1

• MPT – 95% designed

• CHP – design in progress

• FDF – design completed

• Coordination

UtilitiesCranesGeotechnical InformationWeekly meetings – Internal and Intra-ContractorCFA meetings

• Partnering – MPT/CHP

Coordination of design/construction and Intra-Contractor

Improved Coordination

2

Potential Innovation

• 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

3

CHP Not Part of DC Water Expertise

• 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

4

Lessons Learned To Date

• 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

5

Artist Rendering

6

Artist Rendering

7

DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT

PRESENTED BY Donal Barron

8

P

F

WHITE HOUSE

U.S. CAPITOL

NORTHEAST BOUNDARY TUNNEL

POTOMAC TUNNEL

ROCK CREEK TUNNEL

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (MULTIPLE SITES THROUGHOUT DISTRICT)

RFK

POT

OM

AC

RIV

ER

AN

AC

OST

IA R

IVE

R

RO

CK

CR

EE

K

LUZON VALLEY (SEPARATED)

PP

REHAB POTOMAC P.S.

SEPARATE CSO 031, 037, 053 AND 058

ROCK CREEK REGULATOR ADJUSTMENTS CSO 033, 036 AND 057

FF

ABANDON NORTHEAST BOUNDARY SWIRL

COMBINED SEWER AREA

MAIN PS

TUNNEL DEWATERING P.S.

ENHANCED CLARIFICATION TREATMENT & NITROGEN REMOVAL AT BLUE PLAINS

BLUE PLAINS

BLUE PLAINS TUNNEL

ANACOSTIA RIVER TUNNEL

P

P

P P

SEPARATE CSO 006

REPLACE POPLAR POINT P.S.

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

DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT AND

NITROGEN REMOVAL PROGRAMS

EPA HEADQUARTERS

9

Anacostia River Projects are Being Implemented on Schedule

9

A Blue Plains TunnelC CSO 019 Overflow and Diversion StructuresD JBAB Overflow and Potomac Outfall Sewer DiversionE M Street Diversion Sewer (CSOs 015, 016 and 017)G CSO 007 Diversion Structure and Diversion SewerH Anacostia River TunnelI Main Pumping Station and Tingey Street DiversionsJ Northeast Boundary TunnelK Northeast Boundary Branch TunnelsL Northeast Boundary DiversionsM Mt. Olivet Road DiversionsY Blue Plains Dewatering Pumping Station and ECFZ Poplar Point Pumping Station Replacement

9

Blue Plains Tunnel ($ 397 M)

Poplar Point PS ($ 31M)

Anacostia River Tun. ($ 291 M)

Main PS Diversions ($ 40 M)

Tingey St Diversions ($ 17M)

CSO 007($ 5 M)

CSO 019($40 M)

Northeast Boundary Tunnel

($ 282 M)

M St Div. Sewer ($ 41 M)

NEB Branch Tunnels & Diversions($283 M)

Project Status Legend:

Construction

Completed

Procurement

Design

Prelim Engineering

Blue Plains Tunnel Site Prep(Digester Demolition)

( $ 12 M)

Tunnel Dewatering Pump. Station and ECF

($ 333 M)

LID @ DC Water Facilities

($3 M)

Mt Olivet Rd Diversions($ 41 M)

JBAB Overflow & Diversion($25 M)

10

Anacostia River TunnelOverview

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

CSO-019

CSO-018

M Street

CSO-007

CSO-005

PP-JS

11

ART Estimated Schedule

Event Date

Issue RFQ October 16, 2011

Pre-SOQ meeting November 16, 2011

Last day to submit RFQ questions

December 1, 2011

SOQ Due December 16, 2011

Shortlist Notification February 10, 2012

Issue RFP April 13, 2012

Collaboration period April 2012 – December 2012

Proposals Due December 12, 2012

Notice to proceed June 3, 2013

Occupy site at CSO 019 November 2013

Substantial Completion June 2017

Final Completion September 2017

12

Vision

Anacostia River Projects Potomac & Rock Creek Projects

DC Water is Implementing Tunnels

Most severely impacted by CSOs

There is a brief window of time to

consider new approaches

Green Gray Hybrid

GI will provide additional CSO control

13

Why is a Multi Million Dollar Demonstration Project Necessary?

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

14

Demonstration Project (6 sites)

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

15

Lessons Learned

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

16

3.RFQ Content/Solicitation• 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

4.RFQ Evaluation• Have technical staff at selection panel

discussions to answer questions• Obtain completed score sheets before selection

panel adjourns

Lessons Learned

17

Lessons Learned

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

18

TUNNEL DEWATERING PUMPING STATION AND ENHANCED CLARIFICATION FACILITY

PRESENTED BY Bo Bodniewicz

19

Long Term Control Plan Overview

20-year program with a goal of reducing CSO events

20

Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

TDPS & ECF Project furthers control & treatment of CSOs

• 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