RFPs: Selecting the Design-Builder - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 199

provided the design criteria, the geotechnical investigation, and preliminary raw
water quality data in its typical owner role to the design-builder. In addition, INAW
procured the security equipment. The design-builder completed the remainder of
the design, all permitting, the pilot testing, and the procurement of the remaining
equipment, and delivered the project.
Incentives: The DB team was eligible for financial incentives based on the final
cost comparison to a target cost, which was submitted by the design-builder to
INAW shortly after the 60 percent design review milestone. The contract agreement
provided for a 50/50 pain/gain share between INAW and design-builder based on
the difference between the target cost and the final cost of the work. The target cost
was $11,453,900, and the final cost was $11,343,004, a savings of $110,896.
Project Schedule Requirements: The project team utilized storyboarding tech-
niques during the first design kickoff meeting to determine all the necessary design
and permitting activities, owner and stakeholder goals, engineering activity dura-
tions, and the design sequence to establish the critical path for design and other pre-
construction activities. The team began planning submission of permits during the
second month after notice to proceed and acquired building construction permits
by the sixth month. One critical NPDES permit was delayed because of the possible
existence of an endangered mussel in the receiving stream; however, the overall proj-
ect schedule was not delayed due to strategic sequencing of construction activities.
Weekly conference calls were conducted throughout the design phase. The con-
ference calls were attended by the senior project leadership of the INAW, the design-
builder, and other project team members. These weekly calls allowed the entire team
to recognize current status, budgeting aspects, permitting, and any potential obsta-
cles that could impact the cost and schedule of the project. By communicating fre-
quently, the team quickly and effectively reacted to potential changes to ensure that
the project stayed on schedule and within budget.
Due to additional raw water quality testing just prior to the 60 percent design
milestone, the disinfection system required a significant design change. The proj-
ect team evaluated the life-cycle cost analysis for three options. The design-builder
proposed two value engineering alternates to the proposed on-site sodium hypo-
chlorite generation (OSG) system: a bulk liquid sodium hypochlorite system and
a gaseous chlorine system. After a cost and risk analysis, the team chose the OSG
system. Although the OSG had a higher initial capital cost, it provided long-term
operational savings over the bulk liquid system and a much safer system over the gas-
eous chlorine system. The 60 percent design was quickly changed to include resizing
the building, redesign of the plant electrical power and piping systems, and devel-
opment of specifications for long-lead OSG equipment. Even with this late major
modification, the team remained committed to the completion date and ground was
broken on schedule, immediately after the 60 percent design was completed and two
months before the final design was complete.
Project Budget Challenges: During design reviews, INAW requested several
changes. These changes significantly increased the target cost over the proposal's
conceptual budget: