Presentation on theme: "AWWA Conference Middle Fork Nooksack River Passage Project Charrette/Value Engineering Study Overview Peter E. Jobs, CVS(Life), FSAVE"— Presentation transcript:
AWWA Conference Middle Fork Nooksack River Passage Project Charrette/Value Engineering Study Overview Peter E. Jobs, CVS(Life), FSAVE PEJobs@Comcast.net
Outline Scope of Charrette/VE Study Photos and Site Plan Key Issues The Study Team and Job Plan Added Value Recommendations Summary
Scope of Charrette/Value Engineering Study Review Preliminary Engineering Drawings, Design Report, Estimate and Schedule Conduct Site Visits Incorporate a design Charrette/VE process Achieve consensus on design with Partnering Agreement, Design Narratives, cost and Schedule Validation, Risk Assessment
Photos - $30,000,000 project, 20 miles E. of Bellingham, planned completion December 2010 Area of Proposed Left Abutment and PenstockTunnel Intake Spillway
Site Plan - Existing Dam, Spillway and Water Intake Structure
Key Issues Dam or No Dam Funding/Cost Stakeholder “Buy-In” Water Supply to City Fish Passage Constructability/Schedule Power
The Charrette/VE Study Team Independent Multi-disciplined Ten full-time and six part-time members No ownership in previous analyses Fresh set of eyes - highly experienced professional civil and structural engineers - specialists in VE, dams, fish passage, hydraulics, o and m, power transmission, construction/scheduling, estimating
The Study Job Plan 1. INFORMATION Understand Project & Issues 2. FUNCTION ANALYSIS Understand Purpose of Project Parts 3. CREATIVE Generate Ideas to Improve Value 4. EVALUATION Select the Best Ideas 5. DEVELOPMENT Expand Ideas & Rationale, Document 6. PRESENTATION Present VE Recommendations
Creative Idea List (56 Brainstormed Ideas) Following is a list of ideas and comments for project improvement from the Design Charrette/VE study sorted by Geotechnical, Civil, Struct, Elect, Fish/Passage/Hydraulics, CM Idea No.: Idea numbers assigned to creative ideas generated during the creative phase. Score: The ideas were scored as follows to prioritize them for further development and documentation. Resp.: Team member responsible for documentation. Wkbk #: The number assigned to an idea which serves as a key to the Value Improvement Matrix (1.1). WkBk #RespScoreIdea No.Description GEOTECHNICAL 2.1.1CR517Dewater In Lieu Of Cut Off Systems 2.1.1CR522Eliminate Excavation Support 2.1.2CR418Reduce Excavation - Use Till Foundation 2.1.3 CR 520Eliminate Curtain Diaphragms (Walls) 2.1.4CR424Simplify North Abutment Foundation CIVIL 2.2.1CR521Improve Penstock Alignment 2.2.2CR519Rock Tunnel In Lieu Of Open Excavation 2.2.3DP556Penstock as Siphon 2.2.4LM523Change Diversion 2.2.5LM352Additional Site Investigation Survey 2.2.6LM449Size Building for Use
Workbook Examples Following are examples of three workbooks Typical Format: Baseline Proposed Alternative Justification Advantages/Disadvantages Recommendation/Result Cost Summary Sketch of baseline Sketch of Proposed Alternative
Workbook 2.1.4 Excavate Less Rock and Reduce Concrete in North Abutment
Workbook 2.1.4 Less Rock 1,125 cy, Less Concrete 1,125cy, Add Rock Bolts = Save $1,099,000
Workbook 2.5.2 Baseline Sketch: Limit 16%-18% Grade Control Structure to Upstream of Dam
Workbook 2.5.2 Proposed with Backfill, Filter, Grout, Armor Boulder Layer and 12% Slope
Value Matrix (39 Workbooks Prepared) WkBk No.PROPOSAL VE INVESTIGATION/IMPLEMENTATION/ RESULTSOWNER RESPONSE Implement Status Comments (Idea No.) 1.1to1.4GEOTECHNICAL - $2,030,000 Some workbooks are mutually exclusive 2.1to2.6CIVIL - $1,559,000 “ 3.1to3.6 STRUCTURAL - $937,000 “ 4.1to4.8ELECTRICAL - $775,000 “ 5.1to5.10 FISH PASSAGE/HYDRAULICS + $2,741,000 ” 6.1to6.5CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Improved Value
Additional Added Value Partnering Agreement Cost and Schedule Validation Design Narratives Risk Assessment
Partnering Agreement (Over 20 Stakeholders) As a result of the Charrette/VE Study we, the key stakeholders for the Middle Fork Nooksack River Passage Project, have reviewed the design narratives, drawings, planning and estimate done to date. We confirm our commitment to the success of the project and will apply our best efforts to ensure a timely completion on schedule and within budget. The signatures below are from those individuals who support working together and the project team.
Cost and Schedule Validation Cost: The May 2006 preliminary cost estimate for the Artificial Constriction and Permanent Scour Pool Intake was $16,700,000. The validated construction costs escalated to 2008 is $30,500,000. Schedule: The validated schedule requires two in-water work Seasons and is forecast to be completed by December, 2010.
Design Narratives – Geotechnical Design Geology and Subsurface Conditions Colluvium Alluvium Recession Glaciolacustrine Deposits Lodgment Till Elbow Lake Bedrock Units Dewatering
Design Narratives – Electrical Design The Electrical Design Narrative Addressed : 1.The facility design - portable or permanent power. 2. The public utility - provide the distribution service, thus eliminating O&M costs associated with owning a 7.2 KV line and equipment. 3. Reduce the electrical demand of the facility.
Design Narratives – Fish Passage and Hydraulics Design Structures This Design Narrative Addressed: Functions Design Issues/Constraints 1. Design Flows 2. Fish Passage up steep 16% -18% Boulder Grade Control section 3. Stability of steep Grade Control/Fish Passage structure 4. Dewatering and In-Water Work below dam for Grade Control Structure extension 5. Screen Size, Type Operational Goals
Design Narratives – Civil & Site Design Change River Diversion Concept Reduce Size of Maintenance Building Contract Packaging Early Site Clearing
Design Narratives – Structural & Dam Repair Maintenance Building Loads Materials Structural Engineering of New Intake Site Dewatering Site Construction Existing Access Bridge
Risk Assessment Mitigate High Risk Issues RISK INDEX Project risks and weight factors are: 1.Funding/ConstructabilityHighWt. 5 2.Approvals/StakeholdersHighWt. 5 3.Weather/FloodHighWt. 5 4.SafetyMediumWt. 4 5.ScheduleMediumWt. 4 6.Overhead Power LossMediumWt. 4 7.DisputesMediumWt. 4 8.Grade Control Performance MediumWt. 3 9.Competitive BidsMediumWt. 3 10. BudgetLowWt. 2 Total = 39 Risk Index = 39 divided by 10 = 3.9 Under the typical or ideal circumstances, the Risk Index would average a medium three (3) or less. On this project, the Risk Index calculated to be 3.9. Since the Index was considerably higher than that for a typical project, it was an indication the City of Bellingham needed to take specific measures to mitigate the higher risk issues in the near future.
Summary Results: Design Narratives – Basis for future design Cost and Schedule validation Risk Assessment Improved Project Value Partnering Agreement – Stakeholder commitment Costs: Baseline 2006 Estimate $16,700,000 Estimate Validated adjustments $13,800,000 Total Validated adjusted cost $30,500,000 Less Charrette/VE savings - $8,000,000 Total cost after Charrette/VE $22,500,000
Client Response I continue to believe that the VE process was invaluable on an “unusual” project such as the Dam Removal Project. Not only did it formalize the “ingeniousness” aspect that we all strive for, but it also tended to provide a very clear, very accessible background document explaining the “how” along with the “why”. Derek Holzl, PE Project Manager City of Bellingham