Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineering & Operations MINUTES 11-19-19 Page 2 of 14 CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 9A553-A392 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA DAVID R, wIresAMs President SANITARY DISTRICT MICHAEL R.MCGILL President Pro Tem ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS PAUL CAUSEY COMMITTEE H. JAMES A.NEJEDLY TAD J PILECKI MINUTES PHONE: (925)228-9500 FAX: (925)372-0192 www.centralsan.org Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:00 p.m. 21d Floor Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California Committee: Chair Jim Nejedly Member Tad Pilecki Staff. Roger S. Bailey, General Manager Katie Young, Secretary of the District Phil Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager Edgar Lopez, Capital Projects Division Manager Jason DeGroot, Senior Engineer (left after Item 3.a.) Sasha Mestetsky, Senior Engineer (left after Item 3.a.) Amelia Berumen, Senior Administrative Technician 1. Call Meeting to Order Chair Nejedly called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. Public Comments No public comments. December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 110 of 127 Page 3 of 14 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes November 19, 2019 Page 2 3. Items for Committee Recommendation to Board a. Review draft Position Paper to award a contract in the amount of $2,566,517.88 to Hoffman Southwest Corporation, the lowest responsive bidder, for the District-wide sewer closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection project; and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mr. DeGroot provided an overview of the low bid contractor and contract proposal specifications. Of note, this will be the first time that another contractor, other than Roto-Rooter, will perform these inspections for Central San. The Committee and staff discussed the importance of the customer service expectations associated with the work. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval. b. Review draft Position Paper to authorize the General Manager to execute a professional engineering services agreement with HP Squared in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to provide specialty electrical engineering for Capital Improvement Projects Mr. Lopez stated that the keys to the proposed work are the arc flash and electrical relay setting analyses, in addition to electrical distribution system reviews that cannot be performed inhouse. He said hiring a consultant to perform this work represents the best fiscal option, adding that HP Squared has the best billing rates of any of the proposers and that their staff is familiar with the District from previous consultant studies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval. C.* Review draft Position Paper to authorize the General Manager to: 1) increase the construction contract contingency by an additional $465,000 for the Plant Operations Building Seismic Upgrades and Server Room Relocation, District Projects 7362 and 8243; and 2) transfer $465,000 from the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Contingency to fund these projects Mr. Petit provided a revised presentation that began with an overview of project change orders issued to date. He said that staff has been tracking change orders since the project began in November 2018. A recent large- sum change order was issued last month after the last Committee meeting agenda posting, which brought the contingency spent to 8.7% of the maximum 10% granted at the time of award. Therefore, staff is requesting additional contingency funds and authorization to transfer the balance of the CIB contingency budget to complete the project. December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 111 of 127 Page 4 of 14 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes November 19, 2019 Page 3 Member Pilecki mentioned that, at the time of construction award, he had voted against the project due to the Headquarters Office Building (HOB) lobby work and ADA restroom improvements for the Multi-Purpose Room (MPR) since he felt the scope was a "want"versus a "need."He asked how much of the $494,000 in change orders issued to date is related to these two areas versus those attributed to the seismic portion of the project. Mr. Petit and Mr. Lopez respectively responded that a very small amount in change orders is due to the HOB lobby (roughly$10,000) and that there were no major issues with the MPR ADA bathrooms; however, if there were, it would be nominal. Overall, approximately 90% is attributable to structural, electrical, and environmental scope needed for the project. Mr. Petit continued that most of the pending change order work planned for the contingency increase is for structural and environmental work, as well as other work that may need to be addressed in order to complete the project. The remaining CIB contingency balance of$465,000 would fund any remaining work and include approximately$100,000 for unexpected issues or construction management costs, which staff anticipates will likely remain unspent. No additional scope or changes are being authorized under the requested amount. A discussion ensued during a slide showing that over the past six years, only three projects required additional funding. Furthermore, staff discussed the history of the last two seismic improvement projects (the HOB Building and the Pump and Blower Building improvement projects) and that each required additional budget allocation to complete. Member Pilecki stated that it would be beneficial to know what the project contingency percentages were for those projects as a comparison. Moreover, with the number of larger-scope active projects being planned, it should be looked at as to what is the "right"contingency percentage figure that should be assigned to these types of projects going forward. Staff indicated that the past project contingency information will be presented at a future Committee and subsequent Board meeting. In response to Member Pilecki's request for the proposed purchase cost of the three existing construction trailers that were installed under this project, and based on information staff received from the contractor, Mr. Petit estimated a total of$90,000. Mr. Lopez added that this estimate is subject to change (i.e., lower) as staff is still negotiating the cost since the trailers are pre-owned. He responded further by answering a question posed about utilizing existing onsite space instead, stating that staff has considered the option of limited available room; however, the purchase of these trailers gives the flexibility to reorganize staging areas and be used for construction management personnel (consultant and District staf) for other upcoming larger plant projects. In turn, this will save money in the December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 112 of 127 Page 5 of 14 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes November 19, 2019 Page 4 future from requiring contractors to mobilize/demobilize and rent other trailers for those future projects. Member Pilecki asked about staff's plan for the balance of the fiscal year if the contingency reserve is depleted. Mr. Petit replied that staff will work within the approved capital budget allotment and, at this time, does not perceive anything further between now and the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Lopez stated that should an event arise, programs would need to be reviewed and funds possibly reallocated; however, all intention is to stay within the budget. It was discussed that with the positive variance from last fiscal year, the Board recently elected not to add funds to the contingency reserve. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee took no position, preferring instead that the item be brought to the full Board without a Committee recommendation. 4. Other Items a.* Receive information on Capital Improvement Business Case Evaluations (BCE) Mr. Petit introduced this informational agenda item and said it was being provided in response to a prior Committee request. He then proceeded with a revised presentation (attached), emphasizing the twelve process steps listed on slide 4 and the following schematic that showed the flow process diagram for BCEs at Central San. Member Pilecki offered the following comments for staff's consideration: 1) Defining project-specific drivers— He understands staff uses the Master Plan drivers; however, when it comes to a specific project, the drivers should also consider Board policies and/or strategic goals (e.g., managing assets throughout their lifecycle, equipment reuse, and minimizing risk). 2) Business case alternative development— In addition to the standard "no project"alternative, include an alternate that maximizes existing facility and lifecycle use. 3) Propose the alternatives twice to the Executive Team before presenting to the Committee (regarding Step 3 on slide 5). With the upcoming Steam Aeration and Blower System Project, as an example, Mr. Petit stated that staff is spending considerable time to assess the real condition and life expectancy of the existing assets and equipment in order to have a well-structured basis to substantiate staff's December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 113 of 127 Page 6 of 14 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes November 19, 2019 Page 5 recommendation one way or another when the project is brought to the Committee and Board for consideration. Chair Nejedly replied that in his opinion, staff spends too much time on analysis and discussing the projects rather than getting projects done. He added that equipment has a lifecycle, replacements will be needed and can be planned for appropriately. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the information. 5. Announcements None. 6. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any other future agenda items COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list. 7. Future Scheduled Meetings Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment— at 2:43 p.m. *Attachment December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 114 of 127 Page 7 of 14 (Handout) - Item 3.c. Revised Presentation POB SEISMIC UPGRADES, 11 DISTRICT PROJECT (DP) 7362 & SERVER ROOM RELOCATION, DP 8243 UPDATE Engineering and Operations Committee November 19, 2019 Jean-Marc Petit Director of Engineering and Technical Services Edgar J. Lopez Capital Projects Division Manager Change Order Timeline $130,000 10% $110,000 8% $90,000 6% $70,000 $50,000 4% $30,000 2% $10,000 01-N.,18 12-Mar-19 O6-May-19 04-Jun-19 1 20-Jun-19 24-1un-19 25-Jul-19 26-5ep-19 08 19 24-0ct-19 29-Oct-19 0% $(10,000) NTP 1 1 2 3 5 1 6 7 9 10 11 12 $(30,000) -Amount -Perc .f Contract -Cumulative Percentage -2% To date,a total of$494,454 has been issued in change orders and charged to the Project. z This constitutes 8.73 percent Project contingency. 1 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 115 of 127 Page 8 of 14 Change Order Analysis for POB Seismic and Server Room Projects Change Orders Percentage to Date Change Orders Amount to Date 141 CIV •Architectural•Electrical•Fire•IT•MOU•Plumbing/Mech.•5-ctural/EWromental $494,454 or 8.73%of Project contingency 3 PENDING PROJECT BUDGET INCREASE Pending/Possible Project Costs by Percentage Pending/Possible Project Costs by Amount 1.12% W—Mogsa $5,200 38.71% 0.86% $180,000 $18,000 •Architectural •Electrical •HVAC $4,000 •IT Structural/Environmental •E—nded Project Duration •Project Unassigned $465,000 from Capital Improvement Budget contingency 4 2 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 116 of 127 Page 9 of 14 BUILDING RETROFIT PROJECTS OFTEN REQUIRE ADDITIONAL BUDGET • Seismic Improvements for HOB, DP 8226, had a total project budget at award for$5,716,000, included 15% contingency. Added $225,000 for budget overrun. • Pump and Blower Building Seismic Upgrades, DP 7291, was not determined by a traditional low bid (since no bids were originally received). Contract was done as a Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement and awarded for$6,780,000. This project exceeded the total project budget of$829,000. However, this project finished under budget. 5 low— CENTRALSAN HISTORY OF PROJECT OVERRUN FOR CENTRAL SAN Over the past six years, only 3 projects out of 45 projects valued at approximately $125,000,000, that are closed, have required additional funding after award during construction: • FY 14-15: 9 closed projects, 1 overrun -Walnut Creek Sewer($9,000) • FY 15-16: 10 closed projects, zero overrun • FY 16-17: 13 closed projects, 1 overrun -4737 property improvements ($23,000) • FY 17-18: 5 closed projects, zero overrun • FY 18-19: 8 closed projects, 1 overrun - Grayson Creek Project ($1 M+) Over the past six years, 0.82% overrun for construction awards 6 CENTRAL SAN 3 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 117 of 127 Page 10 of 14 ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS Alternative 1: Reject the additional contingency amount,which is not recommended.The current contingency of 10 percent is insufficient to cover all the work stated above and to pay for normal change orders expected to complete a project of this size and complexity. Alternative 2: Revise the approved percentage of the requested additional contingency amount to a lower percentage of dollar amount. The current contingency of 10 percent is insufficient to cover all the work stated above and to pay for normal change orders expected to complete a project of this size and complexity.This Project is still under construction and the additional funds are needed to complete the Project. Under this alternative, staff may need to come back to the Board for additional funds at a later Board meeting in order to complete the Project. I � CENTRALSAN REVISED TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET Total Estimated Project Cost at Award-November 1,2018 which includes 10 percent*project contingency on$5,665,500 award to $ 8,125,000 CWS Additional Project Increase in Contingency $ 465,000 Revised Total Estimated Project Cost-November 2019 $ 8,590,000 LthTe o date,a total of$494,454 has been issued in change orders and charged to Project.This constitutes 8.73 percent Project contingency. s 4 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 118 of 127 Page 11 of 14 BOARD ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following: 1 . Authorize the General Manager to increase the construction contract contingency by an additional $465,000 for the Plant Operations Building Seismic Upgrades and Server Room Relocation, District Projects 7362 and 8243; and 2. Authorize the General Manager to transfer $465,000 from the Capital Improvement Budget Contingency to fund these projects. 9 CENTRALSAN QUESTIONS? 10 CENTRALSAN-- 5 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 119 of 127 Page 12 of 14 (Handout) - Item 4.a. Revised Presentation r� A'Y.. 1 BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION CENTRAL SAN PROCESS Bryan McGloin, Management Analyst Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Engineering and Operations Committee Meeting November 19, 2019 I WHY CONDUCT A BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION (BCE)? • BCE is a process to evaluate solutions to a need/problem and determine how best to address this need considering financial, environmental, and social impacts. It is a multi-step process intended to maximize objective over subjective assessment of project alternatives. • Evaluate economic(cost)and non-economic variables • Consider consistent factors across multiple project alternatives • Normalize values to allow for combination and comparison • Although a BCE will often be highly quantitative, its ultimate purpose is to support a business judgment decision on a proposed project. 6- INTRODUCTION CENTRAL SAN 1 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 120 of 127 Page 13 of 14 BCE AT CENTRAL SAN • BCE conducted to date on major projects • Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan • Headworks Screenings Upgrade, District Project (DP) 7327 • Solids Handling Facility Improvements, DP 7348 • Pump Station Upgrades, Phase 1, DP 8436 • Filter Plant and Clearwell Improvements - Phase 1A, DP 7361 • Influent Pump Electrical Improvements, DP 7328 • BCE on upcoming major projects • Pump Station Upgrades, Phase 2, DP 8457 • Steam and Aeration Blower Systems Renovations, DP 7349 3 BACKGROUND CURRENT BCE PROCESS AT CENTRAL SAN 1. Evaluate specific project needs and drivers 2. Conduct an in-depth evaluation of existing asset condition assessment and determination of remaining life 3. Evaluate whether to keep and maintain the existing assets, replace in-kind, and/or replace with new technology 4. Conduct pilot testing of preferred technology when appropriate to validate design criteria and risk(if needed) 5. Evaluate current and possible future regulatory drivers that would impact the project and identified solutions 6. Preliminary investigation as needed (geotechnical, survey, permitting, environmental, etc.) 7. Prepare design alternatives based on prior information 8. Prepare capital expenditure (CapEx)for each alternative 9. Evaluate operations and maintenance (O&M)for each alternative 10.Prepare pros and cons for each alternative 11.Prepare 30-year net present value (NPV) (life cycle cost(LCC) analysis)for each alternative 12.Present BCE to Executive Team _ �4 BACKGROUND 2 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 121 of 127 Page 14 of 14 RECOMMENDED BCE APPROACH FOR FUTURE CENTRAL SAN PROJECTS 3c:Preferred 4c:TBL+ Alternatives Approach 3a: 4a: 4b:O&M Potential 3b: Project Cost 4d: Alternatives Screening Cost Sensitivity Process Analysis Step 1:Define Step 2: Step 3:Business Project Drivers Comprehensive Case &State the Condition Alternatives Need Assessment ent IF Step 5:Pilot 1 Testing ---- 1 (If Applicable) Project Proceeds to 1 Pre-design Step 6: 1 Recommended Alternative 6b:Present to Committee 6c:Present 6a:Present to Board to Executive Team `5 CENTRALSAN QUESTIONS? 6 3 December 5, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 122 of 127