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?