The Georgia Engineer Oct-Nov 2012 by Luke Clark

the

速

The Business of Engineering and Education Volume 19, Issue 5 | October | November 2012

The GeorGia enGineer

the

GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Director of Operations Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jimmy St. John, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE ACEC/G Representatives B.J. Martin, PE Lee Philips ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE John Edwards, PE ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells, PE Shaun Green, PE Kay Wolfe, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Ed Culican, PE Jenny Jenkins SEAOG Representative Rob Wellacher, PE

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

Advertisements A4 Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Albany Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Association of Energy Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CDM Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Chastain & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Deemer, Dana, Froehle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GEL | Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 29 Greater Traffic Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 28 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Santa Ed & Elf Evie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The GeorGia enGineer

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER October | November 2012

EPD Expedites Permit Approvals

Overview of a Design Firm Mergers & Acquisitions

Q/A with Keith Golden, PE, Georgia DOT Commissioner

A Sous Chef, A Schoolteacher, and a Civil Engineer Walked into a Problem

Question Your Accounting Principles

The Changing State of Structural Engineering Regulation in the United States

Your Leadership DNA

End of Year Tax Planning Considerations

What’s in the NEWS

After the Referendum ~ What’s next for Georgia Transportation?

GEA

ACEC

GEF

GSPE

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

his is a photo reflection on the art of doing engineering business in Georgia. Our state has an urgent need for fresh talent to join the engineering community.v

ASCE

ASHE

ITE

ITS

GMCEA

SEAOG

WTS

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

The Georgia Engineer Web site is new and improved! www.thegeorgiaengineer.com

The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

EPD Expedites Permit Approvals By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs

uch has been said, and little done, regarding plan reviews and permit approvals—until now. Like much in government, it is never quite as good as advocates claim nor as bad as critics charge. Nonetheless, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division has taken a substantial step to expedite permit approvals for wastewater projects. The Issue For a wastewater treatment plant, a Design Development Report must be prepared

which describes design and performance criteria. Importantly, it stipulates plant discharge standards that the plant is required to meet in order to satisfy in-stream water quality criteria. After approval of the DDR, an engineering firm prepares the detailed design drawings and specifications for the construction of the facility. Heretofore, these plans and specifications would be carefully reviewed by EPD staff, ‘redlined,’ and returned to the design engineer for modification (or ‘correction,’ in some eyes). For a large wastewater project, there can be hundreds of sheets of design drawings and over a thousand pages of specifications. This package gets dropped on the desk of an EPD engineer for review. As the workforce at EPD grows older and retirements occur more frequently, the reviewing engineer is increasingly in the early part of his/her professional career rather than toward the end. A Professional Engineer, registered in Georgia, must seal the plan set, which presumes that quality control measures have been taken within the firm to be assured that the plans/specs are ‘adequate and accurate.’ Still the EPD review engineer was expected to perform regulatory oversight with a vague notion of assuring the public that a facility constructed in accord with the plans/specs would meet expectations. In short, it was not unusual for EPD to be overwhelmed with reviewing plans for facilities (especially large, complex projects), which led to delay in approvals of some permit applications. Legislative Action This issue seemed to boil up during the 2011 General Assembly. Late in the session, SR 1281 was introduced that urged EPD to work with stakeholders in developing a “formal process for . . . approval of (documents) for water and wastewater treatment facilities in lieu of a detailed review by (EPD).” Specific stakeholders were named in the resolution: GAWP, ACCG, GMA, ACEC/G, and GEA. This resolution did not move out of

Thomas C. Leslie committee, but it clearly sent a signal that change was needed. In other legislative action, SB 427 directed the EPD Director to “develop and implement procedures for timely processing of applications made to” EPD for permits. The procedures contemplated in legislation included “expedited review and granting of applications upon payment of a fee . . . to offset the cost of expediting” the work. The legislation also anticipated that EPD could hire an outside consultant to review plans and that the fee charged would be commensurate with the cost of the consultant(s). This legislation did pass and was signed by the Governor. The signal was clearly sent, and EPD has responded accordingly. New EPD Policy Jud Turner, the new EPD Director, in an interview with the Georgia Engineer Magazine in June 2012, expressed several concerns over this topic: EPD staff is diminishing under the state budget crunch, must execute its obligations in the most efficient way possible, and conduct itself in a way that adds value to the process. The stakeholders were convened by the Water Protection Branch Manager Linda MacGregor to consider a process for permit approval that did not include ‘detailed review’ by EPD. In short order, she proposed that the design engineer’s professional seal on the plans/specs plus an accompanying certification by the PE would be a sufficient basis for prompt approval of the The GeorGia enGineer

permit application. ACEC/G reviewed the certification language with a group of members and legal/insurance advisors and suggested changes that would achieve EPD goals without creating unanticipated nor unreasonable liability for the engineering firm. These changes were promptly accepted. On July 26, 2012, the Water Protection Branch issued a policy that would be followed in plan reviews. The following certification is “a required component of all wastewater infrastructure plans and specifications submitted for WPB approval”: “I certify that I have been in responsible charge of the design of this project in accordance with the rules of the Georgia State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. I further certify,

to the best of knowledge and belief, that these plans and specifications were prepared in accordance with the current standard engineering practices and accurately reflect the Design Development Report (DDR) previously reviewed and concurred in by EPD. I further certify that the system as designed can reasonably be expected to consistently meet all currently applicable permit limits, conditions, and regulatory requirements, provided the facility is constructed as designed and properly operated and maintained.” The new policy closes with the following: “Complete sets of plans and specifications containing this certification will generally be regarded as approvable . . . As such, detailed technical review by WPB staff

will not be required in such instances.” This seems to be a substantial step in streamlining plan review and permit approvals at EPD. It places responsibilities on the Professional Engineer to assure competency in performing his/her professional services, the Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors to discipline those PEs who do not perform accordingly, and EPD and individual clients to report a PE’s failure in this regard. After a test drive with this policy for “wastewater infrastructure plans and specification”, it will be interesting to see if EPD extends it to other EPD regulatory activities, such as safe dams program, landfill design, drinking water facilities, etc. v

2013 Engineering Excellence Call for Entries Engineering Excellence is an annual design competition provided by the American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia and held in conjunction with Engineers Week. Engineering Excellence recognizes engineering achievements demonstrating the highest degree of merit and ingenuity. Entries are rated on the basis of uniqueness and originality; future value to the engineering profession; social, economic and sustainable development considerations; complexity; and successful fulfillment of client/owner’s needs, including schedule and budget. Engineering Excellence offers all competition entrants a valuable opportunity to be recognized by showcasing their talent, their experience, and their profession.

For entry requirements, visit ACEC/G’s Web site, www.acecga.org.

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

Overview of a Design Firm Mergers & Acquisitions By Mick Morrissey | Managing Principal | Morrissey, Goodale LLC.

ergers and acquisitions among consulting engineering firms have long been a feature of the industry. However, over the last two decades they have become more prominent. This article lays what’s behind mergers and acquisitions among consulting engineering firms, and the pattern and trends shaping our industry’s consolidation.

What’s driving M&A in our industry? The growth strategies of industry leaders continue to drive much of the consolidation that we see among consulting engineering firms in terms of the types of acquisitions AND numbers of acquisitions. Let’s look at the type of acquisition first. Many owners— in the private, public, and institutional sectors—are looking for a ‘one stop shop’ to design and build their facilities. They don’t want to deal with a separate architect and engineer and construction firm. They want one entity to assume responsibility for the project. That is why you see a growing number of engineering firms acquiring architecture firms and construction firms. With respect to how the industry leaders drive the numbers of acquisitions that we see in the industry: most of the publicly-traded firms in this industry cannot grow earnings fast enough through hiring to meet the return on investment requirements of the public capital markets. Therefore, they have to acquire firms to grow. Thus, the industry leaders stimulate demand in the market place for design firm acquisitions. On the other side of the coin, many smaller industry firms continue to find this new competitive landscape particularly unfriendly to them and see a firm sale or merger in many cases as the only option. Additionally, many firms in our industry—capitalized and run by baby-boomer engineers—have not done a good enough job in developing next generation leaders or putting in place viable ownership transition plans (both go 10

hand in hand). This triple threat of tough competitive environment combined with faltering leadership and ownership transitions creates the supply in the market place for design firm sales. Global AEC M&A activity back to all-time highs Globally, 2011 was a record year for AEC firm mergers and acquisitions—with over 330 deals announced world-wide. Global deal-making in the industry increased rapidly from 2004 through 2008—a period of great economic growth. But world-wide industry consolidation declined by 23 percent after the financial crisis of 2008, recovering slowly in 2010 and then surging to have a record year in 2012. In general industry, M&A tends to follow the economic growth cycle—with consolidation increasing during good economic times (since companies have more capital to spend and are more optimistic about the future) and declining during recessionary periods. We fully expect this year to set another record for global industry consolidation and anticipate deal volume of between 350 and 370 transactions.

Figure 1: Global AEC M&A U.S. industry consolidation slowly picks up pace Domestically, industry consolidation has been relatively slow to recover after the financial crisis (Figure 2). Industry mergers and acquisitions reached a peak in 2008 with 180 deals taking place in the United States. Deal-making activity declined some 17 percent as the nation entered recession and slowly recovered through the recovery to return to 2007 levels. However, we fully ex-

pect M&A activity to reach record levels this year—with between 190 and 200 deals announced as the buy-side and sell-side drivers that we discussed above continue to play out among firms across the country.

Figure 2: U.S. AEC industry M&A activity AEC firm mergers and acquisitions in the United States have tended to follow a pretty consistent geographic pattern. Figure 3 below provides a ‘heat map’ of deals across the United States through the beginning of August—the darker the state the more design firms sold there. You can see that California and Texas saw the most firms through the first seven months of the year. This is not surprising—and has traditionally been the case—since both are the largest state economies. However, of particular interest this year—and a departure from prior years—is the relatively high level of M&A activity in Louisiana (in large part driven by the state’s oil and gas industries) and Florida—an indication that many in the industry see the state in the beginnings of a relatively strong recovery. Georgia saw relatively high level of firm sale activity in 2008 when four design firms sold and in 2010 when six firms sold—representing four percent of all U.S. transactions those years. This year, M&A activity in Georgia has been relatively muted with just one deal announced—the merger of Atlanta’s BVM Engineering (BVME) with Scotland’s Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES). Defensive deal-making characterizes industry consolidation in 2012 One of the key M&A indicators that we keep a close eye on is the number of deals that take The GeorGia enGineer

Figure 3 “Heat Map” of U.S. design firm sales in 2012 place across state lines in the U.S. as this is a way to gauge the health of the AEC industry. Before the Great Recession, the majority (between two-thirds and three-quarters) of all AEC deals in the U.S. took place across state lines (See Figure 4). This rate of interstate M&A activity represented the fact that this period of an expanding domestic economy gave rise to ‘growth driven’ acquisitions. In other words, firms were acquiring to extend their geographic reach—either to capture more opportunities or to diversify their earnings streams. Well, the downturn that began in the industry in 2008 saw steady erosion in the number of deals made across state lines. This declined continued through the reces-

sion and even into to the recovery. Indeed inter-state deal-making is at its lowest point on record in 2012—accounting for just 51 percent of all AEC deals in the U.S. The nature of deal making has changed- from ‘growth driven’ inter-state activity to ‘defensive deal-making’ within states. Instead of consolidation transforming the industry nationally, more and more it’s ‘hardening’ individual state AEC markets. The reason for this change is that many firms are feeling ‘beat up’ by this economic environment. They have been limping along at break-even—or at best barely profitable— for almost four years now. After laying off 30 percent of their staff they have more office space than they know what to do with, and

it’s killing their bottom line. Their balance sheets are damaged badly, and their ownership transition plans are stalling. And many of them cannot find a buyer. So instead, what we are seeing more and more is that firms within states are finding ways to merge with either peers or former competitors. In doing this, they are able to jettison excess, duplicate or non-performing assets (i.e. over-payed principals who are not carrying their weight), combine their clientele, rationalize their office-space and other overhead costs, and continue on somewhat stronger than they were prior to the merger. This is the strategy that more and more firms are using to weather this economic ‘recovery.’ And given the trends that we are seeing, we expect this pattern to continue through the early part of next year. v

About the Author Mick Morrissey is managing principal of leading AEC industry strategy, M&A, and Executive Search firm Morrissey Goodale LLC. www.morrisseygoodale.com. A civil engineer by training, Mick writes the regular article on Industry Mergers & Acquisitions for ACEC’s Engineering Inc. He can be reached at mmorrissey@morrisseygoodale.com or (508) 380-1868.

Figure 4: AEC inter-state deal-making OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

Q/A with Keith Golden, PE, Georgia DOT Commissioner Keith Golden is in his 26th year with the Georgia Department of Transportation; the last one as its Commissioner (first as interim beginning in September 2011 and then with a full appointment since March 2012). Prior to becoming Commissioner, he was Director of the Permits and Operations Division. Golden is a registered Professional Engineer and received BS (1986) and MS (1989) degrees in Civil Engineering from Georgia Tech. On August 23rd, Eddie Williams and Tom Leslie sat down with Mr. Golden to discuss his first year as Commissioner..

between the GDOT headquarters office and the district offices. There is a perceived ‘us’ and ‘them’ split, with the districts left to fend for themselves without support from the Central Office. In fact, we are all in this together. We must heal the split. The districts need to make decisions within their authorities and move forward; the central office needs to respect those actions without second-guessing. We must move away from a common district sentiment, “It’s (an issue) sitting in Atlanta, and we can’t get a decision.”

Since assuming the top leadership role at GDOT, what has been the biggest surprise to you since you took this position? Or has it been just like you thought it would be?

Each month you report to the DOT board the number of current employees, which is almost always less than the preceding month. Do you think this trend will continue? Have you restructured the department to accommodate this decline? If so, how are things different?

Some may suspect that the biggest surprise revolved around politics and media relations. Actually, this was about as I thought it would be, and I am working very hard to maintain good, professional relations in both arenas. The biggest surprise was a disconnect

Our current headcount is something north of 4,300 employees. When I began at GDOT, there were over 6,000 employees (and as high as 10,000 sometime before that). When retirements or other ‘separations’ occur, my first impulse is to ask man-

agers if the jobs were part of our core mission, and if so, how is the best way to get them done? I want our management team to think the same way, and not immediately conclude that we must hire a replacement employee. For example, we now contract out right-of-way maintenance along some interstate highways. We had asked districts, “What do you least like to do/where do you least like to work?” The answer was routine maintenance of interstates. Another observation is that not everybody in the department is in the right position, so we are moving folks around to maximize our effectiveness. Some may think the goal is to hit 3,500 employees that was named in a Senate

The GeorGia enGineer

Resolution in 2011. There is no magic number for our total staff. We must keep looking for the best way to execute our business and adjust to do it efficiently as circumstances change. Have you had a chance to contemplate transportation legislation that the department would pursue in the 2013 General Assembly? What are those issues? Our top issue is an amendment to design-build legislation. We now must award D-B projects exclusively on the basis of low bid, which precludes much of the advantage of this procurement method. We are working with the contracting community to come up with language that will work for us. There may be a two-tier system where large,

time-sensitive projects are procured on a best value basis, and other smaller jobs remain low-bid. We will continue to work on a way to move forward with legislation in 2013. There will probably be legislation that is of interest to us, but that relate mostly to routine/administrative matters. What has been your biggest challenge in managing GDOT since becoming commissioner? My biggest issue is how to regain public confidence in GDOT. There is a general distrust of government, and we certainly are part of that sentiment. We have never been as bad as some say. We do many things very well, but we are also a big target. We want to speak to our successes, not ignore false charges, and correct our mistakes. I have asked Todd Long to be pro-active in this area with local governments and Josh Waller to do the same with the General Assembly. We want to embrace change in the way we do business as well as innovative approaches to what we design and build.

ports to the Chief Engineer, is an effective way to expedite project delivery. Do you think this has been beneficial to the Department? The concept is good, but we are still working on getting the right people with the right skill set in the right positions. The goal is to deliver projects on budget and when we have them scheduled. This becomes even more important as we move to manage the Transportation Referenda projects in the three regions where it was approved. It seems that the two biggest innovative projects currently in the works are the N x NW public private partnership (managed lanes on I-75 North in Cobb County and I575) and the Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal in downtown Atlantaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;both have been

Many engineering firms think that the Office of Program Management, which re-

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

talked about for years. Neither seems to be linked to the Transportation Referendum. Do you think they will continue to move forward? Do you think they will be operational in ten years? As you know, we have recalibrated for the NxNW project. We have shortlisted four well qualified teams, and I believe we will be successful in executing the project. To be honest this is our first one, and we are still learning on it. We are still refining our relationships with SRTA and GSFIC, but the project procurement process is going very well, and I believe it will get done. I just returned last night from visits to multi-modal projects in San Francisco, Denver, and Salt Lake City. I was struck by the large amount of development/redevelopment that was occurring around these projects, even in this down market (and even when some are still under construction). Also there was no state money (or very little) in these projects. I see GDOT doing the transportation part of a multimodal 3P and then handing it off to others (an entity of some sort including local governments, developers, private transportation companies, etc). For the Atlanta MMPT we are helping to pay for and facilitating with other partners the NEPA documents and planning for the transportation elements. I think it is going very well, and we want to hand-off the non-transportation elements to someone else. What can you tell us about the $11 million in federal transportation earmarks that GDOT must use or redirect? The referenda passed in three regions, and we are actively preparing for a flawless execution of our implementation role. This is an essential task for us to, as mentioned earlier, rebuild trust in GDOT. We did not write the legislation, and we did not pick the projects, but we are going to get them delivered effectively. v 14

The GeorGia enGineer

A Sous Chef, a Schoolteacher, and a Civil Engineer Walked into a Problem By Dr. Ruth Middleton House & Doris I. Willmer, PE, FACEC, LEED® AP Parker’s Triangle is an excellent tool for The qualities required for success an After Action Review. What we all want are the same that undermine it. ~ Florina, 2009, p. 52 Everybody tells us that we need diversity to succeed. And everybody is right. But those diversity elements we need to ensure success are the same elements that are most likely to blow up and result in failure. Diversity is essential to the resolution of a Wicked Problem. Yet diversity itself is fraught with Wicked Problems. Some sources of diversity that were difficult to manage ten years ago are still difficult to manage now. That ‘ideal’ skilled and expert team you work hard to put together is still a challenge to manage. An expert team brings with it diversity of opinions— and strong opinions at that. (Florina, 2009, p. 54; House, 1988, pp. 30-34) Today there are many emerging sources of diversity to manage as well. Ten years ago, you might have been on a large project team of ten members. Today, your large team is more likely 100 members. Ten years ago, you met periodically face to face on solid ground. Today, even face to face is up in the air via WebEx, Go-to-Meeting, Connect or some other online platform. Ten years ago, your team all spoke fluent English; today, some do and some don’t. Ten years ago, the norm was direct, explicit communication; today you must attend as much to the way a message is delivered as you do to the actual content. Ten years ago, you knew the person across the table; today you are facing (virtually) a stranger. (Florina, 2009, p. 52) Parker’s Triangle spells out how differences like these escalate into destructive conflict. We’ve all seen it happen. Differences result in discomfort; discomfort leads to annoyance; annoyance intensifies into irritation; irritation escalates to heightened tension, heightened tension to frustration. Before long, people are fighting each other. (Parker, 2008, 28-34) OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

most, however, is a tool for in-flight correction. We want to see differences escalate into collaboration, instead of conflict. What would that take? For starters…. • Suspend judgment. Put your own feelings, your own agenda on Hold. For starters, you are here as learner, not as protagonist. Simply see the world through the eyes of the Sous Chef and the Schoolteacher—without providing the colors or shapes of your own knowledge, your own opinions, your own experiences.

•

Shift to Receive Mode and keep all senses open—even when you hear a name you don’t think you can pronounce; even when you breathe in unfamiliar scents; even when your eye is drawn to a feature of dress or appearance you haven’t seen before. Keep receiving even when you detect differences in education level or professional background. Non-technical is not a synonym for non-intelligent; formal education isn’t the only way people learn.

•

Be fully present in your diverse group. This is not the time for multitasking. Turn off your i-Phone, save that file folder for another time, stop checking your watch. Give your full attention to the person standing in front of you. If you have difficulty pronouncing the other person’s name, get help with it. Don’t shift to easier to pronounce nicknames—even when invited—until you have gotten the real name right. Face the person in front of you squarely; don’t give the impression you are poised for the opportunity to make a break for it. Make eye contact— especially important when the other person is talking.

Dr. Ruth Middleton House

Doris I. Willmer, PE, FACEC. LEED® AP

•

Recognize the presence of cultural differences. If the person in front of you does not look like you and does not sound like you, you are likely to expect differences. Skin color, accent, age, and national origin are among the obvious sources of diversity. It’s the differences you don’t immediately see or hear that take you by surprise. These differences are the most likely to lead to destructive conflict. 15

•

At the end of the day, culture is a set of ground rules about what is OK or not OK to know, to do, and to feel. (House, 2005, 152-158) There are ground rules for everything: how people relate to people, how people relate to time, how people relate to nature (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2012, 10-14). Not all differences in ground rules translate into differences in behavior; some are articulated through different meanings assigned to the same behavior. Trickier yet. It’s not so much shared behaviors that will lead to reconciliation, it is shared understandings (Trompenaars and HampdenTurner, 2012, 30). Achieving shared understandings is the key to success in mergers and acquisitions. In fact, shared understandings may be the key to success in all relationships. Pay attention to everything. Everything could matter; pay attention to it all. Mentally record your interactions in high resolution. Do not discard or discount anything. Small variations in your expectations, nuances of expressions, pace, distancing—all of these things could mean something. Now is the time to immerse yourself in the details, not to judge or categorize them. Check for understanding. As you listen your way through the interactions, check for understanding by feeding back both the emotional and the feeling content you think you have heard. You might say, “Sounds like you feel cautious about proceeding because you have had a disappointing experience with this group in the past.” Then be quiet and listen for affirmation or clarification. At this point, don’t inject your own opinions or experiences into the mix. (House, 1988, 133-134) Excavate. Somewhere in high school debate class we learned about asking probing questions. These questions are still in order if you are in a formal debate or doing research. However, if there is high emotional content in a situation,

using probing questions would be like taking a bulldozer to an archaeological dig. What you need to get the underground treasure to the surface intact is a hand shovel and a sifter. You want to gently go deeper and sift out the debris as you go. •

•

‘I Statements’ are nondestructive tools. “I’m confused. I thought I heard that you had already made the move. Now I’m getting the impression you are still just considering it.” “I’m wondering what would happen if….” Follow up on the “I Statements” with another check for understanding. No questions, no war stories, no judgments. Reflect. After your interactions, take some time to reflect. • What happened that affirmed your expectations before you entered the situation? •

•

What happened that disrupted your expectations? What triggered an unexpected emotional reaction in you? What did you feel at the time? What does your reaction tell you about yourself?

•

What were the points of agreement?

•

What were the points of disagreement?

•

Have shared understandings been achieved by the leader? By the team?

•

What higher order values seem to be shared by most of the team?

individual contributor. What if you are the designated leader of the effort? Uh-oh. You’ll never outgrow the solid transactional leadership skills that have served you well in a more static environment. They will no longer stand alone, however. Now you’ll need to add the full suite of transformational leadership skills to your repertoire. How? Tune in next issue for From I Have a Plan to I Have a Dream. References. Florina, Ramona. (2009). Managing international project teams—challenges and paradoxes. Review of Management and Economic Engineering. 8(4), 51-57. House, Ruth. (1988). The human side of project management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. House, Ruth. (2005). Its time to change the way you change. Kennesaw, GA: MiddletonHouse & Company. Parker, Carol G. (4th Edition). (2008). e emotional connection of distinguishing diﬀerences and conflict. In Carol P. Harvey and M. June Allard (Eds) Understanding and managing diversity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 28-34. Trompenaars, Fons and Hampden-Turner, (3rd Edition). (2012). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill. v

When a sous chef, a schoolteacher, and a civil engineer walk into a problem learn from them. Keep on learning. You won’t have the luxury, however, of learning it all before you start doing. You’ll soon need to be learning and doing at the same time. That will be tricky enough if you are an The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

Question Your Accounting Principles By T. Wayne Owens, CPA

couple of weeks ago, I went to the Georgia Society of CPAs’ Southeastern Accounting Show for two days of continuing professional education. I tend to get so involved with A/E firms and government contracting that I sometimes forget that I am a CPA, or accountant, as I like to say. The entire two days was spent in the A&A track, which means I was surrounded by accounting and auditing topics. The purpose of this article is not a self-help step where the first phase is to admit you have a problem, but rather a commentary of where CPA firms are heading as a profession, and how this can affect your A/E firm. One of the hot topics was compilations and reviews, which are levels of service below an audit where the CPA expresses limited or no assurance on the integrity of the financial statements. These levels of service are where the majority of CPA firms practice. As a matter of fact, one topic seemed to spark the most intense discussion: the basis of accounting formally known as ‘OCBOA’ (accounting humor). OCBOA stands for ‘other comprehensive basis of accounting’ and includes cash, tax and regulatory bases—accounting principles that are not GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. The term is now SPF, special purpose framework. There is no set definition for SPF, only that you define what the basis is and then apply this basis consistently. SPF can be a combination of accrual, cash, and tax. Seems good, and if you can form an opinion based on the reaction of the hundreds, yes hundreds, of practitioners present it was a big hit. This SPF pretty much lets CPAs produce financial statements using whatever accounting principles are convenient and easiest for them. T. Wayne Owens & Associates, PC, has a very different practice from other CPA firms. Even though we are a full service firm and have many clients using our full services, 18

we also have many clients that we only perform FAR oriented services for. T h i s gives us a unique opportunity to see the work product of other CPA firms. We come in after the tax return and financial statements have been prepared and perform an FAR audit or compilation. We consistently have to make adjustments to get the firm’s financial information on a GAAP basis which is required for FAR purposes. These adjustments include recording prepaid expenses, accounts payablesn and accruals. Pretty frequently we have to recompute depreciation from tax basis (non-GAAP and expressly unallowable) to straight-line. I also have the opportunity to review the financial information of many A/E firms and I see the same issue there. SPF is alive and well, and the profession has finally changed the rules to make it acceptable. When is SPF Viable? In many cases SPF is appropriate. Where a company is small with limited employees and revenuen then it is a good deal that will save some money and make life easier for your CPA. For most companies, including ALL A/E firms who do any government contracting, SPF is a horrible idea. I will admit that the accounting rules have begun to get a little ridiculous (revenue recognition and leasing are two examples), but the purpose of financial statements is to give management a

tool to help them make effective decisions about their firm. Timely, reliable financial information is necessary for firm management to evaluate the progress of their firm. In the financial management classes I teach, virtually everyone is interested in benchmarking. In order for benchmarking to be meaningful, a firm must have reliable financial information that is GAAP—since GAAP is the basis for the benchmarking. As the old saying goes: garbage in, garbage out. A/E firms need to take responsibility for their financial information and question their CPA about the basis of accounting used in preparing their financial statements. (If you are a full service client of ours, yours is GAAP but we would welcome any inquiry as a teaching opportunity.) If you do not have full accrual financials with book depreciation it will be difficult to make effective financial decisions based on this information. I know that ‘tax planning’ is important but it shouldn’t be the basis for business decisions and financial statements. Converting from accrual to tax is a very easy process. It’s tough out there, and firms need reliable information to make informed decisions, and I believe GAAP is the word. There are some compelling reasons for The GeorGia enGineer

maintaining a full accrual general ledger for

ing without full knowledge of the status of

small and large firms. First and foremost is

all consultants. One missing sub consultant

cash flow. This is particularly a problem

invoice will seriously distort profitability

with architects. Managing a lump sum con-

and available cash. This happens way too

tract with sub consultants can be challeng-

often and contributes to the bad reputation

About the Author T. Wayne Owens, CPA, is the founder of T. Wayne Owens & Associates, PC, a CPA firm with a singular focus on the design industry, providing accounting services, overhead audits, financial statement audits, tax returns, and more to A/E/C firms. Contact: wowens@twocpa.com.

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

of architects. As mentioned earlier, benchmarking is a valuable tool for managers. The benchmarking process depends on reliable financial information to be effective. Multiplier, payroll factor, and overhead rates can artificially fluctuate monthly without attention to pre-paids and accruals. This fluctuation makes it very difficult to identify trends from which management decisions can be made. Obviously, the problem is more prevalent with smaller firms (fewer than 100 people) but it does occur at larger firms with professional in-house accounting staff. Establishing a monthly process that includes reconciliations is not difficult, and once established will generate better financial information and make year-end planning much easier and more productive. v

The GeorGia enGineer

The Changing State of Structural Engineering Regulation in the United States By Robert M. Weilacher, PE, LEED APBD+C | President | Structural Engineers Association of Georgia (SEAOG)

he practice and regulation of structural engineering has undergone a change across the country over the last few years, and the change is accelerating. What is different about structural engineering, and why would state regulation of structural engineers be any different than regulation of other engineers? To address that question letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s examine three things; the new NCEES (the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors) standards, increasing code complexities, and recent events and movements in other states. Based on a comprehensive practice and knowledge study, NCEES, as of April 2011, has instituted a 16-hour structural exam as the examination standard for demonstrating minimum competence in the practice of structural engineering. An NCEES task force worked for two years, surveying hundreds of practicing structural engineers, and concluded that the previous eight-hour exams were not adequate to evaluate the minimum competence of a structural engineer. Structural engineering is the only discipline of engineering that requires more than an eight-hour principles and practice examination. NCEES has created a model law structural engineer (MLSE) standard, also adopted by ANSI, which requires the 16hour exam for structural engineering licensure in addition to certain education and experience criteria. As a result, the Structural Engineering License Coalition (SELC), which represents all four major structural engineering organizations (NCSEA, ASCESEI, CASE, and SECB), has endorsed the MLSE standard and advocates that jurisdictions require separate licensure for structural engineers who design significant structures. In recent years, the building and material design codes have evolved remarkably and increased greatly in complexity, especially with regard to lateral force design OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

(wind and seismic). The development of common building and bridge codes (i.e. the International Building Code, which Georgia was one of the first to adopt) now allows for uniform testing standards throughout the US. The new 16 hour structural exam tests for breadth and depth of knowledge with integrated design, analysis, and detailing questions pertaining to entire structural systems, not just isolated components. The intent is to comprehensively test the knowledge that is really needed to design and detail complex structures and to be compliant with the newer code demands. By adoption, the codes are the law and they represent the standard for safeguarding the life, health, and property of the public—which is also the purpose of our licensing laws. Many states have already decided not to accept standards less than those recommended by the NCEES model law and ANSI consensus, and they have changed their laws. These states also realize that hav22

ing common standards will allow their structural engineers to easily gain comity to practice in other states. Separate structural engineering licensure in some form is already a requirement in ten states, including California, Utah, Hawaii, and Illinois. Other states, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Connecticut, and Florida, are currently in the process of creating similar requirements, and there are a half dozen other states beginning the process. So there is certainly ample precedent and compelling recent development which would cause Georgia to reconsider its structural engineering licensing laws, and to do so soon. Currently, in Georgia, any professional engineer may practice structural engineering if that PE considers it to be within his or her area of competence. The law has no control over this practice except that ‘after the fact’ disciplinary action may be imposed if someone is reported and found incompetent. There are even documented cases in

which the design engineer’s lack of structural knowledge, which would have been tested in a more rigorous exam, has led directly to the collapse of structures and loss of life. The Georgia Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors has determined that the 16hour exam should be the structural exam administered in Georgia, and as a temporary measure has adopted a policy requiring that exam for all applicants whose experience is structural engineering. But this is not yet written as law, and the Georgia engineering community must be circumspect of what is happening around us, and consider how and when we should upgrade, by law, the safeguarding of the life, health, property, and welfare of the residents of this state. The Structural Engineers Association of Georgia (SEAOG) is currently examining all those issues and evaluating how such licensure law upgrades might best be enacted in Georgia. SEAOG would welcome comments and ideas on the subject from all engineers.v The GeorGia enGineer

Your Leadership DNA By Joelle K. Jay, Ph.D.

an you think of a time you were really uncomfortable? Maybe it was a time you had to speak in front of a large group, or a time you had to confront someone who works with you on a difficult issue. Wouldn’t it be nice to make situations like that a little easier on you? Wouldn’t it be great if you could make them less painful? You can, and if you want to be your best as a leader, you must. When we are in uncomfortable situations, it’s usually because we’re acting outside of our natural way of being. When we align our natural way of being to the situations in which we find ourselves, we are happier, less stressed, and more effective.

Your virtues What can you claim as being your most virtuous qualities?

Your Distinct Natural Attributes include: • Your strengths. What do you do especially well? When are you at your best? •

Your weaknesses. What’s harder for you, goes slower, or is more stressful?

•

Your personality. What do you know to be true about yourself?

•

Your preferences. How do you prefer to do things?

What do people count on you for?

•

In your social life, what role do you play?

•

At work, what are you recognized for?

•

Given the freedom to do things your way, how do you do them?

To find weaknesses, ask: • What activities would you gladly never have to do again?

Once you have a sense of your DNA, you can use your new knowledge to capitalize on your strengths. Your Distinct Natural Attributes (Your ‘DNA’) You are hardwired with certain characteristics that make you you—distinctly, irreplaceably, inimitably you. The way you live, the way you learn, the way you lead—all of these are guided by the gifts you were given at birth and the ones you have collected in the course of your life. Knowing these attributes gives you tremendous power. To be able to tap into your brilliance, you must answer the question, ‘What makes you unique?’ You need to discover your Distinct Natural Attributes—your DNA.

•

What do you wish you could pass on to someone else?

•

When do you feel dragged down?

•

What do you dread?

•

When do you procrastinate?

Continue the process of exploring your DNA from every angle, getting to know yourself as much as possible.

Your vulnerabilities What makes you feel small and insecure? Your style What’s ‘your way?’ You can use your DNA to turn an ineffective situation into one in which you’ll naturally succeed. Mapping Your DNA The more strategies you use to find your Distinct Natural Attributes, the more complete your view will be. Asking yourself the questions above will get you started. You can reveal more of your DNA by asking open-ended questions. To find strengths, ask: • Where are you especially talented? •

What do you love to do?

•

What do you do without even thinking?

Putting Your DNA to Work Once you have a sense of your DNA, you can use your new knowledge to capitalize on your strengths. Let’s imagine three people, each with different DNA, in a similar situation. They each have to confront a colleague who is not pulling his weight on the team, and it’s starting to affect both the team dynamics and the results. Notice that each of these people will handle the situation differently, based on their DNA. Person A is shy and reserved, but very caring. She might approach this situation in a quiet one-on-one conversation in which she expresses concern for the person’s feelings as she confronts the issue. Person B is brash, direct, and focused on results. He might choose his words carefully to avoid insulting the person, and then approach the situation by showing the person the disconnect between their results and their behavior. The GeorGia enGineer

Person C is honest and insightful, but finds it hard to have face-to-face conversations without getting flustered. He might actually write the difficult message he has to deliver down on a piece of paper and either use it as a guide to have a phone conversation or turn his notes into a letter or e-mail to address the situation. You can use the same approach by thinking about your DNA and understand-

ing how it would be most effective for you to conduct yourself in any situation. Knowing your attributes gives you the opportunity to choose from among a varied collection of inner resources, dipping into them as needed for the ones that will serve you best and lead you to your goals.

most powerful. What might that experience

Exercise Reflect on a time in your life when you felt

good and the bad—is also what’s great

have to teach you about your Distinct Natural Attributes? Like your genetic DNA, your Distinct Natural Attributes define ‘what’s true about you.’ What’s genuinely true about you—the about you. v

About the Author Joelle K. Jay, Ph.D. (http://joellekjay.com/) is an executive coach specializing in leadership development and the author of The Inner Edge: The 10 Practices of Personal Leadership, which shows leaders how to improve their effectiveness by learning to lead themselves. Her newsletter, Inner Edge Insights, offers articles, exercises, tips, quotes, and success stories from real leaders to help you excel. To register, please visit www.TheInnerEdge.com and click on Newsletter, or e-mail Info@TheInnerEdge.com.

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

End of Year Tax Planning Considerations By Janet Prather, CPA | Partner | Deemer Dana & Froehle

million annually would pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent

e are heading into the final stretch of 2012, and it’s time for us to review tax planning strategies with our clients. The $64,000 question is, what do we tell them? Do you plan for 2012 assuming in 2013 rates go up or do you assume Congress will do a last minute extender bill? If you look at Congressional history regarding taxes, past experience has shown that there probably will be a last minute extender but it’s anyone’s guess as to what it will be. Before we start answering the questions, let’s review what we currently know is scheduled to expire or become effective January 1, 2013: • Expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, i.e. increased capital gains tax, individual income tax rates, and ordinary income tax on dividends, to name a few •

•

Governor Romney ~ • Maintain current individual tax rate in 2013

Expiration of two percent payroll tax holiday—employee social security withholding will return to 6.2 percent Janet Prather

•

Expiration of estate and gift tax rate of $5 million exemption with tax rate of 35 percent and portability of unused exclusion between spouses, return to $1 million with a 55 percent rate

•

Reduction in section 179 depreciation in 2013 to $25,000

•

Expiration of 50 percent bonus depreciation

Effective January 1, 2013: Surtax on unearned income of higher income individuals – 3.8 percent Medicare tax • Increased Medicare tax of 0.9 percent on high income workers and self-employed taxpayers •

Automatic budget cuts of approximately $1 trillion over the next 10 years to be split between defense spending and other budget items.

Estate tax exemption of $3.5 million and a 45 percent tax rate with the extension of current rules for portability—gift tax exclusion would be $1 million

This is by no means an all inclusive list of changes, but ones that will probably affect a larger number of taxpayers. Since it’s an election year, what are the candidates proposing to do regarding taxes? President Obama ~ • Higher tax rates for higher-income taxpayers, i.e. those who earn over $200,000 single or $250,000 married •

Higher capital gains/dividend tax rates on higher-income taxpayers

•

Reduction in maximum corporate rate to 28 percent, 25 percent for manufacturing

•

Abolish Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) but replace it with the “Buffett Rule” – taxpayers making more than $1

•

Eliminate tax on investment income for taxpayers with adjusted gross income below $200,000

•

Reduce maximum corporate rate to 25 percent

•

Abolish AMT

•

Abolish estate and gift tax

One of the things both candidates agree on is that something needs to be done other than a complete expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. They also agree that some of the extender provisions which expired at the end of 2011 should remain in place as well, i.e. tax-free charitable distributions from IRAs, deduction for teacher’s classroom expenses, and state and local sales tax deductions, to name a few. What has Congress proposed? Both houses passed tax-cut extension bills prior to the August recess. The House bill would extend the Bush-era tax cuts through 2013 and increase the AMT exemption. The Senate bill also contained those items but the Bushera tax cuts would not apply to high-income taxpayers. No surprise that the two houses fell behind their respective party’s candidate regarding taxes since the House majority is Republican and the Senate is Democratic. Whichever candidate is elected, their tax initiatives will not happen overnight. At the earliest it would be the middle of 2013 before anything is passed. The general belief is The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

that after the election, Congress will extend some or all of the Bush tax cuts in conjunction with a deficit reduction bill and pass the problem to the next congressional session. After the Presidential inauguration in January, 2013, Congress will probably take up the issue of tax reform, and I wouldn’t be surprised if in June, 2013 tax legislation is enacted which will be retroactive to January 1, 2013. That would have the effect of nullifying the extension. Given the current uncertainty of our tax system, the potential effect of increased taxes on the economy, it’s no wonder that businesses are waiting to see what happens before hiring additional employees or making significant capital investments. So, what are we advising our clients to do? We are encouraging our high income clients to do some estate tax planning to take advantage of the $5 million gift tax exemption ($10 million for married couples) by gifting property to the next generation either through trusts, outright gifts or family limited partnerships, depending upon their respective goals. If you’re a high income individual (modified adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 married or $200,000 single) with investment income and unrealized gains on stocks which you plan to sell in 2012 or 2013, you probably want to sell the investment in 2012, due to the surtax becoming effective in 2013 which would increase your tax liability as a result of the sale. Selling in 2012 would not only result in saving the 3.8 surcharge but the gain would also be taxed at a lower capital gains tax rate. Self-employed taxpayers who are high income earners may not want to defer income into 2013 due to the expected increase in individual income tax rates as well as the increase in Medicare tax. One of the things you may want to consider is invoicing clients earlier in December rather delaying to the end of the month in order to collect the funds prior to year-end. But, this could change at the last minute if Congress extends the Bush-era tax cuts. Before initiating any tax strategies, be sure to discuss the potential pitfalls or issues with your tax professional. It is always eas28

ier to assist a client with strategies before a transaction occurs because once it’s completed there’s usually not anything we can do to help minimize the tax cost. v

The GeorGia enGineer

W h a t ’ s

i n

t h e

NEWS Willmer Engineering Inc. is pleased to announce the addition of Thomas E. Scruggs, PE to our team. A highly skilled and distinguished engineer with over thirty years of technical expertise, Tom will join Willmer as a principal consultant to our geotechnical and construction materials consulting services clients. Most recently the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau Chief with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Mr. Scruggs brings to Willmer an extensive background of geotechnical engineering services. He served the GDOT Geotechnical Bureau for thirty years, over nine years as the State Geotechnical Engineer, supervising the Geotechnical, Environmental, and Pavement Design branches. He acted as the Co-chair of the GPTQ Geotechnical Subcommittee to advance the GDOT Geotechnical Manual for drilling, sampling, and report writing guidelines. Tom’s extensive resume of professional engineering services includes such notable projects as the preparation of the foundation designs and construction inspection for the new Sidney Lanier Bridge in Brunswick, Georgia, foundation design and instrumentation of the Southwest Bypass Project in Savannah, Georgia, foundation design for the I-520 road extension and bridges through Phinizy Swamp in Augusta, Georgia, the design of steep reinforced earth slopes using geosynthetic reinforcement on the I-285 widening project in Atlanta, Georgia, and the design of the dynamic compaction treatment for the West Thomasville Bypass roadway through a municipal landfill in Thomasville, Georgia. Mr. Scruggs received his Bachelor of Sci30

ence in Civil Engineering from Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, and has been a registered Professional Engineer in Georgia since 1985. He served on the Geotechnical Committee of American Society of Civil Engineers and the Transportation Research Board committees A2K02 and A2K01. Tom received the Commissioner’s Outstanding Achievement Award for work performed after the 1994 floods in Georgia, and the Commissioner’s Merit Award for work performed on the design and construction supervision of drilled caissons on the Sidney Lanier Bridge in Brunswick, Georgia. In his role as principal consultant at Willmer, Mr. Scruggs will utilize his breadth of experience and professionalism to provide management and technical expertise serving our diverse client base. We look forward to a rewarding relationship with Tom, as he helps Willmer continue our tradition of 30 years of successful project and client services delivery to our clients. v

Solving Subsurface Problems Since 1981 • • • • • • •

Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Underground utility locating Subsurface mapping and profiling Concrete imaging and inspection Geophysical exploration 3D subsurface imaging Geophysical borehole logging

GA: 770-980-1002 SC: 843-769-7379 NC: 919-406-1808 www.gel.com

United Consulting Names Russell Griebel and David Huetter as Executive Vice Presidents

Russell Griebel United Consulting has promoted Russell Griebel, P.G., C.P.G. and David Huetter to Executive Vice Presidents. Both Russell and David have served as environmental team leaders with United Consulting for over ten years. Russell Griebel is a licensed Professional Geologist and Certified Professional Geologist. Russ has extensive experience acting as a liaison between public/private entities and various states environmental agencies. His current role is providing technical and managerial support for projects including; site characterization, remedial actions, vapor intrusion, risk assessment, and Brownfield property redevelopment. He is active in numerous professional organizations including the Air and Waste Management Association, The GeorGia enGineer

David Huetter where he resides as a director and the National Brownfield Association. He received his Bachelors Degree in Geology from Clarion University of Pennsylvania in 1995. David Huetter, Director of Ecological Services for United Consulting, has over 17 years experience performing wetland and ecological surveys for state and federal government agencies, as well as for private firms and individuals. His experience includes mapping of wetlands and vegetative communities, monitoring nesting and hatching success of endangered species, and conducting research of several wildlife species and their related habitat. Mr. Huetter has conducted wetland/stream delineations and permitting throughout the Southeast United States. In addition, he has prepared wetland and stream mitigation plans as well as supervising wetland creation and restoration projects, implementing stream and riparian restoration mitigation, and monitoring wetland and stream mitigation sites. v

ing rooms, and collaboration spaces. Heery is also designing mechanical/electrical/plumbing improvements for the entire building— emergency power, building automation controls, and low-voltage power. Phase-one construction is scheduled for completion by December 2012. Future plans for the building entail renovations to the remaining floors to house similar GSU office and meeting space. “Georgia State is an urban campus, so we are working in an occupied building in the heart of downtown Atlanta,” said Steve Hart, who is directing Heery’s design efforts on the project. “We look forward to the challenge of repurposing and rebranding this office tower into a fully integrated academic facility for GSU.”

Heery International is an architecture, interior design, engineering, program management, and construction management firm with offices nationwide. As an affiliated company of Parsons Brinckerhoff, one of the world’s leading professional services companies, Heery now operates as that firm’s U.S. buildings division. v

Heery Designing Renovation of GSU Building Georgia State University has selected Heery International to provide interior design and engineering services for the first phase of an adaptive reuse of the former SunTrust Bank headquarters building in downtown Atlanta. The project involves retrofitting six floors of the 27-story office tower for use by GSU. The approximately 90,000 square feet of space will be converted to accommodate faculty, staff, and graduate student offices, meetOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

WTS Transportation Association Offers Discount to Public Sector WTS International, the association for the advancement of women in the transportation industry, has just announced that public sector transportation employees can join the premiere career growth and networking organization for half price for one year. The membership drive, valid for the month of October 2012, was created with a dual purpose: in recognition of public sector professionals and their contribution to the industry, and to move WTS forward on its mission to bring more diverse leadership to the transportation industry. “The economy is affecting all industries, both public and private sectors. Though budgets are tight, investments in workforce development should not be sacrificed, so we’re offering this discount in an attempt to help the public sector network and find professional development through WTS,” said Marcia Ferranto, WTS International President and CEO. The public sector includes everything from city engineers and planners to department of transportation individuals to county and village employees. As an international transportation organization, WTS strives to support, promote, and advance women in all facets of transportation. “Reaching out to our public professionals and encouraging

them to join and become active members provides them the opportunity to benefit from WTS networking and professional development events, scholarship programs, and mentoring activities,” said Ferranto. The WTS International membership drive for public sector transportation employees grants a half priced membership to the association for one year for applications processed Oct. 1 through October 31, 2012. For more information, visit www.WTSinternational.org or email membership@wtsin-

ternational.org. WTS International, headquartered in Washington, DC, is committed to advancing women in transportation through expanding existing scholarship opportunities to women pursuing transportation related degrees, providing and promoting more educational opportunities and career development to advance women in transportation, and initiating, sponsoring, and publishing research related to

advancing women in transportation. More information can be found at www.WTSinternational.org. v

The GeorGia enGineer

Merrick & Company Achieves Significant Certification Merrick & Company’s (www.merrick.com) Aurora, Colorado, Nuclear Services & Technology operations (NST) group just received certification to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001: 2008 Quality Management System requirements. The ISO program is the source of internationally recognized quality, environmental, and other management standards for business, government, and society. In other words, Merrick’s ISO 9001:2008 certification applies to the processes that influence product or service quality, customer satisfaction, and continuous improvement. In

achieving this level of certification, Merrick’s quality management system, a highly efficient and robust program, was independently audited by an accredited registrar and confirmed as being in conformity with this ISO standard. “Merrick’s NST group has been incorporating and utilizing most ISO 9001 requirements in their Quality Assurance Program for over 15 year. ISO’s 9001 quality management system requirements were always seen as a valuable enhancement for meeting the demanding U.S. Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Quality Assurance requirements on NST’s projects. Achieving ISO 9001:2008 certification is further conferment that Merrick’s NST group and their Quality Assurance Program are ready and able to meet the needs of U.S. clientele,” said Greg Morris, Director of Quality Assurance at Merrick. “This is a significant step in Merrick’s efforts with work OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

outside the U.S., as this quality standard is also internationally recognized,” added John Buckle, Vice President Nuclear Services & Technology, of Merrick. “A big thank you to members of Merrick’s Quality Assurance department as they were instrumental with their leadership and guidance in achieving the certification,” said Buckle. With this, Merrick’s Aurora NST operations group will claim the ISO 9001:2008 certification only to work controlled through NST Aurora, within the scope of project management, engineering, design, fabrication oversight, and consulting services for the Nuclear Power Production, Nuclear Material

Processing, and Nuclear Research industries. More information about Merrick & Company’s Nuclear group can be found at (Merrick NUCLEAR) v Thomas Hellwig Joins Parsons Brinckerhoff Thomas Hellwig has been named a Senior Aviation Program Manager in the Atlanta office of Parsons Brinckerhoff, a global infrastructure strategic consulting, engineering ,and program/construction management organization. In his new position, Mr. Hellwig will pursue new aviation program management assignments as well as manage aviation projects throughout the US. Mr. Hellwig has more than 26 years of experience in the aviation industry, including aviation planning; design; program/construction management; project management; and business management. Prior to joining

Thomas Hellwig Parsons Brinckerhoff, he served as Vice President, Aviation for a Nashville-based architecture and engineering firm, where he managed the design of the new international terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. He also served in the United States Army as a medevac helicopter crew chief during the Gulf War in 1991. Mr. Hellwig received an M.A. degree in business administration from the University of Florida and a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Connecticut. Parsons Brinckerhoff is a leader in developing and operating infrastructure around the world, with 14,000 employees dedicated to meeting the needs of clients and communities in the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia-Pacific regions. The firm offers skills and resources in strategic consulting, planning, engineering, program/construction management, and operations for transportation, power, mining, water/wastewater, and community development projects. v Michelle McGlaun Joins T. Wayne Owens & Associates T. Wayne Owens & Associates, PC, is pleased to announce the addition of Michelle McGlaun, CPA, to the team, specializing in financial audits and overhead audits for A/E/C firms. As Audit Manager for her previous CPA firm, Michelle developed a deep level of experience with financial statement audits and internal controls, as well as auditing ‘Schedules of Indirect Cost’ for FAR compliance. 33

Michelle McGlaun Michelle is adept at working with state DOTs on behalf of her clients. Her experience in a corporate environment with Sarbanes Oxley, budgeting, forecasting, compensation planning, and software conversions helps her relate to the challenges of running a business. Michelle sees her role with each client as advocate, teacher, and collaborator. Her approach to audits is to partner with her client to figure out solutions that work for both the audit requirements and for the client’s business, all with minimum affect on the client’s productivity. Her experience with many best practices gives Michelle the vantage point to show her clients how to tweak and improve their current process, create efficiencies—and, ultimately, strengthen their business. Michelle received her Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting from Clayton College and State University. She is a Certified Public Accountant and is involved with several organizations, including the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants, and the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. She also serves the role of treasurer on the board of directors for the Clayton Chamber of Commerce.v Steven Sveda Joins Heery Steven Sveda has been named Director of Electrical Engineering at Heery International. In his new position, Mr. Sveda will lead the electrical engineering department in 34

Heery’s Atlanta office, responsible for overall department staffing, technical competency, quality control, and business development. Mr. Sveda has over 35 years of engineering experience. He has managed major projects for the General Services Administration, Social Security Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the US Air Force, as well as numerous health care, aviation, education, and commercial projects. His portfolio includes the electrical engineering design on a number of technologically advanced projects, including laboratories for systems integration, research facilities, and communications centers. Prior to joining Heery, Mr. Sveda served as a senior manager for a number of archi-

utive committee member of the Urban Land Institute (Baltimore chapter) and past member of the board of directors of the Engineering Society of Baltimore.v Rosser Appoints New Board Members Rosser International Inc. has appointed financial comptroller Brenda Miller to the board of directors and named Ray Ashe as secretary of the corporation.

Brenda Miller Ms. Miller has served in a number of accounting roles at Rosser during her 22 years at the firm. She began as an accounts payable administrator and has moved into increasingly responsible positions. She is a graduate of Syracuse University with a Bachelor’s in Accounting. She also has a degree in Administration from Clayton State University.

Steven Sveda tectural engineering and consulting engineering organizations located in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. A LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) accredited professional and professional engineer in over a dozen states, Mr. Sveda received a bachelor of architectural engineering degree from Pennsylvania State University and a master of business administration from George Washington University. He is certified by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying and is a member of the National Fire Protection Association and the US Green Building Council. He is a past exec-

Ray Ashe Ray Ashe is a Vice President with Rosser and the firm’s Director of Architecture. He has served on the board for ten years and has been with the firm since 1984. Ray has been responsible for many of the firm’s projects, including the University of West Georgia’s New Coliseum; the Petersen Events Center at the University of Pittsburgh; several sports projects at Georgia State University; and Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium at the University of Louisville. v The GeorGia enGineer

After the Referendum ~ What’s next for Georgia Transportation? By Keith Golden, P.E. | Georgia DOT Commissioner

hile funding for transportation in much of Georgia is at a crossroads, residents in 46 counties across Georgia’s midsection have no doubt about funding for many of their projects. That’s because in July, voters in three regions—Central Savannah River Area, Heart of Georgia Altamaha, and River Valley —passed a ten-year one percent special transportation sales tax to fund their transportation projects. With total estimated revenues of $1.8 billion over the ten years, these regions will fund 871 projects. With their approval of the referendum, these Georgians determined that the benefits for their roads are worth the costs.

TIA project delivery. On-time. On-budget. Georgia DOT project delivery is quick and efficient. In fact, our performance is among the best in the country. And—despite our having one of the lowest per capita budgets in the nation—Georgia highways and bridges rank at the top as well. Transportation referendum projects are no exception. They will be delivered on-time and on-budget. From 84 projects in the Augusta region to 753 local maintenance and 11 regional projects in the Heart of Georgia to 23 projects in the Columbus region—full disclosure and absolute transparency will be the standard. Georgia DOT is responsible for ultimate project delivery. A clear implementation process is in place and plans are underway to finalize intergovernmental agreements and strategies with Regional Commission members for efficient project delivery. A GDOT Transportation Investment Act (TIA) office has been established under the direction of TIA Administrator Mike OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

Recurring Traffic Congestion Dover. A liaison will be selected for each region. GDOT is procuring a TIA program management consultant to focus on budgeting, scheduling, and day-to-day administration of TIA projects for the three regions. Information on budgets, project work status, schedules, and monies spent will be provided through updated reports, as well as a dedicated Web site. GDOT will work with the Department of Revenue, who handles the tax collection, and Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), who holds and disburses the funds. Annual audits will be conducted and a regional Citizens Review Panel will make certain that projects are done as the law intends. Projects will be delivered by local governments, a contractor or by GDOT. TIA projects are designed and constructed to budget and are ‘pay as you go’ — they will be constructed as funds are avail-

able. Collection of funds begins January 1, 2013, with funds distribution and project construction likely starting spring 2013.

Deep Milling Before Resurfacing While most TIA projects do not involve Corridor Express (NWC) along Interstate federal funds, the State Transportation Board Highways 75 and 575 in Cobb and Cherohas adopted a resolution encouraging the use kee counties. The 30-mile NWC is a public of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises private partnership (P3) with the private sec(DBEs) for TIA-funded projects. tor financing 10-20 percent of the $750As the agency with responsibility over $850 million design/build cost. It features the TIA program, Georgia DOT is commit- two new reversible lanes along the west side ted to a streamlined delivery process with of I-75 between I-285 and I-575; one new strict attention to budgets and schedules, and reversible lane in the I-75 center median to transparency and accountability. Hickory Grove Road; and a similar new IWe must keep seeking solutions to ease 575 lane will extend to Sixes Road. A varicongestion and improve our statewide trans- able-rate toll, based on traffic volume, will portation network. GDOT will continue to work with Governor Deal to develop longterm, sustainable funding and to strategically make new investments.

be assessed for lane access. A shortlist of teams will provide ‘best value’ bids in June 2013, with construction to begin mid-2014, and completion in 2018. GDOT continues addressing congestion relief and safety on GA 400, one of the most heavily traveled corridors in the state. In Fulton county, operational improvements have maximized existing pavement. In Forsyth and Dawson counties, we’re resurfacing the roadway and extending Georgia’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). Right of way acquisition has begun for a continuous flow intersection at GA 53 in Dawson County. In metro Atlanta, interchange reconstruction progresses at I-85, with completion anticipated by Dec. 31, 2013. In addition, budget, goals, and concepts are being evaluated for construction of an interchange at I-285 - the Governor has identified this as a top priority. On I-285, resurfacing and deep-milling ten miles at the top end from Paces Ferry Road in Cobb county to Ashford-Dunwoody Road in DeKalb County is ongoing. On I-85 in Gwinnett county, construction of a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) has begun at Pleasant Hill Road, with another planned at Jimmy Carter Boulevard. Across the state, essential interchange and intersection improvements, widening, lane construction, resurfacing, and bridge repairs are in the works. v

TIA-approved Regions

Addressing safety and congestion relief key projects move ahead statewide, Managed lanes are an essential part of Georgia’s future. Plans continue for the Northwest

The GeorGia enGineer

AsHeNews

Ron Osterloh, P.E., President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section ASHE Georgia Happenings By Jenny Jenkins It has been a busy time for the ASHE Georgia Section! Georgia InRoads Users’ Group As the number of transportation projects being completed using InRoads began increasing, the design software utilized by GDOT, it was determined that instructional sessions would be beneficial to area consultants. GDOT and ASHE have coordinated to develop an InRoads Users’ Group for consultants. The group is led by a volunteer group of consultants with experience with the software. A series of eight sessions has been developed and is being taught by the volunteers. The sessions, which include horizontal and vertical alignment manipulation, cross sections and corridor modeling, earthwork, right-of-way, and advanced templates, began in July and are held once a month. ASHE would like to sincerely thank the group of volunteers that are generously contributing their time and knowledge: Jake Mitchell (Parsons Brinkerhoff ), Nathan Laird (Lowe Engineers), Rustavius Ford (Florence and Hutchinson), Eric Rickert (Gresham Smith and Partners), Mindy Sanders (Hatch Mott MacDonald), Rick Strickland (TY Lin), Arwin Lopez (Pond & Co.), and Darren Wilton (McGee Partners), as well as GDOT personnel that have made themselves available during the sessions. Others that have our thanks for facilitating the sessions are Dan Bodycomb (AECOM) and Nikki Reutlinger (Atkins). Follow the discussion on LinkedIn under ‘Georgia Inroads Users.’ Annual Bowling Tournament The annual ASHE Georgia Bowling TourOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

nament was held on August 21. There were 160 players and 40 teams competing in four divisions: Interstate, Highway, Local Roads, and Driveway. Each team bowled three games, at which point the top two teams from each division went on to compete for the division title.

Strike Level – THC, Inc., Gresham Smith and Partners, ARCADIS

Interstate Division Champs: Fresh Princes of Bowl-Air (Gresham Smith)—Scott Shelton, Josh Williams, Brian O’Connor, Kent Black

Officer Installations Officer installations were held in June, and three new board members were added. The 2012-2013 ASHE Georgia Section officers are:

Highway Division Champs: Bowling for Quittin’ Time (Columbia Engineering) – John McGuire, Dara Ay, Paul Cook, Craig Wall Local Roads Division Champs: Little Lebowski Urban Achievers (GDOT) – Chris Rudd, John Karnowski (sub for Bradley Ehrman), Sam Woods, David Norwood Driveway Division Champs: It’s Not a Golf Score (TY Lin) – Matt Allendorf, David Gjertson, Luke Wemette, Christine Martinez-Dingle Top Female Winners: Christine MartinezDingle (TY Lin), Score=469 Kelli Weigle (THC), Score = 442 Top Male Winners: Peter Hortman (URS), Score=660 Jim Baxter (Terracon), Score=526 Over $2300 was raised for the Babs Abubakari Memorial Scholarship! We would like to sincerely thank our generous sponsors: Turkey Level – Edwards Pitman, AECOM, United Consulting, Southeastern Engineering, TY Lin

Spare Level – Pond & Company, Heath and Lineback, Terracon Consultants, STV/Ralph Whitehead, Hatch Mott MacDonald, Wolverton & Associates, ECS Southeast

President ~ Ron Osterloh, Pond & Company First Vice President ~ Michael Bywaletz, Gresham Smith and Partners Second Vice President ~ Brian O’Connor, Gresham Smith and Partners Secretary ~ Karyn Matthews, GDOT Treasurer ~ Richard Meehan, Lowe Engineers Past President and Regional Rep ~ Tim Matthews, GDOT Director ~ Shawn Fleet, Heath and Lineback National Director ~ Nikki Reutlinger, Atkins Chairs Nominating Committee Chair ~ Tim Matthews, GDOT Program Chair ~ Rob Dell-Ross, City of Roswell Membership Chair ~ Scott Jordan, Cobb County Scholarship Chair ~ Sarah Worachek, Gresham Smith and Partners ASHE Student Chapter Liason ~ Kevin Riggs, Gresham Smith and Partners Technical Chairs ~ Dan Bodycomb, AECOM; Chris Rudd, GDOT Communications Chair ~ Jenny Jenkins, McGee Partners Social Chair ~ Elizabeth Scales, Thompson Engineering Golf Tournament Chair ~ Ashley Chan, HNTB Web site Chairs ~ Mindy Sanders, Hatch Mott MacDonald; Pervez Iqbal, HNTB

ACeCNews

Edgar G. Williams, PE President ACEC/G ACEC/G is the Advocate for the Business of Engineering in Georgia In the last issue I alerted you that ACEC/G is implementing a dramatic reorganization triggered by the desire to improve the relevance of the association for the member firms in three areas, Legislative Advocacy, Business Development, and Firm Operations. The ACEC/G board decided that to do this effectively, we needed to have our own staff. In August, Michael ‘Sully’ Sullivan became our Executive Director, Gwen Brandon joined us as Director of Operation, and Kathy Belcher will manage programs. Tom Leslie claims to be working for us only part-time but continues to be a great positive influence on ACEC/G and all aspects of engineering in Georgia. Michael Sullivan comes to us from the Anderson, Tate, & Carr law firm. In his practice and in his extensive civic activities, he has been heavily involved with the issues and causes important to us in the business of engineering. As an attorney, he has specialized in land use and zoning issues and has worked as a registered lobbyist. As a high-energy volunteer, he has served on multiple boards (Council for Quality Growth, State Board of the Technical College System, Georgia Chamber of Commerce). He serves as chairman of the board of the Gwinnett Water and Sewer Authority and on the Georgia Higher Education Funding Commission. That wide range of experience and involvement gives him a good understanding of all the practice areas of ACEC/G members. Michael has given us permission to call him ‘Sully.’ I am sure you will enjoy getting to know Sully in the coming months. ACEC/G is the advocate for the business of engineering in Georgia. The mem38

bers of our association are consulting engineering firms working together to promote our issues, find new business opportunities, and learn how to operate our firms more successfully. Like most engineering-oriented associations, our meetings and activities are heavily populated by professional engineers. However, also in attendance are firm leaders and associate members from other disciplines and specialties. Even though we often find ourselves at the lunch table with competitors, the mood has always been collegial, not cutthroat, even now in a bad economy. I have found that some of the most valuable referrals, teaming opportunities, business strategies, and problem solutions have come from those conversations. As in our forums, seminars, programs, and legislative initiatives, when you are not ‘seated at the table,’ you will miss some great opportunities. The board’s motivation for the reorganization came from our realization that a more robust organization would be needed in response to the current economic climate and

resulting new culture of business. Just as competition for engineering work is tougher with project opportunities few in number, competition for member participation is tougher when there are other associations, activities, and expenses competing for overhead dollars. We concluded that everything we do needs to pass the test of RELEVANCE. In the future, to be relevant to firms in the engineering business, ACEC/G must meet the needs of those business’ leaders in such a way that they are convinced that joining and staying involved will lead to better success for their firm, not because joining is a philanthropic or professional obligation. Firms will join because they need the things ACEC/G can provide for the business, not because it’s the right thing to do. Consistent with this philosophy, the board is about to roll-out its new Value Proposition, a clear presentation of what ACEC/G’s focus will be in serving its members. The Value Proposition will be the meas-

The GeorGia enGineer

uring stick we use for evaluating current and proposed programs and activities of ACEC/G. As I noted in the opening sentence of this article, to be considered relevant, any initiative must be relevant to the needs of member firms in three key areas: Legislative Advocacy, Business Development, and Firm Operations. Legislative Advocacy will be advanced on the national level with support and guidance from ACEC National. The impact on Congress of our pooled individual contributions to the National PAC, along with the skillfully-packaged information the Washington staff provides on our behalf is substantial, with far better effect than we could expect with small individual contributions. Likewise, state PAC contributions give credibility to our issues and prove our unity. Advocacy also includes efforts to monitor and influence regulatory policies and professional practice issues that sometimes arise at the state level. ACEC/G programs, networking events, forums, monthly meetings, conferences, and forums often result in Business Development opportunities for member firms, but only when they are attended. Developers, industries, agencies, and institutions that are our potential clients will be analyzed for partici-

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

pation in events that will provide networking opportunities for member firms. This will sometimes provide early intelligence on upcoming work opportunities and long-term prospects. Also it is important to remember that due to the complexity of many projects, teaming is necessary to cover all the specialties of service. This means that fellow members can often be the source of significant business opportunities. The third leg of the tripod is Firm Operations. Engineering firms of all sizes have a vested interest in improving their operational efficiency by learning and adopting â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;best practices.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; This type of knowledge can be acquired cost-effectively through well planned ACEC/G sponsored programs, seminars, webinars, and workshops. Keep in mind that we want to keep the focus on topics that relate primarily to business operations and not venture too far into professional technical continuing education that might be better provided by one of our sister associations. Our associate members are an under-utilized source of information and assistance for firm operations and our Programs and Membership Committees are attempting to find ways to improve the interaction with associate members. Staff training in those areas not emphasized in en-

gineering schools, like finance, human resources, business development, and other soft-skills is available now through the Future Leaders Program. One of the best sources of information on firm operations is networking with leaders from other firms. I have found that useful information on firm operations is readily shared through networking with fellow firm leaders at membership meetings and other ACEC/G events. We all find it difficult to find sufficient time and sufficient money to do all the lobbying, prospecting for work, and researching the business operational tools and emerging trends that would help our businesses grow and prosper. This is especially challenging in a tough economy. Therefore, I encourage all current members and potential members to use ACEC/G membership to leverage your time and money for better results in the Business of Consulting Engineering. v

AsCeNews

Lisa S. Woods, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: lisa.woods@jacobs.com | www.ascega.org Greetings! "I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer," he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. Who uttered this quote? Maybe this one will give you a hint - "that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' You guessed it—the late Neil Armstrong. Now, I certainly would never claim to have very much in common with the first man on the moon—one of the greatest American heroes, and by all accounts, one of the most humble men—but I do get to say that I’m also a nerdy engineer! And with that, I’d like to say how honored I am to be your 2012-2013 ASCE

Georgia Section President. We thank Jim Wallace for his service as president last year, and congratulate him on his promotion to past president this year! Centennial Celebration As we come to the close of our centennial activities, I’m sad that the year is almost over, but most of us are also saying ‘boy, was that a lot of work!’ The Georgia Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers has been proud this year to celebrate 100 years of Civil Engineering Excellence in Georgia (19122012). Our profession has come a long way since 1912. It is remarkable to see how civil

engineers have helped shape the structural foundation of Georgia through railroads and highways designed to connect the inland areas to the coast. The advancements in water treatment and stormwater management show us how civil engineers touch the lives of everyone in the state. Civil engineers have an important job— to build and enhance the quality of life for everyone. Civil engineers in Georgia have been doing this for the last 100 years, and our work has made a considerable impact on our state. Our profession has built roads, bridges, and airports for public transportation, we ensure that our homes and offices have adequate power supply, and we also

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2012 - 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lisa S. Woods, P.E. JACOBS lisa.woods@jacobs.com

Internal Director Christina Vulova, P.E. URS Corporation christina.vulova@urs.com

NE Georgia Branch Director Matthew Tanner, P.E. Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net

President-Elect Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E. AECOM Katherine.Gurd@aecom.com

Secretary Ernie Pollitzer, MS P.E. Sierra Piedmont epollitzer@bellsouth.net

South Metro Branch Director Greg A. Wombough, P.E. Universal Engineering Sciences gwombough@universalengineering.com

Vice President Rebecca Shelton, P.E. Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

Technical Director Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling RMorales@LBFoster.com

Past-President James R. Wallace, Sc.D., P.E. AMEC (retired) jrwhaw@comcast.net

Treasurer Dan Agramonte, P.E. O'BRIEN & GERE daniel.agramonte@obg.com

Younger Member Director Julie Secrist, P.E. Lowe Engineers Julie.Secrist@loweengineers.com

External Director Keith Cole, P.E. keith.cole@mindspring.com

Savannah Branch Director C. J. Chance

President

www.ascega.org

The GeorGia enGineer

provide water and environmental management strategies to protect the quality and quantity of our rich natural resources for the next 100 years. Our members have played a major role in many of the engineering achievements that have taken place in our state. We have strong, loyal members who are committed to advancing both the industry and their careers. The strength of the Georgia Section is in our members! The Georgia Section was proud to be able to promote civil engineering in many different ways this year. You may have seen some of our electronic billboards celebrating civil engineering that were around Atlanta during Engineers Week in February. We also published a book celebrating 100 years of civil engineering excellence in Georgia. We published articles highlighting different aspects of civil engineering in the Georgia Engineer magazine throughout the year and we hosted a historic civil engineering walking tour through downtown Atlanta. Our GA ASCE Annual Meeting & Centennial Gala was held September 7th at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center where we were pleased to have the ASCE National President in attendance, Andy Herrmann, and where we were also able to honor the past presidents that were in attendance. We also created a special centennial logo and bookmarks for the occasion and produced a centennial display that anchored a booth at the 2012 ASCE Annual Civil Engineering Conference in Montreal. We were also extremely excited to roll out a new Web site during the centennial year. Please check out www.ascega.org. Outlook for 2012-2013 This summer, we held three very successful planning meetings to approve our budget and discuss ideas for the coming year. Be on the lookout for continuing programs and some new ones! Our 2012-2013 board members are listed here. Please feel free to contact one of us at any time to join a committee, offer support, or just tell us how we’re doing. All of our board members are planning great things for this year, so please get in touch with them to help out! We will be continuing many of our proOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

Downtown Atlanta Historic Walking Tour

Example of Billboard grams from years past including participation in the Transportation Summit, sponsoring STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) schools, developing a Sustainability Committee, continuing our student outreach to college and pre-college age groups, and supporting our Careers Roundtable. And we have a technical group just for you—please visit our Web site to learn more. We are also working closely with our branches in Savannah and Athens and hope to establish new branches. I hope to get out and visit all of our branches and student chapters this year!! I spoke at the Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) student chapter meeting on September 13th and attended the ASCE National Presidents and Governors Forum in Reston, Virginia September 23-24 where I presented our centennial activities to the group. Please join us at one of our section meetings this year! October 5, November 2, December 7, January 4, February 1, March

1, April 5, May 3, and June 7. Please see www.ascega.org for more information. New this year! We will be holding raffles at select meetings for items like Falcons tickets, etc. Please bring cash. All proceeds go directly to our scholarship fund. We are also looking for items to raffle if you or your company would like to donate. We always look forward to our joint meeting with the Society of Military Engineers (SAME) and enjoy recognizing our inspiring life members during the spring. I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our sponsors—RWC Hardscapes, Belgard Hardscapes, Jacobs, Hayward Baker, AECOM, and Heath and Lineback. Please contact me if you are interested in becoming a sponsor. In closing, I’m looking forward to my year as your president. Please e-mail me at any time if you have questions, concerns, suggestions, or would like to volunteer! Take care! v 41

iteNews

John Karnowski, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers Who among us can see the future? I would submit that despite the plot lines of so many sci-fi movies I love to watch, one cannot see the future. Most people would agree with this theory. And don’t send me e-mails about time dilation, time perception or such because it just makes me think about physics at Georgia Tech, and then my head hurts. Nevertheless, we still try to predict the future. My iPhone comes pre-loaded with a weather app that will tell me hour-by-hour the weather for the coming day and the dayby-day weather for a week. There is an entire TV channel about the weather, and every news show has an eight-to-ten minute segment explaining why the guy thinks it’s

going to rain. Of course, sometimes they say there is a 50 percent chance of rain which is the same odds as flipping a coin. So maybe next time you go out to play golf and want to know if it is going to rain, flip a coin. In May 1958, Walt Disney first hosted his ‘Magic Highway U.S.A.’ episode. It is a classic show about the history of the transportation system and a vision for the future. You can see the entire episode on the source of all knowledge, wisdom and insight Google… hallowed be thy name. I love the ending of the show where Disney illustrates the transportation planners’ and visionaries’ view of what transportation would be in the future. It is amazing to see

how some of it has come to pass and what might still be on the horizon. From 1958’s perspective, in the future… • Highway lanes will be colored-coded to mark your paths—blue for downtown, green for uptown, red for the beaches, etc. •

Roadways will be radiated to keep surfaces clear of rain, ice, and snow

•

In hazardous conditions, radar equipped windshields will guide you safely through the fog

•

Dashboard safety features will include

Socializing with GDOT Comm. Golden at Annual Meeting 42

The GeorGia enGineer

real time traffic info, safe driving speed, and rear viewing television screens •

Emergency highway response will be airborne and include fire, ambulance, police, and even towing Board Position

•

We will have giant road builders that cut a swath across the earth to build superhighways quickly and efficiently

•

Tunneling into rock will be done by atomic reactor units that melt a path through the mountain

•

Bridges will be pre-fabricated and put into place by giant cranes

•

We will have cantilevered skyways to traverse mountain passes

Member

E-mail

Phone

President

John Karnowski

jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com

(770) 368-1399

Vice President

Dwayne Tedder

dwayne.tedder@urs.com

(678) 808-8840

Secretary/Treasurer

Jonathan Reid

Reid@pbworld.com

(404) 769-4058

Past President

Mike Holt

mholt@worldfiber.com

(770) 407-7799

District Representative

David Benevelli

david.benevelli@transcore.com

(770) 246-6257

District Representative

Carla Holmes

carla_holmes@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3654

District Representative

Jim Tolson

jtolson@dot.ga.gov

(404) 624-7119

Affiliate Director

Andrew Antweiler

aantweiler@roswellgov.com

(678) 639-7540

Committee

Chair(s)

E-mail

Phone

2012 Intl Meeting

Marsha Bomar

marsha.andersonbomar@stantec.com

(770) 813-0882

Kenny Voorhies

kvoorhies@camsys.com

(404) 460-2604

Activities

Patrick McAtee

PMcatee@ThompsonEngineering.com

(404) 574-1985

Annual Report

Carla Holmes

carla_holmes@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3654

Jim Tolson

jtolson@dot.ga.gov

(404) 624-7119

Audio/Visual

France Campbell

france_campbell@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3952

Awards/Nominations

Mike Holt

mholt@worldfiber.com

(770) 407-7799

Career Guidance

Brendetta Walker

bhargro@bellsouth.net

(404) 364-5235

Clerk

Elizabeth Scales

elizabeth.scales@hatchmott.com

(770) 200-1735

Comptroller

Jim Pohlman

pohlmanj@bellsouth.net

(770) 972-9709

Engineers Week

Steven Sheffield

ssheffield@georgiatolls.com

(404) 893-6132

Finance

Martin Bretherton

wbretherton@hntb.com

(404) 946-5709

Georgia Engineer Magazine

Dan Dobry

ddobry@croyengineering.com

(770) 971-5407

John Edwards

jdedwards4929@bellsouth.net

(404) 264-0789

Georgia Tech Liaison

Paul DeNard

pdenard@dot.ga.gov

(404) 635-8278

Historian

Charles Bopp

charles_bopp@hotmail.com

(404) 848-6054

Host

Sujith Racha

sujith.racha@arcadis-us.com

(770) 431-8666

Legislative Affairs

Bill Ruhsam

bruhsam@maai.net

(678) 728-9076

Life Membership

Don Gaines

dgaines@gcaeng.com

(404) 355-4010

Marketing

Shannon Fain

shannon.fain@stantec.com

(770) 813-0882

Membership

Sunita Nadella

sunita.nadella@parsons.com

(678) 969-2304

Monthly Meetings

Dwayne Tedder

dwayne.tedder@urs.com

(678) 808-8840

Newsletter

Vern Wilburn

vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com

(770) 977-8920

Past Presidents

Todd Long

tlong@dot.ga.gov

(404) 631-1021

Public Officials Education

Scott Mohler

scott_mohler@urscorp.com

(678) 808-8811

Scholarship

Tim Brandstetter

tim.brandstetter@kimley-horn.com

(404) 419-8714

Southern Poly Liaison

Bryan Sartin

bryan_sartin@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3884

Summer Seminar

Josh Williams

josh_williams@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3672

Technical

Winter Horbal

winter.horbal@temple-inc.com

(678) 412-5554

Web site

Shawn Pope

spope@camsys.com

(404) 460-2609

Winter Workshop

Jody Peace

Jody.Peace@arcadis-us.com

(770) 431-8666

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

GA ITE River Cleanup 14, Dresden Park Clean-up

ITE Members Networking at Summer Seminar •

Cities will become vast urban areas where people will commute many miles to work

•

On board ‘synchronized scanning maps’ will guide you along the way

•

Punch cards will be used to automatically steer your cars to your destination

•

Railway and highway technology will be combined to automate dispatching of goods from farm to market

•

Freight containers will be stackable and shipped on large sailing vessels

•

We will have ‘electro-suspension’ cars

that will allow cars to float above the roadway •

Eventually, we will have tubular highways (Note: reference the starting segment to Futurama)

•

Highways will be “Magic carpet to new hopes, new dreams, and a better way of life for the future”

It is kind of amazing how some of these things have come to fruition. Still, I think we are a long way off from daily use of flying cars—with deference to George, Jane, Judy, and Elroy. I suppose that planning for the future is a responsible act even if you can’t say for sure

what the future will hold. At this time of year, many of us are laying out our budgets for next year—deciding how much to spend on what. It is always a balancing act of this priority over that wish list item. Since it takes ten years or more to get a new road built, planning out the funding, right-of-way, and design plans makes sense. And, many of us are saving for retirement even though we don’t know when that will be or if our kids will be still living with us. Someone much wiser than me once said, “Learn from the past, plan for the future, but live now.” It was Einstein who famously said, “I never think of the future—it comes soon enough.” If Einstein didn’t bother with the future, then why should we? Now I need to go wash my car before it rains. This has been an extremely busy summer for the Georgia Section. The annual Summer Seminar was held on July 15-18 at The King and Price Resort on St Simons Island. Over 125 attendees enjoyed ten technical sessions over the three day conference along with peer networking and time spent with family and friends at the pool and beach. Also, the International ITE’s Annual Meeting was held in Atlanta this August. Our members helped with the technical sessions, site visits, and family functions to showcase the transportation highlights of the metropolitan region to our international brethren. And we’ve continued to participate in community activities. The GA ITE group went out to Dresden Park in Chamblee early in the morning on July 28th to clean up the park and nearby creek. We had 11 members that recovered about 465 pounds of trash from the creeks and park in a two-hour time span. Highlights of items removed were a folding chair, a Kroger shopping cart, carpet, carpet padding, a soccer net, a hub cap, sandals, and TONS of plastic bottles. The second cleanup trip to the park was conducted on September 29th. v The GeorGia enGineer

its

News

Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President The ITS Georgia 2012 Annual Meeting and Exposition, held at Callaway Gardens in early fall this year, can be called nothing but an unqualified success. More than 130 attendees got a briefing on everything transportation from the national perspective, from ITS America President Scott Belcher, to ITS applications and future at the state, regional, and local level. Our attendees got to put their hands on the latest ITS hardware, available from the 24 vendors on hand in the exhibition. A total of 17 sponsors provided crucial financial support, including our three Diamond sponsors, Control Technologies (www.cttraffic.com), MetroTech (metrotechpartners.com) and Temple Inc. (www.temple-inc.com). Additionally, our five sessions, featuring 22 speakers, provided attendees with 7.5 professional development hours credit. The annual meeting also provides valuable time for face-to-face meetings between fellow transportation professionals where problems are presented and solutions are created. We also take time at the meeting to recognize outstanding individuals and organizations who are leaders in the industry. This year’s winners are: • Larry R. Dreihaup Award ~ Todd Long, GDOT. The ITS Georgia Larry R. Dreihaup Award recognizes an individual or an organization who has provided leadership, professionalism, and dedication in promoting ITS in the state of Georgia during the previous 12 months. •

Dreihaup Award winner Todd Long (center) with Marion Waters and John Hibbard

Outstanding Public Member Agency Award ~ GDOT. Leadership in pro-

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012

moting ITS and/or ITSGA goals during the previous 12 months. •

Outstanding Private Member Award ~ Atkins Global. Leadership in promoting ITS and/or ITSGA goals during the previous 12 months.

One of the highlights of this year’s meeting was to reward a promising transportation student in the Georgia University System with our third-annual Wayne Shackelford memorial scholarship. This year’s winner is Bhargava Rama Chilukuri, PE, a doctoral candidate at Georgia Tech, who is currently working on ramp metering and travel time estimation improvement projects. Last, but not least, we announce the results of yearly elections at each meeting. Elected to the board of directors were Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta; Winter Horbal, Temple Inc.; Keary Lord, Douglas County Department of Transportation; Michael Roberson, Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT); David Smith, DeKalb County Department of Transportation (DeKalb); and Prasoon Sinha, ACRADIS. We are very pleased to be joined by this great group of newly-elected directors and are grateful for the contributions of our retiring board members. ITS Georgia has always attracted the best leadership and provided a vehicle for professional growth and career development. Retiring from the board are Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn; Patrece Keeter, DeKalb, Bayne Smith, GDOT, and John Hibbard, Atkins. You can see we pack a lot of learning, networking, and business into a short time. So, we hope you can join us next year! v

Our 2012 Sponsors Temple Arcadis Gresham Smith and Partners Traficon Atkins World Fiber Technologies Serco Utilicom Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems URS Kimley-Horn and Associates Control Technologies Telvent Delcan Cambridge Systematics Stantec Grice Consulting Sensys Networks Daktronics

“Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation Immediate Past President Marion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan Directors Mark Demidovich Susie Dunn Kenn Fink Eric Graves John Hibbard Carla Holmes Patrece Keeter Keary Lord Bayne Smith Grant Waldrop

GDOT ARC Kimley-Horn City of Alpharetta Atkins Gresham Smith DeKalb County Douglas County DOT URS GDOT

State Chapters Representative Kenny Voorhies Cambridge Systematics Inc. Ex Officio Greg Morris Federal Highway Administration Jamie Pfister Federal Transit Administration

(770) 521-8877 Use A CompAny yoU CAn trUst witH yoUr trAnslAtion projeCt, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results. 46

The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2012