ACEC/MA Insights - Summer

INSIGHTS

A M E R I C A N C O U N C I L O F E N G I N E E R I N G C O M PA N I E S O F M A S S A C H U S E T T S The Engineering Center • One Walnut Street • Boston, MA 02108 • T: 617/227-5551 • F: 617/227-6783 • www.acecma.org

SUSTAINABILITY TODAY: Two Perspectives on a Call to Action

CONTENTS

As part of our focus in this issue on what sustainability in the built environment means today, we asked State Senator William N. Brownsberger and two core leaders from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design’s (GSD) Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure, Richa Shukla, Research Associate and Project Administrator, and Anthony Kane, Research Associate and Harvard GSD Rating System Research Director, for their insights on the challenges, impacts, and future of climate change and how it may impact our infrastructure.

Preparing for Storm Surge By State Senator William N. Brownsberger

It is often sagely said that the most powerful force in politics is inertia. Yet, when a problem is clear and urgent and the solution is well-defined and feasible, most governmental bodies are entirely capable of rapid response. For example, when evidence of a stratospheric ozone hole emerged, world governments came together through the Montreal Protocol, and over time dramatically reduced emissions of ozonedepleting substances.

SUMMER 2013

Reducing carbon emissions requires more comprehensive changes in the economy, and to date there is no consensus on how to make those changes happen. Given our ongoing failure to stem the growth in world carbon emissions, it is crystal clear that we need to prepare to adapt to climate change. Recent major storms have begun to create a sense of urgency around one consequence of climate change: sea level rise. Sea level rise threatens many critical components of our infrastructure. Unavail ability of power or transportation infrastructure can degrade a whole regional economy for

 continued on page 10

A NEW LOOK AT SUSTAINABILITY X2 EPA’s Integrated Planning Framework X3 A Sustainable Relationship: ACEC/MA and The Nature Conservancy X4 Balancing Innovation, Sustainability and Risk X5 GreenDOT: The Plan for Sustainable Transportation in Massachusetts X6 LEED® v4: It’s Almost Time X7 EWB and Mkutani Journey to SelfSufficiency

TOPICS OF INTEREST X5 Program Committee Prepares the 2013–2014 Calendar X6 Live Healthier with Designed Wellness! X8 How to Beat a Patent Troll X9 Spotlight: Incoming ACEC/MA President Rich O’Brien X9 Thanks to Our Outgoing Leadership

President’s Message

IN EVERY ISSUE

By Ko Ishikura, PE, President & CEO, Green International Affiliates, Inc.

12 What Has ACEC/MA Done For You Lately?

By the time this issue is being published, I will have com pleted my term as the 2012– 2013 ACEC/MA President and Richard O’Brien of Parsons Brinkerhoff will be taking over as our new President. Serving as President reminded me of the hard work being done daily by many volunteers, including the Board of Directors, committee and forum chairs, committee members and The Engineering Center Education Trust (TECET) staff, and all the credit to this year’s accom plishments goes to them. I tried to continue advancing ACEC/MA’s mission of “serving as a voice of an engineering industry” this year. Our advocacy effort for additional transportation funding to improve our highway and transit

systems is coming to fruition, as a transportation funding bill is in the Senate-House Conference Committee and being finalized. For water infrastructure advocacy, our efforts in filing a bill to create the Water Infrastructure Finance Commission led to: (1) publication of the report by the Commission in May 2012, (2) formation of the Water Infrastructure Alliance, in which we are representing our industry and co-chairing, and (3) supporting several other bills that advance water infrastructure this legislative session. I am confident under our new President’s guidance, this effort of promoting the increasing need for water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure investment will continue.


13 ACEC/MA News and Notes 14 New Members 15 Upcoming Events

What Is Sustainability? sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty (noun) 1. the ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. 2. Environmental Science. the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance: The committee is developing sustainability standards for products that use energy.

Communications Committee/ Insights Board of Editors Elena T. Bleakley, Co-Chair Principal, Elena Bleakley Marketing Associates T: 617/823-8639, E: [email protected] Robert J. Dunn, Jr., Co-Chair Associate, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. T: 978/692-1913, E: [email protected] Pamela Degan Marketing Manager, Geocomp Corporation T: 978/893-1242 E: [email protected] David J. Hatem, Esq. Attorney, Donovan Hatem LLP T: 617/406-4800, E: [email protected] Tess Hartwell Principal Consultant Ingenio Strategic Marketing Consulting T: 617/462-4813, E: [email protected] Jay Moskowitz Marketing, URS T: 857/383-3833. E: [email protected] Alison Smith Public Relations Lead, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. T: 978/577-1443, E: [email protected] Michael J. Walsh, PE Vice President, CDM Smith T: 617/452-6535, E: [email protected] Cheryl A. Waterhouse, Esq. Partner, Donovan Hatem LLP T: 617/406-4520 E: [email protected] Joel P. Goodmonson, PE ACEC/MA Events and Operations Group Director Executive Vice President/Principal Architectural Engineers, Inc. T: 617/542-0810, x103, E: [email protected] Abbie R. Goodman ACEC/MA Executive Director The Engineering Center T: 617/305-4112, E: [email protected] Bailey Boykan Administrative Assistant, The Engineering Center T: 617/227-5551, x. 101, E: [email protected] Committee Members Paul J. Murphy, PE Geotechnical Discipline Lead, Jacobs T; 617/532-4373, E: [email protected] Charles Russo Marketing/Communications VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. T: 617/924-1770, x1540, E: [email protected] 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/[email protected]. 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 bob.dunn@stantec. com or [email protected] 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 2013

2

EPA’s Integrated Planning Framework Curt Spalding, EPA New England Regional Administrator In June 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a commitment to incorporating integrated planning into decision making with regards to compliance with the Clean Water Act. Communities across the country are tackling problems such as an increased demand for service, aging infrastructure and the need to address water quality impairments from nutrients and storm water. Development of integrated plans provides local governments with the opportunity to examine the Clean Water Act obligations holistically, to look for cost savings in consideration of solutions and to reach agreement with state and federal environmental officials on the order in which matters will be addressed in their communities. Challenges facing many New England commu nities are particularly acute. Some of the wastewater infrastructure in New England is among the oldest in the Country; populations in some cases are shifting from cities, leaving a reduced user base and increasing the demand for services in other areas; and climate change could bring larger and more intense precipitation events and flooding. At EPA New England, we want to ensure that each local government knows that it has the opportunity to present plans to address its unique challenges in a manner that addresses the highest priority issues first. New Englanders should feel a sense of accomplishment. We can see dramatic water

quality improvements in each state. But storm water-borne nutrients and pathogens, and bacteria and other pathogens from failing infrastructure create continuing impairments. Integrated plans should help us achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act by ensuring that we do the right work first and also by fostering the ability to look for cost-effective and innovative solutions to water quality problems. By evaluating all wastewater needs together, in addition to being more certain about which needs are the most pressing, communities should be able to identify efficiencies in addressing those needs. For instance, it may be possible to identify previously unknown solutions that address more than one need. Achieving cost effective improvements is in everybody’s interest. We also hope that communities will include green infrastructure in integrated plans. Green infrastructure solutions can lead to improved water quality, lower future operating costs, and improved neighborhood quality of life that can be sustained indefinitely. At EPA New England we hope that the integrated planning strategy will lead to costeffective solutions engineered for the 22nd century and beyond. We encourage anyone with further questions or an interest in a particular integrated plan to contact us. Curt Spalding is EPA New England Regional Administrator. He can be reached at (617) 918-1010 or [email protected].

President’s Message continued from page 1 For the last several years, ACEC/MA has made efforts for promoting a strong partnering relationship with various state agencies. We have seen noticeable progress in response to these efforts, and this year ACEC/MA was approached by MassDOT, MBTA, Massport and DEP, and asked to reach out to our membership for the information they wanted to distribute to the engineering industry. Our organization was the one they recognized as a representative of the industry. We accom modated their requests by opening our committee meetings to state agency represen tatives—who spoke to our members at the meetings—and by hosting workshops jointly with state agencies.

Our leadership education programs continued to educate our current and future leaders in our industry. We had successful Everest, Odyssey, Emerging Leaders, Genesis and Effective Writing programs with great feedback from the participants. I hope you take advantage of these excellent education programs for development of your staff and growth of our firms in coming years. We will need every member’s help to further promote our mission of “serving as a voice of an engineering industry” so please keep getting involved and active in our organization. Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to serve as ACEC/MA President this year.


3

A Sustainable Relationship: ACEC/MA and The Nature Conservancy By Steve Long, Director of Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts As I prepared to replace a switch on my electric stove (no small task for a political science major) on a quiet Friday morning during the December 2012 holiday break, my cell phone rang. An excited ally let me know that the Massachusetts House of Representatives had just approved a new version of the Dam Safety Legislation—a bill that had been in the works for seven years—in the waning hours of the legislative session. I dropped my screwdriver and immediately called Abbie Goodman, ACEC/MA Executive Director, Director of External Affairs, The Engineering Center in Boston, to plan our next steps. Over the next ten days, we helped shepherd the Dam Safety Bill into law. As of August 2013, the Dam Safety Loan and Grant Program will be accepting applications for real, on-theground engineering projects, such as repair and removal of dams and coastal and inland flooding infrastructure. The unique collaboration on the Dam Safety Bill between the Massachusetts’s Chapter of ACEC and The Nature Conservancy (The Conservancy) caught the attention of Massachusetts policymakers, who played a big part in building support for this bill, and the collaboration is now catching the attention of the national engineering and conservation communities. As the world’s largest international conservation organization, the Conservancy’s mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends, for people and nature. The Conservancy uses a science-based approach to identify the best on-the-ground methods for conservation, and attempts to replicate any successes by leveraging public policy, funding and private-sector partnerships. The Conservancy has previously collaborated with engineering partners such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and various private dam operators. The collaboration on the Dam Safety Bill between ACEC/MA and the Conservancy is rooted in complementary approaches to the multiple benefits of dam removal which include public safety and health, avoiding costs for cities and towns and the economic benefits

of healthy rivers—clean water and recreation (fishing and boating). This collaboration has expanded beyond the Dam Safety Bill to include:

water and ensuring that infrastructure is designed and constructed to withstand climate change impacts (such as more intense storms, flooding and drought).

• Advocating for state legislation to provide public funding for transportation and water (drinking, waste and storm) infrastructure.

ACEC/MA also hosted a breakfast program in mid-May at which the Conservancy’s Climate Adaptation Strategy Leader for the Conservancy’s Global Climate Change Team, Frank Lowenstein, and I provided a briefing on the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act and the state of climate science and adaptation, highlighting the role of forests, salt marshes and floodplains in providing adaptation benefits. Based on this presentation, ACEC/MA invited the Conservancy to present at the 2014 National Conference in Boston in April. In the presentation, the Conservancy will discuss how engineers can integrate nature into their efforts to better prepare society for climate and disaster risk with approaches that enhance public safety, cost-effectiveness and resilient natural systems. The Conservancy will share the latest science on the impacts of extreme weather, resources for assessing future extreme weather impacts and tools for assessing coastal risks and alternative solutions to those risks.

• Holding a seminar where science-based information was shared on extreme weather stimulating further discussion on how to use nature as an ally in engineering for climate change adaptation. • Exploring opportunities as well as barriers in areas of mutual interest, including investigating emerging markets driven by customer demand and public policy trends. As part of our joint advocacy on the Transportation Bond Bill, both organizations advocated for public funding to be provided to MassDOT to ensure that adequate resources would be available to fund a planning tool that both organizations would help develop. Known as Critical Linkages, this tool provides easily accessible data that can help identify specific locations where changes to important infrastructure—bridges, culverts, roads and dams—would be most effective in providing benefits for wildlife and their habitat. This science-based approach considers nature in the design of crossings and also provides co-benefits such as reducing costs and service outages of unplanned repairs due to flood failure, reducing collisions with wildlife and promoting driver safety and protecting and restoring ecosystem functions to rivers, wetlands and terrestrial habitats—all of which are keys to the economy associated with natural resources. ACEC/MA and the Conservancy are also collaborating on legislation to provide public funding for water infrastructure. Together, the collaboration has identified ways in which the legislation can provide reasonable eligibility criteria and priorities for communities when competing for infrastructure funding for drinking, waste and storm water. In addition, the collaboration thinks communities can reasonably implement water conservation practices and the use of Green Infrastructure— such as preserving wetlands for filtering clean

The Conservancy and ACEC/MA have made some excellent progress and the hope is to continue building bridges—and removing obsolete dams. And back to that quiet Friday morning in December. After seven straight hours on the phone, I returned to fixing the stove and had it ready in time to make supper. Perhaps some engineering skills have rubbed off on me? More information online: Critical Linkages: Resolving the Conflict between Roads and Wildlife Provisions for Administration of the Dam and Sea Wall Repair or Removal Fund

Steve Long is the Director of Government Relations for The Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts. You can reach Steve at [email protected], 617/532-8367 or 617/312-5932.


4

Balancing Innovation, Sustainability and Risk By Scott Miller Innovation is what drives our passion. It is what piques our interest in the work that we do. At least a portion of that interest is the challenge of innovation, the ability to meet a goal that tests the limits of our abilities. That challenge brings risk. To remain effective—and employed—we must manage that risk at a level that is acceptable to the project stakeholders given the benefit of the innovation. Improving the sustainability of our projects frequently requires innovation. It forces a deviation from our normal design to meet specific goals of reduced environmental and social impacts. The demand for more sustainable design starts with the project owners or investors. This demand can be founded in their own fundamental ideals, a marketing approach, a regulatory incentive or a combination of all three. The US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is a common aspect of sustainable design in the vertical construction market. The program provides education and rating systems for sustainable design. The use of construction materials with a low environmental impact contributes to the positive rating of the structure. Similarly, mechanical equipment with low energy consumption is favored over more conventional options. The risk related to these building projects may come from several fronts. The incorporation of new construction materials into an existing standard design practice can lead to con struction and facility management challenges. High efficiency heating and cooling systems may not meet the needs of a broad range of building occupants. Limited availability of the materials or equipment required to construct a sustainable design can contribute to project delays and increased costs. The horizontal construction market is also the focus of sustainable design. Low Impact Development (LID) is a good example of the deviation from conventional design practices to reduce the impact on the environment. LID designs promote the reduction of storm water runoff from developed sites by reducing impervious areas and promoting infiltration.

These designs also favor the reduction of pollutants in the storm water runoff through passive treatment techniques. Through LID design, roadway widths are minimized and storm water management is moved back to the source rather than at the end of pipe design convention. The benefit of low impact development is offset by risk also. Reduced roadway widths can lead to safety considerations. Cars parked along a narrow subdivision roadway can limit the ability of emergency response equipment to reach an interior home quickly. LID design may result in reduced construction costs as pavement is reduced and large piping systems are eliminated. The life time maintenance cost will increase, however, to reflect the additional effort of maintaining the infiltration and treatment systems. This is significant if ownership of the facilities transfers after construction. LID can be a greater challenge to the designer also. While conventional, large-pipe systems are more predictable, distributed LID systems require a higher level of monitoring and maintenance for lifetime success. The distributed infiltration and treatment systems may transfer to homeowners or other commercial property owners who do not have the focus or incentive to maintain the facilities. Regardless of where the fault lies, a failed system can reflect poorly on the designer. The primary means of managing risk is through communication and education, with a particular concentration on the client and owner. They are the beneficiary of the sustainable design and should have a full understanding of the related risks. The incorporation of a sustainable design will have a greater impact on the project costs compared to a conventional design. With vertical construction, the initial capital cost is expected to be higher with at least some offset in long-term operational costs through efficiency gains. Horizontal sustainable designs may have a lower capital cost but the long-term operational costs are frequently higher. The lifetime costs of the project should be developed early in a project and updated at key project milestones. The proposed construction and occupancy schedule should be maintained to reflect product availability and the overall integration of the systems.

From an educational standpoint, any limits of the proposed design should be discussed with the client and owner with an emphasis on the proposed use. Confirmation of the intended use, the acceptable operational levels and expected efficiencies should be clarified between client, owner and design staff. The life-time operational requirements of a sustainable design should be presented at the preliminary design phase if possible. The design staff should learn to recognize the risk of adding an innovative process with a reflection on the project cost, timing and reliability. Innovative designs should be implemented in a controlled manner. The ideal approach is to adopt a new design practice in a pilot or small scale project prior to incorporation on a large scale. Design and product weaknesses presented at a small scale are much easier to recover from than the same issue in a major project. The risk is much more palatable to the client and owner on a small scale. Research of similar projects and approaches is also a reasonable means of reducing the risk of innovation. Documentation is also a key aspect of risk management during innovative design processes. Project files should demonstrate the route the design staff took to reach the intended goal including calculations and supporting product documents. Milestone and final budget sheets along with project schedules should be retained. The file should also include meeting minutes and exhibits to document discussions related to the project approach, the incorporation of innovative aspects and the expected outcome. As with any project, a quality control process that includes a peer review is a clear demonstration that reasonable care was taken in developing the design. Innovation, including sustainable design, is essential to the architectural and engineering industry. We must continue to develop designs that meet our clients’ goals for projects with reduced environmental and social impacts. The risk of this innovative work can be managed effectively through the use of reasonable care in our design process and effective communication with our staff and clients. Scott A. Miller, PE, is President of Haley and Ward, Inc. and the board liaison to the Risk Management Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].


5

GreenDOT: The Plan for Sustainable Transportation in Massachusetts By Alison Smith, Stantec Over three years ago, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) announced its “GreenDOT” initiative, a long-term effort to reduce the state’s green house gas emissions by encouraging and supporting walking, biking, mass transit and smart growth and development. Since that time, MassDOT has researched and developed a plan, completed earlier this year, for implementing measures that will help the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reach its sustainable transportation goals. This process included an extensive public participation period during which MassDOT hosted a series of public meetings across the state. The resulting plan explains how MassDOT expects to reach its ambitious goal— reducing the transportation sector’s overall greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts by more than 2 million tons during the next decade—a reduction of about 7%. While a number of the recommended strategies are common to energy reduction goals (e.g., designing green buildings, reducing waste, purchasing locally-sourced materials), they have the potential to affect projects within MassDOT going forward. The focus could shift from solely a transit-oriented

design and enforcement of the Complete Streets Design Standards as outlined in the Highway Division Project Development and Design Guide to incorporate better integrated transportation and land use planning and launching a new preferred materials program. The plan outlines the goals of the program in detail and is organized into the following major categories: Air • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Policy/Planning • Design a multi-modal transportation system • Promote healthy transportation and livable communities • Triple mode share of bicycling, transit and walking Waste • Achieve zero solid waste disposal • Reduce all exposure to hazardous waste

• Improve statewide air quality

Water • Use less water

Energy • Consume less energy

• Improve ecological function of water systems

• Increase reliance on renewable energy Land • Minimize energy and chemicals used in MassDOT maintenance facilities • Enhance ecological performance of MassDOT impacted land Materials • Improve life-cycle impacts of investments • Purchase environmentally-preferred products • Build Green facilities for MassDOT

“The GreenDOT Implementation Plan will help move us forward in achieving our sustainability goals by providing us with a framework to measure successful implementation through our performance management system,” said Richard Davey, MassDOT Secretary and CEO, regarding the plan’s release. “Like sustainability and livability, the GreenDOT Implementation Plan is not static; it is a ‘living document’ that will respond to innovations in technology and proven best practices.” Click here to learn more about the GreenDOT program and download the implementation plan.

Program Committee Prepares the 2013–2014 Calendar Last year, the Program Committee held nine programs attended by more than 530 members. These programs ranged from the Networking and Wine Tasting Reception, to the 11th Annual State Markets Conference, to the Alternative Delivery Methods Breakfast Program. The schedule for this year is still being finalized, but incoming co-chairs, James Barnack and Natasha Velickovic have put together a great slate of programs. Watch for more information on acecma.org and in ACECMAtters or contact the Program Committee.

September 2013—Harpoon Brewery Tour

PROGRAM COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS

October 2013—CIM Dinner

James T. Barnack, EIT Highway Engineer, Jacobs 617/242-9222 [email protected]

November 2013—Risk Management or Asset Management January 2014—Alternative Delivery Methods February 2014—Stormwater Program April 2014—State Markets May 2014—MEP Program June 2014—Annual Meeting

Natasha Velickovic, PE Project Manager, VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 617/728-7777 [email protected]


6

LEED® v4: It’s Almost Time By Sandra A. Brock, PE, LEED AP BD+C Over the years, the sustain able design movement has grown and adapted to address changing conditions and knowledge. This includes the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) Certification program, which remains the gold standard for sustainable building certification. On July 2, 2013, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) announced that their membership voted to adopt the most progressive LEED green building rating system yet: LEED v4. The background… LEED was developed by the USGBC in 2000 with the goal of redefining how we think about the places we live and work. LEED continues to provide designers and owners with a framework for measuring how green the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a building is. The process… USGBC is committed to continually updating and improving the LEED rating system while advancing the boundaries of sustainable design. This requires USGBC to update the LEED rating system on a regular basis, as knowledge about sustainable building increases and best practices are more clearly defined. The update

cycle has varied between two and four years, and each update includes public engagement with USGBC members, users and stakeholders, followed by a vote by USGBC members on whether to adopt the proposed changes. LEED v4 was approved with 86% of the overall vote in favor of adopting the changes—well above the 66.7% minimum to pass. The changes... This revision is a major overhaul, with changes ranging from reference updates, to minor updates, to significant changes. For example, the site-related credits have major changes, including: • New “Location and Transportation” Section: the new section provides two new credits: one for Neighborhood Development projects, and one for High Priority Sites with development challenges (e.g., brownfields). This section also includes repackaged credits moved from the Sustainable Sites Section such as Density, Transportation, Parking, Bicycle Facilities, Sensitive Land Protection, and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles. • Revamped “Sustainable Sites” Section: LEED v4 has a new credit for “Site Assessment” that encourages early site analysis to inform the design. The Stormwater Design Quality

Control and Quantity Control credits have been merged into one credit, and the sitespecific criteria has been revised for more frequent, low-intensity storm events. Other credits have been renamed and requirements tweaked. Next steps… With LEED v4 representing a significant step forward, those of us who design projects that seek LEED certification have some work to do. To fully understand the depth of changes, visit www.usgbc.org/leed/v4 to review their summary of changes, full rating system language, and new scorecards. For more information, USGBC Massachusetts Chapter also provides online resources and sessions on LEED v4. In addition, over the summer, USGBC will introduce webinar programs about LEED v4, before rolling out the full reference guides and officially launching the new version in November at the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo. Sandra A. Brock, PE, LEED AP BD+C, is Chief Engineer at Nitsch Engineering, Boston, Mass., and a member of the Board of Directors for USGBC Massachusetts Chapter. She can be reach at sbrock@ nitscheng.com.

Live Healthier with Designed Wellness! ACEC Life/Health Insurance Trust is embarking on a journey to ensure that consulting engineers are the healthiest profession in the country.

• Complete an online Personal Health Assessment (PHA) and biometric screening to help identify potential health risks;

By investing in employees’ health and well-being, you show that you care about them and recognize that they are your firm’s most valuable asset. Companies that have wellness programs in place report that it attracts higher-quality employees, increases employee job satisfaction and makes it easier to retain employees for a longer period of time. One participating firm reported that their yearly turnover rate is at its lowest level, and the average tenure of employees has increased since the implementation of a wellness program! Employees are more loyal to companies that care about them, which is an intangible benefit that you can’t put a price on.

• Access lifestyle coaching services to help them set, reach and maintain goals; and

For firms that are currently enrolled in a Trust Medical Insurance Plan, the Designed Wellness program is offered within existing premiums at no additional out-of-pocket cost to participating firms. With the Designed Wellness program, employees and their spouses can:

• Use a variety of online services to track their progress. Participation in the Designed Wellness program has benefits for individual firms as well. Designed Wellness has the potential to affect a company’s bottom line by: • Increasing productivity;

• Decreasing employee absenteeism; and • Helping to control health care costs. Each of us can take steps, even small ones, to improve our overall well-being. Designed Wellness is one of the benefits available to firms participating in the Trust. We hope you will join the Trust by participating in this worthwhile effort.

For more information on Designed Wellness, email Lindsay Naso, Trust Wellness Coordinator, at wellness@ aceclifehealthtrust.com.

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 Bob Dunn at [email protected] or 978/692-1913 or Elena Bleakley at [email protected] or 617/823-8639.


7

EWB and Mkutani Journey to Self-Sufficiency By Peter Jepson, Engineers Without Borders Tanzanian Program Manager Mkutani is a village of 3,000 in the center of Tanzania, East Africa. It is a beautiful place, similar to a typical New England town in population and land area. The people of Mkutani are wonderful people who respect and care for each other and appreciate what they have. What people of Mkutani don’t have, though, would make us shudder. There’s no electrical power or water supply. They collect water from the river that runs through the village— although the water is silty, salty and full of harmful bacteria; and by the end of the dry season the once picturesque river is not much more than a trickle. Few Americans would disagree that the villagers deserve a decent water supply, especially when in the ground, just 100 meters down, there is water—some boreholes in the region which yield 10,000 liters per hour.

Mkutani main street at rush hour

Surely, we could solve Mkutani’s problem by getting donations and building a new water system. The fact is that building a new water system would not solve Mkutani’s problem. Consider that the villagers have no experience running a water system, wouldn’t know how to operate or maintain the system, and, if we shipped a pump and a diesel to run it from the US, they would have no way of getting spare parts. So if building or giving money for a water system isn’t the right thing to do, what can we, in Massachusetts, do to help improve the quality of life for the people of Mkutani? That is the question a team of Engineers Without Borders (EWB)—Boston Professional Chapter members considered when they started working with Mkutani. After much research and debate, we concluded that offering technical and organizational expertise is genuinely valuable while offering them only money is genuinely not. The people in Mkutani are proving that this approach is the correct one. They are desperate to learn from us and benefit from what they learn. In a series of open-air meetings, the people of Mkutani decided that the first thing they would like our help with is building a roof-top rainwater catchment system for the village health center. Currently, nurses walk nearly one kilometer to the river with their 20-liter buckets to get water for the health center, and then again to get water for their homes and families. The planned system would provide 40

Yet still she smiles

Taking water samples for testing

liters of clean water every day for the health center’s operations. You might say, “Forty liters? That’s not much!” But it’s enough to make a real difference, and the village has set up a project committee to collect a fixed sum from every household for materials for the tank.

about building solar water-stills. They would also like to learn where and how to dig wells, how to line them, etc. (Are you a groundwater expert? EWB could use your help.)

But the expenses go beyond that. We believe that spending time in the village is the most important thing EWB can do. We hope to send a team to Tanzania this fall to supervise the construction of the catchment system, but travel costs are steep. Despite all the technology available to us, we cannot put our expertise to use and facilitate change in a village with no electricity unless we travel to Mkutani.

EWB plans to continue to work with Mkutani and Mapinduzi—another village in the same region and with similar problems—on other projects in the coming years. Our dream is to expand the program to other villages in the region as well. To continue the work we have begun, please contribute in any way you can— be it your expertise (groundwater, grant writing, web design), “boots on the ground” or much-needed donations. For more infor mation, visit ewbboston.org.

Our presence and sharing of expertise has empowered the people of Mkutani, but there is still much to be done. The villagers have established a list of achievable, self-directed projects. For example, they would like to learn

Peter Jepson is a metallurgist, retired from H.C. Starck Inc., Newton, MA, who volunteers time to EWB. He can be reached at [email protected], or at 978/462-1175.


8

How to Beat a Patent Troll By Damian LaPlaca, Nelson Kinder + Mosseau PC You are the Chief Executive Officer of an engineering firm that employs its own proprietary technology as part of its business. Perhaps your technology is a method of cleaning wastewater. Maybe it is a unique method to conduct project management. Let’s say you have your own patent to protect your technology. More likely you have decided to protect it as a company trade secret by granting access to only selected employees who are subject to rock-solid employment agreements prohibiting their use of the technology outside of the company business. In any event, it is a technology developed in house, it is yours and yours alone and you have taken great pains to protect it from competitors. You feel protected. One day a certified letter reaches your desk. It is addressed to you from Big Law Firm LLC. It is single-spaced, several pages long and may even contain graphs and charts. And once you struggle through reading it, it says that your proprietary technology infringes on the patent of Big Law Firm’s client, Big Time Technology Co. But not to worry, Big Law Firm offers a solution. Just sign the attached license agreement and start paying licensing fees to Big Time Technology for any new use of your own technology, and Big Time Technology will forgive all past violations helping you to avoid a huge patent lawsuit, one of the most expensive types of civil litigation. Wait a minute. How can your technology that you developed in house and protected by taking all the appropriate steps infringe on someone else’s patent? A patent you have never heard of, owned by a company that perhaps you have never even seen operating in your industry? Yes, it is possible that around the same time you developed your technology, Big Time developed identical technology, or the functional equivalent, and got a patent on it. It is equally possible that you are the recipient of a demand letter from the dreaded “Patent Troll.” A Patent Troll is a patent owner who seeks to enforce its patent rights against alleged infringers when it has no intention of using the patented technology in the first place. It is a predator, and it has you in its sights. Perhaps it even applied for a patent simply to make an infringement claim against your company’s patent. This happens far too often, and some ACEC/ MA member firms have been targets of these patent trolls. Some of the smaller firms, without the benefit of legal guidance and with the threat of liability and tremendous legal expense, have quickly settled with the claimant by paying licensing fees, in order to avoid any potential larger liability that may loom ahead. Unfortunately, they might be paying for a liability that does not even exist.

One ACEC/MA member reported having settled with a reputed scanner troll, who claimed a patent on scanning and emailing. ACEC/MA members should be on the lookout for such a scam, and report it to their legal counsel or ACEC/MA. But Vermont is taking a stance and fighting back. On May 22, 2013, Vermont enacted a law to protect its small businesses from bad-faith patent suits. Private businesses, and the state’s attorney general, can now sue the alleged wrongdoer for damages and an injunction claiming to be victims. This statute is the first of its kind in the country, and it remains to be seen whether it will provide the much-needed protection against patent trolls. Some question as to whether or not the statute is pre-empted by federal patent statutes. On May 8 2013, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint in Superior Court against MPHJ Technology, alleging that it violated the consumer protection law by sending letters to numerous small businesses demanding that the recipients pay for a license or face a patent lawsuit for scanning and emailing scanned documents. Vermont brought this suit under its consumer protection statutes, not the later enacted law. In a published interview, the Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell said that “the new law is just another arrow in our quiver.” So, if you receive such a letter, and you are not located in Vermont, what should you do? One of the first things to do is to have outside counsel help to prepare a Document Hold and Preservation Notice that directs all relevant employees not to destroy any documents that relate to your technology and documents showing how your technology was developed. In other words, you need to suspend your document destruction policy to avoid any claim that you either intentionally, or inadvertently, destroyed evidence that could help prove a patent infringement case against you. Don’t make a bad situation even worse. That is just step one. The larger issue is your company’s potential liability and exposure for huge legal fees. Generally speaking, you have two major defenses: one that your technology does not infringe Big Time’s patent, and two, that Big Time’s patent is invalid for a variety of reasons under the patent statutes. One of the statutory defenses might be that your technology was used publicly at a certain date before Big Time sought its patent and your technology is called “Prior Art” to Big Time’s patent, and hence, Big Time’s patent is invalid. However, showing that your technology does not infringe Big Time’s patent is far less expensive and time consuming than trying to prove that its patent is invalid.

You look at your budget and find there is no line item to defend patent lawsuits and to hire expensive legal experts. But there is no immediate need to hire outside experts to compare your technology to Big Time’s patent. As an initial step, employ your own to do that work. Give your engineers the patent, and have them read the claims in the patent and compare the claims to your technology. The claims in a patent define the scope of the protection covered by the patent. The claims are usually written in highly technical language. Research whether Big Time has sued others for this patent, and whether it forced other companies to license their technology to Big Time. Yes, it also means you will ultimately need patent litigation counsel to help prepare a response to Big Law Firm’s demand letter. Your counsel will need to work closely with your engineers to prepare the letter which says that your technology does not infringe Big Time’s patent. It will reserve all rights to claim other non-infringement defenses as other facts come to light, it will reserve all rights to claim invalidity of the patent, and finally, it will politely tell them to go fly a kite. Remember that you do have an edge over Big Time, since you know exactly how your proprietary technology works, and Big Time does not. There is risk in preparing such a letter, since it might give Big Time information it did not already have that it might later use in a lawsuit should it have been bound and determined to file the suit in the first place. This response letter needs to be carefully prepared to not give away the farm to your new enemy. Make it short and succinct. You have put the basketball squarely back in Big Time’s court, and you have tested its resolve. Big Time Law Firm might send another letter to flush out your facts. Perhaps you don’t take that bait and ignore this second round. You just might achieve your goal, to convince Big Time Technology and Big Law Firm that it is not worth their while to sue you. Check with your insurance too. There is not a lot of insurance companies that cover patent claims, but it is worth a call to your broker. And go back to doing what you do best, employing your proprietary technology for the good of your clients. Damian R. LaPlaca specializes in intellectual property litigation. He can be reached at dlaplaca@ nkmlawyers.com.


9

Spotlight: Incoming ACEC/MA President Rich O’Brien Incoming ACEC/MA President, Rich O’Brien, has seen a lot of change in his 40 years in the industry. As he puts it—while he’s only had one employer, he’s had many jobs at Parsons Brinckerhoff, taking the company through its evolution from a 450-person partnership, to a 13,000-person employee-owned company, expanding later into part of a 50,000-person, publicly-traded, global corporation. Throughout this time, he’s noticed a particular shift in mindset across the industry, one that he says is becoming increasingly important—the willingness to have a broad understanding of all facets of a client’s needs, from economics, to risk, to the politics of decisions, sustainability, and everything in between. Much like in the late 19th Century’s “Golden Age” of civil engineering, Rich sees our members engaging in the big-picture issues of their clients rather than focusing solely on tasks at hand. “Early in my career if the highway department changed the headings in the columns of their rate forms, that would be a 45-minute discussion,” he says. “Now the whole industry has moved away from those details to a higher level of thinking. This is an exciting time to be an engineer.” Rich plans to embrace that big-picture thinking in his term as ACEC/MA President, making the benefits of membership even more valuable. Rich says ACEC/MA needs to focus on how it can help members help their clients. “Our

energy needs to be directed outwardly rather than inwardly,” he says. “We want to expand our advocacy and be engaged with public agencies and private clients.” “We’re well on that road already,” he says, with ACEC/MA liaison committees connected with most agencies, involvement in several pieces of legislation, and agencies asking Abbie Goodman (ACEC/MA Executive Director, Director of External Affairs, The Engineering Center in Boston) and other members to sit on task forces or provide input on policies. “If they are thinking of us, that’s tremendous,” Rich says. Finding ways for the engineering industry to interact with and engage the public is also important to Rich, particularly when it comes to mentoring the next generation of professionals. When his kids were young—and his wife was the editor of the local paper—he became especially involved in his own community, advocating for more educational and recreational opportunities in the schools. With that experience under his belt, he brought the same spirit of public service to his office, helping the company refocus its community giving to supporting education for disadvantaged students. Because education is the gateway to opportunity, Rich sees this support as critical to maintaining an educated workforce and stable communities. “Education

can change people’s lives,” he adds. “The jobs of the future will require higher levels of skills and adaptability and access to education will be crucial.” For a guy whose big life change was to move from Lynn to Somerville to attend Tufts, Rich truly embraces change and wants ACEC/MA to help the industry lead the way. Given all he’s seen from his ever-steady perch, he sounds like just the man for the job.

Thanks to Our Outgoing Leadership Over the past year, outgoing President Ko Ishikura has been tireless in his determination to have “ACEC/MA “be an organization people really want to join and participate in because we can provide our members with value that they can appreciate.” Under his leadership, the organization has progressed its mission of “serving as a voice of an engineering industry.” He has helped build many valuable relationships that will benefit all members. While Ko may have written his last President’s Message for Insights, we are confident that he will continue to have impact in his new role as Past President—and we hope he finds some time for a little rest and relaxation, as well. Thanks, Ko! Above: Ko Ishikura; Left: Ko with Incoming President Rich O’Brien


10

SUSTAINABILITY TODAY Preparing for Storm Surge continued from page 1

months or years, with vast economic costs. Investments in the defense, hardening or relocation of infrastructure may, in many cases, be entirely feasible and cost-effective. Yet, most agencies with responsibility for at-risk assets have so far failed to define response plans. In January, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began to lay the foundation for response by releasing a report defining a range of scenarios for sea level rise in this century. The scenario approach can create clarity even under conditions of uncertainty. For less critical assets and assets which have a short life, it is enough to prepare them only for the low rise scenario—8 inches of rise in the NOAA analysis. We should prepare our truly critical assets to withstand the high rise scenario—6.6 feet in the NOAA analysis. Although NOAA has performed a great service by putting these scenarios on the table, the analysis leaves many questions unanswered for the state and local authorities who have the responsibility of developing plans to protect infrastructure. First, as NOAA indicates, there is considerable variation in expected sea level rise due to both vertical land movement and ocean dynamics. Second, the medium term threat is not sea level rise per se, but storm surge. Climate change can add to the risk of inundation not only by

Surpassing the Conventional By Richa Shukla and Anthony Kane Sustainability today has chal lenged us to embrace natural environmental processes; fun da mental to this change is overcoming professional bar riers between civil engineers, designers, planners, public officials and the communities that shape the built environ ment. Cities located in low-lying areas call for reinvention of urban infrastructure as they face increasing risk of inundation through sea-level rise or coastal surges. The underlying challenge in addressing climate risk is no longer about educating the masses; the majority of the global population

raising the normal sea level, but also by exacerbating storms. Local areas vary greatly in their exposure to storm surge and the phenomenon is too complex to allow for easy forecasting. Third, some heavily developed coastal areas at the mouths of rivers are protected by sea walls. In the Boston area, for example, a great deal of valuable real estate lies along the banks of the Charles and Mystic rivers, both of which are maintained below their natural levels by sea walls that keep the high tides out. While there are pumps to send flow from these rivers over the sea walls when the rivers are swollen by flooding and the tide is high, we can anticipate storm surges high enough to overtop the sea walls and into the river basins. Sophisticated modeling is needed to determine if the installed ejection capacity can overcome the combination of swollen river flow and overtopping sea water flow. Finally, highly accurate topographic models are necessary to evaluate the horizontal extent of inundation that will result from given levels of vertical water rise. These models need to take into account the flow of storm water through subsurface infrastructure like tunnels and pipes. Altogether, these complexities exceed the scientific capacity of most state and local agencies, leaving them with uncertainty great enough to defeat any impulse to plan ahead. State and regional governments need to create a credible process through which the necessary regional scientific work can be done to define

has directly or indirectly experienced the magnitude of climate change or lives under a certain climate threat today. Superstorm Sandy exposed the instability of coastal infrastructure in cities along the Northeastern shoreline of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, stirring serious deliberations on urban resilience. An article in the New York Times from November 2012 observed, “Along the eastern seaboard, serious debates between proponents and opponents of ‘hard’ engineered defenses are ongoing, representing a kind of proxy war between traditional engineering approaches and an emerging alliance of advocates for more flexible and responsive, though mostly still untested, ‘soft’ systems.”1 These recent events have certainly increased awareness in residents of the Northeastern coastal region. Efforts to build collaborative platforms that address issues of climate change and advance political discourse are being

the scenarios for which agencies should plan. In Massachusetts, the legislature is considering a bill that would task the state’s Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs with creating a working group with broad participation to do the necessary modeling and develop some alternative scenarios over several different time horizons. The bill would then task state agencies and utilities that are responsible for critical infrastructure with developing preliminary proposals which respond to those scenarios, including rough cost-estimates. The agencies and the legislature will then be able to take planning steps towards particular projects. The lead time for major public infrastructure investments often runs in the decades due to the myriad stakeholders who need to participate in planning. There are signs that the risk of storm surge has already increased. It is therefore urgent that state and regional governments in coastal areas create planning processes that can create the clear problem definition needed to spur action. Will Brownsberger is the state senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District which includes Belmont, Watertown and parts of Boston from Brighton into Back Bay. He represents some of the lowest-lying districts in both the Charles and Mystic watersheds. He can be reached at [email protected] or 617/722-1280.

widely acknowledged and there is great potential to turn these into actions. When infrastructure fails, ecology becomes visible.2 Forces of nature have traditionally been treated as hostile elements, and hard infrastructure as the solution. The traditional practice of infrastructure development has predominantly been about overcoming hurdles through hard engineering at inconceivable scales. The objective is to build strong to achieve permanence and durability to the point that ecology’s demands are disregarded. Ecology fundamentally demands the opposite; to build ephemerally, temporarily and with biophysical processes.3 The coast is a complex natural system that not only absorbs tidal change but also registers stormwater runoff. This brings to light the inland problem of combined sewer



11

SUSTAINABILITY TODAY Surpassing the Conventional continued from page 10

overflows (CSOs) and waste treatment facilities affecting water quality in almost all major Northeastern cities. Infrastructure needs to be developed in conjunction with scales of ecology. Building with scales of ecology implies consideration of the effect of infrastructure development in regional contexts, which translates to a scale of immediate as well as subsidiary influences that spread beyond its vicinity. Thus, any piece of infrastructure development needs to be analyzed and designed for several scales, incorporating the largest regional effects. This is where larger implications of decisions and professional collaborations by planners, environmentalists and engineers become evident. Environmental processes that evolve over time become critical drivers in shaping sustainable infrastructure; immediate mitigation measures may not always sustain as long-term solutions. Emerging changes and impacts Infrastructure can be seen as a tangible structuring device that operates at the scale of the city. In embracing infrastructure, designers are extending their view beyond the pieces and parts of the city to the design of entire systems and their operations. Live ecological systems can be designed as infrastructures that reform existing systems and shape new development. Practitioners are beginning to successfully deploy nature itself as a tool to effectively tackle climate risk and pursue soft infrastructure development through ecological processes. It has proven more effective than shortsighted decision-making that focused on hard infrastructure solutions which promise immediate results for the purpose of substantiating funding. Along these lines, the same New York Times article stated, “our election cycle tends to thwart infrastructural improvements that can take decades and don’t provide short-term ribbon-cutting payoffs for politicians. Not surprisingly, it’s a wry commonplace among engineers and architects that autocratic regimes make the most aggressive builders of massive projects.” In late February 2013, the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure4 at Harvard Uni versity hosted an inter-disciplinary workshop that brought together public officials from regulatory agencies, engineers, planners, designers, environmentalists, non-profit organizations and academic faculty to discuss strategies for the future of green infrastructure in dense urban contexts, exploring the case of New

York City–a clear imperative in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. A common thread between several presentations called upon critical observations on the conflicts between regulatory agencies in implementing infrastructure projects, and the need for greater interdisciplinary cooperation. While Adrian Benepe, Director of City Park Development at the Trust for Public Land and former Commissioner of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation from 2002-12, talked about strategies to transform parks, urban greens and even school playgrounds as components of green infra structure capable of dealing with storm surges, he also shed light on the complex web of agencies and regulatory hurdles that have to be tackled before any of these turn into reality. However, projects like the Brooklyn Bridge Park and Fresh Kills in Staten Island, New York, are examples of successful inter-disciplinary collaboration that not only sustained the storm surges but also functioned as critical buffers during the hurricane. These projects demonstrate changing trends in the practice. Matt Urbanski, Principal of Michael Van Vaulkenburgh Associates landscape architects for the Brooklyn Bridge Park, identified the two key components of redevelopment, flood control and naturalization, to address sea level rise. He elaborated on the Brooklyn Bridge Park project as a prime example of how managing the design and execution of a large-scale urban park can begin with low-tech innovations such as recycling nearby construction debris or planting flood resilient vegetation. Urbanski reinforced the importance of engaging in open discussions before the boundaries are drawn between agencies and consultants to avoid piecemeal solutions that create inefficient project schedules and budgets. Rising sea level is expected to change population patterns around the world demanding we rethink the way we have traditionally inhabited land. Some directions worth pursuing would be changes in land use patterns, giving up land for controlled flooding, creating flexible zoning methods that will evolve with changing climatic needs, responding resiliently to natural disasters and increasing community welfare. Decentralized infrastructure systems, instead of centralized systems, have proven to perform well especially in dealing with such disasters. Decentralized systems may have higher cost implications but in terms of maintaining a balanced performance have proven more effective. Commissioner Carter Strickland of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection, who oversees a budget of $1.2 billion for infrastructure projects in New York

City, elaborated on the example of fourteen decentralized waste water treatment plants in New York where only three of the plants failed but eleven continued to function during Hurricane Sandy. Opportunities The task of mitigating climate change is far bigger than any one agency. At the core of this mission is the need to overcome professional and jurisdictional boundaries and claim contributions from across society in ways that surpass conventional thinking. The Northeast is home to some of the world’s most famous cities. Instead of perceiving future climate risk as catastrophic we must acknowledge the dynamics of complex ecologies. We must use this opportunity to redevelop infrastructure in conjunction with scales of ecology, and not simply alleviate immediate calamities. Global cities like London, Tokyo, and Rotterdam, have responded to climate change with varying degrees of “hard” infrastructure solutions and still face a looming challenge. This is an opportunity for US cities to set up a global precedent for an improved sustained urban environment. Richa Shukla is a research associate at Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), and the Program Administrator for the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure and the Gulf Sustainable Urbanisms Research projects. She has practiced as an architect in Mumbai, India and her current research focuses on Comparative Urban Studies and Regional Landscape Infrastructure Systems. She can be reached at rshukla@ gsd.harvard.edu, or 770/401-3751. Anthony Kane is a research associate at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Rating System Research Director for the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure at Harvard. His work focuses primarily on sustainability in the built environment and advanced fabrication methods. He can be reached at [email protected] or 617/496-3138.

Notes: 1 New York Times, Michael Kimmelman. “Vetoing Business as Usual After the Storm.” 19 November 2012. 2 Bélanger, Pierre. “PhD defense at Wageningen University, Wageningen Institute for Environment and Climate Research (WIMEK), Landscape architecture.” Landscape Infrastructure: Urbanism beyond Engineering. Wageningen, 13 May 2013. 3 Ibid 4 Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure workshop at Harvard University. “After Sandy: The Renewed Urgency for Green Infrastructure.” Cambridge, MA, Feb 2013.

What Has ACEC/MA Done For You Lately? July 2013 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.

MASSACHUSETTS AGENCIES • M et with representatives of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office to discuss member concerns about patent trolls targeting smaller design firms. • H eld our Annual State Markets Conference on April 11, 2013, featuring key leaders from Massachusetts building, water and transportation sector agencies. • O ngoing participation in bi-monthly meetings of the Construction Law Working Group, at DCAM’s invitation, which is a collaboration of design, construction and owner organizations. • R epresented on the MA School Building Authority Advisory Board (Dom D’Eramo), the MSBA Designer Selection Panel (Leo Peters), the MassDOT Advisory Committee and the MassDOT/FHWA Every Day Counts Task Force. • Wrote Recommended Best Practice of Design Review for MassDOT.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY • R eviewed and submitted written comments to DEP Commissioner Kimmell’s Regulatory Reform Plan on water and wastewater. • O rganized and co-hosted the annual May Engineers and Land Surveyors Day at the State House, with welcoming remarks from State Representative Paul Brodeur (D-Melrose) and with over 60 participants from ACEC/MA, BSCES and MALSCE. • Advocated for passage of a larger transportation infrastructure funding package for Massachusetts. • S ubmitted comments on the proposed regulations for the new Dam and Seawall Loan and Grant programs, created as a result of our successful advocacy for passage of the Dam Safety, Repair and Removal bill. • H osted the Water Infrastructure Alliance meetings at The Engineering Center to work for passage of legislation to close water infrastructure funding gap. • Testified in support of S.993, an act to create and maintain jobs in the Commonwealth. • A dvocated for a Good Samaritan bill to protect engineering companies from liability for volunteering technical help during an emergency situation. • Continue to evaluate Massachusetts senate and house bills which may affect our industry. • Communicating via Twitter on @ACECMA. ACEC/MA has over 1100 followers.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE • C ompleted our 4th Odyssey leadership education program, a 10 month program aimed at mid-managers in our firms, starting in October, 2012. • C ompleted our 14th Emerging Leaders education program, a program aimed at fostering emerging leaders for leadership success. • Started our 2nd Genesis education program, a program aimed at engineers with 3 to 5 years of experience. • Held Everest Senior Leadership Roundtable on UMass Club on April 4, 2013. American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts (ACEC/MA) The Engineering Center One Walnut Street Boston, MA 02108-3616 T: 617/227-5551, F: 617/227-6783, www.acecma.org

• C ontinue participation in a joint task force with BSCES and MALSCE representatives to review and provide input on potential continuing education requirements in Massachusetts. • C ontinue to hold partnering meetings with key agency leaders at MassDOT, MBTA, Massport, DCAM and DCR to discuss issues of concern to our members. • Developing our QBS website, procurementhelp.org.


13

ACEC/MA NEWS AND NOTES Announcing the FY2014 ACEC/MA Board of Directors and Leadership On July 1, 2013, the new ACEC/MA Board of Directors started its year, with new President Richard F. O’Brien, PE, Vice President at Parsons Brinckerhoff. Click here for a full list of this year’s Board of Directors. Boston Survivors’ Accessibility Alliance (BSAA) Seeks Services From Design Community The Massachusetts Department of Public Safety (DPS) is helping Boston Marathon bombing victims and families that may need physical modifications to owner occupied homes. DPS has asked ACEC/MA, BSCES and the rest of the engineering community, AIA/Massachusetts and others to compile a list of volunteers who may be able to donate design services for these projects. Contractor groups and suppliers are also assisting. We are working with DPS on risk management and liability issues for design professionals. If you or your firm are able to help with design, construction or supplies for these projects, respond to this brief survey. We will share this information with the Department of Public Safety Designer Selection Board Seeks PE for Board—Apply By July 30 The Massachusetts Designer Selection Board (DSB) is seeking resumes from Professional Engineers licensed in Massachusetts for one opening on the DSB. While their preference is for an electrical, mechanical or structural PE, they also will consider resumes from civil engineers. Please submit your resume for this unpaid appointment by April 26, 2013. Click here for more information. ACEC/MA Risk Management Forum Provides New Risk Tip In June 2013, the ACEC/MA Risk Management Forum issued a new installment in their series of Risk Tips for ACEC/MA Member Firms. Risk Tip 7 provides a Document Retention Policy: in general, how long documents and files should be retained. The Risk Tips are available to all ACEC/MA members on the ACEC/MA Risk Management Forum Page. Click here for more information. Transportation: ACEC/MA Advocates for Funding Plans ACEC/MA continues to advocate for the largest long-term financing solution for trans portation infrastructure for roads, bridges,

From left: Incoming ACEC/MA President-Elect Joel Goodmonson, PE presents an ACEC national scholarship to 2013 ACEC/MA Education Corporation Scholarship Winner Caitlin Mackey (MIT, Mech Eng, class of 2015) at ACEC/MA’s June Program on Climate Adaptation, with incoming ACEC/MA President Richard O’Brien, PE transit and aviation. In mid-July, the Massa chusetts Senate voted to follow the House’s lead and rejected the Governor’s request for a larger gas tax increase to make up any shortfalls in revenue in the transportation finance package. The Governor had sent back transportation financing legislation with three amendments. Both legislative chamber agreed to the Senate second and third amendments: The first amendment would increase the gas tax after 2017 if the tolls on the Turnpike are eliminated (rejected by legislature). The second amendment makes sure the community members of the Massport board are residents of East Boston, South Boston, or Winthrop. And the third makes the effective date of the software sales tax seven days after the effective date of the law. At press time, Governor Patrick was expected veto the bill and legislative leaders appear to have the votes to then override his veto. The Governor claims the bill falls short of producing $800 million in new transportation revenues by 2017 because it fails to account for revenues that could be lost in 2017 when Mass. Turnpike tolls are scheduled to come down from Rte. 128 west to the New York border. The Governor recommended a gas tax hike to replace toll revenues. The legislature was unwilling to go beyond the 3-cent/gallon tax hike included in the bill. ACEC/MA Committees and Forums: Resolve to Serve on an ACEC/MA Committee or Forum ACEC/MA Committees and Forums are open to all employees of ACEC/MA member firms.

Move the engineering business industry forward. You can: • Focus on Client Sector policy issues in Building Engineering, Environmental Affairs, Private Sector or Transportation, • Influence public policy by advocating our key issues through our Government Affairs or QBS Committees • Share your expertise on Business issues through our Forum on Accounting and Finance, Human Resources, Information Systems or Risk Management, or • Inspire current and future engineering firm leaders through our Events and Operations Committees: Awards, Programs, Leadership Education, Membership, and Communi cations (the people who bring you Insights !) Click here to sign up. ACEC/MA EC Presidents’ Scholarship Applications—Deadline January 29, 2014 ACEC/MA Education Corporation (ACEC/ MA EC) created the Presidents’ Scholarship to help celebrate our 50th anniversary by giving back to our community. The Presidents’ Scholarship is a tribute to the outstanding leaders whose stewardship has successfully guided five decades of accomplishment. The annual scholarship is $5,000 and will be presented at the ACEC/MA Engineering Excellence and Awards Gala on March 19, 2014 at The Royal Sonesta, Cambridge, MA. Click here to learn more and download an application.

ACEC/MA Executive Director Abbie Goodman (left) and CDM Vice President David Young (right) met with members of the Massachusetts Congres sional delegation including Representative Joe Kennedy (center) to boost support for transpor tation, water, and energy initiatives as part of the ACEC Annual Convention.


14

NEW MEMBERS Full Member: CDW CONSULTANTS, INC 40 Speen St, Ste 301 Framingham, MA 01701 508/875-2657 www.cdwconsultants.com

Non-Resident Member: CLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC 540 North Commercial Street Manchester, NH 03101 603/668-8223 cldengineers.com

Firm Representative: Yee Cho, PE [email protected]

Firm Representative: Christopher R. Bean, PE [email protected]

Firm Description: Founded in 1990, CDW Consultants, Inc. is a civil and environmental engineering firm offering expertise in civil/site designs, permitting, contaminated site investigations and remedial designs, LSP services, asbestos studies, and construction administration. CDW is certified by MA Supplier Diversity Office as a DBE, and Minority & Woman Owned Business Enterprise.

Firm Description: CLD serves communities, regional planning agencies, State and Federal agencies, and industrial and private clients throughout New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Services include survey, site planning, civil engineering, traffic/transportation planning, bridge/highway design, water resources, environmental, solid waste management, structural engineering, permitting, construction management including oversight and inspections, value engineering and peer review services.

COMMONWEALTH ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS INC. 400 Smith Street Providence, RI 02908 401/273-6600 www.commonwealth-eng.com Firm Representative: Kambiz Karbassi, PE [email protected] Firm Description: CE&C is a multi-disciplinary professional civil and structural engineering firm serving public and private clients with comprehensive services in transportation & structural engineering, site development, utility design, construction services and environmental planning, with experience in projects for state highway departments, cities and towns, private real estate developers, other consulting engineering firms, architects and landscape architects. RELIANCE ENGINEERS 30 Yarmouth Road Wellesley, MA 02481 781/697-8304 www.reliance-eng.com Firm Representative: Sena Kumarasena, PE [email protected] Firm Description: Reliance Engineers is a multi-disciplined professional engineering consultant located in the Boston area. We provide professional engineering services to public agencies, municipalities, consultants and private developers.

Affiliate Member: MICRODESK, INC. 44 Bridge Street Medfield, MA 02052 800/336-3375 www.microdesk.com Firm Representative: John Dalton [email protected] Firm Description: Balancing the leading software tools from Autodesk, Oracle, Google, Adobe and ESRI, with the latest methods, including Building Information Modeling and Virtual Design & Construction, Microdesk provides business and technology consulting services to help firms successfully plan, design, build and operate land and buildings.


15

PRESIDENT Ko Ishikura, PE, President & CEO Green International Affiliates, Inc. T: 978/923-0400, E: [email protected]

UPCOMING EVENTS ACEC/MA Networking and Harpoon Brewery Tour Reception September 10, 2013 Harpoon Brewery, Boston, MA Click for more information ACEC/MA Education Corporation Golf Tournament Monday, September 16, 2013 Marshfield Country Club, Marshfield, MA Click for more information ACEC/MA Odyssey Leadership Program Begins First Session October 2013 More information coming soon ACEC/MA Everest Senior Executive Roundtable October 3, 2013 University of Massachusetts Club, Boston, MA Click for more information ACEC/MA 2014 Engineering Excellence Awards Competition Call for Entries Due: October 11, 2013; Entry Forms available soon Click for more information

ACEC 2013 Fall Conference October 27-30, 2013 Fairmont Scottsdale Princess Resort, Scottsdale, AZ Click for more information Save the Date: ACEC/MA Engineering Excellence and Awards Gala Wednesday, March 19, 2014 The Royal Sonesta Hotel, 40 Edwin H Land Boulevard, Cambridge, MA

ACEC/MA Committee/Forum Meetings on www.acecma.org. Follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/ACECMA

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.

Center

ONE WALNUT STREET Beacon Hill

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Joel P. Goodmonson, PE Executive Vice President/Principal Architectural Engineers, Inc. T: 617/542-0810, E: [email protected] VICE PRESIDENT (vacant) PAST-PRESIDENT Mary B. Hall, PE, Principal GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc T: 617/963-1001, E: [email protected] TREASURER Judith S. Eburn, Vice President/Controller GEI Consultants, Inc T: 781/721-4062, E: [email protected] SECRETARY Joseph B. Cormier, PE Vice President, Regional Delivery Manager Kleinfelder T: 617/498-4611, E: [email protected] DIRECTORS Mark S. Bartlett, PE, President Norfolk Ram Group, LLC T: 508/747-7900, x131, E: [email protected] Jennifer A. Ducey, PE Senior Principal Engineer Fay, Spofford & Thorndike T: 781/221-1031, E: [email protected] Charles A. Kalauskas, PE Chief Executive Officer BSC Group, Inc. T: 617/896-4350, E: [email protected]

Michael J. Scipione, PE, President & CEO Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. T: 978/532-1900, E: [email protected] Damian R. Siebert, PE Senior Engineer Haley & Aldrich, Inc. T: 617/886-7399, E: [email protected] David M. Vivilecchia Regional Finance Manager/Principal VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. T: 617/924-1770, x1905, E: [email protected] Michael J. Walsh, PE Vice President CDM Smith T: 617/452-6535, E: [email protected] Mark Walsh-Cooke, PE, LEED AP BD+C Principal Arup USA Inc. T: 617/864-2987x 23228, E: [email protected] NATIONAL DIRECTOR James A. Pappas, PE, Senior Principal Stantec Consulting Services Inc. T: 617/226-9227, E: [email protected]

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

Aldrich

PRESIDENT-ELECT Richard F. O’Brien, PE, Vice President Parsons Brinckerhoff T: 617/960-4919, E: [email protected]

Scott A. Miller, PE President Haley and Ward, Inc T: 781/890-3980, E: [email protected]

ACEC/MA and CIM Joint Event October 2013 More information coming soon

For information or reservations, contact Rich Keenan, Aldrich Center Manager at 617/305-4110 or [email protected]

ACEC/MA 2012–13 Board of Directors 15

Boston, MA

LEGAL COUNSEL David J. Hatem, PC Donovan Hatem LLP T: 617/406-4800, E: [email protected] ACEC NATIONAL EXCOMM CONTACT Michael W. Matthews, PE, President/CEO H&A Architects & Engineers T: 804/521-7052, E: [email protected] Abbie R. Goodman, IOM, ACEC/MA Executive Director The Engineering Center T: 617/305-4112, E: [email protected]