THE SPRINGFIELD INTERCHANGE

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Presented by

Billy

Bobby

Tun

Son

Objectives

Project Management Knowledge Areas

Project Management Process Groups

Using the Springfield Project to:

-Demonstrates project management practices and principles

-Assess the performance of the project using the project management knowledge areas and process groups

Project Management Knowledge Areas and Process Groups

Project Overview

The Springfield Interchange is in Virginia, 10 miles from Washington, D.C.

To improve traffic flow, the Virginia Department of Transportation rebuilt the interchange to make it safer for commuters

The Springfield Interchange Improvement is an eight-year, seven-phase construction project that began in 1999 and completed in 2007

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was the administrator of the planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction.

The total cost of the Project was $676 million

PROJECT ORGANISATIONAL CHART

VDOT

HNTB (Interchan

ge Design)

FHWA

Dewberry Davis and

Bechtel (engineering

services)

General Contractors

Shirley Contracting Company (phase

2,3,4)Project follows Design-Bid-Build

Lane Construction Company(Phase 5)

Archer Western Contractor ltd(Phase 6,7)

Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

Public Relation

Safety Officer

Project Manager

Project Finance

Direct Reporting Relationship

Partnership

Project Work Breakdown Structure

Level 1 WBS 

Project Team  

Architect  

Engineer Project 

General Contractor  

Construction 

Level 2 WBS

 

Project team

selection 

Architect Design

 

Engineering Design

Budget and time

frame developm

ent  

General Contractor Selection

 

Phase 1   Phase 2 and 3   Phase 4   Phase 5   Phase 6 and 7

 

Level 3 WBS  Project

manager 

Architect selection

 Engineer selection

Budget developm

ent 

Contract Bidding

 Add fourth lane on I-

95 

Rebuild the I-95/Route 644 Interchange

Widen the access road

and overpass bridges to

accommodate higher traffic

flow

 

Direct overpass for I-495

westbound traffic to

southbound I-95

 

Enlarge the ramp from

I-395 South to

westbound I-495

 

Complete the I-95

northbound and local

ramps

Complete the I-395

southbound and high

occupancy vehicles (HOV)

roadway

 

   Public

relation officer

 

Architectural design

and completion

 Engineering design and completion

Time line developm

ent 

General contractor selected

 

Add exit ramp from

I-95 northbound to Spring Mall Drive

 

Old Keene Mill Road widened to 8 lanes from

Commerce Street to Spring

Road

Add third southbound

lane to Loisdale

Road

 

Construct I-95

southbound roadway

from Capital

Beltway to Franconia- Springfield Parkway

 

Construct ramp from I-395 south to Beltway inner loop

   

   safety officer

   

Budget and time

line approval

     

Old Keene Mill Road widened

to 10 lanes from Spring Road to

I-95

Improve Amherst Avenue bridge

 

Relocate Capital Beltway

outer loop

     

   Quality

assurance and control

         

Construct Franconia Road

over Loisdale Road and

Frontier Drive to four lanes

Add 3rd lane (turn-lane)

southbound from Spring Mall Dr to

Newington Rd

       

   Project Finance

                                       

Duration (months)   1   6   6 2   6   12   24   47   35   47  

Cost (Million USD)                         133   178.5   95.5   106.6  

General Contractor/ Company      

HNTB

 

Dewberry Davis and Bechtel          

Shirley Contracting Company

 

Shirley Contracting Company  

Lane Construction Company 

Archer Western Contractor ltd

 

Project Cost (in Million)         

Construction and Design Cost       

Phase 1   12.3   Phase 2 & 3   133.0   Phase 4   178.5   Phase 5   95.5   Phase 6 & 7   106.6   

Total Construction and Design Cost      525.9

         Preliminary Engineering       45.0Congestion Management       28.0Springfield I Project Store       6.0Right-of-way Acquisition       71.1

         Total Project Cost       676.0

Activity on Node

14

1 2

3

2.1

3.1

4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11 12 13 15

Project Analysis - Defining Stage

Main concerns:

Potential loss for local business owners and Commercial carriers

Execute a cost-effective project given the condition of the location

Actions:

Held a series of public hearing

Inputs helped to define the project scope

Created Congestion Management Plan

Project Analysis - Defining Stage (cont)

Problems:

Lack of control over cost

Politics slowed down project progress

Lack of risk management plan

Bad team work

Actions:

Communication to key stakeholders

Involve all parties in decision making

Identify potential risks

Project Analysis - Planning Stage

Problems:

Inexperience project managers

Lack of formal risk mitigation strategies

Lack of formal support and procedures

Lack of quality assurance program

Politics

Organizational structure

Project Analysis - Planning Stage (cont)

Actions:

Fine tuning project scope

Development of intervening programs

Attend to the needs of stakeholders

“Parallel Development”

Communication campaign

Project Analysis - Executing Stage

Problem:

Flawed cost estimation continued to affect the project

Project schedule was delayed due to heavy traffic and stringent safety requirements

Project Analysis - Executing Stage (cont)

Actions:

Recalculate cost estimation of the entire project

Attractive contract incentives to speed up the completion time

Established formal risk management and quality assurance program

Major organizational change in VDOT

Project Analysis - Closing Stage

Contractual incentives readjusted – sped up time schedule

Improved cost estimation and risk management

Developed an extensive quality control system and contract closing procedure – “Punch List”

Improved communication

Project Analysis - Closing Stage (cont)

The project has done a fair job of satisfying stakeholders

Time schedule remained relatively on-course

Overall Risk management remained weak

Project-wide communication was exceptional

Project Quantitative Analysis SummaryProject Management

Knowledge AreaDefining

Stage Planning Stage Executing Stage Closing Stage Average

Scope Management 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 3.75

Time Management 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50

Cost Management 1.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 2.75

Quality Management 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 2.50Human Resource

Management 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.75Communications

Management 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.25

Risk Management 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 2.25

Procurement Management 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.75

Integration Management 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.75

Average 2.22 2.44 4.00 3.89 3.14

Rating scale 5- Excellent 4- Very good 3 - Good 2- Poor 1- Very Poor

Assessment by PMKAs

Scope Manage-

ment

Time Manage-

ment

Cost Man-agement

Quality Manage-

ment

Human Re-source

Manage-ment

Communica-tions Man-agement

Risk Man-agement

Procurement Management

Integration Management

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

3.75

3.50

2.75

2.50

2.75

4.25

2.25

3.75

2.75

Average Rating by PMKAs

Rat

ing

Strength Opportunity for Improvement

Assessment by Project Stage

Conclusion

Project change is inevitable, recognition of problems and the ability to adapt, determines the outcome of the project

The use of modern project management techniques and tools will increase the accuracy of project planning and allows for drastic improvements to take place.

The End

Thank you for listening

If you got any further questions, please feel free to keep it to yourself