Burns & McDonnell / Alberici Joint Venture History
35 design-build projects together
25 years as joint venture partnership
0 cost or schedule overruns, lost time incidents, or construction claims
City of WichitaStaff & Stakeholders
A Burns & McDonnell/Alberici Joint Venture
DESIGN CONSTRUCTIONDESIGN - BUILDER
Division of Work
Proje
ct Ad
minis
tratio
n
Desig
n
WIF
IA A
pplic
ation
SRF
Appli
catio
n
GMP
Deve
lopme
nt
Oper
ation
s Coo
rdina
tion
Regu
lator
y/Per
mittin
g
Subc
ontra
ctor O
utrea
ch
MBE/
DBE/
EBE
Outre
ach
Comm
unica
tions
Utilit
y Coo
rdina
tion
Proje
ct Ad
minis
tratio
n
Cons
tructi
on M
anag
emen
t
Safet
y Man
agem
ent
Proje
ct Co
ntrols
QA/Q
C
Subc
ontra
ctor M
anag
emen
t
Detai
led D
esign
–Pr
oces
s
Detai
led D
esign
–Ut
ilities
Detai
led D
esign
–Pi
pelin
es
Detai
led D
esign
–Fa
cilitie
s
Cons
tructi
on –
Facil
ities
Cons
tructi
on –
Pipe
lines
Cons
tructi
on C
ivil/S
ite
Comm
ission
ing
Train
ing
Phase One (30% Design and GMP) Phase Two (Detailed Design, Construction, Commissioning, Startup)Wichita Water Partners
Alberici
Burns & McDonnell
HDR
MKEC
PEC
Dondlinger
UCI
Wildcat
DuBois Consultants
Dudley Williams
GLMV
Greteman Group
SJCF
We take very seriously our responsibility to the rate payers of Wichita. We understand how significant this project is for the people of this City.
Our Commitment
We bring a world class team of experts with tremendous experience -- here in Wichita and across the country -- to design and build this project.
We will continue to work with the City’s staff to refine plans and identify cost savings for rate payers.
We have team members who live in this community and call Wichita home.
What We Will Cover Today
Address any questions you may have
Provide an overview of the process to date
Give you a detailed overview of the project
Discuss what we are doing to find additional savings and added value to the project, the City and the rate payers
1
2
3
4
Delivering Solutions to YourWater Supply Projects for Three Decades
ASR Surface Water Treatment PlantWichita, KS
Water Treatment Plant ExpansionFargo, ND
Water Supply, Treatment Plant Upgrades, Parallel Raw Water PipelinesFort Smith, AR
Florence Water Treatment PlantMetropolitan Utilities District, Omaha, NE
Platte West Water Treatment PlantMetropolitan Utilities District, Omaha, NE
F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant ExpansionToronto, Ontario CA
Integrated Pipeline ProjectTarrant Regional Water District, Fort Worth, TX
Pipeline Aerial . Tarrant Regional Water District (2018). Retrieved from https://www.trwd.com/ipl/
Alexander Orr Jr. Water Treatment PlantMiami-Dade County, Florida
Alexander Orr, Jr. Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation and Replacement. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.hdrinc.com/portfolio/alexander-orr-jr-water-treatment-plant-rehabilitation-and-replacement
New Water Treatment PlantThornton, CO
Large Water Treatment Plant Experience MGD
Platte West WTP 100Florence WTP Improvements 160Alexander Orr Jr. WTP Improvements 215Harry Tracy WTP 180Sioux Falls Water Purification Plant 75Houston, TX East Water Purification Plant 360Detroit Waterworks Park 320F.J. Horgan WTP Expansion 211R.L. Clark WTP Chemical System Upgrades 162RC Harris WTP 250Hemphill WTP Improvements 136San Jacinto Surface WTP 120Louisville Water Crescent Hill WTP 150Missouri American Water Central WTP 200Austin AR Davis WTP 130Denver Moffat WTP 275Indianapolis White River North WTP 120Aurora Prairie Waters Project 100
Water Transmission Pipeline Experience D
iam
eter
Leng
th
Fort Smith Water Transmission Main 48” 129,400 ft.Tarrant Regional Integrated Pipeline 84” 110,880 ft.Amarillo 24th Street & Arden Road 48” 79,200 ft.Thornton Water Project 48” 38,175 ft.Broomfield South Outfall Interceptors 54” 42,240 ft.Gillette Madison Pipeline 60” 274,560 ft.Wichita 66” Raw Waterline 66” 26,516 ft.Wichita Northeast Transmission Line 48” 25,422 ft. Nevada Groundwater Development Project 96” 1,478,400 ft.Tacoma-Cascade Pipeline 72” 264,000 ft.San Diego North City Conveyance System 48” 147,840 ft.Nevada Treatment and Transmission Project 144” 528,000 ft.Oregon SW 124th Street Avenue 72” 105,600 ft.Tacoma Second Supply Project 90” 179,520 ft.Lewis & Clark Rural Water Transmission 60” 2,112,000 ft.Miami Dade Area N. Water Transmission Main 48” 132,000 ft.
Aurora Prairie Waters Project 60” 195,360 ft.Brightwater Conveyance 168” 63,360 ft.
Platte West Water Treatment PlantMetropolitan Utilities District, Omaha, NE
Design Update
Northwest Water FacilityWichita, KS
Northwest Water Facility – Aerial View Looking NortheastWichita, KS
Northwest Water Facility – Aerial View Looking EastWichita, KS
LOI Pipeline Concept
Alternate 1: 42” Pipeline – Raw Water Supply
Existing Unused 42” Pipeline
Existing 64” Pipeline – New Finished Water Supply
Existing 66” EBWF Pipeline – Raw Water Supply
Existing 60” Cheney Pipeline –Raw Water Supply
Alternate 2: 66” Repurposed Pipeline – Raw Water Supply and Finished Water Emergency Use
Current Pipeline Concept
Design Takeaways
Redundancy in every system
Maximum flexibility
Plant that lasts multiple
generations
Progressive Design-Build Process
1 Concept Design Development 5%
2 Early Cost Model
3 Preliminary Design 30%
4 Pricing Cost Model
5 Project Optimization Period
Phase 1 | Preliminary Design and Project Cost Development
Progressive Design-Build ProcessPhase 2 | Detailed Design, Procurement and Construction
6 Work Package Development
7 Detailed Design
8 Material and Work Package Procurement
9 Construction Activities
10 Start-up, Operations and Plant Commissioning
Delivering a Reliable and Accurate GMP at 30% Design
Concept Design
(5% design and WIFIA LOI)
Preliminary parametric
cost estimate(LOI budget)
Design Optimization(GPSX processes
and operations model)
Updateparametric
cost estimate
30%Design
(Plant, pipeline, utilities)
Market based cost model (open book
self platform, competitive
subcontractor and supplier pricing, GCs, insurance
and bond warranty)
Risk-based contingency(risk register)
GMPprice
GMPproposal
Value-basedDesign
refinement
Design/scopereconciliation
GMP proposal delivered by Oct 28, 2019
We are here
Quick Statistics
1.6 million trade manhours
350 peak onsite staffing
70,000 cubic yards of concrete
18 million pounds of rebar
662,000 cubic yards of dirtwork
$35 million in process equipment
$60 million in pipe, valves and fittings
17 miles of pipe on the plant site (1” – 96”)
Over 200 firms provided market proposals for estimate
90% direct cost has been market priced to date
Status of Cost DevelopmentNorthwest Water Facility Cost Variances May 2018 to Current Trend
Re-baselined EGMP estimate
Conversation to Actual Pricing
Cost ProgressionLOI Estimate to May 2019 Early Cost Model
Estimate Level Value Running Value (M’s) CategoryLOI Budget – May 2018 $524.2Eliminate 72” Pipeline ($87.0) $437.2 Design ProgressionFlocculation/Sedimentation from Settlers $14.7 $451.9 OPEX v CAPEXAeration Process $5.9 $457.8 OPEX v CAPEXEnlarge Backwash Basin $10.3 $468.1 Design ProgressionFiber Optic $1.0 $469.1 Design ProgressionOffsite Pipe Configuration (72” Alternative) $53.8 $522.9 Design ProgressionMay 2019 ECM Budget $522.9
Cost ProgressionMay 2019 ECM to June 2019 ECM
Estimate Level Value Running Value (M’s) Category05/2019 ECM Budget $522.9Cox Property Change ($10.0) $512.9 Optimization Aeration Bypass Loop $2.0 $514.9 OPS Flexibility Enlarge Pressure Reduction Building $1.9 $516.8 OPS FlexibilityEnlarge Mussel Shell Building $3.5 $520.3 OPS Flexibility Enlarge Influent Splitter Structure $5.3 $525.6 OPS Flexibility Alternative – Solids Contact Clarifiers $16.2 $541.8 Optimization Eliminate Flocculation/Sedimentation ($28.7) $513.1 Optimization Filter/Backwash/Finished Water Modification $3.9 $517.0 OPS Flexibility Eliminate 66” Slipline ($13.9) $503.1 Design Progression Enlarge Administration Building (from 10k SF – 20k SF) $5.4 $508.5 COW Preference6/13 ECM Budget $508.5
Estimate Level Value Running Value (M’s) CategoryScope/Price Prior to Market/Changes $528.1Settlement/Geotech Issues (NONLOI) $9.8 $537.9 Design ProgressionMarket Cost Impact – American Iron & Steel $12.1 $550.0 Market Impact Market Cost Impact – Labor $7.6 $557.6 Market ImpactMarket Cost Impact – Electrical, I&C $11.1 $568.7 Market ImpactProcess Equipment Increase(s) $4.2 $572.9 Market ImpactReduce Administration Building Size to (13.4k SF) ($1.0) $571.9 COW Preference Eliminate Mussel Shell Removal ($2.9) $569.0 Optimization Redundancy Optimization ($22.5) $546.5 Optimization Value Engineering Offered ($46.1) $500.4 Value EngineeringEGMP – Added Escalation Costs $5.9 $506.3 Market Impact9/12 EGMP $506.3VE & Optimization not taken 22.5 $528.8 Value Engineering/OptimizationWith Project Additions to EGMP per SC $528.8
Cost ProgressionSeptember EGMP with COW Additions
Cost ProgressionCurrent Budget Track
Estimate Level Value Running Value (M’s) CategoryRe-Baseline with Adjustments (September 15) $557.3Additional Savings VEOP List ($61.9) $495.4 VE and Optimization WWP Contingency and Fee Reduction ($12.6) $482.8 Contingency of Fee and ReductionAdd 42” $11.7 $494.5 Potential VE and Optimization Add Slipline $2.8 $497.3 Potential VE and Optimization Add Aeration $4.8 $502.1 Potential VE and Optimization Add Clarifier Piping $1.6 $503.7 OPS Flexibility Add DSC Risks – 42” Pipeline $2.0 $505.7 Potential VE and OptimizationAdd DSC Risks – Plant Site $2.4 $508.1 COW Preference
Current Budget Track $508.1
Summary of Cost Changes
Category ValueDesign Progression ($26.0M)OPEX v CAPEX $20.60MOPS Flexibility $18.17MMarket Impact $40.90MCOW Preference $6.8MOptimization & Value Engineering ($71.5M)WWP Contingency and Fee Reduction ($12.6M)
Additonal Optimization & Value Engineering Under Consideration ($21.3M)
$21.3 million in additional savings
under consideration
Cost Takeaways
No risk of cost overruns
No exposure to inflation
Below the approved WIFIA
loan amount
Operational Efficiency Goals
Contractual Requirement for 10% Operational Savings from Baseline Operations ForecastTeam Goal of 13% SavingsOperational Costs Include
• Chemicals• Energy• Sludge Disposal Costs• Other Fixed Daily Costs and Hess Pumping
Operations Model Development
6
7
8
9
10
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
pH
Alka
linity
and
Har
dnes
s(m
g/L
as C
aCO
3)
Lime Dose (mg/L)
Jar Test
Alkalinity
hardness
pH
Chemical Baseline Projected DifferenceLime $5,832 $4,146 ($1,686)
Ferric $5,242 $594 ($4,648)CO2 $0 $722 $722Soda Ash $7,926 $0 ($7,926)Polymer $475 $339 ($136)Polyphosphate $293 $577 $284Orthophosphate $0 $598 $598Chlorine $47 $49 $2Ammonia $405 $207 ($198)
Total $20,220 $7,232 ($12,988)
Projected Chemical Usage Costs
Daily operational costs
Energy• Optimized Treatment Processes• Optimized Finished Water Pumping• Overall Reduction of Approximately 500 hp.
Sludge Disposal• Directly Related to Chemical Reduction• Reduction of 38,200 lbs/day of sludge generated
Item Baseline Projected DifferenceSludge Generated (lbs/day) 173,900 135,700 (38,200)Daily Operational Costs ($) $15,216 $11,874 ($3,342)
Projected Energy Usage and Sludge Disposal Costs
Item Baseline Projected Difference
Daily Costs $7,581.72 $7,581.72 $0
Hess Pumping $13,276.57 $13,276.57 $0
Chemicals $20,220 $7,232 ($12,988)
Energy $8,222 $7,653 ($569)
Sludge Disposal $15,216 $11,874 ($3,342)
Total $64,516.29 $47,616.29 ($16,899)
Percentage 26.2%0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
ContractualRequirement
Team Goal Actual
Projected Daily Operational Cost Savings
Daily operational costs
Item BaselineTotal Daily Savings (%) 26.2%
Total Daily Savings $16,899
Annual Savings $6.18 M
20-Year Savings $123 M
Projected Long-Term Operational Cost Savings
$123 million in future
operational savings over
20 years
Operations Takeaways
Better for the environment
More efficient to operate
Maximum value to rate payers
NWWF Funding Strategy 51% Kansas State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF)• Low interest loan administered by state • Current interest rate 2.12% (Aug. 2019)• Typical repayment term 20 years
49% Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (WIFIA) Loan • Low interest loan administered by EPA • Interest rate similar to US Treasury Rate for similar term• Flexible repayment terms • Up to 35-year repayment term
WIFIA ApplicationApplicant Information: Expanded from LOI
Detailed Project Information: City’s plan for project construction, including estimated project costs, procurement documents, and project schedules.
Operations and Maintenance Plan: City’s plan to operate the facility after construction. The plan needs to cover full duration of WIFIA financing.
Financing Plan: A comprehensive plan describing how the project will be financed and how financing will be repaid over the tenor of the requested WIFIA credit assistance
Certifications: Show compliance with NEPA, Davis-Bacon, American Iron and Steel, etc.
2022 20232019 2020 2021 2024 2025
Project Priority List Intended Use Plan(June 2019)
SRF Loan Close no later than October 2020
KDHE Review and Approval
Administrative ReviewTechnical Review Financial ReviewEnvironmental Clearance
Commissioning/Training
12 Months
KDHE SRF Loan Activities Timeline
December 2019
SRF Loan Application
Spring 2020
Begin Site Prep & Piling
ConstructionKDHE Compliance
Reviews
September 2024
Substantial Completion
2022 2023
Spring 2020
2019
July
2020
Construction
2021 2024
Commissioning & Training
12 Months
20252018
Notice of WIFIA Funding Availability
WIFIA LOI Submitted
April
October
EPA Invites City of Wichita to Apply
GMP ProposalOctober 28, 2019
WIFIA/SRF CloseNovember 1, 2020
WIFIA Application
Detailed Project InformationOperations & Maintenance PlanFinancing PlanCertifications
EPA Review and Approval
Begin Site Prep & Piling Substantial
Completion
WIFIA Loan Activities Timeline
October 30, 2019 September 2024
Schedule Takeaways
Opportunity to accelerate
Project is on schedule
Less risk for the City
Next StepsOctober 24, 2019 – Steering CommitteeOctober 28, 2019 – Wichita Water Partners Price SubmittalOctober 30, 2019 – WIFIA Application SubmittalNovember 19, 2019 – Steering Committee MeetingNovember 26, 2019 – City Council WorkshopDecember 3, 2019 – City Council Review December 3-17, 2019 – SRF Application Submitted
SummaryThank you for your time and leadership in this effort.Thank
You
We will continue to work with staff to optimize this project and deliver the best value to the rate payers of Wichita.
We have a world-class team working on your behalf.
We will deliver this project on time and within budget.
We are committed to answering your questions throughout this effort.