1

Joel Kostelac, PE BCEE | GHDPMAA – August 2016

Utilizing systematic planning and innovative technologies for a cost effective project

Image placeholder

Outline

• Project planning

- Assembling the team

- Drivers

- Tasks and timeline

• Facility overview

• Design overview

- Alternative analysis and selections

- Phases

- Detailed design

• Bid overview

- Setting the stage

- Bid results

- Value engineering

- Re-bid results

• Summary and way forward

2

Introduction

3

Project planning

4

Project drivers

Primary project driver- Exceeded the permitted maximum capacity three consecutive months in

2011 resulting in a CAP (Feb, Mar, April)

- CAP, approved August 2012 required submission of Act 537 Revision to address overload

- Submission originally required by June 20, 2014

- Set Cranberry on path to upgrade project

Assembling team

• Previous comprehensive planning indicated a need for increased capacity and provided a small indication of the project costs

• Township understood importance of selection of consultant, program management and third party review

• Necessary to keep all project stakeholders on board- Administrative and operations staff

- Board of Supervisors

- PA DEP

- Contributing municipalities

- Public

- Consultants

5

Assembling team

• Developed RFP for design consultant – charged with development of a Basis of Design (BOD)

• BOD to be used in submission of Act 537 revision

• Selection process began in late 2012, concluded in April 2013

• Direct Township link – Waterworks Coordinator

• Program Manager

• Design Consultant

Getting underway

Stakeholder Involvement

• Project chartering – late April 2013- Involves all stakeholders- Defines project mission,

critical success factors, communications plan, etc.

- Included BOD kickoff workshop

• DEP workshop May 2013

6

Project drivers – NEW

• Preliminary limits received in February 2013 to be revised to mass-based limits

• Secondary treatment bypass prohibited- Liquid treatment train peak flow limited to

11.25 mgd

- Discharge of primary effluent will not be permitted in next permit cycle

• Anticipated nutrient limits - Future TN limit < 6 mg/L

- Future TP limit < 0.6 mg/L

• Pause until revised preliminary limits received in August of 2013, CAP extension later granted

Facility overview

7

Brush Creek WPCF Cranberry Township, PA

• Permitted ADF 4.5 mgd

• Peak flow 23 mgd

Secondaryclarifiers

Tertiaryfilters

Maintenancegarage

Dewateringbuilding

Digesters

Blowerbuilding

Controlbuilding

Solids holding& thickening

Primaryclarifiers

High flowchlorine

contact tank

Chlorinecontact tank

HeadworksAerationbasins

Influent pumpStations

Chemicalbuilding

8

Design overview

Design overview

• BOD phase – approximately 1 year- Flows and loads

- Hydraulics

- Alternatives analysis for all unit processes including process modelling

- Permitting and external approval requirements

- Planning level cost estimates

- Supervisor and public engagement

• Detailed design phase – approximately 18 months- Process modeling

- Hydraulics

- Facility layout

- Cost estimating

9

Basis of Design (BOD)

FIGURE 4.1Brush Creek WPCF Basis of Design Work Plan

PROJECT MANAGEMENT – Regular feedback and reporting to Owner

Deliverables

• Chartering Documents• Hydraulic Evaluation and

profile• Flow and Mass Balance• Hydraulic, flow TM• Permit requirements TM• Workshop and Meeting

minutes

TASK 1:BASIS OF DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT

RFP Tasks: 1,2,7

1.1 Project Chartering

1.3Review Background Data, Establish Flows and Loads

1.2ID Future Regulations, Establish environmental constraints (floodplain, wetland)

• Influent Pumping TM• Preliminary Treatment TM • Biological Process TM• Sedimentation and

Filtration TM• Disinfection and reuse TM• Schematics, Product

literature

TASK 2:LIQUID PROCESS

ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Pumping Station –Influent Pumping and Screening - Complete

2.2Headworks – Grit: 9/6Primary Clarifiers: 9/20

2.3 Biological Process 9/20

2.4Sedimentation and Filtration 9/20

2.5Disinfection and reuse 9/20

• Digestion Alternatives TM with Energy Recovery

• Dewatering / Disposal TM

• Schematics, Product Literature

TASK 3:SOLIDS HANDLING

ALTERNATIVES

Deliver in parallel with Task 2

3.1 Digestion 9/13

• HVAC TM• Electrical and SCADA

TM• Health and Safety TM• Admin, Lab, Pretreatment

TM• Schematics, Product

Literature

TASK 4:CONDITIONS

ASSESSMENT

Weeks 15 - 18

4.1 Other Unit Processes, equipment – Includes odor control, conditions assessment - underway

• Preliminary Cost Estimates

• Risk, Criticality Matrix• Phasing Alternatives

Plan• Workshop meeting

minutes

TASK 5:PROJECT COSTS

AND PHASING

5.1Unit Process Alternatives and Cost Estimates

• Recommended Process Alternatives, Costs, Phasing

• Site Plant, Schematics• Product Literature,

Funding methods• PA DEP Pre-application

meeting and minutes• Public meeting handouts

TASK 6:BASIS OF DESIGN

REPORT

6.1 Recommended Process Alternatives

Weeks 1 - 6

1.4Existing plant hydraulic evaluation

RFP Tasks: 3,12,13

Weeks 7 - 14

RFP Tasks: 4,6,12,13

3.2 Dewatering, Disposal 9/13

3.3 Energy Recovery 9/13

RFP Tasks: 7,10

4.2 HVAC analysis

4.3Electrical / SCADA analysis

4.4Health and Safety

4.5Admin / Lab / Pre-treatment assessment

Weeks 19 - 21

RFP Tasks: 8,9

5.2 Risk, Criticality Assessment

5.3 Phasing Alternatives

Weeks 22 - 24

RFP Tasks: 11,12,1314,15,16

6.2 Recommended Phasing Plan

6.3 Preliminary Site Plan

6.4 Define Construction Permits

6.5 Economic benefits and funding analysis

8/26

–10

/1 (

5 w

eeks

)

9/23

–11

/1 (

5.5

wee

ks)

11/1

–11

/21

(3 w

eeks

)

Workshop 3/4 – 10/1 –10/2 (as needed)

Workshop 5 – 11/7

Notes items that were in development during interim period (6/7 – 8/26)

Workshop 6 – BOD 11/21

10

Design flow conditions for upgrade

Flow conditionDesign raw

influent flow, mgd

Internal plant recycles,

mgd

Design flow with recycles,

mgd

Minimum day flow 2.17 0.60 2.77

Minimum month flow 4.87 1.20 6.07

Average day flow 6.00 1.20 7.20

Maximum month flow 8.73 1.56 10.29

Peak day flow 14.76 1.35 16.11

Peak hour flow 23.00 1.35 24.35

Expandable to 30.4 mgd peak hour flow in futurePhase 2 expansion

Levels of treatment considered

Cu

rren

t le

vel Effluent limits

2/5 (1.5/3.5) mg/L ammonia

2 mg/L TP

Continue bypass of secondary treatment

Lev

el 1

Effluent limits

<10 mg/L TN

1 - 2 mg/L TP

No bypass allowed

Lev

el 2

Effluent limits

<6 mg/L TN

< 0.6 mg/L TP

No bypass allowed

11

Short-listed alternatives

Alternatives for <6 mg/L TN and <0.6 mg/L TP

CAS

4-stage bardenpho

w/ effluent filters

CAS

MLE

w/ denitefilters

MBR

4-stage bardenpho

BioMag®

4-stage bardenpho

MBBR

w/ Denite Filters

IFAS

4-stage bardenpho

w/ effluent filters

High-rate carbon removal

w/ biologically active filters & denitefilters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• Alternatives for <6 mg/L TN and <0.6 mg/L TP

Recommended approach – MBR

Advantages

• Proven technology

• No additional bioreactors required

• Eliminates the impact of sludge settleability

• Eliminates the need for separate effluent filters

• Existing SCs can be re-used for flow equalization

• Excellent water quality (water reuse potential)

• Easily expanded for future growth

• Smallest footprint

12

Anaerobic digestion

• Lowest capital / operating

• Possible energy production

• Not a current process

• Large footprint (impacts liquid end selection)

• Gas handling concerns

2nd Generation ATAD

• Smallest footprint

• Current process

• Class A

• High capital / operating

Solids treatment alternatives

Selected alternative and phasing

• Phase 1

- Sitework, demo, yard piping

- PE flow distribution

- Influent pumping and screening

- Grit handling

- Aeration tank modifications

- RAS distribution

- RAS/WAS PS

- Fine screen facility

- MBR facilities

- Thickener replacements

- ATAD facilities

- Odor control

- Electrical, SCADA, I&C

- Misc. HVAC, plumbing

• Approx. $45M (2013 dollars)

13

Selected alternative and phasing

• Phase 2

- Sitework, demo, yard piping

- PC No. 5

- Additional membrane cassettes/equipment

- Nutrient removal modifications

- Disinfection upgrade

- Electrical, I&C

- Misc.

• Approx. $20M (2023 dollars)

Detailed design

14

Project mission statement

“The project team will work together using effective communication and coordination to develop the preliminary and final design for a cost-effective, maintenance-friendly wastewater treatment facility, that retains flexibility for both the progress of future growth and potential future regulation while minimizing the impact on treatment plant operations and local neighbors.”

Critical success factors

Critical success factor

Approach

Design is completed in accordance with the project schedule

• GHD, the Township, and the Program Manager (Pr.M), HRG, will meet at regular intervals to review progress and make decisions to facilitate meeting project milestones.

• The preliminary CPM schedule will be reviewed with the Township and PrM to establish an approved baseline schedule during the project planning period. The approved schedule will be used as the project baseline for monthly schedule updates and cost control plan

Open communication is maintained between the Township and GHDthroughout the project

• Joel Kostelac, will be the primary point of contact for the engineering team, the Township, and the PrM. Bill LaDieu, Kristi Perri, Howard Butler, and Rulison Evans will also be available when project efficiencies dictate

• Maintain and improve upon established communication systems.

15

Critical success factors

Critical success factor

Approach

Completed design accounts for maintenance of plant operations and permit compliance throughout

• Develop phasing diagrams to outline in detail to the contractor how the new and upgraded facilities are to be integrated into the plant

• Delineate bypass pumping requirements for short and long term unit process bypasses

• Conduct pre-bid “rehearsals” to identify potential issues

Achieve the required treatment performance

• Identify acceptable offline time, with input from the Township, for unit processes and equipment.

• Develop a robust, flexible design

Maximize odor control at the site

• Engage Bowker & Associates to assist with design of the odor control facilities

Maintain project costs as described in the Basis of Design

• Conduct cost estimate updates in conjunction with design reviews, at minimum 30%, 60% and 90%

FIGURE 4.1Brush Creek WPCF preliminary & final design phases work plan

Deliverables• Chartering Documents• Baseline Schedule and

Updates• Meeting Handouts,

Minutes, Updates (as needed)

• Site Survey• Geotech Report• Hazardous Conditions

Report

TASK 1:PRE-DESIGN

RFP Tasks: P1, P2, P3, P4

P1AProject Chartering

P2Survey and Base Mapping

P1BPM/Design Schedule

• BioWin Process Model and Report

• Revised Liquid Process TM

• Revised Solids Process TM

• Revised Odor Control TM• Vendor

Recommendations, Site Visit Schedule

TASK 2:PRELIM.

LIQUID PROCESS DESIGN

P5ALiquid Process Kickoff

P5C Preliminary Liquid Process DesignRevised Liquid Process TM

• 30% Design Drawings and Specs

• 60% Design Drawings, including SCADA Scope and Integration Plan

• Appropriate Permit Applications

P5DPreliiminary Solids Process DesignRevised Solids Process Design TM

TASK 5:90% and 100%

DESIGNDRAWINGS

F2A90% Design Drawings

• 90% Design Drawings• 100% Design Drawings• Final Design Drawings

(paper and electronic)• Final Project Manual, CSI

16-17 Division Format (paper and electronic)

• Final Probable Construction Cost

F3 and F5Final Project Manual including Technical Specs and Front End Documents

F490% and 100% Probable Construction Estimate

P3 Subsurface and Physical Conditions Assessment

RFP Tasks: P5, P6 RFP Tasks P5, P6

P5EOdor Control Process Design and Revised TM

RFP Tasks: F2

F2B100% Bid Ready Design Drawings

RFP Tasks: F3, F5 RFP Tasks: F4

PROJECT MANAGEMENT (RFP Tasks P1, F1)

PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE FINAL DESIGN PHASE

P1C Meetings/Workshops• Kickoff/Chartering• Bi-weekly Design Updates

(as needed, minimum monthly)• MBR Vendor Design Coordination (2)• ATAD Vendor Design Coordination• PA DEP Pre-application Meeting (1)

P1C Meetings/Workshops• Cranberry Township Planning Commission (2)• Cranberry Township Board of Supervisors (2)• Cranberry Township Public Outreach (2)

P1C Meetings/Workshops• 30% Design Review Workshop• 60% Design Review Workshop• 90% Design Review Workshop• 100% Design Review Workshop• Bid Document Review Workshop

P4Hazardous Environmental Conditions Assessment

REGULATORY RELATED SERVICES (RFP Tasks P8)

P5B BioWin Process Modelling

TASK 3:PRELIM.

SOLIDS PROCESS DESIGN

TASK 4:30% and 60%

PRELIMINARY DESIGN DOCS

RFP Tasks P5, P6, P7

P5F, P6, P730% Design Drawings, Specifications and Costs

P5GEquipment Review and Site Tours

P5HSCADA and Integration Preliminary Design and Scope Development

P5I, P6, P760% Design Drawings, Specifications, and Costs

TASK 6:FINAL PROJECT

MANUAL

TASK 6:FINAL PROBABLECONSTRUCTION

COST

QA/QC QA/QC QA/QC

16

Upgrade layout – major processes

New bioreactor configuration – MLE with supplemental carbon

Gate (typ)

Pri

mar

y ef

flu

ent

chan

nel ANXANX

AERAER

AERAER

AER AER

ANXANX

AERAER

AERAER

AER AER

ANXANX

AERAER

AERAER

AER AER

Membrane filtration system

Fine screens

Primary effluent distribution box

FM

Flow equalization (secondary clarifiers)

Ras distribution box

Supplemental carbon

17

MBR upgrade – simplified process flow schematic

• Phase 2- Add 5th primary clarifier when adf 4.0 mgd +/-

- Add membrane cassettes & modules before peak is 23 mgd +/-

- Construct post anoxic zones, if required for TN limit

To disinfection

Effluentpump station

RAS pumps

Membrane tanks

2-mm fine screens

Air scour system

Screened & degritted

wastewaterAerobic

Primary clarifiers

Caustic Aeration system

Bioreactors

RASDB

Flow equalization tanks(converted secondary clarifiers)

FM

Fine screen inlet

channel

AnoxAnox

Was to solids handling

BioreactorDb

Was/ScumWell

Back pulsePumps

Supplementalcarbon

Ferric

Cost savings

18

MBR permeate options capital cost estimates

ParameterPermeate alternative 1: permeate pumps

Permeate alternative 2: siphon with effluent pump station

Additional membrane facility building for permeate pumps

$360,000 N/A

Permeate pumps $270,000 N/A

Effluent pumps N/A $290,000

Flow control valves $80,000 $80,000

Permeate isolation valves $80,000 $40,000

Backpulse tank $40,000 $80,000

Effluent pump station N/A $90,000

Total $830,000 $580,000

MBR permeate options capital cost estimates

ConditionPermeate alternative 1: permeate pumps

Permeate alternative 2: siphon with effluent pump station

Average day flowPeak flow

6 mgd @ 15 ft TDH (360 days/yr)30 mgd @ 18 ft TDH (5 day/hr)

6.0 mgd siphon (360 days/yr)30.0 mgd @ 10 ft (5 day/yr)

Flow controlPermeate pumps with flow control

valvesFlow control valves, effluent pumps

Pump type Centrifugal Submersible

Pump efficiency 70% 75%

Electricity cost $0.13 / kWh $0.13 / kWh

Annual power cost $24,300 $1,600

20-year present worth power cost $380,000 $30,000

Average day flowPeak flow

6 mgd @ 15 ft TDH (360 days/yr)30 mgd @ 18 ft TDH (5 day/hr)

6.0 mgd siphon (360 days/yr)30.0 mgd @ 10 ft (5 day/yr)

19

MBR permeate options capital cost estimates

ConditionPermeate alternative 1: permeate pumps

Permeate alternative 2: siphon with effluent pump station

Advantages

• No change in operations between normal and high flow periods

• No concern over loss of siphon

• Reduced pumping requirements and energy requirements

• Elevated MT allows for simpler sequencing during construction

• Reduced number of pumps for peak conditions

• Identically configured membrane trains

• Smaller membrane facility building• Lower capital cost

Disadvantages

• Two pump sizes required for initial operation to meet start-up and peak flow rates

• Increased pumping costs; artificial head required to allow pumps to operate correctly

• Pumps and flow control valves required for operation

• Increased number of pumps to maintain

• Slightly higher capital cost

• Siphon must be maintained for forward flow

• Operating configuration changes during high flow or fouled membrane events

• Requires construction of effluent pump station

Process blowers

Criteria Turblex Blowers Aerzen Blowers Advantage

Initial equipment cost$285,000 for 1 new variable output blower

$398,000 for 4 new hybrid blowers + VFDs($477,000 for PD blowers)

Turblex

Equipment conditionExisting units operating for about 17 years, documented operational issues

All new equipment Aerzen

Controls Inlet guide vanes and outlet diffuser vanes adjusted based on manufacturer’s proprietary programming to achieve variable output

Utilize off-the-shelf VFD to achieve variable output

Aerzen

Sequence of construction

Require existing VFD panels to be relocated to create space for fourth blower

New blowers to replace existing blowers one at a time

TBD

Operator familiarity New blower will match existing Positive displacement blowers used for various applications after upgrades

Turblex

20

Project cost

Item100%

design90% design

Aug 2015

Influent sewer modifications, coarse screen and raw WW pump station

$3,735,000 $3,815,000

Grit, scum and grease collection and primary clarifier upgrades

$202,000 $175,000

Fine screen facility and bioreactor distribution box

$1,462,000 $1,442,000

Bioreactors modifications $1,127,000 $1,172,000

Membrane influent channel, tanks, RAS channel and membrane bldg.

$13,630,000 $13,601,000

RAS distribution box $285,000 $256,000

Effluent pump station $966,000 $1,051,000

Process aeration upgrades $640,000 $772,000

Sludge storage $734,000 $734,000

RDT facility $1,147,000 $1,102,000

Filtrate storage $147,000 $120,000

ATAD/SNDR $5,408,000 $5,438,000

Dewatering Bldg. $38,000 $28,000

Odor control $625,000 $610,000

Plant water $284,000 $263,000

Site work and yard piping $2,657,000 $2,757,000

Garage Bldg. $255,000 $182,500

Operations Bldg. $265,000 $226,300

Site demo $460,000 $450,000

Process subtotal $34,067,000 $34,194,800

Item100%

design90% design

Aug 2015

Instrumentation $400,000 $400,000

SCADA $658,000 $500,000

Electrical $4,480,000 $4,230,000

Security upgrades (cameras, door locks, door contracts, panel)

$100,000

Fire alarm system $160,000

Network panels $60,000

HVAC/Plumbing $996,000 $500,000

Electrical, I/C, mechanical subtotal

$6,854,000 $5,630,000

Construction subtotal $40,921,000 $39,824,800

WWTP upgrade construction cost total

$40,921,000 $39,824,800

Project contingency (5.0%) $2,046,000 $2,788,000

Construction cost total $42,967,000 $42,612,800

Construction $42,967,000 $42,612,800

Design, permitting, bid/award (agreement with expected completion amount and bid/award)

$2,300,000 $2,550,000

Construction phase (based on CMT proposal and estimated design support)

$2,300,00 $2,550,000

Testing (estimated 0.8%) $343,736 $340,902

Financing and interest (estimated at 1%)

$429,670 $426,128

Project cost total $43,460,406 $48,912,726

21

Project schedule

Name FinishActual finish

Agreement executed Fri 8/8/14 Fri 8/8/14

Pre-design tasks complete Fri 8/8/14 Fri 8/8/14

Final survey received Fri 11/28/14 Fri 11/28/14

Geotech field investigation, report complete

Thu 12/11/14Thu

12/11/14

Hazmat report received Tue 6/23/15 Tue 6/23/15

Submit NPDES renewal to PA DEP

Tue 12/16/14Tue

12/16/14

NPDES renewal received Fri 5/15/15 Fri 5/15/15

Submit LD/zoning/lot consolidation plan

Mon 6/8/15 Mon 6/8/15

LD plan/lot consolidation approval Thu 9/3/15 N/a

Submit E&S plan Fri 7/17/15 Fri 7/17/15

E&S plan approval Tue 10/6/15 N/A

Submit NPDES SW plan Fri 7/17/15 Fri 7/17/15

NPDES SW plan approval Tue 10/6/15 N/A

Submit GP-11 for outfall Fri 7/31/15 Fri 7/31/15

Outfall GP approval Fri 10/9/15 N/A

WOM Part II submitted to PA DEP Fri 6/12/15 Fri 6/12/15

Name FinishActual finish

WOM Part II received Mon 11/2/15 N/A

Submit air quality request for determination

Fri 8/28/15 Fri 8/28/15

Submit air quality request for determination

Fri 8/28/15 Fri 8/28/15

Receive air quality determination

Fri 10/2/15 N/A

Preliminary liquid process TMs, dwngs complete

Fri 10/24/14 10/24/14

Preliminary solids process TMs, drwgs complete

Fri 10/31/14 Fri 10/31/14

30% design submissions to Township

Fri 1/16/15 Fri 1/16/15

30% design complete Tue 2/10/15 Tue 2/10/15

60% design submission Fri 5/15/15 Fri 5/15/15

60% design complete Fri 6/19/15 Fri 6/19/15

90% design submission Mon 8/17/15 Mon 8/17/15

90% design complete Fri 8/28/15 Fri 8/28/15

100% design submission Mon 10/12/15 N/A

100% design complete Tue 10/27/15 N/A

Documents ready for bid Fri 11/13/15 N/A

Bid phase

22

Contractor selection

• Pre-qualification vs. statement of qualifications in the bid

• Save the date and invitations to bid

• PennBid

• Pre-bid meeting and follow up site visits

• Vendor selection and review process

Contractor selection

• Pre-qualification vs. statement of qualifications in the bid

• Save the date and invitations to bid

• PennBid

• Pre-bid meeting and follow up site visits

• Vendor selection and review process

23

Bid results

Bid results

24

Bid results

Bid results

• Total bid of approximately $57M

• Bid costs significantly higher than estimate for all contracts

• Detailed review of cost analysis

• Survey and meetings with bidding contractors

• No smoking gun, low unit prices, site constraints, large equipment package

• Bids rejected – re-bid process commenced immediately

25

Value engineering

• Detailed workshops conducted with Township administration, staff

• Thorough review of listed manufacturers, equipment packages, proposed substitutions

• Workshops with major equipment suppliers and Contractors

• Developed several deferments and alternates

• Move to base-bid add alternate format

Selected reductions

ATAD, ATAD Biofilter, Vactor dump pad $ 6,994,000 $ 136,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 7,280,000

MLE / BNR Upgrades $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 630,000

MBR Tanks 7 & 8 $ 228,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 228,000

Filtrate Storage covers $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000

Reduce IPS x 1 pump $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000

$ 535,000 Reuse the existing IPS scrubber $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ -

Reduce access control / security $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000

$ 270,000 Reduce fire alarm system $ - $ - $ - $ 170,000

Simplify backup power system $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000

$ 8,327,000 $ 136,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 9,523,000

$ 7,227,000 $ 8,423,000

Maintenance Garage $ 285,000 $ 269,000 $ 110,000

$ 100,000 $ 1,366,000 Operations Building $ 303,000 $ 209,000 $ 90,000

Defer paving $ 430,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 430,000

$ 1,018,000 $ 478,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,796,000

$ 8,245,000 $ 614,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,110,000 $ 10,219,000

Base bid with all reductions $ 37,640,000 $ 765,000 $ 101,500 $ 7,464,000 $ 45,970,500 $ 45,970,500

26

Upgrade layout – re-bid

Bid results

27

Bid results

Bid results

28

Re-bid results

• Total base bid of approximately $43M

• Total award of approximately $46M

• Apples to apples cost reduction of over $2M

Summary

29

Summary

• Long term planning and stakeholder involvement – prepared for adversity

• Bad news doesn’t get any better with age

• Contractors like to be involved

• What’s next- Notice to Proceed – June 17, 2016

- Currently under construction with scheduled completion by Summer 2019.

- Phase 2???

Thank you!Questions? joel.kostelac@ghd.com