PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

LOGISTICS & INFRASTRUCTURE: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IN THE

PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION
by
Richard Robertson, P.E., 1 Ilya R. Espino de Marotta, P.E., 2 and Ilona Modly Hogan, J.D. 3

Abstract - In 2006, the citizens of Panama voted to approve a national referendum for the Panama Canal
Expansion Program (PCEP). The goal of the program was to grow the global shipping industry
infrastructure and expand the economic opportunities of Panama.

Program Management Definition - Program Management is the delivery of multiple, interrelated projects
in a coordinated process for the benefit of the owning entity.

Autoridad del Canal de Panamá’s (ACP’s) Consideration of Program Management Models - Owner
Management Model, At Risk Model, Consultant Management Model, Owner’s Agent Model, Integrated
Program Management Model

ACP Selection - Integrated Program Management and Program Management Services Contract
Awarded to CH2M in August 2007

One Team One Mission Organization & Collaboration - Leveraging a cross-cutting approach from the
program management development of tools and processes to establish the governance of the PCEP to a
mirror manager approach of CH2M, with ACP counterparts, offering guidance, advice, and support for
ACP’s authority and decisions

PCEP Stakeholders: People of Panama, Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP), Board of Directors and
Global Maritime Industry

Risk Management - A key element of any Program Management model is the allocation of risks and
responsibilities. Risk transfer works best when you get as close as possible to a “win-win” scenario. A risk
profile with an imbalance inevitably leads to the detriment of one or more parties.

In the case of the PCEP, the integrated ACP-CH2M team identified the risks during the tendering process
and the risk allocation was improved, in favor of the tenderers, as a result of open dialogue. This risk
approach was maintained throughout the execution.

Relevance Statement - The relevance of this presentation can be generalized for future large infrastructure
initiatives. For the Panama Canal Expansion Project, there were two main risk categories:

• Low-Bid Contracting and Delivery Risk and

• Reputational Risk

Keywords – Panama Canal, Program Management, Infrastructure, Megaprojects, Collaboration

1
CH2M Hill Panama (now Jacobs), Panama Canal Expansion Program, [email protected]
2
Autoridad del Canal de Panamá, [email protected]
3
CH2M Hill Panama (now Jacobs), Panama Canal Expansion Program, [email protected]; the authors thank
the work of former CH2M President of the Transportation Business Group Terry Ruhl and his PMI colleagues for
their early contributions to the process, the program and project management differentiators on the PCEP.
1
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

In 2006, the citizens of Panama voted to approve a national referendum for the Panama Canal
Expansion Program (PCEP). The goal of the program was to grow the global shipping industry
infrastructure and expand the economic opportunities of Panama. This program came after years of studies
performed by the Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP) in completing a Master Plan for the development,
growth and improvement of the Canal with a 25-year outlook. This would be accomplished through an
additional expanded size lane of traffic — via a new third set of locks — to double the Canal’s tonnage
capacity and allow the transit of much longer, wider ships through the existing canal waterway. When the
expansion locks were inaugurated in June 2016 they increased ship throughput capacity to 18,000 vessels
with an increase in capacity to approximately 14,000 TEUs, a standard unit for describing a ship’s cargo
carrying capacity or a shipping terminal’s cargo handling capacity. See Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Neo-Panamax Mega-container traverses the Panama Canal Expansion Project in June 2016

During the development of the PCEP concept, it became evident that the Autoridad del Canal de Panamá
(ACP) could benefit from the services of a Program Management firm due to the program’s risks in logistical
and technical complexity; the interrelated multiple contracts; and the multi-billion-dollar budget which
encompassed resource needs beyond the ACP’s existing engineering and procurement support managing
the operations and maintenance and routine capital improvement projects. Therefore, a decision was made
to partner with an experienced Program Management firm to advise and assist throughout the execution of
the expansion program.

Another key decision made by ACP was to continue the historic use of English as the contract/program
language. ACP felt this would encourage bidding by a wider range of international contractors for the various
PCEP contracts. At the time of the procurement, the top Program Management firms were U.S. firms, as
ranked by Engineering News-Record (ENR). Notwithstanding this selection of a common contract language,
in practice the cohesiveness of project execution was affected by the fact that the four Grupo Unidos por
el Canal (GUPC - Third Set of Locks’ design-build contractor) shareholders are Spain’s Sacyr
Vallehermoso, Italy’s Salini-Impregilo, Belgium’s Jan de Nul and Panama’s Constructora Urbana S.A.
GUPC partners represented four countries and three languages. These linguistic distinctions manifested
themselves as the Pacific Site spoke English under the leadership of GUPC partner Impregilo from Italy
while the Atlantic site retained the Spanish language under the leadership of GUPC partner Sacyr from
Spain.

2
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

Program Management Definition

Program Management is the delivery of multiple, interrelated projects in a coordinated process for the
benefit of the owning entity. The need is often associated with a spending growth for capital infrastructure
programs reflecting increased risks and complexity arising from the interfaces between multiple projects as
well as the effects of varying project schedules. Program durations are longer than individual projects
because programs encompass multiple projects and uncertainty is likely to be higher because of the
likelihood of encountering environmental, financial, political, technical solutions and other changes. See
Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Program Management Interaction with Multiple Projects

gm management is needed include: Why Program Management?

Key Indicators that identify when Program Program management is the coordination of Resources to
Management is needed: plan and deliver a collection of related projects to obtain benefits
that would not be attainable if managed separately. Complex
Complex or multiple projects
programs have traditionally been implemented using standard
project management methods. As programs have continued to
Increased capital spending required
grow in risk and complexity, a more disciplined overall delivery
Limited in-house client resources and expertise method was developed—program management. With multiple
Many projects of multi-year duration ongoing projects, resources such as key staff, technical
Schedule pressure expertise, managers, electronic systems, buildings/facilities,
Project delivery organization is not permanent
tools, equipment, etc. are stretched and often duplicated to
meet delivery demands. Program management optimizes
Single point of responsibility is desired
resources to deliver benefits not attainable using the traditional
Goals are clear; delivery approach is not project delivery model. See Figure 3 below.

While technical knowledge and experience are critical in all work, providing the best delivery method is
equally critical—enabling each project to meet client goals and to be completed within budget and schedule.

Mentorship and career growth are essential for the industry and for clients – this is more readily available in
a shared working environment with opportunities and empowerment of staff leveraging their experience.
3
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

Management of the interfaces between projects reduces program complexity. Every project and client has
a unique set of delivery requirements that must be understood to develop efficient and effective solutions.

Figure 3: Program vs. Project Approach

Through extensive experience and lessons learned, we know that no two programs are alike and no model
is right or wrong. Identifying the client’s unique vision, goals and desired benefits are key to the program’s
success.

Program Management Framework and Best Practices

Four vital quadrants define Program Management Best Practices as in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4: Program Management Best Practices

The Program Management Framework then organizes and integrates these quadrants to optimize a value
proposition based on lessons learned and best practices. A scalable Program Management Framework
standardizes delivery strategy, processes, tools and resources around a common platform to successfully
deliver programs tailored to clients’ vision and to integrate seamlessly with their existing systems. The
Framework includes the following four integrally related components which provide the tools and control for

4
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

efficient program delivery throughout all phases from the early concepts, during the initiation, and throughout
the execution and closeout.

Program Initiation provides structured processes and tools for rapid client and program management team
integration, allowing the PM team to focus on the client’s goals and critical activities, while providing cost-
effective, collaborative delivery practices. During Initiation, the Program Leadership is formed and the
Management Model and Governance developed.

Program Delivery Guidelines provide an electronic Program Management Manual for implementing
program-specific processes and procedures and applying the critical thinking to adapt the procedures to
meet the program-specific requirements. The Platform documents the Delivery Model and related Tools and
Controls for consistent delivery.

Program Performance Tools that allow program-specific information management for consistent critical
data and program progress reporting, including a web-based dashboard. This transparent access to
information enhances delivery efficiencies, program quality and decision making.

Program Maturity - Assessment tools are used to periodically evaluate the developmental status and
operational effectiveness of the program’s governance and infrastructure. This can be a matrix,
spreadsheet, scorecard, etc.

Critical success factors include schedule, lowest overall cost, scope clarity, staff development, owner control
and risk tolerance. Prioritizing and understanding these factors by use of several diagnostic tools, results in
a program delivery model that best fits the client’s needs and situation.

Program Management Economics

Before considering Program Management concepts, it is helpful to examine the economic benefits of a well-
planned and well-executed program model. Various studies illustrate the value of Program Management on
large complex projects and even on the smaller projects that form a Program Management portfolio. Each
program is unique with its mix of social, economic and political complexity, but a key success factor is
defining the program risks early. With little room for error in today’s business environment, the proper
identification and mitigation of risks as part of the overall Program Management process can serve to
minimize cost and schedule overruns, assuming all stakeholders are aligned around a program’s goals and
objectives.

A direct correlation between staffing a PMO correctly and its ultimate success can be observed. In its Pulse
of the Profession™ In-Depth Report: The Impact of PMOs on Strategy Implementation, the Project
Management Institute reports that high-performing PMOs – those that complete 80 percent or more of
projects on time, on budget and meeting original goals – are more than twice as likely to have the right
skills base in regard to project management experience and training. 4

In PMI’s 2015 Pulse of the Profession®: Capturing the Value of Project Management research revealed that
“high-performing organizations are far more likely to focus on talent management, establishing ongoing
training, and formal, effective knowledge transfer.” 5 This is especially important in project and program

4
PMI’s Pulse of the Profession® In-Depth Report: The Impact of PMOs on Strategy Implementation (2013)
5
PMI’s Pulse of the Profession® In-Depth Report: Capturing the Value of Project Management (2015)
5
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

management, where technical skills are enhanced by leadership and its strategic and business
management capabilities that are nurtured through experience.

The size of the program team may also factor into the equation. Generalizations can be hard to make given
that each program is unique in its size, scale and complexity. However, after a cursory review of some
successful major infrastructure programs around the world, as compared to the total installed cost of the
program being constructed, the size of the Program Management team (owner plus consultants) tends to
hover between US $15 million to US $50 million of installed cost. More research is needed in this area in
order to draw more accurate correlations around optimum staffing.

Program Management Models: Seeking the Right Balance

The ACP evaluated the various models of Program Management with a goal of selecting a working construct
that aligned with its short- and long-term goals as well as its organizational and political objectives. The
decision that fit the Panama Canal’s Administration needs was that of an integrated Management team.

In addition, prior to awarding the Program Management Services contract, the ACP released a Request for
Proposal for Program Management and Construction Management training, seeking a major university
accredited as a Registered Education Provider by the Project Management Institute (PMI®). The University
of Texas at Dallas was awarded the contract, and subcontracted CH2M, as the top-ranked (by Engineering
News-Record) Program Management firm, to provide instructors. The Panama Canal certified 75 Program
Managers under the PMP certification, also provided formal training to over 300 employees that were
assigned to the Program.

Once the Program Management Services Contract was awarded, the ACP together and with the guidance
and lead of CH2M developed a Program Management Plan for the Program and it was followed by over
1,200 ACP staff that were directly assigned to the Program.

Figure 5: PCEP Staff Allocation by Project

6
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

ACP’s Consideration of Program Management Models

With an accelerated understanding of the discipline, ACP evaluated the following models with the intention
of selecting a working construct that aligned with its short- and long-term goals as well as it organizational
and political objectives.

Figure 6: Spectrum of Program Management Models

Owner Managed Model: Owner provides project definition, hires the engineers and contractors and
manages all contracts.

Integrated Program Management Model: Program Manager may be either the Owner or the Consultant,
with staff from both organizations integrated at multiple levels. The Consultant staff may augment positions
within the Owner’s organization where expertise or experience is lacking.

Consultant Management Model: Consultant Manager may supplement the Owner’s staff in an advisory
role. The Owner hires the Program Manager, the designers and the contractors.

Owner’s Agent Model: Owner hires the program manager and contractors, and may also in some cases
hire the engineers, but the program manager is responsible for providing direct management of engineering
services.

At Risk Model: Owner has less direct project input and control because it has assigned more risk to the
Consultant and also assigns commensurate control over the Program to the Consultant.

There is more than one “right” program delivery method for a given program. And hybrids can be created
when owners and consultants sit down to discuss mutual objectives. The key decision factor is for an owner
to decide how much control it is willing to relinquish to a consultant and how a consultant wants to be
compensated for assuming the risk.

ACP Selection: Integrated Program Management

The ACP selected the Integrated Program Management model in alignment with the following:
• ACP maintaining complete control of the program
• ACP remaining as a unified organizational entity but created a Vice presidency (Engineering and
Program Management) that would be dedicated to the PCEP
• Developing within ACP the knowledge and skills for managing future large complex programs – with
minimal, additional outside consultation

ACP’s selection of the Integrated Program Management Model followed an industry trend over the last two
decades away from independence (where the consultant would make many, if not all, decisions on behalf
of the owner) to an integrated model (with the consultants acting in the role of seconded staff working on
site with the owner), incorporating alternative project delivery methodologies.

7
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

CH2M was awarded the Program Management Services contract in August 2007:

• To conform with the ACP’s organization by providing an integrated team to serve as program and
construction advisors to the ACP;
• To train and mentor the ACP staff in program and construction management best practices;
• To develop program/project discipline, processes and procedures; and
• To assist with claim/dispute defense and claim/dispute mitigation.

With an integrated model, a significant amount of formal and informal learning takes place naturally as
everyone works together, side-by-side. Under the terms of the agreement with the ACP and, as the work
progressed, CH2M would phase out its staff, leaving in place an owner team trained in advanced Program
Management and delivery and capable of operating and managing a world-class operation.

Figure 7: Seven Elements of Panama Canal Expansion Program

Figure 7 provides a graphic representation of various projects under the full PCEP. During the early
integration of CH2M into the program, some of the major over-arching contract requirements, such as quality
assurance and the program management information system, were established for the benefit of all seven
elements of the PCEP. However, as time progressed and in alignment with the decision by ACP to execute
the program management resources in an integrated team approach, a majority of the CH2M team focused
on the largest program risk, the design-build Third Set of Locks Project (TSLP).

At its peak, CH2M reached a maximum staffing level of 40 supporting the ACP (with 150 staff assigned to
the Third Set of Locks Project) in program management, construction management, risk management,
quality assurance, project controls, document controls, correspondence, contract development, contingency
8
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

planning, design oversight support and specialized support. With the successful implementation of the
knowledge transfer strategy, that number stands at seven full-time CH2M/Jacobs staff today (still supporting
40 remaining ACP staff), whose primary focus is on post-construction activities such as engineering, quality
assurance, mentoring as well as management and claims consultation.

PCEP Stakeholders

Four primary stakeholders are driving the PCEP:

People of Panama: Ultimately, the people of Panama are the primary stakeholders. They are the ones who
gave approval to proceed and now benefit from the success. The Panama Canal is not only an immense
source of pride and identity for Panamanians, it also is a major contributor of employment opportunities for
the populace. In addition, the Panama Canal generates significant revenue that is distributed annually to
the government, providing sustainable funding for the country’s economic growth. The success and well-
being of the Canal and its expansion is vital to Panama’s economic future.

Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP): The autonomous State-owned entity responsible for the
operation and management of the Panama Canal. The ACP has financial autonomy, as well as ownership
of the canal’s assets. ACP has taken great pride in the successful administration of the canal for nearly 20
years and has a strong orientation toward self-performance.

Board of Directors: The eleven-member group responsible for establishing the Canal’s policies for
operation and management pursuant to the National Constitution, the Panama Canal Authority Organic Law
and ACP Regulations.

Global Maritime Industry: The Canal’s ultimate customers who will benefit from increased loadings, larger
vessels, reduced canal transit times and lower transportation costs. The shippers expect reliability and
efficiency of Canal operations for the safe and timely transit of their vessels. The impacts on the PCEP are
already being felt as ports on both U.S. coasts rush to modernize their facilities to take advantage of the
larger, neo-Panamax cargo ships that pass through the new locks.

One Team One Mission Organization

During the Canal transition from the American Panama Canal Commission (PCC) to the Autoridad del
Canal de Panamá (ACP), the slogan “One Team, One Mission” referred to the coordinated and
harmonious work accomplished between 1979 to 1999.
Expressing the meaning of the slogan at that time, a PCC employee said:

We all attended the work meetings with the same spirit of cooperation, without egoism or
arrogance…. We are all aware that we are part of the same objective and that the goal is not to
reach December 31, 1999, but to proceed without showing that there has been a transfer. 6

Within the PCEP, the slogan was revitalized as an attempt to overcome the struggles within the collaborative
relationship between ACP and CH2M. By adopting the Integrated Program Management Model with ACP
maintaining complete control of the program and CH2M serving in an advisory, mentoring role, the slogan
once again emphasized the importance of teamwork in a collaborative effort that was intensified with a
prescribed one-on-one structure for critical roles.
In a recent monograph on Chaperoning and practices of collaboration in the PCEP, Dr. Smits opined:

6
Smits, K. (2013).
9
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

The relation between ACP and CH2M Hill is more complex than what the slogan “One Team, One
Mission” suggests or as the Invitation to Bid prescribed. In fact, these messages contradicted each
other: the slogan refers to an equal relationship while the Invitation to Bid states that ACP is superior
to CH2M Hill. Given the ambiguity of these formal relations, it is not surprising that project
participants struggle to find satisfactory conditions for collaboration. [In the words of one ACP
engineer in 2012]: Somos la sombra de CH! (We are the shadow of CH2M Hill). 7

Within the institutional and professional mentorship of ACP’s staff throughout the execution, this approach
was cross-cutting from the program management development of tools and processes to establish the
governance of the PCEP to a mirror manager approach of CH2M, with ACP counterparts, offering guidance,
advice, and support for ACP’s decisions.

As recognized by Dr. Smits in 2012: “In the transition period [1979-1999], role segmentation existed between
the American Government as a mentor and the Panamanian protégé. Back then, the local employees were
subordinate to the foreign leaders, and with chaperoning, a similar relationship is created…. Today [2012],
however, the collaboration is intensified with a “one-on-one” structure. ACP indicates to aim at an equal
relationship between the Americans and the Panamanians, just like how the transition phase is
remembered. 8

ACP and CH2M Teaming Arrangement

To meet the ACP’s expectations, the CH2M team worked towards the goal of a fully integrated teaming
arrangement which had the CH2M team embedded within the client’s organizational team. This was all
geared towards the One Team One Mission objective. The CH2M team was fully embedded with the ACP’s
organizational team.

This required collaboration, calibration and hard work as the ACP and CH2M groups came to the
organization with very diverse and different backgrounds, cultures and disciplines, and formed into one team
and to work as a disciplined unit. Partnership with outside entities was not a normal cultural practice for the
client. The prerequisite ACP considered for CH2M personnel was a minimum of 20 years’ experience in
their area of expertise and prior work experience on a mega-program (>$1B). This proved to be an
invaluable decision by ACP to bring to the PCEP CH2M personnel who had decades of experience dealing
with challenging situations that might be encountered and then had the ability to pass along this experience
by mentoring ACP counterparts.

The initial step to achieve a “One Team One Mission” team was an intensive team training event occurring
off-site with key management members prior to starting the Locks project. Physical training events, team
competitions as well as integration of cultural themes (outcome was to benefit an indigenous Indian tribe)
helped to break down barriers and assist in building a cohesive team arrangement. Such teaming sessions
had been used within ACP before PCEP and continue today under the current CEO Jorge Quijano.

With the extensive scope of the program it was essential for the program and, later the Locks Project, to
have an integrated organization along all key roles and functional areas. This required not just complete
integration but the ability to work vertically and horizontally within the client’s organization, so as to work
effectively and harmoniously. Everything from project controls to safety, the environment, risk, design,
contracts, claims, quality, and construction management - all needed to work smoothly just like the water
rising and lowering in the Locks Chambers with minimal turbulence to the massive ships passing across the
Canal.

7
Smits & van Marrewijk (2012)
8
Ibid.
10
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

Communication is the Key

As noted above, the integrated organization was cross-cutting both vertically and horizontally. As the team
was large and physically spread out, this was purposely addressed with integration occurring at all critical
physical locations such as the Atlantic and Pacific construction sites and the ACP central office locations.
This occurred amongst different program functions including quality, project controls, risk, safety, and further
covered at the TSLP functions of design, construction management, resident engineering, quality
assurance, claims and contracts, document controls, etc.

CH2M’s internal publication, The Little Yellow Book 9, written by co-founder Jim Howland to immortalize the
company’s core values of respect and integrity, has been used for decades amongst its employees and with
clients. This was shared by many CH2M staff with other members of the integrated team to reiterate such
simple concepts such as “No matter what the organizational structure, if the people in it want it to work, it
will.” 10 Even in a difficult and complex program, this was preached.

Communications were essential amongst the program team for success. This meant meetings at all levels
strived to include attendance of ACP and CH2M, communications and meetings with the contractor were
jointly held and leverage of decisions made by ACP were assisted by the knowledge of the integrated team
being well informed and advised appropriately in consideration of moving the project forward. To achieve
the goal of “One Team One Mission,” communications with the shared knowledge of critical events and
activities allowed timely and sound decisions. In following this process, ACP’s communications extended
to all stakeholders and was openly demonstrated with the public being allowed to visit the construction
progress prior to the flooding of the new Locks in 2015.

Beyond the ACP / CH2M Team

The One Team One Mission did not only pertain to ACP and CH2M. As with any type of large program, the
core values of integration, communication and common objectives were set to be inclusive of other entities
supporting ACP’s program execution. This included consultants, technical experts, and other professionals
all sharing the vision for the expansion to become reality. While their scope was focused in the areas of
support, the shared communications and drive towards acting as one unit was overarching.

In addition, the interfaces with the Contractor were conceived, again, towards obtaining the goal of
completing the project. As challenges were faced, the ACP / CH2M Program team looked towards resolving
situations timely and relied upon the contractual basis for support. Some hurdles were very complex as
they involved time and financial impacts. All parties understood that, for the work to be completed, all parties
would be relied upon to accomplish the goal. ACP decisions were geared towards achieving the ultimate
goal - completing the Panama Canal Expansion Program successfully.

Mirror Management Counterpart Teaming

The organization was formed with the concept of 'mirror management' and 'counterpart teaming.' Many of
the key program organizational management positions had a mirror counterpart. That mirror counterpart
was a CH2M partner in a teaming arrangement with the ACP counterpart. It was always clear to the
Contractor (and CH2M) that the ACP partner was the contractually empowered entity and had full authority.
However, the CH2M mirror manager offered guidance, advise, support, etc. to assist ACP’s decision making
and management of the works. This created an ability to mentor senior level talent, experience and
background in the pursuit of the best possible outcome. The objective was for ACP to take over the
management role solely and for CH2M to work themselves out of the counterpart role which was achieved
as shown in Figure 8 where only two of eight CH2M positions remained as primary roles by 2013. As part

9
Howland (1982).
10
Ibid.
11
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

of One Team One Mission, the partner roles also had the benefit of the differences in perspectives, cultures
and experiences with the common objective of moving the program forward.

The combined 2010 and 2013 organizational charts in Figure 8 demonstrate the concept of the mirror
management of the ACP and CH2M partners early in the program (2010) and later (2013) with various ACP
managers having taken over the management roles.

Figure 8: Comparison of 2010 and 2013 Organization Charts

During execution of the program, there was a continuous drive by senior management of ACP and CH2M
to adhere to the one team concept of execution to leverage the advice, strengths and experiences of team
members, as appropriate. The ultimate decisions were made by ACP but the organizational set-up was all
pushing for the same objective - to succeed in the Expansion efforts with the best outcome for the new
facilities in a timely manner and with responsible financial management.

This required different staff of both entities to recognize that, over time, their individual roles on the
program/project would result in an element of ‘musical chairs.’ For example, the Figure 8 excerpt of the
Organization Charts for the years of 2010 and 2013, respectively, clearly depicts that, over that 2.5-year
period, the CH2M mentors soon either completed their project roles and demobilized or were moved into a
subsidiary position to their ACP counterparts just as ACP staff were elevated to more senior roles in the
organization.

The mentorship did not stop at the level of the mirror management roles. It also extended to the junior staff
of ACP. ACP’s organization already had a strong standard of continued education and training amongst
its employees. However, with the execution of a large program and the mix of experienced team members,
the continuous mentorship on various program and industry practices occurred. This included areas such
as safety, quality, document controls systems, management, etc. Many of these continued to provide
technology transfer or experiences, processes and tools to enhance the team and grow ACP staff. Thereby
also fulfilling the role of CH2M working themselves out of particular roles to grow ACP overall.

12
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

Reach Back
The teaming arrangement between ACP and CH2M also allowed for leverage of CH2M resources on a
reach back basis. This was utilized periodically for limited short-term assistance of experienced
professionals and assisted in bringing new resources to the program team. New resources were needed as
departures are unavoidable on a large program but also were used to cover new positions required, on a
part-time or full-time basis as the program evolved during execution of the works.

Growth of a Nation
One of the outcomes of the One Team One Mission teaming arrangement and mentorship is the ensuing
success of individuals associated with the Expansion program for the Panama professions and for ACP.
Many of the mentored ACP staff are today moving forward with their careers based on their shared
experiences and many are now working within the greater Panama professional engineering and
construction community.

Design-Build Contract Development

The strategy for developing the PCEP was tailored to meet ACP’s administrative requirements and the
needs of the various construction projects that make up the overall program. The scope of work for many
projects was focused on dry excavation and dredging, both of which were familiar to ACP. These projects,
many of which were self-performed by ACP’s existing maintenance crews, were treated in a relatively
routine and conventional fashion, typically on a unit-price basis.

However, the Third Set of Locks Project (TSLP), by far the largest single capital works construction project
performed in Panama (since the original Panama Canal construction) and was something entirely new. The
project also needed to be integrated with the overall program. The project incorporated design concepts
from various facilities around the world and no single installation used all the elements planned for the
Panama Canal. Also, the sheer scale differentiated the project from the other locks, so a different approach
was needed.

The ACP commissioned a detailed evaluation of applicable contract strategies and ultimately selected a
design-build approach with the design and construction to be performed by a “world-class” consortium. The
ACP felt this was the best way to manage risk, increase flexibility and innovation, bring appropriate expertise
to the project and place full delivery responsibility with one entity. The requirements for the locks would still
be controlled by ACP but the choice of how to deliver to the requirements would be owned by the design-
build contractor.

Third Set of Locks Selection Process

The prequalification and selection of the design-build contractor for the Third Set of Locks contract was a
process that spanned 23 months and involved several steps. The first was issuing a series of informational
communications to the design and construction industry regarding the anticipated project concept,
timeframe and other details. These communications were intended to generate awareness and interest
across the industry worldwide.

Next, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was published with the intent to pre-qualify up to four tenderers
which contained various experience and financial requirements. Although a joint venture or consortium was
not specifically required, it was generally understood that the requirements of the RFQ would not likely be
satisfied by any one individual company. The submitted Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) packages were
evaluated and scored by the ACP and four separate teams were pre-qualified and invited to submit tenders
for the project.

13
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

During the SOQ submission and evaluation period, the ACP/CH2M team continued preparation of the
project Request for Proposals (RFP). The initial RFP was issued shortly after the pre-qualification process
results were announced.

During the tender preparation period, a series of meetings was held with the tenderers to promote the
exchange of ideas about the project’s scope and the composition of the ACP’s tender package. Prompted
by comments and concerns raised by the tenderers, several refinements to the RFP evolved during this
process and were incorporated into the tender documents. The process also gave the parties a chance to
get to know each other and for the ACP to better judge the tenderers’ concerns about subjects such as risk
tolerance, financial capacity and dispute resolution expectations.

Risk Management
A key element of any Program Management model is risk allocation. For design and construction projects
that are executed in traditional ways, the methods of assigning risk between an owner and contractors are
well established. The basic principles are that risk should be assigned to one of the following:
• The party best able to manage risk
• The party best able to mitigate or minimize risk
• The party best able to overcome the adverse effects of actualized risk
Risk transfer works best when you get as close as possible to a “win-win” scenario. A risk profile with an
imbalance inevitably leads to the detriment of one or more parties. Such analysis lends itself well to game
theory and other analytical tools. The analysis of the risk profile itself also can be performed through
probability analyses and simulation techniques.

Several risk allocation approaches can enhance chances for successful partnering:
• To the extent practicable, identify risks clearly and completely. Risks that are well understood can
be readily quantified and will generally facilitate negotiations.
• Establish fair and reasonable provisions for relief of performance, cost or schedule commitments
contained in given risk allocations. Fair and reasonable provisions for accommodating
“uncontrollable circumstances” with appropriate risk allocation to both parties are more likely to be
satisfactory than if contract provisions are viewed to be heavy-handed and one-sided.
• Recognize, through risk allocation and pricing provisions, that risk has an economic impact. For
example, risk acceptance may require additional compensation. In so doing, avoid assigning risks
to parties that do not have adequate power to control or manage the risk.

In the case of the PCEP, the integrated ACP-CH2M organization identified the risks and responsibilities
during the tendering process and risk allocation was improved as a result of open dialogue. This risk and
responsibility approach was maintained throughout the execution.

The relevance and importance of risk management can be generalized for future large infrastructure
initiatives. For the Panama Canal Expansion Project, there were two main risk categories:

• Low-Bid Contracting and Delivery Risk; and

• Reputational Risk

With an eye toward a potential fourth set of locks program, it is interesting to note that the original canal
efforts spanned more than 30 years, primarily because of a 20-year abandonment of the project between
the French initiation and US completion, at a 2014 cost equivalent of almost US $17 billion. In contrast, the

14
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

Third Set of Locks project and overall canal expansion was completed within a consecutive nine years at a
final cost which is expected to be significantly below the equivalent cost of the original canal construction.

Request for Proposals

The RFP was generally based on the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) Yellow Book
– a widely accepted international form of contract – since it was not known where the tenderers would be
based and because it includes standard construction terminology well known in the industry. ACP requested
permission and modified some clauses to add certain ACP requirements. As it turned out, the tenderers
included companies from Europe, North America and Asia. It was decided to have a single contract for both
the Atlantic and Pacific Locks to ensure consistency, maximize efficiencies and increase coordination.

A significant effort was made to find an appropriate balance between performance-oriented and prescriptive
employer’s requirements. Although the ACP wanted the design-build contractor to have the greatest
flexibility possible, certain requirements were necessary to meet specific concerns and needs. This included
having the new locks facilities interface properly with existing, ongoing operations.

Ultimately the RFP incorporated updates of the tenderer stipend amount, several risk-sharing provisions,
allocation of responsibilities, extensive information regarding the existing geotechnical site conditions, key
construction materials escalation protection and an advance payment scheme to help the design-build
contractor with early cash flow. All these enhancements were designed to minimize uncertainty for the
tenderers with the critical goal of reducing the tender price and ensuring the Third Set of Locks project would
be able to progress without delay, and that it would be completed within the required budget parameters.

The tender process was based on a fixed-price contract with selection based on best value, considering
both technical merit and cost. Tender packages were evaluated and technical considerations were scored
by the ACP. Subsequently, separate cost proposals were opened, and the successful tenderer was
determined by the ACP based on the numerical combination of the technical score and cost, according to
the formula outlined in the RFP. The ACP team led the proposal and tendering process through its
procurement procedures, as modified for the PCEP.

Tendering Process Results

The tendering process resulted in the ACP receiving three qualified tenders with a wide range of tender
prices. The lowest price, which was submitted by Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC), was a few percentage
points below the employer’s estimate and roughly $1 billion below the next lowest tender. ACP also gave
GUPC the highest technical score. The tender process accomplished its goal of receiving a qualified tender
at a price that was within the established estimate, but the relatively low bid and large range in tender prices
was an indication that difficulties might lie ahead.

Achieving Collaboration Among Diverse Cultures

The Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation of The Netherlands funded a four-year research project by
Karen Smits on collaboration practices in the PCEP. This research resulted in the 2013 publication
previously referenced in footnote 6 above. Dr. Smits’ year-long research as an embedded PCEP researcher
resulted, among other findings, in the following Collabyrinth 11 depiction of the manifest and concealed

11
Smits, K. (2013)
15
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

practices which can ultimately enhance or hinder the collaborative practices in the everyday organizational
life of project participants.

Figure 9: Collabyrinth as developed by Karen Smits, Ph.D.

In the PCEP relationship between ACP and CH2M both manifest and concealed practices consisting of
interconnected actions and activities are illustrative of how different project participants make sense of the
cultural complexities in their everyday work environment.

By observing the collaborative efforts of both parties to the integrated program management model
implemented for PCEP, Dr. Smits cited examples which exemplified elements of the scholarly literature on
organizational management. For example,

• The partners struggled over the different interpretations about the role that CH2M consultants would
play in delivering program management services. CH2M was guided by its traditional independent
delivery role while ACP envisioned a purely advisory role of training, monitoring and mentoring. The
parties soon became aware of these routine practices and changed toward a more discursive mode
suitable for project enhancement, confirming the scholarly literature. 12
• Conflicts over goals are present in everyday organization practice and are, essentially, an evident
part of collaborative projects. 13
• A great sense of pride dominated the project narratives told by ACP and CH2M employees resulting
in a more profound relationship with the project again confirming the scholarly literature. 14

Conversely, GUPC’s collaboration was rather loose as project participants saw themselves as only being in
a temporary state of working together. Additionally, the distance between the Atlantic and Pacific project

12
Smits (2013) but see also Bresnen & Marshall (2011), Engwall (2003) and Van Marrewijk et.al. (2008)
13
Smits (2013) but see also Gherardi (2000), Nicolini et.al. (2003) and Vaaland (2004).
14
Smits (2013) but see also Veenswijk and Berendse (2008).
16
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

sites (approx. 60 kms) and the linguistic differences between the two sites created a scenario where
competition between the two site offices was often stronger than collaboration. This situation provided a ripe
environment for CH2M to create collaborative opportunities between the parties (and the subcontractors) to
the TSLP Design/Build contract.
Although the construction sector is not unique in the elements of risk and uncertainty in the workface, the
key driver for collaboration in megaprojects is the need to surmount the lack of competencies and scarce
resources to create value together while crafting reciprocal relations of mutual trust and respect. 15 Tellingly,
Dr. Smits concluded that “collaboration advanced due to a strong personal drive to finalize the project
successfully rather than because the project organization stimulated such a work environment.” 16

In a recent paper presented on behalf of ACP at the Dubai International Project Management Forum what
differentiates the Canal Expansion project from most others is, without a doubt, the diversity of labor.
Over40,000 jobs were generated and, of those, over 37,000 were Panamanian workers who contributed
their efforts and dedication to make it possible, in contrast to what occurred with the construction of the
original Canal. 17

To this number, several thousand were a foreign labor pool of men and women coming from different parts
of the world: Spain, Portugal, Colombia, Italy, Venezuela, Chile, Romania, Nicaragua, United States,
Mexico, Belgium, Costa Rica, Moldova, Argentina, Holland, Peru, Dominican Republic, Great Britain,
Honduras, Hungary, Brazil, Ecuador, Poland, Uruguay, El Salvador, Korea of the South, Ireland, Philippines,
Cuba, South Africa, Germany, Ukraine, Canada, Russia, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China,
France, Guatemala, Korea of the North, Paraguay, Sweden, British Indian Ocean Territory, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, Vatican City, Bahamas, Bolivia, Eritrea, Haiti, India and Iceland.

This cultural diversity represented a new challenge. All cultures, styles and personalities united for a
common purpose. The goal was fulfilled because early on, each one assumed, the Panama Canal
Expansion as their own work. 18

Locks Project Claims and Disputes

The locks project dispute process detailed in the contract begins with a notice of claim and subsequent
details of claim to be provided by the contractor. The employer responds to the claim with an
approval/disapproval followed by a determination. At that point, if there is no agreement, either party can
refer the issue to the project Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), which has been established jointly by the
contractor and the employer to rule on referred disputes. After a DAB ruling is issued, if either party is
dissatisfied, it may escalate settlement of the dispute to be decided by International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC) arbitration.

During the seven-year life of the TSLP contract, significant numbers of claims were lodged by the contractor.
Both the contractor and the owner established teams dedicated to the preparation and response to these
claims. Ultimately, these numerous contractor claims became specific DAB referrals. Those that have not
been agreed by both parties, as well as several employer counterclaims, are currently before the ICC
arbitration tribunals in separate distinct multimillion dollar cases between the parties.

15
Smits (2013) but see also Sackmann & Friesl (2007) and Vangen & Huxham (2003).
16
Smits, K. (2013).
17
Marotta, I. (2016).
18
Ibid.

17
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

Grand Opening of the Panama Canal Expansion Project in June 2016

In June 2016, all stakeholders celebrated the opening of the Third Set of Locks as well as the start of a
three-year maintenance contract which extends through June 2019.

At the time, the CEO of the Autoridad del Canal de Panamá stated that CH2M had been a trusted partner
since the PCEP began:

Their proven experience in the international program management arena has added tremendous
value to our integrated team. Providing professional support at all levels of their organization, CH2M
worked with the Canal Authority to assist in achieving successful completion.

Figure 10 Grand Opening of the Panama Canal Expansion Project in June 2016

Megaproject Lessons for Future Infrastructure Initiatives

As is normal on programs of this size and scope, there are several lessons that can be generalized for future
large infrastructure initiatives. For the Panama Canal, these fall into four main categories.

Low-Bid Contracting and Delivery Risk: Interdependence has become the norm in the global economy.
The Third Set of Locks Project has required the planning, design and construction expertise of many firms
from around the world. To that end, the ACP adopted a Program Management model that promised
ownership control over the PCEP while balancing the risk appropriately to the design-build contractor. For
the selection of the contractor, the ACP utilized a Non-Negotiated tender process based on Best Value for
the Third Set of Locks Design-Build Project. However, with the significantly lower bid, as compared to the
other bidders, the construction risk was essentially transferred back to ACP, which has gone to extraordinary
lengths with the contractor to enable the successful completion of the work.

To date, the progress of the PCEP has followed the path of many “mega-programs” with respect to cost and
schedule overruns. The large, complex, inherent nature of these programs make them subject to a wide
array of challenges. Each program is unique and the challenges associated with each also are unique. In
the case of the PCEP, one of the primary lessons learned is that a bid that is significantly lower than
comparable bids, and the extent to which price contributes to the outcome of a mega-program contractor
selection, should constantly be challenged. In fact, one could easily question the value of low-bid contracting
in any selection process, especially when considering the need to rapidly monetize the resulting business
benefits.
18
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

For the ACP, the resulting funding issues and eventual temporary work stoppage on the locks construction
required a weighing of the cost to continue with the current contractor versus implementing a contingency
plan and selecting a new contractor. While this is a significant ongoing cost risk, the cost and potential
delivery risks of changing contractors would also have been significant while resolution of existing claims
would still be ongoing. As with any major program, alternate scenarios to complete the work must be kept
intact – this too is a risk management measure that is necessary no matter what program management
model is in place.

Reputational Risk: In today’s world of instant communications, the need for fast-paced understanding of
situations and potential resolution is paramount. Cultural incompatibilities must be identified and, in some
cases, may actually represent a fatal flaw to a program’s ultimate success. Contract terms and conditions
are a tool and cannot by themselves be expected to resolve overwhelming differences. More than ever, the
understanding of a win-win relationship is critical.

Language and Customs: On major programs – particularly those with regional, national and international
significance – learning and respecting the political, cultural and economic environment is essential to
establishing a trusted relationship with the owner and all stakeholders. In the case of the PCEP, beyond
absorbing and understanding Panama’s social and political culture, there is an added challenge of
collaborating with people from around the world all bringing with them their particular values, work ethic,
customs and languages.

The invaluable aspect of Program Management to the PCEP is the management of the interrelated portfolio
of projects and execution of work with ACP senior managers approving and signing off on all plans,
incorporating the applicable processes and procedures. While English was the contract language, it was
not the primary language for all contractors which posed some challenges in practice.

For that reason, special care and attention should be taken to ensure all parties involved clearly understand
actions and intent – colloquialisms or slang must be avoided. And for the CH2M team, though all program
and project plans, documentation and reporting are conducted in English, fluency in Spanish has become
essential for the primary program staff in developing stronger bonds with the ACP. The overall integrated
program efficiency was increased by providing staff who were proficient in the local language. With any of
the program models, communications issues – not necessarily technical challenges – can lead to the most
substantial program risks.

Broad Skill Set: The PCEP confirms that today’s program management teams need to go well beyond
providing technical expertise. Working hand-in-hand with stakeholders and peers, an integrated team
includes:
• Excellent communicators with strong interpersonal skills (bilingual)
• Workplace ambassadors, collaborating with a wide range of culturally diverse stakeholders to
develop and implement win-win strategies
• Trusted advisors managing change, complexity and unpredictability
• Business managers balancing cost and schedule requirements with the terms of the contract
• Risk and quality agents helping to realize a strong return on investment for owners and stakeholders
• Safety advocates, making sure that workers are returned to their families safely at the end of the
work day
• Human resource counselors, creating a positive work environment
• Politicians, considering all stakeholder perspectives and building consensus
• AND technical experts, bringing engineering best practices and solutions to the challenge at hand.

19
 PIANC – World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018

References:

Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2011). Projects and Partnerships: institutional processes and emergent
practices. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto & J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project
Management (pages 154-174). Oxford University Press.

Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32
(pages 789-808).

Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations. Organization

7 (pages 211-223).

Howland, J. (1982). The Little Yellow Book. CH2M HILL Consulting Engineers.

Marotta, I. (2016). Mega Projects Management. Dubai International Project Management Forum 2016.

Marotta, I. (2017). Lecciones Aprendidas del Programa de Ampliación del Canal, VIII Congreso
Internacional de Dirección de Proyectos, PMI Panamá.

Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003a). Introduction. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi & D. Yanow (Eds.),
Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach (pages 3-31). New York: M.E. Sharpe.

PMI’s Pulse of the Profession® In-Depth Report: The Impact of PMOs on Strategy Implementation (2013)
PMI’s Pulse of the Profession® In-Depth Report: Capturing the Value of Project Management (2015),
page 3.
Sackmann, S. A., & Friesl, M. (2007). Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge sharing behaviour in
project teams - results from a simulation study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6) pages 142-146.

Smits, K. (2013). Cross Culture Work: Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion
Program. Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation. ISBN/EAN 978-90-79787-49-4; pages 220-258.
Smits, K. & van Marrewijk, A. Chaperoning: practices of collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion
Program. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5 (3) pages 449-451.
Vaaland, T. I. (2004). Improving project collaboration: start with the conflicts. International Journal of
Project Management, 22 (pages 447-454).

Van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing public private megaprojects:
Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of Project Management, 26 (pages 591-
600).

Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting Leadership for Collaborative Advantage: Dilemmas of
Ideology and Pragmatism in the Activities of Partnership Managers. British Journal of Management, 14
(pages S61-S76).

Veenswijk, M., & Berendse, M. (2008). Constructing new working practices through project narratives.
International Journal Project Organisation and Management, 1(1) pages 65-85.

20