Registration for the ACEC 2015 Fall Conference is open.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TODAY!

continued on page 2

continued on page 10

says. “I just ‘fit’ with the organization, industry and VHB’s culture.”

David didn’t come into the industry as a total novice, however. He paid his way through Northeastern by working in just about every type of building and construction trade, from masonry and carpentry to plumbing and electrical work. That foundation drew him to the engineering industry, which, as he puts it, is “full of great people doing things that matter.”

To give back a bit to the industry he loves, David decided to get involved with ACEC/MA, nearly 15 years ago. He first joined the Accounting & Finance Forum and became more involved as the years passed, serving on ACEC/MA operational committees (HR Forum, IS Forum,

Funnily enough, the incoming president of the American Council of Engineering Com­panies of Massachusetts is not, in fact, an engineer. “I have had a life­long love of

engineering and construction, but for some reason I majored in finance at Northeastern,” says David Vivilecchia, Regional Finance Manager and Principal at VHB and the 2015–16 ACEC/MA president.

But luckily for ACEC/MA, when David graduated in the early 1990s, the recession meant finance jobs in Boston were scarce, leading him to respond to a VHB ad for a contract manager. “I hit it off with the gentleman hiring and the rest is history,” he

This past January, during the height of the “winter to end all winters,” ACEC/MA leadership, under the direction of then President, Joel Goodmonson, and Executive Director, Abbie Goodman, embarked on updating our Strategic Plan. The time was right since our then current strategic plan had not been updated for several years.

ACEC/MA has a long history of strategic planning as we want to make sure that we are focusing on issues and opportunities that benefit our membership.

To facilitate this process, we engaged the help of industry veterans and current A/E business consultants, Rod Hoffman and Barb Smith of S&H Consulting. They helped us follow a logical and methodical approach to identify initiatives we could undertake to enhance the ACEC/MA organization and the services we provide to our members.

The process began with a series of focus group discussions involving members of ACEC/MA’s Board of Directors and Odyssey and Emerging

Leaders alumni and included a broad survey of members in all of our member firms. These sessions and the survey were focused around the following questions:1. What challenges are participant firms

struggling with, and what challenges do they anticipate in the future?

2. If they could address those challenges, what benefits would they experience?

3. How could ACEC/MA help them address those challenges?

4 What ACEC/MA benefits or services have they found to be the most and least valuable in the past?

The data gathered from these sessions provided the framework for a series of strategic planning sessions through which we would craft our plan for the next three to five years.

Members of the ACEC/MA Board of Directors and chairs and committee co­chairs held two half­day sessions facilitated by Rod and Barb.

Attention: Incoming President, David Vivilecchia

Setting the Course: Updates to ACEC/MA’s Strategic Planby David M. Vivilecchia, Incoming ACEC/MA President

CONTENTSTOPICS OF INTEREST

X3 Recent CM-At-Risk Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision—What Does It Mean for Project Participants?

X5 Overview of Executive Order No. 554: Creating the Community Compact Cabinet

X6 Rethinking Environmental Regulations in Massachusetts

X7 Getting Out of a Market: When to Say Goodbye

IN EVERY ISSUE

X8 What Has ACEC/MA Done for You Lately?

X9 News and Notes

10 New Members

12 Upcoming Events

The Engineering Center • One Walnut Street • Boston, MA 02108 • T: 617/227-5551 • F: 617/227-6783 • www.acecma.org Summer/Fall 2015

INSIGHTSAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF MASSACHUSETTS

2ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 2

During the first session, we brainstormed about our long­term direction (“look around and look forward”). As a group we listed and evaluated the impact of current issues and future trends on the organization. We then worked collaboratively to identify high­level, long­term direction themes.

The themes that evolved from these brain­storming sessions were grouped under the following categories: • Learning & Growth (professional

growth)—Increase Participation and Growth of Emerging Leaders; Employ Competent, Sufficient Staff to Serve Members; Grow Volunteer Leadership

• Internal (ACEC/MA organization)—Increase the Diversity and Size of Membership; Influence Public Policy and Funding

• Customers (member firms)—Obtain Full QBS Acceptance; Foster Reputation as the “Go To” Resource for Engineering; Raise Public Profile of Engineers; Support Resources to Help Members Prosper

• Financial and Business Management—Ensure Financial Strength of ACEC/MA

Next we brainstormed ideas to address the results of the focus group and member survey data. From that data we learned that member firms face challenges along three primary themes. We addressed these themes by aligning existing ACEC/MA services to best meet these challenges. The results of that data are as follows:• Meeting Current and Future Workforce

Needs—Staff Development; Leadership Devel opment; Help with Staffing Issues

• Dealing with Competitive Business Environment—Access to/Education of Pub­ lic Agencies and Clients; Government Affairs and Legislative Liaison; Recognition Programs; Gather Information into Databases to Share; Staff Development; Networking

• Keeping Up with Running the Business—Networking; Gather and Share Industry Know­ledge and Trends; Share Business Practices; Help with Staffing Issues; Staff Development

This process led us to develop a Strategic Plan roadmap and to identify the initiatives that would pave our way. To kick off this final step, we brainstormed the barriers that might hinder us in addressing these issues. The following challenges rose to the top:• Competition for members’ time• Dues/cost structure• Modesty: We’re too quiet and too humble• Focus on price-based selection• Need for more strategic lobbying

Strategic Plancontinued from page 1

• Need for more technical/virtual options

We decided to narrow this list down to four primary initiatives and draft “catchy” themes that would stick in folks’ minds.

During our annual planning/transition meeting, with the help of past and present ACEC/MA leaders (Lisa Brothers, Ko Ishikura, Mark Bartlett and Beth Larkin), we developed some short­term strategies that will help us drive the new plan forward. The results and action plan for the next six to 12 months are below.

Initiative 1: Advancing our use of tech­nology—“ACEC/MA 2.0: The IT Solution”• Meet with IT staff in our member firms for

suggestions to best address tech solutions• Engage the IT Forum to support goals/

strategies• Support solutions for the “too quiet, too

humble” challenge

Initiative 2: Making member participation easier—“Hit the Easy Button”• Add photos to the website (“Member

Appearances”)• Define firm representative responsibility;

schedule check­in visits

Initiative 3: Educating and promoting qualifications­based selection (QBS)— “Low Bid Doctors”• Proofread and commission a legal review of

the QBS website• Study Rhode Island QBS law

Initiative 4: Promoting ACEC with a “louder” voice—“Engineers Save Lives” (Too Quiet, Too Humble)• Establish an outreach committee to look for

opportunities to spread the word externally• Establish a PR budget• Approach the local chapter of the Society of

Marketing Professionals (SMPS), local PRSA and/or Publicity Club of New England to collaborate on developing a partnership/coordinating a PR campaign

The process we followed was very rewarding. It involved a different approach to strategic planning than many of us had been used to, mainly because we focused on mapping out initiatives and strategies that are clearly aligned with our long­term vision for ACEC/MA. The expertise of Rod and Barb has helped us roll out the plan and given us a framework for ongoing management of initiatives and processes and for reporting on and updating the plan. Now the fun begins!

ACEC/MA President David M. Vivilecchia is the New England Finance Manager/Principal at Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. in Watertown. He can be reached at 617/924-1770 or dvivilecchia@vhb.com.

Communications Committee/ Insights Board of Editors 2014–15

Alison Smith, Co­Chair/Editor­in­ChiefPublic Relations Lead, StantecT: 617/654­6062, E: alison.smith@stantec.com

Allison Hopkins, Co­ChairMarketing Specialist, Tetra TechT: 508/786­2329, E: allison.hopkins@tetratech.com

Robert J. Dunn, Jr., Editor EmeritusAssociate, Stantec T: 978/692­1913, E: bob.dunn@stantec.com

Rosa M. Castro­Krawiec, PESenior Associate, McMillan Jacobs AssociatesT: 781/852­0464, E: castrokrawiec@mcmjac.com

Jennifer CheekMarketing Coordinator, ArupT: 617/864­2987, E: jennifer.cheek@arup.com

Kathy CoyneManager, Marketing Systems, North America, AECOMT: 781/771­4221, E: kathy.coyne@aecom.com

David J. Hatem, Esq.Attorney, Donovan Hatem LLPT: 617/406­4800, E: dhatem@donovanhatem.com

Michael J. Walsh, PEVice President, CDM SmithT: 617/452­6535, E: walshmj@cdmsmith.com

Cheryl A. Waterhouse, Esq.Partner, Donovan Hatem LLPT: 617/406­4520E: cwaterhouse@donovanhatem.com

Debbie WhitneyMarketing/Communications Specialist, Tighe & BondT: 413/572­3207, E: DJWhitney@tigheBond.com

Abbie R. GoodmanACEC/MA Executive DirectorThe Engineering CenterT: 617/305­4112, E: agoodman@engineers.org

Maureen HennessyACEC/MA Membership AssociateThe Engineering Center Education TrustT: 617/305­4104, E: mhennessy@engineers.org

Articles appearing in this or any issue of ACEC/MA Insights may not be used for monetary gain or may not be reprinted or posted in any other format, without advance permission of ACEC/MA. Requests for permission to reprint or post articles should be sent via email to any member of the Board of Editors or to acec/ma@engineers.org. A Permission to Reprint form will be forwarded electronically to the requesting party and must be emailed or mailed back once completed and signed. Questions concerning reprinting of ACEC/MA Insights articles may be sent to alison.smith@stantec.com

ACEC/MA’s newsletter, Insights, is designed to provide information and opinion in regard to the subject matter covered. ACEC/MA and its Board of Editors assume no responsibility for statements made or opinions expressed in this publication. It is published with the understanding that the Board of Editors and the authors are not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 3

On September 2nd, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided Coghlin Electrical v. Gilbane Building Company v. DCAMM (referred to here as “Coghlin”)1 involving an issue of first impression in Massachusetts (and throughout the United States), and one of critical importance to the successful utilization of the construction manager­at­risk delivery method (CMR).

The issue presented for decision was whether a public owner (“Owner”) in CMR provides an implied warranty to the construction manager (CM) as to the adequacy of design prepared and stamped by the Owner’s design professional, identical to the implied warranty provided by the Owner to a constructor in the design­bid­build delivery method

The SJC held that while an Owner may provide an implied warranty to a CM in CMR, the CM is entitled to recover against the Owner for breach of that warranty only upon the CM satisfying its burden of proving that it relied in good faith upon design furnished by the Owner and that, under the particular circumstances, the CM “acted reasonably in light of the [CM’s] own design responsibilities.”

The SJC’s decision in Coghlin has important implications in terms of public owners’ use of CMR in the Commonwealth, the achievement of the promise and successful realization of risk and cost containment objectives of those owners in CMR, and the roles and responsibilities of design professionals in serving the interests of the owners in CMR.

BackgroundFor over a century courts in the United States have confronted, in a variety of project­specific contexts, the issue as to who—Owner or constructor—should be allocated the risk of cost overruns attributable to defects in the design of permanent project work.

In Coghlin, the SJC acknowledged the long history of legal precedent in Massachusetts (and in most states and under federal law) declaring that in design­bid­build an Owner impliedly warrants to a constructor the adequacy of design furnished by the Owner

Recent CM-At-Risk Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision— What Does It Mean for Project Participants?by David J. Hatem, PC, Donovan Hatem LLP

and, the Owner consequently bears the risk of additional costs due to defects in that design. In design­bid­build, the rationale supporting the Owner’s implied warranty obligation is based on the premise that the Owner controls the design development and finalization process, and retains a design professional who is professionally responsible for preparing and stamping the final and detailed design,2 and, further, that typically the constructor has no opportunity to participate or otherwise provide meaningful input in the development of that design and is obligated to construct in strict conformance with it.

In contrast, generally, in design­build, the rationale supporting the Owner’s implied warranty obligation for design adequacy in design­bid­build is inapplicable because, in design­build, the design­builder is contractually, and, through its design professional, professionally responsible for the final and detailed design (based on the Owner’s conceptual or preliminary design and/or mandated criteria or standards).3

With that context as to the differential applicability of the Owner’s implied warranty in design­bid­build and design­build, the precise issue presented for decision in Coghlin was whether the Owner’s implied warranty applies in CMR. In CMR, unlike design­bid­build, the CM typically has contractual roles and responsibilities in the design development process (whether labeled “preconstruction” services, design assist, integrated or collaborative design, design consultation, or otherwise); but, unlike the design­builder in design­build, the CM is not responsible for the final and detailed design. Notably, in CMR, the CM agrees to a Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) and is generally responsible for any costs within project scope that exceed the GMP; and when negotiating, the GMP has the opportunity to consider the risk of incurring additional costs and protecting itself through the inclusion of contingency in the GMP.

So, what do those distinctions in the roles and responsibilities of the CM in the design development process—relative to the

constructor in design­bid­build and the design­builder in design­build—mean in terms of the applicability of the Owner’s implied warranty in CMR?

The Record Before the SJC in Coghlin and the Respective Positions of the PartiesIn Coghlin the Attorney General, on behalf of DCAMM, strategically challenged at the very inception of the litigation, the CM’s right to recovery based on the alleged breach of the Owner’s implied warranty obligation. The early challenge to the CM’s claim resulted in a record before the SJC that was scant and, for example, did not include any other evidence as to the contractual or actual roles and responsibilities of the CM in the design development process (which would have been included in the record had the challenge been made at a subsequent point in the litigation).

DCAMM and the CM had diametrically opposed and absolutist positions as to the applicability of the implied warranty obligation in CMR.

DCAMM’s position in Coghlin was that, under no circumstances, should the Owner’s implied warranty apply in CMR given the CM’s roles and responsibilities in the design development process and the contractual expectation that the CM will (should) include in the GMP costs that may be attributable to design defects.

The CM’s position in Coghlin was that the Owner’s implied warranty obligation applies in CMR to the same extent as in design­bid­build, as does the CM’s right to recovery for a breach of that warranty.

The Superior Court in Coghlin agreed with DCAMM and dismissed the CM’s implied warranty claim. The CM filed an appeal, and the SJC granted direct appellate review.

The SJC’s DecisionOn appeal, the Attorney General’s Office requested that ACEC/MA and AIA MA submit a brief on the issue presented to the SJC. Donovan Hatem LLP prepared and submitted a brief to the SJC on behalf of those

1. No. SJC­11778 (Sep. 2, 2015); http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter­of­decisions/new­opinions/11778.pdf.

2. The Owner’s implied warranty obligation is independent and does not detract from or diminish the design professional’s responsibility to prepare a design that conforms with applicable professional and/or contractual standards.

3. D.J. Hatem, Public Private Partnerships: Opportunities and Risks for Consulting Engineers, Chapter 8, (ACEC 2013).

continued on page 4

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 4

Recent CM-At-Risk Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision continued from page 3

the CMAR’s burden will be to show, when it seeks to establish the owner’s liability under the implied warranty, that its reliance on the defective design was both reasonable and in good faith. See generally Sweet & Schneier, supra at § 14.04 (“all of the modern variations [on the design-bid-build method] have as a common denominator: a blurring of the lines of responsibility”). ...The amount of recoverable damages may be limited to that which is caused by the CMAR’s reasonable and good faith reliance on design defects that constitute a breach of the implied warranty.

Based on the minimal record before it in Coghlin, the SJC was not able to determine whether the CM in that particular case could meet its burden of establishing entitlement to any recovery for any proven breach of the Owner’s implied warranty.

The SJC left open the possibility that—even if an Owner’s implied warranty obligation were established in CMR—the Owner could negate any such warranty and abrogate any potential for CM recovery of costs due to design defects through the use of express and explicit contractual disclaimers.4

How Does (and Should) the SJC’s Decision in Coghlin Affect the Use of CMR?In Coghlin, the SJC decided an issue critically important to a public owner’s ability to realize many of the perceived and reasonably expected cost and risk containment advantages, benefits and protections of CMR, as a matter of legislative intent and sound public contracting, procurement and project management policies and practices.

It is possible that the SJC’s profound and conscientious analysis in Coghlin and its reconciliation of a long history of legal precedent as to the Owner’s implied warranty under Massachusetts law, may obscure the relevance and pertinence of the Coghlin decision to the current, public policy, political and public dialogue about the use of CMR on Massachusetts public projects. That should not happen. The SJC’s decision in Coghlin needs to be understood for its macro and transcending significance and relevance to that public discourse and be considered in decisions likely to be made in the near future regarding CMR.

More specifically, the SJC’s decision in Coghlin provides an important context in which to presently consider questions such as:

• Are public owners implementing CMR through contract negotiation and drafting and in project planning and management protocols, procedures and processes—in a manner designed and destined to achieve optimum and (realistic and reasonable) risk transfer objectives and associated cost overrun containment for the Owner, consistent with legislative authorizations and “best practices”?

• What are the potential implications of a CM’s design adequacy risk and responsibility upon its proposed pricing and GMP (including contingency)?

• Can and should the CM be insured against design adequacy risk through professional liability insurance (thereby containing its risk exposure and reducing GMP pricing and contingency through a liquidated “premium” cost for the procurement of that insurance)?

• Based on the SJC’s decision in Coghlin, what can and should design professionals reasonably be expected to do to assist public owners in CMR in developing and documenting the evidentiary record required for successfully defending CM implied warranty claims?

• If a CM has no recourse or remedy against a public owner based upon a breach of implied warranty attributable to design defects, will that increase the design professional’s liability exposure to the CM?

“Design defects” in CMR broadly encompass design errors, but also include coordination, dimensioning, layout, sequencing, and constructability problems, as well as the adverse consequences of value engineering, design optimization, substitutions or other design­related initiatives proposed by the CM. The Owner has a right to expect that it will be compensated for additional costs caused by the design professional’s negligence in design preparation; the Owner also has a right to expect that most of the additional costs due to what otherwise is included in the “design

organizations. The primary purpose of that brief was to provide background for the SJC as to the differing roles and responsibilities of project participants in design­bid­build and CMR—especially relative to the design development process—and in demonstrating why those differences, especially when conjunctively considered in the context of the cost and risk containment objectives of the GMP, render the Owner’s implied warranty obligation inapplicable in CMR to the same extent as applicable in design­bid­build, and/or potentially negate a CM’s ability to recover based upon a breach of any such warranty which a court may determine to exist in a particular CMR contractual or project context.

In essence, the SJC held that both DCAMM and the CM’s respective positions were too absolutist and that the issue as to whether and to what extent an Owner’s implied warranty existed in CMR, or whether a CM could recover for breach of any such warranty, was dependent upon a consideration and evaluation of relevant contractual terms (pertaining to risk allocation, roles and responsibilities in the design development process, and the GMP design basis and scope definition) and evidence as to the actual conduct of the project participants, especially the CM, in the design development process.

Specifically, the SJC stated:Although the owner’s implied warranty applies in a public construction management at risk contract, the differences between the responsibilities of a general contractor in a design-bid-build project and those of a CMAR affect the scope of the implied warranty. The general contractor in a design-bid-build project may benefit from the implied warranty where it relied on the plans and specifications in good faith, but the CMAR may benefit from the implied warranty only where it has acted in good faith reliance on the design and acted reasonably in light of the CMAR’s own design responsibilities. The CMAR’s level of participation in the design phase of the project and the extent to which the contract delegates design responsibility to the CMAR may affect a fact finder’s determination as to whether the CMAR’s reliance was reasonable. The greater the CMAR’s design responsibilities in the contract, the greater

4. That said, in CMR, as in all delivery methods, owners should allocate risk prudently. This author does not support overly­aggressive risk transfer from owners to constructors or to design­builders, and maintains that there should be reasonable and sensible boundaries and principles guiding and governing the contractual risk allocation process. Imprudent risk allocation between owners and constructors and/or design­builders leads to increased risk of professional liability claims against design professionals. See D.J. Hatem and D. H. Corkum, Megaprojects: Challenges and Recommended Practices, Chapter 15, Par. 4.0 (ACEC 2010).

continued on page 5

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 5

On January 23, 2015, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed Executive Order No. 554 (EO 554), Creating the Community Compact Cabinet, to improve the Administration’s partnership with cities and towns in the Commonwealth. The order seeks to reduce the regulatory burdens on municipalities and school districts, while at the same time mutually identifying best practices and helping communities fund them.

Lieutenant Governor Polito will chair the Cabinet, which also includes the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Local Services, the Secretaries of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, Executive Office of Education, Transportation, and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), and the Assistant Secretary of Operational Services, and Chief Information Officer. The Cabinet’s role is to:

• Champion municipal interests across all levels of state government

• Consult with cities and towns to develop mutual standards of best practices

• Incentivize adoption of best practices by municipalities and schools

• Resolve and implement Local Government Advisory Commission (LGAC) recommendations

• Review regulatory burdens on municipalities

Overview of Executive Order No. 554: Creating the Community Compact Cabinetand school districts and recommend reforms to lessen these burdens

• Understand major municipal and school cost drivers and identify ways to control them

• Identify and remove barriers to economic development opportunities for cities and towns

• Find new ways for local governments to leverage state resources and capacity

In a presentation to the LGAC in May, the Baker/Polito Administration promised com­mu nities that they would provide dependable local aid funding and earlier and more concrete commitments on local aid (Chapter 90, Chapter 70, UGGA, etc). The Administration also promised not to add new unfunded mandates, to review existing mandates, and to streamline and accelerate the state processes and reviewing regulatory framework.

Following the order, the 351 cities and towns of the Commonwealth were asked to complete a survey about what changes the state could make to regulations, laws and mandates to improve their ability to deliver cost­effective quality services. The state received 562 individual responses with at least 215 municipalities and 20 regional school districts participating.

Unfunded mandates are of great concern to water/wastewater providers, which are among the most regulated agencies in the state. In a

joint letter to EOEEA Secretary Matthew Beaton, the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship, the Massachusetts Water Pollution Control Association and the Massachusetts Water Works Association said they were encouraged by the creation of the Community Compact Cabinet as well as Executive Order 562, which prompts regulator review. The group appreciated that Lt. Gov. Polito had reached out to municipalities with a survey to hear their concerns following EO554.

Municipalities who want to receive financial assistance must evaluate areas where they lack the identified best practices, and then enter a compact with the Commonwealth agreeing to implement those practices. Under the Governor’s plan, all communities entering into a compact are eligible for assistance regardless of population size. Communities who have entered the compact will also receive extra consideration under municipal grant programs.

Financial assistance will come from House 1, which includes $2 million for technical assistance and $650,000 as an incentive for cities and towns to enter into the compact. Another $2 million will be available through the District Local Technical Assistance program via regional planning agencies and other assistance, both financial and technical, and administration will be available through various agencies.

For more information on the Compact click here.

defects” classification should primarily or exclusively fall within the risk and cost responsibility of the CM and encompassed in the GMP (including any contingency).

Significantly, the more contentious and substantial “design defects” claims for additional costs asserted by CMs against Owners arise out of disputes as to whether those costs were due to scope components that were or should have been either explicitly included within the GMP or included as being “reasonably inferable” from the defined project scope and design intent.

Viewed in this context, the allocation of risk for “additional costs” due to “design defects” in CMR is integral to both the disposition of the implied warranty issue presented to the SJC in Coghlin and the more fundamental public policy issue as to who—the public owner or CM—should bear those costs.

ConclusionThe SJC’s decision in Coghlin is one of the more important construction law decisions in Massachusetts in the last several decades, the present significance of which is all the more heightened by the increasing public owner utilization of alternative delivery methods, such as CMR. The SJC’s decision bears directly on the negotiation and agreement on GMP pricing, scope and contractual risk allocation in CMR, and should be considered in the prudent and effective implementation of CMR.

There is always the opportunity for improvement based on lessons learned in the utilization of CMR, especially given the relatively limited experience in Massachusetts and elsewhere with that method. Public owners should be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to do exactly that.

Harsh, dramatic and expedient reactions about the use of CMR in the Commonwealth should not dictate or guide any path forward. Procurement and contracting decisions, and project management processes in CMR should be informed by, and made and developed only after, a conscientious, balanced and apolitical consideration of the relevant issues. The SJC’s decision in Coghlin provides excellent guidance in such a reasoned and balanced decision­making process.

David J. Hatem, PC is a partner at Donovan Hatem LLP and leads the firm’s Professional Practices Group, which serves design and construction professionals. David can be reached at 617/406-4800 or dhatem@donovanhatem.com. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of his associate, Amanda Mathieu, in the preparation of this article.

Recent CM-At-Risk Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision continued from page 4

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 6

Massachusetts takes great pride in proclaiming itself as a national leader when it comes to environmental regulation. Certainly, there has been no lack of effort by state agencies

to roll out new rules and regulations to address a myriad of environmental issues. Some have been desperately needed, well designed and effectively implemented. But it appears that new environ­mental regulatory initiatives are increasingly being driven more by the desire to regulate and appease advocates rather than address and solve environmental issues. It is in no one’s best interest for the Commonwealth to offer new regulations for the sake of regulation or to create new rules that are too complex, poorly understood, ineffective, misguided or lacking in credibility. It is especially troubling that many of these new regulations are targeting municipalities since compliance will depend on expenditures of limited public funds. Simultaneously, agency enforcements also depend on public funds—adding a double whammy of financial waste to achieve dubious environmental improvements.

Because of these concerns, several leading organizations representing municipal water infrastructure interests sent a joint letter to Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton in May to highlight some of the more questionable regulatory moves undertaken by Commonwealth environmental agencies in recent years. Letter participants included the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship (MCWRS), Massachusetts Water Works Association (MWWA) and Massachusetts Water Pollution Control Association (MWPCA) Suggestions also were made to the secretary regarding areas where enlightened regulatory focus would be helpful to municipalities. Issues highlighted in this letter include the following:

Rethinking Environmental Regulations in Massachusettsby Philip D. Guerin, Director of Water & Sewer Operations, Worcester Department of Public Works & Parks

Water Management Act Regulations: The Water Management Act (WMA) (MGL 21G) and Regulations (310 CMR 36.00) control the withdrawal of water from ground and surface water sources in an attempt to find a balance between varying water users. During the final days of the Patrick Administration, following a multi­year development process known as the Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI), revisions to the WMA regulations were promulgated. These profound new rules are premised on the assumptions that all water withdrawals impact streamflow, and that reductions in water withdrawals will lead to improvements in aquatic habitat. The science behind these assertions is questionable at best and the theoretical models and resultant reports on which the SWMI framework was based were not very compelling. The need for this major regulatory change is also unclear.

Contrary to popular belief, water withdrawals in Massachusetts have been on the decline over the past 20 years, and not spiraling upward and out of control. Massachusetts should be highlighting the amazing success of water conservation across the state, rather than imposing drastic and costly new measures to address a problem that has been mostly solved. Instead, State environmental agencies have unveiled a mostly incomprehensible set of rules designed to address a limited problem using an approach that is unlikely to work.

The risks of such a scheme are not inconsequential. Communities will now have to invest significant time and financial resources in defending well­established water supply management practices. Systems without such resources stand to see the long­term resiliency and reliability of their water supplies compromised, along with an increased cost of

service to their customers. This will ultimately stifle local economic development opportunities and increase the risk of water supply failure in the face of climate uncertainty.

The regulations require water suppliers to mitigate every drop of water permitted above an arbitrarily established “baseline”. Both the baseline concept, and the years selected to determine the baseline, are without any rational basis. As a practical matter, public water suppliers will be punished for every drop of water they previously conserved as those endeavors will mean a lower baseline, and potentially greater mitigation dictates. It is hard to imagine a regulatory regime that will do more to undermine efforts to achieve responsible management of water resources.

Contrary to the regulatory approach, mitigation should be required only where it can be clearly demonstrated that the related withdrawal is negatively impacting stream flow. The public water supplier should be responsible for undertaking only such mitigation as is commensurate with the impact. In almost all cases, there is not a direct 1:1 correlation between a water withdrawal volume and stream flow impacts. Rather, the distance of the withdrawal point from the stream and the hydrogeology of the aquifer will determine whether a significant streamflow impact occurs.

This issue is especially time sensitive as the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is currently in the process of renewing WMA permits. The new regulatory requirements developed through SWMI include untested and potentially exhaustive studies which will lead to complex and expensive projects. This is directly evidenced by the projects funded under the SWMI grant program administered through MassDEP.

Two blocks from the State House and overlooking

Boston Common, the newly refurbished Aldrich Center

is the perfect venue for your next event. This historic

building accommodates private functions, business

meetings, and receptions for up to 75.

For information or reservations, contact

Rich Keenan, Aldrich Center Manager

at 617/305-4110 or rkeenan@engineers.org

The Aldrich Center—where history and technology meet on Beacon Hill…

Aldrich CenterONE WALNUT STREET Beacon Hill Boston, MA

UPCOMING ISSUES OF INSIGHTS

Insights is published four times a year—fall, winter, spring and summer. If you would like to contribute an article to Insights or have ideas for new topics, please contact Alison Smith at alison.smith@stantec.com.

continued on page 11

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 7

In an ideal world, the mar­riage between a firm and its favored markets would last forever. However, in the real business world, some times large­scale changes are needed.

It might be that the phone has stopped ringing due to an economic downturn in that sector. It might be a new development that changes the competitive landscape. It might be that the market is the same, but it’s your firm that’s changing.

Jettisoning an entire market sector is not a light decision. It’s one that should be made only after a clear analysis, including external data gathering from clients and prospects. That said, sometimes the soul searching required to change course is necessary and saying goodbye is the right move.

When transportation planning firm Nelson/Nygaard (San Francisco, CA) was getting started in the early 1990s, the rural public transit market provided a large percentage of its work. But as the firm grew, there were tough calls to make about whether this was a business they could stay in.

The firm, which now numbers 120 staff and offers transit, paratransit and multimodal planning, was still doing great work for those clients, says President and COO Paul Jewel. Yet, they found themselves competing with rural, 10­to­15­person firms that could deliver projects more cost effectively.

After a few years of pressing on, the retirement of a senior staffer who had championed this sector triggered an important conversation at the firm’s annual business development strategy meeting. It soon became clear that not only was the firm challenged to make money in that market, but also, internally, the enthusiasm wasn’t there.

“We found that our staff wasn’t interested in chasing that market,” says Jewel. “Younger staff members were more geared towards urban planning and they wanted to work in urban environments.”

Choosing your focusAt the start of John Cowdery’s 10­year run as the CEO of 400­person environmental

Getting Out of a Market: When to Say Goodbyeby Rich Friedman, Friedman & Partners

consulting firm Jones & Stokes Associates (Sacramento, CA) (now a part of ICF International), the 2001 economic downturn was challenging everyone. Cowdery and his leadership team made the tough call to refocus the firm, starting with a hard look at which markets they did and did not want to work in.

“We employed a ’follow the money’ strategy along with geographic expansion,” says Cowdery, who is now Senior VP and Environ­mental Services Director at 3,200­person engineering and construction management firm TRC Companies, Inc. (Lowell, MA). That meant moving away from commoditized work to partnering with higher­end clients. They walked away from work such as underground storage tanks, Phase 1 assessments, and asbestos and mold abatement, and clients such as schools and residential developers. The firm began to focus on energy, clean water supply, power and utilities.

“We started with internal navel gazing, and that wasn’t very helpful,” says Cowdery. “Then we went to talk to clients in a way that we hadn’t talked to them before.”

To solidify its direction, the firm talked to more than 100 clients and conducted supplemental research from environmental business journals and competing firms. Jones & Stokes grew substantially as a result, and with dogged focus, they maintained that growth right through the next economic downturn.

“It’s easy to look back and say our strategy worked, but it was very hard at the time to say no,” says Cowdery. “It is counterintuitive to how we as consultants have been trained, and it comes down to being grounded in what your firm does and what it doesn’t do. You have to decide that this is not a business you are going to be in anymore.”

It’s time to tell the clientsFor both firms, backing away from a client sector didn’t mean abandoning good clients. They maintained a handful of strong relationships but focused their marketing resources elsewhere.

Nelson/Nygaard took a direct approach, contacting clients to inform them of the change in focus. They let them know in advance that they would not be responding to every RFP, and in some cases, when an RFP came in, called to explain why they would not be submitting.

“You never like to give up on a market because it feels like you’re letting people down,” says Jewel. “But you can’t do everything. You have to choose your battles and wisely determine your investments.”

As your firm evolves, a well­thought­out decision to leave a market may be a necessary growing pain that paves the way for future opportunity. Yet one of the biggest mistakes that I see is not being decisive.

It’s easy to rationalize hanging on to poor­performing client sectors, or let decisions drag on. But the costs are high: a fuzzy company vision, low morale, ill­conceived opportunity pursuits, and a lack of energy and money directed towards markets with potentially more satisfying returns.

Decisiveness requires a leadership commitment, strong data analysis and a clear go/no­go process, says Cowdery. It’s the philosophy they aim for at TRC. “We want to differentiate ourselves by tackling tough problems, not ones we have to low bid or can’t be profitable with,” he says. “If your company is competing with ten to 15 other firms, that’s when you start lowballing and that is the area to get away from.”

“Giving up on that market was a sign that we were growing up as a firm,” agrees Jewel. “That means taking on new challenges, markets and opportunities. It’s good for the firm in the long term, but it’s tough in the short term.”

Has your firm made the strategic decision to stop serving a client sector? I’d love to hear your story. Contact me at rich@friedmanpartners.com or 508/276-1101. Rich Friedman is President of Friedman & Partners, a marketing and management consulting firm serving the AEC industry.

What Has ACEC/MA Done For You Lately?

MASSACHUSETTS AGENCIES

• ACEC/MA’s Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee (EEAC) filed comments on the Clean Water Trust’s Draft Affordability Calculation to determine principal forgiveness to State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) funding applicants.

• Our Building Engineering Committee (BEC) co-chairs provided input on DCAMM procedures to a consultant providing guidance to the Division of Capital Asset Maintenance and Management.

• ACEC/MA’s Transportation Agency Liaison Committee (TALC) reconstituted several public agency partnering groups with more ACEC/MA members to help agencies streamline project delivery.

• The MBTA Partnering Committee continues to collaborate with the MBTA leadership team to address topics on business issues and project delivery; MassDOT Highway Partnering Committee continues to meet regularly with key staff at in the MassDOT Highway Division.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY

• ACEC/MA’s Building Engineering Committee (BEC) continues to advocate for changes to draft regulations proposed by the Board of Registration of Architects that would adversely impact A&E firms operating in Massachusetts.

• ACEC/MA Executive Director Abbie Goodman met with Executive Office of Public Safety officials, including Jennifer Queally, Undersecretary for Law Enforcement, Matt Carlin, Commissioner of Department of Public Safety, and others to discuss our support of HB2843, to prohibit future local option (stretch codes), HB2196, to form a Building Code Coordination Council, several issues under review with the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS issues) and Chapter 227 of Acts of 2014, our ACEC/MA-filed and passed Good Samaritan law for design professionals and contractors.

• ACEC/MA is part of the Massachusetts Climate Change Coalition, which is supporting SB1979, the Comprehensive Adaptation Management Plan (CAMP). This bill passed in the Massachusetts Senate in July 2015, and we are advocating for its passage in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. This legislation would require the Commonwealth to use the best science to assess public safety, health and economic vulnerabilities; develop an integrated plan to manage climate change impacts, informed by public-private stakeholders; create two new programs to protect coastal areas and support regional and local planning (using existing resources); and ensure that state policy is consistent with "Smart Climate" science and practices.

• ACEC/MA continues to support or oppose Massachusetts Senate and House bills that affect our industry.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

• ACEC/MA’s 7th Odyssey Leadership program begins October 1, 2015. At press time, 20 participants with ten or more years of experience will learn in 9 full-day sessions how to better motivate and communicate, in both our day-to-day operations and in conflict.

• ACEC/MA held a successful Technical Walking Tour of two past Engineering Excellence Award-winning projects: Education First North American Headquarter and North Bank Bridge.

• ACEC/MA’s Awards Committee issued Entry Forms for our Engineering Excellence Awards, which are due on October 5, 2015. ACEC/MA’s Engineering Excellence and Awards Gala will be held on March 16, 2016.

With the support of our

member firms, ACEC/MA works

hard to protect and promote

your business in a variety of

ways. In addition to our robust

programs, here is an account

of our recent actions.

Fall 2015

American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts (ACEC/MA)

The Engineering CenterOne Walnut StreetBoston, MA 02108-3616

T: 617/227-5551, F: 617/227-6783, www.acecma.org

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 9

Board of Registration of Architects— Proposed RegulationsOur Building Engineering Committee cont­inues to review and comment on draft changes to 231 CMR, the regulations of the Board of Registration of Architects, to make sure that the concerns of ACEC/MA members are incorporated into proposed changes. To stay up to date on the proposed changes, visit the ACEC/MA web page on these issues.

DCAMM Approving 179D Allocations— Energy EfficiencyDCAMM has notified ACEC/MA about a recent policy change related to deductions under §179D of the Internal Revenue Code. This is applicable to DCAMM’s 179D Allocation Recipients. DCAMM will begin signoffs on allocation forms for deductions under §179D For more information visit the ACEC/MA website.

ACEC/MA Launches Odyssey Leadership Class of 2016The ACEC/MA Leadership Committee is pleased to kick off their “back­to­school­year” campaign. The nine session Odyssey Leadership Program begins October 1; at press time, we have three seats left in this course. Typically Odyssey participant have 10–15 years of experience. Also on October 1 is the Everest Senior Executive Roundtable, a networking dinner open to firm senior leaders. Keep an eye out for notices for the October 28 Fall Effective Writing Course and the Winter 2016 Genesis Program.

See you at the ACEC Fall 2015 Conference in BostonAttendance is strongly encouraged at this year’s ACEC National Fall Conference as it is taking place in Boston! Each year, ACEC sponsors two major national meetings: the Annual Convention and the Fall Conference. National meetings provide attendees an opportunity to obtain information about issues that affect the industry through informative educational and social programs. The Conference is October 14­17 at the Westin Copley Place Hotel. Click here for more information.

Successful Indirect Cost Rate Audits: Establishing a System of FAR ComplianceA/E Clarity Consulting and Training, LLC, in cooperation with ACEC/MA, is offering this 2­day live training event on September 28–29, 2015, hosted by VHB at 101 Walnut St., Watertown, MA. Join us for this fast­paced course where instructors Dan Purvine and Jerry Jones will cover the essential information you need to know to establish an effective system of FAR compliance in your A/E firm. Find out more here.

Recent ProgramsOn June 17, ACEC/MA hosted the Annual Celebration & Walking Tour of the Lower Beacon St. Sewer Separation at Taberna de Haro in Brookline, MA. ACEC/MA Members took the evening to thank outgoing ACEC/MA President Joel Goodmonson for his service as well as to welcome our new President David Vivilecchia. Attendees of the event received 1.5 Professional Development Hours and enjoyed wine and tapas.

On September 9, ACEC/MA hosted a tech­ nical walking tour of two past ACEC/MA Engineering Excellence Award­winning pro­jects: Education First’s North American Headquarters and the North Bank Bridge and Park. ACEC/MA is grateful to AKF, VHB, Greenman­Pedersen, Inc. and other firms that shared their expertise on the tour.

Outstanding ACEC Member Firm Community Service Efforts Needed for Engineering Inc.ACEC’s Engineering Inc. will regularly highlight Member Firms who volunteer staff and resources to local campaigns and programs that have a positive impact on the communities they serve. For more information visit the ACEC/MA website.

Massachusetts Governor Launches Regula-tion Reform Portal—Your Input Is RequestedOn March 31, 2015, Governor Baker signed an Executive Order initiating a year­long review of Massachusetts regulations (Executive Order 562). Over the past few months, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, led by Secretary Kristen Lepore, developed an extensive internal database of existing regulations and is putting the finishing touches on a team of subject matter experts from across state government. The goals of the regulations review are to make sure that state government speaks with one voice and help Massachusetts citizens and organizations of all kinds grow and succeed. The Governor and Secretary Lepore are now looking for feedback from stakeholders, the people who are affected by state regulations on a daily basis. The Commonwealth has established an online portal to solicit feedback.

ACEC/MA NEWS AND NOTES

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 10

Full Members:Michael Baker Jr, Inc., 57 Boston­Providence Hwy, Suite 203, Norwood, MA 02062, 781/255­7200www.mbakerintl.com

Firm Representative: Heather Ivester, PE, heather.ivester@mbakerintl.comFirm Description: Michael Baker International offers a comprehensive range of innovative services and solutions in support of federal, state, and municipal governments, foreign allied governments, and a wide range of private development and commercial clients. The firm’s focus is on the safety and security of people across the world through planning and engineering improvements to infrastructure and the environment, and through protection of our quality of life and freedom in support of national and international security. With more than $1 billion in annual revenue, Michael Baker International has more than 5,000 employees in over 90 offices located across the US and internationally.

CX Consulting Inc., 98 Elm Street, Salisbury, MA 01952, 978/463­4696www.cxpertconsulting.com

Firm Representative: Peter Piattoni, ppiattoni@cxpertconsulting.comFirm Description: Over its 30­year history, CX Consulting’s in­house professionals have worked with all of the heavy highway construction techniques including deep foundations, complex earth support systems, complex phasing and traffic management and various accelerated bridge construction techniques. In its broadest sense, CX Consulting Inc. is all about managing risk associated with budget, schedule and quality. CX Consulting’s professionals are more than construction managers, they are risk managers and problem solvers, adding value to a project team.

FS Engineers Inc., 2 Clock Tower Place, Suite 630, Maynard, MA 01754, 978/298­5956www.fsengrs.com

Firm Representative: Farooq Siddique, PE, LSP, fsiddique@fsengrs.comFirm Description: FS Engineers, Inc. is a certified Massachusetts Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) and a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) providing civil and environmental engineering services to private and public clients including municipalities, state, and federal governmental agencies.

NEW MEMBERS

Incoming President, David Vivilecchia continued from page 1

find ways to streamline administrative processes such as invoicing and contracting.

But perhaps David’s biggest task for this year is implementing ACEC/MA’s updated strategic plan. For the last several months, the board has been working with an outside consultant to develop the three­year plan, which focuses on four major initiatives:

1. Advancing our use of technology,

2. Making member participation easier,

3. Educating and promoting qualifications­based selection (QBS), and

4. Promoting ACEC with a “louder” voice

David says as part of that effort, he’ll also be looking to come to some conclusions on how to better expand ACEC’s reach into Rhode

Island. “We need to do more to support existing member firms and engage new ones,” he says. Hosting the ACEC National Fall Conference in Boston on October 14–17, 2015, is another way to demonstrate the advocacy and educational strength of both ACEC and ACEC/MA to members and potential member firms. David is already hard at work with ACEC/MA board and committee leaders to further develop the key strategic plan initiatives, while we continue to advance our advocacy actions and leadership development programs for the organization’s future.

While his job and ACEC responsibilities fill much of his plate, the bulk of David’s remaining free time is spent with his wife and two daughters at their home base in Reading. He can be reached at 617/924-1770 x1905 or dvivilecchia@vhb.com.

Risk Management Forum), as well as focusing on client sector committees such as our Transportation Agency Liaison Committee (TALC) and Private Sector Committee (PSC). His financial expertise has been an asset to ACEC/MA over the years as the organization has demonstrated the ways in which low salary cap rates, overhead rate limitations and other business terms have constrained firms’ abilities to provide the best talent for public agency work and grow that talent.

David was nominated to serve as a director on the ACEC/MA Board in 2010, and then was nominated to serve on the Executive Committee, rising to serve as president. Now, he’s looking forward to putting his expertise to further use as president, focusing his term on partnering with public agencies and the Baker administration to

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 11

Massachusetts Water Quality Standards: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and MassDEP are responsible for co­issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Over the past several years, increasing numbers of municipalities have seen aluminum limits introduced into their wastewater permits. Drinking water treatment facilities are also seeing aluminum being introduced into individual permits for treatment plant discharge. NPDES permits are required to be written to ensure that state water quality standards are achieved. However, Massachusetts does not have a standard for aluminum so this defaults to a National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.

The National Criteria for aluminum does not account for background levels of aluminum in Massachusetts waters. Pristine streams and water bodies across the state may have aluminum levels that exceed the National Criteria by a factor of 30 or more. The criteria document published by EPA notes that the chronic criterion for aluminum “is based on a toxicity test with the striped bass in water with pH = 6.5–6.6 and hardness < 10 mg/L. Data ... indicate that aluminum is substantially less toxic at higher pH and hardness.” The criteria applied in Massachusetts makes no allowances for this variable toxicity.

The introduction of aluminum limits to any discharge permit is premature and unreasonable given the lack of understanding about aluminum toxicity. Of equal concern is that once a NPDES permit with an aluminum limit is issued, it is unlikely that it can be removed from the permit, no matter what the science may inform us at a later date. The inclusion of an aluminum limit in NPDES permits will not only result in increased and needless operating cost, it could increase the “carbon footprint” of impacted treatment plants. It could also lead to changes in drinking water treatment practices that produce potable water of a lower quality than is presently achieved using aluminum­based treatment chemicals. MassDEP is now looking at the aluminum criteria issue. Their effort to use better science to inform permit limits is an encouraging sign that should be supported.

In addition to aluminum, many Massachusetts communities are burdened by limits on

Rethinking Environmental Regulations in Massachusettscontinued from page 6

nitrogen and phosphorus in NPDES permits issued for wastewater treatment plant discharges. As with aluminum, the lack of clear, scientifically valid, state criteria for nutrients allows EPA Region 1 to use its own standards when issuing permits. Nutrient limits are the most contentious issue in wastewater discharge permits and have caused many municipalities and districts to appeal Region 1 permits.

The lack of credible science EPA uses in nutrient limit setting has been well documented. Their approach is typically to force communities to remove nitrogen and/or phosphorus to the limits of technology, regardless of whether the receiving water is in need of that level of protection. Science has shown that how a river or body of water responds to nutrient input is variable, and highly dependent on the specific and unique nature of each water. EPA applies a “one size fits all” approach, and the result is very low nutrient limits and exorbitant costs to upgrade wastewater treatment plants. Homeowners and businesses ultimately pay for these costs.

Over the past few years, MassDEP has been working on state water quality criteria for nutrients that consider the response of a waterway to nutrient input; not simple, set numeric limits applicable to all. For a variety of reasons, the effort to establish state nutrient criteria seems to have stalled. It is crucial that MassDEP make nutrient criteria a priority, and move their proposal forward following an open, public process.

MassDEP has the ability to help communities with EPA permits by using its authority to craft appropriate, science based water quality standards and then defending these standards should EPA and others challenge them. Other states have done so to the benefit of their communities and businesses—and without harm to the environment.

Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit (MS4): Of great concern to municipalities is EPA’s forthcoming Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit (MS4 permit). MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg garnered much praise for his excellent comment letter to EPA Region 1 regarding the draft MS4 permit for Massachusetts. Commissioner Suuberg eloquently communicated the department’s

concern over the significant costs that could be imposed on municipalities should EPA move forward with the requirements in their draft. These comments represented something different than the status quo, and provided communities with evidence that the new administration is truly willing to assess regulations in a way that is municipally sensitive—something that has been lacking over the past several decades.

Hopefully MassDEP will continue the discussions with EPA to make sure the final permit is reasonable, and compliments MassDEP’s existing Stormwater Standards. It also should be consistent with the Clean Water Act mandate to remove pollutants from municipal stormwater systems to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), and give communities the appropriate amount of time to comply.

Time for a New Paradigm: The bottom line is that state environmental agencies need to adopt a new paradigm for development of future regulatory schemes. The days of creating new rules with no understanding of fiscal impacts, cost­benefit or even a clear and defined need must end. Instead, new regulations should be viewed as a last resort to address critical issues for which other non­regulatory solutions have not worked or are impractical.

New regulations must begin with a clearly defined assessment of need, include a thorough and meaningful cost impact study, and define and enumerate supposed environmental benefits to be derived. All of this needs to occur in a public, transparent process that involves and listens to all stakeholders. Recent moves by MassDEP to support municipal calls for more reasonable rules suggests a changing mindset. Governor Baker’s Executive Order 562 requiring review of regulations may be the start of such a new approach to environmental rule­making. Perhaps it will form the basis for significant regulatory reform that leads toward agency accountability, effective and efficient use of public funds and a cleaner, safer environment for all to enjoy.

Philip Guerin is the President of the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship. You can reach him at 508/799-1484 or guerinp@worcesterma.gov.

12

UPCOMING EVENTS— SAVE THE DATE

Successful Indirect Cost Rate Audits: Establishing a System of FAR Compliance Training

Monday & Tuesday, September 28 & 29, 2015Watertown, MA

Click for more information

ACEC/MA Odyssey Leadership ProgramBegins Thursday October 1, 2015

Wellesley, MAClick for more information

ACEC/MA Everest Senior Executive RoundtableThursday, October 1, 2015

Boston, MAClick for more information

ACEC 2015 Fall Conference in BostonWednesday, October 14 thru Saturday, October 17, 2015

Boston, MAClick for more information

ACEC/MA Effective Writing Wednesday, October 28, 2015

GZA Geoenvironmental, Norwood, MAClick for more information

ACEC/MA Committee/Forum Meetings on www.acecma.org.

Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ACECMA

ACEC Insights • Summer/Fall 2015 ACEC/MA 2015–16 Board of DirectorsPRESIDENTDavid M. Vivilecchia, Regional Finance Manager­PrincipalVHB­Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.T: 617/607­6184, E: dvivilecchia@vhb.com

PRESIDENT­ELECTMark S. Bartlett, PE Associate & Vice President, Deputy Branch ManagerFay, Spofford & ThorndikeT: 617/786­7960 x7131, E: mbartlett@fstinc.com

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTMichael J. Scipione, PE, President & CEOWeston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.T: 978/532­1900 E: scipionm@wseinc.com

VICE PRESIDENTMichael J. Walsh, PE, Vice PresidentCDM SmithT: 617/452­6535, E: walshmj@cdmsmith.com

PAST­PRESIDENTJoel P. Goodmonson, PEExecutive Vice President­PrincipalArchitectural Engineers, Inc.T: 617/807­1666, E: jgoodmonson@arcengrs.com

TREASURERJudith S. Eburn, Vice President/ControllerGEI Consultants, IncT: 781/721­4062, E: jeburn@geiconsultants.com

SECRETARYDawn M. ConnellyDirector of Corporate AffairsT: 978/923­0400 x306, E: dconnelly@greenintl.com

DIRECTORSPhillip D. Brake, PE, Senior Vice President­Office LeaderHNTB CorporationT: 617/532­2210, E: pbrake@hntb.com

Matt A. Card, PE, Vice President, MA Division ManagerAlfred Benesch & CompanyT: 617/288­0900, E: mcard@benesch.com

Heather M. Ford, Vice President of Engineering & ScienceNobis Engineering, IncT: 978/703­6013, E: hford@nobisengineering.com

Jennifer A. Howe, PE, Principal, Director of Federal Government StudioSymmes Maini & McKee AssociatesT: 617/547­5400, E: jhowe@smma.com

Filomena Maybury, PE, LEED APProject Manager/Senior Structural EngineerParsons BrinckerhoffT: 617/960­4969, E: maybury@pbworld.com

Scott A. Miller, PE, PresidentHaley and Ward, IncT: 978/648­6025, E: smiller@haleyward.com

David E. Pinsky, PE, PresidentTighe & Bond, Inc.T: 413/572­3239, E: depinsky@tighebond.com

Patricia D. Steere, PE, PresidentSteere Engineering IncT: 401/773­7880 x10 E: patricia.steere@steereengineering.com

Mark Walsh­Cooke, PE, LEED AP BD+C, PrincipalArup USA Inc.T: 617/349­9228, E: mark.walsh­cooke@arup.com

NATIONAL DIRECTORLisa A. Brothers, PE, LEED AP BD+C, President and CEONitsch EngineeringT: 617/338­0063, E: lbrothers@nitscheng.com

LEGAL COUNSELDavid J. Hatem, PC, Donovan Hatem LLPT: 617/406­4800, E: dhatem@donovanhatem.com

ACEC NATIONAL EXCOMM CONTACTMitchel W. Simpler, PE, PartnerJaros, Baum & BollesT: 212/530.9300, E: simplerm@jbb.com

TECET STAFF CONTACTSAbbie R. Goodman, IOMACEC­MA Executive DirectorT: 617/305­4112, E: agoodman@engineers.org

Elizabeth Tyminski, Director of Finance and OperationsT: 617/305­4127, E: etyminski@engineers.org

12