2018 statewide odot / oca partnering training files... · nathan fling and thomas hesmond 10:15 am...

2018 Statewide ODOT / OCA Partnering Training

AGENDA - 1/30/2018 - The Lodge in New Russia Township - Oberlin, OH

8:30 am – 8:45 am Welcome and Introduction

8:45 am – 9:30 am

Chris Runyan / Gary Angles / Chase Wells

Self-Facilitated Partnering Tools/ Professional Facilitation

Chris Hughes / Jack Ford / Doug Shealy – Self Facilitation

Chase Wells – Professional Facilitation

9:30 am – 10:15 am

Dispute Resolution Tools

Nathan Fling and Thomas Hesmond

10:15 am – 10:30 am Break

10:30 am – 11:15 am

Success Stories

• 15-3044 LOR - TR15/ TR129 OBPP (D3 & R&I Construction)

• 13-0184 CUY – IR 77 Deck Replacement (D12 & Ruhlin)

• Lear Nagle Road (LPA) - City of North Ridgeville

(Greenman-Pedersen and Terrace Construction)

11:15 am – 11:45 am

Panel Discussion on Partnering

11:45 am – 12:00 pm

Don Conaway Partnering Award & Closing

Chase Wells

12:00 pm

Adjourn

3.25 CPDs

2018 STATEWIDE

PARTNERING TRAINING

WELCOME

CHRIS RUNYAN – OCA PRESIDENT

GARY ANGLES – STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER2018 Statewide Partnering Training2/1/2018 1

2018 STATEWIDE PARTNERING TRAINING

2018 Statewide Partnering Training2/1/2018 2

• Partnering in 1990’s

• Policy, Procedures, & Manuals

• Training

• Committees

• Specifications

1991

2001

2006

2011

SELF-FACILITATED PARTNERING

JACK FORD – SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BEAVER EXCAVATING

DOUG SHEALY – VICE PRESIDENT, MOSSER CONSTRUCTION

CHRIS HUGHES - CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATOR, ODOT DISTRICT 1


INTRODUCTION TO PARTNERING“The purpose of Partnering is to develop a proactive effort and spirit of

trust, respect, and cooperation among all stakeholders in a project.”

- C&MS 108.02


Seven Principles of Partnering

1. Trust 2. Commitment 3. Communication 4. Cooperation, teamwork and relationships 5. Issue Resolution 6. Measurement and feedback 7. Continuous improvement

What Defines a Successful Project?

2/1/2018 2018 Statewide Partnering Training 5

Safety Quality Schedule

Budgets Other

Obstacles to Success


Develop/Discuss an Action Plan

What obstacles can be anticipated?

What obstacles exist today?

What Who When

What is Self-Facilitated Partnering?


• An orchestrated effort to define the goals, obstacles, mitigation strategies, and individual roles on a project.

• Establishes levels of authority and sets communication protocols.

• Is revisited throughout the life of the project, not just at startup.

• Is relevant, to the point, and efficient.

What Self-Facilitated Partnering is Not


Initial Partnering Session


• Should be customized for the project. One size does not fit all.

• Needs to include key players• Contractors (Prime & Key Subs)• ODOT Personnel• Local Agencies• Others (If they have significant

involvement in the project)

• Keeping the group the right size for the project is key to having a successful partnering session.

Initial Partnering SessionSelecting the Facilitators


• Self-facilitating of a partnering session works best when both the contractor and ODOT work jointly to lead the discussion.

• For smaller projects, members of the project team can serve as facilitators.

• For larger projects, ODOT and contractor senior/leadership staff with experience in partnering can serve as facilitators.

• Facilitators don’t need to be intimately involved with the project but should have a basic knowledge of the project, partnering strategies, and project specifications.

• Facilitators should conduct interviews/meetings with key team members prior to the initial partnering session. This will allow the facilitators to identify issues that should be brought up at the partnering session.

Initial Partnering SessionTopics to Cover


• Build important projects that last and serve the public interest • On time and on budget • Safety • Respect the environment • Timely issue resolution at the lowest level possible • Open-minded • Partner with stakeholders

• Trust and Respect • Mitigation • Transparency • Quality • Open and Effective communication • Project First focus

Statewide Partnering Goals



• Identify all known obstacles to the project.

• Identify potential issues or roadblocks to success.

• Discuss strategies to overcome these obstacles.

• Determine the WHAT, WHO, & WHEN for each strategy to mitigate these obstacles.

Known or Potential Obstacles



• The chain of command for both the contractor and ODOT need to be identified.

• The level of authority for each individual or group of individuals should be shared with the entire project team.

• Protocols for communication of common issues should be established.

• The project team should discuss communication with subcontractors, stakeholders, news media, designers, or other entities.

• Discuss what to do when these protocols are not followed.

Chain of Command / Levels of Authority



• Discuss how issues will be communicated, documented, and tracked.

• Initial oral notification and early written notice (C&MS 108.02.F) is a contract requirement and should be looked upon as a form of open and transparent communication. Early notice should be the beginning point of developing mitigation strategies to solve the issue. Mitigation of issues is the responsibility of both the contractor and the owner.

• Using the dispute resolution process as a tool to keep the project moving forward.

• Issues should be escalated to a higher level of authority before they begin to negatively affect relationships between project team members.

• Keep negotiations professional, open, and honest.

Issue Resolution



• The project team should set objective, measurable, goals to achieve over the course of the project.

• These goals can be for the benefit of all partners on the project or can exclusively benefit one entity.

• Progress on these goals should be tracked and discussed at regular progress meetings or at regular intervals.

• When goals are met, celebrate the success!

Project Goals

Partnering Throughout the Project


• Partnering shouldn’t end after the initial partnering session.

• Project obstacles, goals, communication, roles & responsibilities, and dispute resolution should be discussed at regular progress meetings or at regular intervals.

• Partnering reconnect sessions can be used during the project to allow the project team to re-focus on the partnering concepts.

• Document, Document, Document

• Celebrate successful projects by applying for partnering awards.

Strategies for Successful Partnering


• Project First – The “project first” mindset encourages team members to consider what is best for the overall project when making decisions rather than considering what is best for his or her own organization.

• Empowerment – The delegation of authority and responsibility to the lowest appropriate level in an organization. It enables individuals closest to an issue to make timely decisions to achieve timely resolutions.

• Issue Resolution – Disagreements/conflicts are normal and will happen over the course of a project. This in itself is not bad. Management of how these disagreements are handled can determine whether or not a project is successful. Notice/Mitigation is key to successful issue resolution.

• Institutionalization – We should work towards making partnering the only way of doing business.

QUESTIONS?


PROFESSIONAL FACILITATED

PARTNERING

CHASE WELLS – STATEWIDE PARTNERING COORDINATOR


Professional Facilitated Partnering


• What is it?• When is it used?• What is the process for implementation?• What is the cost?

Professional Facilitated Partnering


Facilitator Expectations

Before Initial Partnering Meeting• Meeting Logistics/ Location• Research the Project/ Identify Team Alignment• Meet with the Team before Initial Kick-off Session• Invite the “Right” Stakeholders

During Initial Partnering Meeting• Identify Risks and Project Specific Goals• Establish Issue Resolution Ladder for all Stakeholders• Focus on Communication/ “Breakout” Sessions• Track Deliverables & Focus on the Tangibles

DISPUTES AND CLAIMS

NATHAN FLING

CENTRAL OFFICE


Claims Process


1. Project Level – Project Engineer

2. District Level – DDRC1. District Deputy Director (DDD)

2. District Construction Engineer (DCE)

3. Capital Program Administrator (CPA)

3. Central Office Level – DCB1. Deputy Director of Construction

2. Deputy Director of Engineering

3. Capital Program Administrator

STEP 4


DISPUTE NOTICE REQUIREMENT


• CMS 108.02(F)(1): Immediate Oral Notification

• CMS 108.02(F)(2): Written Notice Within 2 Days

• CMS 108.02(G)(1): Meeting On Site within 2 Days

What about the Notice Letter?


• Send to Everyone

• Explain the Event

• Identify Responsible Parties

• First Date of any Delay

• Activities impacted

• Number of days Requested / Anticipated

• Recommended Action / Mitigation

• Keep it Professional



• CMS 108.02(F)(1): Immediate Oral Notification

• CMS 108.02(F)(2): Written Notice Within 2 Days

• CMS 108.02(G)(1): Meeting On Site within 2 Days



• WHY is it there?• Opportunity to Mitigate• Timely Resolution• Lower Costs• Minimize Delays


$

What if you don’t Notify in Time?


“Failure to meet any of the timeframes outlinedbelow or to request an extension will terminatefurther review of the dispute and serve as awaiver of the Contractor's right to file a Claim.”

-2016 CMS 108.02(G)



“A Contractor’s failure to comply with theprocedural dispute resolution provisions ofArticle 8, as to any claim arising under thecontract, results in an irrevocable waiver of theclaim.” IPS Electric. Servs, LLC v. Univ. Toledo, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-207,2016-Ohio-361

Mitigation


• CMS 108.02(F):

“Mitigation of any issue, whether caused by the Department, Contractor, third-party or an intervening even, is a shared contract and legal requirement.

Mitigation


Under Ohio law, “an injured party is under a duty to mitigate its damages and may not recover those damages which it could have reasonably avoided.”

Wilson v. Kreusch, 111 Ohio App. 3d 47, 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1996)

Mitigation


Dispute Resolution Boards


• Proposal Note 108

• One Selected by Contractor

• One Selected by Department

• Chair Selected by Members

• Projects ranging $40.8M - $509M

• ADVISORY OPINION

Dispute Resolution Advisors


• Proposal Note 109

• One Jointly-Selected Member

• Projects ranging $12.6M - $80.8M

• ADVISORY OPINIONS

PARTNERING SUCCESS STORIES

DRB/DRATHOMAS HESMOND


Why a DRB/DRA


PN 108 – 10/19/2012 DISPUTE RESOLUTION BOARD PROCESS

Projects over $20,000,000 and/or of a highly technical nature

PN 109 – 10/19/2013 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ADVISOR PROCESS

Projects over $5,000,000 but under $20,000,000

Prefer DRB on Larger Projects - Better to have Three on larger Claims

PURPOSE of a DRB/DRA


The purpose of the Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) / Advisor (DRA) is to provide special expertise to assist in and facilitate the timely and equitable resolution of disputes and claims.

The goal is to avoid delays to the contract work, minimize the expense of settlement, avoid litigation, and promote project partnering.

The DRB will render non-binding recommendations on issues brought before them.

1-3 years to resolve, employee time, lawyer cost and judge who may not understand the issues.

Three people who have construction experience and a timely recommendation.

DRB MEMBERSHIP


The DRB will consist of three members.

One member is selected by the Department and approved by the Contractor and one member is selected by the Contractor and approved by the Department.

These first two members will mutually select and agree on the third member who will complement the construction and contract administration experience of the first two members and act as the Chair for all DRB activities.

The member you select is not there to advocate your position.

Requirements of DRB/DRA Members


Members of the DRB shall have at least ten years of experience with the type of construction involved on this project, construction contract administration principles, and dispute resolution training.

Members of the DRB must not show or be perceived as showing partiality to either the Contractor or the Department.

A DRB member shall not have any conflict of interest which could affect their ability to act in a disinterested and unbiased manner.

Can not work for the contractor or department while a member of DRB.

No ex parte communications

DRB/DRA Establishment


Every attempt shall be made by the Department and the Contractor to complete the selection of DRB members and execute the “Dispute Resolution Board Three-Party Agreement” prior to the date of the preconstruction conference

DRB should be involved from the start of the project.

DRB/DRA Role on Project


The DRB/DRA, with input from the Department and the Contractor, will establish its Operating Procedures for Dispute Resolution by adopting the “Dispute Resolution Board/Advisor Operating Procedures for Dispute Resolution” which can be found on ODOT’s website. These procedures may be tailored to each individual project.

All the information you need for Advisory or Formal Hearing

Encouraged a joint statement of Claim and joint set of common documents

DRB/DRA Role on Project


The members of the DRB/DRA will keep current on the progress of this project by: 1) quarterly visits to the project, 2) keeping current files, 3) meetings with other DRB members, and 4) joint meetings with Department and Contractor personnel.

The frequency of project visits and meetings and content of members’ files shall be as agreed upon among the Department, the Contractor, and members of the DRB/DRA.

PowerPoint, Project Layout on wall, You know Project

SharePoint – Progress Meeting minutes, RFI log, CO log, etc..

Site tour – Contractor, Department & DRB together

How Does the DRB/DRA Assist the Project


Ask questions and keep the Project team talking – frank discussion of issues

Lawyers not welcome

Advisory Recommendation

Formal Dispute

Four corners of the contract

DRB/DRA Goal on every Project is NO Formal Disputes

Questions


15 MINUTE BREAK



3044(15) LOR TR15/TR129 PART 1 & 2

OHIO BRIDGE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT

JANUARY 30, 2018


Partnering Team

• ODOT District 3• DCE Mike Fair• Area Engineer Luke Wysocki• Project Engineer Brian Rawlings• CPA Bob Weaver • Program Manager Shelley Pitcher • Utility Coordinator John Schafrath • Consultant Administrator Rob Shenal

• Design Build Team• R&I Construction

Project Manager Whitey Florence• Poggemeyer Design Group

Design Manager Jeff Yoder

• Local Agencies• Lorain County Engineer’s Office

Assistant County Engineer Bob KlaiberEngineer Shaun Duffala

• Columbia TownshipTrustees Dick Heidecker, Mike Musto, & Mark Cunningham

• Utility Relocation• Buckeye Partners, LP• Rettew – Engineering Consultant for

Buckeye Partners• Kokosing Construction Company –

Contractor for Buckeye Partners


Project Goals


• Implemented with self-facilitated partnering• Complete project on time

• Complete project within budget

• Safe project for the Contractor and public

• Quality project for the local agency• Resolve project issues in a timely manner

Project Issues• Project History/Background

• Project was sold as a two-part project.

• Part 1 replaced a structure on Parsons Road over the Black River. • The design and construction of this

structure proceeded in accordance with the original schedule for the project.

• Work began 2/23/16 and was completed on 6/6/16.

• Part 2 replaced a structure on Snell Road over Baker Creek in Columbia Township.


Project Issues• Project History/Background

• The original schedule in the Scope did not allow the contractor to close the structure until 9/6/16, to reduce the impact on a local golf course.


Project Issues

• Project History/Background• Original schedule included a 60 day closure of Snell Road.

• Design-Build Team proceeded with design work through late spring and early summer 2016.

• Design-Build Team is responsible for utility relocation in accordance with the proposal.


Project Issues


• Identified the need for relocation of the petroleum transmission line owned by Buckeye Partners.

Project Issues


• Mid-Summer 2016, the Design-Build Team (DBT) was having trouble getting a response from Buckeye Partners. The Team asked the District for help with relocation of Buckeye Partners’ transmission line.

• District 3 facilitated discussion between the DBT and Buckeye Partners.

• Explored other options in lieu of transmission line relocation.1. New alignment of Snell Road.

o limited R/W, environmental restrictions.

2. New alignment of Baker Creek. o limited R/W, environmental restrictions.

3. Encase existing transmission line in new abutment.o Concerns about condition of existing pipe as well as working in close proximity to the 12”

petroleum transmission line.

o No one was comfortable with this option.

Project Issues


• Relocation of the petroleum transmission line was the solution agreed upon by all parties.

• Late Summer / Early Fall 2016, Buckeye Partners agreed to move forward with design and relocation of the petroleum transmission line.

• February 2017, a routine inspection of the existing structure by the Lorain County Engineer’s Office reveals structural issues with an existing beam.

Project Issues


• Existing structure closed to traffic on 2/23/17 by the Lorain County Engineer’s Office.

• District 3 and the DBT continued to request updates from Buckeye Partners on the status of their proposed relocation.

• Concerns were raised that the structure would not be completed in 2017.

• May 2017, a meeting was held on site with Buckeye Partners to discuss their schedule for design and relocation.

• May 2017 began holding monthly conference calls to discuss status of the work.• The conference calls kept everyone up to date on the schedule.• Current issues were discussed and a plan of action developed to resolve the issues and keep

the project moving forward.• Lorain County and Columbia Township were kept in the loop so they could update residents as

well as elected officials.

Project Issues


• Kokosing mobilized to start pipeline relocation work on August 28, 2017.

Project Issues


• Pipeline relocation work completed October 6, 2017.

• R&I began demo of existing structure on October 10, 2017, approximately 13 months after the original start date, per the proposal.

• At this point, we needed some good luck with the weather to finish.

• New beams were set on November 7, 2017.

• Contractor was able to get the windows of weather needed to backfill, pave, and stripe.

Project Issues


• Snell Road was re-opened to traffic on November 29, 2017.

Project Successes


• Although approximately 13 months after the original completion date, Snell Road was re-opened to traffic on the new structure.

• Excellent communication and cooperation between all parties throughout the design and completion of the pipeline relocation work.

• Issues related to the pipeline relocation, as well as design and construction of the new bridge, were addressed in a timely manner.

• Multiple government agencies, utility owners, consulting firms, and contractors working together with a common goal = Successful Partnering.

Questions



PROJECT 13-0184

CUY-77-9.50 DECK REPLACEMENT

JUNE 2013 – OCTOBER 2016


Partnering Team


• ODOT District 12• Jeff Hebebrand – Area Engineer• Scott Slack – Project Engineer• Erik Zippay – Project Engineer• Darlene Schwarzer/Linda Nau – Consultant Inspectors

• The Ruhlin Company• Mark Myers - Project Manager• Jim Ruhlin Jr. – General Superintendent• Jason Rickey – Assistant Superintendent• Mario Garcia – Project Engineer• Mike Hurless/Chris Knight – General Laborer Foreman• Jeff Chittenden – General Carpenter Foreman

Management of Key Stakeholder Relationships


• City of Independence• City of Cuyahoga Heights• CSX Railroad• Cleveland Metroparks• Holcim Cement• Kurtz Bros• Precision Environmental• Able Truck Parts• Welker-McKee• Manufacturers Wholesale Lumber Company

Subcontractor Involvement in the Partnering Process


• Ivy Development Corporation

• Karvo Companies

• 360 Construction• Non-Performance of Painting Items, Transfer of Concrete Sealing Items• Partnering carried through to subsequent painting project

• A&A Safety

• Precision Pro-Cut

• MP Dory

• Tech Ready Mix

• Thompson Electric

Project Goals


• Hit All Interim Completion Dates• All Lanes of I-77 open for winter shutdown periods

• No Claims• No early written notices received

• Shortened Construction Schedule by 1 Year with VECP Implementation• Split $1.1 Million in savings• Bid = $27.4 Million Final = $26.7 Million

• Safety• Traveling Public• Workers

• Quality Project

Project Issues


• Additional Rebar in Parapet wall• Site meeting with test removal operations

• $96k extra, no time delay

• Issues with Concrete Mix• Micro Silica balling

• Supplier re-worked the mix design to eliminate this issue

Project Successes


• Heavy MOT Job with a deck replacement• Increased total closures and used contra-flow lane

• Maximize the use of lane closures and total highway closures

• Communication• Open, often, no posturing

• Meetings when needed

• Job decisions made at the lowest level and in a timely fashion

• Deck work completed prior to Republican National Convention

Project Successes


• No Major Accidents• Emergency Action Plan

• Worksite Traffic Supervisor

• Mobile Attenuator Truck on site and frequently used

• Meeting with local LEO to discuss their role• LEO for Speed Enforcement

• LEO for Zone setup assistance

• Ruhlin sponsored Manlift Training and Safety Training made available to ODOT personnel.

Project Successes


Questions



LEAR NAGLE ROAD

01/30/2018


Partnering Team


• Contractor – Terrace Construction• Darren Singleton

• Consultant Inspection - Greenman-Pedersen• Patrick McCafferty

• Lorain County Engineer’s Office• Bob Klaiber

• City of North Ridgeville• Jeff Armbruster/Cathy Becker

• Ohio Department of Transportation• Perry Ricciardi

Project Goals


• Informal Partnering Discussed at Pre-Construction Meeting• Resolve issues at project level.

• Use web-based SharePoint. Public side for citizens’ questions and concerns. Private side for internal document distribution (RFI’s, material submittals, SWPPP inspections, etc.).

• Utilize bi-weekly project meetings to include all parties involved on project and to discuss any project issues.

• Coordinate the Contractor’s work with ongoing utility work.

• Goals Established for the Project• Finish all the pavement on Lear Nagle Road in one year.

Project Background


• Project was an urban reconstruction of Lear Nagle Road from two lanes to three lanes and additional widening at major intersections.

• Once the design was completed, it sat on the shelf because the City did not have money for its local match.

• Sold without an updated constructability review. Awarded to Terrace Construction for about $10 M. Construction was supposed to take two years.

• Soon into work, plan errors were discovered and several utilities changed their completion dates and/or added new requirements. Conditions were ripe for this project to become a contentious, very expensive contract.

• To date, the Contract has about 70 change orders.

Avoidable Issues


• Unforeseen Temporary Drainage

• Various Utilities (public and private)• Working around Avon Lake’s 30” waterline (which was usually not in the plan

location).

• First Energy Pole Relocation delays.

• North Ridgeville water line changes.

• North Ridgeville Sanitary omissions.

• Missed Rock Excavation

• MOT as Designed

• Cement Stabilization (in an urban setting)

• Pavement Elevation Change Due to Culvert Interference

Avoidable Issues Resolved by Partnering


• Unforeseen Temporary Drainage

• Various Utilities• Working around Avon Lake’s 30” waterline (which was usually not in the

plan location).

• First Energy Pole Relocation delays.

• North Ridgeville water line changes.

• North Ridgeville Sanitary omissions.

• Missed Rock Excavation

• MOT as Designed

• Cement Stabilization

• Pavement Elevation Change Due to Culvert Interference

Project IssuesAvon Lake 30” Waterline Problems


• High pressure waterline under the existing pavement that heads towards water towers south of the project. City contracted with Avon to supply residents on half of Lear Nagle.

• Waterline was not shown in the correct location and elevation in the plans.

• Manholes not shown in the plans.

• Manholes conflicted with installation of the new North Ridgeville waterline.

• Interference with proposed culvert wingwall.

• Conflict with new drainage manholes and catch basins.

Avon Lake Water

Manholes and house connections not shown in plans

Avon Lake WaterWaterline not shown correctly at the STA 162 culvert (corrected for scale and waterline location)

Avon Lake WaterWaterline not shown correctly at the STA 162 culvert (corrected for scale and cantilevered wingwall)

Avon Lake Water So Deep’s location work

Avon Lake Water So Deep’s location work (with corrected location of waterline)

Avon Lake Water So Deep’s location work (catch basin interference)

Project IssuesAvon Lake 30” Waterline Partnered Solutions


• Contractor moved crews to avoid issues until they could be resolved.

• Contractor changed their phasing to avoid the conflicts.

• Compensated the Contractor for the delay costs while working next to manholes and building a cantilevered wingwall (measured mile).

• Compensated Contractor for extra costs to build offset catchbasins and to modify the new catch basins (ACFA).

• Modified MOT by adding phases, paying for additional striping costs, and paying for additional mobilization costs.

• These solutions mitigated the issues and kept the project goal on target.

Project IssuesMOT as Designed


• Plan was ill-conceived, did not take into consideration congestion (heavy AM/PM rush hour traffic), did not include intersection turn lanes, and did not consider overall mobility. Traffic would have been a nightmare, if the plan had been followed.

• Also, the numerous project issues multiplied the difficulty to work within the MOT as designed.

Project IssuesMOT as Designed Partnered Solutions


• The Owner and Contractor used changes to MOT to resolve or minimize problems in the field, such as:

• Built pavement out of phase to create turn lanes.

• Added new phases.

• Proactively looked ahead for possible MOT problems and developed solutions to prevent them.

• A lot of cooperation and coordination among the City, Contractor, and project personnel.

• These solutions mitigated the issues and kept the project goal on target.

Project Successes


• Lear Nagle pavement finished in one year.

• Project completed 3 months ahead of schedule and under budget.• Early communication between affected parties and prompt

decisions.

• Good working relationships maintained among all parties.• Resolved Issues at the project level.

• Using the Dispute Resolution Process, all disputes were resolved at Step 1.

Questions


PARTNERING PANEL DISCUSSION


Don Conaway Award


Selection Criteria

➢ Establishment and achievement of goals

➢Management of Key Stakeholder relationships

➢ Subcontractor involvement in the Partnering Process

➢ Safety Record of the Project

➢Challenges encountered and means to overcome

➢Mitigation Efforts to reduce the risk of claims

➢Project completion On Time and within Budget

➢Value Engineering Change Proposals

➢Demonstration of Partnering Values

Don Conaway Award


• 2018 = New Categories

Past Don Conaway Award Winners• Proactive vs. Reactive Approach• Utilized the Dispute Resolution Process• Stakeholder Correspondence• Proof of Partnering (Noun vs. Verb)• Model for ODOT’s Partnering Program

2018 ODOT / OCA

PARTNERING TRAINING CLOSING


2018 Statewide Partnering Training

➢Gary Angles, ODOT Central Office

➢Chris Engle, OCA

➢ Jack Ford, The Beaver Excavating Company

➢George Palko, Great Lakes Construction Co.

➢Brad Jones, ODOT Central Office

➢Eric Kahlig, ODOT Central Office

➢Greg Kronstain, ODOT District 12

➢David Ley, ODOT District 7

➢Doug Shealy, Mosser Construction

➢Dan Smith, John R. Jurgensen Company

➢Cary Betzing, ODOT District 10

➢Beth Wilson, ODOT District 3

➢Chase Wells, ODOT Central Office


ODOT OCA Partnering Steering Committee



Hypothetical Partnering CostContract Price: $20,000,000DRB: $63,000Facilitator: $14,000Partnering Cost: $77,000

% = ?



Hypothetical Partnering CostContract Price: $20,000,000DRB: $63,000Facilitator: $14,000Partnering Cost: $77,000

% = 0.385



YearTotal # of

Claims# Heard by DCB

# Heardby ADR

# Dropped or Settled

2009 25 17 3 5

2010 18 13 0 5

2011 11 4 0 7

2012 12 7 0 5

2013 12 8 0 4

2014 13 1 0 7

2015 12 8 3 4

2016 10 3 2 2


“Partnering is a journey, not a destination”

- Mark Leja, P.E., former Caltrans Construction Deputy Director

“Don’t negotiate for a project, negotiate for a lifetime”

- Jeff Freeman, P.E., Nevada DOT Assistant Construction Engineer

“If ODOT and OCA do their job correctly, there wont be a need for a Partnering Steering Committee in the future”

- Doug Gransberg, P.E., Ph.D., Professor of Construction Engineering


2018 STATEWIDE

PARTNERING TRAINING

THANK YOU


2018 statewide odot / oca partnering training files... · nathan fling and thomas hesmond 10:15 am...

Documents