Alternative Delivery for Large

October 2010
Alternative Delivery for Large
Infrastructure Projects: Lessons
Learned during the Tri-City WPCP
Phase 1 Expansion
Jude D Grounds, Project Manager, MWH
Randy Rosane, Program Manager, WES
Jeff Wall, Project Manager, SCI
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
WES Staff
Slayden Construction Group, Inc.
GE Water and Process Technologies
URS Corp.
REI
MWH Design Team
Water Environment Services is….
Immediate Need for Additional Treatment
Capacity
Tight Schedule Required Compressing
Tasks
Fast-track project delivery approach, focused on partnership and collaboration
resulted in over 12 months of savings in the overall project schedule.
Multiple Site Constraints Provide
Challenges for Plant Layout
Resulting Design Ensure WES is Model for
Sustainability in the Region
Month 22
Project Status
• Currently in Month 22 of Construction
• Clean-water Testing MBR System
• Have Built ~1-month Float into CPM Schedule
• Only received 1/2 Estimated Number of RFIs
• $12M in VE prior to GMP Development
• ~$1.2M in additional VE Savings since GMP
– Equipment Procurement
– Design Optimization
Lessons Learned during MBR
Procurement
PreDesign
MBR Procurement
Design
CM/GC Procurement & Construction
Start-up
Early MBR Selection offers significant
advantages
• System geometry unique to vendors
• Dovetail design/submittal efforts
– Buildings need to fit to equipment
• Ability to work with MSS to optimize system layout
– Pump-back system for overall energy savings
– Maintain integrity of existing pipe/pump gallery system
Performance-based RFP Ensures Quality
while Optimizing Schedule
• To Ensure Quality
– Experience at Similar Flow/Configurations
– Quality of Equipment
• Schedule
– Preliminary Layouts and P&IDs
– Allows MSS to optimize their system, reducing risk during start-up
No incentive sacrifice quality for cost!
RFP Sets the Stage for Future Procurement
and Performance Guarantee
• Three Agreements Included in RFP
– Design Support Services (MWH)
– DRAFT Procurement Agreement
– DRAFT Repair and Replacement Services
Selection Process Lays Groundwork for
Long-term Relationship with MSS
• Individual Pre-proposal meetings
– QA regarding RFP
• Proposal Review
• Interview / Workshop w/ Client
Operation Staff Integrated into Selection
RFP Selection
• GE Water Process Technology was Ultimately
selected
• Proposed Criteria:
–
–
–
–
4 mgd ADDWF; 10 mgd PHF
4 Sub-trains; 9 Cassettes per Sub-train
Membrane Surface Area = 527,680 sf
MWWWF Ultimately Drove Design
• Total Cost ~ $8M
Final cost based on proposed price and
pre-negotiated change orders
Lessons Learned during Design
PreDesign
MBR Procurement
Design
CM/GC Procurement & Construction
Start-up
Elements of Successful Delivery
• Early Involvement of Key Stakeholders
– Dedicated staff liaison between design and
operations/maintenance
– Permitting Agencies
– Owner’s Rep
Open Design Process Fosters Partnership
• Monthly Discipline-specific Brown Bags
– Staff Comment Log
• Quarterly Updates for Entire Staff
• QC Review Summit
– 30%, 50% & 70% Design
– WES Engineering, Key Staff; MSS, Owners Rep &
Contractor attended last meeting
Discipline-specific Summits Ensure Money
is spent Wisely
• Decision on final design balances cost and Owner
preference
– Material costs and market trends
– Operational flexibility
– Long-term O&M Costs
3D Capability Facilitates Early Buy-in
“The 3D design
models really helped
the maintenance crew
visualize the
mechanical layouts
early in the design
process to ensure the
final design would be
operator friendly…”
Michael Trent,
Operations
Supervisor
900 Sheets in 10-months – Clarity
at all Costs
Hindsight is 20/20
• Not all designers are equipped to succeed in a fasttrack environment
– Designers need to be proactive in IDing design problems
– Contractor/Owner input is not an ‘attack’ on the design
• Team turn-over can have profound impact on project
• Early procurement of process equipment
significantly reduces re-design in field
• On-site Engineering CAD capabilities during
first 18-months of construction
Fast-Track Design can Challenge Longstanding Review Protocol
• DBB review protocol of many agencies does not
translate well in a CM/GC or DB environment
Lessons Learned during CM/GC
Procurement and Construction
PreDesign
MBR Procurement
Design
CM/GC Procurement & Construction
Start-up
Key Justification for CM/GC process:
• Tight Schedule required trust and partnership for success
• Incomplete drawings required experienced contractor to
work in partnership with engineer and owner to complete
construction
• MBR Treatment is a highly specialized construction
4 Step Process to Contractor Selection
Step 1
Pre-proposal Conference
Step 2
Statement of Qualifications
Step 3
Proposal
Step 4
Interview
Request for Qualifications Criteria
Firm Experience 25%
Background 12.5%
Partnering 12.5%
Alt Delivery
Experience 30%
Plant Construction
Experience 12.5%
Health & Safety 12.5%
Request for Proposal Criteria
Workload 6%
Experience of Key
Personnel 12.5%
Value Engineering
12%
LEED Experience
12.5%
Basis of Contract
Price 23%
Project Scheduling and
Coordination 23%
Project Understanding 12%
RFP Selection
• Slayden Construction Group was ultimately
selected
–
–
–
–
SCG – Self-performed Concrete
SCG – Awarded Mechanical Subcontract
Team Electric – Electrical Subcontractor
Portland Engineering – System Integrator
• 24 Month CPM Schedule
• Total GMP $79.8M
Benefits of CM/GC approach
• Accurate Cost Estimate
• $12M VE at 70% Level - Design Optimized for
–
–
–
–
Cost
Function
Constructability
Schedule
• 85% of Work was Competitively Bid: No loss of
competition
Early Procurement of CM/GC Maximizes
Value…
• … but CM/GC Procurement
Takes Time
– RFQ issued at 30%
– RFP issued at 50%
– NTP for CM/GC at 70%
• Project would have benefited
from earlier involvement from
CM/GC
VE Ideas have diminishing returns
as project progresses.
Early Coordination Efforts Result in Big
Savings
“…the revision of construction joint
location and structural
reinforcement at wall and upper slab
connections to allow the contractor
to more easily remove and reuse
formwork reduced labor costs and
saved approximately 2-months on
the construction schedule.”
-Floyd Bayless, (URS)
Recent Trends in CM/GC Procurement
Threaten to Undermine Process
• Early Procurement Criteria
– Qualifications
– LS for General Conditions (WA)
– % Fee
• To compete, CM/GC contractors propose
unrealistically low fees, making them hard not to
hire
– Push responsibility for DIV 00 and 01 on to subs
This trend creates DBB Quality (i.e. Low Bid) at CM/GC Price!
Percentage of Self-performed Work
Significantly Impacts Projects
• Too much Self-performed Work
– Reduces competition
– Increases cost
• Too little Self-performed Work
– Potentially reduces CM/GC VE effectiveness
For the Tri-City WPCP, the CM/GC was allowed to self-perform 15% of the work;
SCI elected to self-perform the concrete placement and finishing work.
Timing of GMP Development Impacts
Cost/Risk
• Early development of GMP may result in ‘hidden’
contingencies
– Risk ‘shouldered’ by CM/GC
– Typically requires sharing of cost savings w/ CM/GC
• Deferring GMP development until design is 100%
complete (and bid?)
– Minimizes contingencies
– Minimizes risk of Change Orders (HVAC)
For the Tri-City WPCP, a ‘third-party’ HVAC design specialist would have
reduced risk and re-design efforts in the field.
CM/GC Allows OWNER to provide ‘real time’
adjustments to Business Case Analysis
• Owner/Engineer ‘in the room’ when Equipment and Key
Subcontractors are selected
• Allows team to adjust approach based on differing
site/market conditions, w/ little impact to Engineer or
CM/GC
• Impacts of design modifications need to be weighed
against potential capital savings when selecting equipment
‘Real-time As-builts’ Resulted in 1.2% Net
Positive Change Orders (so far…)
“Innovative ideas like ‘real time’ as-builts …go a long way to
ensuring clear communications on site, an essential element
in fast-track project delivery.”
- Jeff Wall, Project Manager (SCI)
Hindsight is 20/20
• Budgeting for ESDC is VERY challenging
• Owner/Operator involvement during submittal review
is critical for overall project success
– Risks of being too involved; sometimes you want to
minimize ‘exposure’
– Risks of not being involved at all; things that matter to
operations staff do not matter to designer or CM/GC
In this case, the Owner and CM/GC were sophisticated and
knowledgeable of this process. This will not always be the case.
Tri-City WPCP Phase 1 Expansion
Month 5
Month 9
Month 15
Month 22
Lessons Learned during Start-up
PreDesign
MBR Procurement
Design
CM/GC Procurement & Construction
Start-up
Start-up Considerations Should Begin
during Pre-Design
Internal flow ‘loops’ facilitate
Clean-water Testing
‘Issues List’ Items must be Identified Prior
to Trades Leaving Site
• WES SOP for project completion is to maintain an
updated Early Issues List
• Ensures trades are present for ‘punch-list’ activities
Questions?
randyr@co.clackamas.or.us
jude.d.grounds@mwhglobal.com
jwall@slayden.com