AWWA Conference Middle Fork Nooksack River Passage

AWWA Conference Middle Fork Nooksack River Passage Project Charrette/Value Engineering Study Overview Peter E. Jobs, CVS(Life), FSAVE PEJobs@Comcast. net

Outline o o o Scope of Charrette/VE Study Photos and Site Plan Key Issues The Study Team and Job Plan Added Value Recommendations Summary

Scope of Charrette/Value Engineering Study Review Preliminary Engineering Drawings, Design Report, Estimate and Schedule o Conduct Site Visits o Incorporate a design Charrette/VE process o Achieve consensus on design with Partnering Agreement, Design Narratives, cost and Schedule Validation, Risk Assessment o

Photos - $30, 000 project, 20 miles E. of Bellingham, planned completion December 2010 Area of Proposed Left Abutment and Penstock Tunnel Intake Spillway

Site Plan - Existing Dam, Spillway and Water Intake Structure

Key Issues o o o o Dam or No Dam Funding/Cost Stakeholder “Buy-In” Water Supply to City Fish Passage Constructability/Schedule Power

The Charrette/VE Study Team o o o Independent Multi-disciplined Ten full-time and six part-time members No ownership in previous analyses Fresh set of eyes - highly experienced professional civil and structural engineers - specialists in VE, dams, fish passage, hydraulics, o and m, power transmission, construction/scheduling, estimating

The Study Job Plan 1. INFORMATION Understand Project & Issues 2. FUNCTION ANALYSIS Understand Purpose of Project Parts 3. CREATIVE Generate Ideas to Improve Value 4. EVALUATION Select the Best Ideas 5. DEVELOPMENT Expand Ideas & Rationale, Document 6. PRESENTATION Present VE Recommendations

Creative Idea List (56 Brainstormed Ideas) Following is a list of ideas and comments for project improvement from the Design Charrette/VE study sorted by Geotechnical, Civil, Struct, Elect, Fish/Passage/Hydraulics, CM Idea No. : Idea numbers assigned to creative ideas generated during the creative phase. Score: The ideas were scored as follows to prioritize them for further development and documentation. Resp. : Team member responsible for documentation. Wkbk #: The number assigned to an idea which serves as a key to the Value Improvement Matrix (1. 1). Wk. Bk # Resp Score Idea No. Description GEOTECHNICAL 2. 1. 1 CR 5 17 Dewater In Lieu Of Cut Off Systems 2. 1. 1 CR 5 22 Eliminate Excavation Support 2. 1. 2 CR 4 18 Reduce Excavation - Use Till Foundation 2. 1. 3 CR 5 20 Eliminate Curtain Diaphragms (Walls) 2. 1. 4 CR 4 24 Simplify North Abutment Foundation 2. 2. 1 CR 5 21 Improve Penstock Alignment 2. 2. 2 CR 5 19 Rock Tunnel In Lieu Of Open Excavation 2. 2. 3 DP 5 56 Penstock as Siphon 2. 2. 4 LM 5 23 Change Diversion 2. 2. 5 LM 3 52 Additional Site Investigation Survey 2. 2. 6 LM 4 49 Size Building for Use CIVIL

Workbook Examples Following are examples of three workbooks Typical Format: Baseline Proposed Alternative Justification Advantages/Disadvantages Recommendation/Result Cost Summary Sketch of baseline Sketch of Proposed Alternative

Workbook 2. 1. 4 Excavate Less Rock and Reduce Concrete in North Abutment

Workbook 2. 1. 4 Less Rock 1, 125 cy, Less Concrete 1, 125 cy, Add Rock Bolts = Save $1, 099, 000

Workbook 2. 1. 4 Baseline Sketch (No Rock Bolts)

Workbook 2. 1. 4 Proposed with Rock Bolts and Less Rock Excavation and Less Concrete

Workbook 2. 5. 1 Reduce Slope: Zig Zag Pool or Lengthen Grade Control

Workbook 2. 5. 1 Lengthen Grade Control, Reduce Slope, Add Fill and Boulders = Added $707, 000 Cost

Workbook 2. 5. 1 Baseline Sketch: Limit 16%-18% Grade Control Structure to Upstream of Dam

Workbook 2. 5. 1 Proposed with Extended Structure Downstream of Dam and 12% Grade

Workbook 2. 5. 2 Reduce Large Boulders: Use Grout, Filter Layer, Armor Layer and Reduce Slope

Workbook 2. 5. 2 Add Boulder Armor Layer 9, 960 cy, Add Grout 2, 000 cy, Construct New Fishway = Add $2, 323, 000 Cost

Workbook 2. 5. 2 Baseline Sketch: Limit 16%-18% Grade Control Structure to Upstream of Dam

Workbook 2. 5. 2 Proposed with Backfill, Filter, Grout, Armor Boulder Layer and 12% Slope

Value Matrix (39 Workbooks Prepared) VE INVESTIGATION/ Wk. Bk No. PROPOSAL IMPLEMENTATION/ RESULTS OWNER RESPONSE Implement Status Comments (Idea No. ) 1. 1 to 1. 4 GEOTECHNICAL - $2, 030, 000 Some workbooks are mutually exclusive 2. 1 to 2. 6 CIVIL - $1, 559, 000 “ 3. 1 to 3. 6 STRUCTURAL - $937, 000 “ 4. 1 to 4. 8 ELECTRICAL - $775, 000 “ 5. 1 to 5. 10 FISH PASSAGE/HYDRAULICS + $2, 741, 000 ” 6. 1 to 6. 5 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Improved Value

Additional Added Value Partnering Agreement Cost and Schedule Validation Design Narratives Risk Assessment

Partnering Agreement (Over 20 Stakeholders) As a result of the Charrette/VE Study we, the key stakeholders for the Middle Fork Nooksack River Passage Project, have reviewed the design narratives, drawings, planning and estimate done to date. We confirm our commitment to the success of the project and will apply our best efforts to ensure a timely completion on schedule and within budget. The signatures below are from those individuals who support working together and the project team.

Cost and Schedule Validation Cost: The May 2006 preliminary cost estimate for the Artificial Constriction and Permanent Scour Pool Intake was $16, 700, 000. The validated construction costs escalated to 2008 is $30, 500, 000. Schedule: The validated schedule requires two in-water work Seasons and is forecast to be completed by December, 2010.

Design Narratives – Geotechnical Design Geology and Subsurface Conditions q Colluvium q Alluvium q Recession Glaciolacustrine Deposits q Lodgment Till q Elbow Lake Bedrock Units q Dewatering

Design Narratives – Electrical Design The Electrical Design Narrative Addressed: 1. The facility design - portable or permanent power. 2. The public utility - provide the distribution service, thus eliminating O&M costs associated with owning a 7. 2 KV line and equipment. 3. Reduce the electrical demand of the facility.

Design Narratives – Fish Passage and Hydraulics Design Structures This Design Narrative Addressed: Functions Design Issues/Constraints 1. Design Flows 2. Fish Passage up steep 16% -18% Boulder Grade Control section 3. Stability of steep Grade Control/Fish Passage structure 4. Dewatering and In-Water Work below dam for Grade Control Structure extension 5. Screen Size, Type Operational Goals

Design Narratives – Civil & Site Design q Change River Diversion Concept q Reduce Size of Maintenance Building q Contract Packaging q Early Site Clearing

Design Narratives – Structural & Dam Repair q Maintenance Building q Loads q Materials q Structural Engineering of New Intake q Site Dewatering q Site Construction q Existing Access Bridge

Risk Assessment Mitigate High Risk Issues RISK INDEX Project risks and weight factors are: 1. Funding/Constructability High Wt. 5 2. Approvals/Stakeholders High Wt. 5 3. Weather/Flood High Wt. 5 4. Safety Medium Wt. 4 5. Schedule Medium Wt. 4 6. Overhead Power Loss Medium Wt. 4 7. Disputes Medium Wt. 4 8. Grade Control Performance Medium Wt. 3 9. Competitive Bids Medium Wt. 3 10. Budget Low Wt. 2 Total = 39 Risk Index = 39 divided by 10 = 3. 9 Under the typical or ideal circumstances, the Risk Index would average a medium three (3) or less. On this project, the Risk Index calculated to be 3. 9. Since the Index was considerably higher than that for a typical project, it was an indication the City of Bellingham needed to take specific measures to mitigate the higher risk issues in the near future.

Summary Results: Design Narratives – Basis for future design Cost and Schedule validation Risk Assessment Improved Project Value Partnering Agreement – Stakeholder commitment Costs: Baseline 2006 Estimate $16, 700, 000 Estimate Validated adjustments $13, 800, 000 Total Validated adjusted cost $30, 500, 000 Less Charrette/VE savings - $8, 000 Total cost after Charrette/VE $22, 500, 000

Client Response I continue to believe that the VE process was invaluable on an “unusual” project such as the Dam Removal Project. Not only did it formalize the “ingeniousness” aspect that we all strive for, but it also tended to provide a very clear, very accessible background document explaining the “how” along with the “why”. Derek Holzl, PE Project Manager City of Bellingham