Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

60% Design and Cost Estimate

4 056 vues

Publié le

The Clean Water Facility project team's review of the 60 percent cost and design estimate.

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

60% Design and Cost Estimate

  1. 1. Clean Water Facility 60% Estimate Review
  2. 2. • Project Team • City of Oak Harbor • Carollo Engineers • Hoffman Construction • KBA Construction Management • OAC – Project Advisor • HDR – Rates • PFM – Funding Advisor Introductions 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 2
  3. 3. • 60% Design Cost Estimate • Bio-solids Alternatives • Community Room Options • Funding and Rates Agenda 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 3
  4. 4. 60% Cost Estimate 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 4
  5. 5. • 2008 Sewer Comp Plan – Anaerobic Cell at Lagoons • 2010 Facilities Plan – Site and process selection • 2013 Selected Windjammer Park • 2014 Selected and Purchased former WIB property • 2014 Selected GC/CM Process and Hoffman Background 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 5
  6. 6. • 60% Engineers estimate provides a probable range of cost • -5% to +15% • GC/CM provide opinion of cost for a Guaranteed Maximum Price. • Conservative escalation factors, allowances and contingencies “Budget Number” • Think of these numbers as the “Bookends” of potential construction costs • Estimate is not a bid! GC/CM “Opinion of Cost” vs. “Engineers Estimate” 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 6
  7. 7. • Incorporated Cost Savings from 30% review • Reduced Deep Excavation Footprint • Headworks / MBR Common Wall • Electrical, Instrumentation and Controls 30%  60% What’s Changed? 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 7
  8. 8. • Greater Detail in Drawings • More Advanced Vendor Quotes • Site Prep A – Better Understanding of Site Risks • Confirmed Depth to Glacial Till • Some Systems Showed an Increase in Cost • Others Systems Showed a Decrease in Cost 30%  60% What’s Changed? 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 8
  9. 9. • Everything inside the box to the right  • Architectural Concept A • Construction Only! • Does not include splash park What’s included in the Opinion of Cost? 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 9
  10. 10. • Bio-solids Dryer • Community Room • Rebuilding City Beach Street • Southern Access Road • Architectural Concept A What’s Included 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 10
  11. 11. • Demolition of former bank building • North parking lot • Southern parking lot • Mitigation • Property / Easements / Right of Way • Engineering / Construction Management / Archaeology What isn’t included 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 11
  12. 12. 60% Cost Estimate $98M $113M $91M $109M $60M $70M $80M $90M $100M $110M $120M Carollo Hoffman 30% 30%60% 60% 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 12
  13. 13. Area 30% 60% Delta % Delta Admin/Maintenance $6,576,485 $5,957,850 ($618,635) -9.4% Community Center $1,670,560 $2,372,686 $702,126 42.0% Landscaping $766,966 $2,446,105 $1,679,139 218.9% Civil Sitework $17,522,245 $17,869,334 $347,089 -2.0% Headworks $13,225,668 $13,226,368 $700 0.0% Secondary Building $28,521,730 $26,447,663 ($2,074,067) -7.3% AB WAS Storage $13,272,552 $13,022,498 ($250,054) -1.9% Blower Building $2,009,339 $2,657,458 $648,119 32.3% Biosolids Facility $17,827,572 $14,615,311 ($3,295,443) -18.5% Odor Treatment $4,036,544 $4,820,893 $784,349 19.4% Electrical Building $7,873,971 $5,543,733 ($2,330,238) -29.6% Total $113,303,660 $108,896,717 ($4,406,943) -3.9% Hoffman 30% vs. 60% We will discuss these two later in the presentation We will discuss these two later in the presentation 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 13
  14. 14. Description Costs Direct Costs $9,046,471 Escalation Allowance $550,046 Market Conditions Allowance $136,241 Design Contingency $622,807 Subcontractor Bonding $47,819 Negotiated Support Services $644,488 GMP Contingency $386,676 SUBTOTAL, GMP $11,434,547 GC/CM Specified General Conditions $243,826 GC/CM Fee $489,399 Sales Tax $1,058,596 Total Construction Costs $13,226,368 Headworks Breakdown 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 14
  15. 15. • Mechanical • Concrete • Contingency Factors • Construction Indirect Costs • Explore Options to Increase Value and Reduce Cost Cost Savings Moving Forward 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 15
  16. 16. Questions? 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 16
  17. 17. Bio-solids 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 17
  18. 18. Background: “Biosolids 101” • What are biosolids? “Sewage sludge” are the solids that settle out in the wastewater treatment process. “Biosolids” are produced by treating sewage sludge to meet standards that allow for beneficial use. • How can biosolids be used? Biosolids can be used in different ways, depending on their classification. “Class B” biosolids must be land applied in bulk at a permitted site. “Class A” biosolids can also be land applied in bulk, and may even be bagged and sold if they are high enough quality. 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 18
  19. 19. Biosolids Reuse in Washington Covered dump truck Dewatered biosolids King County’s “Loop” Trucks Land application in Eastern WA SoundGRO Fertilizer Pierce Co, WA Dried Biosolids Loading Alderwood, WA 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 19
  20. 20. Background: Oak Harbor’s Plan • Several alternatives evaluated in Facilities Plan, including: - Beneficial reuse of dried Class A biosolids - Beneficial reuse of lime-stabilized Class B biosolids - Landfilling dewatered untreated solids that do not meet reuse standards • Dryer for Class A biosolids preferred long-term solution - Most flexibility for local reuse (Potential revenue source to reduce annual O&M cost) - Reduced truck traffic - “Manageable” odor and aesthetic risk • Lime-stabilization for Class B proposed for Phase 1 - Lower initial capital cost, but higher cost for hauling to Eastern WA - Provides time to develop and implement Class A beneficial reuse program 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 20
  21. 21. What has changed since planning? • Lime stabilization not recommended at Windjammer Vicinity - Potential for odor, mess - Large footprint required to store treated biosolids - Truck traffic (lime deliveries; Class B biosolids off-haul) • Cost of Class A dryer has increased between planning and 60% - More proven technology (that is also larger, more expensive) selected to reduce risk and increase operator safety • Estimated total WWTP construction cost at 60% motivates review of solids treatment alternatives to reduce impact to rate payers 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 21
  22. 22. What alternatives are currently being considered? • “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids - Construct on-site dewatering and thermal drying to Class A - Beneficial reuse of biosolids on Whidbey Island - NOTE: Basis of current 60% cost estimate • Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids - Construct on-site dewatering - Construct off-site treatment with lime stabilization to Class B - Haul lime-stabilized biosolids for beneficial reuse in Eastern Washington • Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids (Interim Only) - Construct on-site dewatering - Haul dewatered solids to landfill (extending 2-year period requires Ecology exemption) 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 22
  23. 23. “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids Solids Process Schematic 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 23
  24. 24. TRUCK LOADING DEWATERING DRYING WAS STORAGE SOLIDS BUILDING “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids Site Plan & Solids Building at WWTP 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 24
  25. 25. “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids Summary of Estimated Costs Base Case - Class A Dryer Estimated Cost Notes Based on 60% design 8,700 sf building with dryer installed Assumes 1 FTE for solids process Assumes $0 for hauling/Class A reuse 10-year Annualized Cost (Capital + O&M) $2.2 M Assumes 3% interest Capital Cost (WWTP) Annual O&MCost $14.5M $500,000 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 25
  26. 26. “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids Advantages and Challenges Advantages • Consolidates solids treatment at WWTP • Fewest truck trips to/from WWTP • Beneficial reuse consistent with Ecology requirements • Class A provides flexibility for reuse options • Potential revenue to offset O&M cost Challenges • High Capital Cost • High Operating Cost • Requires development of Class A Biosolids Program • Additional complexity for O&M 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 26
  27. 27. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids Solids Process Schematic 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 27
  28. 28. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids Site Plan at WWTP WAS STORAGE SOLIDS BUILDING TRUCK LOADING DEWATERING 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 28
  29. 29. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids Site Plan Off-Site (Lime Stabilization Facility) Lime Stabilization Facility Lime Stabilized Biosolids 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 29
  30. 30. Alt 1 - Class B Lime Stabilization Estimated Cost Notes Based on 60% design 5,800 sf building, no dryer Based on preliminary information Assumes facility at City Shops Total Capital Cost Range $12.2M- $13.2M Assumes .5 FTE for solids process Includes $316,000 hauling to Eastern WA 10-year Annualized Cost (Capital + O&M) $2.1M- $2.2M Assumes 3% interest Capital Cost (WWTP) $8.2M Annual O&MCost $672,000 Capital Cost (Off-Site Lime Facility) $4.0M- $5.0M Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids Summary of Estimated Costs 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 30
  31. 31. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids Advantages and Challenges Advantages • Potentially reduced Capital Cost • Beneficial reuse consistent with Ecology requirements Challenges • High Operating cost • Additional truck trips to/from WWTP • Limited flexibility for reuse of Class B biosolids • Separates biosolids handing and treatment from WWTP • Requires another site • Likely requires amendment to Facilities Plan and Environmental Documents 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 31
  32. 32. Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids Solids Process Schematic 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 32
  33. 33. WAS STORAGE SOLIDS BUILDING DRYING (FUTURE) Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids Site Plan at WWTP TRUCK LOADING DEWATERING 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 33
  34. 34. Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids Summary of Estimated Costs Alt 2 - Interim Landfill Estimated Cost Notes Based on 60% design 8,700 sf building, no dryer Assumes .3 FTE for solids process Includes $200,000 hauling to landfill 10-year Annualized Cost (Capital + O&M) $1.5M Assumes 3% interest Annual O&MCost $440,000 Capital Cost (WWTP) $9.4M 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 34
  35. 35. Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids Advantages and Challenges Advantages • Reduced Capital Cost • Reduced O&M Cost • Class A facilities can be phased-in over time Challenges • Not consistent with Ecology requirements – requires exemption • Interim solution • Limited flexibility for disposal of unclassified solids • Likely requires amendment to Facilities Plan and Environmental Documents 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 35
  36. 36. Summary of Solids Alternatives 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 36
  37. 37. Questions? 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 37
  38. 38. Community Room 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 38
  39. 39. • 60% cost estimate based on Concept A Community Meeting Room 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 39
  40. 40. Community Meeting Room 9/30/2015 40 • +/- 146 w/o tables • +/- 102 w/tables City Council Special Workshop
  41. 41. Description Costs Direct Costs $1,570,687 Escalation Allowance $95,501 Market Conditions Allowance $23,655 Design Contingency $155,468 Subcontractor Bonding $20,958 Negotiated Support Services $115,615 GMP Contingency $69,366 SUBTOTAL, GMP $2,051,250 GC/CM Specified General Conditions $43,740 GC/CM Fee $87,794 Sales Tax $189,902 Total Construction Costs $2,372,686 Community Meeting Room 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 41
  42. 42. Community Meeting Room • Benefits • Construction Efficiency • Provide greater integration into park • Economic development • Challenges • Business case • Operations • Securing funding 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 42
  43. 43. Community Meeting Room 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 43 • Cost Estimate for Concept B under development
  44. 44. Without Community Meeting Room 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 44 • Concept B without Community Meeting Room
  45. 45. • Sewer Fund shouldn’t bear the entire burden • Approximately half could be paid by Utility Funds • The other half by the general fund, grants, etc… Funding Options 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 45
  46. 46. Options 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 46 1. Include Community Room 2. Remove Community Room 3. Keep Community Room in Design as an Additive/Alternate bid item
  47. 47. Questions? 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 47
  48. 48. Funding & Rates 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 48
  49. 49. 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 49
  50. 50. Summary 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 50
  51. 51. • We have more work to do! • There are more opportunities for cost savings • We have a great team! (City, Carollo, Hoffman, OAC, KBA, …) • The bid prices are the ultimate determination of cost! Summary 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 51
  52. 52. • October 20 – City Council Meeting • Resolution 15-xx – Community Room • Resolution 15-xx – Bio-solids Handling • GMP #4 – Site Prep Package B • GMP #5 – Bio-Solids Dryer Procurement • Consultant Agreement Amendments What’s Next 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 52

×