Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mead -- lunt
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Design-Build for U.S Army Corps of Engineers – Civil Works Projects
6th Annual Huntington Small Business Conference
Presented by: Miro Kurka
June 26, 2019
Mead&Hunt
INTRODUCTION – Today’s Presentation
• Background – why do USACE Districts use design-build for civil works projects?
• Design-build for USACE – similarities and differences with commercial practices
• Design-Build for USACE Civil Works − Contractor Perspectives − USACE Perspectives
• Case study – tractor gates at Denison Dam • Lessons learned and best practices
Mead&Hunt
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Miroslav Kurka, Design-Build for Civil Works, The Military Engineer, Nov-Dec 2018
• Interview with Christopher Strunk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District
BACKGROUND WHY USE DESIGN-BUILD FOR CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS?
DESIGN-BUILD ADVANTAGES
• A primary projectdelivery system used in the construction industry
• Saved procurementtime
• Value-engineering -contractor and designer workingtogether throughdesign andconstruction
• Project phasing • Turn-key procurement
" 1: .·, t•. • ·~
,:..,; . ,.] ,.,., - •- .,~~ . === ~'
Mead&Hunt
DESIGN-BUILD CHALLENGES
• Communication between end-user, contracting officer, builder and designer
• Less control by the end-user
Design-build flood gates installed at Denison Dam
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
D-B FOR USACE AND COMMERCIAL D-B
Mead&Hunt
USACE VS. COMMERCIAL DESIGN-BUILD
• USACE − Prescriptive − Detailed technical requirements − Multiple design-reviews − Design approval needed BEFORE each construction phase can
start − Independent technical review
• Commercial Design-Build − Performance based − Phased design and construction − Limited reviews by owner
Mead&Hunt
DESIGN-BUILD FOR USACE CIVIL WORKS – Contractor/AE Perspective
• Civil works D-B projects are less common than MILCOND-B − Difficult to maintain a dedicated civil works AE D-B team − Using MILCON A-E D-B team on civil works design impractical
• USACE Civil Works designs for dam safety or flood controlreceive extra scrutiny.
• Peer review by another District or one of the USACE centersof expertise may be necessary depending on the project sizeand type.
• The ability to save costs using standard components/standard details is limited because every project is unique.
• Often require an exhaustive design report together with plans and specifications to fully document all modificationsto their projects
Mead&Hunt
DESIGN-BUILD FOR USACE CIVIL WORKS – USACE Perspective
• Concern about maintaining technical standards
• Civil Works projects have long service life – 50 to 100 years. − Very important to fully document all project modifications − Limited funding = desire to ensure work is quality and has a long service life
• Numerous ERs, EMs and ETLs govern work − ER 1110-2-8157 – Responsibility for Hydraulic Steel Structures − EM 1110-2-2704 - Cathodic Protection Systems for Civil Works Structures − ETL 1110-2-584 – Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures − etc, etc, etc
• Peer review may be necessary. Review/approval is mandatory for: − Dam Safety – USACE Risk Management Center − Hydropower – Hydroelectric Design Center − Navigation – USACE Inland Navigation Design Center
• Concern that design-build delivery will NOT provide USACE the level of review, inspection, and control needed to ensure a quality project.
CASE STUDY DENSION DAM TRACTOR GATES
DENSION DAM TRACTOR GATES • Replacement of two tractor gates
out of the six sets at the Denison Dam in Texas.
• Contractor had replaced three previous sets of gates.
− Previous design IAW: • EM 1110-2-2701, Engineering
and Design-Vertical Lift Gates • EM 1110-2-2105, Design of
Hydraulic Steel Structures − Guidance since superseded
• Analysis for fatigue and fracture according to the USACE Engineer Technical Letter 1110-2-584, Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures (July 2014).
• Gate fabricator had also fabricated the previous gates.
• 100 year design life.
• Design required a peer review by another District.
DENSION DAM TRACTOR GATES • Two new tractor gates
• One service and one emergency • Designed for 126 feet of head,
earthquake loading and closure under flow
• Gate slot refurbishment • New flood and emergency gate
dogging devices • New work platform for dogging device
installation and maintenance.
LESSONS LEARNED BEST PRACTICES
Mead&Hunt
RECOMMENDATIONS - PROPOSAL
• Engineer must carefully review the USACE scope ofwork (SOW) and all referenced engineering publications together with the construction contractor andfabricator − Fully understand the effort required − Adequately account for it in the bid price.
• Submit bidder’s inquiries to clarify uncertainty aboutSOW requirements.
• Engineer must work closely with the constructioncontractor and fabricator to develop a realistic design, fabrication and construction schedule.
• The entire D-B project team must understand the goals, objectives, timelines and procedures of all approvingentities.
Mead&Hunt
RECOMMENDATIONS – PROJECT EXECUTION #1
• D-B Team should schedule routine (at least bi-weekly), internal meetings: − Design team, construction contractor, and fabricator − Update status, identify (and resolve) issues
• Document all correspondence, meetings, and telephone calls with the District.
• If confronted with a design challenge: − Design-Builder should immediately notify the COR − Schedule a meeting to present the challenge and potential solutions.
• Entire D-B team must ensure communication and cooperation between the designer, the contractor, the contractor’s fabricator and the District.
Mead&Hunt
RECOMMENDATIONS – PROJECT EXECUTION #2
• Entire project team including the District, Contractor, Contractor’s Fabricator and Designer must understand the goals, objectives, timelines of the project
• USACE and Design-Builder must partner and effectively balance:
− Engagement of the District COR, project and technical managers in executing their engineering oversight
− Designer’s EOR responsibilities
− Design-Builder’s contractor responsibilities
• Hold in-person kick-off meeting with D-B team and District personnel shortly after contract award. Key items to discuss:
− Review SOW in detail and ensure all understand the COR’s expectations of deliverables.
− Review the design and construction schedules. Understand USACE submittal review timelines. Understand who at the District (or outside the District) will be involved.
− Determine if design will be peer reviewed by another USACE District.
− Communication protocol.
− Review any RFIs.
CONCLUSION
USACE already uses D-B as their primary MILCON procurement method. As more USACE Districts use D-B project delivery for civil works, successful application of these recommendations will lead to excellent project delivery.
Questions?