On December 19, the ACEC-NH/NHDES CQI heard a Dam Bureau update from Jim Gallagher, Administrator of the Dam Bureau.

You can view the slide deck from the presentation here.

The NHDOT/ACEC-NH Technical Transfer Conference planning committee has recently begun its work. The event will take place on April 21, 2022.

All member firms are encouraged to submit any ideas, studies or projects for consideration by the committee.

If you are proposing a specific presentation, please remember to include a title and brief description (paragraph) as well as who would be conducting the presentation.

Please submit all suggestions to ACEC-NH Executive Director, Alex Koutroubas by November 15, 2021.

Meeting Minutes – June 16, 2021 (approved 8/18/2021)

Meeting Location:  Zoom Virtual Meeting

Day/Time:  Wednesday (1:30 pm – 3:00 pm)

In Attendance:

• Bill Oldenburg, NHDOT (Chair)
• Mike Long, MJ
• Ted Kitsis, NHDOT
• Alex Koutroubas, ACEC
• CR Willeke, NHDOT (Scribe)
• Bob Bollinger, FHWA
• Darren Blood, GM2
• Marty Kennedy, VHB
• Loretta Girard Doughty, NHDOT
• Chris Mulleavey, HTA
• Rob Faulkner, CHA
• Tobey Reynolds

Unable to Attend:

• Jim Marshall (NHDOT)

1. Meeting Minutes: May meeting minutes accepted as amended.
2. Assigned Scribe for Meeting: C.R. Willeke (NHDOT)
3. Topics for Discussion:
   • Improving Project Delivery – Mike Long mentioned that at the last meeting in May the Committee looked at items that could speed up or improve the process in the period from project inception through consultant selection and notice to proceed. At this meeting we want to look at items that can speed up or improve plan production and delivery process after consultant notice to proceed. A draft list of items / issues that slow project progress is attached and was used for discussion. Mike mentioned that today’s intent is to review the draft list of issues, verify we are properly describing the issues, and make/adjust the priority of the items on the list. The group discussed the following items on the draft list:
   • Front Office Meeting Preparation – It was mentioned that seeking front office concurrence appears to have caused delays in the past on projects. The question was raised if consultants could take on some of the responsibilities of the NHDOT PM’s in preparing for or participating in Front Office meetings to help speed up project delivery. The types of front office meetings were discussed (seeking concurrence for scope/schedule/budget changes, seeking concurrence for upcoming public meeting presentations (see #2 below), presenting the progress of a project at certain milestones, etc…), as well as the steps to prepare for front office meetings. Items like preparing the FOPIS (Front Office Project Information Sheet), allowing time for Bureau Administrator pre-review and Director of Project Development pre-review, making sure all of the background information in understood, etc…. were noted to be elements that can extend time / cause delays. It was also mentioned that newer PM’s may be less comfortable making decisions as compared to more experienced / recently retired PM’s; therefore, more vetting of project decisions is occurring which could be adding time to the project delivery process. It was also mentioned that older conference reports were felt to be lacking in capturing an appropriate record of project decisions, and therefore the FOPIS was introduced as the official record of decision making. This may be causing PM’s (especially newer PM’s) to schedule more Front Office meetings than in the past.
   • Public Outreach – It was mentioned that the linear/sequential public outreach process appears to slow down projects. Things like properly noticing abutters are state law and likely cannot be improved upon. But, similar to #1 above, the question was raised if consultants could take on some of the responsibilities of the NHDOT PM’s in preparing for or participating in public outreach and/or the front office meetings related to public outreach to help speed up project delivery.
   • Technical Plan Review Turnaround Time (Plan/Submission Reviews) – It was agreed to keep this topic on the list.
   • Delays in Receiving NTP after scope and fee are agreed on for On-Call – It was agreed to not keep this on this list as there is not much DOT or consultants can do to improve it. However, consultants will track on-call turnaround time and report back in the future about potential delays. It was mentioned that there is merit in keeping the message going that all aspects of project delivery should be as efficient as possible.
   • Delays within Bureaus (Geotechnical, ROW, Survey) – It was mentioned to keep this issue on the list. It was also mentioned that bureau coordination is an issue on NHDOT “in-house” projects as well.
   • Items 6, 7, and 8 were not discussed due to time limits.
4. LPA Topics:
   • C.R. noted that the LPA PE On-Call process is reviewing the contract documents for the three selected firms in preparation for G&C. A big thanks to Bill Oldenburg for filling in the responsibilities that Jake (retired) used to do in contract preparation. The LPA CE On-Call process will be reviewing consultant proposals in July.
5. Sub Committees:
   • Contracts – Darren noted that the standardized scope of work for Part A is almost done and when finished the committee will schedule a meeting.
   • Bridge – Loretta noted that they will be meeting tomorrow (June 17, 2021).
   • Highway – no updates (Jim not in attendance)
6. Next Meeting: August 18, 2021

MAY 12^th, 2021, DUBLIN, OH – GeoInsight, Inc. (www.geoinsight.com, “GeoInsight”), a New England-based environmental and engineering consulting firm has joined Hull & Associates (Hull) Duffield & Associates (Duffield), and HSW Consulting (HSW), as part of a national platform of companies focused in the industrial, real estate, energy, technology, transportation, and government sectors.

The combined platform now includes over 350 staff in 24 offices, across 12 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Texas). Together, the firms offer comprehensive capabilities, including environmental site assessment and remediation, cultural resources and ecology, water resources and treatment, traditional site civil and geotechnical engineering, climate change resiliency, along with marine and coastal engineering.  With the addition of GeoInsight, the combined company now also offer clients Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) and compliance services on a national scale.

Gerry Salontai, CEO of the platform, explained, “GeoInsight brings additional leadership to the platform, a great culture fit and a complementary set of capabilities to further solidify our presence in the Eastern US, while adding a strong EHS practice to our business. This in turn will strengthen our value proposition to our clients as we continue to build a national environmental, water and civil infrastructure consulting business.”

GeoInsight will continue its commitment to offering relationship-centric consulting services to clients in New England, now with an expanded portfolio of service experience and technical depth.

As Nikki Delude Roy, Vice President of GeoInsight explains, “The combined firms of Hull, Duffield, HSW and GeoInsight share a rare set of core values centered around genuine commitment to our clients and our staff. At GeoInsight, we are excited about this partnership and the ability to bring additional resources to our existing clients, as well as the opportunity to introduce our talented and committed staff to a broader set of clients across a national footprint.”

GeoInsight President, Brian Kisiel offers, “This new venture offers GeoInsight the chance to bring what we do best to a whole new level. GeoInsight will continue to do great technical work while building and maintaining its long-term relationships with our business partners and our clients, which is the essence of who we are.  With this exciting change, we now have the opportunity to bring expanded services to existing and new clients in new geographies.”

This platform is sponsored by Round Table Capital (RTC) and is their third buy and build strategy in the AEC industry. Ashley Chang, Vice President and member of the founding team at RTC said, “We are very pleased to welcome the entire GeoInsight team to the platform. The strategic addition of such a strong organization is a win for all stakeholders; providing additional opportunities for employees, enhancing the service offering to clients and creating value for shareholders.”

Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, P.C. acted as legal counsel, and BDO USA, LLP and CohnReznick, LLP acted as financial and tax advisors on behalf of RTC and its affiliates.

For more information on Hull, Duffield, HSW, and GeoInsight, please visit www.hullinc.com, www.duffnet.com,  www.hsweng.com, and www.geoinsight.com. For information on Round Table Capital Partners (“RTC”), the private equity investment firm focusing on capital investment and collaborative partnerships, that facilitated this collaboration, please visit www.rtcpartners.com.

Meeting Minutes for March 17, 2021

Meeting Location: Zoom Virtual Meeting
Day/Time: Wednesday (1:30 pm – 3:00 pm)

In Attendance:
Bill Oldenburg, NHDOT
Mike Long, MJ (Chair)
Ted Kitsis, NHDOT
CR Willeke, NHDOT
Jim Marshall, NHDOT
Darren Blood, GM2
Marty Kennedy, VHB
Chris Mulleavey, HTA
Alex Koutroubas, ACEC
Rob Faulkner, CHA (Scribe)

Unable to attend:
Loretta Girard Doughty, NHDOT
Michelle Marshall, FHWA

1. Meeting Minutes: The meeting minutes from the last meeting were accepted.
2. Assigned Scribe for Meeting: Rob Faulkner
3. Topics for Discussion:
   • Scope and Fee Development for Standalone Projects (Scope Development – Custom vs. Standard)
     • D. Blood reported on the following:
       • About ½ of the Part A Draft Standardized Scope has been completed and reviewed;
       • Next meeting is in April with the goal of having the complete Part A scope developed.
         The Final Design scope will be developed afterwards.
     • M. Long asked if scope could be used for standalone contracts or on-calls. It was discussed that
       it could be used for both and would be a good basis for developing the Standardized Fee Matrix.
     • B. Oldenburg noted that the standardized scope would be “all inclusive” and could be
       customized for specific projects by hiding or deleting scope items that wouldn’t apply. (for
       instance for various types of bridge projects or if a highway project, bridge scope items could be
       eliminated.
     • It was further discussed that the intent would be that the standardized scope wouldn’t need to be
       customized very much at all – similar to MassDOT’s standardized scope. R. Faulkner noted that
       the MassDOT scope refers to specific manuals or processes and that it is the expectation that
       those documents will be followed and are part of the scope.
     • D. Blood further noted that the subcommittee used a compilation of existing scopes of work to
       develop the standard scope template.
     • M. Long asked if the intent moving forward would be that the standard scope would be set as is
       and wouldn’t be significantly modified for each project, to which the general response was
       “yes”.
     • There was a further discussion regarding the number of assumptions or caveats that are added to
       certain scopes of work to further qualify or quantify the expectations or level of effort for certain
       tasks and whether or not these would still be needed
     • It was agreed that the CQI Committee should review the draft standardized scopes prior to
       further discussing the need for caveats, however, certain assumptions will always need to be
       made. M. Long mentioned that in some cases, there is a disconnect in what the consultant
       envisions for effort versus what the Department envisions. Again, it was emphasized that the
       scopes, and associated levels of effort should be more consistent to help make the process more
       efficient.
     • M. Kennedy began a discussion on the schedule for scope and fee development and questioned
       whether or not the schedule needed to be reviewed and possibly made more aggressive, as well
       as enforced, to help push the process along and expedite getting contracts executed.
     • B. Oldenburg reviewed the current schedule:
       • from the solicitation posting there is 4 weeks for LOI submissions;
       • the short list is typically developed at the following Consultant Selection
         Committee meeting;
       • Ideally, the draft scope of work should be developed by the time of shortlist.
         However, there are some exceptions for more unique work.
       • Once the scope of work / shortlist is released, consultants have 4 weeks to submit
         Technical Proposals;
       • 2 weeks after Technical Proposals are submitted is typical for selection.
     • He further noted that the process / schedule can break down during fee proposal development
       and that sometimes this is NHDOT’s fault, sometimes the consultant’s.
     • He further noted that the internal process can break down and used On-Calls as an example: the
       Department tries to execute all of the On-Call agreements at the same time – if one consultant is
       behind, it can hold up others.
     • M. Kennedy again asked if the schedules could be more aggressive. B. Oldenburg replied that
       he sets the schedules and that he already makes them aggressive.
     • There was a discussion that the consultants use the Draft Scopes of Work issued with the
       shortlist only as a guide for the Technical Proposal development because they are pretty general
       in nature and not necessarily the basis for fee development.
     • It was further discussed that the Scope of Work Checklist provides more detail to help facilitate
       final scope and fee development.
     • C. Willeke noted that if draft Scopes of Work were required from PMs when they bring the
       solicitation to the Consultant Selection Committee, it would better motivate NHDOT’s PMs to
       get that done. M. Long continued saying that consultants do not necessarily pay attention to
       Article 1 provided with solicitations and the specific details for a project are usually discussed
       with PMs one-on-one and that the scope checklist might be better. B. Oldenburg replied that the
       checklist typically doesn’t provide enough detail. The consultant group generally agreed that the
       Article 1 included with the shortlist is not really a basis for the Technical Proposals developed by
       consultants and that specific scope details are not really needed for Technical proposals.
     • M. Long referenced CTDOT’s process and the position D. Mancini holds in the Consultant
       Selection office. In that position, he shepherds projects through the solicitation process very
       effectively. Mike questioned if a position like that at NHDOT would help NHDOT move
       projects forward.
     • B. Oldenburg stated that the Department is restructuring the Contracts and Specifications Section
       after Jake’s retirement which should help with NHDOT’s internal process for solicitations. He
       further noted that he will bring forward to the Consultant Selection Committee what will be
       required for solicitations and emphasize that if PMs don’t have the necessary information needed
       for a solicitation, it may not move forward.
     • It was agreed that the Contracts Subcommittee needs to put forward the standardized scope(s) for
       the CQI’s review and that at the next meeting we would discuss the next steps after scope
       development (Fee Spreadsheet and Independent Estimate).
   • NHDOT Website Updates
     • B. Oldenburg noted that the long list of LPA qualified firms has been added to the website. He
       continued that the website had a new look but nothing changed internally – he then reviewed the
       location where the LPA qualifications for all consultants were located on the website and noted
       that all of the consultants that submitted for the prequalifications were approved and put on the
       list. This list can be referenced by municipalities looking for consultant services on LPA
       projects and that the prequalification will need to be updated by the consultants every year.
     • A. Koutroubas asked if the consultants can update their prequalification at any time. B.
       Oldenburg responded that prequalification will only happen in January. He continued that
       consultants will have the option to update the package as much or as little as they want to and
       that the packages will be used more as a “Yellow Pages” listing for municipalities.
     • C Willeke noted that the annual prequalification solicitation will likely not require a complete
       resubmission to stay on the list. If there are wholesale changes within a firm, the Department
       might require a full resubmission. It was further noted that it would lighten the Department’s
       workload if they didn’t have to do complete reviews every year.
     • B Oldenburg noted that the Project Solicitation and Short List areas have been updated to a
       certain degree but also noted that most of the projects on the Shortlist page are very outdated. He
       also stated that the Possible Action page was also outdated. He continued that the new process
       will be that once a project has been shortlisted, and the selected firm, fee and G&C approval has
       been updated, the posting will remain up on the website for 6 months.
     • C. Willeke provided an update, noting that the State Bridge Aid Enrolled Project Status section
       has been updated with firms that have been selected for projects.
4. LPA Topics:
   • C. Willeke provided the following updates:
     • The internal checklist for invoice review has been updated and may be circulated to the
       CQI for review;
     • TAP applications are coming in will be ranked;
     • Additional LPA training sessions are being scheduled and will likely be in April or early
       May
5. Status of Sub-Committees:
   • Consultant Contract Subcommittee: Previously discussed above
   • Bridge Subcommittee: No update
   • Highway Subcommittee: No update
6. Other Items:
   • May Partnering Meeting
     • It was discussed whether the Commissioner could speak at the May
       meeting instead of her doing a separate Town Hall. It was agreed by all that this made sense.
   • B. Oldenburg provided the following staffing updates:
     • Jason Ayotte – new Project Manager, filling L. Doughty’s position;
     • Don Lyford and Joe Adams are retiring;
     • The new Chief Project Manager has been selected, but yet to be announced and will be on the
       CQI committee.
7. Next Meeting – Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Meeting Minutes for February 17, 2021

Meeting Location: Zoom Virtual Meeting
Day/Time: Friday (1:30 pm – 3:00 pm)

In Attendance:
Bill Oldenburg, NHDOT
Mike Long, MJ (Chair)
Ted Kitsis, NHDOT (Scribe)
CR Willeke, NHDOT
Jim Marshall, NHDOT
Michelle Marshall, FHWA

Unable to attend:
Alex Koutroubas, ACEC
Rob Faulkner, CHA

1. Meeting Minutes: The meeting minutes from the last meeting were accepted.
2. Assigned Scribe for Meeting: Ted Kitsis
3. Topics for Discussion:
   • Escalation Rate
     • Bill Oldenburg confirmed that the 2021 escalation rate of 2% was approved via an
       internal memo by Chief Engineer Bill Cass and Director Peter Stamnas. As this
       rate only affects the budget of standalone contracts, the ACEC group will have no
       further discussion of this rate for this year. It was mentioned that all consultants
       are paid the actual pay rates at the time services are rendered.
   • Establish Core Goal(s) of this Committee for 2021
     • The CQI committee is looking to identify items or topics that can be improved
       upon to help move project along faster and more efficiently. The committee
       identified the following topics that should be considered for further discussion:
       1. Agreement development and execution procedures.
       2. Project Development continuity.
          • Try to keep same people on projects.
          • Jim Marshall noted that Highway Design tries to keep the same
            team on a project but due to staffing shortages that isn’t always
            possible. This was one of the reasons the Bureau of Highway
            Design re-organized its sections recently.
       3. Scoping fee negotiation process before execution of an Agreement.
       4. And for projects that are underway let the consultants take a greater lead
          role.
          • DOT PM’s are overwhelmed and the committee sees this as an
            area that needs to be improved.
          • The committee’s goal is to advance projects faster.
       5. There isn’t a DOT PM manual to help with the transition of new PM’s.
       6. DOT working to have more standardized agreements so all bureaus have
          access to them and can use them.
          • Looking to streamline the Agreement process/effort to be more
            efficient.
       7. Engineer of Record Policy (currently in draft form).
          • Look at steps to engage Consultants during construction.
          • ACEC would like to provide comment on draft Policy.
       8. Improved communication and marketing of all the good things that the
          project is or is going to do.
          • Make sure FHWA direction is disseminated to all staff.
       9. Processes and procedures are constantly evolving due to audits that occur
          from time to time. The DOT finds it a challenge to effectively
          communicate these changes to Communities and Consultants.
          • Example: Bid analysis after bid openings.
          • Example: FOPIS
       10. Seems that in the last couple of years we have made things more
           complicated. It’s good to document things but many question the added
           value this brings to projects.
           • Having some flexibility would help mitigate some of the changes.
           • Many of these changes are mandated to the Department, usually as
             a result of audit findings or by FHWA directives.
           • Department has been looking to have a record of past decisions for
             liability issues as well as the inevitable staffing changes (FOPIS).
       11. Highway Design sub-committee is looking at a process (live document)
           that replaces the Engineering Report. The hope is to save time in the end
           and to assist engineers filling out the FOPIS.
           • FOPIS is actually a log of decision dates/events.
       12. Due to limited and reduced resources, the Department will be providing
           less reviews and the consultants will have a greater role in project
           management, including internal coordination, in the future.
   • Identify Individual Topics for Consideration and Prioritize
     • After some discussion the committee identified the following topics for
       immediate follow-up:
       1. Improve the Agreement process. (The DOT supports this effort.)
       2. Engineer of Record collaboration.
       3. Other topics not identified at this time.
4. LPA Topics: ACEC has been getting a lot of questions regarding the recent LPA RFP’s (Oncall
   Design services and CE&I services) and is looking for an update to provide to
   its member firms.
   • CR noted that the Department is looking at this consultant selection
     process and will provide more information by the end of March or in early
     April.
   • A recent audit has found issues with the LPA G&C approval process that
     needs to be addressed before we can move forward with the On-call and
     CE&I Agreements. This will most likely require several changes to our LPA
     procedures.
   • All those consultants that submitted prequalification packages will be
     placed on a list that will be available on the NHDOT website for Towns to
     utilize in contacting forms for possible LPA assignments.
   • The RFP soliciting for On-call design consultants and CE&I consultants
     that the NHDOT will utilize for projects where the towns request that
     NHDOT preform the design or construction inspection is still under
     review
5. Status of Sub-Committees:
   • Contracts – Darren noted that the subcommittee continues to make progress on a
     standard scope of work – next meeting Feb 19th.
   • Bridge – Loretta noted that the subcommittee did not meet since our last meeting.
   • Highway – Jim noted that the sub-committee meets monthly and the group is
     developing checklists to aid in the reviews. The checklists are available on the
     NHDOT website for internal and external use (Link:https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/com
     mittees/index.htm)
6. Other Items:
   • April Tech Exchange
     • The conference sub-committee has completed the agenda. This year’s
       conference will be virtual and all presentations will be pre-recorded.
     • The conference will be the entire week of April 12-16, 2021.
     • Registration fee is lower this year so we are anticipating more attendees this
       year.
     • The DOT can send all staff that want to attend due to the cost and virtual
       setting.
   • May Partnering Meeting
     • We don’t have a topic for this meeting at this time.
     • Usually The CQI committee provides a recap of what we have been talking
       about at our meetings.
     • The ACEC group thought it would be good to have an update on the budget
       and projected revenues in the highway fund.
     • Bill Oldenburg will check with the Commissioner to ask if she would consider
       doing a Town Hall meeting that was originally scheduled for this past
       January. It would be a timelier discussion if we can have the Town Hall
       meeting in late March, just before the April conference.
   • New Topics for Next Meeting
     • Consultant manual will be sent to the ACEC group for their review.
     • Design Build manual will follow shortly thereafter.
7. Next Meeting – March 17, 2021

Meeting Minutes for January 15, 2021

Meeting Location: Zoom Virtual Meeting
Day/Time: Friday (1:00 pm – 2:30 pm)

In Attendance:

Bill Oldenburg, NHDOT (Chair)
Mike Long, MJ
Ted Kitsis, NHDOT
Alex Koutroubas, ACEC
CR Willeke, NHDOT
Michelle Marshall, FHWA
Darren Blood, GM2
Marty Kennedy, VHB (Scribe)
Loretta Girard Doughty, NHDOT
Chris Mulleavey, HTA
Rob Faulkner, CHA

Unable to Attend:

Jim Marshall, NHDOT

1. Meeting Minutes: The meeting minutes from the last meeting were accepted.
2. Assigned Scribe for Meeting: Marty Kennedy
3. Topics for Discussion:
   • Escalation Rate
     • Bill reminded the committee that the NHDOT’s current calculation, which is
       based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Data yields 2.25%, which would
       round down to a 2.0% cost escalation. He received internal Department push back
       on the suggestion of using the 2.25% plus 1% as discussed at our last meeting.
       Bill ran a sensitivity analysis using a $1.7 M project stating that the difference
       between a 2.0% and a 2.25% factor would be only $5 K and the difference
       between a 2.0% and a 3.0% factor would be only $20 K. Unless there’s another
       acceptable standardized method the consultant members can propose, the
       Department is prepared to implement the lower escalation rate. Consultants to get
       back to the Department within the next couple of weeks if there are other
       methods.
   • Brainstorming Meeting Topics
     • Marty suggested that with this being our first meeting of the year, we
       establish our top priority for 2021. It was suggested and agreed that our
       top priority would be to work together discussing and implementing
       actions aimed at efficiently advancing NHDOT projects. There will be
       other topics to discuss, but we’ll be sure to allocate sufficient time on each
       agenda to this priority.
     • The agenda will include start and end time for each agenda item.
     • Subcommittee reports should be brief (2 min each). If there’s the need for
       a longer discussion on a subcommittee matter, it should be placed on the
       agenda as a standalone discussion item.
     • As the year proceeds, we’ll monitor our progress on implementing actions
       to advance NHDOT projects.
     • Bill Oldenburg and one consultant member (Mike Long) to work together
       on preparing the agenda for each meeting.
     • Will consider changing the day and time of the meeting. Bill will check
       the schedules of others.
   • Sub-Consultant Self-Certification Form
     • Bill noted that the new form is being instituted – being pushed out
       internally first.
   • Consultant Manual by ACEC
     • Bill will be providing this committee copies of the manual for review –
       appendix to be provided on-line. We’ll get one month, then the document
       goes to FHWA. Final step is the Commissioner’s signoff.
   • Commissioner Town Hall
     • Date and time not yet set. Bill to check with Commissioner on potential
       late February date – 1 hour.
   • Consultant Notes Posting for Non-NHDOT Services
     • Bill was contacted by SRPC for eligibility list of consultants so they can
       send out an RFP for on-call services. Bill explained to the SRPC that the
       Department doesn’t maintain an eligibility list but agreed to post their RFP
       on the NHDOT’s website. Bill asked if ACEC had any concerns with
       using the list in this way. No concerns were raised.
4. Committees:
   • Contracts – Darren noted that the subcommittee continues to progress on a
     standard scope of work – next meeting Feb 19th.
   • Bridge – Loretta noted that the subcommittee did meet and are continuing to
     update the Bridge Manual – updating one chapter at a time. D-B Manual is
     complete, no more discussion needed.
   • Highway – Jim was not present today – no report.
5. LPA: CR asked consultants on the committee if there might be any potential issues
   when laying out alignment during construction when the Construction Engineer is a
   different firm from the Design Engineer. The committee members didn’t see a big issue.
   C&I contracts require a licensed surveyor. Ted noted that on NHDOT projects their
   surveyors provide layout of project control, but the Contractor is required to layout the
   project. NHDOT RE’s then are provided GPS equipment that they use to provide a sense
   that the project is being constructed correctly. It was noted that when LPA project
   documents reference the NHDOT specifications, they need to pay close attention to this
   initial layout requirement as NHDOT survey crews will not be providing this control
   layout.
6. Other Items: Ted noted that Construction School will take place virtually (Zoom Meeting) for
   January 26th through January 29th. Consultants are welcome to register. Zoom
   meeting can accommodate up to 500 attendees.
7. Next Meeting: February 19, 2021. (Subsequently changed to February 17, 2021)