Value Engineering Summary of Supplementary Findings

Value Engineering Summary of Supplementary Findings

Tunnel Stabilization and Pipeline Replacement ProjectPresentation to SCWD Board of Directors

Special Meeting

February 18, 2016

PARSONS

Agenda1. Introductions2. Background: Findings from Previous VE3. Add. Analyses Performed.

A. Safety and RisksB. Static and Seismic StabilityC. New Alternative

4. Pros and Cons of Alternatives5. Contractual Methods6. Questions and Discussions

1. IntroductionsParsonsJon Kaneshiro (PM/tunnels design)Dave Neil (tunnel constructability)Sangyoon Min (risk specialist)

South Coast Water DistrictWayne Rayfield (President of Board)Rick Erkeneff (VP of Board)Dick Dietmeier (Board Member)Dennis Erdman (Board Member)Bill Green (Board Member)Andy Brunhart (General Manager)Rick Shintaku (Chief Engineer)Karl Francis (Principal Engineer)Joe McDivitt (Chief of Operations)Michelle Collins (Contracts)

2. Background

Portal 2Portal 4

Proposed 4th Ave. Shaft

Adit 12 Adit

16Emergency Repairs Completed

District Easement 32201 Pacific Coast Highway

Visited: 2, 4, 5, 14 & 16 on 1/5/2015

History• Constructed in 1954 with VCP before suburban

development– 10,400 feet long in San Onfre Fm (Breccia, Sandstone,

Siltstone)– Varies in size but generally 5 feet high by 6 feet wide– 19 tunnel access points (Portals & Adits 2 – 25, but many

not accessible)– Mostly unsupported– Intervals supported with timbers– Hydraulics: 50 to 60% full at peak flows

• 2‐foot diameter Techite pipeline installed in 1974• 1999 Inspections• 2007 Emergency Repair• Design for Enlarged Tunnel and Pipeline Replacement• Negotiated Procurement Approx. $80 million• Value Engineering

2. Background

Complex Problem• Efficiency of Access

– Beach Environment– Steep Cliffs– Urban Development– Exclusive Community– Hilly Terrain

• Restricted room in tunnel– Aging– 40 year old Techite Pipe

2. Background

• Mini Charrette• 34 Initial Ideas• 16 shortlisted

• Workshop• 4 New Ideas• 10 Suggestions

• Report• 12 Evaluated• Idea 4i Savings $22 m• E‐2.0 New Pipe $10 m • Net Savings $12 m

VE Workshop Summary and Results2. Background

* Represents potential savings only, which was estimated by factoring “Confidential Construction Estimate by Kiewit” for Types 1 and 2 Ground and Support. Does not consider efficiency’s lost in repairing Type 3, 4 and 5 ground, backfilled areas, construction of 4th Avenue, or pipeline replacement. It is assumed that only areas of poor condition especially at portals are repaired.

Baseline vs. 4iBaseline • 9’ x 9’ enlargement

4i Sealer (in Type 1 & 2 Ground)• 6’ x 5’, limited enlargement• Repair rotten timber, e.g. portals

2. Background

Baseline Project 2. Background

• $78 M• 9 ft Tunnel• Access Shaft on 4th Ave.• Two Pipes• Mechanized Tunneling

Tunnel9’

9’

• Push Cart in tunnel for O&M• Two pipelines• 9 ft diameter size• Shotcrete liner everywhere• Mechanized Excavation (roadheader)• 5 year schedule• Access tunnel (4th Ave Access adit)• New Connections to New Pipe

Baseline Criteria2. Background

4i ProjectSealer in Type 1 and 2 Ground

2. Background

Add Map of 4i

LEM = Labor Equipment Materials Access

Package 1 Package 2

Package 3

Package 4a

E‐2.0/E‐2.24th Ave Shaft for Package 3&4

• $56 M• No enlargement in Types 1 and 2 Ground & Support (5980’)• Portal Areas and Bad Timber Area fixes only• Access Shaft on 4th Ave not necessarily required.• One Pipe• Bucket brigade 5’

6.5’

• No Need for having a Push Cart in the tunnel for O&M• No Two pipelines• No 9 ft diameter size• No Shotcrete liner in Types 1 and 2 Ground & Support• No Mechanized tunneling (hand dig with spaders)• No 5 year schedule• No Long access tunnel (4th Ave Access adit)• No New Connections to existing laterals/Maintain Only

VE and 4i Criteria“Absolutes are not Absolutes”

2. Background

4i• Sodium Silicate sealer• No enlargement of tunnel• No Repair of Timber Areas in Good Condition• Repair poor timber areas only, some shotcrete or slip forming may be required

• Improve Portals Especially• Smaller Access Shaft still possible for access of other repairs

2. Background

Baseline Project Costs $78 m

Idea Savings4i with 4th Ave Access Shaft & Sealer $22m*E‐1.0 Penalty for new pipe ‐$10mNet Savings $12m

Main Questions from BOD from VE Workshop1. What are the relative risks of 4i compared to the baseline?2. Are the alternatives as safe as the baseline project?

2. Background

* Represents potential savings only, which was estimated by factoring “Confidential Construction Estimate by Kiewit” for Types 1 and 2 Ground and Support. Does not consider life cycle costs, efficiency’s lost in repairing Type 3, 4 and 5 ground, backfilled areas, construction of 4th Avenue, or pipeline replacement. It is assumed that only areas of poor condition especially at portals are repaired.

3. Add. Analyses Performed

3.A. Safety and Risks1) Static Stability2) Seismic Stability3) Risk Comparative Risks: Baseline vs. 4i

3.B. New Alternative 4y

3.A. Safety

1) Static Stability2) Dynamic (Seismic) Stability

3.A. Add. Analyses

Key Parameters Attributing to Stability AnalysisBaseline vs. 4i

3.A.1) Add. Analyses

ItemNo.

Parameter Baseline Design VE Idea 4i Proposal

1 Rock Mass Properties

Massive, moderately hard, strong to friable, weathered to fresh, RMR = 65 to 87% Good to Very Good Rock

Massive, moderately hard, strong to friable, weathered to fresh, RMR = 65 to 87% Good to Very Good Rock

2 Shape Modified Horseshoe-Circular Arch

Cathedral Ceiling/Parabolic Arch

3 Size 9 ft ID/10 ft OD 5 ft wide by 6 ft high4 Litho-static State of

Stress, Ko = horizontal to vertical Stress field

0.5 to 1 0.5 to 1

5 Hydrostatic State of Stress

Allow groundwater inflow seepage

Allow groundwater inflow seepage

6 Type of Liner 8 inch thick shotcrete liner No liner to sealer to thin shotcrete liner

Unsupported Span Standup Time Baseline vs. 4i


• Baseline– 7 to 10 ft spans 7 months to > 300 years

• 4i– 3.8 to 5 ft spans 5.7 years to > 1000 years

Estimated Ground Loads in unsupported ground reaches


Ground Load Baseline 4i

10% to 20% max of diameter = 1 to 2 ft of ground

10% to 20% max of diameter = 0.5 ft to 1 ft of ground

0 to 10% of vertical load 0 to 10% of vertical load

Baseline vs. 4i

Tunnel

Vertical

Horizon

tal

Static Factor of Safety 3.A.1) Add. Analyses

Baseline vs. 4i

Type 2 Ground and Support

Baseline: 5" shotcrete + W4x13, 9.1' span 6.2 121 13.5

4i: 1.5" shotcrete, 5' span 2.6 110 37

Factor of SafetyType 1 Ground and Support Moment Thrust Shear

Mc/Mn Pc/Pn Vc/VnBaseline: 5” shotcrete, 9.1’ span 2.2 110 7.44i: 1.5" sealer as req’d, 5’span, equivalent rock beam strength, qu, = 100 to 531 psi

2.6 6.9 to 24.2 14.7 to 22.3

Tunnel

-M

-P

-V +M+V

+P

Acceptable F.S = 2.2

2) Seismic Stability (Power et al. 1998) 3.A.2) Add. Analyses

Range of Peak Ground Acceleration 0.4 to 0.5 g for Beach Interceptor

Effects of Type of Internal Supporton EQ Damage (Sharma and Judd, 1991)


Design Life and Probability of Exceedance


Design Life, n

Probability of Exceedance, Pe = 1-[1 – 1/T]n where T =

Return Period

Probability EQ (USGS Haz Maps) with M> 7.0 and 50 km

100 19.0% 25 to 30%30 6.1% 8 to 10%

Exposure risk of 0.4 to 0.5g peak ground acceleration earthquake

Summary: Comparison Static/Dynamic Stability between Baseline and 4I*

• Static Stability– Factor of Safety for M, P, V: 4i compare favorably adequate enough or exceed baseline for Ground and Support Class 1 and 2

• Dynamic Stability (0.4 to 0.5 g)– 4i comparable because of general competency of ground, reduced seismic exposure.

– Damage states similar whether supported or lined

3.A. Add. Analyses

*Does not apply to areas of distress: such as failing timber, noticeable friable or incompetent ground, low ground cover areas, which would be repaired under either scenario

Risk Response Strategies

DG - 001 Design errors/omissions • Design inadequate • Lack of QC and design reviews• Inadequate analysis o f alternative support schemes• A ll new geotechnical data not incorporated

• Design inadequate • Ground failure during construction in tunnel• Redesign• Pro ject delay

T Unlikely 2 M edium 3 3 3 6 T o lerable • Engineers using best practice for design of support schemes• Engineer quality contro l includes senior review o f design documents• PM monitoring fo r early detection and resolution• Ongoing review of new data will be used to adjust design and design contingencies exist

Very Unlikely

1 Low 2 2 2 2 N egligible Engineer Active

DG - 002 Differing site conditions • Insufficient/inadequate geotechnical data• Actual conditions between borings vary from interpreted baseline• Increased quantities o f poorer ground conditions than represented in GBR

• Unexpected delays inpro ject• Dispute and DSC claims• Additional cost• Additional support installed

T Possible 3 M edium 3 3 3 9 T o lerable • Early contracto r involvement during design • Site investigations by Geotechnical ongoing during pro ject• Create contingency plan fo r ground improvement• Engineering conservative design based on documented ground conditions

Unlikely 2 Low 2 2 2 4 N egligible Engineer/District

DG - 003 Conflict and discrepancy between specifications, drawings, GBR

• Lack of QC and design reviews

• Contracto r brings dispute or claims during construction

T Unlikely 2 M edium 3 3 3 6 T o lerable • Engineer quality contro l includes senior review o f contract documents and early contracto r involvement • Contract has claims procedure in it

Very Unlikely

1 Low 2 2 2 2 N egligible Engineer

DG - 004 Late design modifications

• Late design changes • Delay to construction T Likely 4 M edium 3 2 3 12 Undesirable • Early contracto r involvement during design (using constructability review)

Possible 3 Low 2 2 2 6 T o lerable Engineer

DG - 005 Soil rock interface at the shaft -flowable sand and/or groundwater contro l

• Insufficient ground support• Failure o f ground• Bad geologic conditions

• Failure o f ground • Requiring redesign o f support• Instability/ co llapse• Groundwater inflow

T Unlikely 2 M edium 3 3 3 6 T o lerable • Completed explo ration borings at shaft site (LGC Geotechnical)• Contingency plan required

Very Unlikely

1 Low 2 2 2 2 N egligible Engineer

DG - 006 Unknown condition of Laguna Royale caisson foundations

• Caisson foundations close to tunnel• Encountering caisson• No accurate as-built drawings

• Building settlement during excavation • Damage to caisson

T Likely 4 High 4 4 3 16 Into lerable • Pre-construction probe ho le investigation • Design and location adjustments will be included based on findings• Instrumentation and monitoring during

Possible 3 Low 2 2 2 6 T o lerable Engineer

Envi

ronm

ent

Com

mun

ity

Rep

utat

ion

Risk Analysis/ Evaluation - Pre- Mitigation

Initial Risk Score/Class

Risk Identification

Risk IDInitial

ProbabilityInitial

Impact

Com

plia

nce

Risk Scenario Potential Cause Proposed Mitigation MeasuresPotential Consequences

Type

Cos

tTi

me

Hea

lth&

Safe

t

Risk Monitoring and Control

Risk Owner

Risk Status

Risk Re-evaluation - Post-Mitigation

Residual Probability

Residual Impact

Residual Risk Score/ClassC

ost

Tim

eH

ealth

&Sa

fet

Envi

ronm

ent

Com

mun

ity

Rep

utat

ion

Com

plia

nce

Risk Assessment• Risk assessment using semi‐quantitative risk approach• Comparative analysis between Baseline and 4i


Risk Identification

Risk M

onitoring/

Control

RISK REGISTER


• Risk Scenarios, potential causes and potential consequences• 62 risk scenarios for 6 risk categories

Risk Identification

EN - 055 Community complaints noise issues

• Sound barriers ineffective at nearest residence• Site work continues beyond hourly limitation• Construction equipment not equipped with proper sound attenuation• Trucks idling

• Community complaints • OSHA fines

Risk Identification

Risk ID Risk Scenario Potential Cause Potential Consequences

Risk Identification

Risk M

onitoring/

Control

Risk Identification

• 62 risk scenarios for 6 risk categories

Risk Categories

(8,12.9%)

(9,14.5%)

(26,41.9%)

(11,17.7%)

(5,8.1%)

(3,4.8%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%DesignandGeotechnical

Logistics/Access

Construction

Environmental

Safety&Security

OperationandMaintenance

RiskCategories(# ofRisks,Percentages)


Risk Analysis & Evaluation


Possible 3 High 4 2 2 4 12 Undesirable • Instrumentation and monitoring• P lan for alternative approach to attenuate no ise• Contractor to comply with work plan/EIR requirements and PM oversight

Very Unlikely

1 M edium 3 1 1 3 3 N egligible

Com

plia

nce

Rep

utat

ion

Residual Risk Score/Class

Residual Impact C

ost

Tim

eH

ealth

&Sa

fet

Envi

ronm

ent

Com

mun

ity

Com

mun

ityC

ompl

ianc

eR

eput

atio

n


Proposed Mitigation Measures Residual Probability

Initial Probability

Initial Impact C

ost

Tim

eH

ealth

&Sa

fet

Envi

ronm

ent

Risk Analysis/ Evaluation - Pre- Mitigation Risk Re-evaluation - Post-Mitigation

• Likelihood of Occurrence (Probability)• Severity of Impact (Impact) • Risk = Probability x Impact• Initial Risks vs. Residual Risks


Risk Identification

Risk M

onitoring/

Control

Probability Criteria3.A.3) Add. Analyses

Impact Criteria3.A.3) Add. Analyses

1 2 3 4 5

Increasing Risk

15 20 25 Intolerable 16-25

Increasing Risk

12 16 20 Undesirable 10-15

Very Likely 5 5 10

9 12 15 Tolerable 5-9

Likely 4 4 8

6 8 10 Negligible 1-5

Possible 3 3 6

Unlikely 2 2 4

4 5 Risk Class

High Very High

Prob

abili

ty

Very Unlikely 1 1 2 3

Impact

Very Low Low Medium

Probability x Impact = Risk

Risk Scoring Matrix3.A.3) Add. Analyses

Risk Classes/Risk Acceptance Criteria3.A.3) Add. Analyses

Risk Response & Mitigation3.A.3) Add. Analyses

Risk Identification

Risk M

onitoring/

Control

• Avoid: Eliminate a threat • Accept: Accept residual risks and take no

action unless the risk occurs• Transfer: A threat still exists, but it is

owned/managed by another party• Mitigate: Reduce probability and/or impact

of risks to acceptable level



12 Undesirable • Pre-construction probe hole investigation • Design and location adjustments will be included based on findings• Instrumentation and monitoring during construction and contingency plan

4 N egligible



Proposed Mitigation Measures

Risk Identification Pre- Mitigation Post-Mitigation

Risk ID Risk Scenario

Risk Monitoring & Control3.A.3) Add. Analyses

Risk Identification

Risk M

onitoring/

Control

• Risk Status : Current status of the risk element– Active: Risk is being actively monitored and

controlled– Dormant: Risk is not currently a high priority,

but may become active in the future– Retired: Risk is not longer a threat to project

objectives• Risk Owner : Party who owns the risk and is

responsible for implementing the response actions and monitoring risks

Engineer Active

Risk Monitoring and Control

Risk Owner

Risk Status

Comparison of Risk Assessment• Baseline vs. Option 4i


• Baseline vs. 4i

Negligible 12, 19.4% 60, 96.8% 16, 25.8% 54, 87.1%

Tolerable 35, 56.5% 2, 3.2% 36, 58.1% 6, 9.7%

Undesirable 15, 24.2% 0, 0.0% 9, 14.5% 1, 1.6%

Intolerable 0, 0.0% 0, 0.0% 1, 1.6% 1, 1.6%

RiskClassOption4i

InitialRisks ResidualRisks InitialRisks

Baseline

ResidualRisks

Comparison of Risk Assessment3.A.3) Add. Analyses

• Challenging operation & Maintenance• Inefficiencies associated with laying pipe

RiskID RiskScenarios InitialRiskClass ResidualRiskClass

DG‐005 Soilrockinterfaceattheshaft‐flowablesandand/orgroundwatercontrol Undesirable Negligible

DG‐006 UnknownconditionofLagunaRoyalecaissonfoundations Undesirable Negligible

CO‐010 SlopefailureatAdits23&25 Undesirable Negligible

CO‐011 LagunaLidocondominiums10ftabovetunnelcrown Undesirable Negligible

LA‐015 Accessdifficulties/complaintsat4thAveShaftSite Undesirable Negligible

LA‐016 InabilitytodelivermaterialsorremovewasteatAdit16A/B Undesirable Negligible

CO‐021 Slopeinstabilityatportals2and4andadits16A/B Undesirable Negligible

CO‐022 Unexpectedvoidorsignificantgroundloss(overbreak) Undesirable Tolerable

CO‐031DestabilizationofbluffduringtunnelexcavationinAreasofConcernotherthanlowcove

Undesirable Negligible

CO‐033 Instabilityinlowcoverareatriggersneedtoexcavatefromsurface Undesirable Negligible

EN‐046 Communitycomplaintsnoiseissues Undesirable NegligibleEN‐048 Traffic‐excessivevehiclesworkingatthesite Undesirable NegligibleEN‐052 Beachlandings Undesirable Negligible

SS‐055 Seriousaccident/injurytoworkersduringconstruction Undesirable Negligible

SS‐056 Accident/injuryoccurswithslow/delayresponsetime Undesirable Negligible

Risks with Higher Risk Levels for Baseline3.A.3) Add. Analyses

RiskID RiskScenarios InitialRiskClass ResidualRiskClass

DG‐005 Soilrockinterfaceattheshaft‐flowablesandand/orgroundwatercontrol Undesirable Negligible

CO‐010 SlopefailureatAdits23&25 Undesirable Tolerable

LA‐015 Accessdifficulties/complaintsat4thAveShaftSite Undesirable Negligible

LA‐016 InabilitytodelivermaterialsorremovewasteatAdit16A/B Undesirable Negligible

CO‐021 Slopeinstabilityatportals2and4andadits16A/B Undesirable Tolerable

CO‐043 Inefficienciesassociatedwithlayingpipe Undesirable UndesirableEN‐052 Beachlandings Undesirable Negligible

SS‐055 Seriousaccident/injurytoworkersduringconstruction Undesirable Negligible

SS‐056 Accident/injuryoccurswithslow/delayresponsetime Undesirable Negligible

OM‐060 Challengingoperation&maintenance Intolerable Intolerable

Risks with Higher Risk Levels for Option 4i3.A.3) Add. Analyses

InitialRisks ResidualRisks InitialRisks ResidualRisks

460 181 430 212TotalRiskScores

Baseline Option4i

Risk Scores (Baseline vs. 4i)

62 61

207

87

36

7

46

61

184

71

35 33

0

50

100

150

200

250

DG LA CO EN SS OM

RiskScore

RiskCategory

ComparisonofInitialRiskScoresbyRiskCategory

InitialRisks(Baseline)

InitialRisks(Option4i)

Symbol RiskCategoriesDG DesignandGeotechnicalLA Logistics/AccessCO ConstructionEN EnvironmentalSS Safety&SecurityOM OperationandMaintenance

25 24

79

30

167

21 24

95

2415

33

0

50

100

150

200

250

DG LA CO EN SS OM

RiskScore

RiskCategory

ComparisonofResidualRiskScoresbyRiskCategory

ResidualRisks(Baseline)

ResidualRisks(Option4i)

Symbol RiskCategoriesDG DesignandGeotechnicalLA Logistics/AccessCO ConstructionEN EnvironmentalSS Safety&SecurityOM OperationandMaintenance

• Total Risk Scores

• Risk Scores by Risk Category


• Overall risk profiles for both options similar.• Except for risks associated with limited space of tunnel, operation and maintenance issues, and future ability to replace the 24‐inch sanitary sewer pipe, results from risk assessment indicate Option 4i compares favorably to Baseline option.

• Baseline: tunnel excavation and more construction activities (greater initial risks with higher risk scores); it appears that most risks may be mitigated to acceptable risk levels.

• 4i: Minimal additional excavation work; risks associated with limited work space cannot be mitigated

Summary of Comparative Risk Analysis3.A.3) Add. Analyses

Alternative 4y

• Smaller version of Baseline (9 ft by 9 ft) • 7 ft wide by 6.5 ft high• Evaluate

– Cost Savings– Safety and Risks– Constructability

3.B. Add. Analyses

4y Cost Evaluation7 ft wide by 6.5 ft high

•Cost Evaluation based on Kiewit Confidential Estimate•Comparing Volume of Materials (less)•Volume of Support (less)•$6 m savings

3.B. Add. Analyses

3.B. Add. Analyses

Safety and Risk• Similar Favorable Safety Comparison to Baseline Design/4y and 4i

• Similar Favorable Risk Comparison to Baseline Design/4y and 4i

4y ConstructabilityEquipment: 7 ft wide Aprons

LoaderRoadheader

3.B. Add. Analyses

4y ConstructabilityConstruction Sequence (similar to baseline)

3.B. Add. Analyses

Comparison of Savings and Costs* for Baseline, 4i, 4y

Summary of SavingsBaseline 4i 4yNA $22m $6mNew Pipe ‐$10mNet $12m

Summary of Total CostsBaseline 4i 4y$78m $68 m $74m

*Based on Kiewit’s Confidential Cost Proposal using Negotiated Procurement

3.B. Add. Analyses

Optimum Diameter• Sweet Spot between 7 and 9 ft.• Compromise between Construction vs. O & M• Bucket Brigade vs. Mechanized Tunneling

3.B. Add. Analyses

Tunnel Width (ft) Costs Comment

6 87 HMM (2014)7 64 Parsons (2016) factored Kiewit (2012), no efficiency factors9 78 HMM (2014)9 78.4 Kiewit (2012)

y = 10.033x2 ‐ 153.43x + 646.4R² = 0.9997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cost in

millions of d

ollars

Beach Interceptor Tunnel Width (ft)

Tunnel Width vs. Project CostsSeries1

4. Pros and Cons

4. Pros and Cons of AlternativesUn‐weighted/no importance factors

4. Pros & Cons

Alternative/Attribute

O&M spa

ce

Constructability

Perm

itIssues

Muck Issues

Ease of N

ew

Pipe

Install

1 or 2 pipes

(Old Pipe)

OverallRisks

Safety and

Stab

ility

Life of Facility

Suscep

tible

to

Unk

nowns

(Cost con

trol)

CostSavings

Summary

Baseline + + o ‐ + + o o + + ‐ 6+, 3o, 2‐

4i ‐ o ‐ + ‐ ‐ o o o ‐ + 2+, 4o, 5‐

4y + + o + + + o o + + o 7+, 4o, 0‐

Simplified Qualitative Comparative Rating Scale+ Positive/Favorable/Pro ‐ Advantageo Neutral‐ Negative/Unfavorable/Con ‐ Disadvantage

Other Pros and Cons

*Access Permit conditions– 12 months at Portals 2 and 4 are good for fixes up to Adit 10. – Need new shaft to preserve permit conditions

4. Pros & Cons

Attribute Baseline 4i 4y

Muck NA Negligible 800 less truck loads

Ease of New Pipe Construction Best Poor Good

Construction Technique MechanizedTunneling

Bucket Brigade

MechanizedTunneling

Maintenance Ease & Access Best Poor Good

“Absolutes” Design Criteria Preserved Yes No Yes

Existing Permit Conditions* Good Moderate Good

Flexibility for Separate New Pipeline Pkg Good Good Good

Flexibility for Packaging of Repairs Fair to Poor Good Fair to Poor

4th Ave Shaft Required Yes Maybe Yes

5. Contractual Methods

5. Alternative Contract TypesA. Negotiated Procurement (Existing Target Price)

– Insurance & Profit Reasonable Cost– OH & Mgmt High Cost

B. Discussion: Other Contract Types 1) Design Build Least Control2) CM at Risk Less Control3) Design Bid Build Most Control

5. Contracts

5.B.1) Design BuildPro: • Suitable for large CIP with small Owner Organization and large complex projects• Single Point of Responsibility• Early construction knowledge avoids pitfalls of over conservatism in Design• Advantage when schedule is concern to eliminate design steps• Designer and Contractor working together on design reducing risk of Change Orders• Fast track• Market place decide on Design Alternatives• Many Risks shed to Contractor

– E.g. No Differing Site ConditionsCon:• Least control• Cost of bidding higher• Procurement different• Contractor mark‐up of Designer• Strong independent QA/QC sometimes warranted (costs borne by Owner)• Spell out in contract where Owner Control is desired• Timely Correction Action Required• Less Review time• Baseline Design is completed• Baseline Design Criteria is set

5.B.1) Contracts

5.B.2) CM at RiskPro:• Suitable for large CIP with small Owner Organization• Early construction knowledge• Fast track• Competition over individual elements of construction• CM acts as agent of Owner• Guaranteed maximum price (+allowances)• Design taken to some percentage (e.g. 60%)

Con:• Less Control: Set clear expectations; deliverables• Preconstruction services (management)• Baseline Design is completed• Baseline Design Criteria is set

5.B.2) Contracts

5.B.3) Design Bid BuildPro:• Most Control• Low bid is awarded Contract• Design Completed to 100%• Baseline Design is completed• Baseline Design Criteria is setCon:• Multiple points of contact for Owner• Designer/Contractor adversity• Designer cannot foresee who will build

5.B.3) Contracts

5.B.3) Design Bid Build (cont)

• Award Project in Pieces/Task Orders by Section– Geographic (access and permit) and Work (mining vs. new pipe)

– Smaller Specialist Tunnel Rehab Contractors– Insurance and Bonding Issues

• Lump sum (Gmax) plus unit cost contract• Unit Price items per Ground Support classes that may vary– Class 1a, Class 2b etc. – Supplemental Ground Support elements

• Steel sets• CY shotcrete

5.B.3) Contracts

Packaging and AccessPackage 1: Portal 2 and tunnel STA 16+14.5 to 20+80 (466 ft)

Package 2: Portal 4 and tunnel STA 27+54 to 47+94 (2040 ft)• Staging area adjacent to P4 is required for a longer period than 12 months.

Package 3: Tunnel STA 70+04 to STA 47+94 (2210 ft):• Construction is from Adit A15 and would require barge access of materials and equipment. • A staging area would need to be permitted at Adit A15.

Package 4a: Tunnel STA 73+45 to STA 103+28 (2983 ft):• Construction is from Adit 16B and would require barge access of materials and equipment. • The use of the staging area adjacent to Adit 16B is required for a longer period than 12 months.

Package 4b: Tunnel STA 103+28 to STA 120+89 (1761 ft):• Construction is from Adit 16B and/or Adit 23 and would require barge access of materials and equipment. • A staging area would need to be permitted at Adit A23 and Adit 16B is likely required for a longer period than

12 months.

5. Contracts

Packaging and Access TBD

LEM = Labor Equipment Materials Access

Package 1 Package 2

Package 3

Package 4a

E‐2.0/E‐2.24th Ave Shaft for Package 3&4

5. Contracts

Estimated CIP Costs 5. Contracts

Alternative Costs Possible Savings

Baseline $78.4 m (N/A)

4iE‐2.0 Net

$56.4 m

$68.4 m

$22 m‐$10 m$12 m

4y $72.4 m $6 m

Factoring Kiewit’s Confidential Cost Estimate: Target Price

6. Questions and Discussions

6. Pros and Cons of AlternativesUn‐weighted/no importance factors

6. Pros & Cons

Alternative/Attribute

O&M spa

ce

Constructability

Perm

itIssues

Muck Issues

Ease of N

ew

Pipe

Install

1 or 2 pipes

(Old Pipe)

OverallRisks

Safety and

Stab

ility

Life of Facility

Suscep

tible

to

Unk

nowns

(Cost con

trol)

CostSavings

Summary

Baseline + + o ‐ + + o o + + ‐ 6+, 3o, 2‐

4i ‐ o ‐ + ‐ ‐ o o o ‐ + 2+, 4o, 5‐

4y + + o + + + o o + + o 7+, 4o, 0‐

Simplified Qualitative Comparative Rating Scale+ Positive/Favorable/Pro ‐ Advantageo Neutral‐ Negative/Unfavorable/Con ‐ Disadvantage

6. Pros and Cons of AlternativesImportance Factor /Weighting of Attributes

6. Discussions

Attribute

O&M spa

ce

Constructability

Perm

itIssues

Muck Issues

Ease of N

ew

Pipe

Install

1 or 2 pipes

(Old Pipe)

OverallRisks

Safety and

Stab

ility

Life of Facility

Suscep

tible

to

Unk

nowns

(Cost con

trol)

CostSavings

Summary

6. Other Pros and Cons

*Access Permit conditions– 12 months at Portals 2 and 4 are good for fixes up to Adit 10. – Need new shaft to preserve permit conditions

Attribute Baseline 4i 4y

Muck Negligible 800 less cy

Ease of New Pipe Construction Best Poor Good

Construction Technique MechanizedTunneling

Bucket Brigade

MechanizedTunneling

Maintenance Ease & Access Best Poor Good

“Absolutes” Design Criteria Preserved Yes No Yes

Existing Permit Conditions* Good Moderate Good

Flexibility for Separate New Pipeline Pkg Good Good Good

Flexibility for Packaging of Repairs Fair to Poor Good Fair to Poor

4th Ave Shaft Yes Maybe Yes

6. Discussions

6. Relative Risks Baseline vs. 4i

DG - 001 Design errors/omissions 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible 4 N egligible 1 N egligible B aseline B aseline

DG - 003 Conflict and discrepancy between specifications, drawings, GBR

6 T o lerable 2 N egligible 4 N egligible 1 N egligible B aseline B aseline

DG - 004 Late design modifications 9 T o lerable 6 T o lerable 6 T o lerable 4 N egligible B aseline B aseline


12 Undesirable 4 N egligible 6 T o lerable 4 N egligible B aseline Same

DG - 008 Insufficient engineering support during construction 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible 3 N egligible 2 N egligible B aseline Same

CO - 009 Utility conflict/delay 9 T o lerable 2 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline Same

CO - 011 Laguna Lido condominiums 10 ft above tunnel crown 12 Undesirable 2 N egligible 9 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline Same

CO - 022 Unexpected void or significant ground loss (overbreak)

12 Undesirable 6 T o lerable 8 T o lerable 6 T o lerable B aseline Same

CO - 024 SDG&E electrical power delayed 9 T o lerable 4 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

CO - 027 M ore boulders during excavation 9 T o lerable 4 N egligible 4 N egligible 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

CO - 029 Excessive ground movements 9 T o lerable 2 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline Same

CO - 030 Vibrations in excess of allowable (EIR) 9 T o lerable 4 N egligible 4 N egligible 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

CO - 031 Destabilization of bluff during tunnel excavation in Areas of Concern other than low cover


CO - 033 Instability in low cover area triggers need to excavate from surface


CO - 036 Portal 2 increased risk o f exposure to unstable face 9 T o lerable 2 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline Same

CO - 037 Undocumented foundations that impact tunnel rehabilitation


CO - 042 M aterials/equipment shortages & delayed procurements


EN - 045 Negative visual impacts to residences 6 T o lerable 3 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible Same B aseline

EN - 046 Community complaints noise issues 12 Undesirable 3 N egligible 9 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

EN - 047 Beach activities interfere with recreation 9 T o lerable 2 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline Same

EN - 048 Traffic-excessive vehicles working at the site 12 Undesirable 3 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

EN - 049 Truck traffic-neighborhood impacts 6 T o lerable 4 N egligible 4 N egligible 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

EN - 050 Air quality issues 8 T o lerable 3 N egligible 6 T o lerable 2 N egligible B aseline B aseline

SS - 059 Public injury 5 T o lerable 4 N egligible 4 N egligible 3 N egligible B aseline B aseline

Option 4iResidual

RisksInitial RisksResidual Risk

Score/ClassInitial Risk

Score/ClassResidual Risk Score/Class


BASELINE


Baseline: Risks with Higher Risk Scores compared to 4i

6. Discussions

CO - 010 Slope failure at Adits 23 & 25 12 Undesirable 4 N egligible 12 Undesirable 6 T o lerable Same Optio n 4i

CO - 021 Slope instability at portals 2 and 4 and adits 16A/B 12 Undesirable 4 N egligible 12 Undesirable 6 T o lerable Same Optio n 4i

CO - 025 Excessive groundwater ingress 4 N egligible 2 N egligible 9 T o lerable 4 N egligible Optio n 4i Opt io n 4i

CO - 034 Damage to existing pipe after encasement (overload) 4 N egligible 2 N egligible 8 T o lerable 6 T o lerable Optio n 4i Opt io n 4i

CO - 043 Inefficiencies associated with laying pipe 1 N egligible 1 N egligible 15 Undesirable 15 Undesirable Optio n 4i Opt io n 4i

OM - 060 Challenging operation 2 N egligible 2 N egligible 16 Into lerable 16 Into lerable Optio n 4i Opt io n 4i

OM - 061 Long term maintenance 1 N egligible 1 N egligible 9 T o lerable 9 T o lerable Optio n 4i Opt io n 4i

OM - 062 Hazard for workers and sewer line 4 N egligible 4 N egligible 8 T o lerable 8 T o lerable Optio n 4i Opt io n 4i






BASELINE Option 4iInitial Risks

Residual Risks

4i: Risks with Higher Risk Scores compared to Baseline

6. Discussions

Value Engineering Summary of Supplementary Findings

Documents

Transcript of Value Engineering Summary of Supplementary Findings