Karen Miller, WRCP CELRH-PM-PD

217217217

200200200

255255255

000

163163163

131132122

2396553

110135120

1129256

62102130

1025648

130120111

237237237

8011927

252174.59

Karen Miller, WRCPCELRH-PM-PD3 May 2018

CIVIL WORKS REVIEW POLICY UPDATE – EC 1165-2-217

PCOP WEBINAR SERIES

1

2

WEBINAR OBJECTIVES

• Explain why we do reviews• Summarize key changes from EC 1165-2-214• Introduce types of reviews• Discuss Review Plans• Introduce the Review Policy homepage• Introduce CERCAP

3

4

WHY THE CORPS DOES REVIEW

• An extra set of eyes is good

• Ensure consistent application of policy, guidance, design criteria, etc.

• Provide the most scientifically sound, sustainable water resource solutions for the U.S.

• Numerous statutory and Administration requirements for various reviews.

SENIOR LEADERS ARE EMPHASIZING COMMITMENT TO QUALITY

– Deliver quality solutions and services

– Deliver timely, effective, high quality products

– Take personal accountability for quality

– Risk-informed decision making – focus on the right things

“It is a priority for USACE to maintain the highest level of quality and professionalism in our products and services.”

- James Dalton, Director of Civil Works

5

6

WHAT DOES CW REVIEW POLICYAPPLY TO?• All USACE elements having civil works responsibilities. • Covers all levels of review from basic quality control to

independent external peer review.

• All feasibility, reevaluation, major rehabilitation, project modification, post-authorization change studies.

• All CAP projects.

• All design performed for new projects, modifications to existing projects, and/or on a reimbursable basis.

• All O&M plans, reports, manuals, evaluations, and assessments.

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGESFROM EC 1165-2-214

7

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN EC 217

•Created a Table of Contents, rearranged EC 214 content for chronological project development order

•Integrated the SMART Planning processes throughout the EC

•Chapter 7- Risk–Informed Review Plan, include documentation for risk-informed levels of review

•Chapter 8 - Includes prescribed minimum DQC process to be followed for all products

• Requires a DQC Review Lead assigned to DQC reviews• DQC Review Lead to enlist ATR team involvement for key risk-

informed decisions• Includes DQC certification• Requires maintaining a record of product documents• Further defines QA and its roles

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN EC 217, CONT’D

•Chapter 9 –• Requires ATR certification and specifies CoP rosters and lists• Allows the ATR Team to return any products for which DQC is not

effective/appropriate • RMO for products for inland navigation beyond the decision

document phase is the INDC-MCX

•Chapter 10/11 – Includes WRRDA 2014 requirements

•Chapter 12 - for Safety Assurance Review (SAR) determination includes discussion on what is a ”significant threat to human life.”

•Chapter 13 – added discussion on Work for Other Entities review requirements

File Name

9

10

WHAT KIND OF REVIEWS DO WE HAVE?

• District Quality Control (DQC)

• Agency Technical Review (ATR)

• Independent External Peer Review (IEPR)– Type I – Type II

• Policy and Legal Compliance Review

11

DQC

ATR

Type IIEPR

Type IIIEPR

Universe of Civil Works Products – Not to Scale

File Name

12

DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC)

13

REVIEW PROCEDURES, DQC

What is DQC?

• Integrated review approach • An overall higher level review of assuring the proper

solution is pursued• A detailed peer review/checking of the documents,

computations, and graphics to properly develop the solution.

• DQC is NOT only milestone reviews!!!!

14

HOW TO DO DQC

• Everything is checked! All work products should undergo DQC at the time they have been completed.

• Quality Checks to scrutinize the decisions of the PDT

• Is the math correct? All computations and graphics (plans) shall undergo a rigorous independent check

• Adequately budget for DQC throughout the project life-cycle (study phase, design phase, etc.)

• Control of Documents/Record of Design

EXAMPLE OF CHECKED COMPUTATIONS

Note: Red Dots placedbeside “checked” notes,calculations, and assumptions

Note: Digital signature is also acceptable

REVIEW PROCEDURES, DQC

Quality Checks Example Questions:

• Is the identified water resource problem well understood and are the risks properly characterized?

• Has an appropriate array of alternatives been selected to solve the water resource problem?

• Are the proposed construction methods appropriate?• Are the schedules and cost estimates reasonable?• What risk of cost and schedule growth potential exists?• Are there lessons learned that that need to be considered?• Does the design comply with USACE criteria and policy

requirements?

17

DQC: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO BE FOLLOWED

• Qualified DQC Review Lead assigned

• DQC Review Lead responsible for coordinating additional reviews which occur when key risk-informed decisions are made

• Includes DQC certification

• Supervisors may grant exceptions from DQC certification requirement for minor insignificant design or computations not involving life safety, operational adequacy, or large economic consequences

• Quality Assurance roles for all

REVIEW PROCEDURES, DQC

• DQC Certification Example

19

• Keep review documentation through all levels.

AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR)

20

REVIEW PROCEDURES, ATR

• The objective is for ATR to be involved appropriately throughout the project life cycle at an appropriate, scalable level based on the complexity, size and level of risk associated with the project.

• The role of ATR is to perform QA of DQC, validate PDT decisions, bring up important issues, concerns, and lessons learned. The ATR Team is not to make project decisions; the PDT is responsible for the product/design.

• Performed by a qualified team, of senior highly experienced experts who are certified for ATR in the type of work being reviewed by the appropriate CoP.

• Products will be returned if no evidence of proper DQC documentation or effective DQC review “with no action” and general guidance for revision before ATR will proceed.

• Additional reviews can be triggered during DQC by key risk-informed decisions and high risk items/features that warrant additional evaluation. These additional reviews occur when key risk-informed decisions are made.

File Name

22

REVIEW PROCEDURES, ATR

SIGNFICANT THREAT TO HUMAN LIFE

23

SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO HUMAN LIFE

• Includes discussion and examples on what is a ”significant threat to human life” to help determine if a Safety Assurance Review is required.

REVIEW PROCEDURES, TYPE II IEPR/SAR

Applicability:• Flood and Storm Damage Reduction Projects.• Any failure poses significant threat to human life.• Safety assurance factors must be considered during studies.

Factors to Consider (from 217):• Where failure leads to significant threat to human life.• Novel methods\complexity\ precedent-setting models\policy changing

conclusions.• Additional Engineering considerations.• Chief of Engineers directs.

25

REVIEW PLANS

26

REVIEW PLANS (RP)

What is a RP?

• Describes all reviews to be performed for a given project.

• Documents “life safety” determination by the District’s• Chief of Engineering.

• Establishes Review Management Organization (RMO) for a project.

27

REVIEW PLANS (RP)

RP Development:

• When starting RP check with appropriate RMO for need, purpose, help on life safety assessment, and latest templates.

• For SMART Planning studies, the RP should be developed and coordinated prior to the Alternatives Milestone to ensure models are identified and appropriate reviews are properly scoped (IEPR or seeking an exclusion).

28

RP DEVELOPMENT

• Make sure the RP adequately describes the project, the problem being addressed and especially the inherent risk involved in the existing risks or without project condition, during construction, and throughout operation to include catastrophic failure consideration.

• A recommendation to NOT conduct a SAR should also be documented in the RP with appropriate justification (starting with District Chief of Engineering’s assessment) and coordinated with RMC and MSC prior to formal RP submission for approval by MSC Commander.

File Name

29

REVIEW PLANS (RP)

Key RMO Duties:• Endorses RP for approval by MSC. This includes

endorsing the life safety determination.

• Assigns ATR team.

• Signs ATR certification (after reviewing ATR report).

• Assists in developing “Charge” to reviewers for ATR, Type I IEPR and Type II IEPR.

• Reviews district’s report on Type I IEPR and Type II IEPR.

30

REVIEW PLANS (RP)

RMO Determination

• For all Dam and Levee Safety Projects RMC is RMO by default.

• Appropriate MCX/PCX will take lead for studies and other decision documents.

• MSC assumes RMO duties if there is no SAR and agreed to by both RMC and MSC.

31

REVIEW PLANS (RP)

• Should not be a “Big” Effort

• Use templates provided by RMO

• Tell the story and capture the study/project risks

**PLEASE CALL THE APPROPRIATE RMO FOR GUIDANCE OR WHEN IN DOUBT!**

32

REVIEW PLANS (RP)

IEPR Lessons Learned:

• IEPR Charge: Don’t be afraid to add additional questions to charge (what key areas of your study do you want focus on - where is the most uncertainty that would benefit from additional technical review)

• Usually 2 months to get task order awarded

• Planning Phase occurs concurrent with ATR, Policy, Public review

• Design Phase can occur anytime that DDR, Plans and Specs are Ready

• Construction Phase can occur when sufficient amount of work completed to have proper review. Approx. 50% or more in some cases.

33

REVIEW POLICY RESOURCE PAGE

Planning Toolbox:– https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/index.cfm– Select “review” on left

34

WHAT IS CERCAP?(CORPS OF ENGINEERS REVIEWER CERTIFICATION ACCESS PROGRAM)

The tool for identifying and managing approved E&C reviewers for CW projects►Over 750 certified reviewers USACE-wide and

growing ►Can also be used for other projects

Only CERCAP approved reviewers can conduct E&C ATRs► Initially introduced in ECB 2013-28 (Use of Certified

Engineering and Construction (E&C) Community of Practice (CoP) Members for Agency Technical Reviews (ATRs) on Civil Works Projects)

35

CERCAP HOMEPAGEHTTPS://MAPS.CRREL.USACE.ARMY.MIL/APEX/F?P=CERCAP

36

FINAL THOUGHTS

• Pay Attention to the Review Plan

• Allow Time for Reviews

• Work Closely with RMO, it Will Ensure HQ Approvals go Smoothly

• IEPR Will Rarely be on the Critical Path

• Use CERCAP to identify E&C reviewers

37

217217217

200200200

255255255

000

163163163

131132122

2396553

110135120

1129256

62102130

1025648

130120111

237237237

8011927

252174.59

Questions?