The success of collaborative project delivery methods, especially progressive design-build, is due in large part to the immediate engagement of an owner’s operation and maintenance (O&M) teams— specifically during design development and preconstruction. While this approach may appear difficult to execute, it’s actually quite simple when completed systematically.
Topics: Collaborative Project Delivery
Allowances and contingencies are often confused with one another, but understanding their differences is crucial to successfully executing project contracts.
In April 2016, the design-build team of Foley Company and Black & Veatch was awarded the Blue River WWTP Odor Control Phase 1 design-build contract for Kansas City, MO, Water Services Department. The proposal submitted contained two parts: 1) technical proposal and 2) lump sum fixed price with a 20-year life cycle cost analysis. The criteria for selecting the design-build team was a point system developed to evaluate the team’s technical background, experience, project approach, lump sum fixed-price construction and engineering work, and the life cycle operation and maintenance cost analysis.
In June of 2013, utility managers at the Anderson Regional Joint Water System (ARJWS) in Anderson, South Carolina, began experiencing intermittent taste and odor impacts to their finished potable water. This led to customer complaints and public relations challenges for the utility. The problems were due to the increasing occurrence of algal blooms in their source water body, Lake Hartwell.
Topics: Collaborative Project Delivery
One of the many overlooked benefits of collaborative delivery is the flexibility offered through the various approaches. In particular, utility and government agencies with limited resources for water infrastructure projects are finding that collaborative approaches such as progressive design-build delivery give them more flexibility to optimize not only the price, but also the overall result and experience for the owner agency and its ratepayers. In the recent article published in Water Innovations, and included in Water Online’s e-newsletter, “Collaborative Approaches that Deliver Flexibility” features a comparison of conventional delivery to various forms of collaborative delivery, with a focus on flexibility. Of the many benefits, adding more flexibility to how projects are evaluated, planned, designed, and ultimately delivered can help fill the gap between available and needed resources. Because every project or program has different drivers, stakeholder interests, and project conditions, rigidly adhering to a single approach for program or project delivery limits both the effectiveness of a solution and the value of the solution for ratepayers. Water system owners have an opportunity to become more flexible through collaborative delivery models, allowing owners to make best-value solution decisions through increased flexibility and improved information. These models offer varying degrees of flexibility and carry associated benefits as well as challenges. But in each case, flexibility is provided through collaborative behavior.
On September 20, 2017, all eyes were on Puerto Rico as Hurricane Maria made its way across the island and left devastation along its path. A crippling economic crisis and population decrease already painted an uncertain future for the people of Puerto Rico. Two major back-to-back hurricanes later, questions about the future turned to questions about survival. No water. No power. No communications. Scarce supplies. While conditions are improving, there are still thousands of people without power, water, and a safe sustainable infrastructure.
There are varying definitions of a public-private partnership (P3) in the North American water sector, and each definition can impact the design-build contractor and their commercial relationships.
The power of the collaborative characteristics in design-build delivery is never more evident than during the startup and commissioning phases of a project. Raise your hand if you can share a story about a startup that went wrong in a design-bid-build (DBB) contract — I bet most of you have your hands up!
Last week I reviewed a presentation featuring design-build concepts and methodology. Actually, I had to read it twice, because most of the terms in the document are no longer being used – and I was stymied as to how to approach the author with constructive feedback. While startling coming from a government official, it is not an unfamiliar situation. I hear similar outdated language and address questions about the terms used for design-build delivery methods at WDBC’s education sessions all the time.
The Capital Regional District (CRD), located in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, is currently in the process of implementing a major wastewater treatment program that includes construction of a new 108-ML/d secondary wastewater treatment plant, two major pumping stations, two large diameter force mains, a 20-km residuals pipeline, a wet weather attenuation tank, and biosolids resource recovery facility. This program culminates a five-year effort in which technical planning was completed by Stantec and district representatives.