By Wei Zhu, PE, Continuing Education Committee Chair

ASCE-Orange County Continuing Education Committee (CEC) and the newly formed Construction Institute (CI) co-hosted a half-day seminar at the City of Irvine Community Training Center on July 31, 2015.  The seminar consisted of three presentations that primarily focused on two topics: Underground Utilities Management and Alternative Project Delivery.  The presentations were given by three civil engineering professionals with combined Construction Management experience in over twenty states across the Country:

• Mr. James H. Anspach, PG, the Director of Utility Market & Practices Development at Cordno, Inc. in Portland, Oregon, who currently serves as the Chairman for ASCE 38, Construction Standards Council and Codes & Standards Division, and as a Board Governor for Utility Engineering and Surveying Institute.
• Mr. Daniel Becker, CCM, PMP, CCP, the Washington Area Construction Services Manager for HDR, who currently serves on the Board of Governors for the Construction Institute of ASCE.
• Mr. Shane L. Silsby, a Registered Professional Engineer in Arizona and Michigan, who is the Director of OC Public Works, charged with leadership of ten service areas, including over nine-hundred positions with the resources of a $465 Million annual budget.

During the first presentation, Mr. Anspach introduced the ASCE Utility Standards, ASCE 38-02, to the audience.  ASCE 38 is now referenced routinely in more than 40 state DOT’s and as part of state statute in PA and MN. It is categorized as the Best Practice by FHWA, APWA, CGA, FAA, National Academy of Science and others.  Mr. Anspach also explained the concept of utility quality levels, which are risk- and reliability-based levels that can be used to manage project risks.  He also discussed the new Utility “As-Built” Standard as well as the latest FHWA research study on 3-D utility mapping and visualization.

The second half of the seminar was focused on the topic of Alternative Project Delivery.  In the second presentation, Mr. Becker began by introducing the concept of risk management, which can be used to justify why one might choose an Alternative Project Delivery (APD).  During the presentation, Mr. Becker focused on the APD methods that are commonly used in today’s practice and on how to select the appropriate APD method for particular projects.  Mr. Becker then went on to describe the key elements for successful APD and concluded his presentation by discussing the engineer’s role in executing APD.

Tying into Mr. Becker’s presentation, Mr. Silsby elaborated further on the topic of APD by talking about the experience the County of Orange has had with APD and discussed the challenges of implementing APD in Public Works projects.  Mr. Silsby went into great depth on the County’s goals in terms of Statutes, Authority and Policy as well as the execution of each of the APD methods.  He concluded his presentation by discussing the County’s future initiatives such as Procurement Services updates and County Counsel updates.

The presentations described are provided here: