuccessful in delivering internally. In addition, the City was able to witness that overall costs to homeowners were lower with the Program Management-at-Risk method than traditional DBB approaches.

Value EngineeringAt the outset of the program, the City and MWH reviewed lessons learned from the

previous utility extension program. The City operations staff had felt uninvolved in previous utility extensions, despite being the end user through operation and mainte-nance of the system. MWH established the Technical Review Committee (TRC) that consisted of the City project management staff, as well as the core end-users of the system. This TRC became the primary force in delivering both quality and best-value. By developing the core design policy and procedures, items such as minimum depth of piping, maximum spacing of manholes and hydrants, could be questioned and answered by the TRC to deliver best quality and best value.

Quality ControlFrom the onset of the program, MWH stood behind quality of design and construction. The contract included a three-year war-ranty for defects of materials and work-manship. In the project design stage, the team established a TRC that consisted of appointed members from the City opera-tions and maintenance staff, as well as construction personnel to review the design plans at 30%, 50% 75% and 90% stages


10

and provide feedback. Team utility contrac-tors were invited to technical review meet-ings to present alternative products for use on ongoing or future projects. MWH offered cost incentives to our utility contractors for providing an accepted construction cost saving solution. If a utility contractor could provide a demonstrated construction cost saving that was accepted by the Owner, that contractor could share the savings 50/50 with the Owner. This required MWH to deliver a thoroughly reviewed and integral design. This was written into every contract and implemented on multiple occasions during the duration of the contract.

Working with the City’s inspection team, the team developed a quality checklist for key utility installation functions, such as pump stations, manholes, pressure piping, valves and services. This checklist standard-ized the City’s requirements and allowed a simple quick quality reference that led to greater field efficiency and clarity. The checklist provided daily accuracy of opera-tion and maintenance (turnover documenta-tion), unit priced quantity and measurement in the field. These procedures were refined throughout the course of the program to include a highly efficient process allowing early turnover of key areas.

InnovationsThe UEP was a unique series of overlapping projects that allowed the team to review the current project (determine what went well, what could be done differently, etc.) prior to the start of each consecutive phase, provid-ing key input into the development of the next project. Open communication/feedback was essential to delivering an improvement in the somewhat repetitive process for the design and construction of the utility system. The following are examples of successful process improvements that were delivered

as a direct result of the open team partner-ing approach.

Design Improvements Implemented

Clarity on wording in the specifications ▪

Reduction of ambiguity in specifications ▪(continuous process with each project)

Improved cut-class references on con- ▪tract drawings for field-efficiency

Improved clarification of “rock excavation” ▪for payment to minimize risk premiums in bids

Inclusion of new or improved construction ▪products for Technical Review Committee

Value Engineering workshops to review ▪utility standards and develop cost-saving innovations; attendees included utility contractors, designers and residents

Development of City-wide utility stan- ▪dards to standardize operation and maintenance, spare parts retention, etc.

Modification of canal crossing details to ▪suit alternative construction methods

Construction Improvements Implemented

Improvement in the content and agenda ▪for weekly meetings

Transfer of sewer inspection testing re- ▪sponsibility from subcontractors to MWH

Planning of early utility commissioning ▪areas with City

Transportation consultant to improve ▪coordination of traffic safety planning at major roads

Environmental consultant to improve ▪permit applications

Shared savings for accepted cost-saving ▪ideas created by subcontractors (savings equally shared between Subcontractors and City, not with MWH)

Multiple team field process improvements ▪from daily reporting to monthly quantity measurement to eliminating unnecessary procedures that reaped little benefit

Regulator involvement in the construction ▪process (SFWMD, FDEP and FDoH) to assure smooth, coordinated acceptance of completed areas

Coordination of construction processes ▪around endangered species and other environmental concerns

Measurement of restoration progress to ▪improve responsiveness – a key mea-sure of success to residents

Procedure development for final utility ▪service testing and acceptance with the Owner

“Your design team worked very closely with us to deliver designs that were both functional and techni-cally proven. They also worked hard to develop what I would call a true partnership between MWH and the City. The construction management team continued that close partnering philosophy and has delivered projects that were on-time and under budget, to our complete satisfaction.”

George Reilly, Utility Manager, City of Cape Coral


11

Examples of some key implemented innova-tive ideas are listed below:

The team implemented an efficient ▪low-cost odor control system to elimi-nate pumping station odors resulting in $300,000 savings in O&M costs compared to carbon systems used in comparable facilities.

While the direct-purchase of key utility ▪materials allowed the City to recognize a 6% material tax saving, accounting for the cut-off and waste of piping material created a concern for the City’s financing staff and the UEP team. The team devel-oped a procedure to purchase 90% of the Engineer’s measured quantity for piping. This allowed prompt order placement for more than 600 miles of piping. The team also developed a procedure for review-ing the individual items (valves, hydrants, pumps, panels and precast products) to recognize an efficient field-measurement and accounting for these installed tax-free material items.

The UEP installed more than 3,500 ▪gravity manholes which required confined space entry inspection by both the City and MWH staff. The team established a “sewer-cam” which allowed prompt team inspection of the finished manhole bench-ing and general finish in construction and

eliminated the need for inspection per-sonnel to enter the hazardous confined space. In addition to hazard elimination, this method also proved to decrease the time needed to perform an inspection.

The acceptance of potable water and ▪irrigation services at the property bound-ary had been a concern for City due to the risk for a cross-connection at a future hook-up date. The team worked with manufacturers to develop a special run of colored service piping for the projects and an efficient testing procedure to ensure that curb-stops and corpora-tion stops were open and that the lines were not cross connected. This method ensured consistent labeling and material identification and improved the overall quality of the project.

The City Emergency Management Ser- ▪vices had been looking for an opportunity to practice confined space rescue. MWH and team member Guymann Construc-tion initiated an opportunity for newly constructed pump station wet wells to be utilized for City and County rescue training.

A significant number of four-lane roads ▪impacted utility areas serviced by a variety of contractors. Each utility area had a different maintenance of traffic (MOT) being established to differing construction schedules. Working with the utility contractors, MWH engaged a local traffic control specialist to oversee and coordinate all MOT planning, setup, main-tenance and phasing which transferred this previous risk away from the utility contractors.

Special RecognitionMWH received the following awards for out-standing performance, as well as the safety awards listed previously.

2007 American Water Works Associa- ▪tion Florida Section Show of Excellence Award in the category of Efficiency with Alternative Water Supply

2004 Southeast Construction’s Award of ▪Excellence in the Best of 2004 Awards Program

2004 Southeast Construction Magazine ▪Award of Excellence and Civil Infrastruc-ture

DBIA Florida Section for Use of Alternate ▪Project Delivery

American Groundwater Trust Awards for ▪Sustainability Education

Attachments

Attachment A

Goal Team ActionResult Achieved Through Successful Partnering Partners

Improved Safety Performed safety training of the workforce to identify key hazards, followed by daily field supervision and weekly safety activities in “Toolbox Talks”.

Achieved a peak safety record of 1,915,536 hours worked without a lost time incident. In total, the team completed 3,295,690 manhours with only one lost time incident. In recognition for outstanding safety performance, MWH received numerous safety awards.

City, Program Manager, Subcontractors, Craft Workers, Local Community

Improved Safety Worked with the National Underground Contractor’s Association to develop an informational video, entitiled “We Dig Safety” about the hazards of utility construction to inform public school children.

During the course of the 7-year program, the team completed active construction in a residential community without a single injury to the general public.

Program Manager, Subcontractors, Construction Association, Local School Districts, Local Residents

“Improved Quality/ Cost Savings”

Developed a Technical Review Committee to perform techical and cost reviews (including value engineering and constructability) at each stage of design.

Allowed for a practical view from the “field” to assist in optimizing the design so that it is easier to build and ultimately less expensive. Allowed City to control project cost throughout the design process and remain within budgetary constraints.

City, Program Manager, Subcontractors,

Improved Quality Developed an incentive to directionally bore pressure piping underneath decorative residential driveways and even some ornate planters and mailboxes.

Significantly minimized disruption to residential properties and established a greater acceptance of the construction program within the residential community.

City, Program Manager, Subcontractors, Craft Workers, Local Community

Improved Customer Service

Developed the “Customer First” program to improve customer satisfaction in the commmunity at all levels.

Achieved an 83% satisfaction rating from the residents on the completion of the program (vs. the 50% typically achieved following utility construction projects). Drastically decreased the number of customer complaint calls from the previous program (from 70,000 to 5,000).

City, Program Manager, Subcontractors, Craft Workers, Community/Civic Organizations, Local Residents

Improved Customer Service

Held Neighborhood “Street” Meetings for both residents and stakeholders to provide information on the upcoming schedule for construction in their area, answer questions and address concerns.

Particularly effective in making the contractors aware of the needs of the residents and encouraged open communications in the field, leading to improved customer satisfaction .

City, Program Manager, Subcontractors, Community/Civic Organizations, Local Residents

Goal Team ActionResult Achieved Through Successful Partnering Partners

Cost Savings Installed an innovative reuse system that recycles 100% of water used in the City.

Received $300,000 in grants each year ($M over the course of the program) for the installation of the system. Recognized as one of the largest reuse programs in the U.S.

City, Program Manager, State and Local Government

Increased Communication

Coordinated with the local school board to develop alternate bus routes during construction. Coordinated with media and police/fire to communicate road closures in the area.

Partnered with the community to keep them informed and ensure minimal disruption to their daily lives.

Program Manager, Subcontractors, Local School Board, Media Organizations, City Services, Local Residents

Schedule Savings Sequenced multiple projects, allowing construction crews to roll directly from one project to the next, leaving the restoration, service and clean-up crews to complete the project, while the construction crew moved on to the next area.

Provided field efficiencies, subsequent savings in construction bidding of future projects and a reduction in management overhead costs, leading to demonstrated savings for the City.

City, Program Manager, Subcontractor, Craft Workers

Schedule Savings Proactively contacted the local Water Management District to review the program scope and develop a master dewatering permit for the City.

Ensured the prompt processing of dewatering permits on a project basis and established an excellent line of communication for the regulator to have a single point of contact for the protection of the 3,500 storm inlets.

Program Manager, Local Regulators

Attachment B

“Customer First” Program

One outcome of the 1999 expansion program was customer dissatisfaction. During the course of the 5-year program, the City was bombarded with more than 70,000 complaint calls from affected citizens. More than 250 of these complaints were sent to a “Blue Ribbon Committee” for further review and resolution. Therefore, a key objective of the UEP was successful partnering with the community to ensure customer satisfaction. The City decided to proactively address the combined issues of community participation and customer satisfaction and worked with MWH to develop the “Customer First” program. This program was designed to:

Educate residents to make a considered judgment on particular issues; Develop the consensus necessary to enable the City to implement projects and plans, while minimizing

disputes that could cause delays or prevent the City from taking needed action; Ensure that citizens, residents and customers feel included, consulted with, and informed about the

critical phases of the project; Assist nearby property owners interested in the project to understand the effect of development on their

land and the impact of the construction process to their property; Integrate facilities into residential areas as “good neighbors” to ensure acceptance; Inform the media on the latest information regarding project issues; ProvidethegeneralpublicagreaterunderstandingofhowtheprojectfitsintotheCity’soverallplanfor

ensuringpublichealthandthearea’senvironmentalintegrity; Provide a channel for residents and customers to voice complaints to ensure that they would be

addressed immediately; and, Allow homeowners who do not live in the City year round to obtain information on the project from a

remote location.

ToaddresstheCity’srequirements,theteampartneredtogethertodevelopthefollowing:

Communications Plan – A communications plan was developed for all stages of engineering and construction to help ensure proactive communication, rather than reactive, as well as inconsistent messages. The communications plan formalized measurable objectives, target audiences, recommended communications activities, distribution channels for communications items and evaluation mechanisms.

Project Overview Sheet – A project fact sheet was prepared for each project area to outline and summarize the need for the project, as well as engineering and public involvement activities to date and next steps in the project. The fact sheet was the primary handout for stakeholdermeetings,civicleaderbriefingsandelectedofficialbriefings.Itwasdisseminatedtointerestedcitizens, as well as members of the press.

“FrequentlyAskedQuestions”Sheet–TheFAQsheetsummarizedandprovidedanswersforpopularquestionsinterestedpartiesmayhaveabouttheproject.

Communications Log – The communications log formally tracked all communications activities with various target audiences, including public presentations and speaking engagements, phone calls to the project team, etc.

Artist’sRenderingsofPreliminaryDesigns– The rendering was utilized in a variety of ways, including speakingengagements,newslettersandmediabriefings,aswellasonthewebsitetoprovideavisualdepiction of the project designs.

Project Update Newsletters – The project newsletter was the primary written communications tool to keep key stakeholders informed about the project, including a review of current technical and public involvement work completed to date. It also contained a response coupon for interested parties to mail orcalltorequestmoreinformation.

24-Hour Customer Service Hotline – The 24-hour hotline allowed customers the opportunity to log complaints and receive immediate attention. When necessary, contractor staff were immediately dispatched to site to address complaints.

Project Website – A website (www.capecoralutilityexpansion.com) was developed to address the need to have timely information on project status available to out of town residents. The site featured maps, schedules, explanations of the construction process involved in utility system expansion, payment and rate information, contact information, etc.

OpinionLeaderBriefings–InformationalbriefingswereheldwithmembersofCityCouncilandkeycommunity groups to discuss preliminary design, review technical work completed to date, as well as all public involvement work.

Neighborhood “Street” Meetings – The open houses were held in locations near the proposed construction site enable affected citizens and stakeholders to meet with the project team. Team staff met with interested parties on a small-group basis. The engineering team members carried clipboards to documentquestionsandconcernsexpressedbythecitizens.Asign-inlogwaskepttotrackattendanceand enable follow-up communications with the interested parties.

MWH was assigned the task of managing and implementing the program. The contractor prepared project information sheets, held public meetings, actively manned the hotlines, dispatched staff to address complaints and generally served as the “front line” for addressing citizen issues and complaints. Staff was trained to proactively engage residents in the areas where they are working and conduct neighborhood ‘street’meetingstoexplaintheupcomingconstructioneffortandtoentertainquestionsfromhomeowners.These meetings were particularly effective in making the contractors aware of the needs of the residents andencouragedopencommunicationsinthefield.Acustomersurvey was initiated through an independent agency to track the success of the program. The survey results indicated the 83%oftheresidentspolledweresatisfiedwiththeUEPandthe“Customer First” program.

Photos

MWH Constructors, Inc.370 Interlocken Blvd., Suite 300Broomfield, CO 80021phone 303.410.4000fax 303.439.2885www.mwhglobal.com

apwa florida proj award_uep

Documents