DBIA 2016 Presentation on Progressive Design Build Aqua Marion WTP Project
Transcript of DBIA 2016 Presentation on Progressive Design Build Aqua Marion WTP Project
© 2014 HDR, all rights reserved.
Aqua Ohio’s Use of Progressive Design-Build at the Marion WTP
Designing, Constructing, and Commissioning New Pretreatment Facilities in 8 Months
Authors:
Pete Kusky, PE, AQUA
Jason Lemire, PE, Bowen
Lee Tourek, PE, HDR
01 Project Drivers & Plant Background
02 Delivery Approach & Design
03 Project Execution & Construction
04 Start Up
05 Moving the Marion WTP Forward & Conclusion
Agenda
Project Drivers & Plant Background
Aquired American Water’s Ohio operations
in 2012
Over 150,000 customers served in 19
counties
AQUA Ohio
Dual source water types
Conventional lime – soda softening plant
6.8 MGD average demand
10.2 MGD capacity
Marion Water Treatment Plant
Improve redundancy
Improve maintenance operations
Age/condition
Risk based comparison
Project Drivers
Existing Water Treatment Plant
Label Building
A Raw Water Basins
B Aerator
C Little Scioto Intake
D Low Service Pump
Buildings
E High Service Pump
Station
F Filter and Clearwell
Building
G Mixing Tanks
H Clarifier Tank
I Settling Tank
J Recarbonation Tank
Previous Pre-Treatment Facility
Schedule, schedule, schedule!
Owner involvement
Single path of communication
Design-builder provides majority of trade
resources
Why Progressive Design-Build for AQUA?
Equipment
SuppliersTrade Subcontractors
Owner
Design-Builder
Contract
Communication
Delivery Approach & Design
Proven relationships
Familiarity with AQUA
Design-Build Experience
Source: Construction Industry Institute
(CII)/Penn State
Research comparison of 351 projects of
varying sectors, ranging from 5K to 2.5M
square feet in size
Design-Build Versus the Rest
Metric D-B vs D-B-B D-B vs. CMAR
Unit Cost 6.1% lower 4.5% lower
Construction Speed 12% faster 7% faster
Delivery Speed 33.5% faster 23.5% faster
Cost Growth 5.2% less 12.6% less
Schedule Growth 11.4% less 2.2% less
Truly separate treatment trains
Replace only what is necessary
Future adaptability
Planning Considerations
Conversion to conventional sedimentation
Provisions for sludge handling
Hydraulic profile for future plant
Future Adaptability
Basis of Design Highlights
Design Parameters
Pre-sedimentation basins
Quantity 2
Dimensions 24’ W x 80’ L x
16’ SWD
Aerators
Quantity 2
Loading Rate 5 gpm/sf
Equalization basins
Quantity 2
Dimensions 24’ W x 108’ L x
15’ SWD
Information exchange
3D design
OEPA engagement
Design Implementation
Project Challenge Bowen-HDR Solution
Extended duration or repeated reviews impacts
delivery schedule
Facilitate review process through early and
frequent communication and conducting a
design brief with the OEPA
The plan review process results in unforeseen
changes to project
Clearly communicate the design criteria and
basis of design to obtain concurrence from the
OEPA at an early stage
‘Over driving the headlights’-submitting
detailed information before the base concept
has been discussed with OEPA for general
concurrence puts the project at risk for rework
and schedule impact
Conduct a facilitated review process – a series
of discussions and meetings to present the
design information
Overcoming Permitting Challenges Associated with Integrated Delivery
Lock in on critical items
Stage delivery of disciplines
Early action on critical path
Transition from Design to Procurement
Accelerated development of deliverables
Design Milestones
RFP
9/24/15
B.O.D. Finalized
11/20/15
30% Design &
OEPA Submittal
12/18/1560% Design
& GMP
1/27/16Building Department
Submittal
2/3/16
IFC Set 1
(Civil & Structural)
2/12/16
Basin slab, rebar, mix
design shop drawings
approved
2/25/16
Start-Up
8/3/16
Groundbreaking,
IFC Set 2 (Process
& Electrical
2/26/16
Little Scioto Pump 11 - Before Little Scioto Pump 11 - After
Aerator - Before Aerator - After
Pre-Sedimentation - Before Pre-Sedimentation - After
Project Execution & Construction
Construction Pre-Planning
Quick decisions are essential on
design build delivery if the schedule
is to be maintained
Design-Build is a continuous process
Project Pacing
Access
o Site layout
o Construction traffic
o Communication
Construction Challenges
Low Service Pump Station
o Constrained work area
o Existing valves
o Planning approach
Construction Challenges
Low Service Pump Station - Outcome
Construction Challenges
Start Up
Define the Process
Challenges
o Piping Tie-Ins
o Instrumentation
o Chemical Feed
Resolution
o Collaboration
o Active Management of Issues
Start Up
Moving the Marion WTPForward & Conclusion
Future WTP conceptual planning
Capitalizing on D-B team experience with Marion WTP
Moving Forward
Schedule, schedule, schedule!
Owner involvement/single point of
responsibility
Risk/cost management
Flexibility and collaboration
Conclusion
Special thanks to contributing team members:
Pete Kusky
Tom Schwing
Beth Darnell
Scott Ballenger
Jerry Hetterscheidt
Mike Soller
Jason Lemire
Mike Wright
Brad Green
Gary Moon
Rich Atoulikian
Lee Tourek
Jim Beninati
Adam Dellinger
Mike Paine
Patrick Eiden
Questions?