0K - views

MPT – 95% designed

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

Embed :
Presentation Download Link

Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "MPT – 95% designed" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

MPT – 95% designed






Presentation on theme: "MPT – 95% designed"— Presentation transcript:

MPT – 95% designedCHP – design in progressFDF – design completedCoordinationUtilitiesCranesGeotechnical InformationWeekly meetings – Internal and Intra-ContractorCFA meetingsPartnering – MPT/CHP Coordination of design/construction and Intra-Contractor Improved Coordination

Potential Innovation Limited in proposals“Prescriptive”30 Alternatives – developed a “No Fly Zone”Construction – MPTSchedule offer 5 months less than anticipated in RFPCHP NegotiationBetter steam control with condenserArrangement of equipment Innovation accepted if not already vetted by Owner

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

Lessons Learned To Date Owner likes to be able to short list 3 qualified proposersFirst time Design BuildOwner and Engineers need to take time to understand processDesign issues come to head earlyDesign Build Joint Venture = skin in the game3D modeling understanding acceleratesRegulatory dust should be settledStart-up and Commissioning – start early“Haz Ops” meeting very important Prescriptiveness can serve “mature” Owners wellPerformance guarantees force designer and contractor to work together and could be a key to being less prescriptive

Artist Rendering

Artist Rendering

DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT PRESENTED BY Donal Barron

P F WHITE HOUSE U.S. CAPITOL NORTHEAST BOUNDARY TUNNEL POTOMAC TUNNEL ROCK CREEK TUNNEL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (MULTIPLE SITES THROUGHOUT DISTRICT) RFK POTOMAC RIVER ANACOSTIA RIVER ROCK CREEK LUZON VALLEY (SEPARATED) P P REHAB POTOMAC P.S. SEPARATE CSO 031, 037, 053 AND 058 ROCK CREEK REGULATOR ADJUSTMENTS CSO 033, 036 AND 057 F F ABANDON NORTHEAST BOUNDARY SWIRL COMBINED SEWER AREA MAIN PS TUNNEL DEWATERING P.S. ENHANCED CLARIFICATION TREATMENT & NITROGEN REMOVAL AT BLUE PLAINS BLUE PLAINS BLUE PLAINS TUNNEL ANACOSTIA RIVER TUNNEL P P P P SEPARATE CSO 006 REPLACE POPLAR POINT P.S. PUMP STATION KNOWN FLOODING AREA 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 DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT AND NITROGEN REMOVAL PROGRAMS EPA HEADQUARTERS

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

Anacostia River TunnelOverview 23-foot diameter TBM tunnelSoft ground100 ± feet deep and 12,500 feet longMining from CSO-019 south to PP-JS6 shafts (15 to 75-foot I.D.)3 Adits (4.5 to 10-foot I.D.)2 Diversions6 Odor Control and Venting FacilitiesInstrumentation & Data Collection SystemSystem Start-upDesign-Build contract value: $200 – $250 million CSO-019 CSO-018 M Street CSO-007 CSO-005 PP-JS

ART Estimated Schedule EventDate Issue RFQ  October 16, 2011  Pre-SOQ meeting  November 16, 2011  Last day to submit RFQ questions  December 1, 2011  SOQ Due  December 16, 2011  Shortlist Notification  February 10, 2012  Issue RFP  April 13, 2012  Collaboration period  April 2012 – December 2012 Proposals Due  December 12, 2012 Notice to proceed  June 3, 2013 Occupy site at CSO 019  November 2013 Substantial Completion  June 2017 Final Completion  September 2017

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

Why is a Multi Million Dollar Demonstration Project Necessary?Need it to be a large scale demonstration – address entire subsewershedsRepresentative sites - not “cherry picked” so scale-up is realisticSound technical basisPotential for innovative solutions and creative alliancesTargeted performance is high degree of CSO control Resolution of institutional issuesAnalysis of other factorsTriple bottom line benefitsPublic acceptabilityTesting over several meteorological / climate cyclesO&M impactsThe magnitude of investment by DC ratepayers to control Potomac and Rock Creek CSOs requires a sound technical and institutional basis for making decisions

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 yearsUse results to design Potomac River and Rock Creek projects using combination of tunnels and GI

Lessons Learned Verify Financial CapabilitiesEvaluate need to compare proposers’ financial capabilities with respect to estimated cash flow needsProcess Projects Designer needs a “skin in the game,” possibly as a JV partner

RFQ Content/Solicitation Set a realistic page count; identify what pages do/do not count Avoid requests requiring subjectivity or similar responses among proposersInclude standard forms in RFQ for simpler organization/evaluationWhen answering questions, send responses to all proposersRFQ EvaluationHave technical staff at selection panel discussions to answer questionsObtain completed score sheets before selection panel adjournsLessons Learned

Lessons Learned Contents of Technical ProposalResist requesting more items; identify points that differentiate better schedule, better quality, less riskAvoid asking for identical things in different sectionsAsk key personnel to list only what contributes to project success ConfidentialityEmphasize 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

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

Long Term Control Plan Overview20-year program with a goal of reducing CSO events

Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)