If you have experienced excessive civil engineering site plan costs, then there may be a process that you will be interested in. It’s called the Early Conceptual Engineering Process (ECEP).

ECEP is modeled after the “Partnering Process” used on some of the largest construction projects in the country. It is an alternate method to sending plans back and forth multiple times until they get approved, which is the common approach in use today. The current process is so flawed with conflicting design requirements, personal interpretations, and disjointed agency reviews that it is equivalent to chasing a greased pig. There has to be a better way, and now there is with the ECEP.
In brief, here is how it works at our firm, Flint Surveying & Engineering (FSE):

After you or your real estate department completes their due diligence and makes their site selection, we will create a conceptual site plan of the proposed improvements and visit each agency that has authority over the project often times clarifying or refining information gathered during the due diligence period.

From this information, we will then make an Early Conceptual Engineering (ECE) CAD drawing of the site and send it to the agencies.

We ask the agencies to review the plans as they normally would, and return their comments to us. If they don’t typically review an Early Conceptual Engineering package, we negotiate an agreement to allow them to do so.

Where Things Change
We then make the revisions as requested, but instead of sending them back for another review; we invite them to our “Design Charette” meeting.

This is an all day meeting typically held at a local hotel conference room or some other off site meeting place, where all stakeholders are brought together to focus on this one project without distractions.

FSE acts as the Project Facilitators and conducts the meeting. We use a laptop computer with projector and screen, along with easels and dry markers, scales, etc. in order to engage the attendees to actively participate in the meeting. Our goal is to involve all of the stakeholders to express and communicate their ideas more effectively in order to identify and resolve issues without continuously sending plans back and forth.

The meeting begins with an overview of the project, introductions of key personnel, owner, developer, designer, architect, engineer, planning consultant, zoning, building inspector, county drain commissioner, public sewer and water authority, etc.

Once the introductions are complete, the participants break up into groups to discuss and develop a list of common problems, concerns, and issues that they have experienced on similar projects. These issues are then presented back to the group as a whole, where they are consolidated, organized and refined. Then, collectively, the entire group formulates a “Mission Statement” that they can all agree upon that centers around designing the project in the fastest time, with the least cost and with the greatest quality possible.

The participants are then grouped into mini workshops where they discuss and formulate possible solutions to address the cited roadblocks to achieving these goals. The group at large, then re-convenes and they again consolidate, organize and refine their suggestions for implementation.

Once this is done, a non-binding Design Charter is collectively written using the input generated by the participants themselves. Once all of the issues and possible solutions have been adequately described, the Charter is then presented and the participants are asked to voluntarily sign it as a personal commitment to work as a team to do whatever it takes to proactively communicate, collaborate and negotiate through the challenges of seeing the project designed through to a successful conclusion. A copy of the Charter with all the signatures is then sent to the participants on the following day as a reminder of their commitment to the project team.

The final session of the meeting is for the identification of specific design issues that have yet to be resolved and to give the engineers and review agents a chance to sketch up possible solutions, if not completely resolve them. No pressure is put on the review agents to “approve” the design at that time, but at least a dialogue on ideas will have been started, which will hopefully continue during the following plan submissions.

The Resulting Impact
Construction projects that use a similar partnering technique experience significant reduction in change orders, fewer lost time incidents and significant quality improvement on their projects.

Furthermore, job satisfaction, morale, teamwork, and “buy-in” on the project goals are greatly increased.

We expect to see similar performance improvements on the “design side” of the business as well.

One thing for sure, if we keep “designing and reviewing” projects in the same way we have in the past, the cost of design will continue to rise with no appreciable value added. A new process for site plan design and approvals is long over due and the “Early Conceptual Engineering Process” is the key. SLDT.