APWA Florida Proj Award_UEP

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

2010APWAProfessionAwards Public Works Project of the Year Award
Nomination 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.
Blair M. Lavoie, PE
Cape Coral Utilities Extension Program (UEP) SVP, Director of US Operations
MWH Constructors, Inc.
August 2009 370 Interlocken Blvd. Suite 300
Broomfield CO 80021
City of Cape Coral
(303) 410-4000 (303) 439-2885
Blair.M.Lavoie@mwhglobal.com
Blair M. Lavoie, PE
SVP, Director of US Operations
370 Interlocken Blvd. Suite 300
Charles Pavlos, PE
Broomfield CO 80021
Public Works Director
(303) 410-4000 (303) 439-2885
City of Cape Coral
Blair.M.Lavoie@mwhglobal.com
P.O. Box 150027
Cape Coral FL 33915
239-574-0706 239-574-0732
cpavlos@capecoral.net

2010APWAProfessionAwards Public Works Project of the Year Award
Supporting 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 Program
American Public Works Association
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 700
Kansas City, MO 64108-2625
Charles Pavlos, PE
Public Works Director
City of Cape Coral
P.O. Box 150027
Cape Coral FL 33915
239-574-0706 239-574-0732
cpavlos@capecoral.net

2010 APWA Public Works Project of the Year Award
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
Construction
Management
Program
Management
Design
Management
• 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
Construction
Schedule
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 MWH
Manhours N/A April 2004
Frequency Rates (TRIC) 5.7 .48
Severity 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 Species
Cape 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 Eagle
The 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 Owl
Cape 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 Tortoise
Another “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 Hurricanes
During 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
Community
The “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 Table
The 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 Value
The 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 Engineering
At 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 Control
From 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.
Innovations
The 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 OM 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 Recognition
MWH 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

Goal Team Action
Result 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.
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.
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).
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 .
Subcontractors, Community/
Civic Organizations, Local
Residents

Goal Team Action
Result 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.
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

“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;
 Provide the general public a greater understanding of how the project fits into the City’s overall plan for
ensuring public health and the area’s environmental integrity;
 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.
To address the City’s requirements, the team partnered together to develop the following:
 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
stakeholder meetings, civic leader briefings and elected
official briefings. It was disseminated to interested
citizens, as well as members of the press.

 “Frequently Asked Questions” Sheet – The FAQ sheet summarized and provided answers for popular
questions interested parties may have about the project.
 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’s Renderings of Preliminary Designs – The rendering was utilized in a variety of ways, including
speaking engagements, newsletters and media briefings, as well as on the website to provide a visual
depiction 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
or call to request more information.
 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.
 Opinion Leader Briefings – Informational briefings were held with members of City Council and key
community 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
document questions and concerns expressed by the citizens. A sign-in log was kept to track attendance
and 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’ meetings to explain the upcoming construction effort and to entertain questions from homeowners.
These meetings were particularly effective in making the contractors aware of the needs of the residents
and encouraged open communications in the field. A customer
survey was initiated through an independent agency to track
the success of the program. The survey results indicated the
83% of the residents polled were satisfied with the UEP and the
“Customer First” program.

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

APWA Florida Proj Award_UEP

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to APWA Florida Proj Award_UEP

Similar to APWA Florida Proj Award_UEP (20)

More from Philip Tunnah

More from Philip Tunnah (10)

APWA Florida Proj Award_UEP