Construction Management at Risk - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 310

designer and the CMAR had to remain as originally structured (i.e., separate design
and construction contracts with the City but amended to reflect the change in scope),
because modifying the procurement approach would have delayed the start of the
project and put completion past the desired date for facility startup and operation.
The designer and CMAR presented a proposal for a 2.0-mgd (7.6-ML/d) biolog-
ical nutrient removal membrane bioreactor facility with ultraviolet light (UV) irra-
diation disinfection. A compact facility layout was developed to allow cost-saving
measures, such as common-wall construction, reduced yard piping, and shade struc-
tures in lieu of buildings. Many of the cost-saving ideas were developed during the
two-week sequestration, when the designer and CMAR combined efforts to deter-
mine ways to achieve treatment needs at the most economical cost.
The design and construction of the facility were completed three months ahead
of the requested 30-month schedule. The facility has been operational since Janu-
ary 2011 and continues to produce a high-quality effluent that is currently used to
replenish the local aquifer.
Why the Owner Chose CMAR
When developers started relinquishing their stake in the WRF, the City was in a
precarious position. Once a revised treatment capacity goal was established, the
City needed to know in two weeks' time whether or not the desired WRF could be
designed and built within the budget and on schedule. The only remedy available to
the City was to engage its contracted designer and CMAR and have them develop a
performance-based proposal. The past working relationships of the three stakehold-
ers were important: the City believed that these relationships fostered an open and
clear understanding of the risks and that a plan to manage and mitigate those risks
could be developed.
Lessons Learned
Lessons learned on this project include the following:
Be Clear on the “Assumptions”: With any performance-based project, it is important
to communicate with the owner about what will and will not be provided for their
investment. Because there was such a restricted budget for the project, many amenities
that owners are accustomed to were not supported by the budget. Although these
budget restrictions were addressed at the beginning of the procurement, several
meetings took place during the project to discuss what was and was not included
in the contracted proposal. All parties worked to try to accommodate requests and
recognized when the project budget could not support certain desires.
Understand that Performance-Based Design-Build Means Less Owner Control:
Owners that are accustomed to traditional design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery
have an expectation about the amount of control they have to shape a project. The
requirements for this project were defined by a desired effluent quality, a budget,
and a schedule. Acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth by the designer and
CMAR limited the owner's ability to control the direction of the project. Throughout