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? [email protected]
Top Related