From the very beginning, the clock is ticking against available time for the permitting process in design-build projects. At the Johns Creek Environmental Campus wastewater treatment facility in Fulton County, Ga., for example, the design-build team of Archer-Western Constructors and Brown and Caldwell realized the strict time constraints required for the permitting process. With this in mind, the team began the process for obtaining a discharge permit for this state-of-the-art, $138 million treatment facility immediately after the Fulton County Commission voted to approve the design-build contract in February 2006.
This approach was maintained for approximately eight months, leading to successful completion of about 30 permits from a variety of sources, including the State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), City of Roswell Building Department and Architectural Review Board, Atlanta Regional Commission, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers and Georgia Department of Transportation.
With the “notice to proceed” issued in July 2006, major project permit applications were in progress. Breaking the project up into 14 different construction packages allowed for incremental design completion, with the package sent to EPD and Roswell for permitting in advance of construction. This allowed the contractor to begin work within four months of the notice to proceed.
Although design-build and design-bid-build permitting processes are similar, there is often less time available with design-build, and this can impact overall project delivery. This is due to the fundamental difference between the two delivery method structures. With design-build, sufficient design and permitting must occur to begin construction, yet during this initial process the contractor remains idle. Design work on such projects is often broken up into multiple packages to allow some construction work while additional design and permitting work is completed. Design-builders must incorporate time into their schedules to obtain all critical permits, while anticipating the timing, requirements and action by permitting authorities. Any delay in meeting the agreed upon construction schedule due to permitting delays can impact project delivery and pricing. This, of course, is not the case with design-bid-build, where permitting is typically completed at the conclusion of design and prior to construction.
Successful design-build permitting includes factoring time into each stage of the overall process, and this begins well before the first permit application submission. This process can be defined as: understanding, planning and connecting. Understanding the requirements and background involved in obtaining these permits is even more important than advanced knowledge of the permits required for design-build projects. This means more than simply developing a checklist of permits, procedures and a timeline for completion. It means possessing awareness of permits within an overall context: why they are in place; how they are processed; and knowing the background on the permit issuing authorities and their board members.
Knowing the “community matrix” — those who will have an interest in the permit decisions — is also essential, and the strategy for communication and managing expectations should begin long before the permitting process starts. Investment of time and energy in understanding the permitting process is crucial in such a time-sensitive environment. For example, the Johns Creek Environmental Campus design-build project required more than eight months to complete, and it was based on an in-depth understanding of the permitting processes within these agencies. Without this understanding, the process could have taken significantly more time.
Make a Plan
Missing even one permitting deadline, such as a submission at a permitting agency’s monthly meeting, can have significant consequences, including delays in the overall construction process and ultimately project delivery. A specific plan and schedule for permit implementation is crucial. In some cases, securing permits involves the design-builder and the owner. In other instances, the owner may decide to pursue certain permits — such as environmental permits — because they require more time to complete or because the permit is not project specific to the design-build contract being executed. In still other cases, the owner may prefer that the design-builder assume the primary permitting responsibility. For the Johns Creek project, permitting responsibility was passed to the design-builder in nearly every instance.
Following these decisions, a realistic appraisal of those who are likely to support the project and those who may be opponents is necessary. Without local market expertise, it is difficult to understand the dynamics specific to a given locality. With respect to design-build permitting, previous permitting experience in a given locality — and with the designated authorities — is particularly helpful. After the supporters and opponents are identified, meet one-on-one with key proponents and opponents, listen to their interests and concerns, provide input, and where appropriate, seek opportunities for compromise or resolution. Surprises can upset the process, however. It is beneficial to begin early public announcements for the project so that the general public is aware of the upcoming project. Keeping a project out of the public eye as long as possible can often backfire and end up requiring a longer permitting process.
For the Johns Creek Environmental Campus project, advance research was conducted to determine public perceptions, including that of affected stakeholders, such as homeowners, homeowner groups, elected officials, environmental groups and others. This education process was intended to help inform the public about the project’s benefits, including improvements in water quality, the facility’s aesthetic appeal, the value of an outstanding park and related education facilities. And even though the design goals may be achieved, complaints over things such as odor and noise may still be filed.
The operating assumption was: People who believe their voice has not been heard may express dissatisfaction with the project.
Connect
A positive rapport with permitting officials is important, but never more so than with limited time and strict requirements. The time to develop this rapport is before the permitting process begins, and this is particularly true for design-build projects. In addition, submitting a permit should not be the only occasion for meeting with permit officials.
Years ago, a county official in South Georgia offered some advice in this regard. He said, “Every time you come here, you want something. Could you come by sometime just to visit?” It sounds too simple, but that one comment highlights the value of relationship building in the permitting process. Throughout the process for the Johns Creek Environmental Campus project, more than 30 individuals were contacted, and the design-build team had existing relationships with many of these individuals. This, no doubt, helped move the design-build permitting forward to a successful conclusion.
Building these relationships and making the connections will occur over a period of time. It comes with establishing an identity as a knowledgeable and credible industry professional. Attendance at board and regulatory meetings of local permitting agencies can be helpful. It demonstrates interest in the overall community and in the process – not just in one individual project. Also, to establish and build credibility it is important to be clear, accurate and direct in all communications. Credibility is earned over a period of time, but it can be lost quickly. Never take shortcuts with permit procedures and always follow through: Do what you say you will do.
Integrity Check
Knowing connections and how to work with them is important, but equally important is never taking advantage of a relationship. A relationship compromised for the wrong purpose, or in the wrong manner, is useless. In the rush to secure design-build project permits, a design-builder could rush the process and therefore damage its reputation and long-term permitting success rate. Ultimately, the short-term victory is not worth the long-term loss.
Effective design-build permitting is in many ways more challenging than design-bid-build permitting due to the emphasis on schedule; however, when the process is understood, well-planned and based on appropriate use of network connections, it can be managed for success and optimal timing.
Dieter Franz, vice president, Rodney L. Pope, vice president, and Kelly K. Comstock, senior associate, are professional engineers with the Atlanta office of Brown and Caldwell, a national environmental engineering and consulting firm.