Additional information summarizing the alternatives and development of this recommendation by staff is attached.

Transcription

1 Date: July 5, 206 To: Public Works Commission From: John Tensen Subject: Lander Street Contract Delivery Strategy Issue Public Works Commission recommendation for approval to proceed with a Construction Manager General Contractor (CMGC) for Lander Street Improvements beginning in Fiscal Year 207 including site work, headworks, disinfection and filtration. Background The Lander Street Wastewater Treatment Facility (LSWTF) has significant improvements scheduled to take place in the City s six-year planning cycle. The improvements are to address both regulatory compliance and rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. In addition, there are improvements required at the West Boise Wastewater Treatment Facility (WBWTF). Because of the scale of these planned improvements, Public Works staff has evaluated strategies for packaging and contracting the initial work to proactively address the challenges at that LSWTF including: () site coordination and congestion, (2) schedule for compliance, and (3) financial capacity. The evaluation identified packaging the projects of site work, headworks, disinfection, and filtration and procuring a CMGC to join the team early and develop the best method for sequencing the work to address our challenges. The additional projects not included will be packaged and contracting methods developed at a later date when more information becomes available. Additional information summarizing the alternatives and development of this recommendation by staff is attached. Suggested Motion I move to forward on to the City Council a recommendation to proceed with procurement of a Construction Manager General Contractor for the Lander Street Improvements in Fiscal Year 207.

2 Summary Report #09 City of Boise Wastewater Facility Plan June 9, 206 Lander Street Improvements Delivery Approach The Issue There are multiple approaches for packaging and delivery of capital improvements at Lander Street each with different advantages. The Lander Street Team (Team) considered these approaches while developing a recommendation which best limits potential risks and maximizes benefits for the City. Background and Analysis The approach for the Lander Street Improvements was reviewed in the context of the entire 6-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The City's CIP includes several projects at Lander Street totaling approximately $60M to address regulatory requirements or needed asset replacement. Concurrent to Lander Street projects, the City will implement several projects totaling approximately $25M at the West Boise WWTF as shown below. Lander Street WWTF Headworks Facility Tertiary Filtration Temperature Mitigation Ultraviolet Disinfection Site Improvements West Boise WWTF Tertiary Filtration Temperature Mitigation The team identified several important factors influencing the best delivery approach, these include: Site Coordination and Access The Lander Street site has limited external access and developable area creating potential conflicts between concurrent projects. Schedule The City's NPDES permit conditions require several planned projects be completed by The Team recommends completing permit compliance projects 6-2 months prior to the 2022 deadline. Financial Capacity The City's finance strategy prefers cash funding projects and managing rate increases below inflation. Consequently, the proposed projects need to be sequenced to match existing reserve balances and projected revenues / cash flow. In addition, the Team also considered other factors such as external market conditions (demands on the contracting community) and the City's organizational capacity. The Team also considered four (4) different ways to 'package' / combine construction projects to minimize risks and maximize benefits. Each of the contract packages (A, B, C,...) identified in Table would be executed by a single engineer and general contractor. Table also summarizes the associated advantages and disadvantages with each alternative. The contract packaging alternatives were reviewed in the context of the entire CIP, but the recommendations is specific to the Lander Street Improvements projects. The Team considered all these factors as they evaluated different approaches for Lander Street construction projects. Delivery approaches considered Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), Lump Sum Design Build (LSDB), and Progressive Design Build (PDB). Considering the factors described above, the Team determined LSDB and PDB did not meet the City's interests for this effort and were eliminated from further consideration. A full summary of the City's interests in DBB and CM/GC delivery approaches is shown in Table 2.

3 Summary Report #09 City of Boise Wastewater Facility Plan June 9, 206 Lander Street Improvements Delivery Approach Potential Consequences Tables and 2 fully summarize the factors considered by the Team. Several key consequences considered most important include: More contract packages increases site coordination risks between contractors and likely shifts primary responsibility for managing them to the City. The CM/GC approach enables earlier contractor involvement in a project and provides a better opportunity for optimizing construction methods, bid packaging, and sequence activities to meet cash flow goals. Recommendation The Team recommends proceeding with Contract Package A of Alternative 2 (four (4) projects total, two (2) at each plant) using a CM/GC delivery approach. The basis for this recommendation is as follows: Advantages Reduced site constraint and project coordination risks at Lander Street with a single project delivery team (City, engineer, and CM/GC). A single design engineer would provide design continuity and overall site control. The construction manager would provide sequencing, bid package configuration and constructability input during design development. The CM/GC approach enables the City to best identify multiple guaranteed maximum price (GMP) bid packages (e.g., Tertiary Filters, UV) to satisfy the City s cash flow goals. A single CM/GC and engineer at Lander Street, in conjunction with the City, will best optimize overall project delivery over multiple bid packages. Multiple GMP bid packages will be advertised to the contracting community for execution as a subcontractor being managed overall by a single CM/GC. The CM/GC manages this process without a commitment of additional City resources for procurement. The proposed approach is more easily adaptable to external constraints, such as changes to NPDES permit s. Disadvantages Awarding oversight responsibility at Lander Street to a single CM/GC can reduce the number of contractors involved. Consequently, the team recommends limiting the amount of work selfperformed by the CM/GC. This solution increases distribution of work to contractors while preserving the coordination benefits. During procurement we recommend specifying the minimum number of GMPs and CM/GC self-performance limits. Under both DBB and CM/GC methods, changed conditions risk primarily remains the City's responsibility. This risk is minimized by identifying and coordinating issues earlier with the engineer and CM/GC during design and reducing impacts to overall project costs. 2

4 Table. Contract Packaging Alternatives Alterative Alternative 2 Alternative 3A Alternative 3B Contract Packages A: Lander Street Filters, UV, Headworks, Temperature Mitigation, and Site Improvements ($57.9M/$46.3M) B: West Boise Tertiary Filtration ($6.4M/$3.M) C: West Boise Temperature Mitigation A: Lander Street Filters, UV, Headworks, and Site Improvements ($45.9M/$36.8M) B: West Boise Tertiary Filtration ($6.4M/$3.M) C: Lander Street Temperature Mitigation D: West Boise Temperature Mitigation A: Lander Street Filters, UV, and Site Improvements ($24.9M/$9.9M) B: Lander Street Headworks ($2M/$6.8M) C: West Boise Tertiary Filtration ($6.4M/$3.M) D: Lander Street Temperature Mitigation E: West Boise Temperature Mitigation A: Lander Street Headworks & Site Improvements ($23.5M/$8.8M) B: Lander Street Filters and UV ($22.4M/$7.9M) C: West Boise Tertiary Filtration ($6.4M/$3.M) D: Lander Street Temperature Mitigation E: West Boise Temperature Mitigation Site Coordination and Access Lowest risk of coordination issues between work Projects located in close proximity would be constructed by the same contractor One team (engineer + contractor) responsible for site coordination and hydraulic profile coordination Moderate risk of coordination issues between work Projects located in close proximity would be constructed by the same contractor One team (engineer + contractor) responsible for site coordination and hydraulic profile coordination Highest risk of coordination issues between work Projects located in close proximity constructed by different Contractors City assumes risks for site coordinate and hydraulic profile coordination Highest risk of coordination issues between work Projects located in close proximity constructed by different Contractors City assumes risks for site coordinate and hydraulic profile coordination Schedule Simultaneous completion of three projects to meet 6 procurement periods (engineering and Simultaneous completion of four projects to meet 8 procurement periods (engineering and Simultaneous completion of five projects to meet 0 procurement periods (engineering and Simultaneous completion of five projects to meet 0 procurement periods (engineering and Financial Capacity Contract Package A may not satisfy the cash flow constraints under certain delivery methods (e.g. DBB) Funding for Temperature Mitigation projects not included in cash flow estimates but included in Contract Package A, creating procurement challenges Contract Package A may not satisfy the cash flow constraints under certain delivery methods (e.g. DBB) Project schedules could be sequenced to meet cash flow demands Project schedules could be sequenced to meet cash flow demands Other Constraints (Market Conditions and Organizational Capacity) Two project managers ( LS + WB) needed to Uncertainty associated with timing of Lander Street Temperature Mitigation creates procurement challenges for Contract Package A Least number of contractors and engineers involved in delivery Size of Contract Package A may preclude some local bidders from competing for the project Large contract package will allow general contractor (GC) to maintain trade involvement and reduce the risk of increased bid prices Two project managers ( LS + WB) needed to Moderate number contractors and engineers involved in delivery Large contract package will allow GC to maintain trade involvement and reduce the risk of increased bid prices Three project managers (2 LS + WB) needed to Most contractors and engineers involved in delivery Number of contract packages may exceed number of available local contractors and engineers with adequate experience Number of work item groups may result in higher bid prices for later projects due to the availability of trades Three project managers (2 LS + WB) needed to Most contractors and engineers involved in delivery Number of contract packages may exceed number of available local contractors and engineers with adequate experience Number of work item groups may result in higher bid prices for later projects due to the availability of trades Approximate total project value and construction value, respectively, shown in parentheses following each contract package based on current CIP budget. 3

5 Table 2. Delivery Approach Alternatives Site Coordination and Access Schedule Financial Capacity Other Constraints (Market Conditions and Organizational Capacity) Design-Bid-Build Coordination risks are the responsibility of City or owner s advisor/site coordination engineer City has familiarity with this delivery approach Project schedule must be established by City and Engineer. If deviations occur during construction, risk increases for not meeting regulatory. Less able to adapt to changing conditions resulting from NPDES permit negotiations Contractor is not involved in initial project sequencing, limiting opportunities for execution efficiencies Longest schedule due to linear nature of DBB Cash flow must be controlled through project sequencing or strict contract provisions Project costs are not known until bid opening (with final costs not established until the end of the project) Project accounting for individual projects is not transparent Procurement is the responsibility of the City, which may not meet organizational capacity constraints depending on number of contract packages Potential for limited local contract involvement with fewer contract packages Allows all contractors to bid CM/GC Site coordination is the responsibility of CM/GC, assuming execution with larger package City has familiarity with this delivery approach Project schedule established collaboratively with engineer and CM/GC, decreasing risk of not meeting regulatory Ability to adapt to changing conditions resulting from NPDES permit negotiations Guaranteed maximum price (GMP) packages can be sequenced to meet schedule demands City, engineer, and CM/GC can work collaboratively to develop GMP packages to meet cash flow demands Project costs are established earlier in the design process allowing for cost certainty and sequencing with cash flow demands Open book accounting is transparent Procurements for GMPs are the responsibility of the CM/GC, reducing the organizational capacity demands on the City Requiring multiple GMPs allows more local contractor involvement Local contractors are pre-qualified prior to bidding for work. City can establish percentage of total work bid out 4