1. I P M 1 City of Fort Worth City Council Presented by Doug Rademaker, Deputy Director, PMO Ken Hall, IPM Program Manager, CH2M HILL October 27, 2009 I n t e g r a t e d P r o g r a m M a n a g e m e n t IPM: It’s About Delivering Projects Building Capacity and Expediting the Delivery of Projects

2. I P M 2 Assessments Schedules 20082009 20102011 IPM Timeline Training & Process Improvements Dashboards Phase 1- Assessing Phase 2- Developing & Implementing Phase 3- Implementing & Transitioning Phase 4- Ownership Recommendations Contractor & PM Capacity Where we are 123 4 Complete Implementation and Transition Ownership to City

3. I P M 3 Year 1Year 4 30 IPM was launched because it was taking the City too long to build projects 1025 days 610 days 14040 22090 30 820 days 140403409018030 1405204090 205 Neighborhood Street Arterial Street w/o TXDOT Arterial Street w/ TXDOT Legend Pre-Design Preliminary Survey Design Advertisement/Award Construction Close-Out ROW/Easements Utilities

4. I P M 4 Year 1Year 4 30 IPM was launched because it was taking the City too long to build projects BeforeAfter Projects which take a long time to build or experience unanticipated delays can adversely impact the quality of life in our neighborhoods and business community.

5. I P M 5 Major Reasons for Project Delays 1.Not enough qualified contractors bidding and constructing projects 2.Consultants, Contractors and City staff not being held accountable for project delays 3.Limited City staff resources and training to manage project workload 4.City departments and other agencies not coordinating effectively IPM is Speeding Up Projects!

6. I P M 6 1. Not Enough Qualified Contractors Bidding and Constructing Projects Project “hopping” by construction crews Lower quality and durability of projects (e.g. premature street failures) Higher bid prices

7. I P M 7 IPM is Getting More Contractors to Bid Reducing time to contract by at least 40 percent Providing “6 Month Look Ahead” on City web site 13 new successful bidders attracted Leveling the “playing field” through clear specifications Evaluating early completion incentives

8. I P M 8 2. Consultants, Contractors and City Staff Not Being Held Accountable for Project Delays Projects have been delayed and do not meet schedules communicated to citizens Contractors have been leaving streets torn up for extended periods of time

9. I P M 9 IPM has Helped Hold Consultants, Contractors and City Staff Accountable Project schedules developed and updated regularly for 1500+ City projects Tracking of project progress through the use of performance metrics Requiring consultants and contractors to submit updated schedules monthly before getting paid Enforcing contract provisions for schedule delays

10. I P M 10 3. Limited City Staff Resources and Training to Manage Project Workload City project schedules slippage has resulted in diminished citizen confidence Contractors were not always held accountable for schedule delays City staff did not always devote sufficient time to project planning

11. I P M 11 IPM has Trained and Improved City Staff Performance City project managers are now responsible for regular detailed schedule updates Provided training for project delivery staff City- wide Provided project management tools to allow staff to be successful planning and delivering projects Processes now in place to assist City with peak project workloads

12. I P M 12 4. City Departments and Other Agencies Not Coordinating Effectively Construction projects occurred out of sequence (e.g., paving roads before replacing utilities) Avoidable conflicts with franchise utilities Confusion over responsibilities and priorities among various departments and entities Missed opportunities for partnering with other entities

13. I P M 13 IPM is Providing Processes, Tools, and Training Improving Coordination PMO created to guide the delivery of capital projects and promote interagency coordination Delivered over 5,200 staff hours of training Developed common processes, tools, and approaches for project management Developed dashboards that enhance coordination and project management

14. I P M 14 20082009 20102011 IPM is Increasing the City’s Capacity to Build Projects Phase 1- Assessing Phase 2- Developing & Implementing Phase 3- Implementing & Transitioning Phase 4- Ownership 123 4 360 240 Capacity Prior to IPM Initiative Organizational Realignment Process Teams Reviews and Solutions Project Delivery & Support Staff Training Implementation of Performance Metrics Contractor Outreach & Development Contract Project Delivery Support Phase 3 Deliverables Annual Capacity ($millions)

15. I P M 15 Expected Phase 3 Outcomes 1.More durable projects will be built faster resulting in increased citizen confidence 2.Capacity to design and construct $360M in capital improvements annually 3.Metrics in place to measure performance and manage projects and programs 4.City will own a sustainable IPM program

16. I P M 16 Next Steps  Brief ITC on Phase 2 accomplishments on Sept. 15 th  Provide Council IPM update on Oct. 6 th  Provide Council IPM presentation on Oct. 27 th  Council consideration of M&C C-23842 for Phase 3 on Oct. 27 th  Begin Phase 3

17. I P M 17