Environmental Project Management
Environmental Project Management
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
CRISTINA COSMA
FRANCIS HOPCROFT
Environmental Project Management
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2019.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
KEYWORDS
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Types of Projects and Project Life Cycle 2
1.3 Contractual Agreements 3
1.3.1 Design/Bid/Build Arrangements (DBB
Contracts) 3
1.3.2 Design/Build Arrangements (DB Contracts) 4
1.3.3 Project Manager at Risk Arrangements
(PMAR Contracts) 4
1.3.4 Integrated Project Delivery Arrangements
(IPD Contracts) 5
1.3.5 Design/Build/Finance/Operate/Maintain
Arrangements (DBFOM Contracts) 6
1.3.6 Highway Construction Variations 7
1.3.6.1 Incentive/Disincentive Contracts
(I/D Contracts) 8
1.3.6.2 Lane Rental Contracts 8
1.3.6.3 Cost and Time Arrangements
(A+B Contracting) 9
1.3.6.4 Public/Private Partnerships
(PPP, 3P, or P3 Contracting) 9
1.4 Project Procurement Procedures 10
1.4.1 Qualification-Based Procurement versus
Cost-Based Procurement 11
1.4.1.1 Qualification-Based Procurement 12
1.4.1.2 Cost-Based Procurement 13
1.4.2 Planning Projects 14
1.4.3 Design Projects 14
1.4.4 Construction Projects 15
viii • Contents
Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last
stream poisoned, we will realize that we cannot eat money.
There are many ways to classify project types. For purposes of discussion
within this book, there are two types of projects: those that are environ-
mental and those that are not. Environmental projects involve direct at-
tempts to alter, control, or disrupt an existing environmental condition.
Examples include, among many others, the rerouting of a stream or river;
the construction of flood control structures; the construction of created
wetlands for pollution control; the elimination of pollutant discharges
to land, water, or air; the construction or removal of dams on rivers and
streams; and the re-creation of fish passage along historic stream beds.
Regardless of the type of project, however, no project lasts forever. To
be sure, there are examples of projects built in antiquity that have survived
for centuries, and may even still be in regular use today. The vast majority
of projects, however, have a much shorter and more finite life. At some
point, they cease to function as designed and are either destroyed to make
room for new projects or allowed to degrade and disintegrate into the lo-
cal environment. If left alone long enough, all man-made structures and
artifacts would eventually degrade to their elemental forms and return to
the earth from which they arose. The time it takes for that to happen, the
life cycle of the structure or artifact, can be highly variable but inevitable.
When considering the impacts of an anthropogenic project, the ex-
pected life cycle needs to be considered. The importance of that concept
is that various materials used, or potentially used, in any construction proj-
ect, will have different life cycles. Various types of wood, for example,
will rot in different climates at different rates. Concrete is not a universal
material, and it will decompose at rates that can vary widely depending on
the local environment, the initial design strength of the concrete, the struc-
tural loads placed on it, and the effects of local flora on the integrity of
the concrete element. Similar degradation rates can be defined for earth-
works, such as dams and levees, bricks, stone, glass, plastics, and most
other material used in construction. What that degradation will look like,
Introduction • 3
how it will be managed, and how the degraded materials can be effectively
handled at the end of their life cycle are all important considerations in the
environmental management of projects.
Most projects, public and private, have for many years traditionally been
built using the design/bid/build, or DBB, process. Under this process, a
project is fully designed before it is put out to bid, and the contractors
bidding on the process are all bidding on exactly the same scope of work.
The lowest bidder will earn that distinction by finding ways to do the con-
struction project most efficiently or by finding a source of materials that
reduces his costs significantly. Once the bidding process is complete, a
contract is signed and the contractor builds the project essentially as de-
signed. This is a clean, simple process that is fully transparent from the
beginning; which is why it is usually favored for most, but not all, public
projects. It can also be time consuming, and in many cases, more expen-
sive that optional procedures.
4 • ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Similarly, if the PMAR is retained by the owner and the PMAR retains the
designer, the duty of the designer is to the PMAR and that of the PMAR
is to the owner. In all cases, the terms PM, OPM and PMAR generally
refer to a firm, rather than to a specific individual, although that firm may
consist of only one person on small projects. Once the PMAR concept is
accepted for use, the terms PM and PMAR become interchangeable for
that contract.
Once the final design documents are finished, but before the project
is bid, the PM or PMAR and the owner negotiate a guaranteed maximum
price (GMP) that the project will cost to build. That price includes a de-
tailed cost estimate prepared by the PM plus a reasonable contingency fac-
tor. If the project then costs more than that GMP, the PM is responsible for
paying the overage. There are also often incentives built in to help reduce
costs, but those have inherent risks associated with them due to reductions
in quality of materials to save dollars of initial cost that later result in
higher maintenance or more frequent replacement costs.
It is also commonly misunderstood that the GMP cannot be exceeded
with the owner being responsible for the overages. All projects end up
with change orders. Having the PMAR select the designer and manage
the design process helps minimize future change orders, and those change
orders that then result from foreseeable design errors or oversights are the
responsibility of the PMAR. However, if the owner makes an adjustment
to the design that results in higher costs, the owner is responsible for those
costs, regardless of who hired the designer.
This type of contract can reduce the burden of oversight for the de-
sign and construction phases and limit the overall cost of a project. It can
also create problems for the owner who does not understand the overall
risk that the ultimate design may be different from what was originally
intended, and change orders resulting from design changes can increase
the owner’s costs beyond what was expected.
and the major subcontractors, all working together to get to the final solu-
tion. The idea is to eliminate the silo effect of independent contractors
working on a project and to increase the efficiency and productivity of the
team members.
Some common forms of these multiparty agreements include (a) sim-
ple project alliances, which create a project structure in which the owner
guarantees to pay the direct costs of nonowner parties, but payment of
profit, overhead, and bonuses depends on project outcome; (b) the creation
of a temporary (for the duration of a single project), single purpose entity,
typically a corporation of some form, which is a formal, legal corporate
structure created to deliver a specific project; or (c) a form of project alli-
ance that is virtual in nature, created from the individual entities, but dif-
fers in the way the parties are compensated, share risks, and share decision
making.
One of the key issues with this approach has been difficulty in deal-
ing with information transfer technology. Large files and variability in
software types have created some concerns in the past. Newer software
packages have been developed over the past decade or so to minimize
these difficulties, but older firms, or those using older software packages
with which the architects and engineers are comfortable, but which are not
mutually compatible, may have continuing problems with this approach.
When developed and used properly, it can save significant time and im-
prove overall team productivity, particularly on large or complex projects
with multiple stakeholders and participants.
1.3.5 DESIGN/BUILD/FINANCE/OPERATE/MAINTAIN
ARRANGEMENTS (DBFOM CONTRACTS)
community nor the local residents could afford those costs. Grant funding
from the Canadian government could reduce the operating costs by about
9 percent or 10 percent, but the capital costs would still be an issue.
By contracting with a consortium of engineers, designers, contractors,
and contract operations companies, the facility was reconstructed at a cost
savings of approximately 19 percent in capital cost and 29 percent (after
grant funding) in life cycle costs, while maintaining full service from the ex-
isting facility, for which the consortium also agreed to take over operational
control at the outset. By combining the DBFOM concept with an incentive/
disincentive rider, the community was able to get the new project on line
about two weeks ahead of schedule and under budget. To minimize the over-
all costs to the community, and to provide appropriate cash flow planning
for both the community and the consortium, the consortium financed the en-
tire project, with the community making a CAD$30 million payment during
construction at an agreed upon milestone, and an additional CAD$49 million
(50 percent of the capital cost) upon substantial completion. The remaining
CAD$49 million was paid out in the form of monthly payments over the
contracted 30-year life of the project. Under the incentive/disincentive con-
cept, the consortium would have forfeited one monthly operating payment
for every month it was late achieving substantial completion.
The concept of DBFOM provides incentives for the consortium to
optimize the design and construction costs while minimizing the expected
operating costs of the finished facility. Where operational cost savings
can be achieved, it is often worthwhile to expend extra dollars during con-
struction that are offset by a lower present worth value of the operating
costs. This kind of value engineering is inherently in the best interest of
the consortium and the community.
Under a lane rental agreement, the contractor pays a fixed fee per day per
road mile of lane closure to the awarding authority. The fee is specified in
the contract by the awarding authority and is the same for all bidders. The
rental fee is calculated from an imputed cost of delay and inconvenience
to the roadway users. The fee is set at a rate that is sufficient to allow the
Introduction • 9
where A is the construction cost bid and B is the days required to complete
the project.
Clearly, there need to be some disincentives built in so that a contrac-
tor does not grossly underestimate the days to complete the job in order to
win the bid, and then take significantly longer to do the job. Those disin-
centives typically are equal to the lane closure fee multiplied by the num-
ber of days beyond the original contract amount. If the lane closure fee is
set high enough, that amount can become very significant very quickly,
but would not bankrupt a contractor who was 1 or 2 days late on a year-
long project.
The way that designers, owner’s project managers, contractors, and sub-
contractors are hired is highly dependent upon the type of owner involved,
Introduction • 11
who is paying for the work, the type of entity with which the contract is to
be made, and the nature of the project. An overview of the various types
of projects and their associated contracting arrangements is provided here.
Public and private owners necessarily have different contractor se-
lection processes and procedures. Private owners may generally use any
process or procedure they desire to select consultants and contractors,
while public agencies require a much higher standard of transparency and
protections against the use of firms with conflicts of interest. Public pro-
curement also usually requires the use of prevailing wage rates or com-
mon local union contract rates, for employees of firms working for the
public agency, which tends to cause some contracts to be more expensive
in a public forum than in a private one. Those entities still must select the
lowest qualified (“responsive and responsible”) bidder, in most cases, but
those lowest bids can often be higher for the same work on a public project
compared with a private one.
In general, there are two ways to procure consulting and construction work,
including planning, design, project management, and construction activi-
ties. Most professional work, which is generally understood to include the
work of planning consultants, design consultants, and project management
consultants, is done through a qualification-based procurement process.
The actual construction work is generally done through a competitive bid
process. The reason for the differences is that the planning, design, and
management services require specialized talents and the scope of work is
not well defined at the outset. The scope will be broadly stated to indicate
the general nature of the work to be concluded, but the details are not avail-
able, since they will not have been generated at those stages, and therefore,
a bid cannot be realistically calculated.
The outcome of the planning and design stages is a clear, concise
statement of the construction work to be done. The contractor can care-
fully calculate how much time it will take to do the work, how much mate-
rials will be needed, and what the total cost will be on the basis of getting
specific quotes for materials from a supplier. The contractor, then, is able
to provide a very good cost bid that includes all the work, provides a profit
for the bidder, and includes sufficient insurance to ensure that the project
can be completed as designed.
In both cases, a change in the scope of work will result in a change in
the fee. With a consulting contract, that adjustment is usually calculated
12 • ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
on the basis of time and materials spent. A contractor will need to add a
markup to any materials or supplies purchased and also add the cost per
hour of labor needed. Both types of contracts provide for negotiation of
the change order costs.
requests that the contractor provide a plan for accomplishing the desired
outcome. In this case, the request is called a request for proposals, or RFP,
in which the owner specifies the general nature of the work and requests
proposals that spell out how the work would be done, as well as an esti-
mated cost for completing it. RFPs for construction work are rarely done
by public owners, except for large-scale development work, such as de-
signing a new aircraft or ship for military purposes.
Public procurement processes almost universally require a bid-based
procurement process for construction work. This provides assurances that
funding made available for a project will be adequate, absent some unfore-
seeable, but major, change in scope, and that the process will be as fully
transparent as possible throughout the construction effort.
Once a plan has been developed and buy-in obtained from all appropriate
stakeholders, design of the project can begin. Often, the same consultant
who did the planning studies will also be contracted to do the design work.
That is not universally true for public sector work; in fact, some public sec-
tor regulations prohibit the planning consultant from proposing on the de-
sign stage at all. This restriction is intended to reduce any potential unfair
Introduction • 15
advantage the planner might have over other potential designers. It is our
view that such concerns are vastly overrated and that use of the planner to
do the design work, when the planner is also qualified to do the design,
can reduce costs significantly. Where allowed by public procurement reg-
ulations, the planning contract can also include the design stage, usually
following a separate fee negotiation, since the design fee cannot be known
before the studies are done, and a second notice to proceed.
Design projects are done by professionals, so they are usually con-
tracted using a qualification-based procurement process, such as that de-
scribed in Section 1.4.1.1.
Private owners contract with firms to build their projects using a variety
of contractor selection processes. The private owner is not constrained by
regulatory considerations, except to the extent that the owner is a corpora-
tion or charity that has a clear fiduciary responsibility to shareholders or
donors. Normally, the private owner will contract directly with a firm that
has done good work for it in the past or that has received a high recom-
mendation from a friend of a selection committee member. The owner may
request three or more quotes from contractors selected by the selection
committee or identified through a modified (not as widely advertised as a
public project) public bidding process. A fixed cost bid process is almost
always used in any case, similar to the cost-based procedures described
in Section 1.4.1.2. These processes may be modified when a design-build
contract is used wherein the construction of the foundation, for example,
is begun before the upper floors and superstructure have been fully devel-
oped and designed. In those cases, the actual costs of the entire structure
cannot be known until the project is completed.
With public owners, a fully transparent and widely advertised public
bidding process is used, very much like that described in Section 1.4.1.2.
There is little room in most public procurement regulations for any devia-
tion from a strict use of open and fair competition for all project elements.
Section 1.4.5 further discusses the nuances of public procurement, while
private procurement is much more flexible and the rules are set by the
owner, not regulators.
Public project procurement is driven by a whole set of rules that are sig-
nificantly different from those used by private individuals or firms. Where
16 • ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
private owners can use any form of procurement they wish (subject to
any internal constraints within corporations), a public owner must follow
a series of regulatory steps, which will vary depending upon location of
the project, to ensure open and fair competition among all potential con-
sultants and bidders. Those procedures usually require public notice of
the upcoming availability of documents and the opportunity to submit a
proposal or bid, easy accessibility to the bid or proposal submittal docu-
ments, a set date for a meeting or walk-through of the proposed project to
ensure that all prospective respondents fully understand the project, and a
fixed time for opening the responses received. Late responses are gener-
ally not allowed and nonresponsive submittals are not accepted, even when
the lack of responsiveness is procedural, but not necessarily material to the
conduct of the work. In some cases, minor variances may be waived by the
public owner, but not all.
The review of submittals to a public owner must be done in an open
public meeting of the awarding authority. Many municipalities are now
using local cable TV to televise these meetings to further enhance the
openness of the process. All decisions must be made in a public meeting.
Public meetings for these purposes generally must be advertised a certain
number of days in advance, three is common, and they may not start until
the appointed hour. Unless there is a reason specifically allowed by statute
or regulation, all deliberations and discussions regarding the responses
and the proposals or bids received must also be done only during the pub-
lic meetings. Side meetings of members, even groups of members that do
not constitute a quorum, outside the public meeting to discuss details are
discouraged, and often prohibited.
With public procurement, qualification-based selections are often
required to be made on the basis of firm rankings with respect to qual-
ifications, and then rankings of the same firms based on proposed costs,
which are submitted in separate sealed envelopes and not opened until the
firms are ranked on qualifications. If the lowest cost proposal is submitted
from the firm ranked highest on qualifications, that firm is selected. If
the highest ranked firm does not submit the lowest cost proposal, then the
awarding authority must determine whether the higher cost is justified to
retain the highest ranked firm or whether a lower cost justifies retaining a
lower ranked firm. In either case, a written justification of the decision is
often required before an awarding authority can move forward.
When awarding a cost-based contract, the public owner must gen-
erally select the lowest bid from among all responsive and responsible
bidders. Those terms imply that the firm has complied with all the bidding
requirements and conditions and is qualified to do the work. A firm that
meets these conditions but has a poor record of performance on similar
Introduction • 17
projects may be rejected, but otherwise, that firm with the lowest cost bid
is accepted for the project.
Filed sub-bids are fixed cost bids procured using a cost-based pro-
curement similar to that described in Section 1.4.1.2. Filed sub-bidders are
allowed in their bid to specify that their bid is only good for work with spe-
cific general contractors or that they will work with any general contractor
or that they will not work with specific general contractors. Where the
lowest filed sub-bid is restricted against a specific general contractor, that
contractor may use the next higher bid from a filed sub-bidder that will
work with him and submit a general contract bid using the higher sub-bid
cost. That higher sub-bid cost may cause the general contractor bid to be
higher than others, of course, but that is a risk the general contractor must
assume.
Stakeholder Role
Owner The owner establishes the vision for the project,
defines the outcomes, and controls the budget.
Financing The financing entity puts up the money (usually as
entity (Bank) a mortgage) and limits the amount spent on the
project, if the project is externally financed.
Municipality Regulates land use, building type and use,
construction codes and wetlands permitting through
planning department, conservation commission,
zoning regulations, building inspectors, and
building codes
State regulators Require permits for wetland intrusions, runoff control,
building code compliance, procurement regulations
for public projects, environmental permits for
surface and subsurface discharge of wastes
Federal Require permits for waterway intrusions or impacts,
regulators environmental impacts, waste discharges, and
procurement regulations for federally funded projects
Abutters Abutters express concerns regarding shadows to be
cast, intrusions of noise, increased traffic, light
impacts, surface water runoff, and property value
impacts. Abutters can stop projects with appropriate
lobbying of local, state, and federal regulators if
their concerns are not adequately addressed.
Neighbors Neighbors have similar concerns to abutters, but
are generally more focused on traffic impacts and
runoff impacts, although large housing projects
also lead to issues of added school pressures, added
municipal services, tax increases, and property
value declines.
Future users Projects are built for a reason and the future users
often have significant say in how a floor plan is laid
out, how ventilation and light are addressed, and
how indoor environmental issues will be handled
and personal safety going to or from the building.
Future users include those who will maintain
the building, and their concerns also need to be
addressed early.
(continued )
22 • ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Table 1.1. (Continued )
outcome, but everybody has agreed not to further obstruct the project, the
end result is a good outcome.
Additional disputes occur during the design of the project when the
designer strongly urges the owner to do one thing but the owner wants to
do another. The resolution of those disputes requires diplomatic discus-
sions between the two entities. Unless there is a safety or regulatory issue
involved, the preference of the owner will usually control the resolution of
these disputes.
During construction, disputes are more difficult to resolve. They usu-
ally involve issues of unforeseen conditions and whether those conditions
should have been foreseeable by the contractor. Diplomatic discussion will
often result in a change order being issued to pay the contractor for deal-
ing with the changed condition unless it can be argued that the contractor
clearly did know of the condition, or clearly should have known of the
condition. If such a dispute continues, either arbitration or legal action
may be needed to resolve it. The resolution often involves only the amount
Introduction • 23
of money to be paid to the contractor for doing the work because most
construction contracts require the contractor to do disputed work while the
dispute is being resolved.
Arbitration is often preferred by contractors to lawsuits because they
cost less, in most cases, to litigate and because most arbitrations end up
favoring the contractor. Municipalities and other public entities almost
never allow arbitration in their contracts for that same reason. Therefore,
negotiation of a settlement at the end of the contract, which settles all out-
standing claims, is usually the resolution mechanism that is used. When
that fails, the contractor sues the owner and a court, usually several years
later, ultimately decides the issue.
The very presence of change orders and claims is always a sore spot
in any contract. Some owners believe that all contractors look for ways to
bid a project low, then score larger fees by insisting on change orders for
various reasons. While that may be a trait of some contractors, it is cer-
tainly not a universal trait. Nevertheless, when legitimate differences do
arise, they need to be handled and managed professionally for a project to
end up as a successful one.
Index
Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors. For more
information about becoming an MP author or collection editor, please visit
http://www.momentumpress.net/contact
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future years.