release stamp document release and … revision 0 table of contents 1 summary 6 2 objective and...

1 SPF-001 (Rev.D1)

DOCUMENT RELEASE AND CHANGE FORMPrepared For the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Environmental ManagementBy Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC., PO Box 850, Richland, WA 99352Contractor For U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, under Contract DE-AC27-08RV14800

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. Printed in the United States of America.

Release Stamp

1. Doc No: RPP-RPT-61047 Rev. 00

2. Title:T1P116 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion Analysis of Alternatives Value Engineering Report

3. Project Number:T1P116

☐ N/A 4. Design Verification Required:

☐ Yes ☒ No5. USQ Number: ☒ N/A

RPP-27195

6. PrHA Number Rev. ☒ N/A

Clearance Review Restriction Type:public

7. Approvals

Title Name Signature DateClearance Review Raymer, Julia R Raymer, Julia R 09/05/2018Document Control Approval Hood, Evan Hood, Evan 09/05/2018Originator Coughlin, Jessica U Coughlin, Jessica U 08/23/2018Responsible Manager Greenough, Keith J Greenough, Keith J 08/23/2018

8. Description of Change and Justification

Initial Release.

9. TBDs or Holds ☒ N/A

10. Related Structures, Systems, and Components

a. Related Building/Facilities ☐ N/A b. Related Systems ☒ N/A c. Related Equipment ID Nos. (EIN) ☒ N/A

222-S

11. Impacted Documents – Engineering ☒ N/A

Document Number Rev. Title

12. Impacted Documents (Outside SPF):

N/A

13. Related Documents ☒ N/A

Document Number Rev. Title

14. Distribution

Name OrganizationCoughlin, Jessica U TFP PROJECT MANAGEMENTGreenough, Keith J 222-S LABORATORY

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 1 of 47

Sep 05, 2018DATE:

A-6002-767 (REV 3)

RPP-RPT-61047 , Rev. 0

T1P116 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion Analysis of Alternatives Value Engineering Report

Author Name:

J. U. Coughlin

Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC

Richland, WA 99352U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC27-08RV14800

EDT/ECN: DRCF UC: N/A

Cost Center: N/A Charge Code:

N/A

B&R Code: N/A Total Pages: 47

Key Words: 222-S Cold Laboratory, Analysis of Alternatives, Value Engineering Report

Abstract: The 222-S Laboratory Category 3 Nuclear Facility requires an additional 4,000 sq.. ft.. of laboratory space to support waste treatment processes at the Hanford Nuclear Site. Much of the space can be freed up by transferring non-radiological analyses to a new non-radiological laboratory (222-S Cold Laboratory), which would replenish the cold space in the 222-S Laboratory complex that has been demolished over the last several years. This report seeks to examine viable options and to make a best value recommendation for the new 222-S Cold Laboratory. Any future solution must include the previously sunk costs as well as those to be incurred under the TEC designation, and the solution must be able to meet the September 2020 completion date in order to support waste treatment processes.

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.

Release Approval Date Release Stamp

Approved For Public Release

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 2 of 47

By Julia Raymer at 10:50 am, Sep 05, 2018

Sep 05, 2018DATE:

RPP-RPT-61047 Revision 0

T1P116 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion Analysis of Alternatives Value Engineering Report

Prepared by Jessica Coughlin

Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of River Protection

Post Office Box 850Richland, Washington 99352

Contractor for the U.S. Department of EnergyContract No. DAC27-08RV14800

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 3 of 47

Approved for Public Release;

Further Dissemination Unlimited


Table of Contents

1 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 6

2 Objective and Scope ................................................................................................................ 7

3 Project Background ................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Basis of Need ................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Project History.................................................................................................................. 7

4 Methodology............................................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Option 1: The existing 2016 final design modified to include a pre-engineered structure.......................................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Option 2: Modular laboratory on a concrete foundation................................................. 9

4.3 Option 3: Adapt PNNL’s existing general purpose chemistry laboratory design......... 10

4.4 Option 4: Renovate the existing WSCF building.......................................................... 11

5 Option Selection .................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Constraints...................................................................................................................... 12

5.2 Critical Success Factors ................................................................................................. 12

6 Results ................................................................................................................................... 13

6.1 Option 1.......................................................................................................................... 13

6.2 Option 2.......................................................................................................................... 14

6.3 Option 3 (include cost + schedule)................................................................................. 15

6.4 Option 4 (include cost + schedule)................................................................................. 15

6.5 Scoring Results............................................................................................................... 15

6.6 Recommended Option (and Next Steps)........................................................................ 16

7 References ............................................................................................................................. 17

8 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 18

8.1 Appendix A – Analytical Needs..................................................................................... 19

8.2 Appendix B – Option 1 Sketches, Summary of Changes, Basis of Estimate, and Estimate Summary .................................................................................................................... 26

8.3 Appendix C – Option 2 Basis of Estimate and Estimate Summary............................... 33

8.4 Appendix D – Option 3 Basis of Estimate and Estimate Summary............................... 37

8.5 Appendix E – Option 4 Basis of Estimate and Estimate Summary ............................... 41

8.6 Appendix F – Estimated Schedules................................................................................ 46

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 4 of 47


LIST OF TERMS

Acronyms/Abbreviations

A/E Architectural/Engineering FirmAHU Air Handling UnitBOE Basis of EstimateCLD Chemiluminscent DetectorCSF Critical Success FactorCVAAS Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption SpectrometerCVAP Chemical Vapors Action PlanDFLAW Direct Feed Low Activity WasteDOE U.S. Department of EnergyFAR Federal Acquisition RegulationFY Fiscal YearGC Gas ChromatographyGPP General Plant ProjectHLAN Hanford Local Area NetworkHPLC High-performance Liquid ChromatographyHVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air ConditioningIC Ion ChromatographyIH Industrial HygieneLC Liquid ChromatographyLANL Los Alamos National LaboratoryMCC Motor Control CenterMOD Contract ModificationMS Mass SpectroscopyMSA Mission Support AllianceMSD Mass Selective DetectorNSL Nuclear Spectroscopy LaboratoryNTE Not-to-ExceedORP Office of River ProtectionPNNL Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRFP Request for Proposal ROM Rough Order of MagnitudeSEM Scanning electron MicroscopySOW Statement of WorkSVOA SemiVolatile Organic AnalysisTDU Thermal Desorption UnitTEC Total Estimated CostTOF Time of FlightTPA Tri-Party AgreementVER Value Engineering ReportVOA Volatile Organic AnalysisWHL Wastren Advantage Inc. Hanford LaboratoryWBS Work Breakdown Structure

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 5 of 47


WRPS Washington River Protection Solutions LLCWSCF Waste Sampling and Characterization FacilityXRD X-ray DiffractionXRF X-ray Fluorescence

Units

K thousandkVA thousand volt amperesM millionsq. ft. square feet

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 6 of 47


1 Summary

The 222-S Laboratory Category 3 Nuclear Facility requires an additional 4000 sq. ft. of laboratory space to support waste treatment processes at the Hanford Nuclear Site. Much of the space can be freed up by transferring non-radiological analyses to a new non-radiological laboratory (222-S Cold Laboratory), which would replenish the cold space in the 222-S Laboratory complex that has been demolished over the last several years.

A final design for the 222-S Cold Laboratory was previously completed; however, bids returned for the construction of the facility exceeded the threshold for General Plant Projects (GPP), where Total Estimated Cost (TEC) cannot exceed $10M.

This report seeks to examine viable options and to make a best value recommendation for the new 222-S Cold Laboratory. Any future solution must include the previously sunk costs as well as those to be incurred under the TEC designation, and the solution must be able to meet the September 2020 completion date in order to support waste treatment processes.

Four options were considered:

1. Modify the existing design to include a pre-engineered structure2. Install a modular laboratory on a concrete foundation3. Adapt a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) existing laboratory design to

meet the laboratory requirements4. Renovate the existing Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility (WSCF).

For each option, an estimate was generated based on the amount and type of work required for execution that would meet the analytical requirements for the new 222-S Cold Laboratory. Each option was ranked against agreed upon Critical Success Factors (CSF) to determine the best value solution.

The recommended way forward is to design, manufacture, and install a permanent modular laboratory on a concrete foundation (Option 2). While it is the lowest cost option, it can also be completed in the least amount of time and can meet the target date. As part of this market research, one modular laboratory manufacturer designed (pro bono) a laboratory based on our required analytical methods, and a TEC of $9.7M was generated based on this conceptual design.

It is recognized that should the permanent modular construction option proceed, risks will include exceeding the TEC and other execution risks that will have to be proactively managed in order to successfully complete the project.

True TEC would be determined via market competition, but soft market research has indicated that a quality laboratory could be manufactured and installed below the GPP threshold value. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is currently manufacturing a new permanent modular laboratory under the same GPP threshold limit. A permanent modular construction option is anticipated to be both viable and the best value for the 222-S Cold Laboratory.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 7 of 47


2 Objective and Scope

The objective of this value engineering report is to recommend the best value option going forward for the new 222-S Cold Laboratory. Successful completion of this effort will enable Washington River Protection Solutions LLC (WRPS)/Office of River Protection (ORP) to proceed with the design/construction of the 222-S Cold Laboratory phases with the selected option, confident the TEC will remain within the GPP threshold while meeting the anticipated analytical needs to support the ongoing Hanford mission.

WRPS will evaluate the following options:

Option 1: Modify the existing 2016 design to include a pre-engineered structure

Option 2: Design, manufacture, and install a modular laboratory on a concrete foundation

Option 3: Adapt PNNL’s existing general purpose chemistry laboratory design to meet the 222-S Cold Laboratory requirements

Option 4: Renovate the existing WSCF building to meet the lab requirements

3 Project Background

3.1 Basis of Need

The mission of the 222-S Laboratory is to support ongoing and future operations and clean-up at the Hanford Site. Due to the recent demolition of cold laboratory facilities as well as an increase in scope of cold samples to support the Chemical Vapor Action Plan (CVAP), cold instrumentation and standard preparation are currently housed in the radiological laboratory. With the start-up of Direct Feed Low Activity Waste (DFLAW) in 2021, the laboratory will needat least 4000 sq. ft. of radiological laboratory space freed up within the existing 222-S radiological laboratory. Providing an alternate facility for the cold processes will allow the laboratory to adequately support the increase in demand for radiological analysis and reliability when DFLAW begins operation.

3.2 Project History

In response to “Contract No. DE-AC27-08RV14800 – Request for Proposal – 222-SA Cold Laboratory Design and Construction,” 15-TF-0120/1504964 REISSUE, dated December 02, 2015, WRPS submitted the 222-SA Cold Laboratory Design and Construction Cost and Technical Proposal, CP-16-006, on February 11, 2016.

On February 9, 2016, ORP submitted Contract Modification (Mod) 368 directing WRPS to proceed with performing design work on the 222-SA Cold Laboratory in accordance with 15-TF-0120. WRPS subcontracted the design to an architectural/engineering firm (A/E) familiar with the existing laboratory complex as well as the previously demolished cold laboratory facilities.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 8 of 47


On August 18, 2016, email correspondence from W. E. Hader of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-ORP to K. A. Downing of WRPS, authorized a not-to-exceed (NTE) amount of $1,158,644.79 in support of the 222-SA Cold Laboratory design. On September 13, 2016, fully executed MOD 399 was received, formally authorizing WRPS “to continue work on the 222-SA Cold Laboratory design as a result of completing negotiations for the design only.”

On January 13, 2017, email correspondence from W. E. Hader of U.S. DOE-ORP to K. A. Downing of WRPS directed the cancellation of further work activities, including issuance of the subcontractor request for proposal (RFP), on the 222-SL Cold Laboratory project immediately. This direction stemmed from the lack of stable funding related to the Continuing Resolution.

On July 5, 2017, email correspondence (WRPS-1703132) from W. E. Hader of U.S. DOE-ORPto K. A. Downing of WRPS gave authorization to proceed and included NTE amounts as listed in the table below.

Table 1. NTE WRPS-1703132

Contract Proposal Number

Buy-Back Item

Scope of Work NTE Value

CP-17-022 59 222-SL Cold Laboratory RFP / Contract Solicitation process

$50,000

On August 24, 2017, WRPS received “Contract Number DE-AC27-08RVI14800 – Request for Proposal - For Attached Work Scopes of Which Not-To-Exceed Values Have Been Provided,” 17-CPM-0133/1701478, dated August 22, 2017. This letter referenced Contract Mod 445, Change Order to Issue a Not-to-Exceed in the amount of $1,900,000 for WRPS to Commence Work on Activities Related to Six Projects Associated with the FY2017 Buyback New Scope Items, dated July 25, 2017.

On August 29, 2017, ORP submitted Contract Mod 448 to definitize the 222-SA Cold Laboratory Design Scope (CP-16-006) and incorporate the Statement of Work (SOW) as modified through contract negotiations.

CP-17-022 was never formally submitted to ORP due to the two (2) construction subcontractor proposals received during the initial RFP process (basis for proposal CP-17-022 – 222-SL Cold Laboratory). Both proposals would have resulted in the project exceeding the $10M GPP minor construction threshold.

In an effort to get 222-SL below the GPP threshold, WRPS Senior Management and the WRPS Project Management Office assembled a team of senior project managers, engineers, and estimators to identify opportunities to simplify the initial 222-SL design. Several opportunities were identified and shared with ORP.

In early 2018, WRPS and ORP worked together to determine which of the options shouldpursued. In response to “Contract No. DE-AC27-08RV14800 – Request for Proposal (RFP) –Analysis of Alternatives for the 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion,” 18-CPM-0061/1801578 REISSUE, dated April 30, 2018, WRPS submitted a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 9 of 47


estimate of $326K, which captured the level of work required to prepare the laboratory alternatives. The purpose of this document is to present the output of that work and to make a recommendation to ORP for the best-value way forward.

4 Methodology

Each option was developed to the point of having sufficient information to prepare an estimate and to differentiate it from the other options in order to make a recommendation for the path forward. Also, it was confirmed that each option would meet the anticipated analytical needs.Finally, the logic and timing for required permitting was considered. Specifically, the application process for a toxic air permit from Washington State Department of Ecology and for a radiological permit from the Washington State Department of Health would be initiated at 60% design maturity with a duration of one year that would allow the on-site foundation to be poured.

4.1 Option 1: The existing 2016 final design modified to include a pre-engineered structure

The WRPS in-house design engineering group modified the previously released 222-SL 100% design with the following objectives that were identified as ways to simplify the design to reduce costs:

Make a rectangular building (minimize number of walls and joints) and design a pre-engineered structure (vs. stick-built construction).

Eliminate the stairs and mezzanine to make a one-story building. Revise the heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) to move the unit and stack to

the ground floor.

The intent was to update the design sufficiently to generate a new estimate that would provide information as to whether the simplified design could meet the budget constraints. The revised sketches are in Appendix B.

The WRPS estimating group then revised its estimate per the revised design. In addition to construction costs, WRPS project management costs and adders were included. The Basis of Estimate (BOE) and summary of the estimate are in Appendix C.

4.2 Option 2: Modular laboratory on a concrete foundation

Soft market research was conducted to determine whether a pre-constructed, modular laboratory on a concrete foundation could be an option. Our research yielded two sources from which we were able to find in-depth information.

The first manufacturer was identified via contacts made at the 2018 Laboratory Design Conference in Philadelphia, PA, April 2018. One of the vendors was working on a design for a 12,000 sq. ft. laboratory for LANL. In May 2018, the WRPS team spoke to the laboratory

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 10 of 47


manufacturer, CPM LabFab1, to learn more about the project and costs. In July 2018, ORP facilitated a conference call with the LANL architect that resulted in confirmation of the costs and the contractual model used. LANL also shared its procurement documents as well as its floorplan sketches. In addition to speaking with CPM LabFab and LANL, an RFP and subsequent contract completed price was obtained for a turnkey, two-module laboratory manufactured for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by CPM LabFab. The results section will refer to the above as CPM LabFab 1, 2, and 3 pricing, respectively.

The second source was Avon Modular2, a component construction manufacturer based in Florida which, along with its technical partner Waldner Laboreinichtungen3, had recently completed a similarly sized innovation laboratory. In June 2018, following a brief telephone discussion with the project team, Avon initially provided a quick ROM based on a scaled down version of the initial ARES4 design. In July, Avon and Waldner representatives (a well-established casework and ventilation company based in Germany) traveled to Richland to present their construction and technical methods. After the visit, they took the analytical requirements (Appendix A) and based on their experience, designed a laboratory that would address our specific analytical needsand provided a quote. WRPS then took their quoted price and generated an estimate for the purposes of this report (Appendix C). The results section will refer to the above as Avon 1 and 2 pricing, respectively, with the WRPS estimate being generated for Avon 2 pricing.

4.3 Option 3: Adapt PNNL’s existing general purpose chemistry laboratory design

PNNL recently built a General Purpose Chemistry Laboratory; those plans were transmitted to WRPS estimating for the purpose of determining if the same laboratory built at the 222-SL site could meet the budget constraints. The 14,000 sq. ft. laboratory was completed in 2017 and is located at 3850 Horn Rapids Road, Richland, WA. In addition to construction costs, WRPS project management costs and adders were included. The BOE and summary of the estimate are in Appendix D.

The Option 3 estimate included the main features shown below:1. The Option 3 alternative estimate utilized existing design drawings from a previously

built lab structure. Lab internal component pricing was then utilized from the previous 222-S Lab proposal.

2. The Option 3 alternative also utilized hookup and site improvement dollars from the previous 222-S Lab proposal.

3. Schedule durations from the previously built lab were utilized to properly resource load the estimate.

4. No additional engineering or design was necessary to complete this estimate, and existing building features were utilized.

5. Allowance for Mission Support Alliance (MSA) hours were also utilized for site utility hookup and testing.

1 CPM LabFab, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.2 Avon Modular, Lakeland, Florida.3 Waldner Laboreinichtungen, Wangen, Germany4 Ares Corporation, Richland, Washington

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 11 of 47


4.4 Option 4: Renovate the existing WSCF building

This option considered reactivating and renovating WSCF. WSCF was an aging, modular laboratory that was deactivated and left “cold and dark” in 2015. MSA currently owns this building, and WRPS has limited access to it. For this evaluation, WRPS estimated the cost to reactivate the north side laboratory based on the 10-year horizon life extension recommendations called out in the 2014 Analytical Services Master Plan (HNF-44283, Rev. 1). In addition to construction costs, WRPS project management costs and adders were included. The BOE and summary of the estimate are in Appendix E.

The Option 4 estimate includes the main features shown below:

1. There are five sections of 480 volt, three-phase, four wire switchgear located in the 6266 Facility varying in bus size from 5,000 amps to 225 amps. They supply power to essential equipment and areas such as the air handling units (AHU), the North Lab, the Nuclear Spectroscopy Laboratory (NSL), lighting, chillers, heating, and fans. Most were installed by Westinghouse and are now obsolete and no longer manufactured. This system wouldneed to be replaced.

2. Many of the contactors on the motor control centers (MCCs) need replacement. Further engineering investigation has revealed that due to the age of the equipment, parts acquisition may become difficult, and it was determined that the MCC should be replaced.

3. The 480 volt, three-phase busway installed along the catwalk above the North Lab includes 1,200 amp, 800 amp, and 400 amp rated sections, named Bus 1, Bus 2, and Bus 3, respectively. This busway system has been obsolete for years, making replacement parts difficult or impossible to procure. Recent failures have occurred, causing a complete electrical shutdown of the North Lab.

4. The existing installation and substantial usage of a bus system for this facility is unusual in industry. The recent engineering study on the North Lab recommended a complete removal of the existing bus structure to be replaced with a panel distribution system.

5. The engineering assessment noted that the 6266 North Lab roof has experienced several leaks above the administrative areas. Replacing this roof is recommended in order to maintain suitable occupancy space for laboratory personnel.

6. Deionized water is provided to the laboratory for sample analysis. The current system is showing signs of wear and should be replaced.

7. Although the existing chiller is likely to operate successfully through the next 10 years,the installation of a dry fluid (air-water exchange) cooler in series with the chiller has been recommended. This would allow the removal of heat from the chilled water system without the use of the chiller during times when outdoor temperatures fall below that required for cooling the labs and would improve the chiller service life by reducing operation under low load conditions. It would also provide some operational cost savings due to reduced energy consumption through waterside economization.

8. Both supply & exhaust air handlers operating in conjunction with both trains support the entire Analytical Laboratory. Both AHUs are showing wear and tear on fan and motor bearings and sheaves. These fans are 20 years old, and the system upgrade wouldimprove system uptime by reducing ventilation system outages caused by system upsets

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 12 of 47


and damper maintenance activities. The upgrade would also save energy by eliminating excess energy consumption caused by damper throttling.

5 Option Selection

Determining the viability of the four options and then choosing a preferred option was the objective of this value engineering report. The best value option was the highest scoring option for the CSFs that will also meet the solution constraints.

5.1 Constraints

The TEC budgetary constraint was set by the limits and definitions applicable to GPP projects. In addition, ORP has expressed that they would impose a limit of $9.5M TEC. The project has also incurred costs as described in Section 3, Project Background, totaling $0.817M sunk cost for TEC.

The analytical constraint was defined by relocating the equipment in 222-S laboratories 11-A, 4QR, 4S, 4TUV, 5A, and 4P and identifying new equipment. In June 2018, a tiger team from both laboratory contractors (WRPS and Wastren Advantage Inc. Hanford Laboratory [WHL])confirmed the analytical needs (SEE APPENDIX A) with corresponding dimensions and gas requirements. This was a good faith effort to ensure that the analytical needs were identified, but it was recognized that for any option going forward, the requirements will be confirmed early in the design process.

5.2 Critical Success Factors

In order to assist in selecting the preferred option, each option was scored against the CSF. Representatives of both contractors to the laboratory as well as ORP were invited to a group scoring session. CSFs and their weights were defined by those already in use by WRPS for its Integrated Priority List; ORP and WHL are already familiar with their use for setting priorities. The CSF descriptions were updated to be specific to this analysis.

The following table shows the CSF and the scoring criteria used by the team.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 13 of 47


Table 2. Critical Success Factors and Scoring Criteria

Weight Criteria

35% Mission GoalsTo support upcoming waste treatment processes, schedule target readiness date is September 2020.

Score: Description0 Delivered >24 months late1 Delivered 18-24 months late2 Delivered between 12-18 months late3 Delivered between 6-12 months late4 Delivered up to 6 months late5 Meets Target Date of September 2020

20% Risk ReductionLowest cost will leave more funding for other projects that reduce risk at the Hanford Site

Score: Description0 Highest value estimate1 Next lowest value estimate3 Second lowest value estimate5 Lowest value estimate

15% Compliance ImprovementCompliance with the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)

Score: Description0 No change, or increases difficulty of compliance with the TPA1 Negligible improvement to ease of compliance with the TPA3 Moderate improvement to ease of compliance with the TPA5 Major improvement to ease of compliance with the TPA

15% Improve EfficiencyCo-location and Expandability

Score: Description0 Not at 222-S Complex, expandable via construction1 Not at 222-S Complex, but expandable into excess lab space3 In 222-S, expandable via constructing an addition5 In 222-S Complex and expandable into excess lab space

15% Improve / Mitigate Aging InfrastructureOperability and Maintainability: Ability to keep the lab operating and analyzing samples

Score: Description0 Old infrastructure only1 Mix of old and new infrastructure3 New infrastructure but no critical system backup5 Potential to have critical systems backup (electricity + HVAC) and lab downtime is

minimized

6 Results

6.1 Option 1

WPRS in-house design engineering met the objectives described in Section 4, Methodology. In addition, the design was updated to reflect other opportunities for improvement and simplification. The resulting sketch and summary of changes is included in Appendix B.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 14 of 47


The level of detail in the design allowed for a Class 3 cost estimate. The TEC was $11.6M (-20%/ +30%). The TEC range for this option is $9.5M to $14.9M. The estimated duration was 30 months (see Appendix F).

6.2 Option 2

The results for CPM LabFab pricing and durations are presented below:

CPM LabFab 1: This pricing and duration was based on a typical wet lab designed, manufactured, and tested in the CPM LabFab Tuscon, Arizona, facility, as quoted by the company’s president. The CPM LabFab verbal quote for a wet lab similar to ours was $115K per 12’x50’ module + A/E design + transport + site install, with a transport rate of $8/mile/box.Design normally requires 3 months, with another 6 months needed for manufacture and testing, while site installation takes up to three months. In their experience, permanent modular laboratories cost 33% to 40% of a traditional stick build, but have the same structural stability and lifetime.

CPM LabFab 2: This pricing and duration was based on information from LANL, which iscurrently manufacturing a Bio-Safety Level 2 laboratory. Their general contractor subcontracted CPM LabFab which designed their LEED Gold, 12,000 sq. ft. facility with architectural features to fit into the LANL landscape. This project is at the point of beginning manufacture and was awarded as a turnkey fixed priced contract of $7.5M. Of that. ~$340,000 was spent on design. Duration for a LANL approved design was 1.5 years and manufacture is not complete.

CPM LabFab 3: This pricing and duration was based on information gathered from the GovTribe website for a two module lab. The contract value was $368.8K for two 12’x50’ turnkey lab installed inside another building. Duration is not certain, but the time between bids due and contract closure was 9 months. (Reference https://govtribe.com/project/e-modular-chemical-wet-laboratory.)

The results for Avon Modular are presented below:

Avon 1: Avon provided a price of $2,845,694.00 for a building containing four laboratory rooms: (1) 82' x60', (1) 14'x20', (1) 42'x40', and (1) 12'x40'. This ROM was for manufacture only, or ~$400/sq. ft.

Avon 2: Avon Modular and Waldner produced a full set of architectural designs and equipment floorplans to suit WRPS needs. The resulting design was similar in maturity to that of Option 1.Avon quoted a price of $4,381,312.00 (+/- 10%) for a 14-unit 11.8’x60’ laboratory with concrete and steel construction. This quote of ~$440/sq. ft. was for a turnkey laboratory, excepting only site preparation greater than five feet from the footprint. Their expected duration based on previous experience would be 3 months for design and 6 months for manufacture, with 2 months required for installation. Their sketches and quote details will not be included in this report due to the proprietary nature of the information. Note: Avon Modular and Waldner performed this work at their own risk with no expectation that any commitment of work would be forthcoming.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 15 of 47

https://govtribe.com/project/e-modular-chemical-wet-laboratory

https://govtribe.com/project/e-modular-chemical-wet-laboratory


WRPS Estimating took the Avon 2 pricing and evaluated and adjusted to account for Hanford and WRPS conditions, adders, and labor rates that Avon did not include. While Avon’s technical understanding of construction and ventilation requirements for laboratories was high, their lack of experience working in Washington State on the Hanford Site was recognized and reflected in the WRPS estimate. To address this risk, WRPS added the cost for a general contractor to perform the site prep as well as to oversee and assist with the installation. The result was a Class 3 TEC of $9.74M completed in 21 months, or a range of $7.96M - $12.4M TEC. (See Appendices D and F).

It is worth noting that WSCF (see Option 4) was itself a modular laboratory on a concrete foundation. Informal discussions with the previous occupants of WSCF identified that the users generally enjoyed working in the facility, although the ventilation system was problematic, and that a similar facility would meet the analytical requirements.

6.3 Option 3

The level of detail in the design allowed for a Class 4 cost estimate. The TEC was $17.4M(-30%/+50%). The TEC range for this option is $12.4M to $25.7M. The estimated duration was 39 months (see Appendix F). The duration was based on two years construction duration (2015-2017) for the PNNL building in Richland, WA.

6.4 Option 4

The level of detail in the design allowed for a Class 4 cost estimate. The TEC was $16.1M(-30%/+50%). The TEC range for this option is $11.5M to $24.0M. The estimated duration was 30 months (see Appendix F).

6.5 Scoring Results

The top scoring option was Option 2: Permanent Modular Construction. The primary reason for its top score was that its schedule duration was the least affected by the permitting process. Manufacture and delivery could commence prior to the permit issuance and thus it scores highest for mission goals. Although it also has the lowest cost estimate, it would have been the top scorer regardless of the cost estimate due to its ability to meet the September 2020 need date.

The scores for each option are in the table below:

Table 3. Scoring Results

Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Score

35% 15% 15% 15% 20% 100%

Description

Option 1: Simplified ARES Design 3 105 3 45 3 45 3 45 3 60 3 300

Option 2: Permanent Modular Construction 5 175 5 75 3 45 3 45 5 100 4.2 440

Option 3: Build PNNL Laboratory on site 1 35 3 45 3 45 5 75 1 20 2.6 220

Option 4: Renovate WSCF 3 105 1 15 3 45 1 15 1 20 1.8 200

Score Score Score Score Score

CRITERIA

Mission Goals

Improve / Mitigate

Aging Infrastructure

Compliance

Improvement Improve Efficiency

Risk Reduction /

Mitigation

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 16 of 47


6.6 Recommended Option and Next Steps

Option 2, Permanent Modular Construction, is the recommended option based on best value. It is the option most likely to meet user requirements, to be delivered within the needed schedule, and to fall within the budget constraints. It is also the option that another DOE site, LANL, has recently chosen, and WRPS will be able to use those lessons learned to improve all phases of the project.

Permanent modular construction does have its risks, however, that will require mitigating and/or transferring in order to ensure a successful outcome. The first key risk is that the cost will exceed the TEC threshold for GPP projects. The proposed strategy to deal with this is to develop an acquisition strategy that a) promotes competition amongst several qualified and experience lab manufacturers and b) to award a firm fixed price contract. Once the firm fixed price contract is awarded, this essentially transfers this risk to the subcontractor. The solicitation for bids would clearly state an award ceiling, and this limit should be set to allow for unexpected changes (contingencies) to ensure the GPP limit is not exceeded by contract closeout.

The second key risk is that the permanent modular construction manufacturers have no experience on the Hanford site and/or with Hanford and Washington State requirements. One mitigating action would be to ensure that any manufacturer works with a general contractor already qualified to perform work onsite. Communicating this preferred arrangement can be done earlier than the formal competition via publishing an Expression of Interest. Other options for mitigating this can be addressed as the acquisition strategy is developed, which is the next step.

Finally, it is recommended that a Project Definition Rating Index is calculated for this project to confirm that the project is sufficiently mature and to identify other key risks prior to awarding any contracts for design / manufacture / site preparation / installation.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 17 of 47


7 References

Contract No. DE-AC27-08RV14800 – Request for Proposal – 222-SA Cold Laboratory Design and Construction,” 15-TF-0120/1504964 REISSUE, dated December 02, 2015

222-SA Cold Laboratory Design and Construction Cost and Technical Proposal, CP-16-006

Contract Modification (Mod) 368, dated February 9, 2016

Contract Modification (Mod) 399, dated September 13, 2016

WRPS-1703132 email correspondence, dated July 5, 2017

Contract Number DE-AC27-08RVI14800 – Request for Proposal - For Attached Work Scopes of Which Not-To-Exceed Values Have Been Provided,” 17-CPM-0133/1701478, dated August 22, 2017

Contract No. DE-AC27-08RV14800 – Request for Proposal (RFP) – Analysis of Alternatives for the 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion,” 18-CPM-0061/1801578 REISSUE, dated April 30, 2018

Analytical Servicers Master Plan Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility. HNF-44283, Rev. 1. May 2013.

General Purpose Chemistry Laboratory (GPCL) Project S709080 Battelle Pacific Northwest Division Drawings, Title Sheet H-3-317543 Rev. 1.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 18 of 47


8 Appendices

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 19 of 47


8.1 Appendix A – Analytical Needs

Table A-1. Analytical Needs (7 pages)

222-SL Instrumentation and Equipment

TypeGases Needed Size Ventilation

222-SL Location

Current Location

LC/MS; being developed for aldehyde method improvements

He 3' x 8' 6' Fume Hood HPLC 4-QR

Oven for gas standard preparation None 2' x 3' None HPLC 4-QR

IC for NH3 vapor tube analysis He 2.5' x 7' None IH Analysis 5-A

IC for NH3 vapor tube analysis He 2.5' x 7' None IH Analysis New/Backup

CVAAS Hg vapor tube analysis None 2.5' x 10' 4' fume hoods + Snorkel

IH Analysis 5-A

CVAAS Hg vapor tube analysis None 2.5' x 10' 4' fume hoods + Snorkel

IH Analysis New/Backup

Milli-Q®5 Water System None 2' x 2' None IH Analysis New

GC/MSD/Entech canister analysis system Liquid N2, N2, He 3' x 16' Snorkel Organic Analysis

11-A

Entech Oven for canister cleaning N2 3' x 6' Snorkel Organic Analysis

11-A

microGC for N2O analysis He 2' x 3' Snorkel Organic Analysis

11-A

microGC for N2O analysis He 2' x 3' Snorkel Organic Analysis

New/Backup

Canister Diluter He, N2 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

11-A

GC/MS-TOF/TDU vapor analysis system for 1,3-Butadiene analysis

He, Liquid N2, N2, Compressed Air

3' x 9' Snorkel Organic Analysis

4-QR


4-S


New/Backup

5 Milli-Q is a registered trademark of

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 20 of 47





222-SL Location

Current Location

Flow Professor He, N2 2' x 3' None Organic Analysis

4-S

Flow Professor He, N2 2' x 3' None Organic Analysis

4-S

Entech Oven for cleaning canisters N2 2' x 3' Snorkel Organic Analysis

4-S


New/Backup


New/Backup

Canister Diluter He, N2 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

4-S

GC/MS-TOF/CLD/TDU; mainly for nitrosamine/other method improvement

He, Liquid N2, N2, O2, H2, Compressed Air


4-S

GC/MSD/TDU vapor analysis systems for VOA/Furans

He, H2, N2, Compressed Air 3' x 7' Snorkel Organic Analysis

4TUV



4TUV



4TUV



4TUV



4TUV

GC/MSD/TDU vapor analysis systems for SVOA He, H2, Liquid N2, N2, Compressed Air


4TUV



New/Backup



New/Backup



4TUV

TDU tube cleaners (Markes systems) He, Compressed Air 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

4TUV

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 21 of 47





222-SL Location

Current Location


4TUV


New/Backup

TDU tube cleaners (Gerstel systems) He, Compressed Air 3' x 3' Snorkel Organic Analysis

4TUV


4TUV


4TUV


New/Backup


New/Backup

TDU tube spiking stations - VOA/Furan He, N2 3' x 3' Snorkel Organic Analysis

4TUV


4TUV


New/Backup


New/Backup

TDU tube spiking stations - SVOA He, N2 3' x 3' Snorkel Organic Analysis

4-TUV


New/Backup


New/Backup

Oven for gas standard preparation (TDU) None 3' x 6' None Organic Analysis

New/Backup

Canister diluter He, N2 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

11-A

HLAN computer workstation None 3' x 5' None Organic Analysis

11-A

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 22 of 47





222-SL Location

Current Location


4-TUV


4-S


New/Backup


New/Backup


New/Backup

Milli-Q Water System None 2' x 2' None Organic Analysis

New

Refrigerator None 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

New


New


New

Freezer None 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

New

Freezer None 3' x 3' None Organic Analysis

New

Hydrogen Generator None 2' x 2' None Organic Analysis

New

Hydrogen Generator None 2' x 2' None Organic Analysis

New

4-cylinder gas bottle racks None 2' x 5' None Organic Analysis

New

Balance on table - need at least 1 "4 place" in the lab None 2' x 2' Snorkel Organic Analysis

New/Used

14 Summa Storage Cages None 2' x 6' (x14) None Organic Analysis

Various

Head Space Assembly Area None 3' x 5' None Organic Analysis

B1-G

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 23 of 47





222-SL Location

Current Location

Electrochemistry--

4' x 3' work station plus

6' Fume Hood Process Chemistry

4-P

Solubility Testing--

2.5' x 10' None Process Chemistry

4-P

Optical Microscope--


4-P

Polarized Light Microscope--


4-P

Balance in Hood None N/A 6' Fume Hood Process Chemistry

4-P

Balance on Table None 2' x 2' None Process Chemistry

4-P

Balance on Table None 2' x 2' None Process Chemistry

4-P

Simulant Preparation and Testing--

2.5' x 10' 6' Fume Hood Process Chemistry

4-P

Method Development Workstation None 2.5' x 10' None Process Chemistry

4-P

HLAN computer workstation None 3' x 5' None Process Chemistry

4P

Chemical Storage Cabinets None 2' x 3' vented Process Chemistry

Future

XRF--

5' x 6' None Process Chemistry

Future

SEM--


Future

XRD--


Future

Chemical Preparation and Testing--

2.5' x 10' 4' Fume Hood and snorkel

Process Chemistry

Future

Milli-Q Water System None 2' x 2' None Process Chemistry

New

Bench Space None 2.5' x 50' None Standards Lab

4-D

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 24 of 47





222-SL Location

Current Location

Thermo Oven None 2' x 2' None Standards Lab

4-D

Ultrasonic Bath None 2' x 3' None Standards Lab

4-D

Densitometer--

2' x 2' None Standards Lab

4-D

Balance on table - need at least 1 "4 place" in the lab None 2' x 2' None Standards Lab

New

Balance on table None 2' x 2' none Standards Lab

New

Refrigerator None 3' x 3' None Standards Lab

New

Refrigerator None 3' x 3' None Standards Lab

New

Freezer None 3' x 3' None Standards Lab

New

Freezer None 3' x 3' None Standards Lab

New

Standards Preparation--

Bench Space 6' Fume Hood Standards Lab

New

Equipment Cleaning--

N/A 4' Fume Hood Standards Lab

New

Sample Receipt Bench None 2.5' x 10' None Sample Receiving

New

Fume Hood--

N/A 4' Fume Hood Sample Receiving

New

Refrigerators (3) None 3' x 3' None Sample Receiving

New

Freezers (2) None 3' x 3' None Sample Receiving

New

Chemical Storage Cabinets (5) None 2' x 3' None Chemical Storage

New

Fume Hood--

N/A 4' Fume Hood Chemical Storage

New

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 25 of 47





222-SL Location

Current Location

Refrigerator None 3' x 3' None Chemical Storage

New

He: Ultra-high purity helium

Liquid N2: Liquid nitrogen (cryogenic cooling)

N2: Nitrogen

H2: Hydrogen, typically from H2 generators

O2: Oxygen

CLD = Chemiluminscent DetectorCVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption SpectrometerGC = Gas ChromatographyHLAN = Hanford Local Area NetworkHPLC = High-performance Liquid ChromatographyIC = Ion ChromatographyIH = Industrial HygieneLC/MS = Liquid Chromatography / Mass SpectroscopyMSD = Mass Selective DetectorSEM = Scanning Electron MicroscopySVOA = SemiVolatile Organic AnalysisTDU = Thermal Desorption UnitTOF = Time of FlightVOA = Volatile Organic AnalysisXRD = X-ray DiffractionXRF = X-ray Fluorescence

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 26 of 47


8.2 Appendix B – Option 1 Sketches, Summary of Changes, Basis of Estimate, and Estimate Summary

Summary of Changes:

GENERAL/CIVIL/STRUCTURAL/ARCHITECTURAL: Removed mezzanine level resulting in reduction of building height from 23’-0” to 17’-3”. Scaled down structural system due to lower building height and removal of HVAC units

load from the rooftop. Removed roof access platform and stairs due to removal of HVAC units from the

rooftop. Removed split face CMU veneer and replaced with metal panel siding. Removed drop-in ceiling. "Squared-Off” building footprint from irregular shape to rectangular shape. Re-arranged room layout to accommodate the “squared-off” footprint. Increased building square footage from 9,268 sq. ft. to 9,984 sq. ft. Increased size of windows.

MECHANICAL/PIPING/HVAC: HVAC moved from building rooftop to ground level. Separated administration areas from the laboratory supply system with a separate

packaged HVAC unit. Removed the packaged high discharge plume stack with energy recovery

system. Replaced with conventional stack with redundant fans and separate energy recovery system.

Removed the VRF system and replaced with electric reheat system to the make-up laboratory supply system.

Removed compressed air system.

ELECTRICAL: Increased main utility transformer size from 500kVA to 750kVA to match facility

connected load of 650kVA. Replaced three exterior transformers + nine panels with transformer + panel integrated

combination units located in same rooms where loads are; reduced mechanical pad size. Replaced power conditioner with UPS for reliable, consistent supply voltage to sensitive

lab equipment (lower equipment cost). Removed ceiling grid in labs - reduced number of light emitting diode luminaires using

8ft vs. 4ft lighting for lab rooms (lower installation cost). Reduced some panel overload in original design - new design provides sufficient

capacity.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 27 of 47


Option 1. Sketch Showing Floor Plan with Casework/Equipment:

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 28 of 47


Option 1: Elevations

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 29 of 47


Option 1: Basis of Estimate for WRPS Conceptual Design

BASIS OF ESTIMATEWork Breakdown Structure (WBS) 5.01.03.04.01.03 – 222-SL Cold Lab - Analysis of

AlternativesOption 1 WRPS Conceptual Design

Activity ID

Y134-10000-01 222-SL Cold Lab - Value Engineering ReportY134-10000-02 222-SL Cold Lab - Conceptual DesignsY134-10000-03 222-SL Cold Lab - WRPS/ORP Joint Review of Value Engineering

Report (VER) and Conceptual DesignsY134-10000-04 SL Cold Lab - Acquisition Strategy & SOW Development

Purpose of EstimateThe purpose of this estimate is to submit a contract compliant cost and to perform the Analysis of Alternatives for the 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion, as directed by ORP letter 18-CPM-0061/1801578 REISSUE, dated April 30, 2018.

As a Class 3 Estimate, the expected accuracy range from the point value provided is -20% to+30%. The Class 3 criterion was chosen because the additional scope highlighted in the area of change is detailed enough to propose an estimate for detailed work that can be specified and monitored to within -20% to +30%. The maturity and execution plan for the above referenced scope is detailed enough to warrant a Class 3 estimate.

Estimate BackgroundThe full scope of this project is to design and construct the new 222-SL Cold Laboratory in order to provide infrastructure for capacity and reliability to meet tank farms analytical needs. This new facility relocates cold lab analysis from the existing 222-S Laboratory and frees up ~4000 sq. ft. of space needed for the analysis of radiological samples. The 222-SL Cold Laboratory will house approximately 20 instruments that currently reside in the overcrowded 222-S Laboratory. The 222-SL Cold Laboratory reduces the risk of interrupting operations at DFLAW and the performance of sample analysis in support of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

Estimate Scope of WorkThe scope of this estimate includes the project management and ROM TEC required to complete the requested Analysis of Alternatives for the 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion. The objective of this work scope is to choose the best value solution going forward for the new 222-S Cold Laboratory and document via VER.

Option 1 Strategy: To develop sufficient conceptual design drawings to generate an estimate that ensures TEC will not exceed the GPP threshold while simultaneously meeting the requirements for the end users.

Option 1 – Develop WRPS conceptual design sufficient to facilitate a conceptual estimate.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 30 of 47


Option 1 was estimated based on WRPS conceptual design drawings having the main features shown below:

1. Option 1 is based on a 9,984 sq. ft. single-level building, with a fairly simple pre-engineered structure and modest finishes. Pricing for the foundation & building structure, including finishes, is based on a detailed take-off of the conceptual design drawings. All other lab internal component pricing, including mechanical, electrical, casework, etc., was then utilized from the previous 222-S Lab proposal, WRPS Est. #4477, “222-SL Cold Lab R_5 Master – FCE”, dated April 11, 2018, with quantities adjusted for the size of the facility.

2. Cost savings also utilized the following: A simplified mechanical system was developed and priced for this option. Additional cost savings also utilized relocation of the HVAC equipment to the ground level. Elimination of the mezzanine level.

3. The Option 1 alternative used hookup and site improvement dollars from the previous

222-S Lab proposal.

4. Schedule durations from the previously built lab were utilized to properly resource

load the estimate.

5. No additional engineering or design was necessary to complete this estimate, and

existing building features were utilized.

6. Allowance for MSA hours were also utilized for site utility hookup and testing.

Lastly, the project will develop an Acquisition Strategy and draft a SOW to expedite the beginning the next phase of the project, dependent on the recommended options.

Key Assumptions and Exclusions

WRPS Direct and Staff Augmentation labor usage is bound by the following assumptions and exclusions for this effort.

Option 1 Key Assumptions: The acquisition strategy and SOW will be to subcontract the work scope required to

update the design for the new site to an A/E firm.

WRPS will utilize subcontractor resources (Ares Engineering + Construction Contractor)

for this effort.

Fabrication and equipment assembly is included in this estimate.

AACE Class 3 Estimate.

Option 1 Key Exclusions: Estimate will not meet the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) requirements for

certified cost and pricing data.

No additional design will be required to generate this estimate.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 31 of 47


Construction timeline cannot start until permit approval by Washington State Ecology.

Estimate Escalation

Forecasted and historical escalations are based on Global Insight escalation indices dated October 1, 2017.

Estimate Basis

Direct LaborWRPS direct labor was priced using ORP-approved forward pricing rates dated October 17, 2017 (17-CPM-0156/1704238).

Indirect CostsThis cost estimate includes indirect cost adders for absence, continuity of service, continuity of pension and general and administrative. Indirect cost adders were priced using ORP-approved forward pricing rates dated October 17, 2017 (17-CPM-0156/1704238).

Staff Augmentation LaborFY 2018 staff augmentation rates are based on averaged actual Common Occupation Classification System resource rates from the contracted labor time recording system, dated October 2, 2017.

Subcontract PricingSubcontract pricing is included for the following activities:

Engineering services Training costs Control valves in exhaust hoods Building management system controls HVAC ductwork, duct insulation, and system testing and balancing Ambient lighting Fire alarm detection system

Material PricingMaterial pricing is from standard databases (RS Means, etc.) and vendor quotes.

Direct Cost FactorsThe following factors have been applied to the direct field costs as follows:

A factor of 10% has been applied to direct field labor, material, equipment, and subcontract costs to allow for anticipated minor design deficiencies and productivity loss due to field conditions at Hanford.

A factor of 1% has been applied to direct field labor and is shown as a material cost to allow for “Small Tools and Consumables.”

Direct Costs None

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 32 of 47


Other Direct Costs None

Travel Costs None

Previous Sunk Costs

CP-16-006 - 222-SA Cold Laboratory (Design Only)

*Values based on Cost Delineation Post 30% Design 782,529.08$

CP-17-022 - 222-SL Cold Laboratory (Procurement & Construction RFP)

*Values based on actuals 34,726.30$

CP-18-015 - Analysis of Alternatives for the 222-S Cold Laboratory Expansion

*Values based on proposal submittal as scope is not complete 320,035.87$

Grand Total Sunk Cost for TEC 817,255.38$

Grand Total Sunk Cost for TPC 1,137,291.25$

Remaining Scope Estimate

Scope Description Total Cost

Project Support 1,232,353.44$

WRPS/MSA Site Services Support 14,967$

WRPS Support CraftConnect/Disconnect Main Utilities 10,661$

IH Support During Construction 29,448.76$

Work Package Plan,Prep,Close Out, Misc 81,970$

Engineering Support During Construction 235,975.13$

Subcontracted Design Services 707,925$

Construction Subcontractors 8,515,173$

Grand Total 10,828,473$

Final Estimates with and without Range Applied Total Cost

TEC Estimate w/ -20% Range 9,480,034.09$

TPC Estimate w/ -20% Range 9,800,069.96$

TEC Estimate w/o a Range 11,645,728.77$

TPC Estimate w/o a Range 11,965,764.64$

TEC Estimate w/ +30% Range 14,894,270.79$

TPC Estimate w/ +30% Range 15,214,306.66$

222-S Alternatives: WRPS Conceptual DesignClass 3 Estimate Range: -20% to +30%

Total Cost

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 33 of 47


8.3 Appendix C – Option 2 Basis of Estimate and Estimate Summary

BASIS OF ESTIMATEWBS 5.01.03.04.01.03 – 222-SL Cold Lab - Analysis of Alternatives

Option 2 Modular DesignActivity ID Y134-10000-01 222-SL Cold Lab - Value Engineering ReportY134-10000-02 222-SL Cold Lab - Conceptual DesignsY134-10000-03 222-SL Cold Lab - WRPS/ORP Joint Review of VER & Conceptual

DesignsY134-10000-04 SL Cold Lab - Acquisition Strategy & SOW Development


As a Class 3 Estimate, the expected accuracy range from the point value provided is -20% to+30%. The Class 3 criterion was chosen because the additional scope highlighted in the area of change is detailed enough to propose an estimate for detailed work that can be specified and monitored to within -20% to +30%. The maturity and execution plan for the above referenced scope is detailed enough to warrant a class 3 estimate.



Option 2 Strategy: To acquire pre-fabricated Modular Laboratory pricing sufficient to generate an estimate that ensures TEC will not exceed the GPP threshold while simultaneously meeting the requirements for the end users.

Option 2 – Develop a WRPS estimate for a Modular Laboratory on a concrete foundation that will utilize cost saving based on manufactured cost savings.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 34 of 47


Option 2 was estimated based on a WRPS estimate that utilized modular manufactured type units that would total 9984 sq. ft. of laboratory space.

1. Option 2 is based on a footprint (9,984 sq. ft.) modular manufactured type building, with a fairly simple structure and modest finishes. Pricing for the foundation was included and would be compatible with lightweight concrete floors that are included in the modular construction.. All modular lab internal components, including mechanical, electrical, casework, etc., come completely assembled and tested for laboratory and American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers requirements.

2. Cost savings also utilized the following: A simplified mechanical systems was developed and priced for this option. Additional cost savings also utilized relocation of the HVAC equipment to the

ground level. Elimination of the mezzanine level.

3. The Option 2 alternative used hookup and site improvement dollars from the previous

222-S Lab proposal.


load the estimate.

5. No additional engineering or design was necessary to complete this estimate and


6. Allowance for MSA hours was also utilized for site utility hookup and testing.

Lastly, the project will develop an Acquisition Strategy and draft a SOW to expedite beginning the next phase of the project, dependent on the recommended options.



Option 2 Key Assumptions: The acquisition strategy and SOW will be to subcontract out the work scope utilizing a

modular design that will meet the end user requirements.

The acquisition strategy and SOW will be for subcontracting out the design,

manufacture, and factory testing to a Modular fabricator.

WRPS will utilize subcontractor resources (Ares Engineering + Construction Contractor)

for the site pre work effort.

Fabrication and equipment assembly is included in this estimate.

AACE Class 3 Estimate.

Option 2 Key Exclusions: Estimate will not meet the FAR requirements for certified cost and pricing data.

No additional design will be required to generate this estimate.

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 35 of 47


Construction timeline cannot start until permit approval by Washington State Ecology.

Estimate Escalation


Estimate Basis


Indirect CostsThis cost estimate includes indirect cost adders for absence, continuity of service, continuity of pension, and general and administrative. Indirect cost adders were priced using ORP-approved forward pricing rates dated October 17, 2017 (17-CPM-0156/1704238).


Subcontract PricingSubcontract costs are included for the following:

Design costs for modifying existing design media to suit the WRPS requirements Modular prefabricated lab units & field installation costs Training cost Fire protection sprinkler system & engineering costs Fire alarm system



A factor of 10% has been applied to direct field labor, material, and equipment costs to allow for anticipated minor design deficiencies and productivity loss due to field conditions at Hanford.

A factor of 2% has been applied to direct field labor, and is shown as a material cost, to allow for “Small Tools and Consumables.”

Direct Costs None

Other Direct Costs

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 36 of 47


None

Travel Costs None

Previous Sunk Costs











Project Support 851,857.91$

WRPS/MSA Site Services Support 30,650.83$

WRPS Support CraftConnect/Disconnect Main Utilities 10,526.86$


Work Package Plan,Prep,Close Out, Misc 82,159.34$

Engineering Support During Construction 233,229.50$

General Contractor Oversight / Site Prep 2,185,617.23$

Design / Manufacture / Install Modular Laboratory 5,515,062.38$

Grand Total for Remaining Scope 8,923,645.89$








Total Cost

AVON Modular Laboratory EstimateClass 3 Estimate Range: -20% to +30%

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 37 of 47


8.4 Appendix D – Option 3 Basis of Estimate and Estimate Summary


Option 3 PNNL Lab DesignActivity ID Y134-10000-01 222-SL Cold Lab - Value Engineering ReportY134-10000-02 222-SL Cold Lab - Conceptual DesignsY134-10000-03 222-SL Cold Lab - WRPS/ORP Joint Review of VER & Conceptual



As a Class 4 Estimate the expected accuracy range from the point value provided is -30% to +50%. The class 4 criterion was chosen because the additional scope highlighted in the area of change is detailed enough to propose an estimate for detailed work that can be specified and monitored to within -30% to +50%. The maturity and execution plan for the above referenced scope is detailed enough to warrant a Class 4 estimate.



Option 3 - Adapt the PNNL existing general purpose chemistry laboratory design to meet the lab requirements. This existing lab design utilized previous DOE project number S-709080. The previous estimated project was approximately 16,000 sq. ft. with a high end building skin and windows. Internal layout, site improvements, and equipment were utilized from the previous CP-17-022 proposal.

Option 3 was estimated based on a previously built PNNL general purpose chemistry lab built in Richland with the main features shown below:

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 38 of 47


1. The Option 3 alternative estimate utilized existing PNNL design drawings from a previously built lab structure. Pricing for the foundation & building structure, including finishes, is based on a detailed take-off of the PNNL design drawings. All other lab internal component pricing, including mechanical, electrical, casework, etc., was then utilized from the previous 222-S Lab proposal, WRPS Est. #4477, “222-SL Cold Lab R_5 Master – FCE”, dated April 11, 2018.

2. The Option 3 alternative also utilized hookup and site improvement dollars from the

previous 222-S Laboratory proposal.


load the estimate.

4. No additional engineering or design was necessary to complete this estimate and


5. Allowance for MSA hours was also utilized for site utility hookup and testing.




Option 3 Key Assumptions: The laboratory will not be located at the same site with the same services as previously

identified in the 2016 design. This estimate will utilize the existing structural design and will be built at the 222-S Laboratory location. Internal component dollars will be utilized from the original, previously estimated Cold Lab project. Future savings may be realized based on value engineering that is currently being studied.

The acquisition strategy and SOW will subcontract out the work scope required to update the design for the new site to an A/E firm.

WRPS will utilize subcontractor resources (Ares Engineering + Construction Contractor)for this effort.

Fabrication and equipment assembly is included in this estimate. AACE Class 4 Estimate.

Option 3 Key Exclusions: No additional design will be required to generate this estimate.

Estimate will not meet the FAR requirements for certified cost and pricing data.

Estimate Escalation


RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 39 of 47


Estimate Basis



Staff Augmentation LaborFY 2018 staff augmentation rates are based on averaged actual Common Occupation Classification System resource rates from the contracted labor time recording system, dated October 2, 2017 (LAB002).


Design costs for modifying existing design media to suit the WRPS requirements. Training class fees. Subcontract costs to a general contractor, including:

o HVACo HVAC insulationo Fire protectiono Building management system (security, etc.)o Lighting installationo Fire alarm installationo Specialty piping installation



A factor of 10% has been applied to direct field labor, material and equipment costs to allow for anticipated minor design deficiencies and productivity loss due to field conditions at Hanford.


Direct CostsNone


RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 40 of 47


Travel Costs None

Previous Sunk Costs Total Cost












Engineering Support 965,847.68$

Develop Conceptual/Preliminary Design 20,121.38$

Subcontracted Design Services 1,753,010.98$

Design During Construction Activities 72,488.31$


WRPS/MSA Site Services Support 25,138.95$


Construction Subcontractors 11,993,602.07$

Grand Total for Remaining Scope 16,568,837








222-S Alternatives: PNNL Laboratory EstimateClass 4 Estimate Range: -30% to +50%

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 41 of 47


8.5 Appendix E – Option 4 Basis of Estimate and Estimate Summary


Option 4 Renovate WSCF Lab

Activity ID

Y134-10000-01 222-SL Cold Lab - Value Engineering ReportY134-10000-02 222-SL Cold Lab - Conceptual DesignsY134-10000-03 222-SL Cold Lab - WRPS/ORP Joint Review of VER & Conceptual



As a Class 4 Estimate, the expected accuracy range from the point value provided is -30% to+50%. The class 4 criterion was chosen because the additional scope highlighted in the area of change is detailed enough to propose an estimate for detailed work that can be specified and monitored to within -30% to +50%. The maturity and execution plan for the above referenced scope is detailed enough to warrant a Class 4 estimate.



Option 4 - Renovate the existing WSCF facility to meet the lab requirements.

Option 4 was estimated based on a Facility Re-Plan Study conducted by Engineering with the main features shown below:

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 42 of 47


1. There are five sections of 480 volt, three-phase, four wire switchgear located in the 6266 Facility varying in bus size from 5,000 amps to 225 amps. They supply power to essential equipment and areas such as the AHUs, the North Lab, the NSL, lighting, chillers, heating, and fans. Most were installed by Westinghouse and are now obsolete and no longer manufactured. This system will need to be replaced.

2. Many of the contactors on the MCCs need replacement. Further engineering

investigation revealed that parts acquisition may become difficult due to the age of

the equipment, and it was determined that the MCC should be replaced.

3. The 480 volt, three phase busway installed along the catwalk above the North Lab

includes 1,200 amp, 800 amp, and 400 amp rated sections, named Bus 1, Bus 2, and

Bus 3, respectively. This busway system has been obsolete for years, making

replacement parts difficult or impossible to procure. Recent failures have occurred,

causing a complete electrical shutdown of the North Lab.

The existing installation and substantial usage of a bus system for this facility is unusual in industry. The recent engineering study on the North Lab recommended a complete removal and replacement of the existing bus structure with a panel distribution system.

4. The engineering assessment noted that the 6266 North Lab roof has experienced

several leaks above the administrative areas. Replacing this roof is recommended in

order to maintain suitable occupancy space for laboratory personnel.

5. Deionized water is provided to the laboratory for sample analysis. The current system

is showing signs of wear and should be replaced.

6. Although the existing chiller is likely to operate successfully through the next 10

years, installation of a dry fluid (air-water exchange) cooler has been recommended.

This cooler, in series with the chiller, will remove heat from the chilled water system

without the use of the chiller during those times when outdoor temperatures fall

below that required for cooling the labs. This configuration will improve the chiller

service life by reducing operation at low load condition and will provide some

operational cost savings due to reduced energy consumption through waterside

economization.

Both supply & exhaust air handlers operating in conjunction with both trains support

the entire Analytical Laboratory. Both AHUs are showing wear and tear on fan and

motor bearings and sheaves. These fans are 20 years old and the system upgrade

would improve system uptime by reducing ventilation system outages caused by

system upsets and damper maintenance activities. The upgrade would also save

energy by eliminating excess energy consumption caused by damper throttling.


RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 43 of 47




Option 4 Key Assumptions: Assumes that one drawing each will be provided for: civil layout, floor plan, reflected

ceiling plan, building sections, interior elevations, one-line diagram, electrical site plan, building power plan, building lighting plan, HVAC plan, equipment schedule, and quantities.

The acquisition strategy and SOW will be for subcontracting out the design to an A/E firm.

AACE Class 4 or 5 Estimate.

Option 4 Key Assumptions: RL and/or MSA will provide key information about the facility, such as radiological

surveys and/or available designs, and if this option is selected, ownership will be transferred to WRPS.

The acquisition strategy and SOW will be for subcontracting out the renovation design to an A/E firm.

AACE Class 4 or 5 Estimate. WRPS will utilize subcontractor resources (A/E + Construction) for this effort. Additional Design will be required to accomplish the WCSF Remodel. No asbestos or beryllium.

Option 4 Key Exclusions: No additional design will be required to generate this estimate. Estimate will not meet the FAR requirements for certified cost and pricing data. No additional fabrication will be required for the WCSF remodel.

Estimate Escalation


Estimate Basis



RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 44 of 47




Engineering/Design costs Training costs Remodeling costs for flooring and paint Roof replacement



A factor of 10% has been applied to direct field labor, material, and equipment costs to allow for anticipated minor design deficiencies and productivity loss due to field conditions at Hanford.


Direct Costs None


Travel Costs None

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 45 of 47


Previous Sunk Costs Total Cost












Engineering Support 975,721.25$

Develop Conceptual/Preliminary Design 20,327.07$

Subcontracted Design Services 707,779.55$


HPT & IH Support During Construction 134,237.92$

Construction Subcontractors 12,020,584.67$

Grand Total for Remaining Scope 15,271,058.09$








222-S Alternatives: WSCF Lab Remodel EstimateClass 4 Estimate Range: -30% to +50%

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 46 of 47


8.6 Appendix F – Estimated Schedules

RPP-RPT-61047 Rev.00 9/5/2018 - 10:42 AM 47 of 47