1 / 20

MPT – 95% designed CHP – design in progress FDF – design completed Coordination Utilities Cranes

Improved Coordination. MPT – 95% designed CHP – design in progress FDF – design completed Coordination Utilities Cranes Geotechnical Information Weekly meetings – Internal and Intra-Contractor CFA meetings Partnering – MPT/CHP  Coordination of design/construction and Intra-Contractor.

spencer
Download Presentation

MPT – 95% designed CHP – design in progress FDF – design completed Coordination Utilities Cranes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improved Coordination • MPT – 95% designed • CHP – design in progress • FDF – design completed • Coordination • Utilities • Cranes • Geotechnical Information • Weekly meetings – Internal and Intra-Contractor • CFA meetings • Partnering – MPT/CHP •  Coordination of design/construction and Intra-Contractor

  2. Potential Innovation • Limited in proposals • “Prescriptive” • 30 Alternatives – developed a “No Fly Zone” • Construction – MPT • Schedule offer 5 months less than anticipated in RFP • CHP Negotiation • Better steam control with condenser • Arrangement of equipment •  Innovation accepted if not already vetted by Owner

  3. CHP Not Part of DC Water Expertise • CHP – different review philosophy • Owner – smaller review group, interested in interfaces, and “were not going to operate it” • DBO – “We have to operate it, so we want to make changes • PM/CM – find the balance to get full contract value and understanding • DC Water recognizing benefit of when DB is appropriate

  4. Lessons Learned To Date • Owner likes to be able to short list 3 qualified proposers • First time Design Build • Ownerand Engineers need to take time to understand process • Design issues come to head early • Design Build Joint Venture = skin in the game • 3D modeling understanding accelerates • Regulatory dust should be settled • Start-up and Commissioning – start early • “Haz Ops” meeting very important • Prescriptiveness can serve “mature” Owners well • Performance guarantees force designer and contractor to work together and could be a key to being less prescriptive

  5. Artist Rendering

  6. Artist Rendering

  7. DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT PRESENTED BY Donal Barron

  8. DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT AND NITROGEN REMOVAL PROGRAMS LUZON VALLEY (SEPARATED) GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (MULTIPLE SITES THROUGHOUT DISTRICT) ROCK CREEK COMBINED SEWER AREA ROCK CREEK TUNNEL SEPARATE CSO 031, 037, 053 AND 058 NORTHEAST BOUNDARY TUNNEL F F ROCK CREEK REGULATOR ADJUSTMENTS CSO 033, 036 AND 057 ANACOSTIA RIVER POTOMAC TUNNEL WHITE HOUSE U.S. CAPITOL RFK ABANDON NORTHEAST BOUNDARY SWIRL REHAB POTOMAC P.S. P P MAIN PS ANACOSTIA RIVER TUNNEL EPA HEADQUARTERS P P POTOMAC RIVER SEPARATE CSO 006 P REPLACE POPLAR POINT P.S. BLUE PLAINS TUNNEL P PUMP STATION F KNOWN FLOODING AREA BLUE PLAINS P • DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT: $2.6 BILLION • NITROGEN REMOVAL: $950 MILLION • TOTAL > $ 3 BILLION • 20 YR IMPLEMENTATION (2005 – 2025) • 96% REDUCTION IN CSO • FLOOD RELIEF IN NORTHEAST BOUNDARY ENHANCED CLARIFICATION TREATMENT & NITROGEN REMOVAL AT BLUE PLAINS TUNNEL DEWATERING P.S.

  9. Mt Olivet Rd Diversions ($ 41 M) Anacostia River Projects are Being Implemented on Schedule NEB Branch Tunnels & Diversions ($283 M) Northeast Boundary Tunnel ($ 282 M) LID @ DC Water Facilities ($3 M) Project Status Legend: Tingey St Diversions ($ 17M) M St Div. Sewer ($ 41 M) Completed Main PS Diversions ($ 40 M) Construction CSO 019 ($40 M) Poplar Point PS ($ 31M) Procurement Design Anacostia River Tun. ($ 291 M) Prelim Engineering CSO 007 ($ 5 M) Blue Plains Tunnel ($ 397 M) JBAB Overflow & Diversion ($25 M) A Blue Plains Tunnel C CSO 019 Overflow and Diversion Structures D JBAB Overflow and Potomac Outfall Sewer Diversion E M Street Diversion Sewer (CSOs 015, 016 and 017) G CSO 007 Diversion Structure and Diversion Sewer H Anacostia River Tunnel I Main Pumping Station and Tingey Street Diversions J Northeast Boundary Tunnel K Northeast Boundary Branch Tunnels L Northeast Boundary Diversions M Mt. Olivet Road Diversions Y Blue Plains Dewatering Pumping Station and ECF Z Poplar Point Pumping Station Replacement Tunnel Dewatering Pump. Station and ECF ($ 333 M) Blue Plains Tunnel Site Prep (Digester Demolition) ( $ 12 M) 9

  10. Anacostia River TunnelOverview • 23-foot diameter TBM tunnel • Soft ground • 100 ± feet deep and 12,500 feet long • Mining from CSO-019 south to PP-JS • 6 shafts (15 to 75-foot I.D.) • 3 Adits (4.5 to 10-foot I.D.) • 2 Diversions • 6 Odor Control and Venting Facilities • Instrumentation & Data Collection System • System Start-up • Design-Build contract value: $200 – $250 million CSO-019 CSO-018 M Street CSO-007 CSO-005 PP-JS

  11. ART Estimated Schedule

  12. Vision Anacostia River Projects Potomac & Rock Creek Projects DC Water is Implementing Tunnels There is a brief window of time to consider new approaches Most severely impacted by CSOs GI will provide additional CSO control Green Gray Hybrid

  13. Why is a Multi Million Dollar Demonstration Project Necessary? • Need it to be a large scale demonstration – address entire subsewersheds • Representative sites - not “cherry picked” so scale-up is realistic • Sound technical basis • Potential for innovative solutions and creative alliances • Targeted performance is high degree of CSO control • Resolution of institutional issues • Analysis of other factors • Triple bottom line benefits • Public acceptability • Testing over several meteorological / climate cycles • O&M impacts The magnitude of investment by DC ratepayers to control Potomac and Rock Creek CSOs requires a sound technical and institutional basis for making decisions

  14. Demonstration Project (6 sites) • Completed evaluation of sites for GI demonstration projects in Potomac River and Rock Creek sewer sheds. • After construction, monitor for 2 years • Use results to design Potomac River and Rock Creek projects using combination of tunnels and GI

  15. Lessons Learned • Verify Financial Capabilities • Evaluate need to compare proposers’ financial capabilities with respect to estimated cash flow needs • Process Projects • Designer needs a “skin in the game,” possibly as a JV partner

  16. RFQ Content/Solicitation Set a realistic page count; identify what pages do/do not count Avoid requests requiring subjectivity or similar responses among proposers Include standard forms in RFQ for simpler organization/evaluation When answering questions, send responses to all proposers RFQ Evaluation Have technical staff at selection panel discussions to answer questions Obtain completed score sheets before selection panel adjourns Lessons Learned

  17. Lessons Learned • Contents of Technical Proposal • Resist requesting more items; identify points that differentiate better schedule, better quality, less risk • Avoid asking for identical things in different sections • Ask key personnel to list only what contributes to project success • Confidentiality • Emphasize confidentiality among all teams; require signed agreements • Don’t put confidential evaluations/comments on shared computer drives • Don’t meet with individual proposers after release of RFQ; exceptions are official proprietary meetings • Be careful what is printed to shared printers

  18. TUNNEL DEWATERING PUMPING STATION AND ENHANCED CLARIFICATION FACILITY PRESENTED BY Bo Bodniewicz

  19. Long Term Control Plan Overview 20-year program with a goal of reducing CSO events

  20. Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

More Related