• MPT – 95% designed
• CHP – design in progress
• FDF – design completed
• Coordination
 Utilities
 Cranes
 Geotechnical Information
 Weekly meetings – Internal and Intra-Contractor
 CFA meetings
• Partnering – MPT/CHP
 
Coordination of design/construction and Intra-Contractor
1

• Limited in proposals
 “Prescriptive”
 30 Alternatives – developed a “No Fly Zone”
• Construction – MPT
 Schedule offer 5 months less than anticipated in RFP
• CHP Negotiation
 Better steam control with condenser
 Arrangement of equipment
  Innovation accepted if not already vetted by
Owner
2

• CHP – different review philosophy
 Owner – smaller review group, interested in interfaces, and “were not going to operate it”
•
 DBO – “We have to operate it, so we want to make changes
 PM/CM – find the balance to get full contract value and understanding
 DC Water recognizing benefit of when DB is appropriate
3

• Owner likes to be able to short list 3 qualified proposers
•
First time Design Build
 Owner and Engineers need to take time to understand process
• Design issues come to head early
•
Design Build Joint Venture = skin in the game
• 3D modeling understanding accelerates
• Regulatory dust should be settled
•
Start-up and Commissioning
– start early
• “Haz Ops” meeting very important
• Prescriptiveness can serve “mature” Owners well
• Performance guarantees force designer and contractor to work together and could be a key to being less prescriptive
4

5

6

PRESENTED BY Donal Barron
7

LUZON VALLEY (SEPARATED)
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
(MULTIPLE SITES THROUGHOUT
DISTRICT)
DC CLEAN RIVERS
PROJECT AND
NITROGEN REMOVAL
PROGRAMS
COMBINED SEWER AREA
ROCK CREEK TUNNEL
SEPARATE CSO 031, 037, 053 AND
058
ROCK CREEK REGULATOR
ADJUSTMENTS CSO 033,
036 AND 057
F
F
NORTHEAST BOUNDARY TUNNEL
POTOMAC TUNNEL
REHAB POTOMAC P.S.
EPA HEADQUARTERS
P
F
PUMP STATION
KNOWN FLOODING AREA
• DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT: $2.6 BILLION
• NITROGEN REMOVAL: $950 MILLION
• TOTAL > $ 3 BILLION
• 20 YR IMPLEMENTATION (2005 – 2025)
• 96% REDUCTION IN CSO
• FLOOD RELIEF IN NORTHEAST BOUNDARY
P
WHITE HOUSE
U.S.
CAPITOL
MAIN PS
P P
P
RFK
P
ABANDON NORTHEAST
BOUNDARY SWIRL
ANACOSTIA RIVER TUNNEL
SEPARATE CSO 006
REPLACE POPLAR POINT P.S.
BLUE PLAINS TUNNEL
P
BLUE PLAINS
ENHANCED CLARIFICATION
TREATMENT & NITROGEN
REMOVAL AT BLUE PLAINS
TUNNEL DEWATERING P.S.
8

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

Overview
 23-foot diameter TBM tunnel
 Soft ground
 100 ± feet deep and 12,500 feet long
 Mining from CSO-019 south to PP-
JS
 6 shafts (15 to 75-foot I.D.)
 3 Adits (4.5 to 10-foot I.D.)
 2 Diversions
 6 Odor Control and Venting
Facilities
 Instrumentation & Data Collection
System
 System Start-up
 Design-Build contract value:
$200 – $250 million
PP-JS
CSO-019
CSO-018
M Street
CSO-007
CSO-005
10

Event
Issue RFQ
Pre-SOQ meeting
Last day to submit RFQ questions
SOQ Due
Shortlist Notification
Issue RFP
Collaboration period
Proposals Due
Notice to proceed
Occupy site at CSO 019
Substantial Completion
Final Completion
Date
 October 16, 2011 

November 16, 2011 
 December 1, 2011 
 December 16, 2011 

February 10, 2012 
 April 13, 2012 
 April 2012 – December 2012
 December 12, 2012

June 3, 2013
 November 2013
 June 2017
 September 2017
11

Anacostia River Projects
DC Water is
Implementing Tunnels
Most severely impacted by CSOs
GI will provide additional
CSO control
Green
Potomac & Rock
Creek Projects
There is a brief window of time to consider new approaches
Gray Hybrid
12

 Need it to be a large scale demonstration
– address entire subsewersheds
 Representative sites not “cherry picked” so scale-up is realistic
 Sound technical basis
 Potential for innovative solutions and creative alliances
 Targeted performance is high degree of
CSO control
 Resolution of institutional issues
 Analysis of other factors
• Triple bottom line benefits
•
•
•
Public acceptability
Testing over several meteorological / climate cycles
O&M impacts
The magnitude of investment by
DC ratepayers to control Potomac and Rock Creek CSOs requires a sound technical and institutional basis for making decisions
13

 Completed evaluation of sites for GI demonstration projects in
Potomac River and Rock Creek sewer sheds.
 After construction, monitor for 2 years
 Use results to design Potomac River and Rock Creek projects using combination of tunnels and GI
14

1.
Verify Financial Capabilities
• Evaluate need to compare proposers’ financial capabilities with respect to estimated cash flow needs
2.
Process Projects
• Designer needs a “skin in the game,” possibly as a JV partner
15

• Set a realistic page count; identify what pages do/do not count
•
•
•
Avoid requests requiring subjectivity or similar responses among proposers
Include standard forms in RFQ for simpler organization/evaluation
When answering questions, send responses to all proposers
• Have technical staff at selection panel discussions to answer questions
• Obtain completed score sheets before selection panel adjourns
16

5.
Contents of Technical Proposal
•
•
•
Resist requesting more items; identify points that differentiate better schedule, better quality, less risk
Avoid asking for identical things in different sections
Ask key personnel to list only what contributes to project success
6.
Confidentiality
•
•
•
•
Emphasize confidentiality among all teams; require signed agreements
Don’t put confidential evaluations/comments on shared computer drives
Don’t meet with individual proposers after release of RFQ; exceptions are official proprietary meetings
Be careful what is printed to shared printers
17

PRESENTED BY Bo Bodniewicz
18

19

• Capture Uncontrolled CSO Discharges
• Potomac and Anacostia Rivers
• Rock Creek
• Relieve flooding in Northeast Boundary Area
• Implemented under a Federal
Consent Decree
• U.S. EPA / U.S. DOJ
• District of Columbia
• DC Water
20