1. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
|
ENGINEERING
|
PLANNING
SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DELIVERY
METHODS FOR REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT OF
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
November 14, 2013

2. AGENDA
 REPLACEMENT / REHABILITATION ANALYSIS
 PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
 BID / CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
 BID PROCESS

3. Rehabilitation/Replacement Analysis
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
2. ROUTE ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
3. DATA COLLECTION
4. DATA ANALYSIS & EVALUATION
5. INSTALLATION & CONSTRUCTABILITY
6. EVALUATION MATRIX
7. REHAB EVALUATION

4. 1. Project Background




Understand the basis/objective of the project
Familiarize w/ history of the line
Operational constraints
Recognize stakeholder concerns
Sliplined

5. 2. Route Alternate Evaluation




Jurisdiction considerations
Mitigating community impacts
Shut down limitations
Economical solution

6. 2. Route Alternate Evaluation
ALIGNMENT VARIATIONS

7. 3. Data Collection
 Collect existing utility and underground facility records
 Review recent available aerial photography
 Perform site visits of preliminary pipe alignments
 Identify potential profile conflicts
 Catalogue special jurisdictional requirements

8. 3. Data Collection
 Geotechnical report
 Pipe Laying Schedule
 Plat information

9. 4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
EXISTING UTILITY IDENTIFICATION AND
VERIFICATION
Utility Contact Table
 Obtained “as-built” information from utility companies
Utility Company
Letter Sent
ATT ‐ Miami‐Dade
5/3/2013
Response
Received
5/7/2013
5/3/2013
4/8/2013
City of North Miami
5/3/2013
4/22/2013
City of North Miami Beach Public Utilities
5/3/2013
5/29/2013
City of Opalocka
5/3/2013
Pending
Comcast Cable
 Reviewed possible route corridors to identified existing
utilities along corridors
ATT ‐ Miami‐Dade
5/3/2013
6/26/2013
Florida Department of Transportation
5/3/2013
5/9/2013
Florida City Gas
5/3/2013
5/8/2013
FPL
5/3/2013
5/21/2013
FPL Fibernet LLC
5/3/2013
6/25/2013
MCI
5/3/2013
4/16/2013
Miami Dade Water Sewer
N/A
5/21/2013
MDC Public Works
5/3/2013
5/14/2013
Teco Peoples Gas
5/3/2013
4/19/2013
American Traffic Solutions
St From NE
Ave
Ave and NE
Ave
5/22/2013
5/3/2013
6/25/2013
5/3/2013
6/25/2013
XO Communications
Typical Section along NE
5/3/2013
Systems Integration & Maintenance INC
10th
5/7/2013
City of Miami Gardens
6th
5/6/2013
5/3/2013
Level 3 Communications LLC
159th
5/3/2013
Florida Gas Transmission Company
5/3/2013
Pending
Typical Section along NE 159th St From NE 3rd Ave and NE 4th Ave

10. 4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
 Goal – avoid, minimize and mitigate/address
potential project impacts and
 Level-I contamination assessment;
 Re-evaluating the site prior to
replacements/replacements

11. 4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR REPLACEMENTS
In‐line Plug Valves
every 0.5 mile
ARV
installed at all high points and other intermediate points
MANHOLES
every 1,200 feet and at valves and closures
PRESSURES
Working pressure : 100 PSI , Test pressure : 150 PSI
VELOCITY
5 FPS MAX
PIPE FRICTION FACTOR
Hazen Williams “ C “ Factor: 120, 140 preferable
HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
equivalence of a 72‐inch diameter

12. 4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION
 Client Preferences and Familiarity
 Ease of Installation
 Installation Under Water
 Corrosion Resistance
 Production Quality Control
 System Flexibility
 Hydraulic Efficiency
 Manufacture & Availability
 Surge Protection
 Performance within environment
 Cost
Type
Size (inches)
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
14‐48
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
½‐63
Ductile Iron (DIP)
4‐64
Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder (PCCP)
10‐144
Bar Wrap Concrete Cylinder
10‐144
Fiberglass Reinforced Pipe (FRP)
12‐96
Steel
24‐144

13. 4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION
Advantages
PCCP
Steel Pipe
Durability and competitive prices for large diameter
Competitive price for large diameter pipes
Lighter than concrete pipes
Disadvantages
Unit weight per foot is the highest of alternatives.
Corrosion control measures will be required
Installation of pipes will be new experience for local
contractors. Corrosion control measures will be required
Does agency have experience and familiarity with this
pipe
FRP
Excellent corrosion resistance
DIP
Flexibility for future connections
Relatively easy to install because of mechanical/push‐ Corrosion control measures will be required
on joints
HDPE
Longer trenches (access pits/shafts) to be opened at a
Leak resistance over PCCP due to quantity of joints &
time
more leak proof joints
Work zone/lay down area requirements

14. 4. Data Analysis & Evaluation
PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION
PIPE MATERIALS EVALUATION MATRIX
Evaluation Criteria
Most Desired Option 1
Less Desired Option 3
Cost 63/64‐inch $/LF
1. Present Worth Capital Cost (PWCC)
PWCC Weighted Sub‐Total
1. Agency Experience and Familiarity
2. Connection to existing lines
3. Contractor's familiarit with pipe system
4. Pipe Laying length
5. Pipe weight
6. Pipe joint flexibility
7. Pipe installation in groundwater
8. Internal corrosion resistance
9. Cathodic Protection / Soil Corrosivity
10. Useful Life Span (Min. 50 Years)
11. Failure Characteristics
12. Diameter
Non‐Economical Average = Sfactors / 12
Non‐Economical Weighted
Pipe Material
PCCP
Economical Factors
490
3
1.5
Non‐Economical Factors
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
1.9
0.2
Total Economical and Non‐Economical Weighted Factors
Ranking of Alternatives
1.7
2
Steel Pipe
DIP
FRP
340
2
1
460
3
1.5
279
1
0.5
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
2.0
1.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2.1
1.0
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1.7
0.8
2
3
2.5
4
1.3
1

15. 5. Installation & Constructability
 Installation performance of proposed pipe
material
 Coordination with Agencies for street
closures
 Construction rates
 Impacts to community (Church, Schools,
Hospitals…)
 Trenchless construction for major highways
& other critical crossings
Pipeline

16. 5. Installation & Constructability
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC:
• Lane closure limits
• Total road closure requirements
• Mayor issues with necessary detours
along thoroughfares

17. 6. Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation Parameter
Weight Factor
Minimize adverse traffic impacts (MOT)
7
Minimize public agency coordination/permitting
7
Low impact on businesses and/or public facilities/stakeholders
2
Risk of Successful Construction
5
Laterals/ Bends/ Obstructions/ Retrains
8
Future Redevelopment
2
Minimize Impact to Schedule
10
Minimize ROW or easement acquisition
2
Minimize project cost (OPC)
10

18. 6. Evaluation Matrix
Location
Segment I
Segment II
Segment III
Segment IV‐A
Segment IV‐B
Segment V
Length (ft)
4,445
1,535
1,535
1,535
3,030
4,405
5,535
4,560
2,950
3,210
2,315
2,090
1,325
1,380
1,325
1,350
4,030
3,995
4,295
4,640
3,375
2,605
2,630
3,950
Routes /
Weighting Factor
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
7
0
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
0
1
3
2
2
0
3
2
1
7
0
21
21
21
14
21
7
21
14
21
7
7
14
21
7
0
7
21
14
14
0
21
14
7
3
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
2
1
2
3
2
2
5
21
0
0
0
0
14
7
14
14
21
14
14
7
14
7
7
14
0
14
7
14
21
14
14
0
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
5
0
15
15
15
10
15
5
15
10
5
10
10
15
10
5
5
10
0
0
10
5
5
5
0
0
3
3
3
0
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
8
0
15
15
15
0
10
5
5
10
15
5
5
5
15
10
5
10
15
5
5
5
15
15
5
0
3
3
3
2
3
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
3
0
2
3
3
2
1
0
3
2
0
2
0
24
24
24
16
24
0
0
8
24
8
0
0
24
0
16
24
24
16
8
0
24
16
0
3
0
0
0
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
10
6
0
0
0
2
6
2
4
2
2
4
6
2
0
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
6
4
2
0
3
3
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
0
30
30
30
20
30
10
10
20
30
20
10
0
20
0
10
20
30
10
10
10
30
20
20
0
3
3
3
0
3
1
2
0
2
2
0
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
0
Preferred
Alternate
Total Points
Minimize Project
Cost (OPC)
Cost per Option
Minimize ROW or
Easement
Acquisition
Minimize Impact
to Schedule
Future
Redevelopment
Laterals/ Bends/
Obstructions/
Retrains
Risk of Successful
Construction
Minimize public
agency
coordination /
permitting
Low Impact on
Businesses and/or
Public Facilities /
Stakeholders
Evaluation
Parameters
Route 1
Route 2
Route 3
Route 4
Minimize Adverse
Traffic Impact
(MOT)
NEW PIPE MATRIX
10
0
6
6
6
0
6
2
4
0
4
4
0
2
6
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
6
6
0
$8,472,100
$3,510,600
$3,510,600
$3,510,600
$6,973,600
$11,198,100
$10,941,300
$9,178,200
$5,578,000
$5,879,000
$4,377,700
$4,007,900
$2,711,700
$2,738,800
$2,709,400
$2,828,200
$7,458,400
$7,330,500
$7,912,400
$8,588,700
$6,310,400
$5,583,200
$5,093,800
$7,302,300
0
3
3
3
3
0
2
1
1
0
2
3
1
3
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
1
3
0
0
30
30
30
30
0
20
10
10
0
20
30
10
30
20
0
10
30
20
0
10
10
30
0
27
141
141
141
92
126
58
83
88
122
92
82
55
140
55
51
101
128
83
58
50
138
124
48
.
.
.
.
.
.

19. 7. Rehab Evaluation
 Identify & assess viability of available
rehabilitation methods
 Evaluate rehabilitate or replacement
Rehab
Replace

20. 7. Rehab Evaluation
 Accessibility & site constraints
 Soil conditions
 Magnitude of flows
 Available bypassing or rerouting flows
 Mechanism of failure or problem
 Rights-of-way
 Lateral connections
 Length and size of pipeline
 Need for up-sizing line

21. 7. Rehab & Evaluation
CHOOSING THE RIGHT METHOD
 Identify acceptable level of risk
 Define shut down parameters
 Plan out requirements

22. 7. Rehab & Evaluation

23. 7. Rehab & Evaluation
CIP REHABILITATION

24. 7. Rehab & Evaluation
STEEL LINER SECTIONS

25. 7. Rehab & Evaluation
SLIPLINING

26. 7. Rehab & Evaluation
INTERNAL JOINT SEALS

27. 7. Rehab Evaluation
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR REHABILITATION
PRESSURES
Working pressure : 60‐65 PSI , Test pressure : 70 PSI
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALITY
Class IV
VELOCITY
5 FPS MAX
PIPE FRICTION FACTOR
Hazen Williams “ C “ Factor: 140 preferable
HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
equivalence of a 72‐inch diameter

28. 7. Rehab Evaluation
Problem
Definition
Capacity
Deficiencies
System
Problem
Caused
by
excessive
I/I
Problem
Location
Structural
Condition
Size
Impact
Increase
in pipe
size
required
No
Yes
Collapse
has
occurred
or is
eminent
Yes
At a
Sewer
Pipe
Yes
Full Replacement
1,2
No
Yes
Structure
Deficiencies
Appropriate
Options
No
Structural
Rehabilitation
1,2,3,4
Non‐Structural
Rehabilitation
5,6
No
Yes
Separate
Joint(s)
Yes
Offset
Joint(s)
No
Joint Repair/
Pipe
Rehabilitation
1,5,6,7
Pipe
Replacement
1
Joint Repair/
Grouting
7,8,9
Available
Technologies
Replacements
New Alignment
1 Open Cut
2 Microtunneling
Existing Alignment
1 Open Cut
Structural Reline
3 CIPP
4 Sliplining
Non‐Structural Reline
5 CIPP
6 Sliplining
Others
7 Mechanical joints
8 Chemical Grouting/Grouting
9 Cement Patching

29. 7. Rehab Evaluation
 Sliplining
• Segmental Sliplining
• Continuous Sliplining
• Short Pipe
 Cured-In-Place (CIP) Lining
• Conventional CIP
• Composite CIP
 Grout-in-Place (GIP)
 StrongPIPE™ Hybrid FRP - Continuous Reinforced Composite
Liner

30. 7. Rehab Evaluation
 A number of rehabilitation methods could be examined
 Condition of existing pipe
 Cost
 Track record
 Drop in capacity associated with the reduction of cross-sectional
 Feasibility and practicality limit number of rehabilitation methods

31. 7. Rehab Evaluation
 Booster Pump Stations may need to be reconfigured or shutdown
 FM bypass associated with Pump Station

32. 7. Rehab Evaluation
Identify Pipe Performance Issues
(i.e., Flow Issues, Corrosion)
Would rehabbed line deliver required performance?
If yes, proceed. If no, then replace.
Pipe is structurally sound
Pipe is structurally inadequate
Pipe has infiltration issues or early
signs of deterioration
Identify cause of structural deterioration
and select semi‐structural/
structural rehab system
Pipe has infiltration issues
Pipe has early signs of deterioration
Identify cause of leakage and
select non‐structural/
semi‐structural rehab system
Identify cause and select non‐structural /semi‐
structural rehab system

33. CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION MATRIX
SPECIFIC PROJECT PARAMETERS:
 Minimize adverse traffic impacts (MOT)
 Minimize public agency coordination /
permitting
 Low Impact on Businesses and/or Public
Facilities / Stakeholders
 Risk of Successful Construction
 Laterals/ Bends/ Obstructions/ Retrains
 Future Redevelopment
 Minimize Impact to Schedule
 Reliance on Host Pipe Condition
 Flow Diversion Requirements
 Infiltration Concerns (During Construction)
 Reduction in Capacity
 Minimize Project Cost (OPC)

34. 8
2
10
2
5
10
3
10
Open Trench
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
3
24
3
6
0
0
3
6
0
0
3
15
3
30
2
14
2
14
3
15
2
10
2
16
2
4
1
10
3
6
1
3
3
15
0
0
CIPP
1,530
HDPE Sliplining
3
21
1
7
3
15
1
5
0
0
0
0
3
30
1
2
1
3
1
5
2
20
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe)
Segment I
2
14
1
7
2
10
1
5
0
0
0
0
2
20
2
4
1
3
2
10
1
10
Open Trench
Segment II
2
14
1
7
0
0
2
10
3
24
3
6
0
0
3
6
0
0
3
15
3
30
HDPE Sliplining
3
21
3
21
3
15
3
15
2
16
3
6
1
10
3
6
1
3
3
15
0
0
CIPP
4,410
2
14
1
7
2
10
1
5
0
0
2
4
3
30
1
2
1
3
1
5
2
20
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe)
7
1
7
2
10
1
5
0
0
2
4
2
20
2
4
1
3
2
10
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
3
24
3
6
0
0
3
6
3
9
3
15
3
30
HDPE Sliplining
1
7
1
7
3
15
2
10
2
16
2
4
1
10
3
6
1
3
1
5
0
0
CIPP
3,177
1
Open Trench
Segment III
2
14
1
7
2
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
30
2
4
1
3
2
10
2
20
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe)
21
1
7
1
5
1
5
0
0
0
0
2
20
1
2
1
3
3
15
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
3
24
3
6
0
0
3
6
3
9
3
15
3
30
HDPE Sliplining
1
7
2
14
2
10
3
15
2
16
2
4
1
10
3
6
1
3
1
5
0
0
CIPP
1,367
3
Open Trench
Segment IV‐A
3
21
1
7
3
15
1
5
0
0
0
0
3
30
1
2
1
3
1
5
2
20
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe)
14
3
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
20
2
4
1
3
3
15
1
10
0
0
0
0
2
10
3
24
3
6
0
0
3
6
3
9
3
15
3
30
HDPE Sliplining
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
10
2
16
2
4
1
10
3
6
1
3
1
5
0
0
3
21
3
21
3
15
1
5
0
0
0
0
3
30
1
2
1
3
2
10
2
20
2
14
2
14
2
10
1
5
0
0
0
0
2
20
2
4
1
3
3
15
1
10
Open Trench
2,470
2
0
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe)
Segment V
14
0
CIPP
4,070
2
Open Trench
Segment IV‐B
Preferred Alternate
Minimize Impact to
Schedule
5
Total Points
Future Redevelopment
5
Minimize Project Cost
(OPC)
Laterals/ Bends/
Obstructions/ Retrains
7
Cost per Option
Risk of Successful
Construction
7
Reduction in Capacity
Low Impact on
Businesses and/or Public
Facilities / Stakeholders
Rehabilitation Option
Weighting Factor
Infiltration Concerns
(During Construction)
Minimize public agency
coordination / permitting
Length
(ft.)
Minimize Adverse Traffic
Impact (MOT)
Location
Reliance on Host Pipe
Condition
Flow Diversion
Requirements
Evaluation Parameters
CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION MATRIX
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
3
24
3
6
0
0
3
6
3
9
3
15
3
30
HDPE Sliplining
0
0
2
14
1
5
1
5
2
16
2
4
1
10
3
6
1
3
1
5
0
0
CIPP
3
21
3
21
3
15
2
10
0
0
0
0
3
30
3
6
1
3
2
10
2
20
Fiberglass Sliplining (Short Pipe)
2
14
3
21
2
10
2
10
0
0
0
0
2
20
1
2
1
3
3
15
1
10
$3,510,600
$1,404,800
$2,641,800
$1,909,800
$11,198,100
$4,228,100
$7,969,300
$5,641,600
$5,993,900
$3,212,400
$5,610,000
$3,897,300
$2,827,700
$1,196,200
$2,291,100
$1,605,400
$7,343,500
$6,899,100
$6,814,600
$4,478,800
$5,583,200
$4,169,300
$4,287,500
$3,023,700
0
0
96
3
30
137
1
10
118
2
20
103
0
0
112
3
30
158
1
10
110
2
20
100
0
0
105
3
30
113
1
10
108
2
20
108
0
0
100
3
30
120
1
10
118
2
20
115
0
0
100
3
30
89
1
10
137
2
20
115
100
0
0
3
30
10
146
2
20
125
.
.
.
.
98
1
.
.

35. PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
 DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB)
 PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR)
 DESIGN-BUILD (DB)

Traditional DB

Design-build-operate

Design-build-finance-operate

Design-build-own-operate-transfer
DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD
CMAR
PROGRESSIVE DB
DESIGN BUILD
DBO
DBOOT
DBFO
PROJECT DELIVERY SPECTRUM

36. PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB)
 Separate contracts for design and construction.
OWNER
 Design documents are 100% complete
 Contractor selection is based entirely on cost.
DESIGNER
BUILDER
Contracts
Communication

37. PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
Select Design‐ Builder
PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD
30%
Design
 Procurement process in a short timeframe
 Project can be implemented in phases
OWNER
VE
 Maximizes owner flexibility
 Initially cost for construction is not known
60%
Design
DB ENTITY
 Cost is determined through combination of
negotiated and competitive processes
TRADE
SUBS
Contracts
Communication
Constructability
Review
90%
Design
Constructability
Review
Submit/Approve
LS / GMP

38. PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR)
 CMR handles some aspects of design
 Designer and CMR hold separate contracts with owner;
OWNER
CMR contracts directly with trades and takes on
“performance risk”
CMR
 Overlapping design and construction
 Professional management to an owner whose
TRADE
SUBS
DESIGNER
organization may not have capabilities
 Facilitates phased construction
 Constructability and speed of implementation
Contracts
Communication

39. PROCUREMENT METHODS EVALUATION
TRADITIONAL DESIGN-BUILD (DB)
 Design and construction services in same contract.
 Single point of responsibility
OWNER
 Typically multi-step procurement process
 Owner transfer of responsibility; DB entity is liable
DB ENTITY
for design and construction
 Overlapping design (~30%) and construction
DESIGNER
BUILDER
Contracts
Communication

40. BID PROCESS
D/CM/DB
TEAM
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (POST-DESIGN PHASE)
 Construction Administration
FINAL CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS
• Pre-Bid Documents
AGENCY
PROGRAM
MANAGER
 Review of Final Contract Documents.
 Project Advertisement and Bid Documents
Distribution
• Pre-Bid Conference.
RISK
MANAGEMENT
PROCUREMENT
ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE
WRITTEN
COMMENTS
WRITTEN
COMMENTS
WRITTEN
COMMENTS
• Preparation and Issuance of Addenda
PROGRAM
MANAGER
• Bid Opening and Award
• Preparation of As-Bid Contract Documents
 Construction Management
MEETINGS AS NECESSARY
D/CM/DB
TEAM
FINAL BID
DOCUMENTS

41. Questions?
Thank you!
Credits:
Rod Lovett, MD‐WASD
Ricardo Vieira, LAN