2016 AGC Awards Judges
Judges (both preliminary round judges and final round judges) for this year’s competition included the following individuals: Charlie Pessa, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Awards Committee Chair
Dave Garese, Excel Bonds & Insurance Services, Inc., Awards Committee Vice Chair
Suzanne Blackburn, Hilfiker Retaining Walls
Don Bradley, Esq., Musick, Peeler & Garrett
Jim Campbell, Jr., Campbell Enterprises
Randy Douglas, Tierra Contracting, Inc.
Chris Handley, Tullis, Inc. Pat Kelly, Granite Construction Company
Danielle Stauft, Rosendin Electric, Inc.
Megan Swedmark, Underground Construction Co., Inc.
Bill Wallace, Daily Construction Service / Reed Construction Data
James Woodbury, Blach Construction Company
Alan Bond, California State University, Chico (Outside Industry Judge)
John Gutierrez, Marina Landscape, Inc.
David Cruce, Papich Construction Co., Inc.
Dave Higgins, Jr., Aditazz Assembly and Construction
Randy Iwasaki, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Excellence in Partnering Awards Judge)
Dan McGrew, Griffith Company (Excellence in Partnering Awards Judge)
Henry Meier, Swinerton HC (Excellence in Partnering Awards Judge)
Ken Solak, Caltrans (Excellence in Partnering Awards Judge)
Bert Somers, Ferrovial Agroman US Corp (Excellence in Partnering Awards Judge)
10 January/February 2017
was critical to the project’s success. Herzog/Reyes JV pursued a “safety
first” approach throughout the three- and-a-half-year project. Tey faced a major challenge when an operating oil field was discovered under the site that had not been accounted for in the design or planning. Tis differing site condition and other changes resulted in increased man-hours and presented additional hazards. Despite these challenges, the project had no Lost Time Incidents throughout the approximately 320,000 man-hours recorded. In addition to its strong safety
management, Herzog/Reyes JV demonstrated innovative management techniques in quality control, schedule management and other areas. Partnering also proved to be a valuable tool that helped the team success- fully manage nearly 1,000 RFIs and $35 million in changes – a 30 percent increase in the original contract value – with no claims recorded.
Also selected as finalists in this category
were: Nova Group, Inc. for “Replace Fuel Storage Facilities” – Edwards Air Force Base, and Shimmick Construction Co., Inc. for “SANDAG TPSS Installation Project” – San Diego.
Meeting the Challenge of the Difficult Job – Projects $10 Million or Below Constructor Winner: Myers &
Sons Construction LP for “Route 12
Representing Myers & Sons Construction, LP/Wadsworth, A Joint Venture (Partnering Award) and Myers & Sons Construction, LP (Constructor Award) are, left to right: Clinton Myers, Lee Grant, Kurtis Frailey, Ray Lee and Mike Lewis.
Bridge Improvements” – Sacramento Te Mokelumne River Bridge,
constructed in 1942, is one of only 21 remaining swing-truss bridges in California. Spanning nearly 1,436 feet and functioning as a vital economic and infrastructure link that connects San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties, the bridge carries nearly 15,000 vehicles daily. In 2013, the bridge was rated as
having a “critical” deck condition and “structurally deficient” portions of the control house structure. Its specialty control, mechanical and motor compo- nents needed replacement. Myers & Sons Construction, working in close partnership with Caltrans, tackled the uniquely challenging bridge rehabilitation project. Trough effective communication, joint problem solving, rapid decision making and collaborative alternatives analysis, the Caltrans/Myers team was able to deliver the project in just half the projected time. Te team faced a complex project
scope involving specialized work in the air, above water and in tightly confined conditions under the structure, all taking place next to extensive amounts of live traffic. Adopting a partnership approach
was pivotal to the project’s success. In early collaboration among the Caltrans/Myers team, local residents and business owners, the Coast Guard and levee districts, the team was able to reduce the project timeline from
| Page 2
| Page 3
| Page 4
| Page 5
| Page 6
| Page 7
| Page 8
| Page 9
| Page 10
| Page 11
| Page 12
| Page 13
| Page 14
| Page 15
| Page 16
| Page 17
| Page 18
| Page 19
| Page 20
| Page 21
| Page 22
| Page 23
| Page 24
| Page 25
| Page 26
| Page 27
| Page 28