New Bloomsburg, PA             Water Treatment Plant

Sameet Master, P.E.Keith F. Kelly, P.E.

Outline• About United Water, Pennsylvania & Bloomsburg

• Challenge

• Solution

• Progressive Design‐Build Procurement

• Hurdles

• Progressive Design‐Build Approach

United Water At A Glance• Traditional Water and Wastewater 

Services– Over 5.3 million people served in 20 states

• 2,300 employees

• $3.2 billion in total assets

• $764 million in revenues

United Water Pennsylvania• 92 Employees

• 56,000 Customers

• Eight Counties/40 Municipalities

• Five Surface Water Plants

• 29 Wells

• 36 Storage Facilities

• 30 Booster Stations

• 810 Miles of Main

United Water Pennsylvania’s Bloomsburg System

• Bloomsburg is a college town, which has a unique impact on waterdemand.

 ‐

 0.50

 1.00

 1.50

 2.00

 2.50

 3.00

 3.50

 4.00

 4.50

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Flow

 (MGD)

Bloomsburg WTP Flow

Average Day Maximum Day

Challenge• Bloomsburg water treatment plant 

constructed in early 1900’s.

• 2006 Flood:– Plant off line 3 days– Capital Cost ~$250k

• 2011 Flood:– Plant off line 5 days– Operating  Cost ~$300K– Capital  Cost ~$550k

• Formal complaint by Columbia County Commissioners to Public Utility Commission.

• Minimize impact to rate payer.

• Negative public perception.

ChallengeThis story is from the Tuesday, December 6, 2011 Edition of the Press Enterprise

Solution• United Water decided to Design‐Build (“D‐B”) a new water treatment

plant above the 100‐yr flood level.

Solution• Why Design‐Build?

Single Point of Accountability

Performance Guarantee

Early Cost Development

Schedule Risk Allocation Improved Quality Control

Less Owner Administration

Solution

•Design, and construct a plant that meets the needs of the Bloomsburg Community and provides an excellent customer experience.

• A 1 – 4 MGD water treatment plant, using membrane filtration, expandable to 5 MGD.

• Ensure compliance with all current regulations and the flexibility to meet future regulations.

Scope

•Minimize rate payer impact by reducing operating cost and meeting budget.• Total Project: $23,450,000• Design‐Builder: $20,282,000Budget

•Operational by Summer 2015, before rain season.• Coordinate with rate filing.Schedule

Design‐Build ScopePilot Test

•Permit, design, construct, operate, a Pilot Test of the D‐B’s proposed water treatment process.

•Data evaluation and analysis, and reporting to PADEP.

Design and Engineering •Architectural services, design and engineering, surveying, construction oversight, and quality assurance/quality control.

Permitting •Obtain all federal, state, and local permitting required to construct and operate the Project.

Procurement •Equipment and subcontractor procurement.

Construction•Assembly, fabrication, installation, construction management and scheduling.

• Identify and work that is self‐performed.

Startup, Commissioning, and Testing

•Operations & maintenance documentation.•Operation personnel training.•Startup and commissioning.•Demonstrate project meets performance criteria, not limited to water treatment process.

Target Price •Fixed target price, with a GMP option.

Schedule •Substantial Completion in Summer 2015.

Design‐Build Procurement Process

Qualifications

• Company Information

• Team• Qualifications• Confidentiality• RFP Input

Proposals

• Focus on Project Approach

• Provide Target Price

Selection

• Proposal Evaluation

• Interviews

• Two phase procurement process to select a Design‐Build firm.– Potential to select based on qualifications, not issue RFP.

Design‐Build Procurement ProcessRFQ IssuedJuly 22

Responses to the RFQ DueAug 2

RFP IssuedSept 6

Pre‐proposal MeetingSept 17

Agreement Comments DueSept 23

Final Agreement IssuedOct 11

Proposals DueOct 18

InterviewsOct 25

Preliminary SelectionNov 1

Agreement ExecutedNov 8

Design‐Build Procurement RFQ• Request for Interest / Qualifications (“RFQ”) sent to seven firms

– UW familiar with the capabilities of firms invited.– Intended to select 3 – 4 to receive Request for Proposals (“RFP”).– Anticipated 2 – 3 firms submitting proposals.– 2 week turnaround, July 22 – August 6, readily available information.

• Confidentiality Agreement– Issued Confidentiality Agreement with RFQ, firms required to sign before receiving RFP.

• Company Information– Provide general and specific company information.

• Project Team– Organizational chart of proposed team.– Resumes only for the key project team members.– Office location(s) for each key project team member.– Experience of the key project team and entire project team working together.– UW preferred to avoid joint venture or contractor‐led team.

Design‐Build Procurement RFQ• Qualifications

– Five (5) largest current projects and the five (5) largest current projects in the office thatwill service the Project.

– Water treatment projects in PA, and membrane filtration projects in PA.– D‐B projects in PA, and membrane filtration D‐B projects in PA.

• Request for Proposals– Identify any information / data UW should include in the RFP.– Terms or conditions that UW should consider including or excluding in the Agreement.– Any concerns / constraints or proposed adjustments to the procurement and Project

timeline.

• Membrane Selection– Based on the Raw Water quality provided, identify the anticipated type of membrane

filtration system to be included in the proposal, and why.– Address UW’s concept of submerged membranes being more cost effective.

Design‐Build Procurement RFP• Request for Proposals intent was to have proposals focused on the Approach and Target

Price.

• RFP tailored to RFQ response.

• Provide a detailed approach to meeting the scope of work.

• Execute the Agreement.

• Provide a Target Price.

• Fixed Fee amount and as a percentage of the total cost.

• Fixed contingency amount and as a percentage of the total construction cost.

• Identify level of design where a Guaranteed Maximum Price could be established.

• Separate technical and cost proposals.

Design‐Build Procurement RFP• Engineering and Design:

– Discuss the proposed design and approach to protect the facility to the FEMA 100‐year floodelevation.

– Discuss the proposed water treatment process and its ability to meet the PerformanceGuarantees.

– Discuss the cost allocation between operating costs and capital cost.

– Discuss expansion of the WTP to 5 MGD and to comply with future water quality regulations.

– Provide conceptual architectural renderings of the facilities.

– Identify the engineering and design to be completed to provide Owner with a GuaranteedMaximum Price proposal.

– Discuss construction oversight and engineering support during construction.

– Identify if Proposer intends to self‐perform the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition(“SCADA”) system design and implementation.

Design‐Build Procurement RFP• Pilot Test

– Provide Pilot Test design, protocol, and schedule.– Identify the proposed Membrane Filtration manufacturer(s) to be tested.– Identify if Proposer intends to self‐perform the Pilot Test construction.

• Permitting:– Identify the local, state, and federal permits or approvals required for the Project.– Discuss the approach to obtaining the permits or approvals.

• Procurement:– Identify the procurement to be completed to provide Owner with a Guaranteed Maximum

Price proposal.– Provide Proposer’s standard and Project specific procurement procedures.– What Work will be self‐performed by Proposer and what Work will be subcontracted.

• Construction:– Discuss the Proposer’s general Safety Plans.– Discuss the proposed construction sequencing to achieve Substantial Completion.

Design‐Build Procurement RFP• Startup and Commissioning:

– Discuss the approach to startup and commissioning.– Discuss the approach to performing owner’s operation personnel training

• Project Schedule:– Identify when Proposer intends to submit to Owner a GMP proposal.– Identify and discuss the approach to achieving Substantial Completion.

• Other:– Discuss the approach to Performance Testing of the Work

• Target Price– Proposers were required to provide a fixed Target Price for the work.– Overruns shared 50% by UW and 50% by D‐B.– Underruns / savings 100% to UW.– Open book accounting.

Design‐Build Procurement RFP• Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”)

– UW desired to establish a GMP.– At UW’s request, D‐B would provide a GMP Proposal.– Overruns 100% to D‐B.– Underruns / savings shared 50% by UW and 50% by D‐B up to $1,000,000.

• Liquidated Damages (“LD’s”)– Tiered LD’s based on guaranteed substantial completion date.

Days from Date Amount Per Day

1 – 15 $5,000

16 – 30 $7,500

31+ $10,000

Design‐Build Procurement Selection• Proposals received by two firms / teams:

• Proposal evaluation:

Ratings Guide

• Does not meet criteria / not innovative: 1 point• Somewhat meets criteria: 2 points• Meets criteria: 3 points• Somewhat exceeds criteria / innovative: 4 points• Exceeds criteria / extremely innovative: 5 points

Proposal Categories

• Project Team: Total 10 points• Qualifications / Experience: Total 25 points• Approach: Total 75 points• Schedule: Total 20 points• Target Price: Total 10 points

Design‐ Build Procurement Result

Reasonable Risk AllocationUnited Water• Property / ROW• Sub‐surface conditions• Survey• DEP Permitting

Design‐Builder• Permitting• Design• Schedule• Construction• Cost• Performance

Design‐ Build Procurement Result

Design‐ Build Procurement Result

Design‐ Build Procurement ResultTask 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pilot Test

Permitting

Design

Procurement

Construction

Startup

Testing

In‐Service

Hurdles• D‐B process allowed project to adjust to several scope revisions primarily due to Department

of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) review.– UW, not D‐B, retained the schedule and cost risk for DEP permitting.

• Sedimentation– Require addition of sedimentation, or DEP will require 3 seasons of pilot testing.– Newly issued water allocation permit requires alternate source of supply with lower quality water.

• Disinfection Criteria– Require achieving disinfection at WTP

• Ultraviolet disinfection selected.

• Universal Membrane Filtration System (UW requested revision)– Changed membrane skids to universal skid, allowing various membrane modules to be installed.– Provided flexibility in membrane module selection, and future module replacement.

• Cost and Schedule impact– Additional $7,589,000.– Additional 10 months.

Hurdles

Hurdles

HurdlesTask 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pilot Test

Permitting

Design

Procurement

Construction

Startup

Testing

In‐Service

Design Builder Perspective

Design‐Build Go‐Stop

• How Well do you Know Client• Competion ‐ Open or Limited• Contractual Requirements• Fair Risk Allocation• RFP Requirements• Time to Complete Proposal• Teaming

Design‐Build Approach• Development of Cost Effective Design/Construction Sequence – Membrane Bid During Proposal– Early Release of Long Lead Items– Initiation of Construction Prior to DEP Approval

• Managing cost and scope to match United Water’s budget, designing to the budget– Adjusting scope to meet capital and operational needs– Reuse of Existing Tankage

• Progressive estimates of project cost• Cost analysis of options to allow UW to make decisions

Design‐Build Approach

• Partnering with Workshops– Address Layout Changes– Identify Scope Changes– Build Consensus on Decisions

• Permitting Program with Early Agency Workshops• Pilot multiple membranes for flexibility• Short procurement timeline for major equipmentand subcontractors

• Start procurement before permitting completed

Design‐Build Project Challenges

• Scope Changes– Develop Scope and Design Concepts– Provide Detailed Cost by Bid Item– Track in PCO Log– Constant Communication with UW

• Permitting– Driving Scope Changes– Phased Approach

Pilot Challenges

• IDI Pilot– Test Multiple membranes (Toray and Dow)– 60 Day Test

• Results– Computer Programming Issues– Dow Membrane Failed– Toray Membrane Successfully Tested and PADEPApproved

Raw Water Pump Station

– Proposed New Submersible Station

Raw Water Pump Station– Rehabilitating Existing Station

Pre‐Treatment• Proposed In‐Line Flocculation

Pre‐Treatment• PAFDEP Requires Clarification (Super‐P Clarifier with Rapid Mixing)

Membranes• Proposed Pressure Membrane Skid (H20)

Membranes• Providing Pressure Membrane Skid (IDI)

Process Building• Proposed Layout (15,250 SF)

Process Building• Final Layout (14,850 SF)

Disinfection• Disinfection Requirements Met In Existing Reservoir

Disinfection• PADEP Requires Disinfection Requirement to be met Onsite

Proposed Site Layout

Final Site Layout 

Proposal Rendering

Final Rendering 

Final Rendering 

Construction Progress

• UW– Cleared Site of Inn and Miscellaneous Structures– Large Trees– Existing Plant

• CDM Smith– Site Clearing, Fencing, Staging Areas– Trailers, Temporary Utilities– Foundations for Process Building, Raw Water ControlBuilding

– Process Building Steel and Siding

Status – October 2014

Status – November 2014

Status – December 2014

Status – January 2015

Status – February 2015

Status – March 2015

New Bloomsburg, PA Water Treatment Plant

Sameet Master, P.E.Keith F. Kelly, P.E.

Thanks for the Opportunity to Present this Project.

Questions