© 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, BowenLee 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

Acquired 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 BuildingA Raw Water BasinsB AeratorC Little Scioto IntakeD Low Service Pump

BuildingsE High Service Pump

StationF Filter and Clearwell

BuildingG Mixing TanksH Clarifier TankI Settling TankJ 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. CMARUnit Cost 6.1% lower 4.5% lower

Construction Speed 12% faster 7% fasterDelivery Speed 33.5% faster 23.5% faster

Cost Growth 5.2% less 12.6% lessSchedule 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 HighlightsDesign ParametersPre-sedimentation basins

Quantity 2Dimensions 24’ W x 80’ L x

16’ SWDAerators

Quantity 2Loading Rate 5 gpm/sf

Equalization basinsQuantity 2

Dimensions 24’ W x 108’ L x 15’ SWD

Information exchange

3D design

OEPA engagement

Design Implementation

Project Challenge Bowen-HDR SolutionExtended 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

& GMP1/27/16

Building Department Submittal

2/3/16

IFC Set 1 (Civil & Structural)

2/12/16Basin slab, rebar, mix design shop drawings

approved2/25/16

Start-Up8/3/16

Groundbreaking, IFC Set 2 (Process

& Electrical2/26/16

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

Accesso Site layouto Construction traffico Communication

Construction Challenges

Low Service Pump Stationo Constrained work areao Existing valveso Planning approach

Construction Challenges

Low Service Pump Station - OutcomeConstruction 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 KuskyTom SchwingBeth DarnellScott BallengerJerry Hetterscheidt

Mike SollerJason LemireMike WrightBrad GreenGary Moon

Rich AtoulikianLee TourekJim BeninatiAdam DellingerMike PainePatrick Eiden

Questions?