Item L1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 Division: Engineering &Public Works
Bulk Item: Yes X No _ Department: Wastewater
Staff Contact Person/Phone #:Wilson (453-8797)
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of Cudjoe Regional Wastewater—Outer Island Collection &
Transmission System project changes included in FKAA Project#4053-12 Change Order 43. The
result is a net change to the project of$924,843.77 plus added paving costs of$6,011,140.28 =
$6,935,954.05.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The added items include remote monitoring of grinder stations ($655k),
addition of an emergency generator plug on grinder stations ($318,920), expansion of the system to
include Little Palm Island ($453,940.03), a Cayman Dr. extension not included in the original plans
($104,382), additional connection points for properties developed after design development was
complete ($106,596), and the addition of full width overlays where only single lane overlays were
required ($6,011,140.23). These are partially offset by cost reductions for expedited design ($12,500),
savings on the Niles Channel Directional drilling ($250k), and sales tax savings as a result of owner
direct purchase ($451,494.26).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Items discussed at BOCC September 13, 2013 meeting.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend Approval
TOTAL COST:$6,935,954.05 INDIRECT COST: Staff Time BUDGETED: Yes X No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: $6,530,954.05 SOURCE OF FUNDS: —Fund 312 plus assessments
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required _
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM#
Revised 7/09
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM # DOE - &I CONSENT: ❑ REGULAR: 0
Meeting Date: September 25, 2013 Department: Engineering
AGENDA TITLE: APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER 3 TO THE CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER - OUTER
ISLAND COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FKAA PROJECT 4053, FOR A CREDIT OF $586,535
AND FOR ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,522,519.
ITEM BACKGROUND:The above referenced contract called for a formalized Value Engineering Study(VES)to review
the project design criteria and planning documents.A final VES report was produced by the Contractor in April 2013.
Monroe County and FKAA worked with the Contractor to determine which of the VES recommendations to consider for
approval. Concurrently, over the past several months, other VE recommendations have been discussed and have been
integrated into this Change Order. One of the VE options is for $451,494 in sales tax savings under FKAA's Owner
Direct Purchase program. This program will include issuance of Purchase Orders in the amount of $7,522,519 for
2,078 grinder pumps and accessories.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT ACTION BY FKAA BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Approved contract award on December 19, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (MOTION): TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER 3 TO THE CUDJOE REGIONAL
WASTEWATER - OUTER ISLAND COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FKAA PROJECT 4053, FOR
A CREDIT OF $586,535 AND FOR ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,522,519.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: A copy of the proposed change order and associated documentation is attached.
A result of this change order will provide for sales tax savings of$451,494 through FKAA's Owner Direct Purchase
(ODP) program. This change order will require an amendment of the ILA with Monroe County.
DOCUMENTATION: Included: X To-Follow: ❑ Not Required: ❑
COST FKAA: $ BUDGETED: Yes X IVo ❑
COST/OTHERS: $6,935,984 (Monroe County)
COST TOTAL: $6,935,984
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROV L:
Reviewed by: Internal Auditor: _ General Counsel: Executive Director: / m.. .
.w
BOARD ACTION:
Approved: ❑ Tabled: ❑ Disapproved: ❑ Recommendation Revised: ❑
Comments:
Date: Recording Clerk:
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Monroe County, Florida
September 25,2013
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System
Design Build Project for Outer Islands
FKAA Project No. 4053-12
Change Order No. 3
I. General
This Change Order is hereby made a part of the Contract Documents. All
requirements of the original Design Build Agreement dated January 15, 2013
shall remain in full force and effect except as modified hereinafter.
II. Scope of Work and Reason for Modification
A. Inclusion of certain Value Engineering Study (VES) recommendations which
provide either cost savings and/or provide value-added improvements to the
project. The contract called for a formalized study to review the project design
criteria and planning documents. A final VES report was produced by the
Contractor in April 2013.
Monroe County and FKAA worked with the Contractor to determine which of
the VES recommendations to consider for approval. Concurrently, over the
past several months, other VE recommendations have been discussed and
have been integrated into this Change Order. The selected alternative VE
items are attached as EXHIBIT A — VE Summary for the Cudjoe Regional
Outer Islands Project, September 25, 2013.
B. Contract Time: For the VE item related to additional asphalt pavement work,
120 days shall be added to the final completion date of the contract. This
added time shall not extend the substantial completion date of the wastewater
system for operational acceptance. Thus, the Contract Substantial
Completion remains December 30, 2015 and the Final Completion date
shall now be June 27, 2016.
III. Summary
- Original Awarded Contract Amount $ 79,813,000
- Amount of Change Orders 1 $ 4,999,440
- Previous Adjusted Contract Amount $ 84,812,440
- Amount of Change Order No. 3 $ ( 586,535)
- Newly Adjusted Contract Amount $ 84,225,905
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Cudjoe Change Order 3 Outer Isles
TG Walker,Sept.2013
IV. Specific Conditions
A. The VE item for Owner Direct Purchase (ODP) shall follow the procedures
provided in EXHIBIT B
These procedures will be incorporated into the contract documents regarding
responsibilities of Contractor and Owner for handling procurement and
delivery of the identified items for ODP.
B. The VE item for servicing Little Palm Island is for final design, permitting
and construction activities. The Contractor shall not proceed with the design
or permitting until written confirmation of engagement has been received
from the Owner of Palm Island (Noble House). The Contractor shall not
proceed with construction activities for this portion of the project until
finances for the work are in place and FKAA issues the Contractor NTP for
this work.
C. The VE item for additional pavement work is to be completed concurrently or
immediately after the contracted pavement work. The allowance for additional
time for final completion for this added work item shall not interfere with the
Contractor's obligation to substantial complete the wastewater system by
December 30, 2013.
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Design Build Contractor, Layne Heavy
Civil, Inc., agree that the Contract sum agreed to in this Change Order constitutes a full
and complete settlement of the issues set forth in this Agreement. The Contractor accepts
the terms of the Change Order as full compensation for all costs, whether direct or
indirect, whether incurred or in the future, related to the issues set forth in this Change
Order.
Page 2 of 3
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Cudjoe Change Order 3 Outer Isles
TG Walker,Sept.2013
The undersigned have carefully read this Change Order and by affixing their signatures
attest their full agreement with the provisions herein.
Owner:
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Kirk C. Zuelch Date
Executive Director
Tom Walker, PE Date
Director of Engineering
Joe Ivey Date
Construction Contracts Manager
Contractor:
Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.
Mark Accetturo Date
President
Wesley Self, PE Date
Program Manager
FKAA Board Approval Date:
Page 3 of 3
-
a
c cn
7
o a LL
c i
w a) O
o c (D
a m LL
,n a) a) _0 C
0 C C
C N (0
co V Co a) c a)cu
J
Z
aw a2' J CL '`oo COCO ti
a) O '3 C II a0 N 00
O N U .0 d L6 11J M d'
Z U ~ � �
O N a) o a) Q 00 co N I 00
M a d O N o \ p- 00 � 01
�.. I a 0 a) o o a)ca E cn CD
u to
a U rn LO C0 .2 J
0 7 a a) Co\0 N O C d
> o `n m a a) C
7 1
V 00 Q a) (fl CD m a)
W r` a s O a) O A_- X a)
J u�{ N , a) CD cn E
N 4_ L C a)
C C CL Ln O
N O Jf6 Li-
0)
a) ON N L O a 69 (D c Ln mE a
E U O io- O
Z I
CO
V C m (6 64 Nt J 00
00 CD W CR 0 0 00 (O
I �N
LU N O O N
M Z a"' O CD
LU) O Lo
•.. Vr 7 � O (O I �
~ Z 0) C N Cl)
W I 0 r- ao
WW
(» 60- 6 69 v>
O O co C) O OD O M p
r O O O N O (O I 00 00 "i
M ,^, C rn rn M LLO m LO m
Ln co co Nt O F N Ln
o 0- a M It t LO Cl) E
LA
O LL)
LU
a I _ co
o to
'E I p v
U I c a) Y � o ca 'n v
m a) aui claw a � o II p
j O I c°
E N
� oa)a a c O+
L- O a)a) V J o
a) c Z3 cn U E Q
t O a a) o ( (
O W E C
a) E H 0 � O
a� C
cm
fo � aw .0 G o
a) m E v, CL
`
L E o O a n > m I � (D DI v
d U a) U d W E C O U I U C 11 Y
() p c`na c U c cCM
a co 31 E;
I = E oo` � oq5 � N � ao m I I 0) mI oI
O Z I a) C) > o a) U _ E _ j o c`) cn
i O C ✓) M N a a) J flf La LL a) ! I t >1 'I �I
Q' O �O O is ca (h N p c CO v
d a) ice' a '� c dam _ � U o0 00 � � o I o oI ��
1 O Q > a) `� �a .Q a) cn .5 a) a)j o L
'i3 I C I I v o a a - 3 0) cp -0 a m IL w L>a v
I I ° w '� n w z If � a Q f ml
(--, m
0 I o I Ci � a �i a) M CD w Q � � (o r` w � of � i U U W I rn
hxia� .a � r lj
Section 01625
OWNER DIRECT PURCHASE PROGRAM
PART 1 —GENERAL
1-1. GENERAL. This section applies for purchases greater than $10,000.
Because the Owner holds a current Florida Consumer's Certificate Revenue,
construction materials and equipment purchased by the Owner for and
incorporated into this Project are eligible for exemption from Florida State sales
tax. The Contractor shall implement the following procedures for the Owner to
take advantage of its sales tax exempt status.
1-2. DEFINITIONS.
Direct-Purchase Items: Material purchased directly by the Owner through
execution and delivery of a Purchase Order.
Purchase Order: The Owner's request for materials from a particular
vendor or supplier and the Owner's promise to pay for the materials
specified upon delivery and acceptance at the project site, and
presentation of proper documentation by the Contractor to the Owner
certifying payment of same.
Purchasing Requisition Request Form: A request by the Contractor to the
Owner specifying items, in sufficient detail, that the Owner will directly
purchase from a particular vendor or supplier.
PART 2— PRODUCTS
Not Used.
PART 3— EXECUTION
3-1. PROCEDURES.
A. The Contractor shall include the cost of construction materials and
equipment in its Bid Price for this section. "fhe Bid Price will also
include all Florida States sales taxes normally applicable to such
materials and equipment directly from the supplier. In the event the
Owner elects to make direct purchases, as referred to in this Section
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 01625 Owner Direct Purchase Program
Cudjoe Key -1- September 2012
as "Direct-Purchase Items", the responsibilities of both, the Owner and
the Contractor relative to Direct-Purchase Items shall be governed by
the terms and conditions of this Section. This Section shall take
precedence over any conflicting conditions and terms of other Contract
Documents. All clerical, administrative, management, supervisory,
inspection handling, storage, and other costs necessary for the
Contractor to comply with this Section are included in the Bid Price.
B. The Contractor shall select the supplier or suppliers from whom it
wishes to purchase materials or equipment.
C. The Contractor shall require major Subcontractors to comply with
these procedures.
D. The Contractor shall furnish Owner with a Purchasing Requisition
Request Form identifying each item of material or equipment to be
purchased by the Contractor for the Project. This form shall be
acceptable to Owner. The Purchasing Requisition Request Form shall
include:
1. The name, address, telephone number and contact person for the
supplier
2. Manufacturer or brand, model or specification number of the item.
3. Quantity needed as estimated by the Contractor or its
Subcontractors and Suppliers
4. The price quoted by the Supplier for the material or equipment in
question.
5. Any sales tax associated with such quote.
6. Shipping, handling and insurance costs.
7. Delivery date as established by the Contractor or its Subcontractors
and Suppliers.
8. Special terms and conditions which have been negotiated with the
supplier relative to payment terms, discounts, rebates, warranty,
credits or other terms and conditions which will revert to the Owner.
9. Statement with the submittal control number that materials have
been reviewed and approved by Engineer during the Shop Drawing
submittal process.
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 01625 Owner Direct Purchase Program
Cudjoe Key -2- September 2012
E. Promptly upon receipt of a Purchasing Requisition Request Form, the
Owner shall award a Purchase Order for that material or equipment,
which the Owner chooses to purchase. The Purchase Order shall
require that the supplier provide the required shipping and handling
insurance. The Purchase Order shall also require the delivery of the
Direct-Purchase Items on the delivery dates provided by the Contractor
on the Purchasing Requisition Request Form. A copy of each
Purchase Order will be sent to the Contractor to verify that items
ordered are in accordance with the Purchasing Requisition Request
Form, the terms and delivery dates required.
F. The Contractor shall prepare and the Owner shall execute deductive
Change Orders to reflect purchases made by the Owner. The amount
of the deduction shall be based on the Requisition amount plus sales
tax avoided. These Change Orders shall be executed before the
related Purchase Order will be paid.
G. Nothing in this Section shall alter or modify the procedures for
submission of Shop Drawings and other submittals by the Contractor.
H. The Contractor shall be fully responsible for all matters relating to the
receipt, protection and risk of loss of Direct-Purchase Items the same
as if such items were purchased by the Contractor. At a minimum, the
Contractor shall verify correct quantities, verify documentation,
coordinate and expedite delivery, obtain and verify warranties required
by the Contract Documents, inspect and accept each item at the time
of delivery, unload, handle and store the item. Direct purchase of
materials by the Owner in no way relieves the Contractor of any
responsibilities regarding the compliance with specification
requirements, coordination, protection, scheduling or warranty.
I. As Direct-Purchase Items are delivered to the job-site, Contractor shall
visually inspect all shipments, and approve the supplier's shipping
documents and invoice. The Contractor shall ensure that each delivery
of Direct-Purchase Items is accomplished by documentation adequate
to identify the Purchase Order against which the purchase is made.
The Contractor shall forward approved invoices to the Owner's
Representative for payment. The Owner will process these completed
invoices as they are received with their associated paperwork.
J. The Contractor shall inspect to determine that Direct-Purchase Items
conform to the Purchase Requisition Request Form, and determine
prior to incorporation into the Project if such materials are defective. If
the Contractor discovers defective or nonconforming items it shall not
utilize such items in the Project and shall promptly notify the Owner of
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 01625 Owner Direct Purchase Program
Cudjoe Key -3- September 2012
the defect or nonconformity and assist the Owner in obtaining repair or
replacement of the item. The Contractor shall be fully responsible and
liable to the Owner if it fails to perform such inspection or otherwise
permits defective or non-conforming material or equipment to be
incorporated into the Project. The Contractor shall not be relieved of its
obligation to ensure that materials requested for purchase have been
reviewed by the Engineer and are released for purchase complying
with the Shop Drawing and submittal procedures.
K. The Contractor warrants Direct-Purchase Items the same as all other
materials and equipment furnished by the Contractor and nothing in
this Section shall alter or modify the Contractor obligations under the
Contract relative to warranties.
L. The Contractor will purchase and maintain Builder's Risk insurance
sufficient to protect against any loss of or damage to Direct-Purchase
Items. Such insurance shall cover the full value of Direct-Purchase
Items not yet incorporated into the Project starting from the moment of
material delivery to the project site. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for any deductible or any loss not covered by Builder's
Risk Insurance.
M. The Contractor shall be liable for any interruption or delay in
. connection with Direct-Purchase Items.
N. The Contractor shall on a monthly basis provide the Owner or Owner's
Representative with documentation establishing the amount and
nature of the material and equipment delivered by suppliers and
accepted by the Contractor during that reporting period. The
Contractor shall match all material and equipment to purchase orders,
invoices, delivery tickets, and inspection and acceptance reports. The
Contractor shall also obtain lien waivers and other releases from
suppliers. Upon receipt of appropriate documentation from the
Contractor, the Owner's Representative shall request payment from
the Owner. Payments will be made directly by the Owner to the
appropriate supplier in accordance to the terms and conditions of the
Contract Documents.
O. The Contractor shall maintain records of all Owner Direct-Purchase
Items incorporated into the Work. These records shall be available for
inspection by the Owner upon request.
End of Section
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 01626 Owner Direct Purchase Program
Cudjoe Key -4- September 2012
v
d kD k.D
O O c-i O r4i l0 N N r-I 1p 0 0 1p
O O M M l0 N Ol N l0 N O O N
O Ln c-i N 00 'Ct Ln l0 00 .4 Lri U� 4
O O M N cH l0 'Ct N 0) kD I:t r- r- Ol
•N L M .H I, l0 M 0) M l0 M 'CF
M O 'Ct -:: rV c-i Ln M rV c c-i
4w Ln nLn Ch N Ln C14 � N Ln Ln
x I- N 'CF Ln 'Ch Ln
ui O O
p O O m IH � O
�
a- O CD N O c COL ,
3 F- LO toNI-q m
O N Ln c H N V)
~ O ry 14 x vi
CL' Y Z H
\ LL
O O M Ln 00 to 0 0 00
O r-1 00 m 00 00
p H Ln kD 0W0 IN cN-i
N r,� L' M M O LL O
c o0 Zr m IH �f ter^
a--' c�-i N Ct Ol Ol
LLI n n n
CO to X O 00 M Ln U o o
c-i N ro O I, kD 00 N l0 O O
O Q C a c ) 1p 0_) lO O
Ln
oNi E rroo "M kD t o N-i
oE c °� m 'a +
O < O COS � 0
VI y V
LU LL
J
_NLU
LU 4- Q Q Q Q
c LU LU LU LU
O
V)
z '+� 00 00 00 E O O
C I- Ln n n N O O
Q ro O 'CC O O
v) N N N 4-
� V
v
F- u
ro
Q
V N
CC
LL
S.,
O LL
M
V) V)
x N V) C7
p c �t w
aLv i LU H
o ^
rn ~ w Q
L `n LU 0 V)o0 0 w Z Q
v U w 0 � H
C
4- m m O O Q
c V Q cn V) V) O
�t C7 C7 (D
N � Z Z Z
Q O res `'i N N N
c c LU
Q
v !_
w v)i (D S w ~ Q m U
O 00 O o O H O Ln 00 to m
pctn N O (f N O N O f� m Ln In
r, 00l0 W N n O N N iij
00 a rl 00p0 rn N Ol N
F-' ^ 0 N M O M 'ct' m 1-6 Q1 Ln
N -i
L] VT VT VT v} Vr V} u? VT u?I VT v*
N p � O LnO
al 00 3
n ry ri rl o
00 �.
c }
io a
C c
O
c
O rn 0 M O m Q 00 v) ut O °
to O Vl �•i i/1 t0 In rn '1 O fV in
M N N Q) M ppopp N Y
O N Ql m lO 1 N lam M M
Rl w 'ct f q N E
r4 N t11- •Y
O
Y
"D to It 0 O
o
c a o m - o� rn 3
N N "Ln N N O�1 L Y
o -D 3 'Ct•'
C O u p 3
a) O L o
E 7 •� �n O M O 00 O M O o m Ln 00 00 00 .q
u N O• .O In l0 In m In tD O Ln tO tO N fV ct O
= O n o N n u i O N O O7 q rV M u
c CL N 0 L m to lD m m In ��}t n t0 �t 0) 0
N O m -p u f0 n �"� Ol Nlt• to
p�• 01 V1 00 N �-{ ri 00 <A
N to a j .p O ono m lon m tp o0 m n0 m m .•i H m 0000 Ln
O a O. 00 'i N ul .-i ct Ln O O ct tO
ao o - L -a m tr to to,00 of +=
m Q m a) !
> m ur VA ur v} In v} t/t <n V} in 4A Vn en 1/)-
ru
o
c m °,1 m v1Oi rn
;u ctu3 s u c o o ,i rn .-i i1
co
c 'Z o ^ o v`n O ono 0 E N Y (U N m Ln
N
4
v •` - 3 c CY v v v
° 3 c v a *g a) (U m m m c
Ln p L L L
4— "a Z Y Y L O u1 O po Ln O ll1 `F- — v-- t0
bA a O to •� C C C n m O O N V7 n u a!
in ; Q1 n. m ao > �. > 00 rn om In 00 rn n L° L 1 p
N 41 41
G/ Ln �1 C 'vi t0 N f0 4 rf }1�4} r4 (�nt M M C c c 00
.0 _O O j > > F- N QQl 00 Ln In w 14 U U U C
(Q L C 41 41
Y N Y ' .a "G 70 Y.
v a a O v_ v Q Q Q Q
c
O
�
c N .-•i on � � � � m M m O rn c
C L L L
0 •5 O o O Ol N' I� 111 tvj
0`0 w n o rn n m loo a)c c c c �
3 v '@ '> > E
o a'
c un 4- w- 4_ s
to CL ,o z c c c i 10 1 �
=CL. 14 � •c' m o o o aTi N � ) lio
� E
N >1 c a� a'^i 'c r�u Y Y -le �C d
C
O ` •G O O. 4 4 la w
> a a)cl
O w u w v
i-I Q m U L7 Y Y _ Q Y
w Ln
O C pi 0.0 v M &- O 10- C Q1
'> a c U Ll- c 3 E a o ai a' Q.
t�i a L a o a o ro en CO o o � v
..i � to N 0 f.. I 3 .'.n
RFQ 003R Response F,w
Addition of Little Palm Island �n
&Hydraulic Modeling of Long Beach Road 4LAL
July 23,2013
Discussion:Proposal includes increase in pipe size for accomodating the addition of Little Palm Island Resort to
the system.Assumed flows:Little Palm 54 gpm(peak).Certain conditions could cause Little Palm Island to see
TDH of about 170'which may require high head pumps or a repump station to be paid for by Customer.
Original Pipeline Design
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
2"HDPE Forcemain 1982 LF $ 20.00 $ 39,640.00
3"HDPE Forcemain 19111 LF $ 25.00 $ 477,775.00
4"-HDPE Forcemain 1644 LF $ 31.50 $ 51,786.00
6"-HDPE Forcemain 0 LF $ 46.00 $ -
8"-PVC Forcemain 1609 LF $ 61.00 $ 98,149.00
10"-PVC Forcemain 67 LF $ 70.00 $ 4,690.00
24413 Subtotal(A): $ 672,040.00
Updated Pipeline Design
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
2"HDPE Forcemain 0 LF $ 20.00 $ -
3"HDPE Forcemain 3994 LF $ 25.00 $ 99,850.00
4"-HDPE Forcemain 15809 LF $ 31.50 $ 497,983.50
6"-HDPE Forcemain 3934 LF $ 46.00 $ 180,964.00
8"-PVC Forcemain 1609 LF $ 61.00 $ 98,149.00
10"-PVC Forcemain 67 LF $ 70.00 $ 4,690.00
25413 Subtotal(B): $ 881,636.50
Pipeline Increase(B-A) $ 209,596.50
Big Pine South Pump Station Equipment Change(Pumps,Electrical,Generator) $ 132,064.90
Ramrod Pump Station Equipment Change(Pumps,Electrical,Generator) $ 78,278.63
Re-design/Modeling $ 34,000.00
Total Cost of Change $ 453,940.03
Projected Hydraulic Changes to Pump Stations
ORIGINAL UPDATED
PUMA STATPON FLOW, PUMP POWER, PUMP POWER,
GPM HEAD,FT HP FLOW,GPM! HEAD,FT HP
Big Pine 859 135 65 921 166 92
Ramrod 1184 200 120 1246 202 128
Other Items:
Proposal prices good until September 1,2013
Contract Time Extension NOT required.
Contractor A.pprov I:
Wesley y Self,P.E.
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
QUOTATION NO: RFQ 002—Revised 2
TO: Layne Heavy Civil DATE: August 16,2013
FROM: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
PROJECT: Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Program—Outer Islands
KEYWORD DESCRIPTION: Extend wastewater along Caymen Dr.at the end of Sugarloaf Blvd.
DATE QUOTATION REQUIRED: August 23,2013
The following modification to the contract has been identified.Pursuant to the General Conditions,please provide a quotation for the
alteration as described in Item 1.The quotation should include an itemized breakdown of contractor and subcontractor costs,including
labor,materials,rentals,approved services,overhead,and profit.This request shall not be considered authorization to proceed with the
work herein described.
1.Scope of Work: (include list of attachments):
Provide a cost change detail (+/-)to extend wastewater(2"FM) along Caymen Dr. at the end of Sugarloaf Blvd.
Installation of FM shall observe the required setbacks from a proposed water main to be installed on the north
side of road/edge of pavement. There are currently 6 properties with building permits that we will be able to
serve upon the completion of Cudjoe Outer Islands. Wastewater service will include 6 services with grinder
stations. Please refer to attached table and figure. This RFQ does not include potable water service.
2. Reason(s)for Modification: ® Owner❑ Unforeseen Conditions(site,weather,etc ❑ Other
3. Approval of Request:
Owner: Date:
Engineer: Date:
4. Total cost of modification(attach detailed breakdown) $ 104.382.00
5. Will a modification to the contract time be required? ❑ Yes X No
If so,trade(s)
No.of personnel
Duration (calendar days)
6. Attachment identification: (list) Cost Breakdown Attached
7. Quotation is in effect until:(date) 9/15/13
atrick.staIker la ne.com Digitally signed bypaVilaytalker@laynecom
8. Approval of Quotation p @ Y Dat:2013.08.161356:1l0-04'om
Date:2013.08.16 13:56:10-04'00'
Contractor Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. Date 08/16/13
PAGE 1 OF 2
Request for Quotation#2-Extend wastewater along Caymen Dr.
Sewer
2"HDPE FM LF I,100 21.00 23,100.00
Service Connection EA 6 1,000.00 6,000.00
Simplex Grinder EA 6 6,400.00 38,400.00
End Flush EA 1 1,400.00 1,400.00
Tie-in to Existing EA 0 2,650.00 0.00
Asphalt Mill&Overlay SY 2,000 12.50 25,000.00
Silt Fence LF 1,100 2.50 2,750.00
Markup 8% 7,732.00
TOTAL 104,382.00
MIWVWNWOPrcNVI�NiWWI wmW�W.V.�Mi�l IIIIIIIII WN IYIIIIWWWMOWIVMONIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIWV mIWIWWuuu��Wl'M'�MimuiIIWY,W,W,V,W,NY,ryI'i�1�WIW'WlMluuumlNW�imuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuWlWNu uuuullWW���iumuuuuuuuumWf�llmimimuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System
Design-Build Project for Outer Islands
FINAL Value Engineering Study Report
April 2013
Design Build Team
CHORE
Value Engineering Consultant
ARCADIS
ARCADIS U.S.,Inc.
9861 Broken Land Parkway,Suite
254
Columbia,MD 21046
Te1410-381-1990
Mr. Don Hubbs www.arcadls-canada.com
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
1100 Kennedy Drive
Key West, Florida 33041
Subject: Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System Design Build Project
Final Value Engineering Study Report BUSINESS PRACTICE:
PMCM
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
The Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. Design-Build Team in association with ARCADIS U.S.,
Inc. is pleased to submit the subject value engineering (VE) study report Dale:
documenting the events and results of the VE study conducted March 5-7, 2013 in April 9, 2013
Key West, Florida. The study identified several ways to reduce the project costs and
several options for enhancing the value this project provides for Monroe County and
the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority(FKAA). Of note are alternatives to repave entire Contact:
streets in lieu of only half widths; expand the regional wastewater system to include Howard Greenfield
the areas to be provided with on-site treatment systems or currently being served by
packaged wastewater treatment plants; add the Bay Point area to the project, and Phone:
install the grinder pumps for the commercial properties. The value added is derived 410-381-1990 x20
from eliminating multiple contracts to perform work on the same roadways, adding
more customers to the regional system cost effectively because of the economies of Email:
scale, reducing overall operations and maintenance costs of inefficient systems, and howard.greenfield@
installing the same equipment on all sites being served in a timely and efficient arcadis-us.com
manner.
Our ref:
We appreciate this opportunity to work with FKAA and the County to deliver a cost- WF900207.0000
effective project that will best serve the needs of the County and result in a low
maintenance operation. As you evaluate the suggestions presented, please do not
hesitate to contact us if you need additional information to aid in your implementation
decision-making.
Sincerely,
Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Joe Wright, PE Howard Gre field, CVS
Design Manager Associate ice President
Copies: Wesley Self
Page:
1/1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ONE-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
CONCERNS AND OBJECTIVES 2
RESULTS OF THE STUDY 3
SUMMARY OF VE ALTERNATIVES 4
SECTION TWO-STUDY RESULTS
GENERAL 5
KEY ISSUES 6
STUDY OBJECTIVES 6
RESULTS OF THE STUDY 6
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS 7
VALUE ENGINEERING DESIGN SUGGESTIONS 10
SECTION THREE-PROJECT DESCRIPTION 46
SECTION FOUR-VALUE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL 83
PREPARATION EFFORT 83
VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP EFFORT 85
POST WORKSHOP EFFORT 88
WORKSHOP AGENDA 89
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 94
ECONOMIC DATA 96
COST MODEL 97
FUNCTION ANALYSIS 102
CREATIVE IDEA LISTING AND EVALUATION OF IDEAS 104
SECTION ONE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This value engineering(VE) study report documents the events and results of the VE study
conducted by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. in association with ARCADIS U.S., Inc. for the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority(FKAA), the operator of the Monroe County, Florida Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater System. The subject of the study was the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection
System Design-Build Project for Outer Islands being developed by the Design-Build Team led by
Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. for construction and Chen-Moore&Associates, Inc. and Eckler
Engineering, Inc. for design. The project was at the Preliminary Design Report(30%design
completion) stage at the time of the VE study, March 5-7, 2013, in Key West, FL.
Comprising the VE team were representatives from FKAA's project development team and subject
matter specialists from ARCADIS.Names and affiliations are provided in Section Four-of this report.
The team used the following six-phase VE Job Plan to guide its deliberations:
• Information Gathering Phase (including a site visit)
• Function Identification and Analysis Phase
• Creative Idea Generation Phase
• Evaluation/Judgment Phase
• Alternative Development Phase
• Presentation Phase
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System Design-Build Project for Outer Islands will
collect wastewater from residential and commercial properties on Lower Sugarloaf Key to the south
and North and South Big Pine Key, Little Torch Key and Ramrod Key to the north, and convey it to
a transmission line on the inner island Keys that flows to the new wastewater treatment plant to be
constructed on Cudjoe Key.
The collection system consists of gravity sewers placed in the middle of the road, in areas where the
invert of the sewers can be located from 2.5 ft. below grade to approximately 8 ft. below grade, and
where the homes are spaced close together. The pipes will be a minimum 8-in.-diameter PVC pipe.
30-in.-diameter manholes will be used at the terminal points and changes in alignment and grade.
The manholes will be spaced a maximum of 450 ft. and 6-in.-diameter laterals will be provided from
the sewer line to the homeowner's property line. The laterals will be a minimum of 30 in. deep and
will be capped with a cleanout at the property line.
Flows from the low end of the gravity sewers terminate at neighborhood lift stations where they
pumped through a transmission main to the primary transmission line along Overseas Highway/U.S.
Highway 1. The force main system will consist of 2-inch to 6-inch HDPE C-900 pipe. While
maintaining a 2 fps scouring velocity, the system will convey the collected wastewater from the
1
neighborhood lift stations to the regional transmission force main or master lift station on Overseas
Highway.
Lift station locations were determined by restricting the last gravity sewer manhole before the lift
station to a maximum depth of 8 feet, except where due to limited right-of-way area for the proposed
lift stations, pipes have a deeper cut than 8 feet. The proposed lift stations require an approximate
footprint area of about 200 square feet. These lift stations consist of 5-ft.-diameter-precast concrete
manholes approximately 15 ft. deep with from two to four, 1 horsepower(hp),grinder pumps and
require electrical service and pump control panels.
Areas not served by gravity sewers will be serviced by a low pressure sewer collection system. At
each home, a 30-in.-diameter, 5-ft.-deep fiberglass manhole with a 1 hp grinder pump will be
installed approximately 4 ft. from the home owner's electric meter. The homeowner will be
responsible for connecting the pump to the home's electrical service and wastewater discharge line
that currently goes to the septic system. The wastewater collected from individual properties will
feed into a network of srmall-diameter force mains(2-inch or 4-inch)to transmit it to the regional
force main system.
The main transmission line along Overseas Highway is a combination of 10-in. to 14-in.diameter-
buried PVC pipe and 6-in. to 10-in. ductile iron pipe for bridge crossings.Three pump stations are
used to move flow along the pipeline, Big Pine Pump Station#1 and#2 to the north, and Lower
Sugar Loaf Pump Station to the south.
In addition,residences in remote areas will be provided with on-site wastewater treatment systems.
The cost of the design-build project is $81.3 million and the work is to be accomplished by
December 31,2015.
CONCERNS AND OBJECTIVES
Monroe County's goals in completing the project are to:
• Develop a reliable wastewater collection system that is easy to maintain
• Develop a cost effective wastewater collection system
• Serve as many customers as possible at a capital service cost of$22,000 or less
• Construct the project with minimal disruption to the community
• Complete the project on or ahead of schedule
As the agency responsible for constructing and operating the system,FKAA engaged this VE study
to assist it and the Design-Build Team to develop a cost effective project that accommodates the
County's goals. The objective of the study was to identify specific changes that could be
implemented to enhance constructability, performance and cost effectiveness over the projected life
of the facility.
2
STUDY RESULTS
The VE team brainstormed numerous ideas for achieving the study objectives. After careful
screening, and research and development, three alternatives with identified capital cost savings
potential; six alternatives that will increase reliability and maintainability, increase the areas serviced
or enhance value for Monroe County but add to the project's total cost; and six design suggestions
that will provide additional value for Monroe County, facilitate construction or produce non-
quantified cost savings. Each of these alternatives and design suggestions were developed for review
by FKAA and Monroe County. Each alternative is identified with an alternative number(Alt. No.)
indicating the order it was generated during the creative phase, for tracking purposes. All of the
alternatives are summarized on the following Summary of Value Engineering Alternatives table and
detailed in Section Two of the report. The narrative below discusses the alternatives that will have
the greatest impact on the project.
There is a potential to eliminate the Big Pine Key#2 Master Pump Station by using the Big Pine
Key's pumps and force mains to deliver flows directly to the Big Pine Key#1 Master Pump Station.
This saves capital cost,maintenance costs and pumping costs, as well as eliminates a pump station in
a neighborhood as explained in Alt.No. 11.
Using horizontal directional drilling to install the transmission line across all the water bodies in lieu
of suspending ductile iron pipe on bridge structures will add to the capital cost of the project.
However, this increase in capital cost will result in significantly less long-tern maintenance,
eliminate the need to replace the pipe when a bridge is reconstructed, and eliminate the risk of an
envirorunental pollution event, should the pipe break for any reason. This concept is illustrated in
Alt.No. 3.
Two value adding concepts for Monroe County are presented in Alt. Nos. 9 and 17. In the former, the
VE team suggests performing full-width asphalt paving on streets disturbed by the installation of
gravity sewer lines. Under the current program, only'/2 the width of the street will be repaved, which
necessitates the County issuing another contract to repave the remaining part of the street, and causes
the community to be disrupted twice. Overall it will be more cost effective to perform the operation
only once.
In the latter(Alt.No. 17), it is suggested that the commercial properties be hooked up to the
wastewater collection system as part of this project, in lieu of making the property owner responsible
for the hook-up. This is more cost effective because all the work could be performed under one
pen-nit, the crew increases efficiency in performing the work will be highly efficient due to the
repetition of installing over 1,000 to 2,000 similar systems for-residential customers, and it
standardizes the equipment used. This approach also ensures that the property owners are connected
to the system in a timely manner.
Upgrading the residential grinder purnp panel to include a receptacle for an emergency generator
hook-up, Alt. No. 19.2, and telemetry for remote monitoring, Alt.No. 19.I,will result in better long-
term performance and allow FKAA to more cost-effectively maintain the system for the County.
3
1
V1 U o o
_ o 0
j oo a o o t o 0 0 00 0
Q o
V Q ¢ N cam' o o o v
v1 00 �p N �_ vl vi
Q U r-"i � 1 � ri �^
� vv
0
z o0 0 0 0 0
ce Q
O
D N - 00 41 m
F rn rn rn o
Wceorq en
Q > Ln
Ov v C7 (7 0 0 l 00 o C� o o o 0 0l u�l
Z Q J z v 0 0 o o v o 0 0
Q Q
I � N � '" �
W c z z j z l - i ce x ev Z cf, (A Z
1` C7 ` C7 j , C7 C7 ` C7
1 0 -
Q _ LU
j w j
ce > o 0 0 o o ' CD
V z o o CD
CD
I
Z z w v c1 o 0 0
w ct N vl 00 N
Q bin- NEl� Gn GF3 bR I Gn 6fj bR
i
W
Z o o o f o 0 o jol
z o 0 0 0 00 0
o;
U O j o o o o o 0 0
N
O I
O Fz U ON I N r" I bR
Z69 i EfT E9 bR i ({� I
WLLJ
Q C�s Eli
tn
cct j 'A
a °
j o
s ,c o
L.L. t �> W c a c c
O 3 0 z '
°' I �o o ° °' o C n C] c °
'E j
W Gc O o = a> m 1 ° T - 0 0 '- o I v 0n
U CL v °q a� � E v ' °_' ai o
E I _Q 4�-. ca. cz c E
° � � E U �
� o.
o .? o 0 73 ° i " pp °' �iLi
un
03
O N I t dnI N Rj bn N N > n ° Q U cC N U
C N V
A W v of a `" E v � °�' al C o z bn Ci ni
�
U < N r1 �I• v'i N ` �O 1 Q Z 06 0000 c'11 tl'
w I rl ^, N N
0
SECTION TWO- STUDY RESULTS
GENERAL
The ultimate results of this value engineering study conducted on the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater
Collection System Design-Build Project for Outer Islands are projected to be the benefits that can be
realized by the owner, Monroe County, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, the system operator,
the community and the Design-Build Team, comprised of Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. (construction) and
Chen-Moore &Associates, Inc. and Eckler Engineering, Inc. (design).The results will directly affect
the project's design and construction and will require coordination between the owner, the operator
and the Design-Build Team to determine the disposition of each alternative.
During the study, many ideas for potential value enhancements were conceived and evaluated by the
team for technical merit, applicability to the project, implementability(considering the pro,ject's
status), and the ability to meet Monroe County's project value objectives. Research performed on
those ideas considered to potentially enhance the value of the project, resulted in the development of
individual alternatives identifying specific changes to the project as a whole, or individual elements
that comprise the project. These are in the form of VE alternatives(accompanied by cost estimates)
or design suggestions(typically without cost estimates). For each alternative developed, the
following information is provided:
• A summary of the original design;
• A description of the proposed change to the project;
• Sketches and design calculations, if appropriate;
• A capital cost comparison and life cycle discounted present worth cost comparison of the
altemalive and original design (where appropriate);
• A descriptive evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of selecting the alternative; and
• A brief narrative to compare the original design and the proposed change, and provide a
rationale for implementing the change into the project.
The capital cost comparisons used unit quantities contained in the project cost estimate prepared by
the designers, whenever possible. if unit quantities were not available,published databases, such as
the one produced by the RS Means Company, or team member or owner databases were consulted.
Direct quotes fi-om vendors for equipment items were also obtained.
Each design suggestion contains the same information as the VE alternatives, except that no cost
information is usually included. Design suggestions are presented to bring attention to areas of the
design that, in the opinion of the VE team, should be changed for reasons other than cost. Examples
of these include: improved facility operation,ease of maintenance, ease of construction, safer
working conditions, reduction in project risk, reduction in schedule time, etc. In addition, some ideas
cannot be quantified in terms of cost with the design information provided; these are also presented
as design suggestions and are intended to improve the quality of the project.
5
Each alternative or design suggestion developed is identified with an alternative number(Alt. No.)to
track it through the value analysis process and thus facilitate referencing among the Creative Idea
Listing and Evaluation worksheets, the alternatives,and the Summary of Value Engineering
Alternatives table(used in the Section One—Executive Summary).
KEY ISSUES
Monroe County's goals in completing the project are to:
• Develop a reliable wastewater collection system that is easy to maintain
• Develop a cost effective wastewater collection system
• Serve as many customers as possible at a capital service cost of$22,000 or less
• Construct the project with minimal disruption to the community
• Complete the project on or ahead of schedule
STUDY OBJECTIVES
As the agency responsible for constructing and operating the system, FKAA engaged this VE study
to assist it and the Design-Build Team to develop a cost effective project that accommodates the
County's goals. The objective of the study was to identify specific changes that could be
implemented to enhance constructability, performance and cost effectiveness over the projected life
of the facility.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Research of the ideas identified as having potential for enhancing the value of the project resulted in
the development of nine alternatives and six design suggestions detailed in this section of the report
for consideration by the County and FKAA. These alternatives and design suggestions address the
key issues described above as highlighted by the following alternatives.
There is a potential to eliminate the Big Pine Key#2 Master Pump Station by using the Big Pine
Key's pumps and force mains to deliver flows directly to the Big Pine Key#1 Master Pump Station.
This saves capital cost,maintenance costs and pumping costs, as well as eliminates a pump station in
a neighborhood as explained in Alt. No. 11.
Using horizontal directional drilling to install the transmission line across all the water bodies in lieu
of suspending ductile iron pipe on bridge structures will add to the capital cost of the project.
Howcver,this increase in capital cost will result in significantly less long-terra maintenance,
eliminate the need to replace the pipe when a bridge is reconstructed,and eliminate the risk of an
environmental pollution event, should the pipe break for any reason.This concept is illustrated in
Alt. No. 3.
Two value adding concepts for Monroe County are presented in Alt. Nos. 9 and 17. In the former,
the VE team suggests performing full-width asphalt paving on streets disturbed by the installation of
6
gravity sewer lines. Under the current program, only %2 the width of the street will be repaved, which
necessitates the County issuing another contract to repave the remaining part of the street, and causes
the community to be disrupted twice. Overall it will be more cost effective to perform the operation
only once.
In the latter(Alt. No. 17), it is suggested that the commercial properties be hooked up to the
wastewater collection system as part of this project, in lieu of making the property owner responsible
for the hook-up. This is more cost effective because all the work could be performed under one
permit, the crew increases efficiency in performing the work, due to the repetition of installing over
1,000 to 2,000 similar systems for residential customers, and it standardizes the equipment used.
This approach also ensures that the property owners are connected to the system in a timely manner.
Upgrading the residential grinder pump panel to include a receptacle for an emergency generator
hook-up, AIt. No. 18.2, and telemetry for remote monitoring,Alt. No. 18.I, will result in better long-
term perforniance and allow FKAA to more cost-effectively maintain the system for the County.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS
When reviewing the study results, the reader should consider each part of an alternative or design
suggestion on its own merit. Each area within an alternative or design suggestion that is acceptable
should be considered for use in the final design, even if the entire alternative or design suggestion is
not implemented. Variations of these alternatives and design suggestions by the County and FKAA
are encouraged.
A11 alternatives and design suggestions were developed independently to provide a broad range of'
options to consider for implementation. Therefore, some of them are mutually exclusive, so
acceptance of one may preclude the acceptance of another. In addition, some of the alternatives may
be interrelated, so acceptance of one or more may not yield the total of the cost savings shown for
each alternative. Design suggestions could also be interrelated thus precluding a part of one or more
suggestions from being implemented if another design suggestion is also implemented.
The reader should evaluate all alternatives carefully in order to select the combination of ideas with
the greatest beneficial impact on the project. Once this has been accomplished, the total cost savings
resulting from the VE study can be calculated based on implementing a revised, all-inclusive design
solution.
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE O ARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL.WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 2
DESCRIPTION: ADD THE BAY POINT AREA TO THE COLLECTION SYSTEM SHEET NO.: 1 of 1
ORIGINAL DESIGN:
The Bay Point area development is located approximately 3 miles southwest of Lower Sugarloaf Key. The
development is currently served with a wastewater collection system and a package type wastewater treatment
plant located near US Highway l (Overseas Highway). Average Daily Flow (ADF) from Bay Point is
approximately 35,000 Gallons Per Day(GPD). The wastewater system at Bay Point is currently outside of the
Cudjoe Regional System and the wastewater flows from the development are not included in the transmission
system design for Lower Sugarloaf Key.
ALTERNATIVE:
Add the Bay Point development in the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System by furnishing a lift
station at the site of the existing Bay Point Wastewater Treatment Plant to eliminate the plant and transport the
Bay Point wastewater flow to the Lower Sugarloaf Transmission System and then to the Cudjoe Wastewater
Plant.
ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
• Increases the consolidation of wastewater • Increases capital and design costs of the Design-
treatment in the Keys Build project
• Eliminates a package wastewater treatment 0 There is uncertainty about the condition of the Bay
plant along Overseas Highway. Point collection system related to infiltration and
• Adds customers to the Cudjoe Regional inflow
system
DISCUSSION:
To implement the suggested change, Layne's team will design and construct the pump station at the site of the
existing Bay Point Wastewater Treatment Plant and the force main from the pump station to the Lower
Sugarloaf Transmission System. Layne will also modify the Lower Sugarloaf Master Pump Station and
Transmission Force Main to accommodate the increased flow.
Layne can include a condition assessment of the collection system to determine the extent of infiltration and
inflow, and recommend rehabilitation measures to quantify the extent of the collection deficiencies, if any.
PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING COSTS LIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SUGGESTION
SAVINGS (Original minus Alternative)
8
SECTION FOUR-VALUE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL
This section describes the value analysis(VA)procedure used during the VE study conducted for the
Monroe County, Florida and the FKAA by the Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. Design-Build Team in
association with ARCADIS U.S., Inc. on the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System Design-
Build Project for Outer Islands project. The workshop was performed March 5-7,2013, at the
Preliminary Design Report(30%Design Submittal)completion stage. Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.,Chen-
Moore&Associates, and Eckler Engineering, Inc. have been selected by the FKAA to assist with the
development of the project and have provided information for the VE team to use as the basis of the
study.
A systematic approach was used in the VE study, which was divided into three parts: (1)Preparation
Effort, (2)Workshop Effort, and(3)Post-Workshop Effort.A task flow diagram outlining each of the
procedures included in the VE study is attached for reference.
Following this description of the VA procedure, separate narratives and supporting documentation
identify the following:
• VE workshop participants
• Economic data
• Cost model
• Function analysis
• Creative ideas and evaluations
PREPARATION EFFORT
Preparation for the workshop consisted of scheduling workshop participants and tasks and gathering
necessary project documents for team members to review before attending the workshop. The
following documents were used as the basis for generating VE alternatives and for determining the cost
implications of the selected VE alternatives:
• Preliminary Design Report,prepared by Chen&Associates, dated June 2010
• Volume III,Part 1 Ranu-od Key Sample Drawings for Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and
Monroe County, prepared by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.,dated November 30,2012
• Volume III,Part 2 Lower Sugarloaf Key Sample Drawings for Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority and Monroe County, prepared by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.,dated November 30,2012
• Volume III,Part 3 Big Pine Key Sample Drawings for Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and
Monroe County, prepared by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.,dated November 30,2012
• Volume II1,Part 4 Little Torch Key Sample Drawings for Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and
Monroe County, prepared by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.,dated November 30,2012
83
a
a o�
N g
00
W m
Ly �O o
N W m m
b E
E m _LL
J m t 12
m 0-0 O
N
W
a
¢ m m
{{pp a
L N OI ,U T E G
N
c
O w d N m
a m U w
m
Q C W N T U N
a E 0 U � c o
oN a �c o rn U o
3 ¢N JU Nm�U
om W EWE oar
O >m awN L E tE Sir0�
"Di w d0
C N
O W U
W.V..
w � w �N No.M'Em w
v LL Q Qm 2SUQ� a o
n La o
rN EWom�ac co mmZcW
V Q Ea
m =ZN v�0mm.�ce4a
cTi ° 'E
I N c
UW C O
VU cm ;! t K Q O K L oE yNmT
VI
.L
W W m
F Q tlCID
j m
W V '0
> J O ,C'O O
2 W N O > , Q
� N N a7 U yc
W m S W C7 r
E E Ci m U woo m
gy 4)E
AS o W m.Q a�W W
o .mpLL EO~ >
yc craw
Q o aE.. N ae a'�Z u
n Sa U �� c z arnc 2
b E �'E W :1 O ''�.0 n
si o. > �LL N .E -V o m m nm a
0 ¢
MA k
O O p) N o
m m ca c N N m C2`
Lond A LL� UQ
m x¢ w a m
mT E¢ 2T 5! m�
ppLL �$
W m
m C W m Y
C
QW LL W �W
N L
V w aU OI-E
rrQ U
}� O1 d 0 O
i C W
w C rn O ,N v c w .°i
O a u m n O my� r CL �
W ? c c m W Q 0Z' n N
�IJ o m m U j .2 U o t N c
C 3 m v W T n� yW m.4
O v' Ec m y y m CL a uc me m m Y - iv
c 0to OE a OLL � wEw m m m Yl �c my 3 L �LL E
m mm .4 c m m c' .ww d
a ° 5 �m Y w50 4) ° m>N m °'v'A: O Oo � ° O S LLa Ox w > LL o8 �LL
• Volume III, Part 5 US Highway 1 and Key Deer Boulevard Sample Drawings for Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and Monroe County, prepared by Layne Heavy Civil,Inc., dated
November 30,2012
• Schedule of Values,prepared by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.
Information relating to the project's purpose and need, owner concerns,project stakeholder concerns,
design criteria,project constraints, funding sources and availability, regulatory agency approval
requirements, and the project's schedule and costs is very important as it provides the VE team with
insight about how the project has progressed to its current state.
Project cost information,provided by the designers, is used by the VE team as the basis for a
comparative analysis with similar projects.To prepare for this exercise, the VE team leader used the
cost estimate prepared by Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. to develop a cost model for the project. The model
was used to distribute the total project cost among the various elements or functions of the project.The
VE team used this model to identify the high-cost elements or functions that drive the project, and the
elements or functions providing little or no value, so that the team could focus on reducing or
eliminating their impact.
VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP EFFORT
The VE workshop was a three-day effort beginning with an orientation/kickoff meeting on Tuesday,
March 5,2013, and concluding with the final VE Presentation on Thursday,March 7,2013. During the
workshop, the VE Job Plan was followed in compliance with SAVE International and U.S. EPA
guidelines for conducting a VE study. The Job Plan guided the search for alternatives to mitigate or
eliminate high-cost drivers, secondary functions providing little or no value,and potential project risks.
Alternatives to specifically address the owner's project concerns and enhance value by improving
operations,reducing maintenance requirements, enhancing constructability, and providing missing
functions were also considered.The Job Plan includes six phases:
• Information Phase(the ARCADIS VE team members visited the project site the day before the
workshop to obtain first-hand information on existing site conditions)
• Function Identification and Analysis Phase
• Creative/Speculation Phase
• Evaluation/Judgment Phase
• Alternative Development Phase
• Presentation of Study Results Phase
Information Phase
At the beginning of the study,the decisions that have influenced the project's design and proposed
construction methods have to be reviewed and understood. For this reason,the workshop began with a
presentation of the project by the Chen Moore& Associates, Inc. and Eckler Engineering, Inc. design
team staff to the VE team.The presentation highlighted the information provided in the documentation
reviewed by the VE team before the workshop and expanded on it to include a history of the project's
development and any underlying influences that caused the design to develop to its current state.
85
During this presentation, VE team members were given the opportunity to ask questions and obtain
clarification about the information provided.
Function Identification and Analysis Phase
Having gained some information on the project, the VE team proceeded to define the functions
provided by the project, identifying the costs to provide these functions,and determining whether the
value provided by the functions has been optimized. Function analysis is a means of evaluating a
project to see if the expenditures actually perform the requirements of the project or if there are
disproportionate amounts of money spent on support functions. Elements performing support
functions add cost to the project but have a relatively low worth to the basic function.
Function is defined as the intended use of a physical or process element.The team attempted to identify
functions in the simplest manner using measurable noun/verb word combinations.To accomplish this,
the team first looked at the project in its entirety and randomly listed its functions, which were recorded
on Random Function Analysis Worksheets(provided in the Function Identification and Analysis
section). Then the individual function(s)of the major components of the project depicted on the cost
model were identified.
After identifying the functions,the team classified the functions according to the following:
Abbreviation Type of Function Definition
HO Higher Order The primary reason the project is being considered or
project goal.
B Basic A function that must occur for the project to meet its
higher order functions.
S Secondary A function that occurs because of the concept or process
selected and may or may not be necessary.
WS Required A secondary function that may not be necessary to perform
Secondary the basic function but must be included to satisfy other
requirements or the project cannot proceed.
G Goal Secondary goal of the project.
O Objective Criteria to be met.
LO Lower Order A function that serves as a project input.
Higher order and basic functions provide value, while secondary functions tend to reduce value.The
goal of the next job phase is to reduce the impact of secondary functions and thereby enhance project
value.
To further clarify the impact of the various functions, the team assigned costs to provide the functions,
or group of functions, indicated by a specific project element using the cost estimate and cost model(s).
Where possible, they seek to find the lowest cost, or worth, to perform the function.This is
accomplished,using published data from other sources or team knowledge obtained from working on
other similar projects, to establish cost goals and then comparing them to the current costs.By
identifying the cost and worth of a function or group of functions,costworth ratios were calculated.
Cost/worth ratios greater than one indicated that less than optimum value was being provided.Those
project functions or elements with high cost/worth ratios became prime targets for value improvement.
86
As well as looking at areas with high cost/worth ratios, the team used the cost model(s)previously
prepared to seek out the areas where most of the project funds are being applied. Because of the
absolute magnitude of these high-cost elements or functions,they also became initial targets for value
enhancement.
Overall,these exercises stimulated the VE team members to focus on apparently low value areas and
initially channel their creative idea development in these places.
Creative/Speculation Phase
This VE study phase involved the creation and listing of ideas. Starting with the functions or project
elements with high cost/worth ratios, a high absolute cost compared to other elements in the project,
and secondary functions providing little or no value and using the classic brainstorming technique, the
VE team began to generate as many ideas as possible to provide the necessary functions at a lower total
life cycle cost,or to improve the quality of the project. Ideas for improving operation and maintenance,
reducing project risk, and simplifying constiuctability were also encouraged. At this stage of the
process,the VE team was looking for a large quantity of ideas and fi•ee association of ideas. A Creative
Idea Listing worksheet was generated and organized by the function or project element being
addressed.
The County and FKAA may wish to review these creative lists since they may contain ideas that were
not pursued by the VE tearn but can be further evaluated for potential use in the design.
Evaluation Phase
Since the goal of the Creative/Speculation Phase was to conceive as many ideas as possible without
regard for technical merit or applicability to the project goals,the Evaluation Phase focused on
identifying those ideas that do respond to the project value objectives and are worthy of additional
research and development before being presented to the owner. The selection process consisted of the
VE team evaluating the ideas originated during the Creative/Speculation Phase, based on the County's
and FKAA's value objectives identified through prior meetings and conversations at the opening
presentation. Based on the team's understanding of the County's and FKAA's value objectives, each
idea was compared with the present design concept, and the advantages and disadvantages of each idea
were discussed.
Based on the team's understanding of the owner's value objectives,each idea was compared with the
present design concepts, and the advantages and disadvantages of each idea were discussed. How well
an idea met the design criteria was also reviewed. Based on the results of these reviews, the VE team
rated each idea by consensus by indicating"Y—Yes"this idea is worthy of further study and potential
implementation, "N —No"there are too many negative factors and the idea should be dropped frorn
further consideration or"A BD—Already Being Done".The ratings assigned by the team to each idea
are recorded in the Creative Idea Listing and included in the Study Results section of this report.
The team also used the designation DS to indicate a design suggestion,which is an idea that may not
have specific quantifiable cost savings but may improve functionality by reducing project risk,
improving constructability,helping to minimize change requests, enhance operability, ease
87
maintenance,reduce schedule time,or enhance project value in other ways. Design suggestions could
also increase a project's cost but provide value in areas not currently addressed. These are also
developed in the next phase of the VE process.
Development Phase
In this phase,each highly rated idea was expanded into a workable solution designated as a VE
alternative.The development consisted of describing the current design and the alternative solution,
preparing a life cycle cost comparison where applicable,describing the advantages and disadvantages
of the proposed alternative solution, and writing a brief narrative to compare the original design to the
proposed change and provide a rationale for implementing the idea into the design. Sketches and design
calculations, where appropriate, were also prepared in this part of the study. The VE alternatives and
design suggestions are included in the Section Two—Study Results section of this report.
Presentation Phase
The goals of the last phase of the workshop were to summarize the results of the study, to prepare draft
Summary of Value Engineering Alternatives worksheets to hand out at the presentation, and to present
the key VE alternatives and design suggestions to the County and FKAA. The presentation was held on
Thursday, March 7, 2013, in Key West,Florida. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the
attendees with an overview of the suggestions for value enhancement resulting fi-om the VE study and
afford them the opportunity to ask questions to clarify specific aspects of the alternatives presented.
Procedures for implementing the results of the study were discussed, and arrangements were made for
the reviewers of the VE report to contact the VE team in order to obtain further clarifications, if
necessary. Draft copies of the Summary of Value Engineering Alternatives worksheets were given to
the Design-Build Team to facilitate a timely review and speedy implementation of the selected ideas.
POST-WORKSHOP EFFORT
The post-workshop portion of the VE study consisted of the preparation of this VE Study Report.
Personnel from the County and FKAA and the Design-Build Team will analyze each alternative and
prepare a short response,recommending incorporation of the alternative into the project, offering
modifications before implementation,or presenting reasons for rejection. The VE team is available,at
your convenience, as you review the alternatives. Please do not hesitate to call on us for clarification or
firrther information as you consider an implementation approach.
Upon completing their reviews,the County, FKAA and the Design-Build Team will meet and, by
consensus,select VE alternatives and design suggestions to incorporate into the project.
88
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE 02ARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS 9
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
DESCRIPTION: PERFORM FULL STREET ASPHALT RESURFACING IN LIEU SHEET NO.: 1 of 3
OF ONE-HALF THE WIDTH
ORIGINAL DESIGN:
Restoration of pavement impacted by pipeline construction in the Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. proposal is based
upon Mom oe County requirement to overlay a full lane for work performed in a lane (e.g. if all work is within a
single lane only that lane will need to be rcpaved; if work is performed in both lanes of a 2-lane road, the full
road width will be repaved). In the case where a pipe is installed entirely in one lane of a two-lane road and
only the house services cross the other lane, it is necessary to repave only the lane with the main and to patch
the trenches for the house services as shown in FKAA Wastewater Standard Detail WW24 or WW25 (included
in Attachment 6 of Addendum No. 1). (Addendum 4, question 28)
ALTERNATIVE:
Provide full length and full-width asphalt resurfacing for all roads impacted by pipeline construction for the
entire Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System for Outer Islands Project area.
ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
• Less costly than resurfacing the remaining lane • Paving cost will not be postponed
under a separate contract considering the economy
of scale of the Design-Build contract
• Eliminates additional mobilization into
neighborhoods to resurface the remaining area
• Minimizes neighborhood disruption
• Ideal for asset management. Uniform product for
the entire street vs. partial pavement.
• Takes advantage of lower unit prices(asphalt
price is volatile)
• Aesthetically more acceptable by the community
• Minimizes differential settlement
• Addresses existing asphalt problems
• Optimizes County staff requu*ed to implement a
separate contract for roadway improvements
• Reduces Construction Engineering and htspection
services on the future overlay projects
PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING COSTS LIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 7,550,000 — $ 7,550,000
ALTERNATIVE $ 12,825,000 — $ 12 825,000
SAVINGS (Original minus Alternative) $ (5,275,000) — $ (5,275,000
22
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE 0 ARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS 9
Florida Keys Aquerhict Authority
DESCRIPTION: PERFORM FULL STREET ASPHALT RESURFACING IN LIEU SHEET NO.: 2 of 3
OF ONE-HALF THE WIDTH
DISCUSSION:
Layne will negotiate a lump sum price change order to implement the technical recommendations from the
Asphalt Pavement Evaluation and Management Project, currently underway by Monroe County. The Design-
Build Contract includes a unit price of$12.50/SY for 1 in. mill and 1 in. asphalt overlay.
23
COST WORKSHEET 0ARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WNW'COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS 9
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authori!}' SHEET NO.: 3 of 3
PROJECT ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE
ITEM UNITS NO. OF COST/ TOTAL NO. OF COST/ TOTAL
UNITS UNIT UNITS UNIT
Big Pine Key- 1" Mill& 1" Asphalt SY 365,000 12.50� 4,562,500 641,636 12.50` 8,020,444
Ramrod-Asphalt SY 72,315 l 12.50 903,938 123,812 j 12.5W 1,547,645
Little Torch-Asphalt i SY 67,320 I 12.50 841,500 132,935 12.50 1,661,688
i
L Sugarloaf- Asphalt ( SY 99,350 12,50' 1,241,875 127,639 a 12.50; 1,595,481
i
p i
{ 1
i.......... ..... __
CI
r
Subtotal %/%/o/,��/is/!�%iii�/// ; ��%iiiii��,,,, 7 549 $1 %%/ ,//// S
�// , ��, / /, 12,82-,258
Markup (/o) at
TOTAL % / !
7,549 813 ;� / 12 825,258
TOTAL (ROUNDED),,
24
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE MARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 1 g.I
DESCRIPTION: PROVIDE REMOTE MONITORING OF RESIDENTIAL SHEET NO.: 1 of 4
GRINDER PUMP STATIONS
ORIGINAL DESIGN:
The grinder pumps for each residential site are supplied with an Environment One Sentry Panel.These panels
provide the pump operating control, a service rated disconnect,and an audio/visual alarm.
ALTERNATIVE:
Provide a HighTide Grinder Pump Guardian (GPG) radio for each Sentry Panel. These radios wirelessly
communicate alarm conditions and pump start and stop times to neighborhood collectors which upload the
information to a secure server. GPGs will be installed in the Sentry Panel prior to delivery to the site, avoiding
field installation in the future. Alarm condition notifications are automatically dispatched to a pager, cell phone
or land line. The status of every pump can be monitored by utility personnel from any internet connected
computer.
ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
• Removes the property owner from the pump • Collector coverage is site specific. The number of
service process required collectors is estimated.
• Reduces service technician overtime. • Some individual pump locations may require
• Reduces inflow and infiltration repeaters to maintain communication
• Extends pump effective life • Adds a minor cost to the project
• Collectors can be used to monitor
Neighborhood Lift Stations
DISCUSSION:
Alarm notifications are automatic and eliminate the need for homeowner to notify the utility when a station is in
an alann condition. Since the notifications are concurrent, the technician labor force can be managed more
efficiently—reducing overtime. Excessive starts/stops or runtimes alert the operators of potential inflow and
infiltration or early indications of a preventable failure.
In densely populated areas, there is generally one collector for each 150 GPG units. A preliminary estimate of
collectors for the Outer Islands is 30 HTTI 100 models. These are typically installed at municipal or public
buildings(unidentified). Additional collectors(not included)could be used to monitor additional parameters of
the Neighborhood Lift Stations. Communication fees, website construction and maintenance are covered by a
low annual service fee per GPG eliminating the need for additional dedicated personnel to manage the
monitoring system.
PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING COSTS LIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 0 $ 7,290,000 $ 72290,000
ALTERNATIVE $ 655,000 $ 4,654 000 $ 5,309 000
SAVINGS(Original minus Alternative) $ 655,000 $ 2,636 000 $ 1,981 000
38
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE MARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 18.1
DESCRIPTION: PROVIDE REMOTE MONITORING OF RESIDENTIAL SHEET NO.: 2 of 4
GRINDER PUMP STATIONS
COST SAVINGS DISCUSSION:
• Advantage—Removes the property owner from the pump service process
Type—Soft
The direct notification of service technicians of alarm or power outage conditions allows the operators to
minimize response and repair times, in many cases before the homeowner is aware of the issue.
• Advantage—Reduces service technician overlinie
Type—Life Cycle Cost reduction
More and more service calls are falling within hours traditionally treated as overtime hours. A similarly sized
system in Brentwood Tennessee (3,000 units)typically gets 3 service calls between 3pm and 5pm. It is
believed that these calls correlate with the homeowner returning home after school or work. Two of those
calls are typically handled by the service crew working overtime. Therefore it is assumed that concurrent
notification of a failure would reduce the number of overtime calls by more than 500 calls per year.
Brentwood has a standard burdened labor rate of$45.00 per hour and an overtime rate of$62.50. Each call is
responded to with 2 technicians and has an average duration of 2 hours. We assume that 2 overtime calls can
be eliminated when the telemetry system is implemented.
• Advantage—Reduces inflow and infrllralion
Type—Life Cycle Cost reduction
Ongoing efforts to reduce I&I has gradually gravitated to an awareness of problems originating on private
properly. Illegal connections of sump pumps, downspouts, sump pumps and even landscape drains add
significant flows to the wastewater treatment stream increasing transportation and treatment costs. With the
HighTide tclenctry system, individual properties can be monitored for excessive starts/stops and runtime
indicating a potential I&I problem. The preventing 5%of I&I for 2,278 units at 135 gpd reduces annual
flows by over 5.5 million gallons per year. At a cost of$3.50 per 1,000 gals this saves $19,250 annually.
• Advantage—Extends pump effective life
Type— Life Cycle Cost reduction
Expedient repair-of pumps in alarm can prevent excessive damage to pump systems.Additionally,excessive
pump run times due to preventable I&I will accelerate wear on rotating elements and require more extensive
and expensive repair. Assuming a 5%extension of life of a core($1,850)with a 25-year design life is a
present value of$92.50 for each of the 2,278 cores.
• Advantage—Collectors can he used to monitor Neighborhood Lift Stations
Type—Life Cycle Cost reduction
In addition to collecting and transmitting data from the GPGs, the collectors that are located at the
Neighborhood Lift Stations (NLS) could provide basic monitoring of those stations that have no SCADA
capability. Since the placement of the collectors is site specific,at this time there is no estimate of how many
NLS could be so monitored.
39
COST WORKSHEET V2ARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WW COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS 18.1
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority SHEET NO.: 3 of 4
PROJECT ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE
NO. OF COST/ NO. OF COST/ITEM UNITS UNITS UNIT TOTAL UNITS UNIT TOTAL
Telemetry Upgrade to Panel
GPG Radios GA 2,278 245.001 558,110
1 1
Collectors EA 30 3,215.001 96,450
HTT 1100 - ; ..
i
j
1 i
i
I
Subtotal i ,, , // ////// 654,560
u
Markup (/o) at
TOTAL / /i,//,; / ''/// 654,560
TOTAL 655,000
(ROUNDED)
/
40
LIFE CYCLE COST WORKSHEET OARCADiS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL,WASTEWATER COLLECTION ALTERNATIVE NO.:
SYSTEM DESIGN BUILD PROJECT OUTER ISLANDS 18.1
SHEET NO. 4 of 4
LIFE CYCLE PERIOD: 30 years
INTEREST RATE: 5.00% ESCALATION RATE: 3.00% ORIGINAL ALTERNATIVE
A. INITIAL COST 655,000
Useful Life(Years)
1,% ///' '/%%i%
INITIAL COST SAVINGS %�/%%j�f��j (655,000)
B. RECURRENT COSTS(Annual Expenditures)
1. 2 Technicians G 62.50 for 2 hours three times daily= 136,875
2. 2 Technicians G$62.50 for 2 hours once daily_ 45,625
3. 5.5 MG per year( 3.50/1,000 GAL 17,500
4. Pump core replacement @ 25-year life,:::- 1,850/25 x 2,278 168,500
5. Pump Core replacement C 26.25-year life 1,850/26.25 x 2,278 160,500
6.
Total Annual Costs 322,875 206,125
Present Worth Factor 22.5769 22.5769
Present Worth of RECURRENT COSTS 7,289,513 4,653,661
C. SINGLE EXPENDITURES Year Amount PW factor Present Worth Present Worth
ORIG PROPI <Put"x"in appropriate box(original design or proposed design)
1. 1.0000 -
2. 1.0000 -
3. 1.0000
4. 1.0000 -
...................
5. 1.0000 -
6. 1.0000 -
7. 1.0000
S. 1.0000
D. SALVAGE VALUE Year Amount PW factor Present Worth Present Worth
1. 1.0000
2. 1.0000 -
Present Worth of SINGLE EXPENDITURES - -
E. Total Recurrent Costs&Single Expenditures(B+ C + D) 7,289,513 4,653,661
RECURRENT COSTS &SINGLE EXPENDITURES SAVINGS j/i j 2.635,852
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (A+ E) 7„289,513 5,308,661
TOTAL LIFE CYCLE SAVINGS i%��,�,��,,�,,,/ 1,980,852
41
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE MARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS 1H.2
Florida Keys Aqueduct Ai.ahority
DESCRIPTION: UPGRADE THE GRINDER PUMP PANEL TO INCLUDE AN SHEET NO.: 1 of 2
EMERGENCY GENERATOR RECEPTACLE
ORIGINAL DESIGN:
The grinder pumps are supplied with an Environment One Sentry Panel. These panels provide the minimal
operating controls required for the EOne grinder pump, a Service Rated Disconnect and audio/visual alarm
capabilities.
ALTERNATIVE:
At the owner's request, a generator receptacle with an auto-transfer switch has been proposed as an addition to
the standard Sentry panel.
ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
• Provides a uniform generator hook-up for all • Adds minor cost to the project
residential grinder pump stations
• The auto transfer switch automatically
isolates the station load fi-om the line for
safety
• Provides a means to quickly pump down
stations during extended power outages
• Manufactured as an integral component of
the Sentry Control Panel.No ancillary boxes
are required.
DISCUSSION:
This alternative provides a homeowner accessible generator receptacle with auto-transfer switch built into the
lockable panel. When the generator feed is hooked up to the external receptacle, the auto-transfer switch isolates
the load Dorn the power company line, protecting workmen.The auto-transfer switch provides the homeowner
access to the generator receptacle WITHOUT access to the inside of the Sentry control panel.
PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING COSTS LIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 0 — $ 0
ALTERNATIVE $ 656,000 — $ 656,000
SAVINGS(Original minus Alternative) $ (656,000) — $ (656,000
42
COST WORKSHEET 0ARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WW COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS 18.2
Florida Kev.r Aqueduct Authority SHEET NO.: 2 of 2
PROJECT ITEM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE
ITEM UNITS NO. OF COST/ TOTAL NO. OF COST/T TOTAL
UNITS UNIT UNITS UNIT
i
Add Generator Receptacle
I
Generator Receptacle EA 2,278 288.00! 656,064
1
i
{
i
J
Subtotal /r .. ; 656.064
Markup /o at
„rim r%� /„/ %� iii �// �%//
rr�///r j /// %/i�//. / r;rff//%/TOTAL ii ii % �, /ii/////i��//,✓�j,%��%/%/f/a/,� 656,064
,r
TOTAL ROUNDED j %r/a i %/iii/ 656,000
43
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE VaARCADIS
PROJECT: CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE NO.:
DESIGN BUILD PROJECT FOR OUTER ISLANDS
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 23
DESCRIPTION: EXPEDITE THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS SHEET NO.: 1 of 1
ORIGINAL DESIGN:
The original design review process included FKAA reviews of each construction package at 60%and 90%
design completion levels.The Design Team incorporates accepted Value Engineering Change Proposals
submits them as part of the 60% submittal.
ALTERNATIVE:
The collection and transmission system designs included by FKAA with the Design-Build RFP are considered
30%design level documents. Expedite the design review process by having the Design Team incorporate
accepted Value Engineering Change Proposals into 80%design level documents which are used for
construction after incorporating FKAA review comments and changes required by permitting. Construction
changes are included in the submission of"Record Drawings."
ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
• Optimizes the project schedule • None apparent
• Accelerates commencement of construction
• Accelerates connection of customers and
generates system revenues quicker helping
to retire debt
• Reduces design cost by$25,000
DISCUSSION:
This change in the design review process recognizes the level of effort expended to develop the Design Criteria
Package and the 30%design documents plus the effort of the VE Team to increase the value of the project to
Monroe County, FKAA, and the customers of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System. It also increases the
ability of the Design-Build Team to meet or exceed the December 31, 2015 deadline for completing the project.
PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTH
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COST RECURRING COSTS LIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN $ 25,000 — i 25,000
ALTERNATIVE $ 0 — $ 0
SAVINGS(Original minus Alternative) $ 25,000 — Is 25 000
44
Cudj oe Status
October 2013
(Snapshot at October 15, 2013)
Finance Status
FKAA
Advances to date $24.5 million
Projected Advances: $ 9.0 million (invoiced
early OCT 2013)
Expenditures to date
-Fully processed against advances $11.4 million
-"in process" w/in County $ 4.3 million
-"in process"/expected in October at FKAA $ 2.9 million
Subtotal Expenditures $18.6 million
Expected additional expenditures:
SEP-OCT 2013 $ 8.0 million
NOV-DEC 2013 $12.6 million
Construction Status
1. Advanced Wastewater "Treatment Facility (WWTP):
Wharton-Smith continues concrete work on major structures. Electric and yard
piping continue. Major structural concrete work continues.
Action. Complete structural work and site utilities. Drill injection wells for
effluent disposal.
2. Inner Islands' Collection System:
Giannetti has installed over 10 miles of gravity and low pressure collection system
pipelines on Cudjoe Key along with service laterals, manholes, and pump station wet
wells.
Action.Pipe laying, trench restoration and maintenance of traffic. Pavement
restoration work to begin within 30 days.
3. Outer Islands' Collection System:
Layne has begun gravity sewer work on Lower Sugarloaf(LSK), and continues
installing LPS on Ramrod Key. Design work on Big Pine nearing completion.
Action:Design, construction,project outreach and permitting elements are
underway.
4. Public Information Meetings:
FKAA continues to schedule meetings with the public and interested groups to
provide project status and to receive input.
Website updates ongoing.
Action:evening meetings scheduled for Big Pine Key in November and
December.
5. On-Site Systems:
Easements have been received for many of the properties to be connected for the
first phase of on-site systems. Request for Qualifications being advertised for survey
and permitting assistance to assist with system design.
Action:
1. Select firm to develop construction documents for on-site systems.
2. Meet with DEP and DOH to confirm permitting and construction elements
of project.
Vitia Fernandez
From: Wilson-Kevin <Wilson-Kevin@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:22 PM
To: Wilson-Kevin
Cc: Gastesi-Roman; Frederick-Debbie; Hancock-Pamela; LoSacco-Tina; Tom Walker; Amy
Heavilin; Vitia Fernandez; Shillinger-Bob; Hall-Cynthia
Subject: Cudjoe Status report for OCT BOCC Meeting
Attachments: Cudjoe Status(OCT 2013 Update).pdf
Commissioners et al.:
Attached is the monthly summary of the Cudjoe Sewer Project Finances and Construction. I usually do this update
during the Departmental reports but since we'll have several Wastewater items on the agenda, I thought this would be
best handled at the same time and it would be more efficient for you to have the summary in advance. I'll have copies
available at the meeting.
kevinw
Kevin G. Wilson, P.E.
Monroe County Public Works & Engineering Division
Murray E. Nelson Government&Cultural Center
102050 Overseas Highway, Room 214
Key Largo, FL 33037
(305) 292-4560(Key West)
(305)453-8797 phone (Key Largo -direct)
(305) 797-1547 cell
(305)453-8798 fax-Key Largo
(305) 295-4321 fax-Key West
wilson-kevin(cDmonroecount -fyfl.gov
i