When Is Design-Build Project Delivery Appropriate for a Project? - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 54

4.0-mgd (15.1-ML/d) flows by simply adding additional submersible pumps. In addi-
tion, the steel process tanks installed as part of the emergency upgrade were an
interim solution, with one tank being converted to sludge storage and the remaining
two tanks being sold back to the manufacturer at completion of the expansion proj-
ect. These enhancements allowed for future cost savings to the owner by designing
and constructing a “future proof” facility.
Provisions for Future Improvements for Public Access Reuse. The expansion proj-
ect was designed to allow for future improvements for public access reuse with mini-
mal future disruption and expense to the City. To accommodate this future use, the
plant was designed with mechanical, electrical, and site provisions to accommodate
future installation of filters and sodium hypochlorite disinfection.
CMAR Performing Building Design. Initially, the City's engineer planned to
engage an architect for design of the Administration and Process Building, but it
was more efficient from both a cost and time standpoint to have the CMAR design
and construct the building.
Tilt-Up Construction Benefits. The emergency upgrade project utilized tilt-up
construction for the Administration and Process Building. Selection of this building
system saved significant time and money and provided the City a more robust facility
constructed from cast-in-place concrete in lieu of traditional masonry.
Innovative Personnel Management Through Self-Performance. Utilizing self-
performance capabilities on this project gave the CMAR greater control over quality,
safety, and production, which contributed to the successful completion of this chal-
lenging project. Approximately 70 percent of the Point Peter Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion and Upgrade project was self-performed by CMAR crews. At the
peak of construction, approximately 50 carpenters, concrete finishers, pipe fitters,
and laborers were on the project.
Success Outcomes
The City accepted $1.5 million in value-engineered alternatives identified by the
CMAR, which was also able to help the City be credited approximately $400,000
in sales tax by administering a state-sponsored air and water quality improvement
program.
The emergency upgrade was successfully delivered in less than 12 months, and
the expansion was completed in 21 months. Following the completion of the proj-
ects, the City was never assessed any fines by the regulatory agencies. At the comple-
tion of the emergency upgrade, $425,000 was returned by the CMAR to the City,
with an additional $494,000 returned at the completion of the expansion, both rep-
resenting savings captured by the CMAR during construction. In total, the project
cost was $38 million.