© 2014 HDR, all rights reserved.

Aqua Ohio’s Use of Progressive Design-Build at the Marion WTP

Designing, Constructing, and Commissioning New Pretreatment Facilities in 8 Months

Authors:

Pete Kusky, PE, AQUA

Jason Lemire, PE, Bowen

Lee Tourek, PE, HDR

01 Project Drivers & Plant Background

02 Delivery Approach & Design

03 Project Execution & Construction

04 Start Up

05 Moving the Marion WTP Forward & Conclusion

Agenda

Project Drivers & Plant Background

Aquired American Water’s Ohio operations

in 2012

Over 150,000 customers served in 19

counties

AQUA Ohio

Dual source water types

Conventional lime – soda softening plant

6.8 MGD average demand

10.2 MGD capacity

Marion Water Treatment Plant

Improve redundancy

Improve maintenance operations

Age/condition

Risk based comparison

Project Drivers

Existing Water Treatment Plant

Label Building

A Raw Water Basins

B Aerator

C Little Scioto Intake

D Low Service Pump

Buildings

E High Service Pump

Station

F Filter and Clearwell

Building

G Mixing Tanks

H Clarifier Tank

I Settling Tank

J Recarbonation Tank

Previous Pre-Treatment Facility

Schedule, schedule, schedule!

Owner involvement

Single path of communication

Design-builder provides majority of trade

resources

Why Progressive Design-Build for AQUA?

Equipment

SuppliersTrade Subcontractors

Owner

Design-Builder

Contract

Communication

Delivery Approach & Design

Proven relationships

Familiarity with AQUA

Design-Build Experience

Source: Construction Industry Institute

(CII)/Penn State

Research comparison of 351 projects of

varying sectors, ranging from 5K to 2.5M

square feet in size

Design-Build Versus the Rest

Metric D-B vs D-B-B D-B vs. CMAR

Unit Cost 6.1% lower 4.5% lower

Construction Speed 12% faster 7% faster

Delivery Speed 33.5% faster 23.5% faster

Cost Growth 5.2% less 12.6% less

Schedule Growth 11.4% less 2.2% less

Truly separate treatment trains

Replace only what is necessary

Future adaptability

Planning Considerations

Conversion to conventional sedimentation

Provisions for sludge handling

Hydraulic profile for future plant

Future Adaptability

Basis of Design Highlights

Design Parameters

Pre-sedimentation basins

Quantity 2

Dimensions 24’ W x 80’ L x

16’ SWD

Aerators

Quantity 2

Loading Rate 5 gpm/sf

Equalization basins

Quantity 2

Dimensions 24’ W x 108’ L x

15’ SWD

Information exchange

3D design

OEPA engagement

Design Implementation

Project Challenge Bowen-HDR Solution

Extended duration or repeated reviews impacts

delivery schedule

Facilitate review process through early and

frequent communication and conducting a

design brief with the OEPA

The plan review process results in unforeseen

changes to project

Clearly communicate the design criteria and

basis of design to obtain concurrence from the

OEPA at an early stage

‘Over driving the headlights’-submitting

detailed information before the base concept

has been discussed with OEPA for general

concurrence puts the project at risk for rework

and schedule impact

Conduct a facilitated review process – a series

of discussions and meetings to present the

design information

Overcoming Permitting Challenges Associated with Integrated Delivery

Lock in on critical items

Stage delivery of disciplines

Early action on critical path

Transition from Design to Procurement

Accelerated development of deliverables

Design Milestones

RFP

9/24/15

B.O.D. Finalized

11/20/15

30% Design &

OEPA Submittal

12/18/1560% Design

& GMP

1/27/16Building Department

Submittal

2/3/16

IFC Set 1

(Civil & Structural)

2/12/16

Basin slab, rebar, mix

design shop drawings

approved

2/25/16

Start-Up

8/3/16

Groundbreaking,

IFC Set 2 (Process

& Electrical

2/26/16

Little Scioto Pump 11 - Before Little Scioto Pump 11 - After

Aerator - Before Aerator - After

Pre-Sedimentation - Before Pre-Sedimentation - After

Project Execution & Construction

Construction Pre-Planning

Quick decisions are essential on

design build delivery if the schedule

is to be maintained

Design-Build is a continuous process

Project Pacing

Access

o Site layout

o Construction traffic

o Communication

Construction Challenges

Low Service Pump Station

o Constrained work area

o Existing valves

o Planning approach

Construction Challenges

Low Service Pump Station - Outcome

Construction Challenges

Start Up

Define the Process

Challenges

o Piping Tie-Ins

o Instrumentation

o Chemical Feed

Resolution

o Collaboration

o Active Management of Issues

Start Up

Moving the Marion WTPForward & Conclusion

Future WTP conceptual planning

Capitalizing on D-B team experience with Marion WTP

Moving Forward

Schedule, schedule, schedule!

Owner involvement/single point of

responsibility

Risk/cost management

Flexibility and collaboration

Conclusion

Special thanks to contributing team members:

Pete Kusky

Tom Schwing

Beth Darnell

Scott Ballenger

Jerry Hetterscheidt

Mike Soller

Jason Lemire

Mike Wright

Brad Green

Gary Moon

Rich Atoulikian

Lee Tourek

Jim Beninati

Adam Dellinger

Mike Paine

Patrick Eiden

Questions?