ORIGINAL

NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT

CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

STEADY PROGRESS

COMMITMENT TO QUALITY

Asset Management Implementation Phase I

January 25, 2008 Proposal

The Diamond Building
1100 Superior Avenue, Suite 620
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
tel: 216-579-0404
fax: 216-579-0414

January 25, 2008

Julius Ciaccia, Executive Director

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
3900 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115-2504
Attn: Frank P. Greenland, Director of Capital Programs

Subject: Proposal for Asset Management Implementation Phase 1

Dear Mr. Ciaccia and Mr. Greenland:

Between January, 2005 and March, 2007, CDM worked closely with the District to design an
asset management improvement program. The time has come for implementation of this
exciting program, and CDM is eager to help the District take this great step forward.

We are pleased to submit our proposal to commence implementation of your asset

management program in accordance with the thoughtful and detailed requirements provided
in the request for proposals. The approach CDM proposes is designed to:

„ Justify and prioritize your capital expenditures in light of increased investment

requirements and their financial implication,

„ Develop state-of-the-industry risk management tools and processes to help guide

decision-making and priority-setting as the District navigates through CSO compliance
requirements and the creation of a new stormwater program.

„ Improve the level of service the District provides its customers through engagement of
staff and managers in the application of powerful new approaches to environmental and
infrastructure stewardship.

Our proposed team is structured to include many of the same individuals involved in helping
to design the program (Phil Chernin, Mike Kenel, Ed LeClair, Joe Ridge) as well as some
individuals who are intimately familiar with your infrastructure assets (John Schroeder, Ed St.
John, John Aldrich).

We have engaged two specialty resources to bring focus and authority to the capital planning
and risk management elements of the program. They are:
J. Ciaccia
January 25, 2008
Page 2

„ Warren Kurtz, Former Deputy Commissioner of NYCDEP and Client Manager for
Asset Management Program Implementation Project: Warren served on the client’s side
of CDM’s work for the Asset Management Implementation project in New York City. He
understands the people, process, and technology challenges of asset management
program implementation, but also has realized the end results, including increased capital
budgets and improved staff morale.

„ Jefferson Wells, Risk Management Specialist: A risk management firm based in

Cleveland, Jefferson Wells will provide expertise in establishing risk policies and
procedures. They have provided this service to businesses nationwide, helping clients
protect their assets through best management practices.

We invite you to read our proposal in detail. We have made every effort to make clear the
interdependencies between each task in the program, the level-of-effort required of District
and CDM Team staff during each and every month of the project and have offered some
optional scope items that we believe may enhance the project outcomes.

The project manager, assistant project manager, task managers, and key project personnel
assigned to this project are making personal commitments see this project through
completion. Moreover, the project team is ready, eager, and excited to begin this project. We
look forward to speaking with you regarding our proposal.

Very truly yours,

Edward J. St. John, P.E. BCEE Phil Chernin

Officer-in-Charge Project Manager
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Contents 

Section 1: Technical Approach 
1.1 Asset Management Program Structure and Goals ................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Structure and Goals ................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Vision: NEORSD in 2011...................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Project Approach ................................................................................................... 1-4

Section 2: Qualifications 

Section 3: Preliminary Schedule 

Section 4: Resume of Project Manager 

Section 5: Key State Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes 

Section 6: Availability 

Section 7: Required Information 
MBE/WBE Participation
Percentage of Work to be Performed by Local Staff
Location of Work to be Performed
Equal Employment Opportunity
Examination of Available Data
Conflict of Interest Statement
Labor Effort Requirements
Receipt and Review of Supplements

Section 8: Task and Hour Summary Forms 

A i
 SSEECCTTIIOONN O1N E

Technical Approach
1.1 Asset Management Program
Structure and Goals
As envisioned in the Asset Management Improve-
ment Plan (AMIP) adopted by the District in March
2007, the District’s asset management program is
designed to:
Justify and prioritize capital expenditures in
light of increased investment requirements and
their financial implications;
Document and transfer knowledge about the
District’s infrastructure maintenance and opera-
tional practices before key staff members retire
from the organization; and
Improve the level of service to District custom-
ers while enhancing job satisfaction.
The AMIP is comprised of 40 individual work
plans that achieve specific outcomes to addressa
documented gap that exists between the District’s
current asset management practices and the
achievement of the program goals. Of the 40
recommended work plans, 18 have been selected
by the District to be conducted together, as a
single project: the Asset Management Implementa-
tion, Phase I.
Figure 1 displays the path of the entire asset
management program, emphasizing the amount of
gap closure be achieved as part of this project and
future projects (years 1-4) during Phase 1.
Table 1-7 at the end of the section presents an
overview of tasks, deliverables, and District roles
and responsibilities.

Figure 1-1. CDM’s knowledge of the underlying performance improvement goals of the District provides
con nuity and consistency to the asset management program.

 1-1
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

1.2 Project Structure and Goals
The 18 work plans that comprise Phase 1 are
referred to as tasks in the RFP. The tasks can be
categorized into four task-groups:
Foundation tasks (B,D,I) – Information Tech-
nology (IT), Risk Management (RM), Financial
Planning (FIN). These tasks create policies and
tools that will support the asset renewal and
capital planning practices that will be improved
as a result of this project.
Renewal planning tasks (E,F,G) – Asset Hier-
archy (AH), Asset Criticality (AC) and Asset
Renewal (RR). These tasks will improve the
District’s ability to maintain existing infrastruc-
ture in a state of good repair.
Capital planning tasks (C) – Capital
Improvement Planning (CIP). This task will
improve the District’s ability to make sound
and justifiable capital improvement invest-
ments.
Support tasks (A,H,J) – Asset Management
Coordination (AM), State of Infrastructure
Reporting (IR) and Project Administration
(Task J). These tasks provide program and
project management support to the other task
groups, as well as an annual State of Infrastruc-
ture Report that summarizes the overall condi-
tion and capability of the District’s assets as
necessary for it to achieve its goals, objectives,
and mission.
The relationship between the tasks and the
program goals is summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Program Goals

Task Group Jus fy and Priori ze Capital
Expenditures
Founda onal Tasks (Tasks B, Create financial, risk manage-
D and I) ment, and IT policy to support a
transparent and consistent CIP
development process
Document and Transfer
Infrastructure Knowledge
Document the data stored, pro-
cesses supported and long-term
use objec ves of the District’s as-
set management-related so ware
Meet Level of Service Require-
ments While Enhancing Job
Sa sfac on
Create a financial planning pro-
cess that balances investment
allowances to level of service
objec ves and risk manage-
ment policies

Develop a plan to fully support

Renewal Planning (Tasks E,
F and G)
Capital Planning (Task C)
Support Tasks (Tasks A, H
and J)
Iden fy long-term infrastructure
renewal priori es that must be
considered as part of a compre-
hensive financial planning and cap-
ital projects priori za on process
Provide a means of ensuring the
right investment are made at the
right me with special emphasis
on balancing renewal needs for ag-
ing infrastructure with investment
needs related to the CSO and
stormwater programs
Ensure achievement of capital
expenditure outcomes through
scope, budget and quality controls
Promote knowledge reten on by
documen ng standardized pro-
cesses related to asset hierarchy,
cri cality, and renewal determina-
on
Formalize and modernize 36 years
of engineering and management
best judgment into a transparent
and consistent investment deci-
sion-making process
Develop a library of asset manage- Ensure the project achieves the
ment business models, standard
opera ng procedures and industry
best prac ces
maintenance and opera ons
staff with the so ware required
to support renewal planning
Involve District staff directly
in rela ng the maintenance
and renewal priori es of the
District’s infrastructure to the
level of service goals of the
District
Develop a means to explicitly
consider level of service obliga-
ons when jus fying invest-
ments and se ng investment
priori es
required gap closure
Report annually to stakehold-
ers on the state of the District’s
infrastructure and the level of
service it is providing its cus-
tomers

 1-2
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

The District has invested consid-

erable time to prepare the AMIP,
develop this Phase 1 RFP, and
communicate the goals and objec-
tives of this program to board
members and stakeholders. This Figure 1-2. By structuring Phase 1 into task
project is part of a long-term groups, CDM can help the District keep a keen
focus on achieving desired outcomes in four
program of continuous improvement program areas of founda onal work, capital plan-
in asset management. While it will ning, renewal planning and program support.
provide clear and timely benefits to
the District, it will also be provid- ture investment decisions based on business risks
ing incremental improvement over current practice, and lifecycle cost considerations. As a result, the
with further improvements to be achieved in future District will be better positioned to enjoy:
phases. The pace of improvement that is designed
into this project is consistent with the amount of Sustainable rates and revenue
staff time that the District is able to provide each Healthy infrastructure maintained in a state of
year over the project’s duration. The pace is also good repair
consistent with the capacity of the District organiza-
tion to internalize and institutionalize the improve- Satisfied customers who are informed about
ments. District stewardship and cost minimization
activities

1.3 Vision: NEORSD in 2011 Compliance with regulations

When this project is completed in 2011, the District An engaged modern workforce motivated by
will have adopted asset management practices that advanced asset management practices that
demonstrate sound stewardship of the District’s utilize their hands-on knowledge of District
assets and that allow the District to make infrastruc- infrastructure.

The project will produce an “end-state” in which

Figure 1-3. The complex

interplay of tasks that
comprise Phase 1 will
produce a efficient and
consistent process for
making investment de-
cisions that ensure that
the District maintains
a sustainable business
well into the future.

 1-3
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
business requirements are assessed in terms of risk
management and stewardship responsibility; deci-
sion-making about how to meet those requirements
will be consistent and effective and the appropriate
amount and type of information about the District’s
infrastructure will be communicated to appropri-
ate stakeholders. Figure 1-3 illustrates the end-state
representing the 2011 asset management vision for
NEORSD.
Table 1-2 summarizes the current state – or baseline
– of asset management practice and the end-state
that will be achieved as relates to each task group.
1.4 Project Approach
Figure 1-4 provides a simplified illustration of the
sequence of tasks as CDM proposes to execute
them. Figure 1-5 is a detailed illustration of the
inputs to and outputs from each task in the project
as well as the key activities within each task. This
Figure 1-4. Sequence of Phase 1 tasks as CDM proposes to execute them.
 1-4
project view highlights the relationship between
consultant work (creation of the inputs) and the
fruits of District labor (production of outputs). It
also illustrates where outputs of one task become
inputs to another. A complete resource-loaded
project schedule illustrating all project staff and
task dependencies is provided in Section 3 of this
proposal.
Each task group is discussed on the following
pages.
Founda on Tasks
The Foundation task group includes tasks B,D and
I – Risk Management (RM), Information Tech-
nology (IT) and Financial Planning (FIN). These
tasks create policies and tools that will support the
renewal and capital planning practices that will be
improved during the project.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Table1-2: Descrip ons of the current baseline and future end-state that the District will achieve at comple on of
each task in this project.
Task Baseline End State
FOUNDATIONAL TASKS
Task B An internal audit procedure exists. A A formal, corporate risk management
Corporate Risk Management financial capability assessment proce- program is in place that guides busi-
dure exists. ness con nuity, risk management and
investment priori za on.
Task D Mul ple so ware systems maintain A single, enterprise asset register will
Informa on Technology redundant data and are configured to be implemented with plans drawn for
deliver minimum diagnos c/decision integra on with the Financial informa-
support capability. on system, GIS and asset management
decision-support tools.
Task I Long-term planning is based upon Long-term planning based upon histori-
Financial Planning short-term views of infrastructure cal data and analysis of lifecycle infra-
renewal requirements. structure renewal requirements.
RENEWAL PLANNING
Task E It is unnecessarily me-consuming and Infrastructure data will be structured
Asset Hierarchy some mes not possible to understand into a standard hierarchy designed to
the capacity and useful life of infra- facilitate data inspec on, repor ng and
structure assets because of the way analysis using the same procedures
they are categorized, classified and for all three plants and the collec on
stored in informa on systems. systems tributary to them.
Task F Maintenance priority-se ng is based Maintenance priority-se ng and deci-
Asset Cri cality on resource availability and “worst- sion-making will take into considera on
first.” the consequence of failure of an asset.
Task G No vehicle exists to predict, es mate Renewal plans with 50-year predic ve
Repair and Renewal Planning and plan for the cost of infrastructure horizons will be produced for all three
repair and replacement beyond a 3- treatment plants and the collec on
year window. system tributary to them.
CAPITAL PROJECTS PLANNING
Task C Investment priori es are arrived at Investment decisions are informed by a
Capital Planning through expert judgment and execu ve transparent, repeatable business case
decision-making. analysis. Decisions are made through
expert judgment and execu ve deci-
sion-making.
SUPPORT TASKS
Task A An asset management knowledge base An asset management knowledge
Asset Management Coordina on and gap closure plan exists. base will be in produc ve use and gap
closures in accordance with AMIP will
be achieved.
Task H No vehicle exists for communica ng An annual report will communicate the
State of Infrastructure Report the economic value of and level of economic value of and level of service
service delivered by the District’s infra- delivered by the District’s infrastructure
structure assets. assets.
Task J An RFP has been issued. The first group of comprehensive asset
Project Administra on management improvements tasks will
be complete.

 1-5
 Interdependencies Table

 1-6
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

The subtasks that comprise the foundation task

group, the District Task Managers and CDM Task
Managers assigned to each are identified in Table
1-3.

Tasks B, D1, and I can begin simultaneously upon

contract execution

Key Challenges
The key challenges to success with the foundation
task group are as follows:
Being highly productive with the time made
available to CDM by the District’s executive
group and senior staff by being concise, articu-
late and efficient in establishing policy state-
ments and guidelines;
Fully engaging the District’s IT staff and busi-
ness analyst(s) in understanding the role and
requirements of IT systems from an asset
management and end-user perspective;
Translating best practice in enterprise risk
management in the private sector to appropriate
policy and guidance for the District; and
Reaching consensus with senior staff on the role
of lifecycle cost analysis in the project nomina-
tion and budgeting process.
Task B: Corporate Risk Management
(RM-1)
Task B is intended to develop the means by which
the District will identify, assess, prioritize, miti-
gate and monitor all risks confronting the District,
including those related to asset failure. CDM is
suggesting three options for Task B, which are
discussed following our task-by-task discussion.
This task will produce a risk policy and mission
statement that will guide risk-based decisions
made at the strategic, tactical, and operational
level, including those:
Strategic risks associated with financial,
political, and social decisions such as mergers,
long-term investments, outsourcing, acquir-
ing insurance, or how best to meet stakeholder
expectations;

Table 1-3. NEORSD and CDM Task Managers

Task Program NEORSD Task Manager CDM Manager
Designa on
B Corporate Risk Management RM-1 John Wasko Tom Boras

D1 Documenta on of Data Storage and Repor ng IT-1 Donice Bell Marianne MacDonald

D2 Enhancement Plan for UWAMS (SPL) IT-2 Humberto Sanchez/ Marianne MacDonald
Donice Bell

D3 Asset Management Systems Planning IT-3 Humberto Sanchez Marianne MacDonald

I Enhance Financial Planning Process FIN-1 TBD Joseph Ridge

 1-7
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
Tactical risks where existing risk-based
programs (e.g., health and safety, environmen-
tal compliance, security) will be integrated into
an overarching management system structure
(Corporate Risk Management) that allocates
resources across all such programs in consid-
eration of achieving the maximum reduction in
risk for each dollar spent; and
Operational risks that relate to more specific
events such as infrastructure failure, lack of
performance on important work activities, and
loss of key individuals to the organization.
The Program will provide answers to the following
questions:
What are the most significant risks facing the
District?
Which risks should get our limited resources
first?
How do we promote a risk management
consciousness across all levels of the organiza-
tion?
How do we demonstrate to our customers and
stakeholders that we have exercised due dili-
gence in assessing the risks associated with the
outcomes of our decisions?
Goals
Goals for the Corporate Risk Management program
include:
Creation of a risk policy that reflects the
District’s core values and defines the District’s
level of risk tolerance,
Developing a risk identification procedure that
ensures all appropriate risks competing for the
District’s limited resources are identified, and
Producing a risk scoring methodology that will
allow the District to prioritize their risks based
 1-8
on the likelihood of occurrence and the poten-
tial impacts.
To make meaningful comparisons, the risk scor-
ing methodology chosen to assess the District’s
infrastructure assets must be useful in determining
not only the criticality and renewal priority of an
infrastructure asset but must allow for meaningful
comparison with non-infrastructure events such as
natural disasters, acts of sabotage, etc.
CDM’s approach will minimize the impact on the
daily activities of District staff, yet engage them
sufficiently so that they will take full ownership
of the program and continue to build the program
using the developed policies, procedures, and
tools.
Deliverables from Task B include:
Risk iden fica on and priori za on procedures that
allow District staff to consistently iden fy and assess
those risks facing the District.
Risk mi ga on and monitoring procedures that will
describe the means for selec ng and monitoring risk
control measures to ensure the District’s risks are
being controlled as intended.
Performance measurement and internal audi ng
procedures that allow District staff to self-correct
observed devia ons from approved procedures and
to measure the progress of the overall Corporate Risk
Management program in controlling or lowering the
District’s risks.
A Risk Register spreadsheet for District staff to store
informa on related to the iden fied risks.
A Risk Mi ga on Library consis ng of a spreadsheet
by which District staff would store informa on
related to mi ga ve measures that might be applied
to future risks.
A Risk Scoring applica on consis ng of a spread-
sheet that will query staff for specific informa on
related to a par cular risk and then calculate a rela-
ve risk priori za on score.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
The successful implementation of the Risk Manage-
ment Program involves designating an NEORSD
Risk Manager supported by a Risk Management
Team of three or four individuals of relevant back-
ground and interest. To minimize impact to the
Risk Manager’s time, the following implementation
strategy will be followed.
CDM will complete a first draft of the document
for review with the Risk Manager and the Risk
Management Team.
Based on the comments received, CDM will edit
the document for use by the Risk Manager in
discussions with the District’s senior leadership.
Comments from the senior leadership will be
addressed in the document and as a first step in
implementation the document will be presented to
a combined meeting of the Risk Management Team
and Department/Business Unit Leaders.
Any outstanding issues will be resolved before final
signoff by the Risk Manager and assignment of a
document control number per the District’s Docu-
ment Retention Policy.
The final document will be the basis of internal
auditing and development of any subsequent train-
ing material.
Task B1 (RFP Step 1-A): Establishment of a Risk
Management Policy
The purpose of this step is to develop a Corporate
Risk Management Policy and Mission Statement
whereby the senior leadership commits the orga-
nization to identifying and assessing risks as part
of an ongoing continuous improvement program
aimed at risk reduction. This step will assign
responsibility for the program to the Risk Manager,
present the overarching goals and objectives of the
program, and provide information on the District’s
level of risk tolerance
A risk tolerance questionnaire will be developed
and distributed to the District’s senior leadership.
Survey results and example policies will open
 1-9
discussions with the Risk Management Team and
the District’s Department/Business Unit Leaders
in a two-hour workshop. The draft policy will be
submitted by the District’s Task Leader to senior
leadership for approval.
This will produce a formal Corporate Risk
Management Policy and Mission Statement with
a clear understanding of the District’s tolerance to
risk for use in developing decision-making proce-
dures.
Task B2 (RFP Step 1- B): Designate of Risk Man-
ager and Risk Management Team
In this step a Risk Manager and a supporting Risk
Management Team are designated by the senior
leadership. The Risk Management Team will
provide internal support to assist in identifying and
assessing those risks confronting the District. The
roles and responsibilities of the Risk Manager/Risk
Management Team will be documented, including:
Ongoing oversight of the program’s develop-
ment
Adhering to all risk policies and procedures
Identifying and assessing risks
Setting and monitoring performance metrics
and goals as part of an ongoing continuous risk
reduction program
Periodically reviewing any action plans and/or
internal controls implemented to reduce the
District’s risks, and
Reviewing internal audit reports as part of
overseeing management of the Corporate Risk
Management program.
CDM will draft roles and responsibilities and
present them during a two-hour consensus-build-
ing and awareness workshop with the Task Leader
and the Department/Business Unit Leaders. If
requested, CDM will help the task leader identify
candidates to fill needed positions.
This step will result in clearly identified and docu-
mented roles and responsibilities in conducting
the Corporate Risk Management program and an
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
awareness of these roles by the District’s
senior leadership, managers, and supervi-
sors.
Task B3 (RFP Step 2-A): Risk Iden fica on
Procedure and Risk Register
This step will detail the business process to
be followed in the District’s identification
and recording of risks, including business,
legal, financial, operational, strategic, envi-
ronmental, safety and security risks facing
the District. In addition, this procedure will Figure 1-6. CDM offers an op onal task to produce an MS-Access® risk
provide for: register similar to the one pictured here.
Clear identification of where the risk
identification procedure is to be integrated into
the District’s existing business processes.
A Risk Register spreadsheet where District staff
will store information related to identified risks
(see Approach Options for the Risk Register
consisting of an Access database with search
and reporting capabilities). The Risk Register
(Figure 1-6) will be designed to store the follow-
ing types of risk-related data: location, involved
business units, probably of occurrence, positive
and negative consequences.
This step will produce a documented procedure
leading to risk identification and an electronic Risk
Register spreadsheet able to store risk-related infor-
mation.
Task B4 (RFP Step 2-B): Risk Quan fica on and
Priori za on Procedure
This step will create a relative risk scoring meth-
odology that will support the District’s decision-
making process regarding financial investments
and resource allocation. The scoring methodology
will be part of a documented procedure for assess-
ing/quantifying the District’s risks using a relative
scoring scheme that facilitates cross-comparisons
of diverse risks (e.g., natural disaster, knowledge
drain, supply chain disruption, interceptor failure).
The resulting prioritization of risk is not intended
to dictate the order of resource allocation, but
 1-10
instead is intended to provide a systematic means
for ensuring adequate risk related information is
integrated into the decision-making process. This
capability will allow the District to act proactively
versus reactively in addressing risk and enhance
the decision-making process by providing addi-
tional risk-related information.
The risk scoring methodology and the associated
procedure will be based on the Risk Policy and the
results from a 4-6 hour workshop involving senior,
department, and business unit leaders as well as
members of the Risk Management Team. The
risk scoring methodology will identify the means
(quantitative or semi quantitative) for assessing the
probability that a particular event will occur and
the means for assessing the consequences of the
event. The methodology will be incorporated into
the risk quantification and prioritization procedure.
In addition, CDM will provide the District with a
list of advanced risk management tools and capa-
bilities (e.g., uncertainty analysis and forecasting
tools, see Figure 1-7) that could be used to further
characterize the District’s risks. This added docu-
ment will identify the tool or capability, the source
or vendor, any associated costs, and benefits to
the District. These tools and capabilities would
provide more accurate and detailed information
that might prove useful in:
Examining the up-side and down-side uncer-
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

tainties (i.e., risks) associated with long-term

revenue or expense projections.

Identifying those factors most likely to lead to

capital project overruns or schedule slippage, as
part of forming a mitigation strategy to prevent
these events from occurring.

Determining the amount of retainer or insurance

needed to address risks created by the uncertain-
ties associated with financial forecasting.

Assembling additional analytical information

that might be needed to demonstrate due dili- Figure 1-7. Uncertainty analysis to es mate revenue short-
gence in assessing risk. falls and expense overruns.

This task will result in a documented procedure for dure and performance metrics to the Risk Manager
quantifying the risks identified by District staff and and Risk Management Team for open discussion
identification of advanced risk assessment tools that and editing. The Risk Manager will then seek
might be used to support the District’s decision- senior leadership approval. The process map and
making processes. guidelines will be submitted to the asset manage-
ment coordinator for quality assurance and compli-
Task B5 (RFP Step 3): Con nuous Improvement ance with document control requirements.
and Performance Metrics
This step implements an ongoing risk management
system that continuously identi-
fies and implements activities PROJECT EXAMPLE
that will reduce the District’s
risk exposure. CDM will help In Cincinna , CDM developed a
the Risk Manager and the Risk risk management plan for the
Metropolitan Sewer District of
Management Team develop
Greater Cincinna (MSDGC) to
program performance metrics help it to manage its $2 billion wet
that will provide evidence of the weather program.
accomplishments achieved. The CDM developed a risk manage-
risk management system will ment plan by preparing an ini al
be described in a documented The plan created a posi on for
inventory and assessment of risks,
a Risk Coordinator who will rou-
procedure whose conformance then developing strategies to
nely evalute known and emerg-
will be monitored as part of manage the inventory of risks. The
ing risks to the wet weather
the internal auditing effort management plan was founded
program. Constant a en on to
on the basic risk management
as a means for ensuring the trends and immediate interpre-
principles of risk transfer, ensure,
risk management program is or retain/manage.
ta on of changing risk priori es
sustained and that deviations will ensure the flexibility and re-
from the guidelines are self- sponsiveness necessary to keep
risk alloca ons current.
corrected.

We will present a draft of proce- Relevant Staff: Mike Kenel, Phil Chernin, Joe Ridge

 1-11
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

This step will result in guidelines and instruction for

implementing an ongoing continuous risk reduction
management system across all levels of the organi-
zation along with identifying the means for collect-
ing and reporting on those performance metrics as
part of the internal audit program.

Task B6 (RFP Step 4): Annual Risk Management

Report
This step involves the development of a template
and procedure for creating an “Annual NEORSD
Risk Management Report.” The procedure would
be used by the Risk Manager and the Risk Manage-
ment Team to update the District’s senior leader-
ship and any interested parties on the Corporate
Risk Management program and the risks facing the
District. CDM will outline the reporting process, Figure 1-8. Summary of associated probability of risk
identify information sources, describe necessary
analyses, and distribute the final controlled docu-
ment. The annual report template would identify ment program and the risks confronting the
the greatest risks facing the District, report on the District.
control measures implemented to minimize those
Task B7 (RFP Step 5): Training
risks, and report the level of any residual risks. A
This step addresses the training needs associated
suggested graphic of those risks (see Figure 1-8)
with implementing the Corporate Risk Manage-
would summarize their associated probability of
ment Program. Specifically, we will develop train-
occurrence and adverse consequences in an over-
ing material, identify individuals to receive the
view fashion that can be modified to depict both the
training, and conduct the training under this step.
original and residual risks following implementa-
Training objectives will be established for four key
tion of control measures. Key short- and long-term
areas:
goals and performance metrics will be included in
the annual report. Finally, the annual report would The District staff’s general awareness of the
recommend risk management program improve- Risk Management Program, their role in help-
ments as well as the costs and benefits for imple- ing to identify risks, and the diligence needed to
menting those recommendations. control risks if so assigned;
CDM will draft a template and procedure to initi- The key roles individual Department and Busi-
ate discussions with the Risk Manager and the ness Unit Leaders will play in integrating risk
Risk Management Team. The Risk Manager would management processes and procedures into
then present an edited procedure and template to their everyday activities;
the senior leadership. Any outstanding issues or
concerns would be addressed before finalizing both The role the Risk Manager, Risk Management
the procedure and the template. Team, and the Internal Audit Team will play in
implementing the continuous improvement risk
The outcome of this subtask will be a template for management system; and
development of a clear and concise annual report
conveying the status of the District’s Risk Manage-

 1-12
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
Executive and specialized training related to the
identification/mitigation of strategic risks and
use of risk scoring methodologies, respectively
The Risk Manager and the Risk Management Team
will identify individuals for training. The general
awareness training is envisioned to occur in several
(3-5) half-hour sessions and focus on risk policy
and risk identification. Department and Busi-
ness Unit Leaders will receive additional training
through two three-hour sessions focusing on risk
identification, prioritization, and mitigation. The
Risk Manager and Risk Management Team will
receive focused instruction (one 4-hour session)
on the continuous improvement risk manage-
ment system, including the setting of performance
metrics.
Task B8 (RFP Step 6): Internal Audi ng
The internal auditor training is intended to focus
on the risk-management polices, procedures, and
continuous improvement activities. Checklists will
be provided to assist these activities.
Draft checklists will be developed by CDM with
input from the Risk Manager. It is anticipated that
general internal auditing and corrective action
procedures already exist as part of the District’s
current audit capabilities and that those conducting
the audits will have been trained on these general
procedures.
This step will result in an internal audit team
knowledgeable of both internal auditing and risk
management procedures, including the issuance of
audit reports and corrective action notices.
Approach Op ons:
Option 1: Access Database. Rather than use a
spreadsheet to store risk related information, the
District may desire to invest in an Access database
with a graphical interface that enhances search and
report capabilities. An example graphical interface
for such system is provided in Figure 1-6.
 1-13
Option 2: Risk Identification and Quantifica-
tion. District staff may benefit from hands-on
experience with the actual identification of risk
and prioritization. This option proposes that CDM
work with District staff to identify and assess 30
risks (financial, legal, security, environmental,
etc.) that are likely to represent the greatest risks
facing the organization. These risks and associated
information would be entered by CDM into the
Risk Register.
Option 3: Actual First Internal Audit. CDM
will oversee and coordinate with District Staff the
first internal audit of the adopted risk management
procedures. This field experience will include the
actual audit, issuing of corrective notices, and a
follow-up debriefing meeting.
Task D: Informa on Technology Planning
(IT-1, 2 and 3)
Effective asset management requires a structured
approach to planning and decision-making. Infor-
mation management tools are a critical enabler
for this because they are the source of data upon
which plans and decisions are made. To support
asset management, data must be easily available
in a timely manner, and must be of unquestionable
quality.
The types of plans and decisions to be made during
this project require the compilation of different
types of information from a variety of software
systems. In some instances the District does not
have a specific software system in place to support
its information needs. Structured decision-making
and system integration require business and data
standards and structures. System coordination, and
potentially integration, is required to eliminate data
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
redundancy and to support multi-criteria decision
making and reporting.
There are three guiding principles that CDM will
apply to Task D.
Strive for Simplicity - The application of
technology for asset management should be as
simple as possible for end-users providing data,
and for end-users consuming data for decision-
making. Technology should be an enabler, not a
burden.
Driven by Business Needs – To ensure that
the value of technology is maximized for the
District, it should be applied appropriately
and for the purpose of meeting specific asset
management goals.
Minimize Customization – Technology appli-
cation should conform to commercial software
vendors’ recommended practices to avoid costly
and complex customization.
Goals
With the above guiding principles in mind, the IT
work plans will achieve the following:
Knowledge management for asset manage-
ment information systems – CDM will
guide the development of standardized docu-
mentation of the information access system
(IAS), operational data management system
(ODMS), geographic information system (GIS)
and computerized maintenance management
(CMMS) systems, all of which manage and/or
report on infrastructure data. We will focus on
supporting business needs and keeping technol-
ogy as simple as possible for end-users. During
the renewal, planning, and capital planning
task groups, CDM will work with the District
to provide comprehensive and understandable
documentation about the supporting systems and
data. In addition, CDM will structure the activi-
ties to provide a mechanism for communicating
the role of IT systems in the asset management
 1-14
program from a business/end-user perspective.
Maximize the value of existing systems to
support asset management – CDM will work
closely with the District’s IT staff and our
subcontractor, Oracle, to develop a set of action
plans that supports the enhanced use of infor-
mation systems in a consistent and uniform
manner, and as a means for collecting data in
support of asset management.
Provide a road-map for continuous improve-
ment of information systems to support asset
management – Through the execution of all
of the work plans, the CDM team will work
with District stakeholders to communicate the
need for functionality and systems to support
the asset management program. A road map
will be used to develop an IT strategic planning
process that outlines and prioritizes technology
investments for the next five years, and creates
a process for on-going updates of the IT Stra-
tegic Plan. This will include absent functional-
ity necessary to support the asset management
program as well as an implementation plan
for functionality already owned but not fully
deployed, such as Oracle/SPL enhancements.
Approach
The activities associated with each of the three
projects D-1, D-2, and D-3 will be executed as
requested in the RFP. CDM proposes to approach
Task D as a unified task in phases, combining
some activities of D-2 and D-3 with D-1. This
will enable the team to complete this work effi-
ciently, minimize the burden on NEORSD staff,
and ensure that the IT planning is driven by asset
management business needs.
The overall approach to Task D is to begin with
a thorough evaluation of existing conditions,
define the desired future state, and develop a
specific implementable plan to achieve that desired
future state. The assessment of existing condi-
tions includes gathering details about the existing
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
Table 1-4.
Phase
D-1
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
Year 1 – Establish Exis ng Condi ons
D-2
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 1 - with D-1.4
Year 1 - with D-1.3 and Task E1 and C1
Year 1 - with D-1.3 and Task E1 and C1
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
D-3
Year 1 - with D-1.3 and Task E1 and C1
Year 2/3 – Establish Desired Condi ons
Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals
Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals
Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goal
Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals
Year 3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals
 1-15
system data and the busi-
ness functionality that they
RFP RFP Task Descrip on
support. Some of these tasks
Task
are currently specified in all
three of the IT work plans.
D-1.1 Establishing Working Group While the current plan has
D-1.2 Enhance Data Matrix much of this work beginning
in year two of the project,
D-1.3 Characterize System Func ons
beginning this work earlier
D-1.4 Document Standard Reports and conducting some tasks
D-1.5 Summarize Ad-Hoc Reports from each plan concurrently
D-1.6 Data Transfer\Transforma on Maps will integrate information
D-1.7 Produce Applica on Summary Reports from this task with the other
D-1.8 Produce Execu ve Summary tasks in the first year. This
will result in less of a burden
D-2.1 Review Exis ng Informa on on District staff time and
Review Repair and Renewal Repor ng provide an integrated busi-
Specifica ons ness and IT perspective on
asset management issues. In
D-2.2 Review Exis ng Informa on
Review Repair and Renewal Repor ng
addition, if simple opportu-
Specifica ons nities for improvement are
identified earlier, they can
D-2.3 Process Interviews be implemented on a faster
D-2.4 SPL Process Mapping track, providing more value
D-2.5 Condi on Process Mapping to the District sooner.
D-2.6 Valida on Sessions
D-2.7 Revise Data Matrix Task D-1 – Establish Exist-
ing Conditions: It is possible
D-2.8 Determine SPL Technical Requiremen to begin aspects of all three
D-2.9 Implementa on Plan IT work plans concurrently
D-2.10 Cost Es mate because there are discus-
sions and data gathering that
D-3.1 Conduct User Requirements Survey can be done simultaneously
to minimize meetings and
D-3.2 Develop Vision and Values Statement District staff time.
D-3.3 SWOT Analylsis and Strategic Goals The first step is to establish
a working group of 8-15
D-3.4 Oracle U lity Systems Day
individuals with detailed
D-3.5 Summary of Improvement Require- knowledge of one or more of
ments the systems associated with
this project. This includes
D-3.6 Project Priori za on Workshops the IAS, ODMS, GIS, and
D-3.7 AM Systems Plan CMMS. Group members
will review the work plan,
documentation templates
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

drafted by CDM for Step 2, and

objectives. In concert with the PROJECT EXAMPLE
District, we will determine the
The Har ord Metropolitan District
optimal approach and distribu- Commission (the MDC) in Con-
tion of duties for assessing the nec cut has been planning for
existing databases to support the execu on of a major capital
the asset management program. program of $1.6 billion over the
To maximize the value of these next 15 years. MDC hired CDM to
early steps throughout for all improve business processes and
three IT workplans, CDM informa on systems, assessing
procurement, design manage- CDM performed business pro-
recommends establishing a sub- ment, grant tracking and data cess analyses and reviewed data
group that will focus specifi- management. tracking needs to enable MDC to
cally on the CMMS. Additional be er manage their program. A
participants may be brought in Cri cal to project success were major outcome of CDM’s work
to support this group. well defined and understood staff was the re-implementa on of
roles, incen ves and processes to several SAP modules to sup-
The primary focus of the work capitalize on technological capa- port procurement, asset man-
in this Phase will be information bili es. agement, and capital projects
tracking.
gathering about existing systems
as outlined in Subtask D-1 of Relevant Staff: Marianne MacDonald, Joe Ridge, Phil Chernin
the RFP. Since much of this
work will involve meeting with
system end-users and power sessions and five to 10 individual interviews. CDM
users, it is the best use of the District’s staff time to will prepare process maps and descriptions, includ-
also gather information about existing conditions as ing interface descriptions.
specified in Subtask D-2.2, D-2.3, D-2.4 and D-
3.1. This task will be coordinated with the process Categorization of major software systems
mapping activities in Task C-1 and E-1. according to the business functions they support.
Using Appendix H of TM#1 as a starting point, the
Team members will gather information to complete CDM team will meet with user groups to obtain
system documentation for the IAS, ODMS, GIS, feedback on current system functionality, adequa-
and CMMS. CDM will prepare and outline and cy of technical support, and anticipated future
sample structure for review by the working group. requirements. While this is a step that is part of
The group will modify as necessary and assign- Subtask D-3, it will be most efficient for this to be
ments will be made to complete the summary for done as part of the assessment of existing condi-
each system. Documentation will include: tions to provide the most value to all of the work
plans.
System functionality as scoped in Subtask D-1 and
D-2. The content will include the software func- System data for each system in the form of
tions provided by each system and their relation- enhanced data matrices will be completed, build-
ship to the business functions of NEORSD. For the ing on the data matrix included as Appendix H
CMMS in particular, CDM will conduct process in TM#1.2. This will address some of the needs
mapping interviews and work sessions with those of both Subtasks D-1 and D-2. It will include the
knowledgeable of the Oracle/SPL system and those classes of infrastructure assets managed and a
dependent on its use in a decision-making capac- dictionary that describes the data stored in busi-
ity. This will consist of approximately four work ness terms. The source of each data element will

 1-16
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
be described in enough detail to understand data
acquisition responsibilities and the degree of consis-
tency applied during acquisition and input of each
data element.
Standard reports summary – The team will
produce a description of standard paper reports that
are regularly produced by the systems and used to
support decision-making within the District. The
emphasis will be on paper and emailed reports,
because they are traceable and repeatable. Report
descriptions will be developed to document the data
fields, computed data, and business rules applied
to the data for the report as well as its frequency of
generation, users, and uses. This is a requirement
of D-1, however much of this information will be
gathered during process workshops and meetings
for many of the tasks in this program to minimize
the burden of questions on District staff.
Ad-hoc reports summary – The team will produce
a general, written description of ad-hoc reports
that are frequently generated. The descriptions will
be brief, providing an overview of ways in which
systems can be used to query and compile data to
produce useful information. As with the Standard
Report Summary, this is a requirement of D-1.
Much of this information will be gathered during
process workshops and meetings for all of the tasks
to minimize the burden of questions on NEORSD
staff.
Application summary – This will include relevant
information from each of the prior steps as well
as system age, source (vendor), acquisition and
upgrade history; licensing cost and usage terms;
profile (or listing by job description/role) of typical
and super-users; application support mechanisms in
place; known user concerns about the application;
and general summaries of user needs for improve-
ments. This is a requirement of D-3, however, as
with the categorization documentation, it will be
most efficient for this to be done as part of the
assessment of existing conditions to provide the
most value to all of the work plans.
 1-17
Using the information gathered in Step 2, a data
transfer/transformation mapping will be done. The
purpose of this is to identify redundant data fields,
and cases where data in one area is derived from
other data. Where applicable, data flow diagrams
will be used to illustrate the transformation of data
as it moves between systems.
An Executive Summary will present the results of
the existing conditions assessment work. This will
be based on the information produced in steps 2
and 3 to provide an executive overview describ-
ing the relationship between the four systems
and opportunities to consolidate systems and/or
improve the usage/function of each system.
Task D-2 – Establish Desired Condi ons
The activities in this task complete the work for
Subtask D-2 and initiate the work for Subtask
D-3 in the RFP. These activities will be closely
aligned with Tasks C and E focused on the Capital
Improvement Planning and Repair and Renewal
needs in order to keep the focus of technology
on supporting the asset management program
business needs. The specific activities are those
outlined in the scope for Subtask D-2, with the
exception steps 2, 3 and 4 which will be completed
with the Existing Conditions Assessment work.
The CMMS sub-group that was created during
the assessment of existing conditions will be re-
convened to review Repair and Renewal Reporting
Specifications developed from RR-1. The CDM
team will then draft recommended future condi-
tion process maps for the CMMS. Oracle will be
involved in this effort to ensure the future condi-
tion is consistent with Oracle/SPL best practices
and recommended configuration. Recommenda-
tions will address how condition assessments
will be performed, including which data is to be
collected, stored, and reported within Oracle/SPL.
The CMMS sub-group will then participate in
future condition validation sessions with staff
representing various levels of the organization,
including business end-users and technical staff
supporting Oracle/SPL.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
As required by the RFP, outputs of this activity will
include:
A Revised Oracle/SPL Data Matrix based on the
completed process mapping, including responsi-
bilities for data collection and QC.
An Oracle/SPL Configuration Document that
will include technical configuration requirements
for Oracle/SPL to support repair and renewal
reporting as specified in project RR-1 and for
Oracle/SPL’s asset management module to
support the process as designed.
Oracle/SPL Implementation/Work Plan detailing
a strategy for SPL configuration and business
process changes necessary to support the asset
management program. This will include:
− Workplan;
− Cost estimate;
− Oracle/SPL upgrade, configuration and/or
customization requirements, timing and
process;
− Recommended data collection, QC and data
maintenance work flows and responsibilities;
− Long-term Oracle/SPL integration consider-
ations far beyond the 3-year plan;
− Service level expectations for Oracle/SPL
support from the IT group to O&M;
− Oracle/SPL database administration duties
and frequencies;
− A strategy for employee training and consis-
tent use of Oracle/SPL;
− Referencing of the District’s Records Reten-
tion Policy
The final step of this phase is to develop the Asset
Management Systems Vision and Value Statements.
This is the point in which all of the business needs
for asset management are compiled and the team
works together, across tasks and workgroups, to
specify the most appropriate role for technology
in supporting these needs. At the point in which
 1-18
this activity is executed, much of the Renewal
Planning and Capital Planning work plans will be
completed. The activities and business decisions
resulting from these will be considered by the IT
Working Group to develop mission, vision and
values statements to guide the IT Department and
its internal clients in making effective investments
in IT resources over a five-year period.
Task D-3 – Design IT Approach to Meet Goals
This phase completes the activities in Subtask
D-3 of the RFP, with the exception of D-3.1 and
D-3.2, which were done with the prior activities.
These activities are focused on defining a specific
approach to evolve District systems from their
existing to their desired states.
CDM will facilitate a working session with District
staff to conduct and analyze system strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)
and to establish strategic IT goals to support asset
management. CDM will then lead the review of
the SWOT and user requirements and will relate
them to AMIP Outcomes assigned to future proj-
ects. A summary of requirements and outcomes
will be developed in the form of a working list of
potential projects that address user-requests and
that can achieve AMIP outcomes not yet assigned
to projects.
To educate District staff involved in this work
plan, CDM will work with the District and Oracle
to organize an Oracle Utility Systems Education
Day. This will provide an authoritative view from
Oracle Corporation of the potential integration and
enhancement growth paths that leverages the exist-
ing Oracle products now in use in the District.
Following this educational activity, CDM will
facilitate and provide guidance to the IT Work
Group in Project Prioritization Workshops. Using
information from prior activities there will be 2 to
3 workshops to solidify project descriptions and
priorities. The results of this work will be summa-
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

District consistently characterizes expenditures

as to maintenance versus capital repair and
replacement and then understands options for
funding such expenditures. There are strong
reasons for implementing a pay-as-you-go
capital program to support revenue requirement
stability, meet bond covenant requirements
rized in the asset management systems plan for related to debt service coverage, and address
review by Department heads, AMT and approval by bond rating agency expectations.
SST.
Create and promote informed use of a capital
projects lifecycle cost analysis template and
Task I: Enhance Financial Planning Process
methodology, so that the District is certain that
(FIN-1) it is implementing the best project to address a
Enhanced financial plans are one of the major posi- certain situation.
tive outcomes of an asset management program.
The purpose of this activity is to develop a set of CDM is proposing an optional task, which is
standard operating procedures and protocols to discussed following our approach.
ensure that the District maximizes the program
benefits, with the development of multi-year Goals
budgetary planning. Critical improvements will The Financial Enhancement workplan will be
result from a better understanding of the District’s focused on creating and implementing a process
repair and replacement needs (including the timing that:
and level of such expenditures) and an enhanced
Supports business needs and keeps technology
and thoughtful process to ensure that the District is
as simple as possible for end users. The District
proceeding with the right capital project at the right
has an existing process that has a number of
time. To improve its financial planning process, the
procedures, protocols and tools in place. The
District needs to:
goal of this workplan is to enhance that existing
Establish poli- process and minimize the disruptions in busi-
cies and imple-
ment procedures
to obtain and
maintain within
the asset regis-
try a consistent
cost basis for
the value of
assets that will
drive replace-
ment cost plan-
ning.

Procedures Figure 1-9. As part of Task I3, CDM will reconfigure the Easterly Blower lifecycle analysis tool to
and a planning be a user-friendly tool that can be applied to all lifecycle analyses conducted by the District in
the future.
process so the

 1-19
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
ness procedures and activities.
Ensures the acceptance and sustainability of
the modified/improved approach by providing
comprehensive and easy-to-use documenta-
tion about the financial protocols and why they
are necessary. This effort will require soliciting
input from existing staff and working through
transitional issues with staff and managers.
Provides a mechanism for communicating the
role of financial tools in the asset management
program from a business/end-user perspective.
This will include developing flexible tools that
can address the wide range of issues facing
the District, but ensuring that each situation is
evaluated and a determination is made in a clear
and consistent manner. This will likely require
packaging processes and tools that the District
currently uses in a potentially different manner
and improving the functionality to perform func-
tions and developing standard rules.
Task I-1 RFP (Step 1): Iden fy and track current
related business processes and data sources
The purpose of this step is to assess the current
District business processes related to the use
of asset values and the value base used in these
processes. These processes will include capital
budgeting, operating budgeting, and establishing
revenue requirements. Work groups will be formed
to describe and conceptually map out the processes.
The purpose of the mapping is to understand where
critical data enters the system and where it can
be maintained to minimize the impact on existing
workloads.
We will convene a workgroup, including staff
from finance, engineering, and operations who are
responsible for developing and updating operat-
ing and capital budgets. We propose to meet with
organizational subgroups to obtain their perspective
on how the current process (the “as-is” process)
is structured and operates. The critical item in this
will be to understand what data each generates to
 1-20
support what is going into the budget process. Our
primary focus will be on the basis for maintenance
costs and the estimated costs associated for repair-
ing and replacing existing assets. In these group
meetings, we will also seek information on the
guidance and protocol they follow for developing
their budgetary estimates.
Upon completing the subgroup meeting and inter-
view process, CDM will synthesize the informa-
tion into flow diagrams and a PowerPoint presen-
tation that will serve as the basis for a workshop
that will include participants cutting across the
subgroups. We anticipate that this workshop will
require a full day and may be best undertaken by
splitting into to two half-day workshops. The first
half of the workshop will be focused on validat-
ing the CDM synthesis of the group meetings
and to verify all critical input has been incorpo-
rated. CDM will identify common and dissimilar
elements from each group and this workshop will
focus on understanding why the different groups
have different processes and approaches (or appear
to). The second half of the workshop will then
focus on establishing, at least on a conceptual
level, proposed/projected procedures to ensure
uniformity across groups and to support and
sustain the goals and needs of the asset manage-
ment program.
At the completion of the workshop, CDM will
distribute meeting notes and a technical memoran-
dum that synthesizes the conclusions of the work-
shop and begins to formalize the proposed/recom-
mended rules and procedures. We will then hold
a second meeting with key participants to review
and reach consensus on more formalized rules and
procedures.
The outcome of this task will be a PowerPoint
presentation and Process Flow, and technical
memoranda on necessary improvements to those
processes.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
Task I-2 (RFP Step 2): Replacement Value Protocols
Task I-1 will establish the basic policy and proce-
dures for establishing and maintaining replacement
values within the District’s information and budget-
ing system. Replacement values and the reasonable-
ness of these estimates are critical inputs to under-
standing and making decisions about the District’s
mid- and long-term capital requirements. They are
critical elements of the data required to generate
an accurate repair and rehabilitation plan that will
be an element that will be factored into both the
renewal and capital planning task groups.
By having reasonable estimates of anticipated
replacement costs, the District can develop financial
plans that are based on accurate cost information.
PROJECT EXAMPLES
We have been assis ng the Narraganse Bay
Commission (NBC) to develop its asset manage-
ment system over the past 3 years. The develop-
ment of an R&R plan has been a central element
of that effort. The NBC like many u li es has
not historically collected/kept cost records ed
to specific assets. Like many u li es, the capital
asset records contained in the financial system
have created “assets” for accoun ng purposes
related to construc on projects. So a par cular
asset may include several pump sta ons and sev-
eral thousand feet of interceptors or it may in-
clude mul ple process trains within a treatment
plant depending on how the original construc-
on and upgrades were packaged. This approach
is not useful rela ve to asset management and
the need to have cost informa on at the asset
management defined asset level.
It has been necessary at NBC to es mate current
replacement values to at least have a star ng
point. We have been involved in a similar effort
in Johnson County, KS, where we have more than
5,000 assets to assign a current year replacement
value. This is a major undertaking. In both cases,
we have developed simplified cost curves and
applied the cost curves to like assets where the
values can be correlated to some asset a ribute,
Relevant Staff: Marius Basson, Ed LeClair, Jeff Claus, Phil Chernin, Joe Ridge
 1-21
It can then appropriately measure needs and its
finance plan can mitigate adverse rate impacts and
appropriately fund District necessary expenditures.
The path this task actually follows will depend on
the results of Task I-1, but in general, the work in
this task will consist of the following subtasks.
− A formal protocol for establishing replace-
ment value of existing assets will be estab-
lished in Task I-1. In this subtask, we will
develop a standard operating procedure that
lays out how the protocol will be imple-
mented and then maintained. (The details
of these procedures will be established in
coordination with Task E.) CDM will collect
and organize the external information (e.g.,
such as motor
horse power or
pump capacity.
These cost curves
have been devel-
oped by research-
ing new purchase
costs for a range of
assets and adjust-
ing these curves to
reflect so costs
and likely differ-
ences in instal-
la on costs. The
process provides a
first order reasonable approxima on for ini al
planning. Importantly, business processes have
been put in place that capture actual data
from the actual replacement of assets (which
can then be used to calibrate the ini al gross
es mates) and to ensure that when new capital
projects are implemented, the right type of
asset level informa on is captured. In the lat-
ter case, modifica ons have been made to the
NBC’s contrac ng documents to ensure that
the informa on is captured and reported by the
general contractor in a form that can be directly
input to the asset registry.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

historical capital cost inflation indices, asset what is being requested of them and that
useful lives). CDM will then work with the they are receiving the necessary guidance
financial enhancement work group to imple- from the District to comply.
ment the procedures for assets that each
subgroup is responsible for. This will focus − The final subtask will be to develop proce-
on approximately 5 to 10 percent of the dures such that all replacement costs are
District’s existing assets. This will include updated on a periodic basis and to eliminate
creating/utilizing and/or modifying the data the need to undertake any historical research.
creation and tracking protocols. Quality The primary focus of this subtask is reaching
control will be performed on a representative agreement on the external index or indices
sample of the work, and the task group will that will be used to update replacement costs
revise protocols as appropriate. Upon comple- and most importantly who or what group
tion of this activity, we will conduct a review will be responsible for this process.
workshop with participating staff to fine tune Task I-3 (RFP Step 3): Develop Lifecycle Cost
and modify any elements of the procedure Analysis Tool
that proved to be problematic. To ensure that the District meets its renewal and
− We will work with engineering staff and capital projects planning goals, it is necessary to
possibly procurement staff to develop a proto- develop and implement a lifecycle cost evaluation
col and procedure for capturing the replace- tool. This tool will enable the District to determine
ment values of assets that are newly acquired. on a systematic basis whether it is moving forward
Based on our experience with other utilities, with the least costly alternative for any CIP or
the most cost-effective approach to achieve replacement project. This tool would be available
this is by modifying the District’s standard and used for any project that will subject to the
construction documents so that contractors CIP validation activities described in Task C.
provide the District that information in a form
This task will build from the process evalua-
that can be directly entered into the District’s
tion work in Task I-1, which will lay out current
asset registry. This will require direct utiliza-
District procedures. We propose to form a
tion of the District’s asset hierarchy as well as
subgroup from the staff involved in Task I-1 that
procedures that enable contractors to consis-
will work with CDM to develop this tool and pilot
tently allocate soft costs and labor associated
test its use. We suggest that the work group include
with the creation of new assets.
representatives of both engineering and budget/
These procedures will seek to ensure that
finance. The starting point of Task I-3 will be a
project development costs (planning and
half-day workshop with the subgroup to review the
engineering) are reflected in the original
lifecycle cost analysis tool developed as part of the
cost for new assets, which will be the start-
Easterly blower pilot project and analysis during
ing point for future replacement values. We
the asset management program development proj-
propose to conduct a day-long workshop
ect. The intent of this workshop is two-fold:
with appropriate staff to identify alternative
approaches and reach consensus on the most Educate the group on the structure of the analy-
appropriate approach within the District’s sis and how that analysis has been embodied in
existing procedures. Prior to final acceptance this particular tool
of the proposed procedures, we propose that
it be pilot tested on at least two CIP projects Develop agreement on the key parameters and
going out to bid. The intent of the pilot testing methodology for such a tool and then to create
is to ensure that the contractors understand a working version that is generic and able to

 1-22
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
be used for in the analysis of any anticipated
NEORSD project.
Based on the results of the workshop, CDM will
develop a test version of the tool (which will
be in the form of an Excel spreadsheet that will
allow inputs but will freeze/protect the calculating
modules to ensure that the tool is not inadvertently
damaged). The tool will be tested on several current
year budgetary examples, which will be reviewed in
a live session with the subgroup. Upon completion
of this testing cycle, the tool will be modified as
appropriate.
We will then develop a draft guidebook incorporat-
ing the evaluation procedures and business process
as established in this task and the CIP validation
task. The draft workbook will be submitted to the
subgroup and other stakeholders and within two
weeks of receiving consolidated written comments
from the District.
The outcome of this task will be a production
version of the lifecycle cost analysis tool and a
procedures guidebook.
Task I-4 (Steps 4 and 5): Modify Budgetary Proce-
dures and Document Changes
The workgroup will reassemble to develop modi-
fied workflows that reflect the additional steps
associated with updating asset values and apply-
ing the Lifecycle cost analysis tool developed in
Task 3. This workgroup will be supplemented, as
appropriate, with participants in Task C. The intent
of this task is to take the process maps for the as-is issuances. Based on these rules, we will then
condition and to modify them to recommend the
“to-be” processes. We anticipate coordinating this
work with the pilot CIP validation task discussed
later in this section. We expect this updated process provide a more complete assessment of the future
mapping and further refining of the procedures to be rate revenue requirements. We are also prepared
straightforward. All participants will have a base-
line understanding of what the District’s historical
procedures have been as well as the results of the
pilot recommended changes.
We propose to hold two or three half-day work-
 1-23
shops to complete the basic mapping revision and
reach consensus on modified procedures. Other
changes may be necessary once the previous steps
are implemented, especially those items related
to data maintenance as it relates to elimination of
redundant entry. This will overlap with other tasks
being undertaken.
We will then draft a guidebook that summarizes
the work performed in earlier steps. This will
include incorporation of all protocols, business
process diagrams, and background/justification for
recommended approaches. We will submit a draft
of the guidebook; then within two weeks of receiv-
ing comments, we will finalize the guidebook. If
the comments are extensive or contradictory, we
would hold a meeting with key staff to determine
the most appropriate means of resolving the issues
and finalizing the guidebook.
The outcome of this subtask will be a final version
of a guidebook.
Op on
CDM proposes an optional task to work with
the District financial staff to determine the way
in which the District’s renewal plans – being
produced in the renewal task group – can directly
fit into the District’s financial plans. Under this
enhanced approach, we would work with District
staff to develop business rules for the maximum
size of its annual pay-as-you-go capital program
and the type of restrictions that would be imposed
on what projects could be financed through bond
adjust the rehabilitation and replacement plan
formats developed in task G1, so that they can be
directly fed into the District’s financial plan and
to work with the finance staff to evaluate whether
timing shifts of renewal projects are appropriate
given its current anticipated plan for new capital,
such as that associated with the CSO abatement
program. The intent would be to mitigate signifi-
cant rate spikes and to fit the necessary improve-
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

ments with the District’s capital funding constraints.

Renewal Planning
The renewal planning task group includes RFP
Tasks E, F and G. This task group’s goal is to
improve the District’s ability to maintain exist-
ing infrastructure in a state of good repair. The
sequence of activities within this task group is illus-
trated in Table 1-5.
There are two threads within the renewal plan-
ning group: collection systems and treatment
plants. While both classes of assets will conform
to the same renewal planning standards, the nature
of renewal planning for buried assets within the
collection system vs. above-ground assets in the
treatment plants is very different. Those differences
are reflected in the approach to this task group
discussed on the following pages.

Key Challenges
The key challenges to success with the renewal Figure 1-10. The renewal task group contains a treatment
plant track and a collec on systems track, both of which are
planning task group are as follows:
guided by the same set of hierarchy and renewal planning
guidelines.
Minimizing the time commitment required of
District staff by performing as much prepara- ment plant assets and collection system assets;
tory work on hierarchy and asset attribution as and
possible;
Developing workflows and interim software
Establishing criticality and risk measures that are tools that can be translated into information
consistent between all assets, including treat- system requirements for use in the IT task
series as part of the foundation task group.
Table 1-5. District and CDM Task Managers
Task Program NEORSD Task Manager CDM Task
Designa on Manager
E1 Asset Hierarchy Standards AH-1 Humberto Sanchez Ed LeCLair
E2 Asset Hierarchy for Collec on Systems AH-1.1 Tom Madej John Schroeder
E3 Asset Hierarchy for Treatment Plants AH 1.2 Robert Bonne Ed LeClair
F1 Asset Cri cality Iden fica on for Treatment Plants AC-1 David McNeeley Ed LeClair
F2 Asset Cri cality Iden fica on for Collec on Systems AC-2 Ronald Czerski John Schroeder

G1 Repair and Renewal Repor ng Guidelines RR-1 Andrea Remias Phil Chernin
G2 Easterly Treatment Plant Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.1 Paul Svoboda Ed LeClair
G3 Westerly Treatment Plant Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.2 Joe Kunzler Ed LeClair

G4 Southerly Treatment Plant Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.3 Patricia Mar nak Ed LeClair
G5 Collec on Systems Repair and Renewal Plan RR-1.4 Richard Switalski John Schroeder

 1-24
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Once a draft hierarchy model is developed and

Task E: Asset Hierarchy Development
Task E1: Asset Hierarchy Standards (AH-1)
Task E1.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy A Standards
Development Work Group
CDM suggests a small workgroup consisting of the
Task Managers for hierarchy development tasks E2
and E3 (or their delegates), an individual familiar
with the District’s DIIMS data model and a main-
tenance representative from each of the treatment
facilities.
Task E1.2 (RFP Step 2): Iden fy the Asset Types To
Be Included in the Hierarchy
CDM will review relevant material and prepare a
summary of asset types in current systems, includ-
ing:
DIIMS collection system assets,
Assets within SPL,
Assets upon which condition assessments were
performed for the Southerly and Easterly treat-
ment facilities, and
reviewed, CDM will meet with the District’s
stormwater consultant to discuss stormwater
hierarchy requirements. We will incorporate
stormwater hierarchy requirements into the hierar-
chy design so that the stormwater consultant can
construct the stormwater hierarchy as required
in their scope of work. Note that the stormwater
consultant hierarchy development task is analo-
gous to tasks E2 and E3; that is, the stormwater
registry will need to comply with the standards
developed in this task E1.
CDM will present a draft hierarchy model design
to the NEORSD workgroup. Based on workgroup
feedback, a final hierarchy model will be devel-
oped.
Task E1.3 (RFP Step 3): Map the Hierarchy Regis-
ter Development Process
CDM will document primary, secondary and tertia-
ry data requirements to support renewal planning
and will augment the hierarchy design to include
target data types by hierarchy level. This work will
be conducted in coordination with the financial
planning (Task I) workgroup, which will be simul-
taneously establishing guidelines for the develop-

Any and all other databases that the District

provides to CDM that may not have been
reviewed during the AMIP project or may have
been changed since the development of RFP
Attachment E

From this information, CDM will develop an asset

hierarchy model. This hierarchy will identify asset
types with a nomenclature that will support unlim-
ited parent-child relationships as they are developed
during Tasks E2 and E3. The hierarchy at this point
will be a hierarchical model, not an asset registry. Figure 1-11. CDM’s partnership with Oracle for this project
The registry will be conducted in Tasks E2 and E3, will provide the District direct access to defini ve informa-
on and trusted advice regarding the evolu on of SPL to
based upon the hierarchical model. UWAM and the op ons available for integra ng UWAM with
the District’s Oracle Financials.

 1-25
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

ment of replacement values of assets. Task E1.5 (RFP Step 5): Asset Hierarchy Standard
Revision
CDM will meet with the asset hierarchy workgroup In this subtask, CDM will facilitate two 4-hour
to discuss data sources for each data type. We workshops with District staff who will be involved
expect much of the data for the collection systems in subtasks E2 and E3. During this workshop,
to be present within DIIMS. Data for treatment we will explore scenarios under which the asset
plants is in dozens of locations, but one of the more hierarchy model may need to be amended as
important sources of data will be the Southerly and District business needs change. We will also use
Easterly condition assessments included as appen- these sessions to validate the registry develop-
dices H and I of the RFP. Because CDM authored ment process, to identify software integration and
the work plans upon which those condition database redundancy issues that we must consider
assessments were based, we are very famil- as part of Task D, and to determine the degree
iar with the quality and level of detail in them and type of training that will be required in Tasks
and will be able to efficiently determine data E2 and E3. The result of this subtask will be an
elements that are appropriate for inclusion in the amended hierarchy guideline and a recommended
District’s asset registry. interim software tool for development of the
District’s asset hierarchy in Tasks E2 and E3.
Following the workgroup meeting, CDM will
prepare a draft process map illustrating the asset Task E1.6 (RFP Step 6): Iden fy Training Needs
hierarchy development process. We will then meet A training plan will be developed in this subtask
with the workgroup to review the process and for execution in Tasks 12 and 13.
discuss Task E2 and E3 implementation implica-
tions. Task E2 Asset Hierarchy for Collec on Systems
(AH-1.1)
Following this meeting, we will prepare final Task E2.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy Hierarchy Evalua-
process maps and draft guidelines for execution of on Team
Task E2 and E3. The process map and guidelines CDM will work with the District’s task leader and
will be submitted to the asset management coor- key senior staff to identify the appropriate staff to
dinator for quality assurance and compliance with help develop the total hierarchy for the NEORSD
document control requirements. collection system. The staff will need to be famil-
iar with operation and maintenance of:
Task E1.4 (RFP Step 4): Develop and map the SPL
and GIS ini a on process Sanitary sewer collection system
This subtask will be performed in coordination
with the information technology (Task D) work- Interceptors and regulators
group. With considerable support from the District’s
IT department and the engineering information Bypasses and/or overflows
systems group, we will review and document
Oracle/SPL [sometimes referred to by the newly- Pump stations
released name Oracle Utilities Work and Asset
Instrumentation and controls
Management (UWAMS)] software and GIS asset
registry structures. In consultation with our subcon- Sewer maintenance, including vehicle mainte-
tractor, Oracle, we will determine the nature and nance associated with sewer maintenance
magnitude of changes, if any, that will be required
to the District’s UWAMS database to accommodate Sewer assessment and NASSCO PACP defect
the hierarchy design. codes

 1-26
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
District infrastructure information management
system (DIIMS) GIS
UWAMS (formerly SPL)
District staff need to understand their roles and
responsibilities regarding hierarchy determination
and must receive training on the asset hierarchy
standard and any related processes or tools appli-
cable to determining the hierarchy of assets within
the collection system.
Task E2.2 (RFP Step 2): Hierarchy Team Training
CDM’s goal is to train District staff to completely
understand and be able to utilize and update the
collections system hierarchy. CDM will develop
standard templates so that the data are consistent
and accurate. CDM will hold three hands-on train-
ing sessions with District staff to implement this
task.
Task E2.3 (RFP Step 3): Assignment of Team Tasks
The District manages three primary collection
systems associated with the Westerly, Easterly and
Southerly areas. CDM will break down the collec-
tion system assets into manageable elements that
can be assigned to the District team members who
will be responsible for collecting the detailed data
and entering it into data collection templates. A
detailed estimate of hours, scope and deadlines will
be identified.
Task E2.4 (RFP Step 4): Conduct Hierarchy Evalua-
ons
CDM will work with the District to specify and
evaluate the hierarchy levels, classifications, defi-
nitions and level of detail required to evaluate all
collection system assets. CDM will work along-
side District staff to conduct validation and quality
control on the collection system registry. It is antici-
pated that the registry for pipes is virtually complete
within DIIMS and that most of the effort required
of District staff will be completion of hierarchies
for the remaining collection system asset types.
At the completion of Task E2, a single asset regis-
 1-27
try, conforming to the hierarchy data model
standard developed in Task E1, will exist for the
collection system.
Task E3 Asset Hierarchy for Treatment Plants (AH-
1.2)
Task E3.1 (RFP Step 1) Iden fy Hierarchy Evalua-
on Team
CDM will work with the District’s task leader and
key senior staff to identify the appropriate person-
nel to help develop the asset registries for each of
the treatment facilities.
District staff will need to understand their roles
and responsibilities for risk management and
to receive the necessary training on the specific
procedures and tools applicable to their individual
roles.
CDM intends to involve appropriate treatment
plant staff at a level that:
Trains them how to develop and modify their
plant’s asset hierarchy initially and moving
forward.
Ensures long-term consistency and accuracy of
plant’s asset hierarchy.
Does not interfere with their accomplishing
regular work duties.
It is recommended that members of the Easterly
Blower Pilot team be a part of this project team. It
is strongly recommended that individuals from the
Southerly maintenance group participate on this
team because of the level of information already
maintained at Southerly within Oracle/SPL.
Task E3.2 (RFP Step 2): Hierarchy Team Training
The current plant asset hierarchies differ with
regard to assets included in their hierarchy, and the
completeness and accuracy of existing data. Also,
staff familiarity with asset hierarchy requirements
differ. As a result, the level of effort for each facil-
ity will differ. During the plant training modules,
special attention will be spent identifying those
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
unique circumstances at each plant that may require
amendments to the hierarchy during plant expan-
sion or modification .
Plant business process workflows for amending
their asset hierarchies will be reviewed along with
the corresponding staff roles and responsibilities.
CDM will provide District staff with data collec-
tion templates. Special training considerations will
be made for treatment plant staff regarding how
to build out the hierarchy so that it balances the
level of component detail required for maintenance
management decisions, asset lifecycle costing, valu-
ation and condition monitoring against the ongoing
effort to input and track asset related data. Collec-
tion system staff should participate in this training
because some similarities may apply.
An asset hierarchy framework that encompasses the
entire set of treatment plant assets that the District
owns and manages (including rotating mechani-
cal, electrical distribution, structural, building and
grounds, and rolling stock) will provide a more
full understanding of the operational, maintenance
and capital investment requirements for continued
system performance.
Task E3.3 (RFP Step 3): Assignment of Team Tasks
Even with asset hierarchy development training, the
greater the number of NEORSD plant staff involved
in this effort will likely impact the consistency and
accuracy of the data collected. We will work closely
with lead representatives of each treatment facil-
ity to assign teams to unit processes at the third or
forth level in the asset hierarchy. Each team will
be provided a scope and schedule and direct access
to CDM representatives to assist and answer ques-
tions.
Task E3.4 (RFP Step 4): Conduct Hierarchy Evalua-
ons
CDM will work with the District to specify and
evaluate the hierarchy levels, classifications, defi-
nitions and level of detail required to evaluate all
treatment plant assets. CDM will work alongside
District staff to construct the registries. As with
 1-28
Task E2, CDM’s work will focus on data quality
control.
At the completion of Task E3, there will be three
asset registries — one for each treatment facil-
ity — conforming to the hierarchy data model
standard developed in Task E1. The registries will
support both high-level asset management deci-
sion-making and more immediate or local mainte-
nance management decision-making, including:
Maintenance management-related reporting and
analysis for repair/replace decision-making,
tracking failure modes and repair activities, and
overall maintenance costing/budgeting.
Ability to assign work orders to the appropri-
ate asset and/or component and track that work
history over time.
Ease of search for assets and related informa-
tion for UWAMS system users.
Task F: Asset Cri cality Iden fica on
The purpose of the Asset Criticality Identifica-
tion process is to devote the appropriate level of
resources to inspect, maintain, and rehabilitate
assets differently depending upon the consequenc-
es of those assets failing. The appropriate use of
finite resources is to focus immediate maintenance
and rehabilitation investments on higher priority
assets and to monitor areas/assets that are a lower
priority. In addition to this short-term focus, it is
important to create a long-term rehabilitation strat-
egy that can be updated regularly and that results
in phased, prioritized rehabilitation of all infra-
structure assets.
The assignment of criticality measures to the
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
District’s infrastructure requires a common under-
standing of risk and a risk identification and mitiga-
tion policy that ensures all criticality measures can
be normalized to a standard risk benchmark. For
this reason, Task F cannot be initiated until Task B,
Risk Management Program, is completed.
Task F1: Asset Cri cality Iden fica on for Treat-
ment Plants (AC-1)
The objective of this project is to establish an ap-
propriate and consistent approach to ranking vari-
ous District treatment assets’ impact on the ability
of the District’s Easterly, Southerly and Westerly
treatment plants to meet their respective service
requirements. CDM will work with the District staff
stakeholders and technical experts to develop the
criticality determination procedure and oversee the
use of that procedure in determining the criticality
of the District’s treatment plant assets. The key fac-
tors for success in this task include:
CDM must help the District devote the appro-
priate level of resources to inspect, maintain,
and rehabilitate different areas of the treatment
plants. The appropriate use of finite resources
means to focus immediate maintenance and
rehabilitation investments on higher priority
areas of the treatment plant and to monitor areas/
assets that are a lower priority. Asset criticality
will also help in developing a long-term rehabili-
tation strategy that can be updated regularly and
that results in phased, prioritized rehabilitation
of all treatment plant components.
CDM must help develop consensus across the
treatment plants regarding which areas/assets to
invest in than other areas/assets. Because criti-
cality factors can be unique to each utility and/or
manager based on perceived risk or personal
experience, an objective standard for assigning
asset criticality helps ensure investments are
made where they are most needed for overall
service provision.
 1-29
Task F1.1 (RFP Step 1) Iden fy Staff Stakeholders
and Technical Experts
CDM will work with the District’s task leader
and department heads to identify the appropriate
personnel to help develop the criticality deter-
mination procedure for the District’s wastewater
treatment plants. CDM will work the District to
assemble a team of personnel known as the Criti-
cality Work Group to develop the criticality deter-
mination procedures that will be used to assign
a consequence of failure score for each relevant
treatment plant asset. The group will consist of
CDM engineers, District engineers, and treatment
maintenance and operations staff.
The NEORSD staff will collectively need to be
familiar with:
District wastewater treatment plant processes,
systems and sub-systems,
Electrical distribution system,
Treatment plant facilities, and
Oracle/SPL and SCADA
CDM will work with the District’s task leader
and department heads to recruit the work group
that has the breadth of collective experience to
determine the appropriate criticality procedure for
NEORSD.
Task F1.2 (RFP Step 2): Iden fy Consequence of
Failure Factors
A key element of the NEORSD’s asset manage-
ment program is to classify its assets by rank-
ings of importance or criticality to achieving the
district’s mission. This starts by understanding the
District’s business objectives and related perfor-
mance expectations, and recognizing that all assets
are not of equal importance. Determining criti-
cality requires a qualitative assessment of assets’
failure events, and the impact of failure on the
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
District’s business goals. Consequence of failure
(COF) generally follows assessment criteria based
on health and safety, economic loss and statutory
obligations that looks at the resultant effects if a
particular asset fails.
The starting point for the criteria are those used for
the prioritization/validation pilot study, described in
RFP Appendix F. These criteria will be modified,
enhanced and/or completely revisited based on
the output of Task B. The Criticality Work Group
will assemble a list of factors/criteria to be used
when assessing criticality and assign a weight score
for each factor.
Task F1.3 (RFP Step 3): Data Needs Assessment
CDM will lead the Criticality Work Group in iden-
tifying the data and sources of data for developing
criteria. These data sources will include asset infor-
mation and performance data from Oracle/SPL,
and the SCADA systems. Initially the Criticality
Work Group will rely on the institutional knowl-
edge and experience of the work group members
(and perhaps other employees) to ascertain assets’
historical failure events, and the impact of failures.
While basic asset information is normally captured
in a utility’s CMMS, often asset failure histories
and the consequences of those failures related to
environmental, safety, and economic may not have
been recorded there or elsewhere. As such, we may
have to enlist other employees that are not on the
Criticality Work Group on a limited basis to help
reconstruct consequence of failure impact histories.
Each asset will have been given an asset registry
number in Task E and assigned a criticality score as
discussed in Task F. The asset criticality data needs
requirements developed in this task will be utilized
in Task D2.
Task F1.4 (Step 4): Map the Cri cality Determina-
on Process
The criticality determination process will identify
how all the assets are collected, stored, analyzed
and reported as part of the overall rating process.
CDM will lead the Criticality Work Group in identi-
 1-30
fying the respective staff roles and responsibilities
in performing such activities. CDM will develop
the business process maps that record the specific
steps of the overall process, the timing of those
steps, and related staff responsibilities.
The criticality of an asset in achieving business
goals does not remain constant, and a process for
reviewing and updating asset criticality ratings
must be implemented. CDM will lead the Critical-
ity Work Group in identifying a reasonable sched-
ule for review and update, and/or those triggering
events (new construction, asset replacement, etc.)
that may compel updates. In addition to mapping
this determination process, the Criticality Work
Group will examine how this activity will link to
the capital and renewal planning task groups.
Task F1.5 (RFP Step 5): Cri cality Assessment
Team Training
It is CDM’s goal to train the District’s Criticality
Assessment Team to completely understand how
the treatment plant asset criticality fits within the
overarching asset management program by:
Defining the procedure by which the District
will identify critical treatment plant assets
based on the consequence of their failure,
Identifying the criticality factors that will be
used to assign the overall ranking,
Identifying the frequency or conditions under
which the criticality rankings are to be reas-
sessed,
Training them how to enter criticality data in
SPL, GIS, or any other appropriate database,
and
Applying that procedure to the District’s treat-
ment plants so that all appropriate plant assets
are scored for their criticality,
Task F1.6 (Step 6): Conduct Cri cality Assessment
After developing the process and training the treat-
ment plant criticality assessment team, CDM will
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
guide the criticality assessment team in assigning
each appropriate treatment plant asset a criticality
rating score. This information will be input into a
criticality log for use across the various NEORSD
departments. A consistent approach for prioritizing
and developing maintenance activities (corrective,
preventive, and predicting) will result in renewal
plans across the utility.
Task F2: Asset Cri cality Iden fica on for Collec-
on System (AC-2)
As with Task F1, the collection system critical-
ity determination is used to support the collection
system renewal planning activities of Task G5.
Assets whose failure creates a large impact on the
community and environment and whose condi-
tion is the poorest will receive immediate inspec-
tion and/or rehabilitation. Pipes and facilities that
receive a lower criticality and condition rating will
receive some level of continued monitoring but no
immediate action or rehabilitation.
Keys to success for this task are:
Identify the criticality factors that reflect the
unique values and circumstances of the commu-
nity. For example, the District might identify
sensitive water bodies that could potentially
be affected by a sewer system failure as most
critical while other municipalities might identify
downtown business impacts as being the most
critical. We will guide the District in developing
criteria that reflect your unique needs.
Collect data that will be used to evaluate each
factor. For the initial system assessment, existing
data is typically used in the evaluation. Where
additional data is needed, surrogate data is used
in the interim and the ranking system is used as
a means of identifying the highest priorities for
further data collection.
Utilize a criticality scale that enables pipes and
facilities to be differentiated in terms of either
condition or criticality, or both.
 1-31
Make good use of the DIIMS data structure and
the asset hierarchy guidelines so that each pipe
is assigned a representative criticality value.
Use the ratings to prioritize the system and
determine renewal requirements in Task G.5.
Approach
Most utilities have similar objectives and charges
that suggest similar criticality criteria, but there
are variations based on location, conditions and
availability of information to set the factors. These
factors are best identified and weighted as part of a
facilitated stakeholder involvement process. When
this approach is used, the values and objectives
of all interested parties are considered, including
different departments, customers, regulatory offi-
cials, and environmental and public health inter-
ests. CDM proposes to start the criticality process
with the criteria and ratings we have used success-
fully with other clients.
Once the factors to be used in setting criticality
are established, then levels must be established to
differentiate between pipes or facilities related to
that factor. Typically, a higher level is assigned to
a facility that is more critical or that is in poorer
condition.
Once all assets have a relative criticality rating,
a detailed plan for prioritizing maintenance and
renewal and replacement can be developed in Task
G1.
The criticality nomenclature will be consistent
with Oracle/SPL and DIIMS. It will allow the
maintenance department to plan and track work
orders in Oracle/SPL and allow engineering to
plan CIP projects for sewers that need structural
improvements such as sewer rehabilitation, using
the procedures to be developed in Task C.
Task F2.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy Staff Stakeholders
and Technical Experts
CDM will work with a Criticality Work Group to
develop the criticality determination procedures
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

and then implement the procedures to assign a score
for each relevant collection system asset.
Task F2.2 (RFP Step 2): Iden fy Consequence of
Failure Factors
The Criticality Work Group will assemble a list of
factors/criteria and assign a weight score for each
factor. The factors chosen may be up to ten unique
factors such as size, location, proximity to struc-
tures or rivers to assess which may have a greater
impact on the public or the environment should that
pipe or pump station fail. Figure 1-12 is a sample
scoring system utilized for a large sewer system
with more than 150 miles of sanitary sewers.
Task F2.3 (RFP Step 3): Data Needs Assessment
The Criticality Work Group (CWG) will identify
the data and sources of data for developing the
list of criterion such as the DIIMS, Oracle/SPL,
SCADA system. Each asset will be given an iden-
tification number that will be unique for use within
the database and all assets will be organized into a
single database that will have an assigned criticality
score as discussed in Step 2.
Task F3.6 (RFP Step 6): Conduct Cri cality Assess-
ment
After developing the process, each collection
system asset will be assigned a criticality score.
This information will be input into a master data-
base for use in the various the District’s depart-
ments. With all assets having a relative scoring
system, a detailed plan for prioritizing all opera-
tions and maintenance (O&M) and renewal and
replacement (R&R) can be developed.
Task G: Repair and Renewal Planning
Production of 50-year renewal plans for all
District infrastructure is the ultimate objective of
the renewal planning task group. The importance
of renewal plans cannot be overstated. Renewal
plans that are regularly updated and improved over
time with more and better-quality data will greatly

Task F2.4 (RFP Step 4): Map the Cri cality Deter-
mina on Process
The Criticality Determination process will identify
how all the assets are collected, stored, analyzed
and updated. Each member of the Criticality Work
Group will be assigned various responsibilities.
The Criticality Work Group will also determine
how other information management systems such
as DIIMS will be utilized and updated. Assets do
not remain a constant and thus a process of updat-
ing this program as time goes on and as additional
assets are obtained must be implemented.

Task F.5 (RFP Step 5): Train the Cri cality Assess-
ment Team
CDM will identify and train a Criticality Assess-
ment Team consisting of District staff on the proce-
dures utilized for this task. CDM will hold a four-
to eight-hour hands-on workshop to train the team
how to utilize, access, enter, and update data within Figure 1-12. Example of scoring criteria u lized for
the District’s SPL and GIS computer systems. a large sewer system

 1-32
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

reduce the District’s

reliance upon consul-
tants to produce Facili-
ties Plans.

A renewal plan will

specify the actions
and anticipated invest-
ment needs necessary
to maintain infra-
structure to support
the District’s level
of service goals. The
plan identifies the time
horizon during which
a renewal activity is
likely to be required
Figure 1-13, Renewal planning will enable the District to predict how infrastructure is likely to
and the risk that
degrade in me, and schedule rehabilita on or replacement early enough to responsibly man-
would be assumed age the risk of failure.
by the District by
not performing the
required renewal. A detailed listing of required
renewal actions, by date, type, priority and cost
(Figure 1-13) will be one of the many vehicles
utilized by the District to convey the renewal
requirements to be established in this task.

Projecting both expenditures and asset risk into

the future provides a clear and compelling view
of infrastructure investment and risk management
requirements, both of which are critically important
to near-term rate-setting and capital projects plan-
ning.
Task G1: Repair and Renewal Repor ng Guidelines
(RR-1)
Task G1.1 (Step 1): Iden fy and Assemble Asset
Renewal Project Team
CDM recommends that the renewal project team
include maintenance and operations representatives
from each of the three treatment facilities, a senior
individual familiar with DIIMS, plant engineers
responsible for each treatment facility and repre-
sentatives from the collection systems maintenance
group.
Task G1.2 (Step 2): Develop the Asset Condi on
Assessment Plan
An important part of renewal planning is setting
types and frequencies of asset inspections. The
Easterly and Southerly treatment facilities have
recently been inspected and the collection system
is regularly inspected in accordance with sewer
system evaluation and infiltration/inflow control
protocols. The Westerly Treatment Plant, which
has not been recently inspected, will be inspected
in this subtask.
In addition to conducting the Westerly condi-
tion assessment, this task will produce guidelines
for condition assessment frequencies by asset
type and proposed condition assessment respon-
sibilities by District labor category. CDM will

 1-33
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

meet with workgroup

members to discuss
the guidelines and staff
workload implications.
The guidelines will be
submitted to the asset
management coordina-
tor for quality assur-
ance and compliance
with document control
requirements. Figure 1-14. CDM’s asset renewal planning tool, called CAMPTool, produces a risk measure
– the Asset Risk Index – for every asset based upon its cri cality and probability of failure.
Task G.1.3 (Step 3): As-
set Valua on Plan them implement the required CAMPTool changes.
The objectives of this task will be accomplished Figure 1-15 shows the main asset data manage-
through conduct of Task I2. ment screen of the CAMPTool.

Task G1.4 (Step 4): Process Map
CDM will develop a complete set of process maps
and standard operating procedures for the creation
of asset renewal plans. The procedures and maps
will become the basis for the work plans for Tasks
G2, G3, G4 and G5. The renewal planning process
will follow the general flow depicted in Figure
1-14. CDM proposes utilizing a risk metric – the
Asset Risk Index (ARI) that is the asset-level
equivalent of the business risk exposure (BRE)
metric used in the prioritization/vali-
dation project.
Task G.1.6 (Step 6): Develop the Annual Asset
Renewal Plan Template
In this subtask, CDM will develop a template for
the renewal plan to be utilized in Tasks G2,3,4 and
5. The template will include charts, graphs and an
annotated outline for text. The template will be
submitted to the asset management coordinator for
quality assurance and compliance with document
control requirements.

Task G1.5 (Step 5): Analy cal Tool

CDM proposes to use a non-propri-
etary MS-Access database called the
CAMPTool to manage the renewal
planning data and reporting. The
CAMPTool will be given to the
District free of charge. CDM will
train District staff in using it and will
work with the District’s IT depart-
ment to customize the tool to meet
your requirements. In this subtask,
we will hold five CAMPTool review
sessions where we will discuss and
agree on changes to CAMPTool and
a version-control process to manage Figure 1-15. The CAMPTool is a simple asset renewal planning tool that
provides all asset informa on on a single screen to simplify the some mes
deployment of the tool. CDM will daun ng task of storing and analyzing infrastructure data.

 1-34
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Tasks G-2, G3 and G4 Asset Repair and Renewal
Plan for Treatment Plants (RR-1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3
and 1.1.4)
All assets have an expected service life, a related
lifecycle cost and a rate of decline. The Easterly/
Southerly/Westerly Repair and Renewal Plans
will identify how different maintenance strategies
impact the lifecycle of an asset (or group of assets).
In addition, when an asset needs be rehabilitated
and/or replaced, the plan provide a process for each
plant’s staff to examine alternatives, the financial
implications of those alternatives, and also provide
for a decision-making process for determining the
lowest lifecycle cost alternative that achieves busi-
ness requirements.
The renewal plans will:
Provide a forecast that will detail both the
upcoming year’s anticipated asset renewal
activities and expenses, and also annual cost
projections out to a 50-year horizon.
Provide the framework for long-term asset
lifecycle strategies to be built into the fabric of
the treatment plant’s operation and maintenance
activities.
tatives of all plants working through the training
exercises together.
Task G2.1 (Step 1): Iden fy the Easterly/South-
erly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evalua on Team
CDM will work with the District’s task leader
and department heads to identify the appropriate
personnel that will oversee and conduct a repair/
renewal evaluation of the Easterly/Southerly/West-
erly treatment plants. The Asset Renewal Evalu-
ation Team will likely consist of CDM engineers,
District plant engineers, and treatment mainte-
nance department staff.
The District’s staff team will collectively need to
be familiar with:
District wastewater treatment plant processes,
systems and sub-systems,
Electrical distribution system,
Treatment plant facilities and structures, and
Maintenance of:
− Wastewater treatment plant process system

Identify plant asset renewal PROJECT EXAMPLE

projects that are candi-
dates for inclusion into the
District’s capital planning
process.
Approach
CDM proposes to execute tasks
G2, G3, and G4 independently,
as requested in the RFP. Rather
than reiterate the details of each
task below, the discussion that
follows is organized by the steps
provided in the RFP.
At the discretion of the District,
CDM will conduct Step 2 train-
ing collectively, with represen-
During an infrastructure asset
evalua on for Daytona Beach, Fla.,
CDM reviewed all significant infra-
structure components, processes
and procedures and made recom-
menda ons that support sustain-
able safe, reliable and cost-effec-
ve opera on, maintenance and
management of the City’s water, and ra ng defini ons to assign
wastewater and reuse water facili- condi on codes and recommen-
da ons for improvement.
es.
CDM assessed the condi ons of CDM developed budget-level
8,000 assets and created a data- cost es mates for major assets
base applica on for users to popu- that were recommended for re-
late with asset data. Once the pair and/or replacement within
data was entered, CDM applied five years or less.
condi on assessment techniques
Relevant Staff: Phil Chernin

 1-35
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
and sub-systems,
− Electrical distribution system,
− Buildings and grounds,
− Basic maintenance management practices,
and
− Oracle/SPL and SCADA
CDM will work with the District’s task leader and
department heads to recruit the work group that has
the breadth of collective experience to determine
the appropriate asset renewal plan for the District.
Step 2: Asset Renewal Evalua on Team Training
It is CDM’s goal to train the Easterly/South-
erly/Westerly Asset Renewal Evaluation Team to
completely understand how asset renewal plan-
ning fits within the overarching asset management
program by:
Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset
Renewal Evaluation Team in the asset renewal
standard operating procedures (developed in
RR-1) such as:
− The District’s ongoing asset condition assess-
ment program and the subsequent recalcula-
tion of asset criticality rankings based on
changed condition status.
− The methods and staff responsibilities for
determining asset values, rehabilitation and/or
replacement costs, assigning and updating
reasonable asset useful life estimates and/or
failure curves, and also the tracking and/or
estimating of annual asset maintenance costs.
− A detailed process and corresponding staff
responsibilities to be used to identify the most
appropriate renewal option for the targeted
assets taking into account an assessment of
asset and non-asset solutions, as well as capi-
tal, maintenance, and operations options.
Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset
Renewal Evaluation Team in the use of the asset
renewal analytical tool.
 1-36
Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset
Renewal Evaluation Team in Optimal Renewal
Decision Making techniques that will help iden-
tify which alternative asset strategies (mainte-
nance, rehabilitation, replacement) is the most
appropriate.
Training Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset
Renewal Evaluation Team in fundamental
maintenance work management and asset
information recording techniques that support
renewal planning using the Oracle/SPL system.
Supporting maintenance management-related
reporting and analysis for repair/replace deci-
sion-making, tracking failure modes and repair
activities, and overall maintenance costing/
budgeting.
Step 3: Assignment of Evalua on Team Tasks
Working with the task leader and each individual
plant team, CDM will break down the repair/
renewal evaluation of the Easterly/Southerly/West-
erly treatment plants into manageable elements
that can be assigned to the District team members
that will be responsible for collecting the detailed
data and entering into the asset renewal analytical
tool and/or the Oracle/SPL system.
Step 4: Input Data to the Asset Renewal Analy -
cal Tool
CDM will work with the District’s task leader and
the Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal
Evaluation Team to collect the appropriate asset
data (install date, estimated useful life, replace-
ment cost, condition, etc) and input data into the
CAMPTool discussed under RR-1: Repair and
Renewal Reporting Guidelines. CDM will perform
the initial data migration into the asset renewal
analytical tool and train District staff to perform
updates within the system.
Step 5: Analyze Reports and Summarize Data
CDM will work with the District’s task leader and
the Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset Renewal
Evaluation Team to generate and analyze reports,
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

and summarize data using the asset

renewal analytical tool developed
under RR-1: Repair and Renewal
Reporting Guidelines. After the data
is collected, organized and input
into the CAMPTool, tables, graphs
and charts will be developed to help
support the optimal renewal strate-
gies and forecast future expenses.
Figure 1-16 shows how the CAMP-
Tool models asset degradation; one
type of report to be produced describ-
ing the District’s assets.

Step 6: Complete Annual Asset Re-

Figure 1-16. CAMPTool produces asset
newal Plan reports that illustrate asset degrada on
CDM will guide and assist the and recommended ming of renewal
Easterly/Southerly/Westerly Asset ac ons
Renewal Evaluation Team in devel-
oping an annual asset renewal plan In addition, the plan
for each of the District’s treatment plants. The plan will identify and
will include: package those treat-
ment plant renewal
List of assets pending renewal by process area or projects that qualify
building/grounds location for consideration in the upcoming capital project
planning process. An important exercise that goes
Failure modes and projected remaining useful
into the renewal planning is the determination of
life
equivalent annual investment requirements for
Alternative renewal strategies, associated life asset groups in specific time horizons. Figure 1-17
cycle costs illustrates this concept.
Justification for selected renewal
strategy, and
Implementation costs and proposed
schedule for any selected strategies.

Projected annual costs will include:

Total district costs by year,
Annual projected costs by asset
type,
Annual projected costs by district
plant,
Annual projected costs by process
area, or building/grounds location. Figure 1-17. CDM an cipates developing a procedure that produces an-
nual equivalent funding requirements to simplify the financial planning
process.

 1-37
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Subtask G-5: Collec on Systems Repair and Re- Pump stations

newal Plan (RR-1.4)
This District’s collection systems consists of
approximately 1 million feet (~200 miles) of large
diameter separate and combined interceptor sewers,
several pump stations, communication systems and
more than 1,000 manholes. This system, which
collects sewage and some stormwater from over
60 communities, conveys sewage to its Easterly,
Southerly and Westerly treatment plants. These
assets — which have a combined value of more
than $1 billion dollars — must be fully assessed,
maintained, rehabilitated and replaced over time.
By properly managing these assets, the District will
be able to minimize maintenance costs; maximize
lifespans; minimize pollution to receiving waters;
minimize disruption to businesses, homeowners and
motorists; develop accurate funding forecasts; and
reduce the level of manhours needed to operate the
entire system.
CDM will work with the District to properly assess
the condition of the collection system, understand
the modes of failure, quantify the current and future
maintenance plans, estimate the remaining useful
life of each asset, identify the alternative renewal
strategies and develop annual costs to maintain,
operate, renew and replace the entire
collections system.
Instrumentation and controls
Sewer maintenance including vehicle mainte-
nance associated with sewer maintenance
Sewer assessment and NASSCO PACP defect
codes
District infrastructure information management
system (DIIMS) GIS
SPL system
Computerized maintenance ,management
system (CMMS)
District staff will need to understand their roles
and responsibilities regarding risk management
and receive the necessary training on the specific
procedures and tools applicable to their individu-
al’s roles.
Task G5.2 (RFP Step 2): Asset Renewal Evalua on
Team Training
CDM’s goal is to train the District’s staff how to
utilize the process developed for optimizing the
operations, renewal, repair and maintenance of the
collections system. CDM will hold two to three
hands-on training sessions with District staff to

Task G5.1 (RFP Step 1): Iden fy Collec-

on System Asset Renewal Evalua on
Team
CDM will work with the District’s task
leader and key senior staff to identify the
appropriate personnel to be part of the
“Collection System Asset Renewal Evalu-
ation Team” help develop the total hierar-
chy for the NEORSD Collection System.
The staff will need to be familiar with
operation and maintenance of:

Sanitary sewer collection system

Interceptors and regulators
Figure 1-18. Example matrix of recommended courses of ac on based on
Bypasses and/or overflows
cri cality and condi on.

 1-38
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

implement this task with regards to understanding comprehensive PACP database and subsequently
both the concepts, data, computer tools and comput- evaluated with the CAMPTool.
er interfaces.
CDM will utilize the CAMPTool to manage all
Task G5.3 (RFP Step 3): Assignment of Asset Evalu- of the database inputs. This tool will allow the
a on Team Tasks Team to develop all of the necessary projections
The District manages three primary collection for renewal, repairs and replacement. All of the
systems associated with the Westerly, Easterly input and reporting capabilities of CAMPTool,
and Southerly treatment plants. CDM will break discussed in Task G2.4, above, will be utilized for
down the collection system assets that feed each Task 5 as well. Among the many features of the
of the plants into manageable elements that can be tool, its ability to aggregate risk and to help the
assigned to the District team members who will renewal planner model the future risk (ARI) of
be responsible for developing the replacement and the entire infrastructure assets of a subarea or pipe
renewal plan for each subarea. A detailed estimate type based on the proposed renewal actions is of
of hours, scope and deadlines will be identified. particular importance to the District’s collection
system renewal program. This feature is illustrated
Step 4: Input Data to the Asset Renewal Analy cal in Figure 1-19.
Tool
The Collection System Asset Renewal Evaluation CDM will work with the District to optimize the
Team will collect all necessary data and input the value of this existing data for understanding and
data into the asset renewal analytical tool. Currently quantifying the condition and expected life of all
the District has a very sophisticated and user-friend- the sewers.
ly GIS system (DIIMS database) that will provide
the bulk of the detailed information associated
with the sewers and manholes such as size, length,
location, age, material and date of repairs/renew-
als. The District began collecting
CCTV video of their entire system
beginning in 1996 with the Westerly
system. In 1998, the Easterly system
was videotaped and assessed and
in 1999-2001 the Southerly system
was videotaped. All of the sewers
were assessed using Water Research
Council codes. More recent CCTV
data has been and will be collected
in NASSCO Pipeline Assessment
and Certification Program (PACP)
format. The video tapes have been
converted to digital media (.mpg
files) for use with the GIS and can
be watched from NEORSD person-
nel’s desktop computers. As the Figure 1-19. CAMPTool’s ability to aggregate risk up through the asset hier-
archy helps the renewal planner model the future risk (ARI) of collec ons of
District continues to collect CCTV
infrastructure assets and op mize renewal investment ming so that overall
digital video and PACP inspec- risk profile remains balanced.
tions, this data can be added to the

 1-39
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Task G5.4 (RFP Step 5): Analyze

Reports and Summarize Data
After the data is collected, orga-
nized and input into the Analyti-
cal Tool, summary tables, maps
and graphs will be developed to
help support the optimal renewal
strategies and forecast future
expenses. Figure 1-20 shows how
the CAMPTool projects annual
costs for maintenance, rehabilita-
tion, and replacement for a various
group of assets such as pipelines
or a pump station. This will be
grouped in logical, manageable
assets such as the Southerly Inter-
ceptors.
Figure 1-20. Risk and cost aggrega on is clearly illustrated by CAMPTool, which
Figure 1-21 shows an example
exports a master renewal plan into a Microso Excel ® spreadsheet.
map from a similar project that
shows the locations and prioriti- rehabilitation and replacement. The assessment
zation of pipes that require open-cut point repairs. information, CCTV video, database, maintenance
With all of the data in a database and GIS system, records, complaint records, overflow/surcharge
creating, updating and presenting maps is extremely records, CIP projects and other data will be used to
simple. develop this comprehensive plan.

Task G5.6 (RFP Step 6): Complete Annual Asset Op on: Use of CDM’s Pipeline Renewal Planning
Renewal Plan Decision Tree
CDM will develop an annual asset renewal plan for CDM proposes an option to enhance the collection
the District’s entire collection system.
We will incorporate all of the District’s
proposed CIPs into the plan. The ulti-
mate goal is to develop a comprehensive,
accurate plan for each asset that will
project annual costs by various categories
including:

Asset type

District plant (Southerly, Westerly,

Easterly)

Location

The District’s assets have immediate,

short-term, and long-term needs. The Figure 1-21. Pipeline renewal priori za on using GIS
needs include maintenance, repairs,

 1-40
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

system renewal plan with an action-specific assess-

ment process that uses state-of-the-art decision
logic to make short-term (next five years) project
nominations for CIP projects.

This option includes translating the District’s

current condition rating system to the standards set
forth by the National Association of Sewer System
Companies (NASSCO). The condition ratings may
range of from 1-10 depending upon the methodol-
ogy chosen. With NASSCO PACP, a rating of 1 to
5 indicates used with 1 indicating the asset (pipe)
is good while 5 is a pipe that has collapsed or is in
immediate danger of collapsing.
The combination of condition and criticality ratings
determines priorities for repair or replacement of
system assets. This will provide the utility with a
plan for focusing the available resources and fund-
ing on the most immediate needs. The actions
identified by this type of matrix should be tailored
to individual utility situations, and so the recom-
mendations contained in each box of the matrix will
vary by utility.
Condi on and Cri cality Ra ngs
Each of the recommended courses of action are
briefly described below. The specific investigative
techniques or rehabilitation will vary based on the
type of asset: gravity sewer, force main, or pump
station.
Immediate Ac on
Pipes or facilities that are both very critical (critical- tion rating of about 3 due to unknown information
ity rating = 4 to 5) and in poor condition (condition about the condition. Once condition is known, and
rating = 4 to 5) are placed as the highest priority
for immediate action. These assets are both more
likely to fail and have high consequences if a failure category.
were to occur. The action may include additional
data collection to determine actual condition, or if
enough information is known, the action would be
rehabilitation.
Program Rehabilita on
Pipes or facilities that are suspected to be in poor
condition (condition rating = 4 or 5), but are not
Figure 1-22. Sliplining in the NEORSD Westerly sewer system
as critical (criticality rating =1 to 3) should be
part of an on-going rehabilitation program. These
assets could be prioritized within the rehabilita-
tion program as “High Priority Program Rehab” or
“Mid Priority Program Rehab.” Those under the
high priority rehab program are those that have a
higher consequence of failure than those in the mid
priority rehab program.
Frequent Assessment
Pipes or facilities that are in fair condition (condi-
tion rating = 2 or 3), but are still very critical (criti-
cality rating = 4 to 5) should have their condition
assessed frequently since the consequences of a
failure are high. The purpose of frequent assess-
ment is to check if the condition has deteriorated
to a point that the asset would be moved to the
immediate action category. In many cases, assets
in the frequent assessment category had a condi-
if it is determined to be poor condition, then these
assets would move up to the immediate action
Regular Monitoring
The assets in the regular monitoring category
cover a span of condition and criticality ratings
that fall between the frequent assessment and low
priority categories. Assets in this group cover the
conditions ratings 1, 2, and 3 as in the low prior-
ity group. However, they are more critical than the

 1-41
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
low priority category since they received a critical-
ity rating of at least 3. Because of their higher criti-
cality, they require regular monitoring. Some of the
assets in this category are still very critical (rating
4 to 5), but are in better condition than the frequent
assessment category because their condition rating
is a 1 as opposed to 2 or 3. The activities performed
under regular monitoring are the same as those
performed under frequent assessment. However, the
activities are not performed as often.
Low Priority
The low priority category includes assets that are
believed to be in good to fair condition (condi-
tion rating = 1 to 3) and that are not considered
critical (criticality rating = 1 or 2). The assets in
this category will receive some level of condition
PROJECTEXAMPLES
CDM has been been working with a private en ty
that has a long term contract to operate and main-
tain a Midwestern city wastewater system. The
Vendor’s contractual responsibili es includes repair
and replacement of system assets over the 20-year
me frame.
As part of the ini al contract nego a ons and
development, the City and the Vendor developed an
ini al renewal and replacement plan based on major
system elements and their “best judgement” at the
me as to how frequently the assets would be re-
placed and the costs to complete such replacements.
We suspect that the replacement costs were based
on an engineer’s es mate of the current value of
the assets at that me. However, as the vendor has
moved into its 5th year of opera ng and maintaining
the plant, the actual replacement costs are mate-
rially higher than what had been included in the
contractual documents. The vendor is at risk if such
costs are higher.
As we have reconstructed the basis for the mis-
match, there appears to be two primary factors that
have contributed to the situa on:
Relevant Staff: Ed LeClair, Joe Ridge
 1-42
monitoring to see if they need to be included in the
program rehabilitation group.
Sewer Improvement Decision Tool
With the standard defects codes associated with
NASSCO PACP, CDM has developed several
other decision tools to help automate what sewer
problems will require what type of solutions.
CDM has developed a GIS-based decision system
to automate a significant portion of the recom-
mendations based upon the comprehensive CCTV
inspection database and the defect codes/values
within this database. The decision “Tree” is a logi-
cal sequence of yes or no queries of the database
to develop a structural and/or operation and main-
tenance recommendations for each pipe segment.
The replacement
cost es mates
that were used as
the basis for the
ini al planning were
some combina-
on of original cost
(where such data
was available) and quick and dirty es mates of
then current replacement costs. Neither party
conducted a thorough though ul evalua on
to establish the values and consider how those
costs might change over me.
In developing the 20 year plan, the allowed for
costs did not factor in basic cost infla on. This
has also resulted in seriously eroding the con-
tractual allowance for repair and replacement
and what the vendor is incurring.
As a result of not systema cally and thought-
fully thinking through the issue of replacement
values, the two par es significantly under-
es mated the costs required to ensure the
system is maintained in a state of good repair.
Nego a ons are ongoing to try to correct this
deficiency.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

The decision tree application is organized in

several sections.

From the top down these are:

Definitions
Decisions
Prioritization
Engineer Overrides
Recommendations

Defini ons
The definitions section as shown in Figure
1-23 contains branches of the tree that update
fields in the pipe GIS layer, which will be
referenced in subsequent sections of the tree. Figure 1-23. Defini ons in the Decision Tree
This makes the other sections much simpler
and makes it easy for the user to locate
and modify the criteria used in the decision
process.

Decisions
The actual decision tree of this application
is in the decision section, labeled in Figure
1-24 as “Decision Model.” The first criterion
considered is the recommendation from the
hydraulic modeling. If the pipe is recom-
mended to be removed and replaced because
of hydraulic deficiency or other reasons,
then the decision process is directed down
a branch resulting in the recommendation
“Short Term New Replacement Pipe.” If the
Figure 1-24. Decision Branch of the Decision Tree
pipe is not recommended to be replaced, then
the decision process moves to the structural
score node, where there are three branches: The “Low Structural Score” branch of the tree
Low, Medium, and High. Here the “Structural considers sags, significant roots, significant infil-
Quick Rating” from the PACP database is used to tration and inflow, significant deposits, and offset
categorize the pipes as either Low (Structural Quick joints in turn, and generally results in a recom-
Rating starting with a 0, 1, or 2), Medium (Struc- mendation of long-term pipe rehabilitation CIP if
tural Quick rating starting with a 3 or a 4), or High any of these criteria are met. If none are met, the
(Structural Quick Rating starting with a 5). The pipe falls in the category of periodic cleaning and
first character of the Structural Quick Rating is the inspection. The frequency of the inspections will
numerical level of the worst defect recorded for that be dictated by the criticality.
pipe. Possible scores range from 0 for a pipe with
no defects to 5 for a pipe with one or more of the The “Medium Structural Score” branch, develops
worst-rated structural defects. a recommendation for the level 3 and 4 structural
defects including multiple cracks, longitudinal and

 1-43
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
multiple fractures and some other miscellaneous
types of level 3 and 4 structural defects.
Any pipes having the highest scoring defects (level
5 defects such as broken pipes, holes, deformed
pipes, collapsed pipe or any indication of imminent
failure) are reviewed by an experienced engineer.
The engineer’s recommendations will be loaded
into a field in the pipe GIS layer.
Priori za on
The prioritization section ranks each pipe based on
its criticality, or generally how important the pipe
is, or how much inconvenience or expense it would
represent in order to repair or replace it in an emer-
gency situation. Prioritization is split into structural
and O&M categories in this process. As the recom-
mendations are developed, the Team will choose
several criteria to rank and prioritize each pipe
segment within each group of recommendations. In
general, the recommendations will be prioritized for
future action such as below:
A – Immediate: These pipes are in immedi-
ate need of repair or replacement and should be
done as soon as feasible and definitely within 1
year.
B – Short Term: These pipes should be
repaired, rehabilitated or replaced within 1 to 3
years
C – Intermediate Term: These pipes should
repaired, rehabilitated or replaced within 3 to 5
years
D – Long Term: These pipes should repaired,
rehabilitated or replaced within 5 to 10 years
These recommendations can be manually or auto-
matically entered into the CAMP analytical tool and
given realistic cost estimates based upon best avail-
able cost indexes and recent local bid tabulations.
The methodology of performing O&M recommen-
dations is very similar but the types of solutions
will consist of cleaning, inspection, root control
 1-44
programs, grease control programs, or possibly
more aggressive street sweeping in combined
sewer areas. The criteria chosen to prioritize these
actions will be very different and be developed by
the Collection System Asset Renewal Evaluation
Team.
Engineer Overrides
All pipes with significant structural Level 5
defects, as well as several other pipes, should be
reviewed by an experienced engineer. The next
section of the tree copies the recommendations
from the decision tree above to the final recom-
mendation field in the database, and then copies
the engineer’s recommendation to that field as
well. This ensures that the engineer’s recommen-
dation takes precedence over any decisions recom-
mended in the automated portion of the applica-
tion.
Recommenda ons
The last section of the tree allows the user to easily
review all of the final recommendations in the
system. Each possible outcome is represented as a
node in the tree that the user can select and then,
by pushing the “Test Selected Query” button, see
all of the pipes in the GIS layer with the selected
recommendation.
The recommendations are separated into various
categories including: capacity related recommen-
dations, structural recommendations and O&M
recommendations. These include:
Pipe replacement
Point repairs (open cut)
Spot repairs (trenchless)
Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) or sliplining
Chemical root control
Fats, oils, and grease control
Periodic maintenance and inspection
Street sweeping (in combined sewer areas)
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
This data is all managed in the GIS and allows
the user to instantly modify and update maps, and
annual costs.
Capital Projects Planning
The renewal planning task group includes RFP Task
C. This task has the goal of improving the District’s
ability to make sound and justifiable investment
decisions.
CDM’s task manager for this task is Warren Kurtz,
formerly the deputy commissioner of the New York
City Department of Environmental Protection and a
CDM client at the time CDM initiated NYC’s asset
management program described in Section 2 of this
proposal. Mr. Kurtz will work with the District’s
capital projects planning task leader.
Task C: Capital Improvement Program
(CIP-2, 3)
CDM’s proposed work plan builds upon the
requirements of the District’s CIP – 2/3 CIP work
plan to provide a new capital planning process
model within the first year of the asset management
program. CDM based its approach on collabora-
tion with District management and staff throughout
the organization to redefine the process by which it
makes capital investment decisions. Such a collab-
orative effort offers the best chance to successfully
implement difficult and challenging process chang-
es that will result in increased confidence in District
decision making.
CDM offers a small modification to the CIP 2/3
workplan in the RFP. We also offer an alternative.
 1-45
The modification combines Steps 2 and 3 into
Subtask C.1 and Step 1 changes to Subtask C.2.
The alternative is to perform the validation and
prioritization work in RFP Step 5 for the entire
list of construction projects in the 2008 four-year
CIP. This alternative will help the District address
a potential capital budget shortfall of nearly 30%
should the District implement all proposed capital
projects1. We believe that executing a complete
validation and prioritization process in the initial
project stages is both feasible and beneficial.
Capital Planning in Context
The District’s proposed asset management
program utilizes business case methods to make
decisions about how to most efficiently and effec-
tively allocate available investment resources to
achieve its programmatic goals. Long-term invest-
ment in capital facilities through repair, rehabilita-
tion, or new construction is one type of investment
that regularly competes with other types of invest-
ments in human resources for operations or main-
tenance expenditures. The District must routinely
make decisions relating to its capital facilities in its
annual and four-year capital improvement plans,
including:
How much should be invested in repairing or
replacing existing capital facilities?
How much must be invested in building new
facilities needed to address CSO, stormwater,
and other new program goals or requirements?
How can its investments in capital facilities
best be prioritized to reduce the District’s busi-
ness risks and address its strategic goals?
What are the timing requirements of competing
investment demands?
1 The 4-year CIP includes $580 million in investment
requirements. Discussions with District staff and review of
the recommenda ons of the Easterly and Southerly facili es
plans suggest that approximately $750 million in investment
requirements have been iden fied for this 4-year period.
CDMs approach to this task recognizes that some form of
real priori za on resul ng in real ac onable recommenda-
ons will provide immediate benefits to the District.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
Figure 1-25 illustrates the central role played by the
capital planning process in validating the long-term
renewal needs of the District and prioritizing those
needs relative to other business needs.
The capital planning phase of this project pres-
ents challenges to current organizational, human
resource, and management practices within the
District; adjusting to change will be difficult for
some staff. The sidebar on page 1-48 highlights
some of these challenges and how the District and
CDM might resolve them.
Tenets of the Capital Planning Process
By using a consistent and transparent capital plan-
ning process model that routinely validates the need
and justification for capital investments and stra-
tegically prioritizes those investments will reduce
the District’s business risk, save money in the long
term, and instill confidence in the District’s funding
decisions.
Consistency is a quality of the planning model
and system that standardizes the decision-making
process, and makes it reproducible by District
staff currently as well as in the future. The model
must provide a written record of the data and logic
 1-46
Figure 1-25: The capital planning pro-
cess proposed by CDM will introduce
a comprehensive approach to invest-
ment planning. Asset renewal plans
– updated annually – will be reviewed
by plant engineers who will nominate
projects to be considered for the CIP.
Those projects will be combined with
other projects such as new CSO facili-
es and will be validated through a
process that will either determine a
project is not jus fied at this me or
that the project is jus fied and should
be priori zed and considered for inclu-
sion in the CIP.
used to make decisions, so that they are able to be
revisited in the future, and be updated based on
then current information. The model must establish
systematic rules for evaluating competing needs,
that is grounded in good industry practice, and thus
promotes confidence in the resulting decisions.
Transparency is quality of the planning model
and process that allows others to understand the
decision-making process and makes the informa-
tion that formed the basis of the decisions avail-
able for review. Transparency is desirable both
internally and externally to the District. Staff in
various District organizational units (including
operations, engineering, planning, finance, execu-
tive management or public outreach) may need to
understand and communicate the basis for deci-
sions concerning the facilities the District relies
on. District staff will also periodically have the
need to communicate to elected officials, citizens,
or the press, reasons why some projects are funded
and others not, what projects are intended to do,
or how certain capital facilities fit into the overall
picture of managing wastewater and improving
water quality. Information contained within the
asset management system will provide this infor-
mation and add to the transparency of the capital
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
KEY CHALLENGES TO TASK C
CDM is aware that the Asset management pro-
gram challenges current organiza onal, human
resource and management prac ce within the
District, and that the process of change will be
difficult for some staff to adjust and adapt to.
Project Nomina on needs to be a non-threat-
ening process. Staff at several levels and within
various organiza onal units of the District should
be encouraged to raise issues that lead to the
considera on of capital projects. While the pro-
cess of reviewing and valida ng capital projects
will be rigorous, appear to be daun ng (to some),
and at mes may be difficult and complex to
get through, the process of taking the ini a ve
to raise issues that may be important in iden-
fying and reducing risk is one that should be
encouraged by District management. Therefore,
the capital planning process model should have
mul ple entry points for project nomina on. The
opportunity and process for District staff to raise
issues and suggest solu ons that may involve
capital projects, should be one that is easy to
begin at many levels throughout the organiza on
and rewarded or recognized, when though ul or
innova ve ideas are suggested. Such a process
of nomina ng projects, through issue iden fica-
on, may also be considered for sources external
to the District; including ci zens, environmental
organiza ons, community groups, or elected offi-
cials. At the end of the nomina on and valida on
process, a feedback mechanism to the ini a-
tor should be inserted, le ng them know the
outcome of their sugges on, and in the case of
rejec on, the reason(s) why.
The valida on procedure must be rigorous
because of scarcity of funds and desire to have
enough of a basis to establish priori es, and yet
the process requirements for data, basis of need,
alterna ves assessment, cost es ma ng, etc.,
should not be so insurmountable that it s fles or
precludes ini a on of ideas for improvements or
nomina on of capital projects. Part of the effort
 1-47
to define a new capital planning process model
should be targeted to determining resource
needs for obtaining data and planning resources
needed to get through the valida on process.
In addi on to addressing what those planning
resources might be, and how they should be pro-
vided or accessed, the new Model should con-
sider where the best appropriate organiza onal
loca on should be for these responsibili es and
resources to reside. Organiza onal changes and
turf protec on issues may arise, and the District
needs to be ready to deal with them.
Informa on requirements to make the planning
process consistent and transparent, will chal-
lenge staff organiza onal and record keeping
skills and prac ces. Training in administra ve
func ons, and project management techniques,
may be as important as advanced engineering
educa on and training.
Priori za on in a funding limited environment,
will, of necessity, lead to rejec on or deferral of
validated projects that internal and/or exter-
nal stakeholders will consider very important.
Consistency and transparency of decision making
will not necessarily lead to unanimity of opinion
about priori es. Furthermore, a rigid and purely
mechanical and mathema cal system of priori -
za on should not be the District’s goal because
non-quan ta ve factors will have to be taken
into account, par cularly by execu ve manage-
ment. CDM will iden fy those factors as part of
this process development task, and will try to
develop qualita ve and quan ta ve methods to
bring such factors into the priori za on decision-
making process. Coordina on of this ac vity with
overall Risk Management Policies (set through
RM-1) and/or District strategic planning ac vi es
will assist in this effort.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
funding process. A capital planning process and
system that builds in transparency is critical to the
District’s long-term success.
Validation is the process by which potential future
capital projects are screened to determine whether
their need is real, and whether the proposed capital
investment is economically and programmatically
justified. The validation process builds in crite-
ria that: evaluates whether sufficient evidence or
data has been obtained to determine need; consid-
ers whether alternative methods of addressing the
issue have been examined; and determines whether
sufficient confidence exists that the project is
economically warranted. A business case analysis
using lifecycle costs should be provided as part of
the validation process, so that resulting validated
capital projects provide assurance that they are
economically advantageous relative to alternative
approaches.
Prioritization is the process of evaluating compet-
ing asset investments, in this case, capital projects,
to determine which ones should be funded before
others. The prioritization process is to be based in
larger part on risk management and strategic plan-
ning policies as a means for the District to establish
funding priorities, and funding schedules. Properly
prioritized projects, in the form of established and
adopted capital improvement plans and annual
budgets, will provide assurance that the District
is optimizing its available resources and investing
them in a manner that strategically reduces risk to
the District and its customers.
Approach
The primary objective of this portion of the asset
management program is to establish a capital plan-
ning process model that is consistent and improves
the confidence and transparency with which the
District determines its capital investment priorities
each year. That consistent and transparent model is
intended to contain a formal process for nominat-
ing and approving capital projects through steps
that validate project needs, and prioritize projects
through a schedule of funding in capital improve-
 1-48
ment plans.
The new capital planning process will involve
many organizational units of the District, and it
will encompass the entire process from identifi-
cation of need and proposal of projects, through
proposal and adoption of the District’s capital
improvement plan. Because many organizational
units of the District will have a role in the ultimate
proposal and adoption of the District’s CIP, the
successful development and implementation of
a new capital planning process should involve a
substantial participation by those organizational
unit managers in the model development process.
This will include staff involved in operations, engi-
neering, capital planning, finance and executive
management, as well as staff involved in the new
functions of asset management and risk manage-
ment that have been proposed in conjunction with
the introduction of the new asset management
program. This process will involve meetings and
workshops within specific organizational units, as
well as across organizational units to understand:
The need and requirements for each step in the
process;
Each unit’s role and function within each step;
The critical dates and time schedules for each
step; and
Consensus agreement on the adoption of an
overall process model for the District.
Task C1 (RFP Step 2 and 3): Review the Current
Capital Planning Process and Characterize Cur-
rent CIP Projects
This activity will review the current capital plan-
ning process and CIP to:
Identify aspects that may mesh with, or fall
short of, capital planning process needs
required for the new asset management
program framework; and
Characterize projects in the current CIP as to
goals, objectives, priorities, requirements, and
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
need.
This step will ensure that all organizational units
involved in and affected by the new capital plan-
ning process model understand:
The entire current process;
The inputs to it; The information and methods
currently used within each organizational unit
and each step of the process;
The outputs from each step;
Key dates and timeframes that are imposed; and
The resulting goals, objectives and priorities of
the current Capital Improvement Plan that was
generated through the existing process.
This understanding should precede any discussion
of what the new capital planning process should be.
A half-day meeting will be held with each of the
major organizational units that currently have a
role in the existing capital planning process. Prior
to these meetings, CDM will distribute a question-
naire for distribution to key managers who partici-
pate in the current capital planning process and CIP
development. The intent is to solicit information
about staff rationale and methods for setting poli-
cies, goals, objectives and priorities for current
CIP projects. The questionnaire will be provided
to the Director of Capital Programs for review and
approval prior to distribution to managers. We will
request that completed questionnaires be returned
prior to the meetings. If necessary, meetings may be
held with individual managers to review the ques-
tionnaire and develop a better understanding of the
current CIP process, their perception on how that
process works and how it has been used.
The meetings with each organizational unit will
confirm that unit’s role and responsibilities in the
current process and develop a basic understand-
ing of the information, procedures, and methods
typically used to identify capital needs, evaluate
 1-49
alternative solutions, develop scopes and cost esti-
mates of projects, validate identified projects, and
prioritize projects, to the extent those activities are
relevant or appropriate to that step in the process
or that organizational unit. Separate meetings
(estimate one to two hours for operations, engi-
neering and capital planning) with key staff may
be required, after each group meeting, to obtain
additional and more detailed information about the
process or the materials available or used within
each step of the process, and to further discuss the
rationale that has been used in selecting and priori-
tizing projects in the current CIP.
After meeting with each organizational unit and
developing a more detailed understanding of
the current capital planning process, CDM will
prepare a more detailed flow diagram of the
current capital planning process, and a written
description of the drivers that determined the prior-
ities of projects, as evidenced by projects in the
current CIP and discussions with managers. CDM
will distribute that flow diagram and CIP descrip-
tion to each organizational unit for their review,
and for them to confirm or modify any details
enumerated. CDM will then identify those points
in the current process that would not appear to
satisfy the defined goals and objectives (consisten-
cy, transparency, validation and prioritization) of a
new capital planning process model that would be
used within the asset management program.
At the conclusion of this task, CDM will prepare
a PowerPoint presentation and memo report that:
defines and describes the current capital planning
process (“as is” process) and CIP priorities; identi-
The District established the goals
of consistency, transparency,
valida on, and priori za on in
its proposed asset management
improvement plan. We will make
these objec ves the same goals
of the CIP process model.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

fies how the new capital planning

process model (the “to be” process)
will fit within the asset manage-
ment program; and identifies target
areas where the current capital
planning process model does not
appear to support the proposed
asset management program.

Task C2 (RFP Step 1): Execu ve Re- Figure 1-26. The team will establish roles and responsibili es during a series of
view of CIP Issues and Objec ves mee ngs with each of the District’s organiza onal units. This worked successfully
for an asset management implementa on project in Johnson County, Kansas.
This critical step will obtain execu-
tive level consensus on the objec- Existing capital planning process practices that
tives of the new process, and to gain insights from have worked well, and not worked well,
the District’s executives into the issues they see as
difficult or problematic in making a transition to a Changing business climate in the District, and
more rigorous process. This task cannot be initiated need to reassess the process,
until completion of the risk policy to be developed
in Task B. Proposed or changing policies or expectations
related to capital planning;
One or two half-day workshops will be held with
representative executive staff from all organiza- Beginning to describe the nature of any
tional units involved in the current capital planning proposed changes to the process, and trying to
process, as well as staff from any additional units generate understanding and consensus on those
who will likely be involved in the new process but proposed changes.
don’t have a defined role in the current process.
It may or may not be possible to obtain consensus
One purpose of the first workshop would be to on executive level concerns and proposed changes
review the current capital planning process and to to the process at this first workshop. Should either
generate discussion about its good and bad points; lack of time, or lack of consensus be evident, the
particularly in relation to its new role as part of workshop would adjourn; CDM would write up
an asset management program. The PowerPoint minutes of the meeting, including description
presentation prepared by CDM in the previous step of the remaining issues to be discussed, and any
would be the first part of the agenda of this first action assignments made.
workshop. CDM would quickly review the existing
process; describe how the new process is intended A second workshop would then be convened,
to fit within the asset management program; and if needed, within one or two weeks to further
identify the gaps that it sees in the current process discuss remaining items, or issues of contention.
as it relates to the proposed asset management CDM would distribute minutes of the first work-
program. shop in advance, and prepare an agenda. Should
there be any research or support work requested
The second purpose of this first workshop would by participants to further the discussions, CDM
be to attempt to obtain executive consensus on the would undertake or assist that effort. The second
goals and objectives of the new capital planning workshop would conclude upon obtaining execu-
process model. Discussion would progress from: tive level direction to CDM to address defined
concerns in the new process.

 1-50
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

The output from this task will

be a policy statement providing PROJECTEXAMPLE
goals, objectives and direction as
New York City’s Department of
to items or issues to be addressed Environmental Protec on faced
within the new capital planning a mul -billion dollar shor all in
process model. funds needed to maintain a state
of good repair at its 14 waste-
Task C3 (RFP Step 4): Develop water treatment plants. Years of
New Capital Planning Process deferment of maintenance and
Model renewal work had created a crisis
This step is focused on the in confidence that the plants could rela ve priority of one invest-
fulfill their permit requirements. ment over another was the
production of the new capital
Faced with nutrient removal, CSO prepara on of asset risk sche-
planning process model that has and other new capital investment ma cs. These schema cs – one
been conceived of and agreed to requirements made the valida on for each treatment plant and
in the prior step. This will include and priori za on of projects a several for sub-areas within the
documenting procedures for necessity. collec on system – illustrated
project nomination, project vali- the opera onal risk associated
dation, and project prioritization. CDM helped the Department es- with assets and components
tablish a risk-based valida on and within each facility and also
The development process will be
priori za on process to support a illustrated the aggregate risk as-
conducted in an inclusive manner. 10-year capital plan that received sociated with each unit process
Consultation with each involved approval from the City’s Office of at each plant (and each subarea
organizational unit will occur, and Management and Budget. One of within each collec on system
will be an iterative process, as the methods used to convey the district).
required by District staff reac-
Relevant Staff: Warren Kurtz, Phil Chernin, Ed LeClair, Joe Ridge
tions to CDM proposed steps
and requirements. Drafts will be
presented, comments documented, which a CLR (Confidence Level Rating) score
and all work will be provided to the asset manage- is derived based on the amount and quality of
ment coordinator. The roles of each organizational information collected in support of the nomi-
unit will be clearly spelled out for each step in the nated project.
process, as will descriptions of expected outputs Project Prioritization – This procedure will
from each step. Estimates of resources required document the District’s best and preferred
to implement the new process will be developed. practice by which a BRE (Business Risk Evalu-
A timeline will be established for phasing in the ation) score is derived based on the probability
new model, and incremental implementation steps of occurrence and associated consequences of
will be estimated. When completed, the proposed not implementing the project.
process will be presented at a meeting with all parts
of the organization involved in the new process. Note that the project nomination process will be
developed without benefit of prior piloting by
Key steps in the new model will be based on meth- the District. CDM will recommend nomination
odologies previously suggested and developed by guidelines that have worked for similar organiza-
CDM, and endorsed by the District, as part of the tions and will tailor these guidelines to be sensible
AMIP, including the following. and implementable for the District. Considerable
effort will be invested in specifying, clarifying and
Project Validation – This procedure will docu- ensuring that project nomination guidelines and
ment the District’s best and preferred practice by procedures are clear and accepted

 1-51
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
At the completion of this task, a flow diagram of
the procedures developed will be produced for the
entire capital planning process. We will develop
software tools and templates to implement the
process. The process map and implementation
guidelines will be submitted to the asset manage-
ment coordinator for quality assurance and compli-
ance with document control requirements.
A task report will accompany the flow diagram
and will outline: the rationale behind each of the
process activities, the organizational unit respon-
sible for each activity, use of tools and templates,
expected outputs, estimated activity durations, esti-
mated resource requirements, estimated schedule
for phased implementation, and a listing of the CIP
projects to be evaluated in Subtask C4.
Task C4 (RFP Step 5): Applica on of New Capital
Process Planning Model to a Group of Projects
The capital process planning model developed in
the previous step will be applied to 15 nominated
projects.
This step would be undertaken with the active
assistance and participation of District staff. A
kick-off meeting would be held with Departmental
managers to: finalize a determination of all projects
for which the Model would be applied, assign staff
to participate in this effort, schedule the work, and
understand the limitations and constraints under
which this effort will be undertaken, and resulting
funding decisions able to be made at the conclusion
of the effort.
After the kick-off meeting, CDM, with the assis-
tance and participation of District staff, will begin
to review project files and documents, discuss
project drivers and scopes, and undertake site visits
for a representative group of projects in the Capital
Plan. The purpose of this initial sampling would be
to ascertain what types of information is generally
available, and to obtain consensus on the meth-
ods to be applied, and level of detail to be used, in
performing validation/prioritization analyses. Based
on the results of that sample effort, CDM will pres-
 1-52
CDM proposes to base the new model
on the founda on established during the
priori za on/valida on project (CIP-1)
done during development of the AMIP.
Our focus during this task will be on the
process and on building assurances that
it will be accepted by all stakeholders
and implemented with the support of
the asset management coordinator, all
division directors and the en re senior
staff.
ent the methodology and assumptions to Depart-
ment managers at a meeting, and obtain approval
to proceed with the entire task.
CDM would take the lead in, and responsibility
for, applying the new Model and performing the
required validation and prioritization analyses
and calculations. CDM is allocating 32 hours per
CIP project to perform this work.
District staff would be included, as available, and
as desired at the time, to participate as a team
in this work. Approximately one third of the
way through the completion of this effort (after
approximately 5 projects are reviewed, validated
and prioritized), a workshop would be held with
District staff to review the work performed to
date. CDM would prepare a presentation outlining
progress to date, experience and lessons learned in
gathering information and performing the analy-
ses, and illustrate key points using actual project
examples. The workshop would bring District
staff up to date on the effort and provide a forum
to discuss if any mid-course corrections should be
made to the methodologies or calculations.
Upon completion of the application of the model
to all defined projects, CDM would conduct a final
workshop to review the results of the total effort,
present findings, and discuss funding decisions
that might be made from those findings. CDM
would also outline lessons learned from this initial
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

implementation effort, and identify any suggested

modifications to the previously submitted plan for
phased implementation of the process. At this point,
the District may decide whether or not to undertake
the option to have CDM perform the same assess-
ment on the remainder of the CIP.

A task report will be prepared, documenting the

experience, and outlining issues the District will
need to address in order for successful future
phased implementation to take place. Revisions to
the estimates previously made, for activity dura-
tions, resource requirements, and schedule for
phased implementation, as well as recommenda-
tions for any process model modifications, based on
the experiences learned from this exercise.

Task C5 (RFP Step 6): Project Report

The Project Report will summarize:

All completed work.

The outcomes and related gap closure achieved

in the AMIP as a result of this project.

Suggestions for any future work to improve the

process model, and/or integrate it into the asset
management program.
Op on
To support the current need to prioritize projects
in the current CIP, CDM proposes and option to
conduct Step 5 for all of the construction projects
in the District’s 4-year capital plan. Based upon
the currently-published 4-year CIP, it is estimated
that the number of projects the Model would be
applied to would be in the range of 50 to 60. We
propose to leave out the small (undefined) projects
that are funded under “Miscellaneous” categories,
as well as IT system purchases, emergency repairs,
or other non-construction type projects such as
studies, inspections, easement or land acquisitions,
etc,. Funding provided for design or construction
management of future construction projects would
be aggregated into the costs for the related construc-
tion project.
Figure 1-27. Following a series of steps to rank project ne-
cessity and urgency, New York City DEP developed a CIP and
corresponding forecast for financial needs.
Support Tasks
The Support task group includes tasks A, H and J
– Asset Management Coordination (AM), State of
Infrastructure Reporting (IR) and Project Admin-
istration (Task J). These tasks provide logistical
support to the other task groups, provide program
controls and continuous improvement monitoring
to ensure the project is meeting the District’s asset
management gap closure objectives
The subtasks that comprise the renewal planning
task group, the NEORSD Task Managers and
CDM Task Managers assigned to each are identi-
fied below

 1-53
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
Key Challenges
The key challenges to success with the support task
group are:
Maintaining consistency and standardization of
work products. Each of the eighteen tasks in this
Phase 1 implementation program will produce
written documents and some will produce
software products. All documents and software
must conform to strict quality and consistency
standards; they must be version-controlled and
accessible to District staff. With so many indi-
vidual District Task Managers and such varied
subject matter among the eighteen tasks, the AM
coordinator must be ever mindful of this chal-
lenge.
Communicating program progress and benefits.
The responsibility to communicate program
progress and benefits will demand most of the
will occupy most of the time of the support task
group. The AM coordinator will be the source
of information for department managers, senior
staff, task leaders and District employees. A
plan for regular and meaningful communica-
tions to each of these stakeholder groups must be
followed religiously.
Coordinating program activities with other
District projects and initiatives. During devel-
opment of the asset management improvement
plan, the District was engaged in the Southerly
and Easterly facilities plans. Considerable coor-
dination was needed to ensure consistent treat-
ment of scope items in each facilities plan with
the evolving principles of asset management that
are now being implemented in this project. An
even more challenging coordination effort will
Table 1-6. NEORSD and CDM Task Managers
Task
A Asset management Coordina on for 3-year Plan
H State of Infrastructure Annual Report
J Project Administra on
 1-54
be required during this project to ensure consis-
tent treatment of scope items in the stormwater
and CSO programs and with the forthcoming
adoption of program management practices
and consulting support to the Engineering Divi-
sion.
Task A: Asset Management Coordina on
for 3-Year Plan (AM-1)
Task A establishes a governance system for moni-
toring and controlling the District’s asset manage-
ment program. The role of the District’s asset
management coordinator – the task leader for this
task – is to guide, support and report to stakehold-
ers on the progress of this project – not just as it
relates to the traditional measures of scope, sched-
ule and budget, but as it relates to the gap closure
and continuous improvement goals established by
the District in the AMIP.
It is critical that the District’s asset management
coordinator embrace the District’s asset manage-
ment vision and exhibit a shared commitment to
success with each of the District’s task manag-
ers. Similarly, it is imperative that CDMs Project
Manager – the task manager for this task – be
able to support the asset management coordina-
tor in moving the vision forward, communicating
Program NEORSD Task Manager CDM Manager
Designa on
AM-1 Andrea Remias Phil Chernin
IR-1 Andrea Remias Phil Chernin
Andrea Remias Mike Kenel
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

complex technical issues in understandable terms
to all stakeholders and in providing immediate and
useful responses to District questions and requests
as they arise throughout the project.
Task A1 (RFP Step 1): Develop and Monitor Mas-
ter Schedule
As part of our proposal effort, CDM has developed
an MS-Project ® schedule that is resource-loaded
and available to NEORSD immediately. The
proposed consultant and NEORSD staff hours,
by task and subtask and all activity durations are
included in the project file. Both the project sched-
ule (Section 3 of the proposal ) and cost proposal
(Section 8 of this proposal) were generated from
this project file. In this task we will:
Meet with the AM coordinator, review, modify
and agree on the master Phase 1 implementation
schedule;
Documentum) established during AMIP develop-
ment as the document library. In this task, we will
produce a new eRoom content map, reorganize
all current eRoom documents and templates, and
conduct the following activities:
Develop standardized documentation templates
Prepare a procedures document describing
document control and records retention proce-
dures;
Train the AM coordinator – or delegate -- in
use of eRoom for document control and issues
tracking
Our cost proposal assumes that maintenance of
eRoom will be performed by the District, with
as-needed support from CDM, including formal,
half-day, monthly review meetings

Orient the AM coordinator to the MS-Project®
model prepared for the project and train (if
necessary) the AM Coordinator —or delegate
– to modify, maintain and develop reports from
this file; and
Prepare a procedures document for schedule
monitoring and maintenance using MS-Project
®
Task A.3 (RFP Step 3) Develop and Maintain La-
bor and Expense Monitoring System
In this Task, CDM will help NEORSD to devise
and implement a pragmatic method of monitoring
labor and expenditures of NEORSD staff. The
tracking of labor and expenses of the CDM team
will be handled under Task J, and combined in this
task with a complete Phase 1 implementation labor

Our cost proposal assumes

that schedule monitoring
and maintenance will be
performed by the District,
with as-needed support from
CDM, including formal, 2-
day, quarterly review meet-
ings with a CDM project
scheduler.

Task A2 (RFP Step 2): Estab-

lish Document Standards
and Maintain Document
Library
CDM proposes to continue Figure 1-28. CDM proposes to u lize the AMIP gap analysis database to track gap
to utilize the eRoom® (by closure and store audit results.

 1-55
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
and expense monitoring system. In this task, CDM
will:
Review existing NEORSD labor-tracking proce-
dures
Recommend an NEORSD labor tracking method
appropriate for this project
Prepare a procedures document and companion
software tool to facilitate labor and expense
monitoring and summary reporting;
Submit consultant team labor and expense infor-
mation in required format
Provide as-needed support for labor and expense
monitoring, including formal, half-day, monthly
review meetings.
Task A4 (RFP Step 4): Monitor Project Scope and
Outcomes Achievement
As set forth in the District’s asset manage-
ment improvement plan, the framework for the
asset management program is one of continuous
improvement in which the District’s performance
objectives are measured against specific outcomes
that are designed to close performance gaps. In
this task, CDM will establish an audit procedure
based upon the gap analysis performed during the
AMIP project. All the data from which the gaps
and outcomes were established are contained within
an MS-Access® database. This database will be
enhanced during this task to track the achievement
of the outcomes associated with each project. Our
subcontractor, Jefferson Wells – a professional audit
firm – will establish an independent audit procedure
and train District staff in executing the procedure.
For this task , CDM recommends that the District
perform 3 audits during the program, spaced at
approximately 12 month intervals. The level of
effort we assume the District to invest in each
audit is 150 hours. The following activities will be
conducted during this task:
Review task objectives and outcomes with the
AM coordinator and each NEORSD task lead-
ers responsible for leading a task. The result of
this review will be agreement on the baseline
 1-56
that defines the existing condition relative to
expected outcomes;
Develop internal audit procedure that will
produce a valid, independent, reliable audit trail
on progress toward outcome achievement;
Train NEORSD auditors in conducting audits;
Provide guidance and as-needed support to the
District during conduct of three project audits.
Task A5 (RFP Step 5): Hold AMT Mee ngs
During this task, CDM will work with the AM
coordinator to prepare for, conduct and docu-
ment quarterly meetings to be held with the asset
management team. CDM’s budget for this activity
assumes that the CDM Project Manager, or other
relevant team member will attend these meetings
along with the AM coordinator.
Task A6 (RFP Step 6): Conduct SST Briefings
During this task, CDM will work with the AM
coordinator to prepare for, conduct and document
senior staff briefings. CDM’s budget for this activ-
ity assumes that an SST briefing will be conducted
every other month and that the CDM Project
Manager will attend these briefings along with the
AM coordinator.
Op ons
CDM offers two options for Task A.
Asset Management University. To maximize
the value to District staff in participating in
Asset Management Implementation Phase
I activities, CDM is proposing this optional
sub-task to provide continuing education
units (CEUs). CDM is proud to have our own
University, CDMU. Through certification
by the International Association of Continu-
ing Education and Training (IACET), CDMU
is able to help employees pursue and main-
tain their professional registrations. CDMU
is authorized to award continuing education
units (CEUs) for training performed under the
auspices of our IACET Authorized Provider
status. CDM believes that a great amount of
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
education of staff will take place during this
project. To recognize the Districts’ staff commit-
ment to continuing education for this project,
CDM will provide 16 distinct courses, with 4
contact hours each, as part of the workshop and
meeting activities presented in our proposed
scope. The time for this task will be spent on
preparing the necessary course documentation
and learning materials, beyond what is typical
for a project workshop or meeting. CDM will
track the attendance at the training sessions and
provide a record for participating staff to support
their professional certification requirements.
Quarterly Newsletters. CDM will work with
the District’s public outreach department to
develop quarterly newsletters to inform District
staff on the progress of the asset management
program. These newsletters will support the
messages of the asset management coordinator
while stressing the end-use benefits of the imple-
mentation steps.
Task H: State of the Infrastructure Annual
Report (IR-1)
The state of infrastructure report will be the prin-
ciple vehicle for communicating the benefits of
the asset management program to the NEORSD
Board and other stakeholders. It will document the
most current knowledge (at the time of each report
issuance) of the District’s infrastructure assets, the
strategies and actions planned for the coming year
to maintain a state of good repair and the financial
obligations recognized by the District to achieve its
plan of action.
 1-57
Approach
CDM proposes to share equally with the District
the responsibility for compilation and production
of the report. We recommend, and have budgeted
for the issuance of two reports during the Phase 1
program. The first report will be produced prior
to completion of the renewal planning task group.
The second report will be completed following
completion of the renewal planning work. The
intent of producing two reports is to establish
– with report 1 – an early benchmark of what
information is known and what actions are in
place. Then, in report 2, to be able to illustrate the
advancements in knowledge and planning that will
have been achieved through this project.
Task H1 (RFP Step 1): Report Outline
CDM will recommend a report outline to that is
consistent with the District’s reporting objectives
and that can be implemented based on information
that will be made available throughout the project.
H2: Iden fy Data Sources
CDM will work with the AM coordinator to
identify data sources that will contribute informa-
tion to the report. Whereas data for Section 4 will
ultimately come form the annual renewal plans,
the first report will utilize data from information
currently existing in the Easterly and Southerly
facilities plans,
Dra Outline DIIMS and a
State of Infrastructure Report source to be
1. Introduc on and Purpose determined
2. Commitments to Our Customers and Regulators (likely Oracle/
> Regulatory Obliga ons
> Levels of Service to Customers
SPL) for the
Westerly Plant.
3. Asset Management Program Achievements
> Program Goals
> Progress toward Goals in Past Year Task H3 (RFP
4. Current State of Our Infrastructure Step 3): Pro-
> Classes of Assets
cure Consultant
> Replacement Values
> Asset Risk Indices Services
> Financial Requirements to Maintain a
State of Good Repair It is assumed
that the consul-
5. Quality and Completeness of Informa on
tant selected for
6. Priority Ac ons For the Coming Year
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
this project is the consultant that will provide this
assistance.
Task H4 (RFP Step 4): Dra Report
CDM will assist the District to produce drafts of 2
reports. We have allotted 180 hours per report.
Task H5 (RFP Step 5): Review Comments
CDM will work with the AM coordinator to review
comments to each draft report that are provided by
NEORSD reviewers. It is assumed that the AM
coordinator will coordinate the distribution of the
draft and the compilation of comments.
Task H6 (RFP Step 6): Present Report to SST
CDM will be available to assist the AM Coordinator
in making a presentation of the report to the SST.
If the District chooses not to have CDM present,
we will dedicate the time allocated to this activity
to helping prepare the AM Coordinator to make the
presentation.
Task J: Project Administra on
The purpose of this task is to provide coordination
between the District and the CDM team to carry out
project tasks. CDM understands that we are respon-
sible for the overall quality of task work, including
Figure 1-29. CDM had the
pleasure of recommending
asset management program
improvements to the Portland
Water Bureau. Their annual,
self-produced Water System
Status and Condi on report
is exemplary and is recom-
mended by CDM to be used as
a go-by for the District’s State
of Infrastructure Report
 1-58
tasks performed by our subconsultants. CDM’s
approach to Project is to provide an assistant proj-
ect manager who is experienced in Asset Manage-
ment supported by a local contact to assure the
District’s project objectives are met. Mike Kenel
(CDM) is the proposed assistant project manager.
Mike’s main objective in this task will be to:
Maintain clear channels of communication
between the District and the project team.
Maintain direct lines of responsibility for work
components.
Ensure timely completion of work according to
an established schedule of activities.
Keep the project costs within the established
budget.
Provide regular checks on project technical
control.
Maintain and deliver project documents.
Project cost controls are provided through CDM’s
computerized management information system,
which has been refined over the years to best meet
our clients’ needs.
A key element of the system is its flexibility in
producing project reports—tailored to suit indi-
vidual clients—for a variety of purposes.
Weekly, biweekly, and monthly status reports
Invoices and supporting cost detail reports
Monthly financial reports
Additional or ad hoc reports
CDM’s project cost estimating and tracking system
is integrated into our financial accounting and
payroll system, reducing administrative procedures
and associated expenses to our clients.
J1: Project Organiza on and Management
J1.1 Master Project Schedule
The requirements of this task will be fulfilled in
Task A1.
J1.2 Monthly Invoicing
SECTION 1 Technical Approach
CDM will prepare monthly master invoices for the
project. CDM and each of our subconsultants are
responsible for assuring and certifying that invoices
are correct and meet District invoicing standards for
format and allowable costs. Our invoices will be
submitted within two (2) months of the effort being
billed unless the District authorizes an extension.
A narrative summary of the effort being billed will
accompany the invoices. A cumulative summary
of durable goods purchased as Other Direct Costs
(ODCs) for the project will be maintained on an
Excel spreadsheet developed in cooperation with
District staff. A hard copy of the current durable
goods summary spreadsheet will be included in
each Project Invoice as an appendix, identifying
the item; its cost, the Project Invoice number and
Project Invoice page number where the item was
billed, and its current status and location. CDM
will address all project budget, management and
schedule issues. If District action is required, CDM
will recommend a suggested course of action.
J1.3 Project Contracts and Invoice Library
CDM will maintain a complete project library and
master files of all contract and subcontract actions
and reports. CDM will develop a District-approved,
PC-based master spreadsheet on which all contract
and subcontract budgets, billings, contract modifi-
cations and invoice actions will be tracked through
the project. A hard copy of the most current spread-
sheet will be submitted with proposals for budget
revisions or contract modifications.
J2: Progress Mee ngs
Progress meetings between the District and CDM
will be held on a monthly basis. CDM will prepare
monthly status reports to be submitted to the
District at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
The project status reports will include the following
information:
Current scope of work completion status versus
anticipated status,
Updated project schedule,
 1-59
Summary of budget status,
Project information and decision needs includ-
ing the anticipated source, expected response
time and any issues or problems that could
delay the expected response,
Anticipated tasks and accomplishments for the
coming month,
Questions, comments, problematic issues and
suggestions,
Identification of out of scope task work, and
Invoicing issues and proposals to address such
issues.
CDM will prepare agendas for progress meet-
ings to be submitted with the monthly progress
report and will also prepare meeting minutes to be
submitted to the District for review within two (2)
working days following the meeting. Once they
are reviewed and approved by the District, the
minutes will be distributed to the project team.
J3: Document and Data Management
All meeting minutes will be distributed to all
meeting attendees. CDM will submit five (5) hard
copies of all reports and technical memorandums
indicated in Tasks A-I. Hard copies of all required
reports and technical memoranda will be submit-
ted in 3-ring notebook format and one copy will
remain unbound. Additionally, all documents and
data will be submitted to the District in accordance
with the standards outlined in Attachment B of the
RFP. CDM realizes how proper document and
data management can be used on future projects
and to provide valuable information on how and
why decisions were made. As discussed in Task
A, CDM will host an eRoom® that provides on-
line access to all documents produced during the
project.
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Deliverables and District

Responsibili es
Table 1-7 presents an overview of all tasks noted
in this Technical Approach, as well as roles and
responsiblities of District staff.

Task Deliverables District Responsibility/Role

FOUNDATIONAL TASKS
Task B: Corporate Risk Policy and Mission Oversee direc on of risk management program;
Corporate Risk Man- Statement make assignments to risk management team; gain
agement (RM-1) Risk Management Mission Statement senior leadership approval on new policies and pro-
Risk Iden fica on and Register Proce- cedures; par cipate in development of procedures;
dure integrate risk management thinking into the Districts
Risk Quan fica on and Priori za on strategic planning and capital projects process.
Procedure
Risk Management Internal Audit
Procedure
Annual Risk Management Report
Subtask D-1: System Documenta on Assist in data gathering; review documenta on;
Documenta on of Data Data Transforma on Diagram provide end-user perspec ve on exis ng and new
Storage and Repor ng systems.
in IAS, ODMS, GIS, and
CMMS (IT-1)
Subtask D-2: Desired State Process Maps Support process mapping; provide guidance rela ve
Develop Plan for En- Oracle Interface Descrip ons to current Oracle configura on; review submi als;
hancement of SPL Use Revised Data Matrix plant reps and SSMO rep shall provide input on
(IT-2) Technical Specifica on for Repair and desired role of system.
Renewal Repor ng Requirements
Oracle Configura on Implementa on
Plan
Subtask D-3: Asset Management So ware Systems Compile informa on; review submi als; workgroup
Asset Management Strategic Plan members shall provide input on priori es; IT support
Systems Planning (IT-3) staff shall provide input on planned technical ac vi-
es outside of AM.
Task I: Guidebook Orient to financial planning process; test life-cycle
Enhance Financial Capital Project Evalua on Tool planning tool; specify infla on/discount factors; map
Planning Process exis ng process budge ng process in a high level of
(FIN-1) detail.
RENEWAL PLANNING
Subtask E-1: Asset Hierarchy Standard Par cipate in learning how to develop and modify
Asset Hierarchy Stan- Asset Hierarchy Register asset hierarchy ini ally and moving forward; per-
dards (AH-1) forming the manual data collec on, entry and orga-
niza on of asset informa on into the Oracle WAM
system; detailing the business process workflow for
amending asset hierarchy and the corresponding
staff roles and responsibili es.

 1-60
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Task Deliverables District Responsibility/Role

Subtask E-2: Asset Hierarchy (AH) Register: Collec- See above.
Asset Hierarchy for on System
Collec on Systems Summary Report for Collec ons Sys-
(AH-1.1) tem AH that explains hierarchy and
how they should be used
Training Documents
Subtask E-3: Asset Hierarchy Register: Easterly, See above.
Asset Hierarchy for Westerly, and Southerly Treatment
Treatment Plants (AH- Plants
1.2)
Subtask F-1: Cri cality Determina on Procedure Par cipate in defining the procedure by which the
Asset Cri cality Iden - Treatment Plant Cri cality Log District will iden fy cri cal treatment plant and col-
fica on for Treatment lec on system assets based on the consequence of
Plants (AC-1) their failure and their current condi on; iden fying
the cri cality factors that will be used to assign the
overall ranking; applying that procedure to the Dis-
tricts facili es so that all appropriate plant assets are
scored for their cri cality; genera ng a cri cality log
that will list, the ranked assets, their consequence of
failure, and their derived cri cality ranking; learning
how to assign and update asset cri cality ranking ini-
ally and moving forward; and learning how to enter
cri cality data in SPL, GIS, or any other appropriate
database.
Subtask F-2: Cri cality Determina on Procedure See above.
Asset Cri cality Iden - Collec on System Cri cality Log con-
fica on for Collec on sis ng of an Access database with all
Systems (AC-2) Collec on Assets & Cri cality Scores
Training Documents
Subtask G-1: Asset Renewal Standard Opera ng Par cipate in developing plant and collec on system
Repair and Renewal Procedure staff capabili es for performing key renewal plan-
Repor ng Guidelines Asset Renewal Analy cal Tool ning elements such as: NEORSD’s ongoing asset
(RR-1) Annual Asset Renewal Plan condi on assessment program, and the subsequent
recalcula on of asset cri cality rankings based on
changed condi on status; methods and staff respon-
sibili es for determining asset values, revalua ons
and/or replacement costs, assigning and upda ng
reasonable asset useful life es mates and/or failure
curves, and also the tracking and/or es ma ng of
annual asset maintenance costs; and a detailed
process and corresponding staff responsibili es to
be used to iden fy the most appropriate renewal
op on for the targeted assets taking into account an
assessment of asset and non-asset solu ons, as well
as capital, maintenance, and opera on op ons.
Subtask G-2: Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Easterly See above.
Easterly Repair and Treatment Plant Component)
Renewal Plan (RR-1.1)
Subtask G-3: Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Westerly See above.
Westerly Repair and Treatment Plant Component)
Renewal Plan (RR-1.2)

 1-61
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

Task Deliverables District Responsibility/Role

Subtask G-4: Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Southerly See above.
Southerly Repair and Treatment Plant Component)
Renewal Plan (RR-1.3)
Subtask G-5: Annual Asset Renewal Plan (Collec- See above.
Collec on Systems Re- on System Component)
pair and Renewal Plan Camp Tool for Plan Implementa on
(RR-1.4) Decision Tool for developing sewer
improvements
CAPITAL PROJECTS PLANNING
Task C: District Input: CIP Planning Summary Par cipate in workshops; provide a new capital plan-
Capital Improvement Current CIP Project Reviews ning process model; apply the model.
Program (CIP-2/3) Capital Planning Process Model
Project Report and Annual Capital
Improvement Plan
SUPPORT TASKS
Task A: AM Policies and Procedures Maintain master project schedule; provide overall
Asset Management AM Project Monitoring project coordina on; conduct 3 project audits; and
Coordina on for 3-yr AM Implementa on Plan and Status facilitate AMT and SST mee ngs.
Plan (AM-1) Upgrades
AM Data and Document Manage-
ment
AM Training and Staffing Needs As-
sessment
AM Internal Audi ng
Annual AM Report
Task H: Annual Report Assist in producing the report.
State of Infrastructure Level of Service
Annual Report (IR-1) Infrastructure Inventory
Maintenance Management
Financial Requirements
Asset Management Implementa on
Status
Task J: Recipients of status reports, documents, mee ng
Project Administra on minutes for the purposes of tracking program prog-
ress as well as repor ng on that progress to others.
Subtask J-1: Detailed Master Project Schedule for District staff will not be used for this task.
Project Organiza on AM Phase I
and Management Monthly Master Invoices
Project Library and Master Files
Subtask J-2: Monthly Status Report District staff will not be used for this task.
Progress Mee ngs Agenda for Monthly Mee ng
Mee ng Minutes
Subtask J-3: Five (5) Hard Copies of all Final Deliv- District staff will not be used for this task.
Document and Data erables Tasks A through I
Management Ensure that all Subconsultants Submit
Final Reports and Data in Accordance
with A achment B

 1-62
SECTION 1 Technical Approach

 1-63
 SSEECCTTIIOONN 2O N E
Qualifica ons
The implementation of an asset management proj-
ect involves carefully orchestrating a process to
be followed for accurate documentation as well as
obtaining staff buy-in. Executing installation, defin-
ing and establishing user acceptance testing criteria,
testing the system, and performing final system
acceptance are all critical elements.
Table 2-1 demonstrates CDM’s experience in asset
management development and implementation, as
well as key asset management components focused
on in those projects.
Of these examples, we present three projects to
demonstrate our ability to meet the District’s goals:
„ Asset Management Implementation, New York
City, NY
 2-1
„ Asset Management Implementation, Narragan-
sett Bay Commission, Providence, RI
„ Asset Management Implementation, Columbus,
OH
Moreover, we have selected these three projects
to showcase because of their ability to meet the
District’s goals, including the need to:
„ Validate the need for and justify the prioritiza-
tion of capital expenditures,
„ Document and transfer staff knowledge about
infrastructure maintenance and operational
practices, and
„ Improve the level of client service.
SECTION 2 Qualifica ons

Financial Planning

Risk Management
Renewal Planning

Capital Planning
Asset Hierarchy

IT Planning
Cri cality
Project Dates Cost
Asset Management Implementa on, New York City, NY 2003 - 2009 $6 million
Highlighted in this sec on • • • • • •
Asset Management Implementa on, Narraganse Bay, RI 2005 - 2007 $900,000
Highlighted in this sec on • • • • • • •
Asset Management Implementa on, Columbus, OH 2005 - ongoing $7 million
Highlighted in this sec on • • • • •
Asset Management Program Development and Implementa- 8/07 - 8/09 $450,000
on, Collier County, FL (Phase I only)
Improving efficiency in infrastructure crea on and renewal • • • •
ac vi es, level of service agreements and performance, and
revenue genera on to support business
Business and Asset Management Plans, Johnson County, KS 2/06 - 12/08 $910,000
Development of a strategic business plan and an AM plan for • • • • • • •
one of the most rapidly growing Midwest areas.
Asset Management Work Plan Development 2002 - ongoing $450,000
Kansas City Water Service Dept., MO
Developing asset management program for water services • • • • • • •
department with future extension to wastewater and storm-
water
Asset Management Evalua on, Springfield Water and Sewer 1/05 - ongoing $525,000
Commission, Springfield, MA
Implementa on of CMMS and GIS, integra on of customer • •
billing systems and field-based applica ons
Comprehensive Asset Management Program, Hillsborough 2002 - 2004 $600,000
County, FL
Developed and implemented AM program to help priori ze • • • • • • •
improvements and meet regulatory drivers
Infrastructure Asset Evalua on, City of Daytona Beach, 11/06 - 10/07 $437,383
Daytona Beach, FL Reviewed and catalog assets in support of • • •
repair and replacement
U lity Management So ware System, Port Authority of NY/NJ, 1999 - present $5.1 million
JFK Airport, New York, NY
Fast-track development of AM to increase efficiency in support • • •
of capital projects
Asset Management Program Enhancements, St. Johns County, 2004 - 2005 $150,000
FL
Enhancements of ongoing asset inventory and assessment, • •
work order management, asset crea on/replacement proce-
dures and performance measurements
Asset Management Needs Assessment, Marco Island, FL 3/05 - 9/05 $58,400
Prepared AM strategic plan • •
Asset Management Evalua on Protocol, Sioux City, IA 1/05 - 5/05 $265,000
Developed AM protocol to improve O&M of facili es • • • •
Capital Wastewater Collec on System Renewal and Replace- 9/05 - 6/07 $125,381
ment
Program, Orange County, FL
Systema c methodology to iden fy, rank and priori ze capital
sewer system repairs and/or replacement projects, and
develop a projected list of poten al capital projects with as-
sociated cost es mates.

 2-2
SECTION 2 Qualifica ons

Asset Management ImplementaƟon, New York City

NEW YORK CITY, NY — CDM developed a “Your Firm’s excellent work has
prioritization and risk mitigation program to help provided the majority of the
New York City’s Department of Environmental
Protection (NYCDEP) address its aging infrastruc-
backup for our budget requests
ture. The asset management system for the Bureau and jus fica ons… CDM was
of Wastewater Treatment is complete; programs invaluable in the iden fica on of
for the Bureau of Water Supply and the Bureau of future asset management needs.”
Water and Sewer Operations are in development.
Based on SPL software installed by CDM and Ora- —James G. Mueller P.E., Director, Facili es
cle, the asset management program gives NYCDEP
the means to develop their own defensible 10-year
Planning and Design NYCDEP
plan for infrastructure improvements. „ Step 2: Organize business rules and
measurement tools. NYCDEP and CDM stan-
To address the needs of the City’s aging system,
dardized the process for recording data. They
CDM developed a step-by-step risk mitigation
then prepared and adopted measurement tools:
program to serve as a blueprint and checklist for
extensive repairs and upgrades. − Severity, which is a relative measure of the
consequence of failure based on regulatory,
„ Step 1: Prepare a comprehensive list of
legal, financial, environmental, and opera-
assets for prioritization. The team focused on
tional considerations and on maintenance
NYCDEP’s existing projects, evaluating the
or ability to meet future capacity. This is
criticality of each project, and organizing them
measured on a scale of 1-10, with the latter
into a comprehensive hierarchy in a database
being the worst case
that allowed the data to be sorted, measured, and
manipulated for reporting results.

The large turn-key implementa on

of Oracle UWAM (formerly Syner-
gen) for New York City has benefited
from extensive end-user training for
NYCDEP staff.

 2-3
SECTION 2 Qualifica ons

− Probability of failure, which is the likelihood − A common hierarchy of NYCDEP assets,

of an asset to fail to perform its required func-
tion. This is also measured on a scale of 1-10.
− A risk matrix, which demonstrates the appli-
cation of risk scores to determine an asset risk
index value. The resulting scores relate to a
risk matrix table that is used to determine the
ARI value in a range between 1 and 100.
The projects that fall into the highest priority
category are identified as needing the most
immediate repair; yellow are moderate risk,
and green have the least risk of failure.
„ Step 3: Review the list of long-term improve-
ment objectives. NYCDEP and its engineering
consultants evaluated each facility and identified
long-term, strategic objectives.
„ Step 4: Visit each facility. Site visits were
conducted at each NYCDEP facility and all
findings were recorded by asset aligned by either
severity or probability of failure. CDM met with
staff several times to assist in identifying the
issues that weren’t apparent through a visual
inspection. The findings were recorded as part of
the rationale for scoring an asset’s condition.
„ Step 5: Create a database using the results
of Steps 3 and 4. The database will provide a
complete picture of the potential risk of failure
and the resulting amount of public and/or regula-
tory risk exposure. The system includes:
− Identification of individual assets/process
elements,
− The rationale for determining an ARI value
that portrays individual asset priority,
− A proposed project for correcting the prob-
lem,
− A current year’s construction cost estimate,
and
− An escalated planning-level construction
cost estimate based on the proposed year of
construction.
„ Step 6: Present results. The database results
were then presented to senior management and
senior operations personnel for validation at a
common meeting. This facilitated a common
understanding of each facility’s challenges in
relation to other comparable facilities and to get
consensus on the process followed for deter-
mining the level of risk exposure for each asset.
The asset management system produces standard-
ized reports, flow schematics, and maps to help
NYCDEP quickly set priorities and assess risks.
Based in large on the risk-prioritization project, the
Office of Management and Budget raised the ini-
tial 10-year budget from $17 billion to $24 billion.
The NYCDEP has adopted the risk-prioritization
process as the driver for this multi-year budget to
focus on the highest risk assets first.

Project Specifics

Project Start and End Dates Personnel Involved / Role Reference

2003-2009
Consultant Fees: $1.4 million
Overall Project Budget: $6 mil-
lion
CDM’s Role: Implementa on of
a Computerized Maintenance
Management System, related
staff training
Phil Chernin / Technical Jim Mueller,
Director Chief, Maintenance Manage-
ment Sec on, NYCDEP
Joe Ridge / Risk Economics
718-595-4845
Ed LeClair / Oracle/SPL
Implementa on
Warren Kurtz / Deputy
Commissioner

 2-4
SECTION 2 Qualifica ons

Asset Management ImplementaƟon, NarraganseƩ Bay Commission

CDM has been assisting Narragansett Bay Commis-
sion (NBC) in the evaluation and implementation
of an Asset Management Program for nearly three
years. The project is now in its third phase, focusing
on completing the condition assessment and valu-
ation for almost 60 percent of NBC’s assets. The
previous phase involved developing pilot processes
for valuation, condition assessment and modifica-
tion of the NBC’s CMMS to accommodate needs.
NBC’s budget now reflects the repair and replace-
ment needs identified through the pilot phase
and will be expanded over this fiscal year. CDM
developed and implemented an appropriate asset
management program that provides a more detailed
timely assessment of the condition of NBC’s assets,
identifies assets most likely to fail based on condi-
tion and age, and ensures that sufficient allowances
have been included in the budget to meet ongoing
repair and replacement needs. We also standardized
an approach for assessing the condition of NBC as-
sets and then using that to determine their estimated
remaining useful life.
CDM has led NBC focus groups to develop strate-
gies in key asset management program areas. These
work groups were critical to identifying weaknesses
in current processes and obtaining employee accep-
tance of significantly modified business processes:
„ Asset Hierarchy / Criticality
„ Asset Condition
“CDM’s people are highly skilled
and extremely responsive.
Through all phases of work,
they are perceived as good
communicators who successfully
implement projects on schedule
and within cost. Their work
stands for itself in terms of
project cost savings. NBC sees
CDM as their premier firm for
complex projects.”
— Ray Marshall, Execu ve Director, NBC
„ Maintenance practices
„ CMMS implementation / modification
„ Asset valuation
These task groups worked with CDM to develop
the basic approach and detailed protocols that were
piloted on the initial 25 percent of NBC’s assets.
In the current phase of the work, the procedures
are being examined and modified as appropriate.
The last aspect of this project has been to develop
an asset management tool that interfaces with the
NBC’s CMMS to produce a repair and replace-
ment budget and priority list as well as other man-
agement reports.

Project Specifics

Project Start and End Dates Personnel Involved / Role Reference

2005-2007
Consultant Fees: $900,000
Overall Project Budget: $900,000
CDM’s Role:
Evalua on and Implementa on
of an Asset Management
Program
Joe Ridge / Project Manager Ray Marshall, P.E.
Execu ve Director, NBC
Ed LeClair / Assistant
One Service Road
Project Manager
Providence RI 02905
Marius Basson / Strategy Task 401-461-8848, ext 321
Manager

 2-5
SECTION 2 Qualifica ons
Asset Management ImplementaƟon, Columbus, Ohio
CDM developed a unique long-term, risk-based
renewal program for the City of Columbus. To help
develop, categorize, and prioritize improvements,
CDM developed a custom-built geographic infor-
mation system (GIS) application that links digital
closed caption television (CCTV) inspection data in
a pipeline assessment certification program (PACP)
database to GIS pipes by way of a customizable
interactive decision tool.
The system features:
„ National Association of Sewer System Compa-
nies (NASSCO) PACP Database. The PACP
database houses CCTV inspection data, digital
CCTV video links, and digital photographs.
This comprehensive and reliable sewer condi-
tion database can be used to plan and priori-
tize improvements to its wastewater collection
systems.
 2-6
“With great apprecia on, I want to
tell you and anyone concerned about
the stellar work provided by the
CDM Team for this project. From the
beginning, the CDM team has proven
capable to handle each of the huge
project tasks; thorough in devising and
implemen ng methods to accomplish
associated tasks; and willing to
entertain new ideas to aid and extend
the accuracy and applicability of the
work they were tasked to perform.”
— C. Timothy Fallara, P.E.,
Program/Project Manager for the
Sewer Systems Engineering Sec on
of DOSD
SECTION 2 Qualifica ons

„ GIS. ESRI ArcMap software is utilized as the
engine for this tool, and it enables users to obtain
immediate information about the locations of
defects and proposed improvements. This visual
output will enable users to rank criticality of
infrastructure problems and recommended solu-
tions.
„ Decision Tree. The decision tree provides a
standard evaluation process for users to query
the PACP sewer defect database, and develop
and prioritize improvement projects. The tree
is a logical sequence of yes or no queries of the
database to develop structural and/or opera-
tion and maintenance recommendations for
each pipe segment.
Recommendations: The last section of the tree
allows the user to group all improvements into cat-
egories such as replacement, rehabilitation, repair
or cleaning/inspection.
The tool has been successfully applied to major
improvement projects with PACP data. However,
this automated decision tool is a powerful way to
develop prioritized solutions in a GIS environment
that can be easily customized to any asset manage-
ment program.

The decision tree application is organized in

several sections, including:

Definitions: Defines whether the defects in a

pipeline are significant enough to require an
improvement/solution.

Decisions: Recommends a solution for each

pipe segment based upon identified problem.

Prioritization: Rates pipeline improvements

based on criticality (impact of failure such as
effects to public, traffic, environment). Pipeline data was collected using NASSCO standards and entered
into a PACP database. Once updated, the informa on was imme-
Engineer overrides: Allows the engineer to diately available to system users and could be used to produce a
visual map of infrastructure challenges and recommended solu ons.
override the automated recommendation based
upon engineering judgement.

Project Specifics
Project Start and End Dates Personnel Involved / Role Reference
2005-ongoing John Schroeder / Project C. Timothy Fallara, P.E.
Manager Engineer/Project Manager
Consultant Fees: $7 million
1250 Fairwood Ave.
Overall Project Budget: Columbus, OH 43206
$7 million Tel: 614 645-6728
CDM’s Role: Asset Assessment, CTFallara@columbus.gov
Process Development, Alterna ve
Development and Evalua on of
Improvements

 2-7
 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 2009 2010 2011
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Asset management Implementation Phase 1 126.14 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Foundational Tasks 101 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 11/16/10

Task B 17.43 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 8/19/08

Task B 17.43 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 8/19/08

88 B Corporate Risk Management (RM-1) 17.43 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 8/19/08 B Corporate Risk Management (RM-1)

89 B.1 Establishment of Risk Policy 15 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/21/08 B.1 Establishment of Risk Policy

90 B.2 Designate Risk Manager & Team 5 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/7/08 B.2 Designate Risk Manager & Team

91 B.3 Risk Identification & Registry 40 days Mon 3/10/08 Fri 5/2/08 B.3 Risk Identification & Registry

92 B.4 Risk Quantification & Prioritization 40 days Mon 3/10/08 Fri 5/2/08 B.4 Risk Quantification & Prioritization

93 B.5 Continuous Improvement and Performance Metrics 15 days Mon 5/5/08 Fri 5/23/08 B.5 Continuous Improvement and Performance Metrics

94 B.6 Annual Management Report 22 days Fri 5/23/08 Tue 6/24/08 B.6 Annual Management Report

95 B.7 Training 25 days Wed 6/25/08 Tue 7/29/08 B.7 Training

96 B.8 Internal Auditing 15 days Wed 7/30/08 Tue 8/19/08 B.8 Internal Auditing

Task D 101 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 11/16/10

Subtask D-1 16.56 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 8/11/08

8 D-1 Documentation of Data Storage and Reporting in IAS, 16.56 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 8/11/08 -1 Documentation of Data Storage and Reporting in IAS, ODMS, GIS and CMMS (IT-1)
ODMS, GIS and CMMS (IT-1)
9 D-1.1 Establish Working Group 15 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/21/08 -1.1 Establish Working Group

10 D-1.2 Enhance Data Matrix 40 days Fri 3/7/08 Fri 5/2/08 D-1.2 Enhance Data Matrix

11 D-1.3 Characterize System Functions 50 days Fri 3/14/08 Fri 5/23/08 D-1.3 Characterize System Functions

12 D-1.4 Document Standard Reports 15 days Fri 3/21/08 Fri 4/11/08 D-1.4 Document Standard Reports

13 D-1.5 Summarize Adhoc Reports 30 days Fri 4/11/08 Fri 5/23/08 D-1.5 Summarize Adhoc Reports

14 D-1.6 Data Transfer/Transformation Map 30 days Fri 5/23/08 Fri 7/4/08 D-1.6 Data Transfer/Transformation Map

15 D-1.7 Produce Application Summary Reports 40 days Fri 5/23/08 Fri 7/18/08 D-1.7 Produce Application Summary Reports

16 D-1.8 Executive Summary 16 days Fri 7/18/08 Mon 8/11/08 D-1.8 Executive Summary

Subtask D-2 26.29 wks Tue 6/23/09 Mon 3/8/10

17 D-2 Develop Plan for Enhancement of SPL Use (IT-2) 26.29 wks Tue 6/23/09 Mon 3/8/10 D-2 Develop Plan for Enhancement of SPL Use (IT-2)

18 D-2.1 Review Existing Information 5 days Tue 6/23/09 Tue 6/30/09 D-2.1 Review Existing Information

19 D-2.2 Review Repair and Renewal Reporting Specifications 15 days Tue 6/30/09 Tue 7/21/09 D-2.2 Review Repair and Renewal Reporting Specifications

20 D-2.3 Process Interviews 22 days Tue 7/21/09 Thu 8/20/09 D-2.3 Process Interviews

21 D-2.4 Prepare SPL Process Mapping 22 days Thu 8/20/09 Mon 9/21/09 D-2.4 Prepare SPL Process Mapping

22 D-2.5 Prepare Condition Process Mapping 22 days Mon 9/21/09 Wed 10/21/09 D-2.5 Prepare Condition Process Mapping

23 D-2.6 Validation Sessions 22 days Wed 10/21/09 Fri 11/20/09 D-2.6 Validation Sessions

24 D-2.7 Revise Data Matrix 22 days Fri 11/20/09 Tue 12/22/09 D-2.7 Revise Data Matrix

25 D-2.8 Determine SPL Technical Requirements 22 days Tue 12/22/09 Thu 1/21/10 D-2.8 Determine SPL Technical Requirements

26 D-2.9 Produce Implementation Plan 22 days Thu 1/21/10 Mon 2/22/10 D-2.9 Produce Implementation Plan

Project: NEORSD Rev 1_AE_01_23_08 Rev PC Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline
Date: Thu 1/24/08
Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone

Page 1
 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 2009 2010 2011
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
27 D-2.10 Cost Estimate 10 days Mon 2/22/10 Mon 3/8/10 D-2.10 Cost Estimate

Subtask D-3 15 wks Wed 6/23/10 Tue 11/16/10

28 D-3 Asset Management System Planning (IT-3) 15 wks Wed 6/23/10 Tue 11/16/10 D-3 Asset Management System Planning (IT-3)

29 D-3.1 Conduct User Requirements Survey 40 days Wed 6/23/10 Tue 8/17/10 D-3.1 Conduct User Requirements Survey

30 D-3.2 Develop Asset Management Systems Vision and Value 10 days Tue 8/17/10 Tue 8/31/10 D-3.2 Develop Asset Management Systems Vision and Value Statements
Statements
31 D-3.3 Conduct SWOT Analysis & Establish Strategic Goals 10 days Tue 8/31/10 Tue 9/14/10 D-3.3 Conduct SWOT Analysis & Establish Strategic Goals

32 D-3.4 Hold Oracle Utility Systems Eductation Day 5 days Tue 9/14/10 Tue 9/21/10 D-3.4 Hold Oracle Utility Systems Eductation Day

33 D-3.5 Develop Summary of AM System Improvement Requirements 10 days Tue 9/21/10 Tue 10/5/10 D-3.5 Develop Summary of AM System Improvement Requirements

34 D-3.6 Conduct Project Prioritization Workshops 10 days Tue 10/5/10 Tue 10/19/10 D-3.6 Conduct Project Prioritization Workshops

35 D-3.7 Produce AM Systems Plan 20 days Tue 10/19/10 Tue 11/16/10 D-3.7 Produce AM Systems Plan

Task I 28 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 12/1/08

Task I 28 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 12/1/08

118 I Enhance Financial Planning Process (FIN-1) 28 wks Mon 3/3/08 Mon 12/1/08 I Enhance Financial Planning Process (FIN-1)

119 I.1 Identify and Track Current Related Business Process and 20 days Mon 3/3/08 Fri 3/28/08 I.1 Identify and Track Current Related Business Process and Data Sources
Data Sources
120 I.2 Replacement Valuation Protocols 66 days Mon 3/31/08 Mon 6/30/08 I.2 Replacement Valuation Protocols

121 I.3 Develop Lifecycle Cost Analysis Tool 44 days Tue 7/1/08 Fri 8/29/08 I.3 Develop Lifecycle Cost Analysis Tool

122 I.4 Modify Budgetary Procedures 33 days Mon 9/1/08 Wed 10/15/08 I.4 Modify Budgetary Procedures

123 I.5 Develop Guidebook 33 days Thu 10/16/08 Mon 12/1/08 I.5 Develop Guidebook

Capital Projects Planning 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

Task C 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

Task C 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10

1 C Capital Project Validation and Prioritization (CIP-2/3) 51.71 wks Tue 8/19/08 Thu 1/7/10 C Capital Project Validation and Prioritization (CIP-2/3)

2 C.1 Executive Review of CIP Issues & Objectives 22 days Tue 8/19/08 Thu 9/18/08 C.1 Executive Review of CIP Issues & Objectives

3 C.2 Review of Current Capital Projects Planning Process 22 days Fri 9/19/08 Mon 10/20/08 C.2 Review of Current Capital Projects Planning Process

4 C.3 Characterize Current CIP Projects - Select 2008 CIP Projects 22 days Tue 10/21/08 Wed 11/19/08 C.3 Characterize Current CIP Projects - Select 2008 CIP Projects

5 C.4 Develop Capital Planning Process Model 44 days Thu 11/20/08 Tue 1/20/09 C.4 Develop Capital Planning Process Model

6 C.5 Application of Capital Process Planning Model to 2008 CIP 135 days Mon 5/4/09 Fri 11/6/09 C.5 Application of Capital Process Planning Model to 2008 CIP Projects
Projects
7 C.6 Project Report 44 days Mon 11/9/09 Thu 1/7/10 C.6 Project Report

Renewal Planning 113.27 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 3/16/11

Task E 48.84 wks Mon 3/3/08 Tue 6/23/09

Subtask E-1 26.84 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 11/19/08

43 E-1 Asset Hierarchy Development Standards (AH-1) 26.84 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 11/19/08 -1 Asset Hierarchy Development Standards (AH-1)

44 E-1.1 Identify a Standards Development Workgroup 22 days Mon 3/3/08 Tue 4/1/08 -1.1 Identify a Standards Development Workgroup

45 E-1.2 Identify Asset Types 22 days Wed 4/2/08 Thu 5/1/08 E-1.2 Identify Asset Types

46 E-1.3 Map the Asset Hierarchy Register Process 44 days Fri 5/2/08 Wed 7/2/08 E-1.3 Map the Asset Hierarchy Register Process

Project: NEORSD Rev 1_AE_01_23_08 Rev PC Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline
Date: Thu 1/24/08
Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone

Page 2
 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 2009 2010 2011
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
47 E-1.4 Develop and Map the SPL and GIS Initiation Process 44 days Fri 7/18/08 Thu 9/18/08 E-1.4 Develop and Map the SPL and GIS Initiation Process

48 E-1.5 Asset Hierarchy Standard Revisions 22 days Thu 9/18/08 Mon 10/20/08 E-1.5 Asset Hierarchy Standard Revisions

49 E-1.6 Training Needs Assesments 22 days Mon 10/20/08 Wed 11/19/08 E-1.6 Training Needs Assesments

Subtask E-2 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09

50 E-2 Asset Hierarchy for Collection Systems (AH-1.1) 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09 E-2 Asset Hierarchy for Collection Systems (AH-1.1)

51 E-2.1 Identify Evaluation Team 22 days Wed 11/19/08 Fri 12/19/08 E-2.1 Identify Evaluation Team

52 E-2.2 Hierarchy Team Training 44 days Fri 12/19/08 Thu 2/19/09 E-2.2 Hierarchy Team Training

53 E-2.3 Assignment of Team Tasks 22 days Thu 2/19/09 Mon 3/23/09 E-2.3 Assignment of Team Tasks

54 E-2.4 Hierarchy Evaluations 66 days Mon 3/23/09 Tue 6/23/09 E-2.4 Hierarchy Evaluations

Subtask E-3 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09

55 E-3 Asset Hierarchy Development forTreatment Plants 22 wks Wed 11/19/08 Tue 6/23/09 E-3 Asset Hierarchy Development forTreatment Plants (AH-1.2)
(AH-1.2)
56 E-3.1 Identify Team 22 days Wed 11/19/08 Fri 12/19/08 E-3.1 Identify Team

57 E-3.2 Hierarchy Team Training 44 days Fri 12/19/08 Thu 2/19/09 E-3.2 Hierarchy Team Training

58 E-3.3 Assignment of Team Tasks 22 days Thu 2/19/09 Mon 3/23/09 E-3.3 Assignment of Team Tasks

59 E-3.4 Conduct Hierarchy Evaluations 66 days Mon 3/23/09 Tue 6/23/09 E-3.4 Conduct Hierarchy Evaluations

Task F 33 wks Wed 11/19/08 Thu 10/8/09

Subtask F-1 33 wks Wed 11/19/08 Thu 10/8/09

36 F-1 Asset Criticality Identification for Treatment Plants (AC-1) 33 wks Wed 11/19/08 Thu 10/8/09 F-1 Asset Criticality Identification for Treatment Plants (AC-1)

37 F-1.1 Identify Stakeholders and Technical Experts 33 days Wed 11/19/08 Mon 1/5/09 F-1.1 Identify Stakeholders and Technical Experts

38 F-1.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria 33 days Mon 1/5/09 Thu 2/19/09 F-1.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria

39 F-1.3 Data Needs Assessment 33 days Thu 2/19/09 Tue 4/7/09 F-1.3 Data Needs Assessment

40 F-1.4 Map Criticality Determination Process 33 days Tue 4/7/09 Fri 5/22/09 F-1.4 Map Criticality Determination Process

41 F-1.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team 33 days Fri 5/22/09 Wed 7/8/09 F-1.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team

42 F-1.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment 66 days Wed 7/8/09 Thu 10/8/09 F-1.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment

Subtask F-2 25.34 wks Wed 11/19/08 Mon 7/27/09

97 F-2 Asset Criticality Identification for Collection Systems 25.34 wks Wed 11/19/08 Mon 7/27/09 F-2 Asset Criticality Identification for Collection Systems (AC-2)
(AC-2)
98 F-2.1 Identify Staff Stakeholders and Technical Experts 22 days Wed 11/19/08 Fri 12/19/08 F-2.1 Identify Staff Stakeholders and Technical Experts

99 F-2.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria 22 days Fri 12/19/08 Tue 1/20/09 F-2.2 Identify Consequence of Failure Criteria

100 F-2.3 Data Needs Assessment 22 days Tue 1/20/09 Thu 2/19/09 F-2.3 Data Needs Assessment

101 F-2.4 Map Criticality Determination Process 22 days Thu 2/19/09 Mon 3/23/09 F-2.4 Map Criticality Determination Process

102 F-2.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team 22 days Mon 3/23/09 Wed 4/22/09 F-2.5 Training of Criticality Assessment Team

103 F-2.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment 66 days Fri 4/24/09 Mon 7/27/09 F-2.6 Conduct Criticality Assessment

Task G 113.27 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 3/16/11

Subtask G-1 40.38 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 4/1/09

104 G-1 Repair and Renewal Reporting Guidelines (RR-1) 40.38 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 4/1/09 -1 Repair and Renewal Reporting Guidelines (RR-1)

Project: NEORSD Rev 1_AE_01_23_08 Rev PC Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline
Date: Thu 1/24/08
Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone

Page 3
 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 2009 2010 2011
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
105 G-1.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Mon 3/3/08 Tue 4/1/08 -1.1 Identify Project Team

106 G-1.2 Develop Asset Condition Assessment Plan 22 days Fri 3/21/08 Tue 4/22/08 G-1.2 Develop Asset Condition Assessment Plan

107 G-1.3 Asset Valuation Plan 44 days Tue 7/1/08 Fri 8/29/08 G-1.3 Asset Valuation Plan

108 G-1.4 Develop and Map Process 44 days Thu 8/28/08 Wed 10/29/08 G-1.4 Develop and Map Process

109 G-1.5 Develop and Asset Analytical Tool 88 days Wed 10/29/08 Mon 3/2/09 G-1.5 Develop and Asset Analytical Tool

110 G-1.6 Develop Annual Asset Renewal Plan Template 44 days Thu 1/29/09 Wed 4/1/09 G-1.6 Develop Annual Asset Renewal Plan Template

Subtask G-2 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11

60 G-2 Easterly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.1) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11 G-2 Easterly Repair and Renewal Pl

61 G-2.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Thu 10/8/09 Mon 11/9/09 G-2.1 Identify Project Team

62 G-2.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training 22 days Mon 11/9/09 Wed 12/9/09 G-2.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training

63 G-2.3 Assign Tasks 22 days Wed 12/9/09 Fri 1/8/10 G-2.3 Assign Tasks

64 G-2.4 Input Data 132 days Fri 1/8/10 Tue 7/13/10 G-2.4 Input Data

65 G-2.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data 132 days Tue 7/13/10 Thu 1/13/11 G-2.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data

66 G-2.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal Plan 44 days Thu 1/13/11 Wed 3/16/11 G-2.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal

Subtask G-3 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11

67 G-3 Westerly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.2) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11 G-3 Westerly Repair and Renewal Pl

68 G-3.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Thu 10/8/09 Mon 11/9/09 G-3.1 Identify Project Team

69 G-3.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training 22 days Mon 11/9/09 Wed 12/9/09 G-3.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training

70 G-3.3 Assign Tasks 22 days Wed 12/9/09 Fri 1/8/10 G-3.3 Assign Tasks

71 G-3.4 Input Data 132 days Fri 1/8/10 Tue 7/13/10 G-3.4 Input Data

72 G-3.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data 132 days Tue 7/13/10 Thu 1/13/11 G-3.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data

73 G-3.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal Plan 44 days Thu 1/13/11 Wed 3/16/11 G-3.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal

Subtask G-4 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11

74 G-4 Southerly Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.3) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11 G-4 Southerly Repair and Renewal

75 G-4.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Thu 10/8/09 Mon 11/9/09 G-4.1 Identify Project Team

76 G-4.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training 22 days Mon 11/9/09 Wed 12/9/09 G-4.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training

77 G-4.3 Assign Tasks 22 days Wed 12/9/09 Fri 1/8/10 G-4.3 Assign Tasks

78 G-4.4 Input Data 132 days Fri 1/8/10 Tue 7/13/10 G-4.4 Input Data

79 G-4.5 Analysis Reports and Summarize Data 132 days Tue 7/13/10 Thu 1/13/11 G-4.5 Analysis Reports and Summarize Data

80 G-4.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal Plan 44 days Thu 1/13/11 Wed 3/16/11 G-4.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal

Subtask G-5 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11

81 G-5 Collection Systems Repair and Renewal Plan (RR-1.4) 53.43 wks Thu 10/8/09 Wed 3/16/11 G-5 Collection Systems Repair and

82 G-5.1 Identify Project Team 22 days Thu 10/8/09 Mon 11/9/09 G-5.1 Identify Project Team

83 G-5.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training 22 days Mon 11/9/09 Wed 12/9/09 G-5.2 Asset Renewal Evaluation Team Training

84 G-5.3 Assign Tasks 22 days Wed 12/9/09 Fri 1/8/10 G-5.3 Assign Tasks

Project: NEORSD Rev 1_AE_01_23_08 Rev PC Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline
Date: Thu 1/24/08
Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone

Page 4
 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 2009 2010 2011
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
85 G-5.4 Input Data 132 days Fri 1/8/10 Tue 7/13/10 G-5.4 Input Data

86 G-5.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data 132 days Tue 7/13/10 Thu 1/13/11 G-5.5 Analyze Reports and Summarize Data

87 G-5.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal Plan 44 days Thu 1/13/11 Wed 3/16/11 G-5.6 Complete Annual Asset Renewal

Support Tasks 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task A 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task A 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

128 A Asset Management Coordination for 3-yr Plan (AM-1) 126.02 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 A Asset Ma

129 A.1 Develop and Monitor Schedule 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 A.1 Develop an

130 A.2 Establish Document Standards and Maintain Document 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 A.2 Establish D
Library
131 A.3 Develop and Maintain Labor and Expense Monitoring System 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 A.3 Develop an

132 A.4 Monitor Project Scope and Outcome Achievement 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 A.4 Monitor Pr

133 A.5 Hold AMT Meetings 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 A.5 Hold AMT

134 A.6 Conduct SST Briefings 761 days Wed 8/20/08 Wed 7/20/11 A.6 Conduct S

Task H 12.85 wks Wed 3/16/11 Wed 7/20/11

Task H 12.85 wks Wed 3/16/11 Wed 7/20/11

111 H State of Infrastructure Annual Report (IR-1) 12.85 wks Wed 3/16/11 Wed 7/20/11 H State of I

112 H.1 Report Outline 5 days Wed 3/16/11 Wed 3/23/11 H.1 Report Outline

113 H.2 Identify Data Sources 20 days Wed 3/16/11 Wed 4/13/11 H.2 Identify Data Sources

114 H.3 Procure Consultant Services 40 days Wed 3/30/11 Wed 5/25/11 H.3 Procure Consultant

115 H.4 Draft Report 20 days Wed 5/25/11 Wed 6/22/11 H.4 Draft Report

116 H.5 Review Comments 20 days Wed 6/22/11 Wed 7/20/11 H.5 Review Co

117 H.6 Present Report to SST 20 days Wed 6/22/11 Wed 7/20/11 H.6 Present Re

Task J 126 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

Task J 126 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11

124 J Project Administration 126 wks Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 J Project A

125 J.1 Project Organization and Management 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 J.1 Project Org

126 J.2 Progress Meetings 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 J.2 Progress M

127 J.3 Documents and Data Management 882 days Mon 3/3/08 Wed 7/20/11 J.3 Documents

Project: NEORSD Rev 1_AE_01_23_08 Rev PC Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline
Date: Thu 1/24/08
Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone

Page 5
 SSSEEECCCTTTIIIO
OON
NN 4O4 N E
Resume of Project Manager
To provide continuity of service with a trusted,
seasoned, proven project manager, we propose
Phil Chernin to lead Phase I of the District’s as-
set management implementation. Phil led CDM’s
team during the development of the District’s asset
management proposal. As such, he is eager to guide
the implementation of the program, working with
Philip R. Chernin, Project Manager
Mr. Chernin is a management consultant with
specialized expertise in infrastructure asset man-
agement, business process analysis, and technology
planning. He is responsible for providing enterprise
business consulting services to public, private and
non-profit clients throughout the globe, assisting
organizations in meeting their complex, interdis-
ciplinary business, organizational, financial and
engineering challenges.
Representative project management experience
follows.
Utilities. Mr. Chernin is the Technical Services
Manager (TSM) for the New York City risk mitiga-
tion and infrastructure investment program. This
program of continuous improvement in the renewal
and capital planning processes of the Department
of Environmental Protection produced a first-ever
(fiscal year 2008), risk-based project prioritization
scheme for repair and renewal of roughly $28 bil-
lion of installed water and wastewater assets. Mr.
Chernin established the prioritization framework
and decision-making process and oversaw develop-
ment of specialized software that manages program
data, produces risk profiles and establishes recom-
mended project priorities based upon program costs
and risk-mitigation benefits.
 4-1
familiar District staff and CDM team members, as
well as facilitating discussions and engaging the
full breadth of District personnel.
This section presents Phil’s resume as well as
a recent interview with Phil on the evolution of
CDM’s asset management program.
Mr. Chernin served as Project Manager for an
Asset Management Improvement Program
(AMIP) for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District (NEORSD). The plan was a collabora-
tive effort between District staff, management
and CDM, resulting in a 10-year plan for continu-
ous improvement in asset management practice
throughout all levels of the organization.
Mr. Chernin served as Project Director for an
infrastructure renewal and capital projects priori-
tization program for the Colorado Springs Utili-
ties Water Department. This project produced the
Utility’s first 50-year horizon infrastructure renew-
al plan, which is now serving as the template for
annual state of infrastructure reports planned for
release by the wastewater and electric utilities.
Mr. Chernin served as Project Director for an asset
management strategic plan for the Collier County,
FL Department of Public Utilities. This 3-year
program includes coordination of County Finance
Department’s SAPs Preventive Maintenance
module implementation with the requirements of
the water, wastewater, solid waste and reclaimed
water utility infrastructure management practices.
For the Metropolitan District Commission of
Hartford, CT, Mr. Chernin served as Task Manager
SECTION 4 Resume of Project Manager
for development of a strategic plan for the use of
geographic information systems data and software
to support the $1.6 billion consent-decree-driven
Clean Water Program. In Cincinnati, Ohio, Mr.
Chernin provided technical review for business
process documentation to guide management of the
CSO Control Program of the Metropolitan Sewer
Department.
Mr. Chernin managed a business process analy-
sis and systems needs assessment project for the
Boston Water and Sewer Commission. The project
modeled the construction-related business practices
of this municipal utility serving about 700,000
customers in Boston, Massachusetts. Thirty-three
performance improvement recommendations were
made including the development of a new unit
devoted to infrastructure asset management and
the implementation of a construction management
system.
Mr. Chernin provided consultation to the Taunton
Municipal Light Department on field data collection
methods and creating an asset inventory that will
integrate with SAP-R3. He established the quality
management program for the planning, procurement
and implementation of a new customer information
and billing system (CIS) for the Reading Munici-
pal Light Department. Mr. Chernin managed the
design, implementation and upgrade of the Massa-
chusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) GIS
program, including the automation and inventory
of approximately 4,000 miles of water and sewer
assets.
Airports. Mr. Chernin was the Technical Director
for an 18-month design, development and imple-
mentation program for an underground asset man-
agement system for John F. Kennedy International
Airport. The system – which won the year 2001
Platinum Award of the New York Association of
Consulting Engineers – manages approximately
2 million attribute records on about 120,000 indi-
vidual structures, delivering desktop access through
a browser interface to an Oracle database of un-
derground utilities. The project included compre-
 4-2
EducaƟon
B.S. - Civil Engineering, Tu s University, 1982
RegistraƟon
Professional Engineer: Massachuse s (lapsed)
Professional AcƟviƟes
Water Environment Federa on
American Water Works Associa on
Geospa al Informa on Technology Associa on (GITA)
Past Director, New England Region, American Society
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Interna onal Water Associa on
Urban and Regional Informa on Systems Associa on
(URISA)
hensive, organizational visioning and alignment
exercises resulting in the establishment of a new
unit responsible for acquisition and dissemination
of underground asset data to a 500-person staff of
design engineers, maintenance management per-
sonnel and construction supervisors.
Mr. Chernin served as Deputy Project Manager
for the Logan Utilities Master Plan, for which he
developed planning criteria, established an asset
register, created statistically-based asset condition
assessments, executed capacity models and evalu-
ated alignment alternatives for capital improve-
ments of 6 utility systems (water, stormwater,
wastewater, electric, gas and steam) to accommo-
date growth and expansion of the Airport.
Industry. Mr. Chernin is the Service Delivery
Manager of the Sewer Wastewater Information
System (SWIS) for a confidential Fortune 100 cli-
ent. SWIS is a decision support system that helps
establish repair and replacement priorities for
underground assets carrying industrial wastewater
and hazardous waste. Mr. Chernin is responsible
to the Kodak Supplier Relationship Board to
report on CDM performance as the outsource
agent for this mission-critical program. For the
Campus Consortium for Environmental Excel-
SECTION 4 Resume of Project Manager
lence, Mr. Chernin directed a project to produce
executive guidance on the application of field force
automation to improve the performance of environ-
mental health and safety (EHS) compliance man-
agement programs.
State Programs. Mr. Chernin designed and man-
aged development of the Clean States Initiative
Matter Ranking and Compliance Management
system for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This decision-support system manages confidential
information for all state agencies regarding the en-
vironmental condition of thousands of state proper-
ties, providing scientifically justifiable means of
prioritizing compliance management efforts.
Municipal Systems. Mr. Chernin was Project Man-
ager for an Asset/Work Management Assessment
project for the City of Philadelphia. The project
produced an implementation program for integrat-
ing the work management activities, processes
and software tools among the Streets Department,
Water Department, Public Property the Fairmont
Parks Commission and Licensing and Inspection
Services. The work involved extensive facilitation
and collaborative decision-making and included the
development of an analytical decision-support tool
to guide city leaders through technically, financially
and politically complex decision-making.
Mr. Chernin has completed approximately 50
municipal information technology (IT) projects for
small communities and large cities. Representa-
tive projects include evaluating and selecting a
permit management system and award-winning
(Year 2000-best municipal GIS in New England,
American Congress of Survey and Mapping) GIS
program for the Town of Brookline, MA; designing,
converting and deploying a land records manage-
ment system for Monroe County, NY; and creating
a digital mapping system for the City of Elgin, IL.
Mr. Chernin has managed over a dozen GIS data
conversion projects; building cadastral, infrastruc-
ture, environmental, geologic, planimetric and
photogrammetric databases at source scales of be-
tween 1”= 40’ and 1”= 20,000’.
 4-3
PublicaƟons/PresentaƟons
Chernin, P.R. and Meakin, “How to Load Your Cargo
When the Train Has Le the Sta on: Developing
New York City’s Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Asset Management Program.” Asset Management
Sustains Infrastructure: New England Water Envi-
ronment Associa on Annual Conference, Boston,
MA. January 29, 2007 (pending)
Chernin, P.R., “Remarks on the State of Asset Man-
agement in the United States” UIM Conference
Series: Asset Management for Water and Waste-
water Systems, Washington, D.C. November, 2006
Chernin, P.R. , and Mueller, “the Language of Risk:
Responsibly Managing Infrastructure Risk Through
Informed Decision-making”, Underground Infra-
structure Management, November/December,
2006
Chernin, P.R., “System, Organiza on and People
Issues in Successful Asset management”, presented
at the Asset Management Approach to Sustainable
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Dublin,
Ireland, June 2006
Chernin, P.R., “Is Your U lity Ready for the Technol-
ogy Challenges of the Future”, presented at the
AWWA Water Industry Leadership Conference,
Manchester, NH, April 2006
Chernin, P.R., “Managing Organiza onal Change”,
presented at the Northeast ARCInfo User’s Group,
June 2004
Chernin, P.R and Burna, “IT Strategic Planning:
Naviga ng Treacherous Waters”, Instructor IACET
accredited course. AWWA/WEF IMTECH; Santa
Clara, CA, April 2003.
Chernin, P.R., “Understanding Asset Management”
Instructor IACET accredited course, CDM Univer-
sity; Dedham, MA, October 2002
Chernin, P.R., Plante, S.V., Peterson, C.B., “Manag-
er’s Guide to Successful GIS Implementa on”. In-
structors IACET accredited course, CDM University;
Pi sburgh, PA, May 2001
Chernin, P.R., “Scale, Cost and Accuracy: Under-
standing the Basics of GIS” Public Works, May 1999
Smargiassi, S., G.J. Vicens, P.R. Chernin, “GIS Helps
Water Supplier Meet Objec ves Cost Effec vely.”
Public Works, February 1996.
SECTION 4 Resume of Project Manager
IN STEP WITH PHIL CHERNIN
Twenty-six years ago, Phil Chernin joined CDM
upon gradua ng from Tu s University with a
degree in civil engineering.
He began his career in water
resources, taking special interest
in the applica on of geographic
informa on systems (GIS) to
water resources management.
The combina on of the two
capitalized on Phil’s strengths:
analyzing data while visualizing
the big picture. He developed
GIS programs with databases for
sewer system evalua on surveys, system capacity
analyses, and renewal planning.
Founding a Strategic IniƟaƟve
When businesses began to develop state-of-the-
art applica ons to help increase their profitability,
Phil applied this concept to our clients’ opera ons
– primarily municipal u li es who faced increasing
pressure to fulfill customer needs while maintain-
ing and improving aging infrastructure. Phil has
developed and implemented asset management
programs na onwide, working with many of the
team players you will read about in Sec on 5.
We’ve grown from helping u li es perform bench-
marking analyses and organiza onal assessments
to helping massive u li es – such as the New
York City Department of Environmental Protec-
on Priori za on and Risk Management Program
– develop programs to evaluate their facili es and
project financial needs to support short- and long-
term projects.
“In today’s high-tech environment, turning large
volumes of data into useful informa on is the
cornerstone of success,” Phil said. “Asset manage-
ment systems can turn volumes of data into pow-
erful tools for decision-making and risk minimiza-
on.”
On Nov. 27, 2006, Phil was invited to provide
plenary remarks at the na on’s first symposium
on the “State of Asset Management in the United
States” in Washington DC. This symposium,
sponsored by Benjamin Communica ons and the
Journal of Underground Infrastructure Manage-
ment, was held coincident with the publica on of
 4-4
Phil’s UIM ar cle, “The Language of Risk,” which
explored the importance of risk management in
jus fying capital expenditure decisions in public
organiza ons.
Knowledge Transfer
One of the most efficient benefits of asset manage-
ment is the ability to capture decades of knowledge
that may exist only in the minds of employees.
“The exci ng thing about asset management is that
it starts organiza ons on the path to true knowl-
edge reten on,” Phil said. “In a me as we are in
now where there’s massive genera onal change in
leadership and there’s a huge amount of informa-
on that needs to be captured, this is an exci ng
proposi on for these organiza ons because they
not only have a reason to collect and manage this
informa on, but they have a process in which they
can start slowly, modestly, and inexpensively.”
An EducaƟonal Management Style
Phil is passionate about his job and it is evident
when he takes me to explain informa on man-
agement processes to his client-leadership teams.
Clients rou nely compliment his ability to describe
a complex process in a manner that is understand-
able to the everyday user.
“The only way to obtain buy-in from users is to help
them understand how an AM program will benefit
them,” Phil said. “We take every opportunity to
engage u lity staff on their involvement in the proj-
ect, empowering them to own the system. The only
way they will feel they understand the system is to
spend me educa ng them on how the program
will make their jobs easier and how they can make
the program successful.
“It’s equally important to partner with a champion
on the client’s side, who will support the message
and serve as a resource for staff as they help de-
velop the program,” Phil said.
CommiƩed to Guiding Projects to CompleƟon
Phil s ll exhibits the same enthusiasm that he held
four years ago when CDM submi ed our proposal
for asset management assessment. He represented
the team’s enthusiasm, “Comple ng this project
will fulfill the District’s and CDM’s aspira ons to
con nuously improve service to our clients.”
 SSEECCTTIIOONN 5O N E
Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes
Developing an asset management program that
meets the District’s needs was an exciting and
challenging task. Even more complex will be the
implementation of the District’s program. Selecting
our team – who developed the program and knows
your staff’s preferences – will make the transition
to implementation seamless.
 5-1
CDM proposes the same core team players that
developed the framework for the District’s current
project (Figure 5-1). This section presents qualifi-
cations and resumes for these key team players as
well as subconsultants and additional staff. Project
Manager Phil Chernin’s resume is included in Sec-
tion 4, as requested in the RFP.
SECTION 5 Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes
Subconsultants
Jefferson Wells
Jefferson Wells is a national company with a
Cleveland-based office that provides technology
risk management. Its professionals are trained in
information security, IT audit and compliance, and
business community approaches. Examples of their
services include technology risk assessment, threat
and vulnerability assessment, web security assess-
ment, attack and penetration assessment, computer
forensics, information technology audits, policies
and procedures evaluation, and security integration.
Jefferson Wells will take the lead on risk manage-
ment, as well as assist on auditing procedures for
this project.
Oracle
Oracle is an industry leader in platforms for enter-
prise computing, helping companies collect and use
precision business information at the lowest cost.
While CDM will lead the project, technical work
on application configuration and extended con-
figuration of the Oracle/SPL software (sometimes
referred to as UWAM) will be handled by experts
from Oracle itself, working as a subconsultant to
CDM. Staff on our project team from the Managed
Services Division within the Oracle Utilities Busi-
ness Unit of the company—set up specifically to
service utility customers who already have the Or-
acle/SPL product—will handle the technical work
“under the hood” of the software. This arrange-
ment with Oracle will ensure efficient expertise for
configuration and optimization enhancements to the
software while keeping the overall direction of the
project with an engineering firm, CDM, that knows
how wastewater utilities do business.
New Dimension Solu ons, Inc.
New Dimension Solutions (www.nd-solutions.com)
has outstanding expertise in Reliability Centered
Maintenance programs (RCM), a maintenance
management protocol developed by Aladon and
licensed to New Dimension Solutions and others.
RCM is an internationally accepted gold standard
 5-2
for maintenance strategy methodology and is
considered one of the advanced elements of asset
management programs. New Dimension has de-
veloped a specialty in reliability and asset man-
agement improvement programs in utility orga-
nizations; among its many worldwide clients, the
firm worked recently with CDM on a project for
the Narragansett Bay Commission where we are
implementing NBC’s RCM program. NDS asset
management and maintenance management proj-
ects also include the Facilities Asset Management
Program with the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority.
RNR Consul ng
RNR is a small business enterprise and a minority
owned enterprise with headquarters in Cleveland.
RNR specializes software/application selection
and implementation, business process reengineer-
ing based on best industry practices, information
technology strategic planning, and workflow
analysis. RNR approaches all of its projects from
a people, process, technology perspective; em-
ployees work closely with stakeholders to identify
needs and deliver solutions. RNR will assist on the
IT task for this project.
DLZ
DLZ, a minority-owned business enterprise, is a
full-service multidisciplinary professional corpora-
tion that has been providing complete architectur-
al, engineering, and environmental services to both
public- and private-sector clients for well over 50
years. DLZ serves the Midwest and Great Lakes
Region. Its multidisciplinary staff work together
to solve problems and achieve optimal solutions
that save clients money and deliver sound designs
and systems. DLZ has worked closely with the
District for many years and will provide detailed
knowledge of the District’s wastewater treatment
plants and collection system. For this project, DLZ
will assist on Renewal Planning Tasks E, F, and G
with emphasis on the asset condition assessment
program.
SECTION 5 Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes

United Interna onal Consultants (UIC) ducing a risk-based project prioritization scheme
for repair and renewal of $20 billion of water and
UIC is an MBE firm with extensive O&M related
wastewater assets). For the Colorado Springs Utili-
experience. UIC will be the source of personnel
ties, CO, Phil just completed full implementation
who will add value via efforts related to asset hier-
of a CAMPTool-based 50-year renewal plan for
archy, criticality, and renewal planning. UIC is very
the utility’s water distribution reservoirs. For the
familiar with the District’s wastewater treatment
Cincinnati’s CSO program management assign-
plants and staffing having worked on facility plans
ment, Phil provided technical review of CDM’s
and O&M manuals.
organizational design, business process analysis
Water Resources and Coastal Engineering and risk register development. For Hartford MDC,
Phil developed the strategic plan for coordinat-
WRCE is a WBE-certified firm located in Solon,
ing GIS data development activities among eight
Ohio. WRCE provides specialized engineering
member communities so that spatial data manage-
services in the field of water resources and coastal
ment tools could be incorporated into the project
engineering. The firm’s experience with the Dis-
controls systems governing the program. For NBC,
trict includes CSO planning, modeling, and stream
Phil supervised implementation of the CAMPTool-
restoration. For this proposal, WRCE will provide
based renewal plan.
staff to assist in the Westerly condition assessment
as well as administration support (e.g., technical Mike Kenel, Ph.D., Assistant Project Manager
writing – QA/QC). WRCE provided staff support Mike is a management consultant who specializes
to CDM for facility plans/condition assessments for in risk management and security for municipali-
three Cleveland Water plants. ties. During the development of the District’s asset
management program, he coordinated the comple-
Overview of Team Members tion of more than 20 work plans describing the
steps and deliverables associated with implement-
Team members recognize the strategic and financial
ing the program, focusing on major improvements
elements of asset management, yet ground their
in the capital improvement planning process,
focus on the day-to-day need to operate and main-
implementation of a risk management program,
tain a complex, integrated, and reliable system that
and incorporation of an internal auditing program
must meet legal requirements and customer expec-
to ensure asset management best practices are
tations. Furthermore, our team understands that the
adopted by all levels of the organization. Mike
system only works if employees ultimately embrace
worked closely with administrators during the
it, so our individuals will spend significant time on
development.
educating and obtaining employee buy-in.
Thomas Bolas, Risk Policy Task Manager
Phil Chernin, Project Manager
Tom has 25 years of experience, both domestically
Phil leads the Enterprise Business Consulting group
and internationally, as a financial executive and
in CDM’s national management consulting prac-
auditor. He routinely performs risk assessments
tice. He personally performed or led more than
for domestic and international clients. Recently
50 municipal information technology projects for
he implemented a comprehensive risk manage-
municipalities across the United States. He now
ment program at a $5 billion Cleveland company,
focuses on asset management and other manage-
including interview and surveys of all senior man-
ment consulting work. Phil managed the develop-
agement personnel (worldwide).
ment of the District’s Asset Management Strategic
Plan, collaborating with District management and Joseph Ridge, Financial Planning Task Manager
plant staff. He also managed technical services for Joe is an economist with experience in assessing
a New York City CIP Prioritization Program (pro- the fiscal and economic impacts of capital projects

 5-3
SECTION 5 Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes
on municipal governments and authorities. He has
more than 30 years of experience assisting clients
in assessing and implementing programs to im-
prove competitiveness and determining the financial
feasibility and economic impact of proposed proj-
ects. Recently, he managed the Asset Management
Program Implementation for the Narragansett Bay
Commission in Rhode Island, and was technical di-
rector on the Business Plan and Asset Management
Program for the Johnson County wastewater utility
in Kansas.
Ed LeClair, Opera ons and Maintenance Track Task
Leader, Treatment Plants Task Manager
Ed has more than 25 years experience in wastewa-
ter and water utility operations and management.
His expertise includes developing and leading
business process reengineering efforts, including
developing maintenance strategies and condition
assessment protocols as elements of asset manage-
ment evaluations. This includes the District’s Asset
Management project as well as asset management
for Narragansett Bay Commission.
John Schroeder, P.E., BCEE, Collec on
Systems O&M Track Support
John is a civil/environmental engineer who has
focused his 16-year career on planning and design
and construction of pipeline projects. He is a certi-
fied trainer in the NASSCO pipeline assessment
and certification program (PACP). John has worked
on inspection, assessment, infiltration reduction,
rehabilitation and construction of stormwater and
sanitary sewers across the country. John co-devel-
oped a unique long-term, risk-based renewal pro-
gram for the City of Columbus. The custom-built,
GIS application enables users to view and query
the NASSCO PACP defect code database and link
photos and video to a GIS. This data is then rated
for condition and criticality, and solutions and costs
are developed and prioritized that are then imme-
diately linked to the GIS for mapping of problems
and solutions.
Marius Basson, Maintenance Strategy Lead
Marius is an experienced Reliability Centered
Maintenance (RCM) and Reliability Centered
 5-4
Spares (RCS) specialist. He has focused most of
his career on developing asset care and mainte-
nance programs and performing asset criticality
assessment and gap analysis, equipment failure
analyses, and root cause investigations. Marius
employs design review methodology using reli-
ability centered maintenance principals and pro-
vides client training on this topic.
Warren Kurtz, P.E., Capital Program Track Task
Manager
Warren spent much of his 36-year career with
New York City government. His public service
experience enables him to be more client-focused,
creative and responsive in their facilities and man-
agement planning work products; to better control
projects and programs; and to improve their com-
munication of meaningful project development in-
formation and results to a wide range of interested
stakeholders. As a former Deputy Commissioner
of New York City’s Department of Environmental
Protection, he supervised 400 planning, design and
construction management staff. Having served in
staff functions to commissioners of an operating
department, and directors of oversight agencies,
as well as a line function manager of engineering
organizations, he brings experience and insights to
assignments that involve: engineering management
of projects and programs; organizational analysis
and dynamics; work flow analysis; strategic plan-
ning; capital planning and budget prioritization;
and efforts to improve communication methods
and skills.
Ed St. John, P.E., BCEE, Client Service Manager,
Capital Program Track Support
Ed has been actively engaged in wastewater treat-
ment facilities evaluation and design for more
than 17 years and has either managed or designed
improvements for over 10 District projects, includ-
ing the Southerly incineration, Southerly aeration,
Southerly biofilter, Westerly modifications, East-
erly final settling tank return sludge lines, tunnel
biofilters, and the CSO floatables control projects.
This experience has allowed him to gain thorough
knowledge of the District’s people, facilities, and
policies.
SECTION 5 Key Staff Members’ and Subconsultants’ Resumes

Ed is also an officer-in-charge of projects performed information technology acquisition and assess-

in CDM’s Cleveland office; he is directly respon-
sible for project delivery for all of CDM’s northeast
Ohio clients. As a senior leader in the firm, Ed will
provide support and assistance to the project task
leaders, fully commit CDM’s local and national
resources to the District’s needs, and be responsible
for contractual issues. Furthermore, he will pro-
vide coordination assistance to Phil by virtue of his
intimate knowledge of the District organization, his
full-time presence in CDM’s Cleveland office, and
his expert coordination and administration skills.
Marianne MacDonald, Ph.D., Informa on
Technology Track Task Manager
Marianne leads CDM’s Business Analysis group
and is CDM’s sub-discipline leader for Business
Process, Technology Planning and Management
Systems. She reviews clients’ business processes;
assesses their challenges, opportunities and threats;
and works with them to define an approach to align
their activities and initiatives with their organi-
zational goals. This often includes conducting
workshops to identify goals. Marianne is working
with the Hartford Metropolitan District Commis-
sion (CT) to identify, evaluate and develop busi-
ness processes necessary to support a $1.6 billion
clean water project. This work will produce a set of
processes for the Program Management Unit of the
District to follow to execute its aggressive program
over the next 12 to 15 years.
Deacon Schupp, Informa on Technology Track
While CDM has no intention of substituting any
Support
names on the organization chart, we have provided
Deacon is a consultant for RNR Consulting with
a list of potential backup resources for key project
expertise in management and procedures for waste-
staff to assure the District that we have resources
water and water utilities. He Table 5-1: Backup Resources
has worked with municipal
Staff
utilities on IT system imple-
Phil Chernin
mentation, process enhance-
Mike Kenel, Ph.D
ment, Standard Operating
Ed St. John, P.E., BCEE
Guidelines development and
Tom Bolas
training programs.
Joe Ridge
Corey Shrefler, Informa on
Ed LeClair
Technology Track
Warren Kurtz
Corey has comprehensive
Marianne MacDonald, Ph.D Stan Plante, P.E., BCEE
experience as a consultant for
ment projects for the governments and utilities.
He has created requirements definition and system
specifications for the development of RFPs utiliz-
ing intensive and detailed as-is process maps, data
flow maps, and document shadowing. Corey led
multiple focus groups and interview sessions to
capture stakeholder input and ensure project buy-
in. He analyzed business processes and managed a
team of six consultants to delineate compatibility
with an enterprise wide software implementation
for a large County Water Authority. Corey is also
helping to create a training curriculum and pro-
gram as well as a large-scale process improvement
project for this same authority.
Jeffrey Claus, IT Track Support
Jeff specializes in requirements development,
business process mapping, user training, system
testing, and system support. He restructured the
data collection process for managing the PMinet
dashboard at The Metropolitan District (MDC) in
Hartford to assist with the District’s $1.6 billion
capital program to clean its waterways. His work
involves identifying the best sources of contract,
invoice, MBE/WBE, change order, and status
information for each of the several dozen projects
that are part of the program. The goal is to stream-
line the data collection process to make it more
accurate and efficient.
Addi onal Resources
available in the event that the
Backup individual is unable to per-
Mike Kenel, Ph.D. form the work due to unan-
Ed St. John, P.E., BCEE ticipated conflicts. While we
John Aldrich, P.E. do not believe that anyone on
Mike Kenel, Ph.D.
the organization charge will
Dianne Mills
be unable to perform their
roles, we have made these
Seth Garrison
backup assignments to be
Bill Gilmore
responsive to the concerns
expressed in the RFP.

 5-5
 Michael F. Kenel, Ph.D. 
Assistant Project Manager 
 
Twenty-five years of experience helping organizations achieve their goals
Education  through the application of sound business practices and management
Ph.D. ‐ Toxicology, University of  systems in the areas of asset management (water and wastewater treatment
Michigan, 1983 
and distribution systems), emergency, security, capital improvement
M.S. ‐ Industrial Health,     planning, financial forecasting, and risk management. Dr. Kenel has
University of Michigan, 1981  worked on complex projects that required significant public interaction,
B.A. ‐ Mathematics,   problem-solving, and consensus-building skills.
Wayne State University, 1971 
Dr. Kenel was retained by the State of Michigan’s Homeland Protection
Board evaluate over 120 critical infrastructure sites, assessing each sites
vulnerability to all hazards, current protection and response capabilities,
and recommending emergency management and security design
improvements. This project included evaluating water and wastewater
facilities.

Management Consultant, NEORSD Asset Management Assessment.

On behalf of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District (NEORSD)
coordinated the development of 20 work plans describing related to asset
management best practices involving condition assessments, asset renewal
strategies, capital improvement planning, risk management, internal
auditing, etc.

Project Manager, State of Michigan, Critical Infrastructure and Asset

Protection Program. Following 9/11, the State of Michigan needed to
determine how to best improve security across a diverse array of critical
infrastructure sites, all competing for the same limited funds.
Representatives from various State Agencies and the private/public sector
were assembled and a consensus “vision” developed on the need to
allocate funds based on addressing the greatest risks first. Dr. Kenel
worked full time to assess, from an “all-hazards” perspective, the
vulnerabilities associated with the States most critical infrastructures.

Management Consultant, Greater Cincinnati Water Works Risk

Management Program. Confronted with a multimillion-dollar, ten-year
combined sewer overflow project, the Water Works wanted to avoid cost
overruns and schedule delays that could arise during the course of the
project. Dr. Kenel identified risks and categorized them as legal, fiscal,
environmental, technical, and managerial. He developed semi-qualitative
estimates of the negative consequences and probability of occurrence. This
facilitated the creation of a four-quadrant matrix that would guide
decision-makers to accept the risks; or to transfer, avoid, or mitigate those
risks of highest probability and highest consequence. In addition to
addressing risk before the project began, the analysis facilitated creation of
a risk management program, in which certain risks would be monitored
and action taken only if the risk was imminent.

A
 Joseph T. Ridge 
Financial Planning Task Manager 

Mr. Ridge is an economist with extensive experience in assessing the

Education  fiscal and economic impacts of capital projects on municipal governments
MCRP ‐ Public Finance, Harvard  and authorities. He has nearly 30 years of experience in assisting clients in
University, 1979  assessing and implementing programs to improve competitiveness and in
 
B.A. ‐ Economics, Seattle  determining the financial feasibility and economic impact of proposed
University, 1977  projects. Recently, Mr. Ridge has been involved in many of CDM’s major
asset management projects as a project manager, director or reviewer.

Mr. Ridge has developed financing plans, assessed financial capability,

and conducted financial feasibility and marketing analyses for more than
80 projects. These have included wastewater facilities (including
secondary and advanced treatment, CSO, and collection systems),
stormwater utilities, solid waste facilities (such as resource recovery
facilities, composting and recycling plants), and other public facilities.
These studies frequently require the creation, evaluation, and
implementation of inter-municipal agreements to support and secure
financing packages.

Project Manager, Asset Management Program Implementation. Since

2005, Mr. Ridge has assisted the Narragansett Bay Commission (RI) in
implementing its asset management program. The initial effort was
focused on defining an appropriate program given the NBC’s history,
available history and business processes. A pilot project was developed to
test how the preferred program would function and whether it would meet
the Commission’s requirements. The pilot is currently being expanded to
incorporate approximately 70 percent of the Commission’s assets.

Technical Director, Business Plan and Asset Management Program.

Beginning in 2006, Mr. Ridge undertook a gap analysis and evaluated
business processes for the Johnson County (KS) Wastewater (JCW) utility
to determine the modifications necessary to meet the JCW’s future
business needs.

Technical Director/Reviewer, Asset Management Programs. Mr.

Ridge has also served as technical director or reviewer of CDM asset
management programs, including the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District; Sioux City, IA; Marco Island and Hillsborough County, FL.

Papers/Presentations 
“Implementing Asset Management Programs” (with R. Marshall, P.
Nordstrum, A. Heil). Presented to the annual New England Water Works
Association Conference, September 2006.

A
 Edward J. St. John, P.E., BCEE 
Client Service Manager, Project Analysis  

Mr. St. John has been actively engaged in civil and environmental
Education  engineering for more than 17 years, with expertise in project management,
B.S. in Civil Engineering, Case  wastewater treatment facilities evaluation and design, and construction
Western Reserve University, 1990  management of those designs. He is experienced in the planning,
B.A. in Pre‐Engineering, DePauw  evaluation, design, construction, and startup of wastewater and water
University, 1987  treatment facilities, combined sewer overflow control facilities, and odor
 
control facilities. He has worked at the District’s facilities for many years,
including on the following projects:
Task Leader, Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Aeration System
Rehabilitation Project. For the NEORSD, Mr. St. John was a task leader
Registration  for the second stage aeration replacement project at the 175-mgd
 Professional Engineer: Ohio (1996)  Southerly WWTP.
and Michigan 
Design Engineer, Westerly WWTC Modifications, NEORSD. Mr. St.
 
John served as the design engineer for modifications at the 100-mgd
  Westerly WWTC. The project included new grit removal facilities;
modifications to the existing sludge handling building drainage and non-
potable water systems; and design of a new chlorine contact tank, sodium
hypochlorite disinfection system, and a new sodium bisulfite
dechlorination system.
Project Manager, Biofilters, NEORSD. Mr. St. John served as project
manager for the design and construction of the new Forest Hills Boulevard
Biofilter, BTRS Biofilter, and Southerly Biofilter.
Project Engineer, Engineering Analysis and Design of Final Settling
Tank Return Sludge Lines, NEORSD. Mr. St. John conducted field
evaluations and observations along with engineering analyses to help
determine the extent of damage to structures, which may have been
affected by leaking final settling tank’s return sludge lines at the Easterly
WWTP. Mr. St. John served as the design engineer for the rehabilitation
work.
Project Manager, Phase 2 Floatables Control Facilities Design &
O&M, NEORSD. Mr. St. John managed the design and construction
work at five CSO outfalls designated by the District as priority locations
for floatables control. Mr. St. John managed the operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the five CSO floatables control facilities.
Project Engineer/Design and Project Manager/Construction, Phase 1
CSO Floatables Control Facilities, NEORSD. Mr. St. John served as
the project engineer for the design work done at five CSO outfalls
designated by the District as priority locations for control of floatables.
Project Engineer, Media Replacement, Five Biofilters, NEORSD. Mr.
St. John assisted the District in the media replacement of five existing
biofilters that treated odors generated from the sewage collection system
and interceptors.

A
 Thomas E. Bolas 
Risk Management Task Manager 

Mr. Bolas has over 25 years of experience, both domestically and

Education  internationally, as a Financial Executive and Auditor. His work with
B.B.A. – Accounting and Finance,  clients in a variety of SEC compliant industries included the following
St. Bonaventure University  accomplishments:
M.B.A. – International Finance, 
Baldwin Wallace College  „ Directed specific business reviews of contractor bidding practices and
construction management and costs.

„ Identified misstatements in financial data leading to a $500 million

reduction in the cost of an acquisition.

„ Identified, documented and supported prosecution of fleet fraud which

cost an employer over $5 million per year.
Registration  „ Identified, documented and resolved an hourly payroll timekeeping
Cert. Public Accountant – New York 
fraud which cost the employer over $6 million.

„ Conducted acquisition due diligence for a number of successful

corporate acquisitions, with a total value of over $10 billion.

„ Implemented a comprehensive Risk Management Program at a $5

billion Cleveland Company, in 2007, including interview and surveys of
all senior management personnel (worldwide).

Professional Activities 
Member, Institute of Internal Auditors

Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Member, New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants

IIA QAR Qualified Internal Assessor/Validator

Jefferson Wells
 Edward C. LeClair 
Operations and Maintenance Track Task Manager, Treatment Plants Lead 

Education   Mr. LeClair has more than 25 years experience in various capacities of
M.P.A. – Public Administration,  water and wastewater utility operations and management. His expertise
Metropolitan State University,  includes the development and leadership of business process reengineering
2004  efforts responding to the challenge of providing more effective, efficient
B.A. – Labor Relations,  and responsive public utility service.
Metropolitan State University, 
2000   Changing Work Environments. Mr. LeClair was involved in and helped
lead numerous initiatives that address the related issues of change
Registration  management, managed competition, labor/management collaboration,
Wastewater Facility Operator;  performance management, and employee involvement. In particular, he
Class B  has experience in developing participative initiatives that lead to
Engineer’s License‐Second Class;  successful work system redesign to improve overall service delivery.
Grade A  These reengineering efforts effectively address the resulting impacts on
employees filling new roles and responsibilities within the organization, in
Honors/Awards   a way that reduces the deep-seated resistance to change. Mr. LeClair also
Honors Graduate;  has experience in public/private partnering/managed competition having
Metropolitan State University 
(2000)  
led an initiative that successfully combined private management of a
publicly owned treatment facility staffed by public employees.

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District’s (NEORSD), Asset

Management Project, Ohio (2005-2006). Mr. LeClair is currently
performing a review of NEORSD business/work practices that
Experience Highlights 
will contribute to developing asset management options,
strategy and an implementation plan geared to meet
„ Has more than 25 years of experience in  NEORSD’s distinct situation.
all areas of Treatment Plant operations. 
„ Project Manager of employee training  Asset Management Project, Narrangasset Bay Commission,
and manual development tasks for  Rhode Island (2004-Present). Mr. LeClair helped perform the
NYC/DEP’s CMMS implementation. In  baseline organizational assessment of NBC’s current business
addition, has worked on a number of  practices, staff skill sets, asset inventory and information
CMMS implementations recently in 
various capacities. 
technology capabilities necessary for a successful asset
management implementation. In addition, he is the task leader
„ Is currently working on Asset 
for developing the utility’s asset hierarchy, criticality rating,
Management projects at the NEORSD 
and NBC regional sewerage authorities,  and condition assessment program moving forward.
and at Stillwater, Oklahoma Water 
Utilities. Has also worked recently on  Department of Environmental Protection, CMMS
the UOSA and Sioux City, Iowa asset  Implementation, New York (2003-Present). Mr. LeClair is
management projects. 
currently the CDM project manager for employee Synergen
„ Has been involved in many employee  computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)
development and training efforts.  training and manual development components, and system
configuration tasks for this 17 plant system-wide CMMS
implementation.

A
 John P. Schroeder, P.E., BCEE 
Collection Systems O& M Task Lead 

Education  Mr. Schroeder is a civil engineer with more than 15 years of experience in
B.S. ‐ Civil Engineer, University 
planning, design and construction of stormwater, water and wastewater
of Cincinnati, 1992  systems. His specific qualifications include: sewer system design, pipeline
rehabilitation, infiltration/inflow (I/I) studies, trenchless pipe planning and
design, wastewater pump stations, construction inspection and cost
estimating. Mr. Schroeder has significant hands-on experience working
Registration 
with and overseeing general contractors and specialized contractors
Professional Engineer:  Ohio 
(1996) 
associated with: pipeline construction, pipeline and manhole
rehabilitation, flow monitoring, CCTV inspections, and dye/smoke testing.

Mr. Schroeder serves as CDM’s discipline leader for trenchless

Certifications 
technologies. In this role, he provides technical guidance for pipeline
40‐Hour Health & Safety Training 
for Hazardous Waste Operations 
rehabilitation and organizes CDM experts nationwide in various aspects of
trenchless technology such as sewer rehabilitation, microtunneling,
16‐Hour Confined Space Entry 
Training Course 
directional drilling, jack and boring, and pipe bursting. He is a certified
trainer in the NASSCO pipeline assessment and certification program
NASSCO Pipeline Assessment &  (PACP) and has been training engineers across the country in this
Certification Program (PACP) 
program.

Project Engineer/Task Manager, Sanitary Sewer I/I Study. For the

Livingston James I/I Study in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. Schroeder was the
Honors/Awards 
field work manager consisting of sewer cleaning and inspection, flow
Board Certified Environmental 
monitoring, and private/public I/I testing. The study is being conducted to
Engineer (BCEE), American Academy 
of Environmental Engineers  determine the locations and causes of I/I, pinpoint problem areas of
flooding and sewage back-ups, and recommend cost-effective corrective
Young Engineer of the Year FCC, 
OSPE, 2000‐2001  actions, including how to mitigate or prevent infiltration from entering the
system. Over 130 miles of 8- to 60-inch sanitary sewers were cleaned and
inspected as part of this I/I study. To manage and evaluate this vast
amount of sewer inspection data, CDM is using specialized software and
hardware to view and query the NASSCO PACP defect code database and
link photos and video to a GIS. With the PACP database and video, short-
term and long-term prioritized recommendations are being efficiently
developed and mapped for each pipe by implementing a sophisticated
GIS-based decision matrix.

Publications/Presentation 
"Solving complicated sanitary sewer problems with innovative
engineering, fieldwork and computer software” NODIG 2007 San Diego,
CA
“Efficient Sewer Assessment Using PACP and GIS to Enhance Operations
and Maintenance of Collection Systems”; New Jersey Water Environment
Association Annual Conference 2006

A
Schroeder
 Marius Basson 
Maintenance Strategy Lead 

Mr. Basson is an experienced Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

Education  and Reliability Centered Spares (RCS) specialist. As a project manager
M.S. – Mechanical Engineering  and engineer, he has focused his career on developing asset care and
South Africa, 1986  maintenance programs, operating philosophies for complex systems, and
Higher Diploma – Mechanical  design review methodology using RCM principles. Mr. Basson supplied a
Engineering, South Africa, 1985  variety of clients with asset criticality assessments, gap analyses, root
Diploma – Mechanical Engineering,  cause analysis investigations, and equipment failure analyses. He also
South Africa, 1984  consulted on projects interfacing RCM with Computerized Maintenance
Management Systems from development and blueprinting through
implementation.

RCM Consultant and Project Manager, Reliability Program, Denver

Water Board. Mr. Basson provides ongoing support for a number of
Registration  programs with the Denver Water Board. These include a RCM2 training
RCM2 Certified Practitioner (1998)  and facilitator mentoring program he established, a system criticality
assessment; and failure management strategies for critical assets.

Principle Investigator and Project Manager, Water Resource Study,

American Water Works Association. Mr. Basson is working with the
American Water Works Association, an international non-profit
association dedicated to improving the water quality and supply of North
America, on a research project studying the implementation of RCM in the
water industry. In addition to developing failure management strategies,
he provides RCM training and RCM facilitator training. Mr. Basson’s
services include conducting feasibility studies and reporting.

RCM Consultant and Project Manager, Wastewater Reliability

Improvement Program, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
For the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Mr. Basson works to
optimize maintenance programs, trains on RCM principles and mentors
new RCM facilitators. Mr. Basson is developing failure management
strategies as well as conducting feasibility studies and criticality analyses.

RCM Consultant and Project Manager, Wastewater Management

Reliability Program, Orange County Sanitation District. Mr. Basson
assists the Orange County Sanitation District manage assets through
design review services, life cycle costing, and development of failure
management strategies for critical assets. He also provides ongoing
training on RCM principles for users and facilitators.

New Dimension Solutions

 Marianne MacDonald, PH.D. 
Information Technology Track Task Manager 

Dr. MacDonald leads the Business Analysis group within CDM’s

Education 
Management Consulting Division, and is CDM’s sub-discipline leader for
Ph.D. ‐ Systems Engineering, 
University of Pennsylvania, 1994 
Business Process, Technology Planning and Management Systems. She
provides support to municipal, federal, private sector and university clients
M.S. ‐ Systems Engineering,  to review business processes, assess their strengths, weaknesses,
University of Pennsylvania, 1993 
opportunities and threats, and to work with them to define an approach to
B.A. ‐ Economics, Bucknell  align their activities and initiatives with their organizational goals. This
University, 1988 
includes conducting workshops to identify goals and map business
B.S – Mathematics, Bucknell  processes, developing recommendations and action plans to implement
University, 1988 
appropriate changes, and assisting in the selection of technology tools to
improve business performance.

Task Leader and Senior Business Analyst, Business Process

Development for Clean Water Project. For the Hartford Metropolitan
District Commission (The District), Dr. MacDonald is working with the
District to identify, evaluate and develop business processes necessary to
support a $1.6 Billion Clean Water Project. Processes include
Experience Highlights 
Procurement, Capital Budgeting, Engineering Design,
Permitting and Project Controls, as well as the identification of
„ Business process assessment and  important stakeholder roles and responsibilities and key
training for MIT  technology tools to support these processes including SAP,
„ Process assessment and Technology  Document Management, GIS and workflow tools. The result
planning for many municipal clients  of this work will be a set of processes for the Program
„ Practice leader for Business Process,  Management Unit of the District to follow to execute their
Management Systems and Technology  aggressive program over the next 12 to 15 years.
Planning at CDM. 
Project Manager/Senior Business Analyst, Permit
Management Business Process and Improvement. For the
City of Bridgeport, CT, Dr. MacDonald has been working
with the City of Bridgeport to evaluate their permit
management business processes, develop recommendations for improving
the process, and to specify and select a permit management system that
fits with the City’s vision for the permit process. This project has
involved meetings and workshops with dozens of staff throughout 8
different departments to develop consensus regarding organizational goals,
appropriate process improvements, and identification of technology tools.

Senior Business Analyst, Ireland’s River Basin Management System.

Dr. MacDonald worked with subject matter experts and application
developers to guide the design and development of a web-portal and
decision support system for Ireland’s Eastern River Basin. The tools focus
on assisting local authorities in Ireland in the meeting the goals of the
European Union’s Water Framework directive with an Environmental
Management System approach.

A
 Corey Shrefler 
Business Process 

Mr. Shrefler is a senior consultant/project manager with RNR Consulting.

Education  He has comprehensive experience as a consultant for information
MBA, Baldwin‐Wallace College,  technology acquisition and assessment projects for the public sector
2008  including Municipal and County Governments and a Water Utility.
B.A., Business and  Created requirements definition and system specifications for the
Communications, University of  development of Request for Proposals utilizing intensive and detailed “As-
Pittsburgh, 1998  Is” process maps, data flow maps, and document shadowing. Lead
multiple focus groups and interview sessions to capture stakeholder input
and ensure project buy-in. Analyzed business processes and managed a
team of six consultants to delineate compatibility with an enterprise wide
software implementation for a large County Water Authority. Mr.
Shrefler is also currently involved in the creation of a training curriculum
and program as well as a large scale process improvement project for this
same Water Authority.

Senior Consultant/Project Manager, SAP IS-U Post Implementation

Analysis, Standard Operating Guideline Development and Training,
Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA.
„ Researched, mapped and analyzed business processes

„ Conducted interviews at all levels throughout the Utility and County

government to delineate current activities

„ Researched and developed Best Practices of top performing utilities

across the United States with a focus on Strategic Planning, Customer
Service and IT capabilities

„ Created and disseminated a benchmarking survey involving over 20

similar utilities across the United States

„ Developed Standard Operating Guidelines for common business

processes as well as an employee training curriculum based upon the
Guidelines

City-wide Web Procurement, City of Cleveland, OH

„ Conducted a detailed analysis and mapping of all City procurement
processes

„ Mapped the complete data flow within each City procurement process

„ Facilitated interviews with high level City Department personnel

„ Developed and led focus groups with City of Cleveland vendors who
provide services and commodities to all City Departments.

„ Researched and developed Best Practices for top performing U.S. City
Web Procurement practices

RNR Consulting
 Deacon Shupp 
Business Process 

Mr. Shupp is a consultant for RNR Consulting with expertise in

Education  management and procedures for water and wastewater utilities. He has
B.A., Miami University  experience consulting with municipal water and wastewater utilities on IT
University Dolobois European  system implementation, process enhancement, Standard Operating
Center (Luxembourg)  Guidelines development and training programs. Mr. Shupp recently
served as a consultant for a project with the Gwinnett County (Georgia)
Department of Water Resources.

Consultant, SAP Implementation Project, Gwinnett County

Department of Water Resources, GA. Engaged in a project to initiate
process improvement and standardization for all water and wastewater
procedures in the Gwinnett County service area. Tasks include: 1) An
assessment of all internal “as-is” processes 2) identification and
examination of all existing redundancies 3) Current “as-is” business
processes were mapped and improvement opportunities were identified in
the context of best practices. 4) Designed the “to-be” business processes
which were mapped.

Consultant, Standard Operating Guideline Development, Gwinnett

County Department of Water Resources, GA. Developed Standard
Operating Guidelines for business procedures of the Gwinnett County
Department of Water Resources. Utilized the “to-be” processes that were
mapped in order to create a standard method based on best business
practices by which all procedures are to be performed by employees of the
Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources.

Consultant, Standard Operating Guideline Training Program,

Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA. Led
development of detailed training materials and program based on the
Standard Operating Guidelines that were developed. Tasks included 1)
Development of all materials to be used in training including step-by-step
guidelines for SAP usage as related to all procedures 2) Development of a
training program and 3) Training all Gwinnett County Department of
Water Resources employees.

Consultant, Accounts Receivable Management Project, Cleveland

Clinic Eastern Region, OH. Led project to maximize reimbursement,
reduce receivables, minimize revenue cycle time and implement best
business practices. Tasks included 1) Assessment of current “as-is”
business practices 2) Assessment of revenue streams 3) Development of
methodology for increasing revenue from government payers 4)
Development and subsequently implemented of “to-be” processes based
on best practices. 5) Development of methods by which revenue cycle
time is monitored

RNR Consulting
 Jeffrey R. Claus 
Information Technology Requirements 

Mr. Claus is a business analyst with several years of experience in

Education  requirements development, business process mapping, user training,
B.S. – Mechanical Engineering,  system testing, and system support.
Virginia Tech, 2000 
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 1995‐ Business Analyst, Restructuring of Data Collection Process. Mr. Claus
1997  restructured the data collection process for managing the PMinet
dashboard at The Metropolitan District (MDC) in Hartford, CT. The
MDC has begun a 15-year, $1.6 billion capital program under a federal
consent decree to clean its waterways. His work involves identifying the
best sources of contract, invoice, MBE/WBE, change order, and status
information for each of the several dozen program projects. The goal is to
streamline the data collection process to make it more accurate and
efficient. The dashboard provides online access to progress reports which
provide information on status, progress, schedule, cost, and compliance.

IT Assessment Task Leader, Collier County, FL Asset Management.

Mr. Claus is evaluating the Collier County’s software systems and
workflows as they relate to Asset Management. He is acquiring a
Experience Highlights  complete understanding of whether, and to what extent, asset data
is maintained and how the data moves between the client’s
„ Development of functional  various software systems. As part of this task, Mr. Claus is
requirements 
meeting with IT representatives, customer service, purchasing,
„ Liaison between application developers  finance, engineering, water and wastewater management, and
and client 
field crews. Part of this effort includes reviewing the county’s
„ Structured requirements‐based testing  SAP configuration, GIS geodatabases, existing maintenance
„ IT Assessments  management system, and utility billing system. The analysis will
guide the selection and design of a new Asset Management
system in Phase 2 of the project.

Implementation Manager, Belmont, MA. Mr. Claus coordinated the

implementation of a new utility billing system for electric, water, and
sewer services. The Belmont Municipal Lighting Department contracted
MUNIS to convert their existing data and to configure, test, train, and
deploy the new system. Mr. Claus oversaw the implementation to ensure
that requirements were met, the application was thoroughly tested, and
issues were tracked and completed.

Business Analyst, Utility Billing Data Conversion. Mr. Claus is

assisting the Hingham Municipal Lighting Plant with the data conversion
as they migrate to a new utility billing system. The data conversion is from
a flat file database to a relational database and considerable effort is
required to generate the load files. Mr. Claus creates reports for the client
to identify missing/incorrect information. He evaluates the level of effort
for the client to manually make corrections and where he can be more
efficient, creates scripts to automatically correct the data.

A
Document Code
 SSEECCTTIIOONN 6O N E

Availability
Based on the project’s needs, CDM has assigned
personnel with the most appropriate experience for
the District’s Asset Management Implementation
Phase I Project. In doing so, we have also consid-
ered team members’ current work loads. Based on
these projections, the staff members assigned to this
project are available to begin the project in March
2008 and are committed to see this project through
to its successful completion.
The project manager, assistant project manager,
task managers, and key project personnel assigned
to this project have made personal commitments to
make the required time available to carry out the
scope of work identified in this proposal.
Moreover, the project team is ready, eager, and
excited to begin this project.

 6-1
 SSEECCTTIIOONN 7O N E

Required Informa on
The RFP lists several requirements for Status and
specific statements and assurances that Firm and Contact Percentage Role
proposing firms must make to the District, WRCE WBE Assist in condi on assessment;
and certain corporate information that Ms. Shirly Schlucter (5 percent) data collec on and entry;
(440) 248-6215 administra on support
must be provided. These requirements are
RNR Consul ng MBE IT support and hierarchy/cri -
addressed below. Rahim Rahim (7 percent) cality ID support
(216) 621-8977
MBE/WBE Par cipa on DLZ MBE
Field support; condi on as-
(RFP Item Requirement No. 7) Mr. Tom Sisley (6 percent)
sessment
(216) 248-6215
The CDM Team is fully committed to
United Interna onal MBE
working with qualified MBE and WBE Consultants (2 percent)
Field assistance; staff inter-
firms to meet the 15 percent and 5 percent views; O&M support
Farooq Nazir, P.E.
required goals, respectively. We propose
to work closely with these selected firms Table 7-1: Subconsultants’ contacts, roles, and project percentage
alloƩed
during the course of this project.

CDM has a long history of subcontracting
particular elements of projects to local firms and,
in particular, to client-approved MBE/WBE busi-
nesses. Although in many instances we have the
ability to perform these tasks, we elect to use local
qualified firms to meet the specific requirements of
our clients. For this project we commit to meeting
the MBE/WBE goals for the District.
Local Staffing and Loca on of Work to be
Performed
(RFP Item Requirement
Nos. 8 and 9) CDM Local Office
The CDM team will 1100 Superior Avenue,
conduct more than 30 Suite 620
percent of the work Cleveland, Ohio 44114
effort using individu- (216) 579-0404
als located in the Dis-
trict area. The project
will be undertaken from CDM’s Cleveland office,
supplemented by consultant team members from
RNR Consulting, DLZ, and Jefferson Wells, who
will perform work at their own Cleveland offices.
WRCE and UIC will perform a portion of their
work in the CDM Cleveland office. As a result,
the project team will not experience any difficulty
meeting the 60 percent requirement for work effort
within the NEORSD service area. Table 7-2 on the
following page provides addresses of subconsul-
tant offices.
Equal Employment Opportunity
(RFP Item Requirement No. 10)
At the end of this section, a completed District
Equal Employment Opportunity form is included,
which sets forth the composition of CDM’s re-
gional work force and compliance with EEO poli-
cies. Other team members have previously submit-
ted MBE or WBE documentation and are certified
in the District’s MBE/WBE program.
Examina on of Available Data
(RFP Item Requirement No. 11)
Much of the data provided with the RFP was
authored by CDM. Thus, we have examined all
data made available by the District, and we under-
stand and agree that any additional data needed to
perform all aspects of the work as outlined in the

 7-1
SECTION 7 Required Informa on

request for proposal will be acquired by CDM or its
team members.
Conflict of Interest Statement
(RFP Item Requirement No. 12)
CDM, its subconsultants, and individuals proposed
for this project confirm that no personal or organi-
zational conflicts of interest are known to exist.
Labor Effort Requirements
(RFP Item Requirement No. 13)
The Task and Hour Summary Forms for CDM
and subconsultants by task, and a summary of all
project hours, are included in Section 8. The task
efforts are as described in Section 1, Technical
Approach. This approach follows all required ele-
ments of the District’s RFP.
Receipt and Review of Supplements
(RFP Item Requirement No. 14)
CDM has received and reviewed proposal Supple-
ment Nos. 1 and 2.

Firm Address
1375 E 9th St # 1800
Jefferson Wells
Cleveland, OH 44114
600 Mamaroneck Ave, Suite 400
New Dimensions Solu ons
Harrison, NY 10528
500 Oracle Parkway
Oracle
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Water Resource and Coastal Engineering 5882 Briarhill Drive
(WBE) Solon, Ohio 44139
United Interna onal Consultants P.O. Box 3358
(MBE) North Royalton, Ohio 44133
RNR Consul ng 1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 1330
(MBE) Cleveland, Ohio 44114
DLZ 1000 Rockefeller Bldg.
(MBE) 614 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Table 7-2: Subconsultant addresses.

 7-2
CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

STEADY PROGRESS

COMMITMENT TO QUALITY

1100 Superior Ave.

Suite 620
Cleveland, OH 44114

www.cdm.com