2019 WDBC Handbook 5th Ed

WATER AND WASTEWATER
WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN-BUILD HANDBOOK

DESIGN-BUILD HANDBOOK
Fifth Edition
Fifth Edition
P.O. Box 1924 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Edgewater, MD 21037 Washington, DC 20004
waterdesignbuild.com dbia.org Fifth Edition
Endorsed by
6666 W. Quincy Ave. 601 Wythe Street

Denver, CO 80235 Alexandria, VA 22314
awwa.org wef.org
The Water Design-Build Council’s mission is advancing WDBC Resources for the Water and
design-build delivery methods to transform the water
industry—through collaborative thought leadership
Wastewater Design-Build Sector
and education, supported by research. Resources are available on WDBC’s website: WaterDesignBuild.com
WDBC REGULAR MEMBER COMPANIES WDBC Advisor Companies WDBC Research Reports
WDBC is currently comprised of 17 regular member firms. Regular membership in WDBC advisor members are an affiliated “category” of firms Executive Summary: 2018 Annual
working with, and providing services to, engineering and 2017 State of the Demand for Design-
the Council consists of any private sector legal entity of whatever form, including Research Report on Collaborative-
affiliates and subsidiaries, who: (1) are frequently and regularly engaged in providing construction firms in the water design-build industry. Candi- 2017 STATE OF THE DEMAND FOR DESIGN-BUILD Build in the Water/Wastewater Sector
Delivery Trends and Growth in the DELIVERY IN THE WATER/WASTEWATER SECTOR
design-build and other forms of collaborative delivery in the water industry as a dates for this group include legal, insurance and finance firms, Water and Wastewater Sector updates presents the results of the WDBC’s 2017
prime contractor (including joint venture partner or member of a special purpose equipment suppliers, consultants, contractors, vendors, trade the 2017 Annual Research Report with Produced by the Water Design-Build Council
market research, which confirm that
corporation) accepting performance guarantee risks; and (2) have in-depth, in-house associations, and academic institutions. WDBC created this an analysis of the 2017 research data, design-build delivery is widely used by
comprehensive professional engineering capabilities or self-perform construction membership category to provide opportunities for service which stated that owners chose one the nation’s public utilities for a variety
capabilities. Regular members must have appropriate licenses or authority to providers engaged in the water industry to collaborate with of the three collaborative-delivery of related infrastructure projects—a
perform its work as recognized by the appropriate governmental body in which the other member firms and gain further recognition of their ser-
In collaboration with
methods (progressive design-build, clear trend of its increasing popularity in

organization conducts its business to design and build public or private (including vices in design-build and other forms of collaborative delivery. fixed-price design-build, or construction
2017 State of the Demand for Design-Build Delivery in the Water/Wastewater Sector | i
this market space.

investor-owned, rate-regulated utilities) water or wastewater systems or facilities management at-risk) to reduce lifecycle
in North America. Regular members directly engage in contracting for design- costs, reduce risk to their customers,
build and other forms of collaborative delivery, as opposed to providing ancillary and deliver projects faster.
activities, such as serving as a consultant to owners on technical, institutional, legal, 2013 Survey of Municipal Officials 2013 Survey of Municipal Officials
procurement, commercial, or other collaborative-delivery project related issues.
and Owners on Impediments to
2015 Research Report: Lessons

Using Collaborative Delivery Methods
for Water and Wastewater Projects and Owners on Impediments to Using
Learned by Owners Using Design- Collaborative-Delivery Methods
Build Delivery, an interview survey of for Water and Wastewater Projects
utility/agency executive and managers, documents that organizations are
captures the experiences they gained unwilling to use collaborative delivery
in using collaborative delivery, but primarily because of the lack of
reinforces the value of education in Water Design-Build Council
education on the delivery methods.
preparing to use these delivery models
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and the need to begin the process early.
2012 Research Report: Municipal WDBC 2012 and 2014 State Statute
2012 Municipal Owners
Owners Customer Satisfaction Survey Research on Progressive Design-Build
Customer Satisfaction Survey
of Water Design-Build Projects
of Water Design-Build Projects Delivery reports on the changes that
highlights greater levels of data about occurred over a two-year period with
users of design-build delivery with enabling legislation in selected states
key findings reporting on why their on allowing the use of progressive
satisfaction levels are high. design-build delivery on water and
wastewater projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Procurement Guides for Collaborative-Delivery Projects

WDBC has long realized the industry’s need for Construction Management at-Risk Procurement Guide
materials specifically directed to effectively and This guide provides owners with a framework to use in CMAR
efficiently procure and select qualified contrac- procurement. The information in the guide is based on the
tors for collaborative-delivery projects. Thus, the industry’s best practices and on practitioners’ experiences with
goal of this initiative is to give public officials and successful projects. It includes guidance in developing a request
decision makers user-friendly guides presenting for qualifications (RFQ) and a request for proposals (RFP).
the steps in the three most used procurement
processes that they may adapt and use for their Fixed-Price Design-Build Procurement Guide
own projects.
This guide concentrates on the types of procurement used for
fixed-price design-build projects and also includes templates
Progressive Design-Build Procurement Guide
for an off-the-shelf best practice that encompasses both
This guide concentrates on the four types of procurements used for designing and constructing the project, which is established
progressive design-build projects and includes templates for an off- when the contract is signed. It focuses on the steps after an
the-shelf best practice one- or two-step procurement process. owner has defined the project requirements and scope of
• Single-Step Process: Request for Qualifications work sufficiently for proposing firms to accurately predict the
• Single-Step Process: Request for Proposals project cost early in the procurement process—together
• Two-Step Process — Step One: Request for Qualifications with the ability to integrate either a prescriptive- or 1
performance-based procurement into the process.
• Two-Step Process — Step Two: Request for Proposals
Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | ii
INTRODUCTION | iii
CHAPTER 1
Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project | 1-1
CHAPTER 2
Principles and Best Practices of Collaborative Delivery | 2-1
CHAPTER 3
Risk Management and Contracts | 3-1
CHAPTER 4
Conducting the Procurement Process | 4-1
CHAPTER 5
Managing and Implementing Collaborative-Delivery Projects | 5-1
CHAPTER 6
Getting to Project Completion and Transition | 6-1
CHAPTER 7
Public-Private Partnerships | 7-1
CASE STUDIES | CS-1
APPENDIX
GLOSSARY | A-1
REFERENCES | A-7
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES | A-8
Acknowledgements
T
his updated and expanded fifth edition of the Water and Wastewater
Design-Build Handbook represents continuing commitment to
effective collaborative delivery. Specifically, this edition furthers the
documentation of how essential and effective collaborative delivery is to
the water sector.
In the spirit of effective collaborative
delivery, we trust you will make great We trust that the contents of this handbook will be of value to all who
use of this resource.
are engaged in supporting the quality of the water and wastewater
Water Design-Build Council infrastructure, and that together, we can effectively resolve any
Mark E. Alpert challenges of procuring and implementing collaborative-delivery
Executive Director methods for this purpose. This handbook is a just a starting point.
WaterDesignBuild.com We encourage you to access the many educational, technical, and
Design-Build Institute of America contractual resources available from the WDBC, DBIA, AWWA,
Lisa Washington and WEF.
Executive Director
DBIA.org Producing this educational resource is a true collaborative achievement.
And for this, we acknowledge the valuable contributions of members
American Water Works Association
made in the production of the technical content and review of this fifth
David LaFrance
Chief Executive Officer edition. Specifically, the DBIA Board, Executive Director and staff,
AWWA.org and Water Markets Committee. The handbook has incorporated the
Design-Build Institute of America’s (DBIA) Design-Build Done Right™
Water Environment Federation
as a core resource. Special acknowledgment is given to Doug Herbst
Eileen O’Neill
Executive Director
from Freese & Nichols for his contributions in the alignment of these
WEF.org best practices as a resource.
Recognition and appreciation are especially given to member

firms AECOM and Jacobs for providing the valuable services of
John Thatcher, Ryan Irwin, Brian Daly, and Daniel Graham as
technical editors and contributors ensuring continuity and accuracy.
Contributing chapter authors include: Leofwin Clark (Brown and
➤ Caldwell), William Hixon (Arcadis), John Awezec (Carollo), Bryan
Bedell (Haskell), Lawrence Johnson (HDR), David Kinchen (Burns &
FRONT COVER PHOTO McDonnell), and Patrick Brooks (Parsons).
Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (VA)
Opequon Water Reclamation Facility We especially recognize Mark E. Alpert for his technical review;
(Haskell/Black & Veatch) Cathy Chang, Concise Communications, LLC, for technical editing;
Susan Vianna, Fishergate, Inc., for graphic design and production;
➤ Teresa Porath for compiling the project case studies and editing
BACK COVER PHOTO
services; and the work and leadership of Dr. Linda Hanifin Bonner
Capital Regional District (BC, Canada)
Capital Regional District Wastewater
as editor-in-chief—her efforts have kept this project on schedule and
Treatment Program furthered the foundation for the collaboration of education among the
(Stantec) WDBC, DBIA, AWWA, and WEF.
ii Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Introduction
T
he use of collaborative-delivery methods for water and wastewater projects
continues to steadily increase. Over the past decade, research conducted
annually for the Water Design-Build Council (WDBC) on using these delivery
methods reports that more and more owners are using them for their ability to
achieve quality projects on schedule and within budget. Owners also agree on
the continuing need to educate industry professionals about how to maximize
success with these methods.
Since its first edition in 2008, and through three subsequent updates, the
Water Design-Build Council’s Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook
has focused on achieving its education mission by also producing guidance
documents on the procurement of the various collaborative-delivery methods.
Through the fifth edition of this series, WDBC is furthering its purpose with
expanded and more inclusive information and clear direction on best practices
to those responsible for procuring, designing, and building public and private
water or wastewater capital projects.
While the 2019 update is more encompassing and descriptive than previous
editions, it continues to guide users on a step-by-step basis. Included is a
chapter on preparing an organization to pursue a collaborative-delivery
project, including extensive discussion of the roles and responsibilities of both
the owner’s staff and that of an owner’s advisor. The chapter on managing
projects is revised to ensure that owners comprehend the essential practices
to effectively implement a project from procurement through construction.
In addition, a new chapter, Getting to Project Completion and Transition,
provides a roadmap of activities essential to the success of the final project
stages. The handbook concludes with an update on public-private partnerships
(P3) as it relates to collaborative-delivery projects, specifically within the water
and wastewater industry.
Introduction iii
The glossary is expanded to facilitate the clarity and consistency of
terminology applied throughout the water design-build industry. One
specific example is use of the term “collaborative delivery,” which is now
used to minimize the confusion previously caused by the occasional
and inconsistent use of the terms “alternative delivery” and, less often,
“integrated delivery.” Collaborative delivery, which integrates all of the
design-build delivery methods, is now a more effective, inclusive, and
applicable approach than design-bid-build—and as evidenced by industry
research, is really no longer considered an “alternative.”
The handbook’s chapters are specifically structured to take an organization
through the fundamental steps of making decisions on the collaborative-
delivery model, procurement, management, and implementation processes.
DBIA’s best practices are used to reinforce the overall principles and
guidance provided within the chapter topics. The case studies provide
examples of successful design-build projects of WDBC’s members and
advisors—with many more available on the WDBC’s website project map.
Since education is WDBC’s mission, updates within this handbook are
also reflected in the current modules presented at our education sessions.
Highlights of the contents of each of the handbook chapters follows.
Chapter 1
Deciding to Implement a
Collaborative-Delivery Project provides
overall guidance to owner organizations and
industry practitioners on what is required to
build internal understanding and consensus
about a project’s goals, priorities, and drivers. This approach is supported by
a foundation of knowledge and best practices to facilitate owners who are
navigating their decision-making process and defining criteria in evaluating
the delivery method for their project. Also included is a special section that
addresses the optional use of an owner advisor (OA) that can assist owners
in further defining their project and facilitating the procurement of qualified
collaborative-delivery firms. The chapter concludes with a summary of steps
that owners can take to prepare their organizations for project implementa-
tion, including an exercise in determining critical project priorities, an
introduction to developing the project implementation plan, and a new
section describing the procurement roles and responsibilities of an owner
advisor.
Chapter 2
Principles and Best Practices of
Collaborative Delivery explains the
various collaborative-delivery methods—
defining the differences among them, as well
their advantages and distinctions. Updated are
the delivery method graphics illustrating the relationship of the concurrent
project activities occurring throughout procurement, management, and
iv Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

implementation. Also provided is a decision-making model for use in
evaluating the various collaborative-delivery methods against project
priorities and selecting the one most in alignment with the owner’s goals.
Chapter 3
Risk Management and Contracts
addresses the areas of risk that are typical for
water and wastewater projects. It also presents
the various contract provisions that are typical
for these projects, as the contract is the vehicle
in which the risk is allocated and assigned to a particular party. The general
practice is that risks are assigned to the party best able to manage them.
Updated graphics illustrate the allocation of various risk components among
owners and collaborative-delivery firms. Topics include common project
risks and allocation principles, managing risks, addressing liability and
risk in the collaborative-delivery contract, contract commercial concepts,
industry-standard contract forms, and closes with a list of cautions for
consideration in preparation for the collaborative-delivery project.
Chapter 4
Conducting the Procurement
Process expands on the explanation
of the collaborative-delivery methods in
Chapter 2 and describes the major steps in
the procurement process from preparing the
request for qualifications and request for proposals to selecting the design-
builder or CMAR firm. While this chapter further incorporates information
from the WDBC Progressive Design-Build, Fixed-Price Design-Build, and
CMAR Procurement Guides, users are also encouraged to obtain the actual
documents from the WDBC website.
Chapter 5
Managing and Implementing
Collaborative-Delivery Projects focuses
on the management activities that commence
once the contract with the collaborative-
delivery firm is signed. Guidance on furthering
the overall collaboration among the respective parties throughout the
implementation of the project is based upon successful accomplishments.
Focusing on the management activities during execution of the project,
prior to acceptance testing and transition to full-time operations, this
chapter covers three distinct areas.
1. Team Structure for Effective Collaborative Delivery. Who’s included
and their respective roles and responsibilities.
2. Developing a Collaborative Working Environment. Reaching
alignment on the collaborative relationship.
3. Implementing a Project Management Plan. Agreement on actions to
successfully execute the project.
Introduction v
Chapter 6
Getting to Project Completion and
Transition provides owners, owner advisors,
and collaborative-delivery teams a roadmap
of activities essential to the success of the final
project stages. While it is important to reiterate
that the planning activities for completion begin during the initial stages
of the project, these steps are further developed, enhanced, and refined
throughout the management and project implementation stages. The
contents culminate in a roadmap for the project’s transition that allows all
stakeholders to view the project with the most balanced risk profile and clear
understanding of critical success factors.
Chapter 7
Public-Private Partnerships focuses on
providing an understanding of the fundamental
terms, concepts, and applications as they
apply to water and wastewater projects.
It is specifically directed to the strengths
of design-build delivery methods for the water sector, while affording
owners innovative approaches to risk management and lifecycle costs.
These attributes address the unique characteristics of water projects that
require a high degree of collaboration throughout the planning, financing,
management, and operations and maintenance stages.
Case Studies and References

A compendium of case studies highlights some of the more recent and
innovative collaborative-delivery projects accomplished by WDBC member
firms. Additional information on these projects are found on the WDBC
website project map, together with hundreds more resources.
A separate list of reference documents, some of which have been cited in the
chapters and others included as additional sources, are provided for use by
industry members to further their education process.
—Linda Hanifin Bonner, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
© 2019 Water Design-Build Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-0-578-48484-6
Original publishing date 2008
The Water Design-Build Council’s 2019 Handbook provides information and advice to guide owners of water and wastewater
systems, both municipal and private, in using collaborative-delivery methods for capital projects. The handbook is not intended
to substitute for sound advice from owners’ legal or other experts, design-builders, CMAR firms, or individuals experienced in
collaborative delivery. Each community and each project will have its own needs and requirements, which should be addressed
by individuals familiar with those specific circumstances.
Handbook design and production by Fishergate. Inc, Chester, Maryland.
vi Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Chapter
1
Deciding to Implement a
Collaborative-Delivery Project
T
he decision to use a collaborative-delivery method begins with educating the owner
organization, defining their internal preparation and decision-making process.
Each owner organization has its own project drivers and different characteris-
tics; there is no set formula for aligning a delivery method to the specific needs
of a project. However, the concepts described in this handbook—and the comple-
mentary education and research materials published by the Water Design-Build
Council (WDBC), combined with the Design-Build Institute of America’s (DBIA)
Design-Build Done RightTM—identify when to use collaborative-delivery methods
for water and wastewater projects. Applying these concepts, combined with the
owner’s assessment of its project priorities to clearly define success, and an under-
standing of project risks and appropriate allocation, consistently results in highly
successful projects.
➤
This chapter provides overall guidance to owner organizations and industry prac-
A process water reclamation
facility (PWRF) designed titioners on what is required to build internal understanding and consensus about
and constructed through a project’s goals, priorities, and drivers. This approach is supported by a founda-
progressive design-build tion of knowledge and best practices to facilitate owners who are navigating their
at the Bush Brothers &
decision-making process and defining criteria in evaluating the delivery method
Company main production
facility provides a long-term for their project.
solution for process water Also included is a special section that addresses the optional use of an owner advisor
management that allows (OA) who can assist organizations in further defining their project and facilitating
for future production
the procurement of qualified collaborative-delivery firms. The chapter concludes
growth and water reuse.
(Brown and Caldwell/
with a summary of steps that owners can take to prepare their organizations for
Haskell) project implementation.
1-1
Ultimately this handbook is dedicated to helping owners achieve project suc-
cess, where the final metrics are often defined by schedule, budget, and per-
formance. It responds to owner and industry needs on this topic, identified
through multiple sources including WDBC’s research and owner education
sessions. Selecting a delivery method and then preparing to procure and
manage a collaborative-delivery project requires the owner (and OAs if used)
to compile relevant information about the organization and factors affecting
the project. This compiled data can then be used to formulate a project strat-
egy and implementation plan.
This plan includes the following actions (Figure 1.1).
1. Defining a Strategy. Requires examining the organization’s specific
external and internal challenges and opportunities that are critical to
the project, ranking those factors, and asking critical questions—the
answers of which ultimately define how success is measured for the
project. This is the first step in agreeing on the project’s priorities and
translating those priorities into the project drivers.
2. Specifying the Project and Evaluating the Use of an OA. This is the
process of obtaining outside expertise to refine the project’s technical
requirements, selection criteria, and procurement-related tactics for
project implementation. Defining the project is typically where owners
begin to consider using an OA to augment staff and expertise. While
optional, an OA can bring insight to a project while supporting the own-
er’s objectives and applying best practices to the technical characteris-
tics, procurement strategies, and implementation.
3. Preparing for Successful Implementation. This is the often overlooked
process of readying the internal organization to pursue collaborative-
delivery procurement approaches, different types and levels of resource
commitment, and collaborative interaction, all while navigating poten-
tially unfamiliar contractual obligations and team dynamics.
PROJECT PROJECT SPECIFICATION PROJECT

STRATEGY TACTICS IMPLEMENTATION
CHECKLIST CHECKLIST CHECKLIST
• Statutory and Regulatory • Technical Criteria and Scope • Organizational Capacity
Requirements • Project Implementation Plan
• Define the Procurement
• Permitting and Technical Process • Scope During Construction
✓
Requirements • Financial and Commercial
• Funding Considerations Requirements
• Key Project Drivers • Legal Advice and Form of
Contract
• Define Project Objectives
• Risk and Opportunity
• Using an Owner Advisor Assessment
Figure 1.1 – Procurement process checklist
1-2 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

DEFINING A STRATEGY PROJECT
Assessing which collaborative-delivery method to use starts with determin-
ing the external and internal factors that might significantly affect the project,
and using that insight to identify project priorities and drivers. Then, inde-
STRATEGY
CHECKLIST
Statutory and Regulatory
✓
pendent of the delivery method, the owner should rank those priorities and Requirements
drivers. Only then should owners align their priority drivers with the attri- • Understand state and local
butes of each potential delivery method, as described in Chapter 2. statutes
• Apply procurement regulations
Defining project priorities and drivers is informed or can be accomplished by and policies
asking critical questions in three general areas. • Understand market precedent
• What collaborative-delivery methods are legally and/or contractually

Permitting and Technical
allowed within the owner’s jurisdiction and its own organization? Requirements
• What are the key challenges and issues of concern for the project that • Accommodate permitting
constraints
influence its success?
• Balance innovation and
• What actions should be completed by the owner prior to initiating a prescription
procurement? • Define project location and
scope
A checklist for working through these topics is provided in the sidebar.
Funding Considerations
Status of State and Local Regulations • Define/obtain funding/
financing options
A first step for the organization is to deter- • Understand market capacity/
Statutory and Regulatory risk tolerance
mine if any collaborative-delivery methods Conditions. Is the use of
• Apply cash-flow constraints
for water and wastewater infrastructure collaborative-delivery methods
projects are legally permitted or allowed (design-build or construction Key Project Drivers
in the owner’s state, jurisdiction, and orga- management at-risk) within • Control and share risk
nization. Because statutes and regulations enabling statutes approved • Define “cost” and its
or restricted in your state? If importance
vary from state to state, as do local ordi-
so, which specific methods • Identify the importance of
nances within different jurisdictions, it is are allowed, and are there any schedule
beyond the scope of this handbook to cover explicit requirements for how • Recognize the value of
all circumstances. Both the WDBC and they are implemented? innovation
DBIA have information on their websites • Identify/address key
stakeholders
about state legislation on the use of design-build methods.
• Assess operational
It is a best practice for owners to obtain a legal opinion on the design-build impacts
or project delivery laws and regulations in their jurisdictions, as well as how
Define Project Objectives
they apply to a specific project. Additional information sources are identified • Align to delivery models
in the References section of this handbook. • Optimize risk allocation
• Establish metrics for success
Beyond state-level statutes, many owners may have separate—and sometimes
different—local procurement policies or procedures. In many areas, a charter Consider
city or similar “home rule” allows deviation from broader state statute, but • Conducting a Market
only if overtly implemented by local officials or governing boards. An organi- Sounding
zation’s internal procurement policy, practice, or local market precedent may • Developing a preliminary risk
assessment
also affect the implementation of collaborative-delivery methods.
In some instances, identifying a preferred collaborative-delivery method early Using an Owner Advisor
in the schedule can allow sufficient time for changes in local regulation or pol- • Determine need
• Define technical scope
icy to be made as needed. This can include the adoption of industry-standard
• Define role and
policy and contract language used for collaborative-delivery projects in other responsibilities
jurisdictions. Early planning and communication also provide the opportunity
Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-3

for the local market of design and construction providers to become educated
about collaborative-delivery principles.
Permitting and Technical Requirements
Permitting and Technical
Requirements. Which At the early stages of a project, technical requirements are broadly defined
permits are required for based on the specific project drivers and needs. The impetus to further define
the project, which party is the technical aspects of a project is often driven by the requirement to obtain
responsible for obtaining
regulatory approval (followed by the need to obtain funding). In addition,
them, and how far does
the permitting process
the permitting process often controls the (initial) schedule either because the
need to be advanced prior project must be delivered to meet a regulatory requirement (such as a consent
to selecting a delivery order) or because the project’s approvals must be obtained through a series of
method and initiating a sequenced stage-gates and milestones (such as an environmental clearance),
procurement? which may have costly impacts to the project.
Define Project Location
Advancing as many of the regulatory permits and approvals as possible—
and Scope. Does the
site need to be identified
particularly complex ones such as environmental permits—prior to initiat-
and does land need to ing the procurement process may mitigate impacts on the project’s scope and
be purchased prior to schedule. Understanding the level of project definition required for a specific
permitting and procuring permit also informs the delivery method in a number of ways.
design and construction
services? • The definition of the project within the permit application estab-
lishes the boundaries (literally and figuratively) within which a future
designer, construction manager at-risk (CMAR), or design-builder will
be required to perform.
• The timing of permit-related submittals may fall well in advance of
owner funding availability, requiring permits to be completed before
a procurement—or the requirements may be the responsibility of the
delivery team as part of the procurement.
• Technical constraints within certain regulatory approvals (such as for
advanced water treatment or drinking water disinfection) may result
in prescriptive requirements that restrict the project solutions allowed.
To manage these issues, owners generally acquire regulatory permits them-
selves, which typically require significant time to obtain and may depend
on the owner’s relationship with the permitting agency. The owner should
develop a permitting plan to obtain permits that is aligned with its delivery
model preference and project timeline. The plan can be a contract exhibit
with any designer, CMAR, or design-builder so all parties clearly understand
what they and everyone else are committed to provide.
Obtaining governmental permits that are administrative in nature, such as
those for construction purposes, is generally the responsibility of the design-
build or CMAR firm. The ability to manage and expedite administrative per-
mitting can be a key benefit of collaborative delivery, as design-build and
CMAR firms may be able to seek approvals and permits before the design is
complete.
The project site must be defined for permitting approvals. This prerequi-
site significantly impacts decisions for design, construction, and other proj-
ect costs. Aside from permitting drivers, some states have laws requiring that
land be acquired before any procurement for capital improvement. In any

case, it is best to select the site and acquire the land and necessary easements
before procuring collaborative-delivery services.
Resolution of land acquisition, which also includes easements and rights-
of-way, is particularly important when procurement documents require that
proposals include a fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). If
the site location is yet established, or if there is uncertainty about ownership,
initial pricing may prove inaccurate until the issues affecting these and ques-
tions are resolved.
Funding Considerations
Because owners may have access to a variety of resources and funding, this
Funding Considerations.
handbook does not make recommendations about project funding. However,
Are funds sufficient and
Chapter 7 discusses public-private partnerships (also called P3 or PPP) to allocated adequately to
give owners a clearer understanding of a different financing framework. complete the project
on schedule, and/or
Developing a current and realistic cost of the project is an important part of are they dependent
the planning process. An accurate cost estimate typically considers both in- on other sources? Do
ternal and external resource requirements, schedules, and contingencies and funding sources such as
helps determine whether a project has adequate funding. Many owners use grants, State Revolving
the AACE International Cost Estimate Classification System as a framework Fund (SRF) loans, or
Water Infrastructure
for defining the range of accuracy of a project cost estimate. Finance and Innovation
Preparing procurement documents and evaluating statements of qualifica- Act (WIFIA) funds come
with constraints and
tions (SOQs) and proposals requires dedicated time and resources and is
requirements for such
an important reason to have project funding defined prior to procurement. issues as design approvals,
Likewise, submitting SOQs and proposals requires dedicated time and re- prevailing wages, and
source commitments for collaborative-delivery firms. No organization wants materials sourcing? All
to begin a procurement process only to find that the anticipated project has these factors may affect the
implementation of a given
insufficient funding.
delivery method.
Outside funding sources almost always dictate some form of payment ap-
proval and methodology, in many cases dictating design approval milestones,
accounting methodologies, constraints on the sources of materials or equip-
ment, and the application of prevailing wage requirements. All of these con-
straints can be managed within the various delivery models, but the tactics for
doing so vary widely.
For example, two collaborative-delivery methods—progressive design-build
(PDB) and CMAR—establish a project’s cost early in the design process with
flexibility for scope adjustments. In PDB and CMAR, the owner works col-
laboratively with either the design-build or CMAR firm to develop the design
to a level of detail where project costs can be estimated with a high level of
certainty.
PDB and CMAR delivery methods provide the flexibility necessary to address
any budgetary concerns before an owner agrees on a final contract price and
proceeds to construction. In addition, both PDB and CMAR delivery can be
a phased process, which may include developing early bid or response pack-
ages that can span multiple budgetary cycles to help manage project costs and
cash flow constraints.

Key Project Priorities and Drivers
After understanding the available delivery methods and funding constraints,
the essence of defining a project strategy is identifying and ranking the chal-
Project Drivers. Reaching
lenges, priorities, and drivers most important to the owner and to the specific
agreement on the specific
attributes of the project attributes of the project. For complex projects, identifying and quantifying
that will determine its these project drivers, as illustrated in Figure 1.2, requires thoughtful consid-
success. eration and may require engaging internal and external stakeholders.
Many water/wastewater treatment projects have regulatory requirements
and/or permit restrictions that drive the decision-making process. For more
straightforward projects, this analysis might be as simple as identifying the
single key project driver—such as schedule or price certainty—that may
inform the use of one delivery model over another.
Owners should be thorough, transparent, and inclusive when identifying and
ranking their project priorities and drivers. Generally, these topics fall into
four categories, as presented in Figure 1.2, with differing levels of comfort for
each owner and each project.
Control and Sharing of Risk

In a traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery, the owner maintains direct
control over the design of a project and, in turn, retains most of the design-
related risk. The result of this approach is that the project is delivered as
prescribed. Collaborative-delivery methods allow a shift in risk to a CMAR
KEY PROJECT PRIORITIES

SCHEDULE
How can the procurement process be varied
if schedule is critical?
KEY PROJECT DRIVERS
SELECTION CRITERIA
What criteria are important to success?
What’s the best indicator of future performance?
CONTROL/RISK SHARING
DESIGN EFFORT
How much pre-design is required to ensure you get
what you want (versus performance specifications)?
COST
PRICE
How do you evaluate proposals beyond price?
Does low price always win? SCHEDULE
SCOPE
What elements of the project should be
DB versus traditional delivery?
INNOVATION
DESIGN APPROVALS
How much oversight of design should you have?
RISK SHARING
How are risks best shared?
QUALITY
How do you ensure innovation and quality?
Figure 1.2 – Identifying key project priorities and drivers

or design-builder and, as a result, the CMAR or design-builder will assume
some control over the details of the delivery to manage the risk for which it
is now responsible. This shift results in an owner receiving a greater degree
of assured performance for a project, while its control over specific delivery
details of implementation is more limited.
Definition and Importance of “Cost”

Cost is almost always a critical driver for publicly funded projects; but the
definition and weight of what “cost” means to different owners or in the con-
text of a specific project can vary widely. Costs for traditional DBB projects
comprise professional service fees for design and a construction cost deter-
mined by a bidding process. Collaborative-delivery methods provide a price
earlier in the project development process (versus waiting for a complete
design and construction bids). The result may actually be a higher initial price
but incur fewer change orders for a more predictable price. Moreover, the use
of the fixed-price design-build (FPDB) delivery method includes the benefits
of CMAR and PDB with a set price upon contract execution. In addition, col-
laborative-delivery methods can integrate lifecycle cost considerations into
project delivery, either as part of a collaborative design process or as a DBO.
Schedule
According to WDBC research, schedule has been by far the most prominent
driver behind the increased adoption of collaborative delivery. A traditionally
delivered project that might take five years to complete comprises discrete,
consecutive steps: planning, design, construction, and bidding, and always in
that order. For owners, this process is predictable and controllable. In con-
trast, using collaborative delivery, the same five-year project might take two
or three years and conducts activities concurrently. Collaborative delivery re
quires a team approach with shared responsibility for deliverables between
the owner, the CMAR, and the design-builder. However, the benefits to the
schedule are tangible.
Meaning and Value of Innovation

Given that collaborative-delivery projects often feature complex technical
challenges, innovation can play a significant part in allocating risk, defining
project cost, and meeting the schedule. Typically, owners can encourage or
restrict innovation by how they define project requirements.
• Prescriptive project requirements are those “must-have” project ele-
ments—technology, means and methods, equipment, materials, etc.
This can provide the owner greater certainty around project delivery
but limits the ability of the design-builder to implement innovative and
beneficial project solutions.
• Performance-based project requirements allow the design-builder
to meet an owner-specified set of criteria without defining the specific
technology, means and methods, equipment, or materials. This frees the
design-builder to employ innovation and determine a best-for-project
solution.

A PDB project that focused on a Buried Infrastructure Guaranteed Outcome (BINGO) RDII engaged
five trenchless contractors who provided significant overlap of capabilities to minimize performance
risks, testing 1743 mainline joints, 310 lateral tap connections (8’ and 20’ lengths), and 1153 lateral
joints during the cleanout process. (Arcadis)
An owner’s perspective and answers to the issues above are essential when
choosing a delivery method. It is important to include all critical stakehold-
ers—internal and external—in the discussion. For projects with a substan-
tial impact on the public, stakeholders might include community groups. For
projects at currently operating facilities, the engagement of operators is criti-
cal. For projects with complex funding and permitting pathways, engaging
regulators and financial consultants is beneficial.
Alignment of Project Drivers

With insight into the key project drivers, a project can then be aligned to the
attributes of the available delivery models, taking into account each model’s
strengths and weaknesses. For example, if the schedule is most critical, the
delivery model with the fastest path to completion will rise to the top. On
the other hand, if the price must be known early, the delivery method with
early cost definition will be preferred. If innovation is the end goal, then yet
Defining Project Drivers. another delivery model may be preferable. The specific pros and cons of each
How do the key project
drivers identified in
delivery model—or in hybrid form—are discussed further in Chapter 2.
Figure 1.2 relate to the Another critical element to defining project objectives is the potential for risk
available delivery models,
and where does risk
transfer. Each delivery model has a different profile for transferring perfor-
transfer enter the strategy? mance and delivery risks; there is a distinct difference in risk transfer poten-
tial between CMAR and design-build methods (refer to Chapter 3). The risks
and performance guarantee should be defined before deciding on a delivery
method—and this final criterion is often the tie-breaker between two viable
options. For complex projects, this evaluation may require the early develop-
ment of a risk register or similar risk assessment at an early project planning
stage. Risk transfer and the contract terms that define performance guaran-
tees are discussed in Chapter 3. However the risk is allocated, it is best to use

industry-standard procurement and contract documentation developed by
WDBC and DBIA, as discussed in Chapter 4.
Addressing the previously discussed issues in a thorough, inclusive manner
helps clearly define the project drivers and, most importantly, the specific attri-
butes of the project that will make it a success. Trade-offs among scope, sched-
ule, risk allocation, and cost (but never safety) are inevitable. The guidance in
defining a project’s priorities, as they relate to the owner’s goals, provides a
format for assigning a weighting factor for project priorities. The resulting
definition of a project’s success will be different for every owner and every
project; but it is the essence of a successful strategy and the foundation for all
the procurement tactics, risk assessment and methodology, and implementa-
tion preparedness that are to follow.
EVALUATING THE USE OF AN OWNER ADVISOR

AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Once a delivery method is identified, the next step is to begin to define the
project to a level of detail required for a successful procurement process. The
level of project specification—from technical definition and level of design to
performance requirements through contract documents—ultimately depends
upon the delivery method selected. Smaller or less complex projects may
require minimal definition. Larger or complex projects may require extensive
owner resources, and some delivery methods require a level of design devel-
opment that is likely to require third-party design support.
Given this broad spectrum of topics to be addressed, an owner may not have
the internal resources or expertise enabling the organization to pursue the
project and procurement, let alone have sufficient technical expertise to eval-
uate and justify the use of a collaborative-delivery method. The use of an OA
One More Thing: Should You Test the Market?

Once an owner has defined and ranked project drivers, accounted for risk transfer, and then determined the best
delivery method for a specific project, what’s next? Typically, owners proceed to develop a procurement process and
invite the market to participate, hoping for a decent number of qualified respondents.
However, in an increasingly competitive landscape, some owners are considering an optional market test of the
intended procurement method prior to advertising and initiating a project solicitation. This market test, sometimes
referred to as a “market sounding,” serves to create market awareness for a project while also garnering early feedback
on the intended approach, risk transfer, and potential performance guarantees.
This approach has been increasingly used for public-private partnership models. A market sounding can be as simple
as an online survey with a limited number of questions on the selected delivery method and approach. Alternatively,
an owner can publish a brief project abstract with a list of key issues for discussion and invite respondents to discuss
their thoughts and feedback on a conference call or individual meeting.
Whatever the market sounding method, it is important to consider the benefit of soliciting input from potential
respondents, to make clear that the feedback precedes any formal procurement process, and that input will be
received without bias and taken under serious consideration. Results can be aggregated for use by an owner to adjust
the procurement approach while it is still relatively early in the process.

to augment existing resources and expertise is an optional consideration; and
is one that is widely practiced for implementing a collaborative-delivery proj-
Owner Advisor. An owner
advisor (OA) is a third ect from planning through implementation.
party (individual or firm)
When using an OA, an owner should procure these services early enough
responsible for supporting
an owner during project to assist with project strategy development discussed at the beginning of
implementation. OAs for this chapter. Nonetheless, an OA is often engaged after an owner defines its
collaborative-delivery preferred collaborative-delivery method in order to provide support to the
projects are responsible
detailed project specification and definition, which is then followed by sup-
for aligning and
integrating best practices port for the procurement process. In some instances, owners conduct pro-
in conjunction with state curement processes using internal staff resources and do not engage an OA
and local statutes and the until after selecting a collaborative-delivery firm, in which case the OA’s scope
owner’s own procurement of work includes design and construction oversight services rather than proj-
policies with project-
specific requirements
ect definition and procurement support.
and objectives to support
a fair and transparent Using an OA1
procurement process.
The OA’s role may be

The role of an owner adviser has gained importance as the popularity and rel-
limited to project planning, ative complexity of collaborative delivery has created the need for owners to
procurement, and seek advice on design-build delivery and implementing procurement, design,
administrative functions and construction processes. In the past, the OA has been filled by a variety of
throughout the project
disciplines, including engineers, construction managers, program managers,
delivery lifecycle, but it
often includes technical/ legal, and financial advisory firms. The core services of an OA in collabora-
engineering support, tive delivery are technical reviews, procurement assistance, and assisting the
including conceptual or owner in project oversight.
preliminary design, that
requires professional With the rapid increase in the use of collaborative-delivery methods, own-
registration. Often, an ers may hesitate to make the transition from DBB to collaborative delivery
OA serves the owner
because they lack essential knowledge or access to experienced professionals
as a “design criteria
professional” where several to successfully guide them. Owners with more experience delivering com-
state statutes require such plex projects may have a better understanding of the design-build process and
designation. recognize the need for assistance and resources to support a collaborative-
Although WDBC delivery method.
recommends the term
“owner advisor,” this role For a collaborative-delivery project, the experience and capabilities required
is often referred to as an of an OA are greater than for consultants supporting traditional DBB. For
“owner representative,” example, there are specific considerations and requirements for requests for
“owner engineer,” or
qualifications (RFQs) and requests for proposals (RFPs) for collaborative-
“owner consultant.”
However, the term “owner delivery projects that call for specific considerations and requirements from
agent” applies to a third proposers and emphasize the need for an OA. This need is further realized
party designated to act when owners are uncertain as to how to prepare performance requirements
on behalf of the owner, a and define procurement selection criteria in order to optimize the many
distinctly different role that
should not be used unless
advantages of collaborative delivery. Additionally, the many variations of
the owner is clear on the CMAR, design-build, and public-private partnerships make the use of an OA
legal intent for doing so. imperative to understanding all aspects of procurement, for both owners and
the competing design-build and construction firms.
1
uch of the material in this section is based on DBIA’s Design-Build Done RightTM Primer,
M
Selecting and Using and Owner Consultant in Design-Build, 2018.

Due to varying owner needs and the wide-ranging expertise of industry prac-
titioners, it can be difficult for an owner to understand the need for an OA. In
addition, inconsistent terminology used within the industry, as well as varied
skillsets among OAs, add to the uncertainty. When retaining an OA, owners
should be certain that the OA subscribes to the following key principles in
applying best practices to achieve a successful project.
An effective and efficient procurement. Many collaborative-delivery pro-
curement processes are more complex and time-consuming than necessary.
An OA should strive to focus the owner’s investment toward the objectives
of the ultimate project versus viewing the procurement as an end in and of
itself. An effective and efficient procurement process is one that includes the
following.
• Creates a clear understanding of the project and proposer selection cri-
teria considerations.
• Scales the level of effort to the size and complexity of the project.
• Focuses on requesting meaningful information from proposers, rec-
ognizing that some information can be requested from the selected
design-builder and is not needed from all proposers.
• Recognizes what can reasonably be requested of the proposer market.
• Makes use of industry-accepted procurement document templates and
best practices to the maximum extent possible.
• Communicates a well-defined evaluation process, which guides pro-
posers on where to focus their efforts and minimizes the chance of bid
protests.
The benefit of this approach is that it maximizes owner resources for the proj-
ect while obtaining information that is essential to selecting the right team.
Collaboration among all parties. Representing an owner’s interests is the
primary responsibility of an OA. An OA should focus on collaboration and
avoiding an adversarial approach, while recognizing that owners and CMAR/
design-build firms have competing interests. Providing a balanced, market-
focused perspective can offer owners insights on how to establish a collabora-
tive environment where all parties are working toward the desired outcomes
with aligned interests. In applying a balanced, collaborative approach, an OA
can protect owner interests by providing the following services.
• Bringing a perspective that is close to the current design and construc-
tion market.
• Understanding risk and how to allocate it to the party best suited to sup-
port the desired outcomes.
• Recognizing that the best projects happen when the owner and CMAR/
design-builder’s interests are aligned.
• Applying industry best practices and experience to develop custom-
ized, innovative procurement approaches to meet specific, local project
needs.

The right technical resources and scope. Projects with overly prescriptive
technical requirements may reduce the benefits of a collaborative delivery
(such as schedule and cost savings) by constraining the design-builder’s abil-
ity to innovate. For any project, the “sweet spot” for technical requirements
varies, but in general, the following prescriptive technical requirements are
used.
• At existing facilities where common equipment (such as valves and gates)
is beneficial to operations and maintenance (O&M) staff.
• Where specific quality levels of equipment and materials are required
(or disallowed).
When the design-builder is required to ensure operational performance of the
project, design decisions affecting performance should be left to the design-
builder, not the OA. However, when prescriptive requirements are necessary,
they should be clearly justified and aligned with project objectives, particular-
ly in support of operations and maintenance needs. This approach aligns with
the DBIA and WDBC preference of using a performance-based approach to
defining project technical requirements to the maximum extent possible.
Qualifications
An OA should have the appropriate combination of leadership, technical, and
facilitative skills necessary to support the work.
Demonstrated leadership and facilitation experience. Leadership skills
are an essential component in making thoughtful decisions and facilitating a
team environment conducive to achieving the project goals. Among the most
valuable leadership skills are the ability to delegate, inspire, and communicate
effectively. Among the most critical facilitative skills are team building and
alignment of owner objectives and expectations with the perspective of the
collaborative-delivery firm.
Technical qualifications. Owners should carefully consider the OA’s (and/or
their staff ’s) background and experience in collaborative delivery, including a
review of required licenses and credentials. For example, a requisite knowledge
of procurement processes and development of RFQ/RFP for c ollaborative de-
livery is essential, including an understanding of market conditions and prac-
tices to promote competition: in-depth knowledge of commodities availability
and cost escalation factors (e.g., availability of skilled labor). In addition, an OA
should have knowledge of and experience with the technologies being consid-
ered for the project.
Direct exposure to construction and estimating. While an OA does not
need to be a contractor, any OA for CMAR and design-build projects should
have a comprehensive understanding of construction practices and cost esti-
mating. This understanding includes program/project scheduling, cash flow
and accrual projections, earned-value analysis, progress reporting systems,
contingency development and management, schedule loaded manpower
breakdown structure, and manpower requirement forecasting.
Understanding O&M. Similar to knowledge of construction practices, a
qualified OA should have knowledge of the water or wastewater operations

in order to bring an O&M perspective to the collaborative-delivery process.
Depending on the project, this requirement could include a demonstrated
ability to engage operators in project specification and design, understanding
O&M costs and the ability to develop a lifecycle-focused approach to pricing,
in-depth insight into commissioning requirements and how to define “accep-
tance” in a design-build contract, and how to support the owner in the hand
over of a facility from design and construction to operations. DBO projects
require even greater in-depth O&M insight from an OA.
Procurement specific. To determine which services an OA will provide, the
owner should first identify the resources needed to support its staff, given the
staff ’s time and availability, and define the role desired to support the project.
Since OAs are generally procured through competitive selection processes,
usually an RFQ/RFP, these document should include the following informa-
tion about the owner and project’s needs.
• Organization details and existing staff resources.
• Project characteristics and drivers.
• Services desired of the OA, the OA’s role and responsibilities, and inter-
action with the owner’s staff.
• Projected budget, if known, and funding sources.
• Relevant experience in collaborative delivery as a designer, builder, opera-
tor, or OA.
• Qualifications/resumes of key members of the OA team.
• Availability of the OA to work on the project.
• The OA’s approach and preliminary fee (e.g., for initial tasks or activities).
Equipment treating process water to a higher effluent quality for reuse within the Bush Brothers’
Water Reclamation Facility also provides for potential future reuse within a production facility.
(Brown and Caldwell/Haskell)

OA Role
Described below are examples of project work activities that may be included
within the OA’s contract to support the owner and its staff.
Developing Project Specifications

Engaging a professional services firm or design-builder first requires defin-
ing a project’s physical and technical requirements for construction or for
the issuance of an RFQ and RFP (or both, for a single-step design-build or
CMAR procurement). The degree of project definition required, particularly
for the PDB versus the FPDB method, can vary greatly. Projects can fall any-
where in between these two extremes: a progressive design-build project may
require almost no design in advance, whereas a FPDB project may require
detailed technical requirements and some level of design.
Further, an owner may develop project specifications either internally or
through the use of a stand-alone engineering firm, program manager, or des-
ignated OA. For CMAR projects, the owner’s selected design firm often fills
the de facto role of OA in support of procurement. For a progressive design-
build project, the OA may focus on early permitting, pilot testing, site inves-
tigations, scope development, initial cost estimating, and the procurement
implementation in lieu of any design activities. For a FPDB project, the OA is
more likely to focus on performance requirements and define the project with
enough detail for proposers to develop a fixed-price proposal, with varying
degrees of prescriptive- or performance-based requirements and pre-design.
Whether a procurement is managed directly by the owner, its designer on a
CMAR project, an owner’s program manager, or an OA for a design-build
project, collaborative-delivery projects require a project definition phase. In
addition to the list of OA planning tasks below, Table 1.1 details the division
of responsibilities among the owner, OA, and selected collaborative-delivery
firm.
Planning services. An OA may also assist the owner with the following tasks.
• Acquiring land or necessary easements or rights-of-way.
• Conducting site investigations and collecting data—for example, pre-
paring a geotechnical data report or wetlands delineation.
• Developing project cash flow projections to match availability of funding.
• Developing initial budgeting and project cost estimates.
• Internal and external stakeholder coordination.
• Developing a clear decision-making matrix and ensuring full under-
standing of decision-making processes and levels of authority.
• Developing a project risk-responsibility matrix.
• Obtaining permits.
• Leading public outreach meetings.
• Facilitating preproposal conferences and controlling the flow of confi-
dential information.

TABLE 1.1 – Examples of Responsibilities of the Owner, the OA, and the Collaborative-Delivery Firm
RESPONSIBILITY Owner OA CD firm
Preselection/ Sourcing and obtaining funding P S n/a

Project Schematic design development, technology screening, pilot testing S P n/a
Development Site investigation (e.g. geotechnical report) S P n/a
Public outreach P S n/a
Developing and reviewing master project schedule P S n/a
Developing procurement documents: contract template, general-conditions statement, RFQ, RFP P S n/a
Developing scoring criteria and matrix for selecting contractor P S n/a
Selecting contractor P S n/a
Budgeting P S n/a
Project risk assessment S P n/a
Project permitting P S n/a
Developing design and construction procurement plan S P n/a
Collaborative-delivery team approval process P S n/a
Preparing notice of award, notice to proceed S P n/a
Design-build contract negotiations P S P
Design Design development n/a n/a P
30%, 60%, and 90% design reviews for compliance with contract S P S
Construction documents, specifications and drawings index S S P
Design and construction cost estimating S S P
Procurement Verifying that subs’/vendors’ pre-qualification process complies with contract docs S P S
of Conducting pre-bid meetings S S P
Subcontractors Developing and issuing bid documents, technical and commercial addenda S S P
and Vendors Receiving and evaluating construction package and equipment bids S S P
Issuing purchase orders and subcontracts, reviewing for compliance with contract documents S S P
Construction Conducting construction kickoff meeting S S P
Oversight Chairing weekly/monthly project meetings S P S
Preparing project meeting minutes S P S
Preparing the submittal list S S P
Preparing/maintaining project submittal log S P S
Review/approval of collaborative-delivery firm’s commercial submittals S P S
Review/approval of collaborative-delivery firm’s technical submittals S P S
Request for information (RFI) log and tracking S P S
Developing and updating critical-path method (CPM) schedule S S P
CPM schedule monitoring S P S
Handling construction change directives or bulletins S P S
Review/approval of proposed change orders (PCOs) S P S
Change order preparation and negotiation S P S
Change order approval P S S
Progress payment review S P S
Progress payment signoff P S S
Cost commitment monitoring S P S
Monitoring compliance with collaborative-delivery firm’s QA/QC plan S P S
Punch list preparation S P S
Construction-phase inspections S S P
Field measuring or otherwise confirming any quantities for which owner is paying on a unit-price basis n/a P S
Field inspections of critical components prior to covering/burying them S S P
Interfacing with the community and affected residents S P S
Managing startup and testing S S P
Performance testing to confirm compliance with performance guarantees S S P
Certification of substantial completion S P S
Time extension review S P S
Time extension approval P S S
Dispute resolution S P S
Warranty services S S P
KEY: P = Primary role/decision-maker | S = Secondary role/advisor

Design services. An OA may assist owners with the following tasks.
• Delivering a better project definition in support of funding agency
requirements.
• Identification and evaluation of acceptable technical solutions and
technologies.
• Pre-procurement investigations of existing conditions to document raw
water or influent quality, as-built conditions, and operational constraints.
• Pilot testing.
• Either developing or evaluating a conceptual project design, the basis-of-
design, and design criteria requirements (a.k.a. “bridging documents”
—referenced in the box below).
• Providing periodic design reviews.
• Reviewing shop drawings for owner-procured equipment.
• Performing constructability reviews.
• Participating in a value-engineering analysis.
• Responding to requests for information and interpreting conceptual
design, basis-of-design, and design criteria requirements.
• Monitoring design development for compliance with the contract.
• Reviewing and analyzing value-added change orders, which could be
based on lifecycle cost analysis of future or new equipment.
• Reviewing payment requests and contract modifications and making
recommendations.
As noted previously, one of the owner’s initial decisions in the procure-
ment process for a design-build project is defining the level of design to be
What Are “Bridging Documents”?

A design developed by an owner or owner advisor (OA) and then conveyed to a design-builder to define project
requirements is often referred to as a “bridging document.” This concept should apply only to water and wastewater
projects when an owner, prior to selecting a design-builder, provides substantial prescriptive requirements amounting
to a preliminary design. In this instance, a predesign defines a preferred design solution, as opposed to a performance
requirement, which provides the owner’s desired end result.
Successful design-build procurements (in accordance with DBIA best practices) use well-written performance require-
ments that establish the project goals, challenges, and constraints, rather than provide a predesign with the required
solution. While many owners choose to use bridging documents, and some public laws require them, the use of
extensive prescriptive specifications and preliminary design eliminates many of the advantages of design-build by:
• Reducing the potential to produce optimum value through fully integrated, team-based creativity and innovation
without defining solutions and before the design-build team begins its design efforts.
• Detracting from the owner’s ability to obtain innovative and divergent solutions derived from the design-build
procurement process.
• Shifting design liability back to the owner under what is known as the Spearin Doctrine (see Chapter 3).
• Wasting substantial effort on the part of the owner or OA that will be duplicated by the design-builder.

c ompleted before procurement. Overall, whether developed internally or via
PROJECT
✓
an OA, it is generally recommended to minimize design details in favor of the
SPECIFICATIONS
following steps.
• Developing a better project definition and scope boundaries within TACTICS
documents. CHECKLIST
• Identifying and quantifying performance requirements for which the Technical Criteria and Scope
• Refine scope and project
design-builder will be held accountable. definition
• Conducting extended investigations into existing conditions (such as • Define specifications and
requirements
site investigations and defining existing raw water quality) to minimize • Refine performance and
potential changes due to unforeseen conditions. prescription balance
• Create “bridging” documents
This approach to pre-procurement design scope and defining project techni- (only as required)
cal requirements saves time and money by avoiding work that will typically be • Identify technology/design
redone by the design-builder. More importantly, it aligns the design-builder’s constraints and create
opportunities for innovation
scope to the risks that it will be asked to manage and guarantee.
Define the Procurement
Defining the Procurement Process Process
• Create 1- or 2-phase RFQ/RFP
The second element of project specification is the development of procure- documents
• Define evaluation priorities
ment documents. These documents provide proposing firms a clear under-
and methodology
standing of the owner’s expectations, priorities, and project drivers, as well • Develop evaluation criteria
as why the owner is considering or has selected the project delivery method. and process
Additional content and information assists proposing firms in determining • Establish milestones and
schedule
an appropriate workplan as well as the best way to integrate its own team into • Plan for market orientation
a collaborative environment with the owner’s team. Procurement documents and engagement
also define the evaluation methodology and selection criteria that will be used
to select a CMAR firm or design-builder. Procurement approaches for each of Financial and Commercial
Requirements
the collaborative-delivery methods are discussed in Chapter 4. • Establish budget and
contingency approach
In addition to the technical scope of work, either the owner or OA should • Define required financial
document the project specification in a Procurement Development Plan that capacity and security
may include the following scope elements. • Calculate potential damages
and incentives
• Determining the most appropriate collaborative-delivery method for the • Develop payment mechanism
project and documenting the drivers for the delivery method selection. and criteria
• Establish insurance
• Developing/preparing procurement documents (RFQ and/or RFP). requirements
• Soliciting and evaluating responses. Legal Advice and

Form of Contract
• Meeting and interviewing participants. • Engage legal counsel
• Select and tailor form of
• Preparing contract documents for negotiating with the selected design- contract
build or CMAR firm. • Iterate the contract with the
market
As important as the procurement documents is the underlying framework
to integrate the project specifications and definition, design criteria package, Risk and Opportunity
Assessment
and the CMAR’s or design-builder’s scope of work. This framework should • Identify, assess, manage, and
also define how the relationship between the owner and design-builder or assign risk and opportunity in
CMAR firm will evolve, as well as develop the owner’s draft management support of all the above
plan (described in Chapter 5).

An Ion Exchange Resin Plant now operating in Boynton Beach, FL, provides
customers a reliable source of water. (CDM Smith)
Also included in procurement documents, this framework is later used to

translate the owner’s priorities and drivers into performance-based contract
language, with the following content.
• A description of the selected collaborative-delivery method and how it
is envisioned to be implemented, including design milestones, compli-
ance review processes, and compensation.
• A preliminary scope of work and project schedule identifying procure-
ment, design, construction, and commissioning activities.
• The level of the owner’s involvement with the envisioned design and
construction work.
• The owner’s financial management policies and procedures.
• Decision-making and dispute-resolution procedures.
• Existing health and safety planning and protocols.
• Communication procedures, both within and external to the organization.
• A preliminary risk and responsibilities matrix (further described in
Chapter 3).
• The owner’s approach to addressing unplanned occurrences or unex-
pected situations.
Because water and wastewater projects are complex undertakings, unexpected
situations are likely. Any procurement package should offer a well-defined
method for managing these situations. Change management (discussed in
Chapter 5) generally results from three types of situations during the project.
1. Expected—but unquantifiable—changes, such as materials cost escala-
tion, differing site conditions, permitting delays, and labor situations.
2. Unexpected changes or unforeseeable circumstances.
3. Owner-directed changes to the project design or scope.

Communication of an effective approach to managing all changes aids in
collaboration.
To assist owners and OAs, the WDBC maintains a comprehensive set of pro
curement documents for CMAR, PDB, and FPDB projects that can be accessed
at https://waterdesignbuild.com/knowledge-center/educational-documents/.
Additional Work Elements

An owner and OA (optionally) typically implement the technical and pro-
curement elements of project specification and definition, as described pre-
viously. In addition, there are key work elements that cannot typically be
provided by an owner’s internal resources or through a typical professional
service advisor. These specialty work elements include the following.
• Legal counsel. An owner’s in-house counsel may require external
support for collaborative-delivery contract development, particularly
complex design-build contracts. Legal services should be procured and
contracted separately from an OA.
• Cost validation. While a qualified OA will offer a certain level of con-
struction cost estimating capability, complex or specialty construction
projects may require a consultant that specializes in construction cost
estimating. These services can be contracted directly by an owner or
subcontracted through an OA.
• Insurance and risk. If an owner does not have a robust insurance and
risk program, particularly one focused on construction and awareness
of the nuances related to design-build in particular, outside risk man-
agement and insurance expertise are recommended. These services can
be contracted directly by an owner or subcontracted through an OA.
• Financial advisor. Design-build projects can require significant deliv-
ery resources. As such, a key criterion for evaluating design-builders
is their financial stability and capacity. As with legal counsel, financial
advisory services should be procured and contracted separately from
an OA.
• Environmental permitting. The environmental approvals process, par-
ticularly the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, often
should be managed by an independent third party.
PREPARING FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION
Collaborative delivery is increasingly popular and successful because it enables
organizations to deliver better quality projects, often faster, with increasingly
limited resources. However, evolving from traditional DBB delivery to a col-
laborative mindset can create organizational disruption, either because it is
simply different from the status quo or it requires skills and resources not read-
ily available to the owner. In addition, collaborative-delivery projects proceed
at a different pace, with different workflow and resource requirements than
traditional delivery. Individual roles and responsibilities differ as well, as do
the roles and responsibilities of advisors, CMAR firms, and design-builders.

Preparing for the successful implementation of a project is, at its heart, pre-
PROJECT paring for change, which necessitates the following key actions.
IMPLEMENTATION
CHECKLIST
Organizational Capacity
✓ • Defining existing organizational capacity and, as necessary, augment-
ing it with internal assignments and realignment, and also determining
whether to engage an OA.
• Owner level of involvement
• Leadership knowledge • Developing a detailed project implementation plan (components de-
• Staff knowledge scribed below) as a living document that notifies team members as to
• Technical resources what’s coming while providing guidance for current tasks.
• Definition of roles • Understand the tasks required to successfully implement a collabora-
• Augmentation of resources
tive-delivery project and assign this scope of work to those who can be
accountable for delivering.
Project Implementation Plan
• Organizational preparation Organizational Capacity
• Procurement preparation
• Implementation Successful use of a collaborative-delivery method requires an understand-
ing of conditions within the organization that affect its ability to successfully
Scope During Construction complete the project, specifically by answering the following questions.
• Provide field support and
inspection • What is the level of involvement that the owner and staff desire in the
• Provide required third-party project?
testing
• Cost monitoring • How knowledgeable are the organization’s leaders and decision-makers
• Contract compliance about collaborative-delivery projects?
monitoring
• Support quality and safety • How knowledgeable is the organization’s staff about collaborative deliv-
programs ery, and what is their level of expertise?
• Does the organization have adequate technical resources?
Owner Involvement
Owners often want to participate in the design process to ensure that pre-
Owner Involvement in
the Project. Are roles ferred features are included in the project. Some also desire a higher degree of
and responsibilities of participation during construction—such as approval of subcontractors—than
the owner’s team known the DBB delivery method allows. For complex projects, involvement includes
and clearly defined?
soliciting input from several departments—including engineering, O&M,
How involved do the
management and staff collection and distribution, procurement/purchasing, and safety—during the
want to be throughout design process.
design and construction?
Leadership Knowledge
Within every organization (utility, agency, or municipality), a group of indi-
viduals serve in governance, leadership, and decision-making roles and have
final authority to approve and fund capital projects, which include the follow-
ing individuals.
• Elected or appointed (city or county) councils, commissions.
• General manager, chief executive officer.
• Procurement officer and chief counsel.

These individuals need to know the advantages and benefits of collaborative- Knowledge and
delivery methods, as well as how to effectively manage any impediments to a Preparedness of
successful project. Leadership/Decision-
makers. What is the level
Individuals who report to those in the governance structure should also be
of knowledge within the
empowered with decision-making authority and with responsibilities for the organization—from its
overall management of the organization. Depending on the organization’s gov- governing leadership
ernance structure, these managing leaders may be a general manager, utility (decision-makers) to
agent, or an engineering director. Most importantly, managing leaders need to its managers—about
the characteristics,
be internal champions for collaborative delivery and ensure that decisions on
advantages, challenges,
complex issues are resolved in a timely manner. and applicability of
collaborative-delivery
Management Knowledge methods? Having a
clear understanding of
Ideally, the management team comprises individuals with knowledge of vari- their role in the project
ous delivery methods and the technical competencies needed to manage the further empowers the
project successfully, as well as skills in collaboration and communication. The management and staff
to achieve a successful
owner’s project management group typically comprises representatives from
project.
engineering, O&M, finance, procurement or contracts, communications, and
legal—all of which are either directly or indirectly involved with management
aspects of the project on a day-to-day basis.
To effectively manage a collaborative-delivery project, the management team
needs to understand and be in alignment with the project priorities and driv-
ers influencing the selection of the delivery method, as well as their roles in
Knowledge and
achieving those goals. Individual team members need sufficient knowledge Preparedness of the
and experience to offer constructive comments, suggestions, and input to Owner Management
those they will work with on the project team. Additional management direc- Team. Have the individuals
tion is provided in Chapter 5. on the owner team—
including O&M—been
The owner’s project management team is typically led by an individual with identified? If so, how
appropriate decision-making authority. Ideally, this project manager (PM) familiar are they with
possesses management and consensus-building skills and can establish and collaborative-delivery
maintain agreement and cooperation among all participants within the orga- methods? Do they have
the requisite technical and
nization. The PM’s primary role is to oversee the work of the collaborative- commercial knowledge as
delivery firm and to administer the terms of the contract. It is also the project well as management skills?
manager’s responsibility to resolve as many incidents as possible and at the
lowest possible level in the organization before escalating to executive leader-
ship involvement.
It is important that the organization’s leaders assess and understand the proj-
ect manager’s knowledge about collaborative-delivery methods to determine
what additional education and training are needed. Both the WDBC and
DBIA offer education and training programs based on the contents of this
handbook.
Definition of Roles
Table 1.2 provides an example of a management team in a moderate-sized
organization, identifying positions and their respective roles/responsibili-
ties. While team composition varies based on an organization’s staffing lev-
els, what is important are the roles and responsibilities of team members for

TABLE 1.2 – Example Organization Positions and Responsibilities
Position Title Roles/Responsibilities
Executive or director • Ensures adequate funding and staffing resources to achieve a successful project
Provides overall responsibility for • Makes final decisions on project funding and implementation
organization • Supports project champions
• Addresses political and complex situations
Director or administrator • Oversees project budget and schedule
Responsibilities may be combined • Reviews and determines project changes affecting scope, cost, or time
with those of the executive or • Manages project manager to ensure all project reports (owner, regulatory) are
director complete and submitted on time
• Makes decisions on project recommendations that could achieve cost and
schedule efficiencies
• Ensures that staff is adequately educated and has technical resources
Project manager (PM) • Oversees project implementation including budget and schedule
• Reviews and recommends project changes affecting scope, cost, or time
• Ensures all project reports (builder, regulatory) are complete and submitted on
time
• Maintains tracking and provides recommendations on project details
• Manages meetings and contract details
Assistant PMs • Participates in meetings and workshops, reviews meeting documents
Responsibilities may be entirely • Participates in related team activities and may chair meetings
placed with the PM • Interfaces daily with collaborative-delivery firm, any subcontractors, testing, etc.
• Coordinates with financial, public awareness, and owner safety officers
• Coordinates operations and maintenance (O&M)
• Oversees administrative support needs
Legal • Provides input to PM on contractual matters during construction, including
Ensures that contractual documents claims by subcontractors or consultants
comply with requirements, including • Develops/reviews/approves draft and final contract language
project change orders • Deals with procurement and PD support regarding legal authority in jurisdiction
Procurement • Assists in preparing RFQs and RFPs, bid-period site visits, and responses
to questions
• Evaluates submittals
• Assists as necessary during the award period
Finance • E
nsures that the project is financially supported, progress payments are made on
time, and fees are appropriately apportioned
IT • Ensures that the project’s document-management system is always functioning,
maintained with latest upgrades and security interfaces and is secure from
hackers
• Responds to requests for assistance
• Ensures system backup exists both on-site and off-site to prevent loss of data
Communication, public outreach • P
rovides the project description and updates to media, public, and officials via
direct contact, newsletters, website, etc.
Commissioning team • Implements the commissioning program and ensures adherence to contract
Provides program oversight during requirements
conceptual and preliminary design; • Ensures that final modifications have been made to O&M manuals and vendor
includes manager and O&M information, based on results of the commissioning
Safety • Ensures that the collaborative-delivery firm is implementing a defined program in
Acts on behalf of owner its safety plan
• As soon as there is a determination of noncompliance, immediately brings
noncompliance issues to the firm’s project engineer and the owner PM
• Ensures that all owner staff is appropriately trained for safety
Administrative support • Attends meetings and prepares meeting notes as requested
• Assists with preparation of sign-in sheets, agendas, meeting notes, etc.
• Receives and distributes incoming mail and handles outgoing mail
O&M Personnel • Responsible for equipment operations
• Responsible for ongoing maintenance
• Addresses plant performance and technology needs

a collaborative-delivery project. In the discussion of collaborative-delivery
project management in Chapter 5, the importance of defining these roles and
responsibilities is even more critical.
Resource Augmentation
If resources are required, owners should consider hiring a qualified OA to
help define the services that will be provided and create a schedule with mile-
stones. Because the OA is an extension of owner staff, it is important that the Augment Your Resources.
relationship be collaborative. Do you have enough
An owner and its advisor should determine the corresponding roles and internal “horsepower” to
be successful? Are there
responsibilities for the management and oversight of the project. An inte-
specialized skills and
grated, collaborative, project-specific organizational structure is often devel- expertise that you need
oped to delineate these roles and responsibilities, as well as the level of sup- to obtain?
port provided by the OA (e.g., specific individuals, specific tasks). As part of
initial project planning, the owner and OA should also develop or agree on
selected management processes, procedures, and systems. The overall goal of
the owner planning process is to have a well-coordinated management and
project plan prior to procuring and selecting a collaborative-delivery firm.
Project Implementation Plan

Developing the owner project implementation plan is an iterative process
requiring collaboration within the organization and, later, with the selected
Rehabilitiation of the Emporia, Kansas, WWTP to meet new effluent discharge requirements used
a design-build approach to provide an innovative, cost-saving approach to reduce initial capital
spending and long-term operations and maintenance costs. (Burns & McDonnell/Alberici)

Preparing the 12-foot lateral tap connection packer for insertion into the sewer for
the River Valley Highlands project. (Arcadis)
design-build or CMAR firm in the management process (described in Chap-

ter 5). The plan entails several stages.
1. The owner creating the first draft incorporating the results of the internal
and external assessment of project drivers and priorities. This engenders
consensus within the organization for the project strategy.
2. The second draft integrates the agreed-to project drivers and describes
how the collaborative-delivery method was selected, creating a more
comprehensive draft document for use in procurement (further
described in Chapter 4).
3. The final project implementation plan is completed by the owner after
selecting the collaborative-delivery firm and signing the contract. The
owner and hired firm then collaborate to fine-tune the final plan, laying
the groundwork for continued collaboration and a successful project at
the first management team meeting, or in the initial partnering session
(further described in Chapter 5).
Organizational Preparation
The first draft of the project implementation plan incorporates background
information and results of the comprehensive assessment, including the
owner’s goals, project priorities, and drivers; the organizational structure;
team members’ roles and responsibilities, and whether an OA is involved
(and, if so, a description of its role and responsibilities).
Once the owner organization has developed the draft project implementation
plan, the next step is to review the various collaborative-delivery methods,
evaluate their attributes against the project drivers, and select the best method
for the project.

Chapter
2
Principles and Best Practices
of Collaborative Delivery
F or decades, water and wastewater agencies and utilities have used design-bid-build
(DBB) as the primary approach to delivering capital projects. However, it is well
documented that, in the past several years, the water and wastewater industry
has turned increasingly to pursuing collaborative approaches. Today, the water
market defines collaborative-delivery methods as construction management at-risk
(CMAR), progressive design-build (PDB), fixed-price design-build (FPDB), design-
build-operate (DBO), and public-private partnerships (P3).
Although the benefits of collaborative delivery are substantial, the transition
from delivery of the constructed project through commissioning, startup, and
turnover to the owner’s operations and maintenance (O&M) staff can present chal-
lenges—especially during the owner’s first experience with collaborative delivery.1
To address those challenges and establish a stronger knowledge foundation for
owners, this chapter describes and compares the distinguishing features of each
➤
collaborative-delivery method, as well as how they compare with DBB delivery.

The three main outfall
canals in New Orleans, Distinguishing characteristics of collaborative delivery include early contractor
located at Lake Pont involvement during CMAR delivery and a single integrated design and construc-
chartrain, are critical
elements of the area’s flood tion team during DB delivery. Although CMAR delivery involves two separate
control system, serving as contracts, one for design and one for construction, the CMAR firm—sometimes
drainage conduits for much referred to as the construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC)—is engaged
of the city. Running south
throughout the design effort to provide input into the engineer’s design process
to north near the Orleans
Parish lakefront, the 17th and develop early cost and schedule estimates. These estimates assist owners in
Street, Orleans Avenue, understanding a project’s cost, schedule, or other specific features.
and London Avenue canals
include floodwalls and
1
levees. (Stantec/Kiewit) A discussion of those challenges can be found in WDBC’s 2013 research report, Impediments to

Using Design-Build Delivery, located on the WDBC website.
2-1
OWNER OWNER OWNER OWNER
Ad Ad
vi vi
s s
or
or
....
....
Design- Construction Progressive Fixed-Price
Bid-Build Management Design-Build Design-Build
TO R
D E SI
D E SI
(DBB) at-Risk (PDB) (FPDB)
AR
R
(CMAR)
AC
DE
GN
GN
M
TR
....
IL
C
R
ER
ER
U DE
DE
N
CO -B SIG N
D E SIG N -B UIL
FIGURE 2.1 – These graphics illustrate the contractual and collaborative relationships that occur within each of
the delivery methods (CMAR, PDB, FPDB, DBO, and P3). The process begins with the owner (in the green piece
at the top) contracting with a collaborative-delivery firm (shown by the interlocking piece at the side). Separate
contractual relationships also occur in different models, e.g., DBO and P3.
In both progressive design-build (PDB) and fixed-price design-build (FPDB)

delivery, the design-builder includes both design and construction functions
in an integrated team. The design and construction team develop a design and
construction plan, schedule, pricing, and staffing to deliver a project. Work-
ing collaboratively as a single contractual team minimizes the likelihood of
constructability problems or design challenges. It also maximizes the benefits
of collaboration from project award through commissioning and startup.
While best practices for procurement of a collaborative-delivery project are
discussed more in Chapter 4, it is important to recognize some differences
between collaborative-delivery procurement and DBB competitive bidding.
For example, team qualifications, project approach, and in some cases, pric-
ing for preconstruction and Phase I services are often evaluation criteria used
by owners in both PDB and CMAR. The following two processes are also
often used by owners as part of collaborative delivery.
• Best value, where team qualifications, project approach, solution con-
cept, and price are all done in tandem in a streamlined process.
• Lifecycle cost is another price element evaluated in the case of DBO
procurement.
In both PDB and CMAR approaches, the owner specifies a range of selection
criteria in addition to an authorized budget within procurement documents.
While many criteria may relate to an owner’s specific goals, priorities, and
project drivers, the ones most frequently cited include the following.
• Key personnel and firms experienced with similar projects.
• The proposed approach to project delivery.
• Innovative design suggestions and construction ideas for meeting proj-
ect objectives.
• A definitive schedule and commissioning plan.
• The design-builder or CMAR’s ability and willingness to work as a team
with the owner’s staff.

Owner Project entity
OWNER OWNER OWNER (also special purpose entity)
OWNER ADA AD Ad
VdIv VI vi Owner advisor
Sis S s
or
Contractual relationship
OoR
OR
r
....
....
....
CMAR
PROJECT
Design-Build- Design-Build- Public-Private
Design-Build-
ENTITY
Contract amendment
Partnerships
LDER
Operate
Operate (DBO) Operate (DBO)
LDER
(DBO) Designer price
-B T O R
(P3)
-B TO R
Single Multiple Entities
Single Entity
O&M
Entity
UI
A
Contract amendment
UI
Design-builder
A
DDEE
RR
R
E
R
E OP GN
TTOO
IIG R to approve construction
FI
R AA OP G
SS
GN M DB
N--B U SI
N
B UIILLD --O P EE R S I O
DE
D OP
Design-build-operator
DE Embedded relationship
O&M firm (not contractual, but required
critical interaction)
FIGURE 2.1 (continued) — The light green dots represent the collaborative working relationship that exists
between two entities, e.g., a collaborative-delivery firm or an owner advisor. The dashed line represents a
point at which a contract amendment may occur in the collaborative process. The open space between the
two circles at the bottom of the DBB graphic represents the two separate contracts held by the owner.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD (DBB)
DBB is the most widely used and legally tested procurement process for pub-
lic capital projects throughout North America. It is a well-established, linear
process where a design engineer is selected by an owner, followed by a public
bidding process for construction of the project. DBB procurements follow
local and state laws and regulations with specified scheduled advertisements
and bidding requirements (see Figure 2.2). The design engineer is selected
OWNER
Design-
Bid-Build
TO R
D E SI
(DBB)
AC
GN
TR
ER
N
CO
Implementation Procure Manage Procure Manage Transition Operations

plan designer design contractor construction operations
SOQ/ Design and Services during

proposal engineering construction
Commissioning
Bid Construction Warranty
& startup
Owner Designer Contractor Contractual relationship No contractual relationship
© and TM 2019 – The Water Design-Build Council, Inc.
FIGURE 2.2 – Design-Bid-Build. The owner first contracts with the engineer followed by the construction firm.
Principles and Best Practices for Collaborative Delivery 2-3

on a professional services basis, commonly referred to as a qualification-
based selection (QBS), with the intent to produce a design with bid-ready
documents for a specific capital project. Once the design is complete and
bid-ready documents are set, the owner advertises the bidding for the con-
struction phase of a project. Construction companies submit bids, and the
lowest responsible bidder is selected. All bids are opened simultaneously with
a fully transparent public process.
DBB is considered the traditional procurement method where the public
owner holds separate contracts with the design engineer and construction
contractor. The design engineer’s responsibility is measured by the stan-
dard of care and, as such, is responsible for certain errors and omissions that
are considered beyond the standard of care. The construction contractor is
responsible solely for constructing the completed design through mechani-
cal completion—not for the overall performance of the project. Ultimately,
the owner is responsible for resolving any change requests that may be com
pensable to the construction contractor.
This division of responsibility between the owner and service providers is the
definitive basis of risk allocation between the owner, design engineer, and
construction contractor. The design engineer is responsible for delivering a
design that is consistent with the standard of care; the construction contrac-
tor is responsible for building the project on time, in accordance with the
design drawings and specifications, for its bid price. Accordingly, the owner
is both the buyer of services, as well as the party that must resolve disagree-
ments between the design engineer and construction entity.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT-RISK (CMAR)

CMAR is a collaborative-delivery method in which an owner retains a design
engineer and CMAR firm under two separate contracts, one for design and
one for construction, as shown in Figure 2.3. In this manner, it is most com-
parable to a DBB delivery approach. CMAR delivery is desirable when the
owner wants to capture some DBB delivery benefits while maintaining control
over project definition and design. Moreover, an owner can select a CMAR
firm without the normal public bidding process for construction contractors.
The CMAR firm is selected using QBS or best value, similar to professional
services contracts using qualifications as a selection criteria rather than low
price or best value if pricing is included in the procurement evaluation.
The primary disadvantage of CMAR, compared with DB, is the lack of a single
point of accountability for design and construction. CMAR requires the
owner to be more proactive in collaborating between the designer and builder.
Specifically, CMAR project delivery is contractually similar to DBB delivery
in two regards.
1. Design is the responsibility of the design engineer, and construction is
the responsibility of the CMAR. Unlike DBB, however, the contractor
in a CMAR project is selected much earlier—sometimes during design
engineer selection, but typically no later than the 30% design milestone.
The CMAR firm functions both as the owner’s construction manager
(CM) during design and as general contractor (GC) during construction.

OWNER
Construction
Management
D E SI
at-Risk
RM
(CMAR)
GN
FI
.... AR
ER
CM
Implementation Procure Manage design Set price/ Transition

Operations
plan designer procure CMAR firm manage construction operations
SOQ/ Project Services during

proposal design construction
SOQ/ Preconstruction Construction Commissioning Warranty

proposal services management & startup
Owner CMAR Designer Contractual relationship
Contract amendment for GMP or fixed price Embedded relationship
FIGURE 2.3 – Construction Management at-Risk. The owner contracts with the design engineer to produce the
project design; and also contracts with the CMAR firm early on to provide input into the design process. The light
green dots are the embedded process of the two firms working together.
2. The owner retains design risk subject to limitations in the designer’s

contract and the standard of care for design. Unlike DBB, however, the
CMAR firm’s early involvement in the design process increases budget
certainty and decreases risks associated with constructability. Moreover,
the CMAR contractor can be obligated to review the design at specific
milestones and identify discrepancies, errors, and inconsistencies with
the project design. The design firm’s responsibility is subject to the stan-
dard of care and is responsible for certain errors and omissions beyond
the standard of care. Ultimately, it is the owner’s responsibility to resolve
whether a change order is justified, entitling the CMAR to compensa-
tion related to the design changes and interpretation.
SPECIAL NOTE: The CMAR firm generally does not have any contractual risk
related to the project design. However, since the CMAR firm is paid to par-
ticipate in the design process (reviewing the design and offering input), some
owners believe it is appropriate to hold the CMAR accountable for changes that
could have been controlled by the CMAR through its preconstruction services
that coincide with the design effort.
The CMAR firm provides valuable input during the design phase on precon-
struction aspects of the site layout, constructability, general arrangements,
and early cost and schedule factors.

Innovative water system upgrades help the city of Boynton Beach, Florida, continue to thrive in the form of the
Ion Exchange Resin Plant, using the state-of-the-art MIEX® pretreatment system to help with odor removal and
reduce chemical costs. (CDM Smith/Garney Construction)
CMAR Distinguishing Features

There are two phases to a CMAR contract.
• Phase I preconstruction services encompass constructability reviews,
value-engineering, estimating, and scheduling activities. Preconstruc-
Guaranteed Maximum Price
tion is completed when there is agreement on the project schedule and
(GMP). An approach to pricing
services in a collaborative- price—whether it be a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) or a fixed
delivery proposal and contract price— usually when the design is approximately 60% to 90% complete.
where the guaranteed
maximum price is the sum of
• Phase II, in which the CMAR firm assumes the GC role, encompasses
all reimbursable costs (cost of further design review, procurement of subcontractors and vendors, self-
work), plus a fee that includes performance of certain elements of the construction (where permitted
overhead and profit. Costs and at the owner’s discretion), and full construction and commissioning.
incurred above the GMP
are the responsibility of the In the event the owner and the CMAR firm cannot agree on a price, schedule,
design-builder or CMAR firm, and risk allocation to construct the project, (whether it be a GMP or fixed
unless they result from an
price), the owner can terminate the contract by using the off-ramp. Should this
owner-approved change in
project scope. off-ramp be taken, the owner may negotiate, subject to any applicable state
law, with another CMAR firm seeking to reach agreement on a price or to

have the design completed and proceed with a DBB procurement. To decrease
the likelihood of an off-ramp situation, it is critical that the owner validate the
authorized project budget with market input prior to procurement.
The CMAR firm provides design input to the owner and engineer for construc-
tability, to make the design the most cost- and time-efficient for construction,
not design. Therefore, the CMAR is responsible only for the construction
conforming to the project design rather than mechanical completion.
The Water Design-Build Council’s (WDBC’s) CMAR Procurement Guide pro-

vides a template for procuring a CMAR firm. A typical request for proposals
(RFP) does not require a formal cost proposal to construct the project, as
the CMAR performs preconstruction services through the design effort, well
before final construction pricing documents are available. If the owner wants
to consider limited price information and makes price one of the selection
criteria, however, the RFP can require preliminary pricing information in one
or more of the following ways.
• Preconstruction services expressed as a fixed-price value or a GMP.
• A CMAR fee that represents profit and home office overhead that can
be allocated to construction and is usually expressed as a lump sum or
percentage of the construction cost.
• A general conditions price element in a CMAR price proposal (as
defined by the owner) is expressed as one of the following: a fixed price,
a guaranteed maximum price, or a percentage of the construction cost.
The CMAR firm may either subcontract all construction work or self-perform
portions of it, depending on the owner’s procurement documents. The amount
of self-performance allowed may also be dictated by state law or funding agen-
cies. In any case, it is in the owner’s best interest to ascertain the CMAR firm’s
self-performance capabilities and preferences. Unlike costs for subcontractors
and equipment, which the CMAR firm will generally procure by competitive
bid, self-performance costs must be demonstrated to the owner as comparable
to the local market through a transparent, open-book process2. This process is
detailed later in this chapter.
DESIGN-BUILD (DB)
What distinguishes DB delivery methods from both DBB and CMAR is
single-point accountability for both design and construction. Rather than
requiring the owner to have two separate contracts—one for design and one
for construction—DB delivery requires one contract between the owner and
the design-builder. As illustrated in Figure 2.4, there are two fundamental
components of the DB process in which the collaborative model evolves—
PDB and FPDB.
2
During an open-book process, development of the price (labor, material, equipment, and
subcontract costs) is transparent to the owner. The owner is also party to agreements on con-
tingencies, allowances, overhead, and profit. Once the owner and the DB or CMAR firm agree
on a price, the project can be implemented.

In PDB delivery, the owner works with the design-builder to develop the
design to approximately 60% to 90% completion (Phase I). In parallel, the
design-builder provides open-book cost estimates as the design progresses,
and a GMP or fixed-price proposal is developed when the owner and design-
builder are comfortable with the level of design definition and corresponding
price proposal. If the owner accepts the price proposal, it authorizes the
design-builder to complete design and permitting; finalize procurement of
subcontractors and vendors; and perform construction, commissioning, and
acceptance testing (Phase II) of the project. (Refer to “Principles of Open-
Book Pricing” on page 2-9 for more information about the characteristics of
this cost-development process.)
OWNER OWNER
Ad Ad
vi vi
s s
or
or
....
....
Progressive Fixed-Price
Design-Build Design-Build
(PDB) (FPDB)
R
DE
IL
- BU DE
D ER
D E SIG N SIG N
-B UIL
FIGURE 2.4 – Two types of design-build delivery: progressive design-build and

fixed-price design-build
Progressive Design-Build (PDB)

Figure 2.5 illustrates the relationship with a PDB as a two-phase delivery
method in which the project’s design, cost-estimating, construction schedule,
and final pricing are developed during Phase I of the project. Assuming that
the owner and design-builder agree on the schedule, contract terms, and final
price (GMP or fixed price), and if the second phase is governed by a new
contract with specific terms and conditions, the remaining project design,
procurement, construction, and commissioning are completed during Phase
II. While this arrangement is similar to CMAR delivery, there is one major
exception: The PDB team is an integrated team with design and construc-
tion capabilities and provides a single point of accountability for all project
delivery, through commissioning and acceptance testing, and often includes
performance guarantees.
PDB delivery is used when a project lacks definition and the owner seeks
to remain directly involved in the design process to ensure that the design
meets their requirements and preferences. Moreover, as procurement of a
PDB team generally takes less time than for a FPDB procurement, the owner
can gain access more quickly to the team, initiate design, and gain a greater
understanding of the project cost as the design progresses. Some owners view

Principles of Open-Book Pricing
Several of our industry’s best collaborative-delivery all the details and can include third-party verifica-
methods—particularly CMAR and PDB—rely on an tion, if required. The estimating process is truly an
open-book process for developing cost and pricing open book available for the owner’s review.
during preconstruction and final price development. • Accuracy and completeness. In fairness to both
This process is used to achieve agreement on cost owners and collaborative-delivery firms, the devel-
elements as the design detail progresses, and then opment of costs and price must include all cost
transparently negotiating a final price for completing elements as defined in the “cost of work” definition
the project. In turn, the price is typically implemented in the project agreement.
either as a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) or a • Realism and fairness. Open-book estimating is
fixed-price contract provision for the completion of often used to “design to budget,” but that does
construction in the case of CMAR delivery and final not mean “make it fit to budget.” Cost and pric-
design and construction for PDB delivery. ing must be both realistic and fair to both parties.
Sometimes it takes a bit of work to get there, but a
Although this approach is straightforward in principle,
realistic number means a complete and fair number.
owners often ask, “What, exactly, is an open-book esti-
• Risk and opportunity assessment. Not everything
mate?” The answer comes down to defining “cost of
on a project is entirely predictable, especially within
work” and “price.”
the early stages. Anything that is an undefined risk
• Cost of work. Construction estimates should be
or opportunity may be quantitatively assessed and
based on the actual cost of work as may be defined
evaluated as a project-contingency amount. The
in a project agreement. This can mean labor rates,
actual contingency should be seen as a project cost
expenses, materials, equipment, and production
exclusive of the fee.
rates for the self-performed work (if agreed upon
with the owner), combined with subcontractor So what happens after everyone mutually agrees on a
quotes obtained via a best-value, competitive- project’s cost, everything else is added, and the price is
bidding approach, or any approach agreed upon settled? The following two options are the most com-
with an owner. The cost of work will also include any mon actions.
contingency as developed and agreed upon. All of • Moving forward under a GMP model means that
these documentable cost elements are set forth actual spending during construction is monitored
without any fee applied—with all the assumptions by the owner using the same open-book transpar-
underlying them clearly stated—to equal a project ency principles. The savings from spending under
cost estimate. the GMP is often shared between the owner and the
• Price includes everything else. Once a cost esti- collaborative-delivery firm (with the risk of having to
mate is finalized, anything that gets added to it for spend anything over the GMP at the collaborative-
the collaborative-delivery firm, such as overhead delivery firm’s risk). This methodology allows for
and/or profit, is defined as fee, a dollar amount owners and collaborative-delivery firms to share
added to the project cost estimate to create a price. any unused contingency. Owners should consider
It should be noted that the fee may be initially set as the required costs and other resources required
a % of the cost of work but will likely be converted to administer an open-book construction delivery
to a fixed $ amount when the price is agreed upon process when using a GMP pricing approach in a
between the owner and the collaborative-delivery project agreement.
firm. • In contrast to the GMP approach, a fixed-price
methodology results in “closing the books” after the
CMAR and PDB approaches allow projects to proceed
price is agreed upon with the collaborative-delivery
on a collaborative basis in advance of a completed
firm, proceeding to complete the project consis-
design or even a full project definition. Both delivery
tent with the agreed-upon price. This approach can
methods are typically procured on the basis of quali-
simplify the owner management oversight by elimi-
fications, in conjunction with some limited pricing
nating the need for an ongoing auditing function
components included in the project proposal. The cost
during construction.
is developed by the PDB or CMAR firm after project
award based on several foundational principles. Of course, there are many details that accompany all
• Transparency and validation. Costs must be devel- of the points discussed above, but any effective open-
oped in a completely transparent manner, with no book approach will be true to these principles. Mutual
hidden amounts and nothing embedded or inflated. trust is the foundation of collaborative delivery—and
Transparency means full, confidential disclosure of open-book transparency is a key building block.

OWNER
Ad
vi
s
or
....
Progressive
Design-Build
(PDB)
R
DE
IL
U
-B
D E SIG N
Go out to bid
(off-ramp)
Implementation RFQ process RFP Interview/ Negotiate price Manage design-build Transition Operations
plan short list process selection with design-builder contract operations
Design-build 60%-90% design Final design & Commissioning

SOQ Warranty
approach & fee & price construction & startup
Owner Owner advisor Design-builder Contractual relationship
Embedded relationship Contract amendment to approve construction
FIGURE 2.5 – Progressive Design-Build. The owner contracts with the design-builder to develop the design
and preconstruction plans—at the same time defining the costs. The owner has the option to contract with
an advisor (light green insert) to provide technical resources and support. The dashed line illustrates where
the owner accepts the second phase of the contract for construction of the project.
PDB as an advantage to forecast a project’s overall cost while improving the

outcome by direct participation in design development and construction
planning decisions. The WDBC’s PDB Procurement Guide is a recommended
resource for this.
Once selected, the design-builder (PDB team) and owner work collabora-
tively to advance the design and incorporate owner preferences and technical
requirements while progressing cost estimates throughout the Phase I design
and preconstruction work. During Phase I, an open-book estimating approach
is used that enables the owner to make informed decisions on the overall cost,
schedule, design, scope, and quality of the project.
One decision an owner must make is determining what part of the construc-
tion work is permissible to be self-performed. Some states have incorporated
legislative restrictions on self-performance of construction work. Some
owners prefer a team that can self-perform most of the construction work,
believing better price and quality is achieved through self-performance.
Owners need to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of self-performance for
the needs of the project and its expectations. Other owners may have the PDB
team self-perform some construction work but only after competing with
the market to demonstrate cost competitiveness. Lastly, some owners may

Design-build services for a greenfield water treatment plant and connection to the city’s existing distribution system in
Thornton, Colorado, included raw water oxidation, pumped rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation with plate settlers,
advanced oxidation with ozone and hydrogen peroxide, biologically active filtration, and chlorine disinfection.
(Burns & McDonnell/Garney Construction)
require the PDB firm to bid out all construction work to demonstrate full
competitiveness of the Phase II price proposal.
In the event the owner and the PDB firm cannot agree on a price, schedule,
and risk allocation to construct the project (GMP or fixed price), the owner
can take an off-ramp and terminate the PDB firm. Should the off-ramp be
taken, the owner may negotiate, subject to applicable state laws, with another Off-Ramp. A contractually
PDB firm seeking to reach agreement on a price, or have the design com- defined option for the
pleted and proceed with a DBB procurement. To decrease the likelihood of owner with the CMAR or
an off-ramp, the owner should further validate its authorized project budget PDB project to end services
with market input prior to initiating procurement. If an owner and PDB firm with the collaborative-
delivery firm prior to
are unable to agree on price and contract terms for the procurement, con-
agreement on price.
struction, and commissioning of the project, the owner can take action to
initiate an off-ramp via several approaches.
• Direct the PDB firm to complete the design then use a DBB public-
bidding approach.
• Terminate the contract via an off-ramp scenario incorporated into the
project agreement.
• Terminate the contract with the PDB, take possession of the partially
completed design, and seek to negotiate with another PDB firm if per-
mitted by applicable state law.
• Pursue a DBB approach.

PDB Distinguishing Features
• Selection is based on qualifications, technical and delivery approach,
and limited pricing information.
• Use of an owner advisor (OA) to guide the procurement of the PDB
firm and develop enough technical and scope information to support
the owner’s expectations for the project.
• Increased owner involvement during Phase I design and preconstruc-
tion to allow an owner’s staff the opportunity to engage definitively in
the design process. Concurrent activities can lead to a more efficient and
shorter schedule with scope items delivered prior to completed design.
• One contract with two phases.
o Phase I—The design-builder works with the owner to develop
project scope, design, initial permits, schedule, and a price for
owner approval.
o Phase II—Assuming agreement on price, the design-builder
completes the design, obtains permits, and performs construc-
tion, testing and acceptance, and closes out the project—turning
it over to the owner.
• Provides owner an early opportunity to validate or refine its authorized
budget and make appropriate adjustments.
• Pricing for Phase II can either be in the form of a GMP or a fixed price.
It is exclusively the owner’s decision.
• Owner has an early understanding of the project scope and cost to vali-
date or refinance its authorized budget, thus allowing adjustments in
scope and assumptions to align with its financial authorization.
Fixed-Price Design-Build (FPDB)

FPDB is a delivery method in which a single fixed price—encompassing the
design, construction, commissioning and startup, and acceptance testing
of the project are established when the contract is signed. As illustrated in
Figure 2.6, FPDB is used when the owner has defined the project require-
ments and scope of work sufficiently for proposing firms to accurately predict
the project cost early in the procurement process.
Due to the technical complexity of many water and wastewater projects, an
FPDB approach will often incorporate a conceptual design (design criteria
document) and detailed requirements in procurement documents (prescrip-
tive-based). Or this approach may provide detailed information on the quality
and quantity of existing influent conditions, along with detailed characteristics
of the final effluent (performance-based). FPDB procurements can therefore be
more costly compared to other collaborative-delivery methods due to the cost
of design detail in procurement documents. FPDB is also often more costly for
proposing firms, as they may expend significant efforts to prepare an accurate
fixed price. (Refer to WDBC’s FPDB Procurement Guide for more information.)
Requirements in FPDB procurement documents may be either prescriptive- or
performance-based, or a hybrid of the two (see Figure 2.7), which addresses
characteristics of both requirements. Chapter 4 goes into this subject in fur-
ther detail.

OWNER
Ad
vis
or
....
Fixed-Price
Design-Build
(FPDB)
DE R
SIG N DE
-B UIL
Implementation Short-list Select Manage design-build Transition

RFQ process RFP process Operations
plan interview design-builder contract operations
Commissioning
SOQ Design-build approach & price Design & construction Warranty
& startup
Owner Owner advisor Design-builder Contractual relationship Embedded relationship
© and TM 2019 – Water Design-Build Council, Inc.
FIGURE 2.6 – Fixed-Price Design-Build. After issuing an RFQ and RFP, the owner contracts with a design-
builder to design and construct the project. The light green piece represents the optional use of an owner
advisor—with the dotted line showing the working relationship that occurs on behalf of the owner.
Performance Hybrid Prescriptive

“This is how it must perform.” “This is how it must perform, “This is exactly what I want.”
with some specific preferences.”
The RFP defines:

• Process parameters and specific
constraints or requirements
• Site boundaries
Best practice: • Minimum function restrictions Best practice:
Constrain potential solutions only • Required equipment and materials Define prescriptive requirements
as necessary to maintain required by exception only by exception only when clearly
standardization or to eliminate risky, needed to maintain compatibility,
totally unproven technologies. Proposal process emphasizes: integrate with existing systems, or
• Understanding of owner’s intent avoid known, documented risks.
and basis of specific requirements
• Confirmation of overall approach
and validation of conformance
where applicable
Design-builder commits to: Evaluation method promotes: Design-builder commits to:

Applicability and feasibility to • Innovation to increase value Applicability and effectiveness of
required standards • Balance between price and the owner’s requirements
robustness and conformance of
design approaches
FIGURE 2.7 – Performance- and prescriptive-based criteria

• Prescriptive-based. The RFP for a prescriptive-based FPDB procure-
ment typically includes preliminary design drawings, as well as a descrip-
tion of specific design approaches and specific technologies and
equipment. Proposing firms are required to submit their own designs
approximately 10% to 30% complete with their proposal. Owners often
prefer prescriptive-based FPDB procurements when they have a clear
sense of their design preferences and want to select the design-builder
based on a combination of qualifications, schedule, and price. Procure-
ment for a prescriptive FPDB delivery can limit the proposing firms’
innovation and creativity; however, it does ensure that the owner gets
what it wants at a market price.
• Performance-based. The RFP for a performance-based FPDB sets
forth technical requirements, establishes a planned project schedule
and minimum quality standards, and focuses on measurable plant-
performance criteria. The RFP typically does not include a conceptual
design; instead, proposers are required to develop a customized design
solution as part of their proposal. Owners often prefer performance-
based FPDB procurements when they are open to design approaches
that include innovative technologies to achieve the required perfor-
mance while maximizing cost savings. Performance-based requirements
give proposing firms flexibility in developing solutions and can result in
innovative and cost-effective proposals.
• A hybrid of both. Deciding between prescriptive- and performance-
based requirements means choosing between certainty and innovation;
however, it is possible to effectively blend the two approaches. For
example, owners may have a preferred process technology, equipment
manufacturer, or approach and state those as requirements in prescrip-
tive terms, while other aspects of the RFP are performance-based. A
hybrid approach may be a prescriptive approach with performance-based
elements or a performance-based approach with prescriptive elements.
All approaches to a FPDB procurement require proposers to submit a technical

proposal and a fixed price. An FPDB firm is generally selected on a best-value
basis considering the technical solution, team qualifications, and price offered.
If the owner and the highest-ranked design-builder cannot agree on an accept-
able price and scope of work, the owner can negotiate with the second-ranked
design-builder, and so on.
FPDB Distinguishing Features

• Often, FPDB is procured through a two-step process involving a request
for qualifications (RFQ) to create a short list, followed by a formal RFP
with technical and price proposals by the short-listed teams.
• The RFP will include at a minimum the project scope, technical require-
ments, and baseline information—geotechnical report, site surveys,
existing system, or facility data, for example.
• Selection with consideration for team and individual qualifications,
project approach (design and construction), and price almost always
follows a best-value approach.

DESIGN-BUILD-OPERATE (DBO)
DBO is an expansion of the DB delivery method that includes all components
of DB—including procurement, design, construction, commissioning, startup,
and acceptance testing—as well as O&M of the completed facility. The deliv-
ery of the project and services to the owner do not end at final acceptance but
continue with O&M services for a defined term.
A key differential of a DBO arrangement is the optimization of both capital

and long-term O&M costs that may result in the lowest project lifecycle cost.
While owners may require O&M costs during DB procurement, the DBO
procurement methodology holds the delivery partner contractually respon-
sible for the accuracy of long-term O&M costs.
The use of DBO is particularly suitable when one or more of the following
conditions exists.:
• An owner seeks a single contract for design, construction, and long-
term O&M.
• An owner seeks to optimize its lifecycle cost by balancing the capital and
O&M cost within the DBO agreement.
• An owner’s O&M staff resources are limited.
OWNER AD
OWNER AD
VI VI
S S
O
OR
R
....
....
Design-Build- Design-Build-
Operate (DBO) Operate (DBO)
LDER
-B TO R
Single Entity Multiple Entities

O&M
UI
A
DE
E
TO
IG R
FI
A OP G
S
N- M
B UIL - O P E R
N
D SI
DE
Implementation Monitor
RFQ process RFP process Manage design-build contract
plan operations
Plant
Single Entity SOQ/proposal Design-build & startup
operations
Plant
Multiple Entities SOQ/proposal Design-build & startup
operations
Owner Owner’s advisor Design-build-operator Design-builder
O&M firm Contractual relationship Embedded relationship
FIGURE 2.8 – Design-Build-Operate. In the first graphic, the owner contracts with one entity
to provide all of the design-build and operations services for the project. In the second graphic,
the owner contracts with a firm to provide operations and maintenance services for a specific
period of time. The O&M firm then contracts with a design-builder to provide the required
engineering and construction services for the project.

• An owner seeks to transfer operational and long-term performance risk
to a third entity.
• An owner seeks to transfer maintenance, repair, and replacement obli-
gations to the DBO firm.
It is important to recognize that DBO delivery can result in capital and lifecycle
cost efficiencies, which are realized through early and continual collabora-
tion between the design and construction activities and the O&M function
integrated in the DBO organization. This collaboration fosters well-informed
decision-making when assessing the trade-offs between capital investment
and long-term O&M costs. Given the broad scope of DBO services, owners
typically use a performance-based procurement with prescriptive elements to
meet technical and system performance requirements.
In assuming a facility’s long-term performance risk (typically for 5 to 25 years),

the DBO firm provides a facility performance guarantee over the contract.
This long-term obligation to operate and maintain the facility also serves as an
incentive for the DBO firm to continue optimizing lifecycle cost efficiencies
throughout the design and construction phases. Traditionally, DBO procure-
ments have relied upon a fixed-price design-build procurement model with
the addition of a fixed-price, initial-year component (with escalation factors
incorporated) for long-term O&M requirements. It should be noted that the
O&M pricing component may include a fixed component and a variable price
component. The fixed-price component encompasses baseline staffing and
the costs necessary to keep a plant operating, not including any consumables
that are tied to the water or wastewater treated.
DBO Organization Models

DBO firms may propose various organizational models. The two DBO firm
structures, identified in Figure 2.8, are the most frequently used within the
United States. Moreover, DBO is the primary delivery method used when
public or commercial projects are privately financed. Chapter 7 provides addi-
tional information about P3s and their evolution as collaborative-delivery
models.
Single-Entity Organization Model

As depicted on the left side of Figure 2.8, the most common DBO structure
is the single-entity model. In this structure, the single-entity DBO organiza-
tion can be either a single firm or a consortium of two or more firms in a legal
partnership, typically a joint venture, that executes all DBO services.
Prime/Sub Multiple-Entity Organization Model

Prime/sub DBO organizations may include a single firm or a partnership of
multiple firms where a key component of delivery, either the design, con-
struction, or O&M services may be subcontracted. The most typical prime/
sub organizational model (shown on the right side of Figure 2.8) includes the
long-term O&M firm as the prime DBO provider with a subcontract for the
design-build portion of the work. While the subcontract between the O&M

firm and design-builder may include contractual flow-downs for final per-
formance requirements during acceptance testing, under this organizational
model the O&M firm is contractually responsible for DBO performance.
Emerging Organizational Models

Alternative multiple-entity organizational models are also being used in
which DBO performance guarantees are separated within the contract and
allocated to the party best able to manage the associated risks. Rather than
receiving a DBO performance guarantee from a single entity that encom-
passes the entire design, construction, acceptance testing, and long-term
O&M services, the owner would receive successive performance guarantees
fully delineated within the prime contract. In this model, the design-builder
would be contractually obligated for the design-build portion, and upon final
acceptance testing, the O&M firm would be responsible for long-term O&M
guarantees as well as assume any long-term DB performance requirements.
In a sequential performance guarantee model, the owner should be aware of

additional complexities in contracting with the two entities providing sepa-
rate performance guarantees. For example, the interface of a design-builder
and O&M firm during commissioning and startup must be clearly defined,
in addition to responsibilities for fine-tuning treatment-process performance
during the first several years of operation. This interface is typically governed
by an interface agreement.
The Onondaga County (Lake) cleanup and restoration program, which is being completed under
supervision of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), included the hydraulic removal of approximately
two million cubic yards of sediment which was dewatered and pretreated, prior to discharge for
final polishing at the municipal publicly owned treatment plant. (OBG, Part of Ramboll)

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (P3s)
P3s almost always involve a collaborative-delivery method, as presented in
Figure 2.9. P3s integrate private financing and often include long-term O&M.
Because P3s are gaining in popularity, Chapter 7 presents the fundamental
best practices for adapting P3 approaches to the unique needs of water and
wastewater infrastructure.
OWNER
Ad
vi
s
or
....
PROJECT
Public-Private
ENTITY
Partnerships
LDER
-B T O R
(P3)
UI
A
R
E
DB OP GN
O SI
DE
RFQ process RFP process Monitor design-build contract
plan operations
SOQ, technical proposal, Plant

and financial proposal Design-build & startup
operations
Owner Owner advisor Project entity (also special purpose entity) Design-build-operator
Design-builder O&M firm Contractual relationship Embedded relationship
FIGURE 2.9 – Public-Private Partnerships
SELECTING THE DESIRED DELIVERY METHOD

Choosing the best collaborative-delivery method for a water or wastewater
project is as crucial to success as choosing the best DB or CMAR firm.
The final step in deciding on the preferred delivery method is evaluating each
possible delivery method against the weighted project priorities identified in
Chapter 1. This requires the owner’s team to understand the benefits and con-
siderations of each delivery method using the information provided in this
chapter. Determining the collaborative-delivery method for a project requires a
rigorous evaluation of the features, benefits, and risks associated with each, and
how they achieve the weighted project drivers. Chapter 3 presents the charac-
teristics of project risks, how they are allocated and managed in consideration
of the various delivery methods, and their integration into contracts.

Chapter
3
Risk Management
and Contracts
W
hen using a collaborative-delivery method, whether it is construction manage-
ment at-risk (CMAR), design-build (DB), or design-build-operate (DBO), it is
incumbent that all project stakeholders understand the risks inherent in the proj-
ect and the factors that could impact successful completion. Stakeholders include
the owner’s management team and the collaborative-delivery firm’s project team.
In the context of collaborative delivery, effective risk management identifies the
real and potential sources of risk in a project, whether the risk arises in perform-
ing the work or is embodied within the contract. The differences in risk manage-
ment for traditional design-bid-build (DBB) compared to collaborative delivery
include identifying and assigning each risk event to a responsible party and quan-
➤
The Davis-Woodland tifying the risks to cost, schedule, quality, and safety based on probability and
facility was an integrated level of impact, as shown in Figure 3.1. Risk assessment often requires input from
design-build-operate- subject matter experts, including contract professionals, project managers, estima-
finance contract, in which tors, process experts (including technology providers), schedulers, engineers, and
the design-builder held full
subcontractors.
responsibility for all design,
permitting, commissioning, This chapter addresses the areas of risk that are typical for water and wastewater
project management, and projects. It also presents the various contract provisions that are typical for these
long-term operations of the
projects, as the contract is the vehicle in which the risk is allocated and assigned to
new facility, plus construction
financing for a portion of the a particular party. The general practice is that risks are assigned to the party best
capital cost value through the able to manage them. Table 3.1 illustrates the allocation of various risk components
acceptance test. (Jacobs) among owners and collaborative-delivery firms.
3-1
Traditional Risk Allocation Performance-Based Risk Allocation
OWNER OWNER OWNER OWNER

Ad Ad
vi vi
s s
or
or
....
....
Design- Construction Progressive Fixed-Price
Bid-Build Management Design-Build
TO R
Design-Build
D E SI
D E SI
(DBB) at-Risk (PDB) (FPDB)
AR
R
AC
(CMAR)
GN
DE
GN
M
TR
....
ER
IL
N R
C
ER
U DE
CO -B SIG N DE
D E SIG N -B UIL
Professional Services Construction Single Entity or Consortium

“Design” “Build” “Design-Build”
“Bid”
Scope: Planning, consulting, Scope: Equipment, materials, Scope: The project from design through construction and
design engineering, design construction, startup, and sometimes short- or long-term O&M
services during construction construction warranty
$$: Proposed fee on actual cost delivered on a GMP or lump-
$$: Billable hours $$: Fixed price sum basis, or a fixed price
Risk: Standard of care Risk: Conformance with Risk: Commitment to performance within a contractually
as-bid documents defined set of inputs and parameters
FIGURE 3.1 – Traditional vs. collaborative-delivery risk allocation
This chapter includes the following sections.

• Common Project Risks and Allocation Principles
o Risk allocation independent of delivery method.
o Risks retained by owners under DBB.
o Risks retained by owners in any collaborative-delivery contract.
Effective risk management
identifies the real and o Risks shared by the owner and the collaborative-delivery firm.
potential sources of risk in
a project, whether the risk o Risks assumed by the collaborative-delivery firm.
arises in performing the o Risk allocation for CMAR delivery.
work or is embodied within
the contract. o Risk allocation for DB delivery.
o Risk allocation for DBO delivery.
• Managing Risks introduces project contingencies and the use of a proj-
ect risk register.
• Addressing Liability and Risk in the Collaborative-Delivery Contract
covers contractual terms that impact project risk and which party is
assigned these risks. Key terms include financial security, flow-down
provisions, limits of liability, indemnification, and warranties.
• Contract Commercial Concepts presents the fundamental commercial
terms of collaborative delivery, such as cost of work, “open-book” pric-
ing, construction fee, and incentives (including shared savings).

• Industry-standard contract forms are contract templates created by
industry organizations such as DBIA which are available on their web-
site. These contract templates have the benefit of receiving input from
a wide array of stakeholders and are commonly used for collaborative
water and wastewater projects.
• Cautions includes a list for owners to use as they prepare their collab-
orative-delivery project requirements and contracts. Items that at first
would seem to benefit the owner, such as transferring risk to another
party or creating more stringent project requirements, can negatively
affect the project outcome if they are taken beyond industry norms.
COMMON PROJECT RISKS AND ALLOCATION PRINCIPLES

The common risks encountered on water and wastewater projects in Table
3.1 represent those areas within a project that will need to be assigned to a
party responsible for addressing it, which may vary from project to project.
While the contents of this chapter are based on the collective experience of
the authors on many projects, it is always recommended that owners obtain
legal input to confirm compatibility with the general body of law.
Risk Allocation Independent of Delivery Method

As early as possible when planning the project and preparing procurement
documents, an owner needs to address the following questions.
• What undesirable events might occur?
• How likely is each event to occur?
• For each undesirable event, how severe would the impact be?
• How should each situation be managed and/or mitigated?
• Which party is best able to mitigate or assume the responsibilities
associated with the resulting impacts?
TABLE 3.1 – Common Risk Components in Water and Wastewater Projects
• Land and easement acquisition • Cost of constructed project to fixed price

• Project performance • Construction warranty
• Technical requirements • Fines and penalties
• Site conditions • Third-party and professional liability
• Project design • Proprietary process or equipment

• Uncontrollable circumstances
• Schedule
• Quality and quantity of influent
• Environmental approvals and permits
(raw water or untreated wastewater)
• Building and administrative permits • Quality and quantity of effluent (finished
• Coordination with existing facilities water or wastewater effluent)
• Cost of constructed project to • Materials cost escalation
guaranteed maximum price (GMP) • Force majeure
Risk Management and Contracts 3-3

Most risk discussions are associated with the negative impacts of a realized
event or issue. However, with careful thought and proper planning by the
owner and their collaborative-delivery firm, there is the distinct opportunity
to minimize the impacts from realized negative risks. In some cases, the cre-
ativity of the collaborative-delivery team can even eliminate negative risks,
and in some cases, convert them into opportunities that yield time and cost
savings for the project.
Using a systematic process to identify risk characteristics within a project and
developing procedures to manage them early on can yield significant cost
and schedule benefits. Early implementation of risk identification and man-
agement strategies by the owner (such as site investigations, treatability test-
ing, pilot studies, means and methods evaluation, and permit planning) can
Risk allocation in a prove beneficial if performed prior to procurement activities. Collaborative-
collaborative-delivery
contract follows the
delivery firms experienced with complex water and wastewater projects, who
principle that risks should possess the tools to apply prudent and systematic risk-management analysis,
be allocated to the can then build upon these early activities when developing proposals.
party best positioned to
manage them. A comprehensive risk identification and allocation matrix should be prepared
by the owner and included in the procurement documents so proposers have
an early understanding of the known project risks. After the collaborative-
delivery firm is selected, this initial risk matrix becomes fundamental to pre-
paring the project agreement and negotiation between the parties within the
project implementation and management plan, as discussed in Chapter 5. The
matrix identifies potential project risks and allocates responsibility between
the owner and the delivery team to mitigate the risk-related costs by address-
ing the following questions.
• Loss prevention—What measures can be taken to prevent or reduce the
likelihood of adverse occurrences, and which party can most efficiently
be responsible for taking these measures?
• Loss control—What measures can be taken to minimize the extent of
damage caused by an undesirable event, and which party can most effi-
ciently take responsibility for these measures?
• Third-party coverage—What forms of insurance are available to reim-
burse some or all of the losses incurred for risks, and how cost-effective
are these insurance policies compared with other risk-management
alternatives?
• Assumption of risk—Which party is best able to assume and manage, and
therefore be responsible for, each risk?
In collaborative-delivery projects, contract terms should balance risk
allocation to foster a successful project by encouraging collaborative relation-
ships and establishing an understanding of what project success means to
both parties.
For example, it is rarely in an owner’s best interest to transfer all project risks
to the collaborative-delivery firm, especially risks that are not within the firm’s
ability to control. Such risk shifting may reduce the number of firms respond-
ing to a request for qualifications (RFQ) or request for proposals (RFP), result
in excessive cost contingencies or risk insurance premiums paid by the owner,

and make it more difficult for the collaborative-delivery firm to obtain cost-
effective bonding and insurance. It is neither reasonable nor feasible to shift
all risks to the firm, and the owner’s risk will not drop to zero under any cir-
cumstance. Examples of risk best left with owners include onsite hazardous
materials, differing site conditions, force majeure events, and the schedule for
obtaining environmental permit approvals.
When deciding whether to respond to an RFP, a collaborative-delivery firm
considers several risk categories, including commercial, safety, technical, and
resource availability; current backlog; technology to be applied; and reputa-
tion. The collaborative-delivery firm may consider the following questions.
• Is the proposed risk allocation acceptable?
• If the risk allocation is not acceptable, can it be changed or adjusted dur-
ing the proposal and negotiation process?
• If the risk allocation is not acceptable and cannot be changed, is pursu-
ing the project worth investing funds, time, energy, reputational risk,
and probability of winning the work?
Risks Retained by Owners Under Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

It is instructive to reflect on the risks that an owner assumes under a DBB
process. As noted in the following sections on collaborative-delivery projects, Performing construction at
operating treatment facilities
the owner bears the risk of budget adequacy, permits, and easements. More-
can pose significant risk to the
over, the owner has the responsibility to adjudicate disagreements between owner and the collaborative-
the construction contractor and the design firm. However, there is a specific, delivery firm. These plans
longstanding legal principle that arose out of the DBB process that creates are developed to keep plant
substantial risk to owners using this delivery method. That principle is com- and construction staff safe
monly called the Spearin Doctrine, which is described in detail on page 3-6. as well as document the
control measures that help
Discussed in the following sections is how this principle requires a slightly maintain operations while new
different thought process on collaborative-delivery projects. Under CMAR structures are built or existing
structures are upgraded.
and DB, the construction contractor becomes involved in the project at a far
Direct costs and schedule
earlier point in time than on a DBB project. requirements for control
measures, such as bypass
piping, can then be built
into the project guaranteed
maximum price and managed
throughout delivery. A well-
planned maintenance of
plant operations plan requires
close collaboration between
the owner’s operations and
maintenance staff and the
collaborative-delivery firm.
Control measures at a plant receiving a new operations building. Temporary

facilities were planned into the project to mitigate the operational risk and main-
tain normal operations. An elevated, temporary PVC pipe was used to maintain
the air supply to aeration basins (left) while temporary piping maintained primary
effluent flow (right). (Balfour Beatty)

The Spearin Doctrine and
Differing Site Conditions
Based on a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court but perform to generally accepted stan-
decision (U.S. v. Spearin), the Spearin dards of care, owners frequently find that
Doctrine addresses who bears the risk they bear the ultimate cost.
of design defects. The Supreme Court
Another principle that arose for federal
concluded that when a contractor is
government contracts involves the issue
required to build according to plans and
of who should bear the risk of site con-
specifications prepared by an owner, the
ditions that differ from what was antici-
contractor is not responsible for the con-
pated at the time the design was com-
sequences of defects in those plans and
pleted and the construction bid received.
specifications. The doctrine creates two
Legal precedent has long held that the
implied warranties: (a) the owner’s plans
owner is in the best position to bear these
and specifications are accurate and (b)
risks, and this resulted in the introduc-
the owner’s plans and specifications are
tion in federal contracts of the Differing
suitable for the owner’s intended pur-
Site Conditions (DSC) clause in the mid-
pose. Importantly, the contract needs
1900s. This clause entitles construction
to say nothing affirmatively to establish
contractors to cost and schedule relief if
these warranties—they are read into the
they encounter site conditions that are: (a)
construction contract by virtue of the
materially different from those indicated
doctrine. Also, contract language that
in the contract documents or (b) unusual
attempts to avoid the Spearin Doctrine
in nature, differing materially from what
and shift design defect risks to the con-
would be expected given the nature of
tractor will not be deemed effective or
the work. The DSC clause is a standard
enforceable.
clause in private and public construction
The Spearin Doctrine represents an im- contracts around the country.
portant principle of construction law. It
There are hundreds of cases arising from
has been applied in literally hundreds of
DBB projects that discuss DSCs. These
cases around the country over the past
cases elaborate on what constitutes a
century, in cases ranging from defective
DSC, contractor obligations to inspect
designs that affected constructability
the site before bidding, and the enforce-
(e.g., conflicts between beams and col-
ability of contract language disclaim-
umns) to designs that were completed in
ing the owner’s responsibility for DSCs.
accordance with plans and specifications
Stated simply, courts around the country
that did not meet their intended purpose
view the DSC clause as a major remedy-
(e.g., undersized floor slabs that resulted
granting clause. As a result, courts are
in excessive deflections and specified
reluctant to let owners shift DSC risk to
equipment that did not meet process re-
contractors, particularly through general
quirements). As long as the contractor can
disclaimers and exculpatory clauses.
show that it reasonably relied upon the
plans and specifications, the contractor is Together, the Spearin Doctrine and DSC
entitled to a change order addressing the clause impose certain risks onto owners
cost and time resulting from the defective in DBB projects. The ramification is that
specification. Further, whether the owner construction contractors can reasonably
can recover these contractor costs from rely upon the bidding information pro-
the designer for defective specifications vided by owners, and if there are errors
(and its own costs) depends on whether in that information (e.g., defects in the
the designer was negligent. Given that design), contractors can get contractual
designers are not expected to be perfect, relief.

Risks Retained by Owners in Any Collaborative-Delivery Contract
Identified in the following paragraphs are risks that are typically retained by
the owner. These risks are retained because collaborative-delivery firms can-
not control nor reasonably anticipate the contingencies for their mitigation.
• Budget adequacy. Owners are responsible for establishing a project
budget that is adequate for the scope. Owner’s budgets are often estab-
lished during master plan development, feasibility studies, or concep-
tual designs, which may be prepared years in advance of the project
being priced in the marketplace. These estimates are set to support
owner budget development and may not reflect actual market condi-
tions when the project is finally priced by a collaborative-delivery firm.
As part of collaborative-delivery procurement, project costs may need
to be reevaluated through site surveys, geotechnical investigations,
underground utility location services, existing utility capacity analysis,
as well as the impacts of labor and commodity cost escalation over time.
Data gathered through these exercises can help validate the assumptions
in early estimates and prevent surprises during procurement that can
result in significant project delays. If the revised estimate is not afford-
able by the owner, the project’s scope can be modified prior to procure-
ment or as part of the competitive procurement process. Validating the
budget early in the procurement cycle can prevent surprises later in the
project when GMP development reveals that construction market con-
ditions make the project unaffordable.
• Acquiring land/easements. Legal ownership and availability of the
project site, as well as possession of executed and recorded easements,
are critical to the success of most water and wastewater projects. Some
projects encounter significant delays or require major design revisions
due to difficulties with acquiring land or easements. The owner retains
these risks, including temporary easements for construction, laydown
areas, and permanent easements for installed utilities. In extreme cir-
cumstances, condemnation proceedings may be needed to acquire land.
In these cases, the project schedule has a high probability of delay if not
considered early in the process.
• Site conditions. As with DBB, the owner is responsible for providing
complete, accurate, and reliable site plans, survey data, and subsurface
investigations for the collaborative-delivery firm to incorporate into
project planning and design. This means CMAR and DB contracts
should have differing site condition (DSC) clauses reflecting site condi-
tions at the time the CMAR firm or design-builder commits to a price.
Even though this risk remains with the owner, collaborative-delivery
methodologies should help mitigate these risks given the contracted
firm’s involvement in the design process and input on site informa-
tion. This can be especially important if rehabilitation or expansion of
an existing facility is part of the project, where “as-built” drawings and
information may be incomplete or inaccurate.
• Environmental approvals and permits. Although an owner may engage
the collaborative-delivery firm to assist in preparing and obtaining envi-
ronmental permits and approvals, the owner typically assumes the risks

of permits from a licensing or permitting agency, particularly environ-
mental. Since these are based on the owner’s relationship with the per-
mitting agency, delays or costs in obtaining such permits or approvals
would not be the collaborative-delivery firm’s responsibility, unless the
permit preparation work performed by the firm failed to meet the stan-
dard of care for this activity.
• Technical requirements. The owner should provide a detailed, com-
plete, and accurate site description with project performance and other
technical requirements to ensure that all risks are apparent. The owner
will retain the Spearin Risk for the accuracy of data and information
related to a FPDB procurement and project. An example of this for a
drinking water project would be for the owner to specify raw water
quality, finished water quality requirements, and required plant capacity
within the procurement documents.
• Quantity and quality of project feedstock. Because the quantity and
quality of untreated water or wastewater entering a facility will affect
its performance, cost and performance guarantees by collaborative-
delivery firms will always be a condition of influent characteristics.
Owners therefore need to develop influent specifications (or the range
of quality and quantity parameters, including seasonal variations) for
raw water or sewage entering a plant, pipeline, or pumping station and
the facility production requirements. These specifications and produc-
tion requirements need to be defined within the procurement docu-
ments and project agreement.
• Materials cost escalation. Multi-year contracts may include a compre-
hensive escalation clause to address inflation or unforeseen increases in
material costs over the project. This clause might be premised on agreed
cost components in the fixed price or GMP. The relative allocation of
responsibility for cost escalation can also be negotiated as part of the
GMP.
• Damage to owner’s other property, including the facility after tran-
sition from the collaborative-delivery firm to the owner. The risk of
damage to the owner’s property—other than the facility during con-
struction through final acceptance (which is covered by the collabor-
ative-delivery firm’s insurance)—or to the facility after transition from
construction to operations, remains with the owner, since the owner has
permanent insurance in place covering the property.
Risks Shared by the Owner and the Collaborative-Delivery Firm

• Uncontrollable circumstances. Some risks that affect the project cost
or schedule and the ability of the delivery firm to perform its contractual
responsibilities are uncontrollable circumstances, which are not under
the control of either party. Examples include loss of power, changes in
law or regulatory requirements, unusual weather conditions and related
storm damage, differing site conditions (subsurface or inadequate “as-
built” drawings), and earthquakes. Whether schedule adjustments and/
or compensation are available to the collaborative-delivery firm depends
upon the specifics and the agreed-upon contract terms. While some

A variety of risks are inherent with construction, most of which can be identified
and incorporated into the project risk management plan. However, not all risks are
readily identifiable or anticipated. There are, however, ways to mitigate the cost
and time impact of an unanticipated risk other than using project contingency.
For instance, because of defective fabrication, this C905 pipe burst during initial
pressure testing. Compensation for removal and replacement of the defective
piping was provided through the pipe manufacturer’s warranty. (Balfour Beatty)
uncontrollable circumstances are insurable, these deductible costs

should be shared between the owner and collaborative-delivery firm.
Uncontrollable circumstances not covered by insurance should allow
the collaborative-delivery firm to draw on project contingency or be
given relief through a change order.
• Proprietary technology. The party that purchases a technology, or speci-
fies a specific supplier, is normally responsible for its performance. When
the performance guarantee is given by a supplier to a collaborative-
delivery firm, this guarantee is included in the firm’s overall plant perfor-
mance guarantee. It is important to define and allocate technology risk
clearly to avoid surprises.
• Coordination with existing facilities. This is particularly important
when a project is an addition to or expansion of an existing water or waste-
water treatment facility that must remain in service during construction.
While the owner will typically provide the collaborative-delivery firm
with full details on the existing facility (including description, location,
and condition of the physical tie-in points, plus expected flow rates and
water quality information during specific timeframes) extensive coor-
dination and planning between the owner and firm can minimize risks
to existing facilities. Through collaborative-delivery methodologies, the
owner and firm can work together to develop shut-down and tie-in pro-
tocols to ensure that new project construction does not interfere with
existing operations, and that the tie-in is completed without disruption.
It is important to note that record drawings provided by the owner that
inaccurately reflect actual field conditions should not generally be a
shared risk, as the owner carries this responsibility unless specifically

conveyed to the firm. If the owner does convey this, the scope of services
should include time and cost to field verify the record drawings well in
advance of construction activities.
• Limitation on self-performance. In some circumstances, limiting the
amount of work that the collaborative-delivery firm can self-perform
can become a shared project risk. Many design-builders or CMAR firms
perform the work that resides on the project’s critical path schedule. For
plant projects, this would include yard piping, structural concrete, and
process/mechanical work. When this trade work is self-performed, the
collaborative-delivery firm has more control on the project outcome.
If the work is performed by multiple subcontractors, conflicts between
them can occur. When this occurs, the project schedule and budget can
be negatively impacted, resulting in a potential change request.
• Costs above the GMP. Unless specified in the contract, all costs above
the GMP (as the GMP may be adjusted under the terms of the contract)
are the responsibility of the collaborative-delivery firm. Typically, GMPs
will include contingency and allowances to accommodate project costs
that are difficult to define and estimate at the time a GMP is established,
or to mitigate known potential risks during construction. Managing the
project to control actual costs and prevent risks from occurring should
be a shared responsibility between the owner and the collaborative-
delivery firm. Owners can incentivize firms to continuously minimize
costs and save time by sharing the savings represented by completing
the project under the GMP.
Risk mitigation plans must consider impacts to the project schedule and cost. Collaborative-
delivery contracts typically include liquidated assets for when the planned contract completion
date is missed. The impact of delay for construction activities on the project schedule requires
careful consideration. (Xylem, Inc.)

Risks Assumed by the Collaborative-Delivery Firm
• Building and administrative permits. The collaborative-delivery firm
will typically accept the risk and responsibility for obtaining certain
permits and governmental approvals, such as building and construc-
tion permits that are specifically tied to the project scope and design.
The owner, however, retains responsibility for discretionary permits,
such as environmental and siting. There may be interagency or local
government dependencies, such as local and county requirements, that
are contradictory, causing delays. In these cases, the owner is respon-
sible for schedule and cost impacts. NOTE: Under the Spearin Doctrine,
a CMAR firm would not be responsible for delays or any other problems
related to building and administrative permits, if those problems are
caused by the design.
• Fines and penalties. The collaborative-delivery firm may be held
responsible for fines and penalties assessed with respect to its work
to the extent that it can control the work beginning on the notice-to-
proceed date. Such liability would be subject to the change-in-law article
of the contract.
• Construction warranty. As the collaborative-delivery firm controls
material procurement, administration of construction and subcontrac-
tors, and supervision and inspection of installation, it provides a nor-
mal construction warranty on the project. This is typically a contractual
requirement and an obligation the collaborative-delivery firm assumes
under the prime contract. Warranties are discussed in greater detail
later in the chapter.
• Third-party liability. Since the collaborative-delivery firm has the care,
custody, and control of the project worksite, it also assumes liability for
third-party bodily injury or property damage. It may indemnify the
owner from and against such liability if included in the project contract.
• Damage to facility. The collaborative-delivery firm assumes liability for
damage to the facility through final completion and transition to the
owner and provides builders’ risk insurance to cover such risks. Con-
versely, the owner may choose to carry builder’s risk insurance in lieu
of the firm if consistent with the owner’s approach to insurance and risk
management. Following transition, the owner assumes the care, cus-
tody, and control of the facility and provides its own property-damage
insurance coverage, with a waiver of subrogation.
• Professional liability. The collaborative-delivery firm assumes respon-
sibility for any professional liability from its professional services, subject
to the generally accepted standard of care. Professional liability insur-
ance provides evidence of the firm’s responsibility in this area. NOTE:
A CMAR firm generally will not provide professional liability insurance,
since professional liability on a CMAR project lies with the design engineer
under its contract directly with the owner.
• Other insurable risks. The collaborative-delivery firm will provide
workers’ compensation, commercial general liability (CGL), automobile,
and builders’ risk insurance. When appropriate and available, special
insurance may be provided for pollution liability, completed operations,

umbrella liability, transit, marine cargo, harbor workers and longshore-
men, watercraft, and aircraft risks, when necessary.
• Uninsurable risks: consequential damages. Most industry-standard
agreement forms include a full mutual waiver of consequential dam-
ages. A collaborative-delivery firm should not assume liability for the
owner’s consequential damages, since it is not possible to predict price
or mitigate their likelihood. Moreover, such risks cannot be insured. An
example may be where the firm does not perform its services within the
schedule constraints. The consequence of such a scenario could be the
owner would not deliver finished water and, therefore, lose an indeter-
minate amount of revenue. Such a scenario cannot be priced or insured
and should be addressed by assessing liquidated damages (LDs) related
to nonperformance.
Risk Allocation for CMAR Delivery

Retained Specifically by Owners in a CMAR Contract
Under CMAR delivery, the owner retains a design engineer under a separate
agreement to create a full design. The CMAR firm’s preconstruction role will
typically involve conducting constructability and value engineering reviews
on that design. Close collaboration between the CMAR firm and the design
engineer throughout the design phase improves the design accuracy, reduc-
ing the risk of defects.
There are two additional owner-retained risks under CMAR delivery.
• Cost of constructed project (only up to the fixed price or GMP). It is
important to emphasize that both the owner and CMAR firm shoulder
responsibility for cost risks up to the agreed-upon construction price. The
owner and CMAR firm consult on their choices of subcontractors, equip-
ment selections, and materials, which can affect price. Once the GMP is
reached, the CMAR firm bears sole responsibility to deliver the project
for the agreed-upon construction price, as such price may be adjusted
under the contract for owner-requested scope or contract changes.
• Quantity and quality of project output. Quantity and quality of treated
water or wastewater effluent must be defined in the project agreement.
Without these definitions, it is impractical, if not impossible, to measure
the performance of the completed facilities. It should be clear, though,
that the CMAR firm does not provide any performance guarantee to the
owner.
Addressed by Either the Owner or CMAR Firm

• Cost of constructed project. Upon completion of the preconstruction
phase and before starting construction, the CMAR firm typically estab-
lishes a GMP. The point in the design process when the owner and the
CMAR firm negotiate the GMP varies depending on the project (tech-
nical complexity of the design, acceptable level of contingency, project
risks) but in most cases, the GMP is established between the 60% and
90% design milestones.

Layouts produced for
planned excavations and
critical crane lifts to confirm
the construction approach
minimize risk issues.
At the same time, cost
impacts for site constraints
can be incorporated
into the project GMP.
Also recognizing that a
potential for damage
to existing facilities can
occur as work progresses,
a shared contingency can
During a preconstruction phase, many project risks can be minimized or eliminated be assigned in the event
with plans to have limited site access in areas that can create safety risks that that existing structures are
impact planned productivity and work quality. Also, a plant walk-through during unintentionally damaged.
the preconstruction phase can reveal constructability issues associated with site This type of contingency, if
constraints. (Balfour Beatty) unused, can be returned to
the owner under the cost-
reimbursable terms of the
contract.
• Construction schedule. If design documents and other owner respon-
sibilities are completed on time, the CMAR firm assumes the risk for
constructing the project within an agreed-upon schedule. Failure to
construct the project on time may trigger contract LD provisions. LDs
usually have a reasonable cap to cover the cost of the owner’s expenses
for contract administration beyond the planned completion date. In the
CMAR contract, consideration should be provided allowing for equita-
ble schedule adjustments due to delays beyond the CMAR’s reasonable
control, such as impacts from extreme weather conditions, unforeseen
site or subsurface conditions, owner changes, permit or license changes,
changes in law, and other uncontrollable circumstances.
• Project/plant performance and acceptance testing. The CMAR firm
may be responsible for conducting performance testing when construc-
tion is complete. The owner and CMAR firm share responsibility for
ensuring that the completed project meets performance requirements
outlined by the owner and explicitly in the contract. However, the CMAR
firm is not held accountable if the project does not meet performance
requirements because of design errors or omissions. The owner remains
responsible for the within-specifications delivery of both the quantity and
quality of untreated water or wastewater, as well as timely delivery of con-
forming untreated water or wastewater for testing and commissioning.
Risk Allocation for DB Delivery

Assumed by the Design-Builder in a
Progressive Design-Build (PDB) Contract
• Design. In a progressive design-build (PDB) contract, the design-builder

is responsible for developing the design from the outset of the project.
While the owner provides input into the design at specified milestones,
the design-builder is the party who holds design risk.

• Schedule. The PDB firm is responsible for managing all aspects of the
project, including design, construction, commissioning, and startup.
Failure to construct the project on time may trigger LDs. Like CMAR
contracts discussed above, LDs should have a reasonable cap to cover
the cost of the owner’s expenses for contract administration beyond the
completion date. At the same time, the PDB contract should provide
equitable schedule adjustments due to delays beyond the firm’s reason-
able control, such as impacts from unusual weather conditions, unfore-
seen site or subsurface conditions, owner changes, permit or license
changes, changes in law, and other uncontrollable circumstances.
Assumed by the Design-Builder on PDB and

Fixed-Price Design-Build Contracts
Some owners take a prescriptive approach to defining technical requirements,
specifying what they want and defining preferences. This approach may
minimize innovation but allow the owner to get what it wants from the fin-
ished project. Conversely, an owner may choose to use a performance-based
approach and define the basic technical requirements, but be more specific
on the outcome and performance of the completed project. Both approaches
are used successfully by owners and enable the level of control an owner seeks
to maintain versus its desire for innovation and performance. Oversights or
mistakes in the technical requirements, if not discovered or corrected early,
can become an owner liability later in the project.
• Quantity and quality of facility output. The quantity and quality of the
treated water or wastewater is a major risk borne by the design-builder.
• Cost of constructed project. The design-builder guarantees the cost of
meeting its contractual obligations. Apart from certain adjustments for
changes in scope directed or requested by the owner, price escalation of
materials may occur as defined in the contract due to changed condi-
tions and uncontrollable circumstances; whereby if the design-builder
accepts the risk then the cost to deliver the work may exceed the con-
tractually agreed-upon price.
• Plant performance and acceptance testing. The design-builder is
responsible for ensuring that the completed project is designed and con-
structed to meet performance requirements outlined by the owner and
explicitly included in the contract. The project is not considered com-
plete until the design-builder demonstrates the facility’s performance
through an agreed-upon acceptance-testing procedure. The firm typi-
cally retains this performance risk until the project is accepted, at which
point the owner assumes responsibility for the facility’s operation, main-
tenance, and performance.
Warranty provisions are customarily set one year from the date of sub-
stantial completion, although some owners may require a longer war-
ranty with additional costs considered in the contract price.
A plant-performance guarantee may include plant-performance LDs set
at commercially reasonable levels, which apply if the performance guar-
antees are not met within a specified time. They may be graduated for
the degree by which the plant fails to meet the performance guarantees,
up to a reasonable limit.

Assumed by the Design-Builder in a
Fixed-Price Design-Build Contract
• Design and Construction. In a FPDB contract, the owner provides
the design-builder with performance or prescriptive technical require-
ments within the RFP (see Chapter 2 and 4 for further discussion). The
design-builder develops its technical proposal in conformance with the
requirements, and if awarded, the design-builder takes responsibility for
completing the entire design, construction, commissioning and startup,
performance testing, and warranty.
• Schedule. The design-builder has the project planning tools and sched-
ule management capability to meet schedule requirements and there-
fore assumes the risk for completing the project on time. Failure to do
so may trigger LDs, if stated in the contract, since the actual damages
may be difficult to calculate. For more on LDs, refer to the “Addressing
Liability and Risk in the Collaborative-Delivery Contract” section later
in this chapter. This is also the case in a PDB project—if the design-builder
that provided the design in Phase I is retained to construct the project in
Phase II. If, on the other hand, the owner and the original design-builder
cannot agree on a GMP, and the owner chooses another design-builder to
construct the project, the second design-builder is not responsible for any
delays arising from the design.
Risk Allocation for Design-Build-Operate (DBO) Delivery

Design-build-operate (DBO) delivery approaches, as described in Chapter 2,
have certain unique characteristics that affect risk allocation for the joined
delivery of the capital project and its long-term operations. For the DB por-
tion of DBO delivery, the risks are the same as described for DB. For the long-
term operations and maintenance (O&M) of the capital project, the following
risks are part of the DBO contract.
• Responsibility for full O&M of the project, including staffing.
• Responsibility for system operations within fixed- and variable-pricing
elements as agreed upon with the owner, subject to a contractually
defined escalation index and subsequent adjustments for as-delivered
flows.
• Provision for offsite facility monitoring, as permittable by regulators
and specified by the owner.
• Performance to chemical usage and energy consumption limits, subject
to adjustment for as-delivered flows.
• Provision of repair and replacement of facility equipment, onsite and
offsite direct labor, and subcontracted scope to maintain the facility to
standards defined in a repair and replacement program.
• Facility condition when the facility is turned over to the owner or
another operator at the end of the operating period with a defined
aggregate minimum remaining life.
• Site security, maintenance, and upkeep throughout the operations term.

• Payment of fines and penalties for noncompliance with permits, laws,
and regulations associated with O&M.
• Provision of training, laboratory services, administrative and record-
keeping support, and management support for onsite or offsite locations.
• Maintenance of appropriate insurance, financial condition reporting,
performance reporting and documentation, and parent guarantees.
Given that a DBO arrangement combines the DB delivery model with long-
term operations, there are additional risks unique to this project approach.
The risks are related to latent defects in the delivered project that may arise
after the end of the normal warranty period of a DB delivery. Such risks may
be insurable but are more likely to be included in the risk assessment and
project pricing of the DBO firm.
Another risk is the guarantee of a useful life for the capital project. Mitigation
of this risk can be achieved through the qualifications of the DBO team, the
quality of the facility and its components, and the nature of the performance
guarantees embedded in the DBO agreement.
Summary
Project risks can be assumed, retained, or shared between the owner and the
collaborative-delivery firm. Allocation of these risks will vary between the
different delivery methods. Many of the most common risks associated with
collaborative-delivery projects are listed in Table 3.2, which also identifies the
party typically responsible for managing and mitigating the risks. In some
cases, risk management or mitigation can be shared, but more likely jointly
managed between the owner and the collaborative-delivery firm.
Table 3.2 also provides a comparison of the collaborative-delivery methods
and how responsibilities for managing and mitigating a specific risk can vary
between the delivery models.
It is important to note that while the table represents a traditional allocation
of risks for these delivery methods, the scope and complexity of the project
and associated contract terms and conditions can result in variations to over-
all assignment of project risks.
MANAGING RISKS
Risks and liabilities are closely tied on collaborative-delivery projects. On
many of these projects, a price is based on an incomplete design, lack of full
knowledge of existing facility conditions, lack of adequate subsurface inves-
tigations, or even a fully developed project scope. The “known unknowns”
associated with these gaps in information can represent significant risk to all
parties, including the owner, in the collaborative-delivery project. Identify-
ing, assessing, and assigning responsibility for and mitigating realized risks
are a collective effort between the owner; the collaborative-delivery firm; and
their subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers.

TABLE 3.2 – Examples of Allocated Risks and Responsibilities in Collaborative-Delivery Approaches

RESPONSIBILITY

CMAR PDB FBDB DBO
RISK CMAR Design- Design-

firm Owner builder Owner builder Owner DBO Owner
Land and easement acquisition X X X X X
Technical requirements X X X X
Project design X X X X X
Building and administrative

X X X X
permits
Coordination with
X X X X
existing facilities
Environmental approvals
X X X X
and permits1
Fines and penalties X X X X
Proprietary process or equipment2 X X X X X
Quality and quantity of influent

X X X X
(raw water)
Quality and quantity of effluent

X X X X
(finished water)
Project performance3 X X X X
Existing site conditions X X X X
Schedule4 X X X X
Cost of constructed project

X X NA X
to GMP
Cost of constructed project to

X X X X
fixed price
Construction warranty X X X X
Professional liability X X X
Defined uncontrollable X X X X
circumstances
Force majeure circumstances X X X X
Materials cost escalation 5

X X X X X
Long-term operations and
X X X X
maintenance
1
he design-build firm and the DBO firm will prepare documentation in support of all environmental permits. The actual permits are the owner’s responsibility.
T
2
Should an owner commit to use proprietary technology, the owner and the design engineer will retain the liability should the technology chosen not meet the
performance requirements for the project. Further, should the proprietary technology be assigned to the CMAR and perform as intended, it is the CMAR’s
responsibility to install same as per the project design.
3
The CMAR’s responsibility is to complete the project through mechanical completion and system/performance testing. The CMAR firm does not provide a
performance guarantee, as may be the case for design-build or DBO arrangements.
4
The CMAR and all collaborative-delivery firms are responsible for meeting the project schedule as agreed upon with the owner.
5
Owners should include provisions in contracts that allow recovery by the collaborative-delivery firm if demonstrated that the material costs have escalated.

The preferred practice for managing risks is to develop and maintain a project
risk register that catalogs risks and identifies the party responsible for mitigat-
ing them. In most cases, the funds for risk mitigation are drawn from con-
tingency budgets managed by the owner and the collaborative-delivery firm.
The Project Risk Register

Many tools or actions help manage risks and liabilities for collaborative deliv-
ery. Basic risk management guidelines include the following actions.
• Embarking upon a diligent pre-project planning process, as described
in Chapter 1.
• Accepting and managing the assigned risks through collaborative efforts
that are part of the management plan for the design and construction
phases.
• Transferring the risk, fully or partially, through contract terms and
conditions.
• Realizing that risks can be mitigated and their impacts accommodated
by contingent funds and financial securities.
One approach to risk management is for the owner and the collaborative-
delivery firm to develop a risk and responsibilities matrix that identifies fore-
seeable risks, the probability that each risk will occur, the potential impact
of each risk, which party is responsible for the risk, and how each risk will
be managed if realized. The matrix can also be used to establish the project
contingency on a line-item basis, aggregate basis, or a combination of the
two. If the risk and responsibilities matrix is regularly updated and reviewed
as part of the monthly project-review process, it becomes a useful project
management tool for both the owner and collaborative-delivery firm. As the
project proceeds and anticipated risks are not realized, contingency budgets
can be adjusted to reflect the lower risk profile. The risk register in Figure 3.2
shows how risks are catalogued and how contingency is developed based on
the probability of occurrence and impact of the realized risk.
Contingency Development and Management

A common practice to manage contingencies on collaborative-delivery proj-
ects when the final price is established, before 100% design completion, is to
divide the aggregated project contingency identified within the risk register
into three potential contingency budgets.
The first contingency budget allows the owner to cover unexpected project
needs, such as owner-responsible payment items, scope enhancements, addi-
tional processing capacity or redundancy, code or regulatory impacts to the
design criteria, unexpected site conditions, escalation beyond amounts car-
ried by the collaborative-delivery firm, and other risks accepted by the owner.
The owner’s contingency (sometimes referred to as the “owner reserve”) bud-
get is outside the established contract price. The collaborative-delivery firm
does not have direct access to this budget but may request reimbursement as
described previously for these types of project impacts.

Sample Project Risk Register
Potential
Estimated Probability Probability Risk Risk
Sample Description
descriptionofof Risk Risk
Risk Area Status Value of of of Assessment Probability Allocation Sample Risk Mitigation Action
Identified Ris
Identified Riskk Origination Impact
Risk Occurrence Impact Level (percent)
($)
An 18-month schedule for this DB Team Prime Contract New TBD Medium Medium High 60 Design- Negotiation of the prime contract should include a
project is viewed as aggressive Builder discussion of the schedule and assessment of the
by the DB team. There will be DB team's ability to meet schedule. If the owner is
an as-yet-to-be-identified daily unable to provide more time for the project, then
liquidated damage assessment discussion of early procurement and construction
for both substantial and final needs to be offered as one way to meet schedule.
completion.
The procurement model requires DB Team Cost New $500,000 Medium Medium High 60 $300,000 Design- First, the proposal needs to be clear with respect to
the commitment of a GMP at the Management Builder the scope of work provided in the submitted price.
time proposals are submitted. Second, our design manager and lead engineers
The selected design-builder will need to understand the project scope and readily
be held to the proposed GMP discern additions/deletions to the project scope.
price. As such, design change These changes need to be collected and
management will be essential to adjudicated weekly with the owner. Out-of-scope
the success of this project. work is not to be performed without prior
authorization from the owner.
While the new pump station is DB Team Constructability New $100,000 Low Low Low 40 $40,000 Design- Detailed Maintenance of Plant Operations Plans
being constructed, the existing Builder (MOPOs) will be developed and reviewed with
pump stations will need to owner operations staff for plant shutdowns, piping
remain in service. and electrical tie-ins, required demolition activities,
etc.
Pump delivery is on the project DB Team Schedule New $250,000 Medium Medium High 60 $150,000 Shared Pumps may not be able to be manufactured,
critical path. Management factory tested, and delivered to the project site
when needed. Schedule impact mitigations may
require paying an expediting fee to the
manufacturer.
Cost Totals Aggregated Contingency $490,000
FIGURE 3.2 – Sample project risk register
A second contingency budget for the collaborative-delivery firm covers

the costs of realized risks it is responsible for mitigating. Examples include
buyout differentials, weather impacts that may or may not be related to the
builders’ risk claims, quality of work issues, limited cost escalation, and labor
market/productivity impacts. This contingency budget is included as a direct
cost within the established GMP and is available to the collaborative-delivery
firm with limited restriction from the owner. Use of these contingent funds
does not result in a change to the established GMP. This budget is intended to
reimburse the direct cost of the risk event and is not subject to the collabora-
tive-delivery firm’s application of overhead and profit.
A third contingency budget may be established when the GMP is based on a
design that is less than 100% complete. This budget pays for work items that
have not been included in the drawings and specifications but are required
by the owner to ensure full functionality. Examples include equipment pads,
protective coatings, architectural selections, bollards, final grading, and pav-
ing requirements. The contingency budget is also included as a direct cost
within the established GMP and is available to the collaborative-delivery firm
with limited restriction from the owner. Use of these contingent funds does
not result in a change to the established GMP. In some cases, the owner may
treat this third contingency as an allowance and reimburse actual costs.
ADDRESSING LIABILITY AND RISK IN THE

COLLABORATIVE-DELIVERY CONTRACT
Collaborative-delivery contracts document the agreed-upon sharing of respon
sibilities and risks associated with the project’s design and construction. A
primary purpose of the contract is to provide a clear understanding of each
party’s individual and mutual obligations. If an unexpected event occurs on

the project, the contract establishes a framework for managing these events
Legal Advice Sources and their consequences. Further, the contract defines how payment is made,
• Owner internal legal
as well as how compensation for damages and penalties are assessed. The con-
department or similar tract is fundamental to the project, as it is the only legally enforceable agree-
resources ment between the owner and the collaborative-delivery firm.
• Outside legal counsel
Contracts for collaborative-delivery projects are different than contracts for
DBB projects. Owners are advised to engage their legal department when
Best Practices
developing a collaborative-delivery contract. It may be necessary to engage
• Engage legal counsel
outside legal counsel with experience developing collaborative-delivery con-
early and maintain
engagement throughout tracts, especially for technically complex and difficult projects. Engagements
the process. with outside counsel should be maintained separately from owner and finan-
• Engage legal counsel cial advisor agreements. Legal counsel should begin early in the project devel-
separately from other opment phase to allow time for evaluation of standard form contracts that
owner and financial equitably balance risk management between the owner and the collaborative-
advisor agreements. delivery firm.
To achieve an equitable balance of risk between the owner and collaborative-
delivery firm, several significant financial, commercial, liability, warranty, and
performance provisions must be addressed.
Financial Security
Sureties and Bonding
The most common type of security to protect the owner against bankruptcy
or nonperformance is the requirement for the collaborative-delivery firm to
provide a performance and payment bond. A third party (the surety) guaran-
tees that the collaborative-delivery firm will meet its obligations in delivering
the project or that the CMAR firm will perform its obligations in constructing
the project. Sureties are increasingly requiring a detailed review of a project’s
scope of work and contract conditions prior to issuing performance or pay-
ment bonds. Sureties may be unwilling to provide bonds if a project has what
they consider unreasonable terms. Owners need to understand that bonds are
not insurance and should not be considered as such.
Insurance
Like the surety industry, the insurance industry is adopting the single-source
accountability of design-build delivery and the cooperative integration of
design and construction in CMAR delivery. Premium costs and coverage can
vary widely based on the project’s risks and challenges, as well as the condi-
tions of the insurance industry when policies are procured. The insurance
requirements included in a project agreement should be based on how risk is
to be allocated between the parties.
Most owners require a DB firm and its subconsultants—or, in the case of
CMAR, the design engineer—to carry professional liability insurance to cover
design negligence. This requirement is in addition to standard workers’
compensation, commercial general liability (CGL), and automobile liability
insurance.

Builders’ risk insurance is commonly required on collaborative-delivery proj-
ects to cover replacement or repair of materials or structures damaged during Unforeseen site conditions
construction. Although the policy is usually procured by the firm, the cost of are always a potential risk
the policy is typically passed on to the owner. when work is performed
in a facility that has been
In some cases, it may be appropriate to consider project-specific insurance operating for an extended
policies or products that provide coverage otherwise excluded from CGL period of time. The
policies. For example, pollution-liability policies can insure against the costs deteriorated condition of
associated with environmental issues, such as contaminated soils. Efficacy structural concrete walls in
an influent wet well (shown
insurance, though expensive, may protect against some losses associated with
below) was not discovered
economic liabilities such as LDs or performance guarantees. Although insur- until construction work
ance products are available for many risks, the project-specific policies and began. Before work in
coverage for certain risks can be expensive and contain exclusions. Owners the wet well could begin,
should be cautious about specifying overly protective or cumbersome insur- shoring and reconstruction
of the structurally impaired
ance policies unless they have evaluated their costs and benefits and included
wall was required for a
such costs in the project budget. safe working environment.
Owner- and contractor-controlled insurance programs are sometimes referred Project contingency was
used to cover the cost
to as “wrap-up” insurance programs. These programs provide centralized
and delay associated with
coverage for a project and eliminate some of the inefficiency and redundant these repairs.
costs associated with multiple policies and insurers. However, these programs
can also be costly and require much oversight, making them often more
appropriate for large, complex projects. Owners should also carefully evalu-
ate the types of guarantees required, as they are often “belt-and-suspender”
approaches that add cost without additional benefits.
Flow-Down Provisions
Design-builders, like other prime contractors, routinely flow down contract
provisions from their contract with the owner to subcontractors and subcon-
sultants. Wholesale flow-downs are rarely appropriate and can lead to confu-
sion over which member of the collaborative-delivery team has responsibility
for scope of work and liability issues. Wholesale flow-downs are typically not
appropriate due to the relatively smaller size of the subcontracts compared
to the prime contract dollar value and scope. Design-builders should deter-
mine which provisions of the prime contract should be flowed down to spe-
cific members in its supply chain, and subcontractors/subconsultants should
assess whether the design-builder’s flow-down has imposed responsibilities
that are outside the bounds of their arrangement with the prime. Both par-
ties need to ensure that flowed-down clauses do not conflict with provisions
of the subcontract or provide an appropriate subcontract precedence clause,
which determines the priority of documents. Clauses that often create prob-
lems in this regard are those addressing dispute resolution, limitations of lia-
bility (including LDs), and the change order process.
Limits of Liability
Many contracts include a clause that limits the collaborative-delivery firm’s
overall liability to the owner. This limitation reflects the characteristic risk

profile of water and wastewater projects. Without limiting liability, contracts
could expose a firm to the risk of bankruptcy on a single project.
Many experienced firms will avoid contracts that do not contain an overall
limitation of liability (LOL). Recently, the surety industry issued guidance that
it is less inclined to cover projects that do not have an LOL provision in the
prime contract. The extent of these limitations and their enforceability are best
addressed by the owner and collaborative-delivery firm in the context of the
project’s specific risks and challenges.
Consequential Damages
Collaborative-delivery contracts should hold neither the owner nor the
design-build or CMAR firm responsible for the indirect results of alleged fail-
ures. These might include damages to the firm, such as loss of market posi-
tion, harm to reputation, or economic losses. Or, they may damage the owner,
such as loss of customer revenue, loss of facility use, or debt-service costs.
However, due to the subjective nature and varying state laws, it may be desir-
able to include in the agreement a definition of what is intentionally excluded
by a consequential damages waiver. Owners should be aware that the surety
industry may limit issuing surety bonds if contracts do not exclude or have a
mutually acceptable waiver of consequential damages.
Owners attempting to apply consequential damages can increase project costs
paid by the owner in the form of risk contingencies or lack of competitive
interest in the project.
Force Majeure
This contract term represents a chance occurrence, unavoidable accident,
war, strike, or “act of God” (earthquake, flood, etc.) or some other extraor-
dinary circumstance. Force majeure clauses essentially free the owner and
the collaborative-delivery firm from liability for failure to perform if an event
outside of their control occurs. In some contracts, force majeure may iden-
tify specific events and provide relief other than that under an uncontrollable
c ircumstances provision.
Liquidated Damages for Delay

As mentioned earlier, LDs are included in collaborative-delivery contracts.
The intent of LDs is to hold the design-build or CMAR firm accountable for
schedule nonperformance (especially inexcusable schedule delays) by com-
pensating the owner for losses. Onerous terms and excessive LDs will increase
contingency costs and reduce the number of teams interested in competing
for the project.
When LDs are set, they should reasonably approximate what is necessary to
compensate the owner for actual losses, rather than represent a penalty to
the firm. Courts have consistently ruled that excessive LDs set to penalize
the contractor are unenforceable. In addition, the aggregate number of LDs
should be capped and may be tiered or include a grace period for a delay.
Unrealistic LDs that provide for payments when the owner has suffered no

Worksite flooding can be a significant construction risk. While many sources of
flooding by groundwater, surface water, natural watercourses, burst water mains,
and sanitary sewers can be identified through careful construction planning, even
the best flood risk mitigation measures may be unable to predict the impact.
In these circumstances, the collaborative-delivery firm may be entitled to relief
through force majeure or uncontrollable circumstances contract provisions.
(Xylem, Inc.)
actual financial loss or transfer the risk of financing costs may increase the
contingency in either the CMAR or design-builder base contract price. A
more collaborative and positive approach to LDs balances any potential delay
damages with comparable early-completion incentives.
Indemnification
Indemnification often is proportionately shared based on the negligence of
each party in a situation. Typically, the collaborative-delivery firm is indem-
nified from third-party claims beyond its control, such as claims filed against
the project by outside organizations, and the owner is indemnified from
third-party claims based on the negligence or failure of the firm to perform its
contractual obligations. In any event, the scope of available insurance cover-
age should be considered in finalizing the indemnification language.
Where the collaborative-delivery firm has care, custody, and control of the
construction worksite, it usually provides an indemnification to the owner
for bodily injury or property damage to third parties at the site, and such
indemnification will be covered by workers’ compensation/employer liability
insurance and/or the CGL insurance for the project.

Uncontrollable Circumstances
An uncontrollable circumstance is typically defined as an act, omission,
condition, event, or circumstance beyond the control of the collaborative-
delivery firm and not the fault of either the firm or others for whom the firm
is responsible. Examples include acts or omissions of the owner or anyone
under the owner’s control, changes in the scope of work, differing site condi-
tions, undisclosed hazardous environmental conditions, wars, floods, labor
disputes, earthquakes, adverse weather conditions that cannot be reasonably
anticipated, and any other circumstance beyond the control of the firm. Relief
for an uncontrollable circumstance may include schedule adjustments and
compensation.
Warranties
Following final acceptance procedures, the owner assumes permanent control
of the facility. The collaborative-delivery firm is then responsible for honoring
the contractual obligations associated with performance guarantees and war-
ranties. As described in Chapter 2, the party responsible for warranties ranges
from the general contractor/CMAR firm in DBB and CMAR deliveries, to the
design-builder in PDB and FPDB projects. The design engineer does not hold
contractual liability for construction warranty. In most instances, the war-
ranty for DBO mirrors that of DB contracts.
Defining Warranty. A warranty provision in a collaborative-delivery project

is the responsibility of the CMAR, DB, or DBO firm. The provision estab-
lishes how the firm will stand behind the work performed and fix anything
that does not work. A warranty provides the owner assurance that the work
performed will be completed in accordance with contract requirements. If
defective work is discovered during the warranty period, the delivery firm
will fix or replace it. Warranties can be simple or complicated, so care should
be taken in establishing the contractual requirements for warranties. In defin-
ing warranty, the two issues that need to be carefully addressed are when
defects in the work are found or when the work or a specific component does
not function as intended.
“Evergreen” Warranties. Occasionally a warranty clause includes a provision

that if the delivery firm repairs or replaces anything, the repair or replacement
part is subject to the same warranty period as the original work, and a new
warranty begins with the completion of the repair. For example, if at month
11 of a one-year warranty a pump fails and is replaced, the contractor would
be required to warrant that replacement pump past the original one-year war-
ranty. This type of warranty is referred to as an evergreen warranty and is not
typical in the water sector but may be offered by equipment manufacturers
with certain limitations.
Extended Duration Warranties. Extended duration warranties are gener-

ally over 12 months. If the owner requires a 24-month warranty, when the
warranty starts and ends should be clearly stated in the contract. Given that

Process performance is an inherent risk to collaborative-delivery firms. Careful
consideration must be given to interconnected process systems where a deficiency in
one element of the system negatively impacts the entire process unit. In one project,
aeration equipment and basin mixers were designed and procured from separate
technology providers. Due to undersized mixers, solids deposited in the corners
and edges of the aeration basin, as shown in the photo, resulted in a partial loss of
aeration performance and increased cleanings by plant personnel. This type of risk
can be minimized by procuring the aeration and mixing systems together as a system,
complete with computational fluid dynamics modeling (see inset). Redesign and
modifications to aeration and mixing equipment in this situation may be claimable
events under errors and omissions insurance. (Xylem, Inc.)
some projects have multiple components that are mechanically completed at

different times (e.g., the liquid treatment process could be mechanically com-
plete before the solids processing and handling facility), any extended dura-
tion warranty should be carefully considered to avoid unneeded project costs
(contingencies, insurance premiums, expensive contract flow-downs, and/or
maintenance costs).
Pass-Through Warranties. Water and wastewater facilities contain complex

mechanical and electrical systems from specialty manufacturers that often
will provide only their standard warranty that can contain specific conditions,
durations, and limiting provisions. Depending on how the equipment was
procured, a warranty may not match the firm’s warranty as defined in the
project agreement. For example, if the owner procured the equipment, and
the procurement agreement required a one-year warranty, then, as part of
the overall contract, the delivery firm is required to provide a two-year war-
ranty thereby creating a gap in warranty for the specialty equipment. Further,
other warranty provisions may not match between the specialty equipment
procurement and the overall contract, thereby creating risk exposure for the
delivery firm. An option is for the CMAR or design-builder to “pass-through”
the specialty manufacturer’s warranty to the owner.

As part of the expansion of its Northeast Water Purification Plant (NEWPP), a new raw water facility including intake,
pumping, and conveyance system is being designed and constructed to withdraw raw water from Lake Houston
and deliver it about 1.5 miles away to the expanded facility, dramatically increasing the City of Houston’s ability to
support a steady residential and commercial growth while reducing dependency on groundwater resources.
(Jacobs/CDM Smith/Carollo Engineers)
Performance Guarantees
As discussed previously, design-build contracts in the water/wastewater
industry may contain performance guarantees. While the scope of the guar-
antee can differ from project to project, performance guarantees are intended
to assure the owner that if the plant receives the necessary untreated waste-
water or water within a defined specification, it will meet its specified require-
ments for effluent quality and other requirements (e.g., energy and chemical
consumption, emissions) as defined in the project agreement.
Performance guarantees are typically satisfied by acceptance tests specified in
the DB contract. Establishing appropriate performance testing and guarantee
requirements can be very complicated, particularly with variations in influent
characteristics. While it is not uncommon for performance guarantees to be
“make good” obligations of the design-builder (i.e., the design-builder needs
to do what it takes to meet the guarantees), it is wise for both parties to con-
sider whether LDs can be used to meet shortfalls in the guarantees once the
plant has achieved a minimum level of performance.
CONTRACT COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS

Cost of Work
DBB projects typically do not require the identification of the cost of work as
they are competitively bid on a lump-sum basis. As such, the lump-sum bid

for CMAR and DB is the primary owner criteria for selection. For all “open-
book” pricing methodologies, it is important to define “cost of work” in the
contract. For a DB contract, the cost of work can include direct and indirect
costs. Direct costs are verified costs directly related to construction labor, per-
manent materials, installed equipment, construction equipment, and trade
subcontracts necessary to build the physical elements of a project. Indirect
costs are those for general conditions, field management and supervision, and
project and limited home office overhead costs. Indirect costs often are sub-
ject to interpretation and negotiation.
Open-Book Cost Estimating

This form of cost estimating provides the owner complete transparency of
all direct and indirect costs in a project’s cost estimate to establish a GMP.
Every cost in an open-book estimate is validated either through competitive,
transparent bidding of subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers, or via self-per-
formed work. As described in Chapter 2, the owner can access detailed cost
elements used to establish the cost of this work. The owner should establish
the degree of detail in the estimate, allowing the estimating team to format
and prepare the estimate accordingly.
A contract price to deliver a project includes the direct and indirect costs of
work plus costs for bonds, insurances, taxes, and profit. When a fixed price
or lump sum is the basis of compensation for the project, the submitted price
represents the cost for all the required work, including design, construction,
commissioning, bonds, insurance, and profit.
When an open-book approach is used to develop a GMP, costs are defined
in the contract and plainly documented in the estimate. The application of
fee on the cost of work is used to cover other items, typically overhead and
profit. The project price is then calculated by adding cost plus fee. In practice,
an open-book cost with a fee added to create the price can be converted to a
lump-sum price for delivery.
Fee
The term “fee” applies to all collaborative-delivery projects using a GMP pricing
mechanism. The fee may initially take the form of a percentage and/or labor
rates or both but may be converted to a fixed dollar amount in the final con-
tract price. As part of procurement, the fee may be a value that is requested
and included as part of the owner’s evaluation criteria. Often, the fee is estab-
lished as part of the GMP negotiation.
Incentives
Contract terms like LDs, consequential damages, and unlimited liability are
common disincentives. Generally, incentives are more effective than disin-
centives for most business endeavors. Owners can encourage desired perfor-
mance from their collaborative-delivery firm by offering incentives within the
contract. One example of an equivalent incentive for LDs is an early comple-
tion bonus. Another performance incentive is sharing unspent contingency

budgets between the owner and collaborative-delivery firm at the end of the
project. Regardless of the incentives, they should be incorporated into the
contract and include the means to measure whether the incentive has been
earned by the collaborative-delivery firm.
Shared Savings
Projects performed using an open-book estimating approach and completed
for less than the GMP represent savings to the owner. As an incentive to
keep project costs down, the owner can offer to share in these savings with
the delivery firm. This opportunity for shared savings is put into the project
contract with a stated percentage of the savings to be shared. Shared savings
incentivize efficiency from the collaborative-delivery firm and promote con-
tinued value engineering after agreement on the project price. It also provides
flexibility to add back desired scope that may have been removed to conform
to the owner’s budget.
INDUSTRY CONTRACT FORMS

Several industry service organizations have developed standard contracts that
equitably balance risk management between the owner and the collaborative-
delivery firm. These forms are developed by many industry organizations—
including DBIA and ConsensusDOCS developed by the Associated General
Contractors, EJCDC, and the Construction Management Association of
America—and have gained wide acceptance in the collaborative-delivery
marketplace.
Such industry-standard forms are accepted by collaborative-delivery firms
with minimal negotiation. Contracts prepared by owner advisors may not
necessarily be consistent with these principles and may require extended
negotiation to reach an acceptable agreement. The owner should be care-
ful not to mix and match agreements, as the terminology may differ among
various documents, leading to confusion and possible legal implications over
contract terms. Federal procurements are required to use the Federal Acquisi-
tion Regulations for their contract documents.
NOTE: Equitable assignment of risks facilitates a productive, collaborative rela-
tionship between the owner and the collaborative-delivery firm and helps the
owner realize all the benefits of DB or CMAR delivery. Both the Water Design-
Build Council and the DBIA have developed guidelines on sharing risks equita-
bly. These documents can be obtained at waterdesignbuild.com and dbia.org.
CAUTIONS
Owners need to be mindful that shifting risk to the collaborative-delivery
firm indiscriminately can result in lack of interest in a project or transfer of
the increased costs back to the owner. Listed below are some specific cautions
to consider when developing RFPs or contract terms.
• Owners should carefully evaluate the types of sureties and bonds
required, to avoid a “belts and suspenders” approach that adds cost with-
out providing additional benefits.

In addition to the WDBC resource documents, there are several other
collaborative-delivery procurement guidelines and contracts, including
those provided by DBIA.
• Owners should understand the cost implication of pyramid guarantees,

which require exposure of the delivery firm/team’s balance sheet.
• Recently, the surety industry has issued guidance that it is less inclined
to provide coverage to projects that do not have an LOL provision.
• Onerous terms and excessive or punitive LDs will increase contingency
costs and reduce the number of firms interested in the project.
• Making the collaborative-delivery firm responsible for consequential
damages can result in increased costs being transferred back to the
owner. Moreover, owners need to be aware that the surety industry
currently limits issuance of surety bonds if contracts do not include a
waiver of consequential damages.
• Unreasonably extended warranty terms may require a collaborative-
delivery firm to incorporate additional cost or cumbersome contingen-
cies into its price, and in some cases may reduce participation in the
procurement, if warranty terms place firms at great risk.
• Owners must be mindful that requiring a standard of care that goes
beyond the generally accepted standard of care can result in uninsur-
able liabilities.
• Onerous terms like “No Damages for Delay” or excessive or punitive LDs
will increase contingency costs and may reduce the number of firms
interested in the project.
• Owners should be careful when establishing effluent or finished water
quality requirements that are more stringent than state and federal
requirements. While adjustments to constituent levels may be appropriate

to account for future regulatory changes during the life of the facility or
to match water quality in other parts of the owner’s system, enhanced
standards that approach the limit of technology adds risk and can sig-
nificantly impact project cost.
After the risk components have been analyzed and the framework of contract
drafted, the next step is to define the procurement of a collaborative-delivery
firm. Chapter 4 presents information for procurement.
The treatment process for the Rhode Island Resource Recovery

Corporation (RIRRC) was designed with sequencing-batch-reactor
(SBR) technology that could process up to 650,000 gallons of
wastewater a day, reducing biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
total suspended solids, ammonia, and nitrate to comply with
enhanced nutrient-removal pretreatment standards.
(OBG, Part of Ramboll)

Chapter
4
Conducting the
Procurement Process
A s discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, a successful collaborative-delivery project begins

with a well-planned and organized procurement process, based on the owner’s
priorities and drivers established early in the planning process. Together, these
characteristics establish the framework for the type, duration, and complexity of
the procurement process, as well as its cost and pricing information.
In addition to being familiar with state and local regulations governing procure-
ment, an owner needs to clearly define the project’s requirements, its drivers, and
the procurement process and selection criteria, and develop a draft contract that
establishes the risk allocation and commercial terms, schedule, and scope of ser-
➤
vices. Conveying this information clearly to proposers will minimize unnecessary

The overall goal of time, money, and resource expenditures for both the owner and proposing firms.
the Opequon Water
Reclamation Facility is to By considering the decisions highlighted in Figure 4.1, an owner can focus on the
provide greater benefits to major steps to develop the technical and project requirements for the procurement
taxpayers and its customers of a collaborative-delivery project. This chapter also defines how owners use infor-
and increase the plant’s
mation from their planning process to prepare both the request for qualifications
capacity to support private
industry growth. The
(RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP). Readers are also encouraged to obtain and
resulting green-energy use the procurement guides available on the Water Design-Build Council (WDBC)
facility now serves a broad website. Additional resources are also on the Design-Build Institute of America
range of customers, (DBIA) website.
including both private
and public entities Also described in this chapter is the process for developing a basic RFQ and RFP
(Haskell/Black & Veatch) with details on how to adapt them specifically for construction management at-risk
4-1
OWNER DECISIONS
➤ Start from scratch, recycle a previous
internal template, or use a WDBC
Procurement Guide? FIXED-PR
FIXED-PRICE DESIGN-BUILD
LD
PROCUREMENT
PRO CON
N-BUIL
D MANA STRUCTION
➤ Carry qualifications scores ESSIVE
DESIG
P RO G R O C U R E M E N
T Two-Step Process
Two
GEME
PROCU NT-AT-RISK
PR REME
over to the proposed phase? cess
Re
Request for Qualificaons
Request for Proposal
Reque
ns
Single-S
NT
tep Pro posal Reque tep Pro
Single-S ficaons/Pro st for Q
ualifica
cess
r Quali
➤ How many to shortlist? Requ e st fo ons/
Propo
sal
➤ When to interview?
➤ Single-step or two-step process? WaterDesignBuild.org
g Water
uild.or DesignB
DesignB
➤ Determine procurement and

Water uild.or
g
contract methods.
Figure 4.1 – Key decisions an owner must focus on when developing the technical and project requirements for
the procurement for a collaborative-delivery project
(CMAR), progressive design-build (PDB), and fixed-price design-build (FPDB)

delivery methods, and concludes with contract award specifics. The procure-
ment process for a collaborative-delivery project may combine RFQ and RFP, or
consist of a single step—an RFQ or an RFP. These options are discussed later in
this chapter, with additional guidance available from the WDBC website. The
WDBC and DBIA recommend the two-step procurement as an industry best
practice.
USE OF SINGLE-STEP AND TWO-STEP

PROCUREMENT PROCESSES
Single-Step Procurement
In the single-step approach (Figure 4.2), the owner may issue only an RFQ
and select a firm based solely on the statement of qualifications (SOQ). Alter-
natively, an owner can issue an RFP that requires the proposer to submit its
qualifications, technical concepts and approach, and pricing. It is important
to note that single-step procurement must be statutorily allowed.
• Defining preconstruction services typically expressed as a fixed price
(for CMAR delivery).
• Establishing design and preconstruction services either as a fixed price
or GMP (for PDB).
• Providing a design and construction project personnel rate schedule.
• Expressing general conditions cost as either a fixed price or a percentage
of cost of work.
• Identifying the CMAR or DB fee equivalent to overhead and profit
expressed as either a fixed dollar value or a percentage of cost of work.

Combined Request for Evaluated on
Qualifications • Qualifications and experience
and Proposal • Capability and capacity
• Past performance
➤
Best for
Combined
Combined SOQ
SOQ and
and
Proposal Response
Proposal Response • Qualifications-based selection
(no pricing)
➤
• Best-value selection with
limited design and fee-based
Award pricing
• Drives quality
Figure 4.2 – Single-step procurement process
Two-Step Procurement
In a two-step approach (Figure 4.3), the owner initially issues an RFQ to all
interested firms. Upon receiving a SOQ, the owner evaluates and ranks pro-
posing firms and creates a short list of firms that will receive the RFP. In step
two, the owner issues an RFP to the shortlisted proposing firms, evaluates
their proposals, makes a selection, and begins negotiations. Use of a two-step
approach with a short list allows owners to consider proposals from only
qualified firms.
Note: It is a recommended practice to shortlist no more than three firms for
further consideration. Some owners use single-step procurement as a standard
procedure, as identified above.
Best for
Request for Request for Proposals • Numerous
Qualifications (RFQ) (RFP) competitors
• High level of
➤
➤
➤
proposal effort
required
Statement of Proposal
Qualifications (SOQ) Response • Best-value
selection with
Response
➤
detailed solutions
➤
• Price-based
Award selection
Short list
Evaluated on
Evaluated on • Qualifications and
• Qualifications and experience (carry over)
experience • Project approach and
• Capability and capacity technical solution
• Past performance • Fee or fixed price

• Best value
Figure 4.3 – Two-step procurement process
Conducting the Procurement Process 4-3

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS BASICS
An owner may use an RFQ to establish a short list of collaborative-delivery
firms, which are then invited to respond to an RFP. Occasionally, an owner
may decide to incorporate an RFQ into a single-step process to select either
a design-build or CMAR firm based primarily on qualifications. Similarly,
an owner may incorporate RFQ requirements into a single-step RFP while
including limited pricing and technical information in the procurement. Also,
when an owner uses performance-based procurement, there is more oppor-
tunity for innovative solutions.
An RFQ generally includes the scope of work and information about the pro-
curement process, such as submittal requirements and the owner’s evalua-
tion criteria. As illustrated in Figure 4.4, the document may also include key
elements of the subsequent RFP so proposing firms know what to expect in
future procurement steps.
Criteria evaluating the qualifications of proposing firms may include some or
all of the following topics.
• Understanding the project’s goals, priorities, drivers, and approach.
• Description of the CMAR or DB team.
• History of working collaboratively with owners and other partners.
• History of meeting budget, deadlines, and overall schedule.
• Specialized knowledge and experience with projects of similar size,
complexity, and features.
• Experience with design-build or CMAR delivery.
• Self-performance capabilities.
FOR STATEM
REQUEST ENT OF
ATIONS QUALIF
QUALIFIC ICATIO
NS
FROM: C
ollab
FROM: Ow
ner orative-D
ery Firm TO: O
wner elivery F
: a b o rative-Deliv irm
TO C o ll
Transmit
Drivers ta l Letter
Priorities –
• Project
ionships Part 1: E
jects – Relat xecutive
• Prior Pro Summary
Schedule
Deadlines, Part 2: D
• Budget, esign-Bu
ilder Pro
ject file
• Prior Pro Part 3: P
roject Te
embers am
• Team M
Part 4: E
Stability xperienc
• Financial e
Part 5: O
• Quality ther Deta
ils (e.g.,
Safety)
• Safety
• Bonding
Figure 4.4 – Qualification documents

The Water Resource Centralization Project culminated several strategies by the Parker (CO) Water
& Sanitation District to diversify its water supplies. This first-ever design-build project by the District
was delivered on schedule in 14 months and met its reduced GMP. It strengthened the resilience
and security of the district’s water supplies while converting its system to chloramination and en-
abling it to convey water to neighboring communities. (Black & Veatch)
• Client references.
• Team members’ experience working together.
• Key personnel’s applicable experience and commitment to the project.
• Sustainable design expertise and experience in LEED or other certifica-
tion processes, if applicable.
• Financial condition of the proposing firm, including recent annual
financial statements such as audited financial disclosures, Securities and
Exchange Commission 10-Q and 10-K filings, or other third-party doc-
umentation validating the financial condition of the proposer. (If a joint
venture, all members should submit the same financial information.)
All these materials should be kept confidential by owner.
• Demonstrated commitment to quality with project references.
• Safety record, including experience modification rates verified by insur-
ance companies and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Incident Summary Reports.
• Bonding capacity and ability to provide bonds, appropriate licenses, and
ability to meet insurance requirements.
Some of these criteria, such as financial stability, safety record, and bonding
capacity are Yes/No or Pass/Fail factors. Others may be weighted and scored.
In general, owners should ask proposing firms to present only relevant quali-
fications and information that will be important for evaluating them. Some
owners issue a request for expressions of interest (RFEI) or use a “market
sounding” approach prior to initiating a formal procurement process. An RFEI
is used to solicit guidance and suggestions from proposing firms on market

capacity and level of interest, specific collaborative-delivery approaches, and
any unique issues or risks requiring further definition in procurement docu-
ments. If time allows, this extra step can maximize interest and competition,
especially on large, complex projects.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS BASICS

Unless the RFP is used in a single-step procurement, an owner issues an RFP
to shortlisted firms on a two-step procurement. In developing a successful
RFP, owners need to provide the following information.
• A creative and robust procurement statement to attract competitive
proposals.
• Clear communication about the basis for evaluating proposals, includ-
ing the weighting process of various evaluation criteria.
• Promotion of collaboration, creativity, innovation, and best value.
• Avoidance of potential barriers to the envisioned collaborative process.
• A well-defined project scope, statement of quality, schedule, and any
technical and unique project requirements.
• A minimum number of topics requiring negotiation prior to awarding
a contract.
The RFP should also include the following contents.
• Background details about the project, its priorities, and drivers (includ-
ing owner’s budget if known).
• A description of the project and the required scope of services.
• A description of the procurement process, the evaluation criteria and
weighting, how proposals will be evaluated and the selection made, and
a schedule including each procurement milestone. Proposals are evalu-
ated via a combination of technical, nontechnical, and pricing criteria.
For CMAR procurements, technical and nontechnical criteria usually
are considered equally with limited pricing information. For PDB pro-
curements, technical and nontechnical criteria make up much of the
weighted scoring, while the pricing score is allocated less. For FPDB
procurements, the weighted allocation between technical, nontechnical,
and pricing criteria can align with the owner’s stated project drivers.
• A separate instruction sheet for proposing firms specifying information
needed and how it should be presented.
• Technical requirements (varying depending upon the collaborative-
delivery method used) needed to prepare a proposal. Technical require-
ments for developing a FPDB proposal may be significantly more robust
than that for a CMAR or PDB.
• Prescriptive or performance requirements, if a FPDB.
• Owner’s willingness to consider innovative options incorporated into a
proposal.
• A draft contract.
• Special requirements for sole-source, preselected, or prequalified equip-
ment manufacturers or suppliers.

• Requirements/limitations on self-performing work.
• Performance incentives.
• Communication protocols to be followed during the procurement
process.
• Protest procedures and rights of the owner and proposing firms.
• Minority/disadvantaged/women business enterprise participation goals
and expectations.
• Identifying access to key decision-makers.
Summarized in Figure 4.5, the RFP should also specify the submittal sequence
for the technical and cost proposals. In most instances, they are submitted
together with the cost proposal in a separate, sealed envelope. Technical
proposals are typically evaluated and scored first, using criteria specified in
the RFP, followed by the cost proposals. A total score is calculated for each
proposal element by applying the weighting criteria identified in the RFP for
both cost and non-cost factors to determine which proposal offers the best
value for the owner.

REQUES
ROPOSAL T FOR P
REQU EST FOR P — RESP ROPOSA
O L
FROM: C NSE —
FROM: Ow
ner ollaborati
y Firm
o ra tive-Deliver TO: O
wner
ve-Delive
TO: C o ll a b ry Firm
riorities, Transmit
kground, P tal Letter
• Project Bac Part 1: E
xecutive
and Drivers Summary
Part 2: D
Services — esign-Bu
d Scope of ilder Pro
• Require Part 3: W file/Expe
rience
act ork Appro
Draft Contr ach –
ation Innovativ
ss — Evalu e Conce
ment Proce ule Part 4: P pts
• Procure e S ch ed roposed
n — Mileston Schedule
— Selectio Projecte , Milesto
d Budge nes –
uirements Part 5: C t
Te ch ni ca l Design Req ollaborati
• ia ve Proce
ance Criter Part 6: Q ss
and Perform A/QC – S
Part 7: a fety, Oth
ives er Items
ance Incent Commis
• Perform sioning a
nd Start-u
le) Plan, En
(if applicab gineering p
and Ren Drawing
cedures derings s,
• Protest Pro
Figure 4.5 – Proposal documents
Evaluation Criteria
Clearly stating weighted evaluation criteria in the RFP enables proposing
firms to understand the owner’s priorities and project drivers and contributes
to transparency in the selection process. Numerous combinations of weight-
ing are possible, and owners are well served by selecting on a best-value basis,

considering technical approach, management approach, risk sharing, sched-
ule, and cost factors as noted in Figure 4.6 (if included). Selecting on quali-
fications alone, if allowable, is the best approach. If price is required to be a
factor, then best value, where qualifications are the most important factor, is
the best practice.
Where possible, a qualifications-based selection (QBS) is preferable for all
collaborative-delivery procurements.
NOTE: WDBC and DBIA consider the use of “best value” in scoring competitive
proposals an industry best practice.
Non-Price Factors Cost/Price Factors

Evaluated on: Best Value Evaluated on:
• Qualifications and Blended • Preconstruction fee and/or
experience non-price and fee on construction
• Capability and capacity cost/price (CMAR and progressive
factors design-build)
• Past performance
• Total installed cost
• Project approach (fixed-price design-build)
• Technical solution • Lifecycle cost
• Other qualitative criteria (design-build-operate)
Figure 4.6 – Evaluation criteria: best-value selection
Performance Requirements Criteria

For design-build projects, the RFP and draft contract should define the cri-
teria that satisfy the project’s performance requirements. Depending on the
specific nature of the project, performance criteria may include the following
components.
• The project will meet all the technical requirements as defined in the RFP.
• The project will result in the defined quantity and quality of treated
water or wastewater when acceptable raw water or influent is provided.
• In the case of conveyance or transmission projects, the project will conform
to all hydraulic parameters defined in the RFP technical requirements.
• The project will conform with all applicable codes and regulations.
• The project performance will result in compliance with all permits, laws,
and regulations applicable to the completed facility.
• The project will not interrupt service, other than those stated within the
project agreement.
• All work on the project will be completed within the defined schedule
unless altered by the owner.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT-RISK PROCUREMENT
CMAR project delivery enables the owner to realize several benefits of design-
build delivery, while maintaining a direct contractural relationship with a
design engineer. Unlike a DB procurement, CMAR procurements hire the
design engineer separately from the construction manager, and then pair the
two early in the design phase. Unlike DB delivery, in which the design-builder
is the single (contracted) point of accountability, the owner retains signifi-
cantly more performance risk with CMAR delivery due to the contractual
separation of design and construction.
Typically, the owner selects and contracts with the engineering firm prior
to selecting the CMAR firm. This allows the design engineer to begin the
design while the owner conducts the CMAR procurement. Once selected, the
CMAR firm is engaged to provide input into design through constructability
reviews and value engineering.
Owners choosing CMAR delivery may use a single-step procurement pro-
cess, although some may prefer a two-step process. Whether an owner uses
single- or two-step procurement, CMAR firms provide limited price infor-
mation in their proposals. Price information may include the cost of precon-
struction services (fixed dollar amount), cost of general conditions (typically
expressed as a cost of work percentage), and/or fee, including overhead and
profit (typically expressed as a percent of cost of work).
It should be noted that selecting a CMAR firm and negotiating the contract for
such services does not guarantee that the CMAR firm will construct the proj-
ect. An owner has the right to not proceed to construction with the CMAR firm
if it and the CMAR firm cannot reach agreement on a final negotiated GMP
for construction. Chapter 2 defines the mechanism to choose an “off-ramp.”
NOTE: Final negotiated GMPs may be converted to a firm fixed price for final
delivery of the project.
Implementation Procure Manage design Set price/ Transition

Operations
plan designer Procure CMAR firm Manage construction operations
SOQ/ Project Services during

proposal design construction
• Traditional design SOQ/ Preconstruction Construction Commissioning Warranty

engineer selection proposal services management & startup
• Engineer often participates
in CMAR selection process
• Price agreement prior to construction
• One- or two-step procurement • May require separate approval, contract
amendment, or second contract
• Evaluation based on qualifications,
approach, and fee % • Owner has the off-ramp option
• Interviews of short list are typical
• CMAR can also be 100%
Owner CMAR Designer Owner Advisor
qualifications-based selection
Figure 4.7 – CMAR procurement considerations

Using a CMAR delivery method, the 20-mgd expansion of the City of Scottsdale’s
50-mgd CAP Water Treatment Plant was completed in four design packages which
included a new 10-mgd finished underground concrete water reservoir, a new
pretreatment complex, a dissolved air flotation facility for pre-membrane treatment,
and a new 22-mgd microfiltration facility with associated CIP systems, chemical
storage area, air scour equipment, and electrical equipment.
(The Walsh Group/Arcadis)
PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT

Similar to the CMAR approach, owners choosing PDB delivery may use a
single-step procurement process. Whether an owner uses single- or two-step
procurement, limited price information is included in the proposal by com-
peting PDB firms. Where possible, a QBS selection is preferable for PDB.
Such price information may include the cost of design through a specified
level of detail (fixed dollar amount and/or labor rates), the cost of precon-
struction services (fixed dollar amount and/or labor rates), cost of general
conditions (typically expressed as a cost of work percentage and/or labor
rates), and/or fee, including overhead and profit (typically expressed as a cost
of work percentage).
Go out to bid
(off-ramp)
Implementation RFQ process RFP Interview/ Negotiate price Manage design-build Transition Operations
plan short list process selection with design-builder contract operations
Design-build 60%-90% design Final design & Commissioning

SOQ Warranty
approach & fee & price construction & startup
• One- or two-step procurement • Evaluation based on qualifications, • Open-book cost based on collaboratively
(two-step shown) approach, and fee % developed scope and design
• First step is based on qualifications • Interviews of short list are typical • Price agreement prior to construction
• Short list of up to three qualified firms • May require separate approval, contract
• Second step focuses on approach amendment, or second contract.
and fee • Owner has the off-ramp option
• Finish design, go out to bid
Owner Owner Advisor Design-Builder
Figure 4.8 – PDB procurement considerations

Selecting a PDB firm and negotiating the contract for such services does not
guarantee that the PDB will construct the project. An owner has the right to
not proceed to construction with the contracted PDB firm if both parties can-
not agree on a final negotiated GMP for construction. Chapter 2 defines the
mechanism to choose an off-ramp.
NOTE: Final negotiated GMPs may be converted to a firm fixed price for final
delivery of the project.
FIXED-PRICE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT

For FPDB procurement, pricing information is always an evaluation factor,
as noted in Figure 4.9. Moreover, the FPDB contract price covers the proj-
ect from design through construction, with no off-ramp option. Because
FPDB proposals include a fixed price, however, the RFP must include proj-
ect requirements, which may be either performance-based, prescriptive, or a
combination of both, which proposing firms use to establish their fixed price.
When requirements are performance-based, owners are likely to receive
innovative project proposals. When the RFP is more aligned with a prescrip-
tive set of requirements, owners tend to receive less innovative concepts to
address project challenges. Owners may also develop prescriptive documents
for proposers to provide a “base bid” and allow alternative technical concepts
(ATCs) for more innovative concepts. When ATCs are used, owners should
specify how they will be evaluated to ensure clarity.
NOTE: Industry preferences encompass a blend of prescriptive- and performance-
based requirements.
Implementation Short-list Select Manage design-build Transition

RFQ process RFP process contract Operations
plan interview design-builder operations
Commissioning
SOQ Design-build approach & price Design & construction Warranty
& startup
• Short list based on capability, • Selection based on “best • Performance-based and

capacity, experience, references value” (technical + price) prescriptive criteria
Owner Owner Advisor Design-Builder
Figure 4.9 – FPDB procurement considerations
DESIGN-BUILD-OPERATE PROCUREMENT
Similar to FPDB, proposed pricing is almost always a major consideration
in design-build-operate (DBO) selection, with one major difference. Under
a DBO procurement, the contract price not only includes the fixed price for
design and construction, but also long-term operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Therefore, the DBO contract price covers the project from

design through construction, with no off-ramp potential, and through the
full long-term O&M (typically 5- to 15-year) period.
An RFP for a DBO project must also include O&M requirements, which must
match all regulatory and owner-mandated standards, with a procurement
that is more aligned with a performance-based set of requirements. Typically,
under performance-based DBO procurements, respondents propose techni-
cal solutions that consider both short-term capital costs as well as long-term
O&M costs to arrive at a best-value, total lifecycle cost.
When DBO requirements are prescriptive, owners may receive less innovative
approaches to streamline initial capital costs and long-term lifecycle costs. As
noted in Figure 4.10, owners may develop combined approaches in which
proposers use prescriptive requirements for a “base bid” and then allow ATCs
for innovative, performance-based concepts for consideration. When ATCs
are used, owners should specify how they will be evaluated to ensure clarity
during procurement.
• A single entity or purpose-built

OWNER AD
OWNER AD
team to deliver design,
construction, and operations
VI VI
S S via a single contract.
O
OR
R
• Design detail, construction

....
....
estimate, and O&M pricing
Design-Build- Design-Build- provided as part of a DBO
Operate (DBO) Operate (DBO) proposal.
LDER
-B TO R
Single Entity Multiple Entities • Construction can start quickly
O&M
after selection; and O&M may

commence upon construction
UI
A
DE
E R
TO
completion. Or, in the case of

IG R
FI
A OP G
S
N- M existing facilities, O&M

B UIL - O P ER N
D SI commences even before
DE construction begins.
RFQ process RFP process Manage design-build contract
plan operations
Plant
Single Entity SOQ/proposal Design-build & startup
operations
Plant
Multiple Entities SOQ/proposal Design-build & startup
operations
Owner Owner Advisor Design-Build-Operator Design-Builder
O&M Firm Contractual Relationship Embedded Relationship
Figure 4.10 – DBO (single or multiple entities) procurement considerations
SOLE-SOURCE PROCUREMENT
Where legally permissible, some owners prefer sole-source procurements
rather than a formal RFQ/RFP process. In this approach, the owner may
directly initiate contract negotiations with a collaborative-delivery firm that
the owner has chosen and trusts to deliver a project—often based on the own-
er’s previous experience with the firm. Alternatively, the owner might dis-
cuss anticipated project needs with several potential firms and then negotiate

The Cap Sewer Assessment and Rehabilitation Program (SARP10) in Memphis, TN, includes coordination of inspections
of approximately 3,200 miles of sewer mains, 85,000 manholes, and more than 100 lift stations. Over the first five years
of the 10-year program, the city has seen a 60% reduction in sanitary sewer overflows. (Black & Veatch)
contract details with the one deemed to be most qualified. Although many
states allow sole-source procurement for design engineering and other pro-
fessional services, competitive selection has historically been required for
construction services. In government, sole-source procurement is not typi-
cally employed on collaborative-delivery projects unless emergency condi-
tions dictate, or if there is only one source for the required services.
ACTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL

COLLABORATIVE-DELIVERY PROCUREMENT
A checklist of items for a successful project follows.
• Clearly define the project’s objectives and drivers. Understand state and
local policies, laws, regulations and other requirements that may affect
the project. If the project uses federal funds, it is important to under-
stand federal restrictions.
• Decide if an owner advisor is needed to determine the most appropriate
collaborative-delivery method and to select the firm.
• Decide which collaborative-delivery method to use—CMAR, PDB, or
FPDB. When choosing FPDB, an owner also needs to decide whether
project requirements will be prescriptive-, performance-based, or a
combination.
• Decide if a procurement and/or technical consultant and other consul-
tant service (e.g., legal) is needed, and select consultant(s) to assist in
procurement, contracting, and implementation.

• Seek the advice of other owners who have conducted collaborative-
delivery procurements, and obtain appropriate legal, technical, and
financial guidance.
• Determine whether, and to what extent, the selected design-build or
CMAR firm will be allowed to self-perform. This decision often depends
on state laws that state what level of influence should exist among own-
ers, general contractors, and subcontractors.
• Complete any work related to permitting, environmental impacts, and
site geotechnical investigations—and make this information available to
proposing firms.
• In developing procurement documents, clearly describe the scope
of services, project requirements (including desired LEED or other
sustainable certification, if applicable), and owner’s desired level of
involvement and control.
• Clarify the importance of pricing to be submitted with a proposal. For
CMAR and PDB, limited pricing information (the specifics to be iden-
tified) may be required for a Phase 1 proposal as part of a best-value
selection. For FPDB, a price is required (the specifics to be identified by
the owner) as part of a best-value procurement.
• Develop a draft contract that identifies risks and allocates each risk to
the party best suited to control or manage it, and incorporate the con-
tract into the procurement documents.
• Clearly define payment terms, considering logical options (e.g., fixed
price, GMP, time, and materials).
• Ideally use a standard contract form thus avoiding unnecessary com-
plexity that can reduce participation, create delays, or increase costs.
• Include the draft contract—as well as a schedule, selection criteria and
process, owner’s rights and responsibilities, and protocols for communi-
cation during the procurement process—in the documents to enhance
understanding of an owner’s expectations and risks.
Contracts used for collaborative-delivery projects should be fair, balanced,
and clear. They should promote collaborative aspects by proactively and
cooperatively identifying project-specific risks, determining how they will be
handled, and reasonably allocating each to the party best able to address and
mitigate it, according to DBIA’s best practices and the information provided
in Chapter 3.
After the procurement process is completed and the negotiated contract is
signed, the next step is implementing the project. Chapter 5 discusses how
the owner and DB or CMAR team begin finalizing the implementation plan
developed in Chapter 1 and agree on the management procedures (Project
Agreement) from construction to the acceptance and transition process.

Chapter
5
Managing and Implementing
Collaborative-Delivery Projects
S
uccessful projects using collaborative-delivery methods are built on trust, respect,
honesty, and open relationships among the owner’s team and the design-build
(DB) or construction management at-risk (CMAR) firm, together with an owner
advisor, if one is involved in the project.
Once the procurement process is completed and the contract is signed, the owner
and the collaborative-delivery firm work together to manage the project to com-
pletion, with the shared goal of delivering a quality project on time and/or within
budget. A commitment to frequent and transparent communication among all
team members in the management phase is paramount.
➤
The City of Hopewell, This chapter focuses on the management activities during execution of the project,
Virginia, used a fixed- prior to acceptance testing and transition to full-time operations, which covers
price design-build delivery three distinct areas.
method to implement an
• Team Structure for Effective Collaborative Delivery. Who is included and
innovative moving bed
biofilm reactor with a high- their respective roles and responsibilities.
rate dissolved air flotation • Developing a Collaborative Working Environment. Reaching alignment
system to improve nitrogen on the collaborative relationship.
removal at their 50-mgd
Water Renewal Facility. • Implementing a Project Management Plan. Agreement on actions to suc-
(HDR, Inc./PC Construction) cessfully execute the project.
5-1
TEAM STRUCTURE FOR EFFECTIVE
COLLABORATIVE DELIVERY
A clear organizational structure for project personnel (owner and collaborative-
delivery firms) should be developed during procurement and finalized as part
of contract negotiations. The structure identifies the executive leadership
within each organization, the day-to-day project management team, as well as
other other key stakeholders needed for successful project delivery.
Executive Leadership Team

A typical executive leadership team for collaborative-delivery projects com-
prises one or two individuals from the owner and collaborative-delivery orga-
nizations who are empowered with ultimate decision-making authority to
execute the project under the final negotiated contract. In many cases, espe-
cially when the collaborative-delivery firm is a joint venture, it is important to
identify alternates who can attend meetings where critical project decisions
are made in order to keep the project on schedule.
Executive leaders should possess strong collaboration and communication
skills and the ability to facilitate teamwork and trust among project person-
nel. While the ultimate goal of collaborative delivery is to resolve issues and
conflicts at the lowest possible organizational level, the executive leadership
team should be willing to work together, through an open and transparent
dialogue, to quickly resolve any issues that exceed the authority of the project
management team (described in the following section) or to intervene when
project management personnel cannot agree on a resolution. Dispute resolu-
tion and issue escalation are discussed later in this chapter.
Project Management Team

Individuals on the owner’s
The owner’s key project personnel must be aligned with the multidisciplined
project team should be
educated and knowledge- collaborative-delivery team of design, permitting, construction, commission
able about implementing ing, and operations and maintenance (O&M) personnel. This not only
collaborative-delivery includes the owner’s day-to-day management staff, but also key individuals
best practices, with senior from support divisions and departments, such as legal, procurement, infor-
leadership committed to
mation technology, and other utility departments. These individuals need to
their project’s success and
actively supporting best be fully engaged and informed as the project progresses to eliminate surprises
practices. that could impact the project.
—DBIA Water/Wastewater
Fully defining the roles and responsibilities and reporting relationships of
Sector Design-Build Best
Practices key members on the project management team is an essential step. Table 5.1
provides corresponding responsibilities between the owner and within the
respective organizations of the collaborative-delivery team.
When developing the owner’s project management team for collaborative-
delivery projects, the early planning process should include identifying and
including key project stakeholders who play a role in the success of the proj-
ect. These participants can include affected internal staff members, such as
existing treatment plant O&M personnel; or external organizations who have

TABLE 5.1 – Roles and Responsibilities of Owner and Collaborative-Delivery Team
ROLE OWNER TEAM COLLABORATIVE-DELIVERY TEAM
Project Management • Makes day-to-day decisions • Single point of contact with the owner’s
• Approves design and construction plans project manager
• Manages contracts with owner advisor and • Develops and implements project
collaborative-delivery teams management plan
• Approves scope changes • Sets expectations for project team
• Coordinates with plant operations • Manages changes and risk
• Facilitates resolution of project issues
and challenges
Design Management • Reviews design deliverables • Leads engineering and design team resources
• Participates in design development • Develops design deliverables
workshops • Recommends technology solutions
• Provides input into design • Facilitates review of construction submittals
• Participates in technology decisions and verifies design intent is being met during
• Participates in design development construction
decisions that impact operations and
maintenance activities
Preconstruction • Reviews planning construction documents • Serves as liaison between design and
services (if needed) • Prepares staff for construction engagement construction teams
• Prepares equipment and subcontract
procurement plan
• Develops GMP where applicable
• Provides constructability during
preconstruction phase
• Develops project execution schedule
Construction • Participates in construction project • Manages self-performing and
management for meetings subcontracted work
either DB or CMAR • Monitors construction activities • Manages craft labor
• Owner has oversight responsibilities • Coordinates construction activities with startup
• Team follows QA/QC plan and commissioning manager for testing,
startup, commissioning, and training activities
Startup and • Determines operational impacts • Coordinates with owner’s operations and
commissioning • Hands-on engagement with startup and maintenance staff for testing, startup,
commissioning activities commissioning, and training activities
• Receives appropriate training and • Leads testing, startup, commissioning, and
prepares for hand-off from the training activities
collaborative-delivery team
jurisdiction over a critical aspect of the project, such as environmental regula-

tory agencies, third-party utilities, and affected federal and private land own-
ership authorities (i.e., tribal councils and railroad companies).
DEVELOPING THE COLLABORATIVE

WORK ENVIRONMENT
Beginning with the end in mind is a recognized principle for realizing orga-
nizational and project goals and achieving positive results. Achieving a col-
laborative work environment and creating a cooperative partnership between
the owner and the collaborative-delivery team is critical to project success.
Managing and Implementing Collaborative-Delivery Projects 5-3

One way to achieve this goal is to conduct one or a series of workshops at the
At the outset of the very start of project implementation (after the contract is signed).
project, the owner’s
project manager and the A partnering workshop sets common goals, establishes communication strat-
collaborative-delivery firm egies and dispute resolution practices, identifies potential risks, and defines
should establish processes problem-solving mechanisms for the two teams using the owner’s draft
to facilitate effective com- implementation plan. The owner and collaborative-delivery teams attend this
munication, collaboration,
session, which may be formalized, depending on the size and complexity of
and issues resolution and
develop processes that the project, by engaging a facilitator or mediator.
enable key stakeholders
An important product of the workshops is agreement on a project charter
(e.g., government agencies
and third-party operators)
(see Figure 5.1). The charter document clarifies the team’s overall direction
to interface directly with while defining important boundaries. Secondly, the document represents the
the firm and its design alignment between the two teams on the project mission or vision and sets
professionals on significant specific goals and objectives that achieve the project’s priorities and drivers.
elements of the work. Investing the time to develop a charter further reduces confusion about the
—DBIA Water/Wastewater project’s priorities and drivers.
Sector Design-Build Best
Practices Agreement on the project mission, measurable goals, and how the project
management plan is fulfilled is perhaps the most important step an owner
PROJECT TITLE
Vision Statement:
Common Set of Goals
•
•
•
Photo of project team members

taken at partnership workshop
}
{Signatures of partnering participants
Logos of owner, owner advisor,

r
collaborative-delivery firm, and othe
partnering particip ant agen cy or firm
Date:_________
FIGURE 5.1 – Partnering charter template

At the Withlacoochee River Water Pollution Control Plant, a sequencing batch reactor
(SBR) biological nutrient-removal technology with rotating cloth filters and aerobic
digestion was used to comply with stringent permit limits and Class B biosolids
requirements. (Parsons)
takes in preparing for a project. Gaining staff endorsement and alignment

at all levels of both organizations helps resolve issues. It also establishes an
organization-wide understanding of a project’s priorities that will produce
realistic expectations, avoid costly inefficiencies in decision-making, elimi-
nate confusion over staff roles and responsibilities, and clearly define project
procedures.
Establishing and communicating the organization’s priorities based on lessons
learned and best practices further strengthens the internal understanding and
agreement on how decisions are made and how teams interact.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The project implementation and management plan is developed by the owner
during the organization and planning period (Chapter 1) and used during
procurement and contract negotiations. It addresses the following key topics
during the project kickoff and partnering workshop.
• Communication plans & procedures.
• Cost/budget management to project completion.
• Schedule management on project milestones and activities.
• A change-management plan to address unplanned occurrences and
unexpected situations.
• Dispute-resolution procedures, including guidelines for appropriately
escalating issues.
• Health and safety.
• Oversight (QA/QC) of design and construction.
Communication Plans and Procedures

Frequent and open communication between the owner and collaborative-
delivery team is essential for a successful project. Agreement on how a good

The San Jose Water Company utilized progressive design-build delivery and
partnering workshops at the Montevina WTP to collaborate with its design-builder
to sequence construction activity while keeping its 30-mgd plant in operation
during three years of construction. (HDR, Inc.)
communication plan is implemented helps all team participants resolve and

prevent misunderstandings, disagreements, and disputes. The objective of a
communication plan is to lay out how all parties will be informed about the
project and keep communication at the appropriate level at all times.
To facilitate decision-making, the communication plan needs to be based on
broad and open dialogue and information exchange. It should include inter-
nal and external procedures for communicating all project-related activities.
A communication plan often addresses the following activities.
• A secure electronic document-control system to manage correspon-
dence, drawings, and other documents—including the process for storage,
access, and retrieval.
• Procedures for managing written correspondence about the project
among the team and external sources; responses and distribution; iden-
tifying how matters are to be resolved; who assumes responsibility.
• Procedures and responsibilities for documenting issues and topics made
to project team members from telephone calls and text messages and
how and what responses are conveyed.
• Defining e-mail protocols and back-up schedules; who is responsible;
determining emergency procedures in the event the system is disabled.

• Developing a schedule and assigning key responsibilities for conducting
site visits for those who are and are not associated with the project.
• Documentation of project meetings (weekly and monthly); who is respon
sible for producing the information; distribution procedures.
“Our expectations
• Procedures for managing complaints received about the project (both were exceeded by the
internally and externally); who is responsible; how the information is design-build team in the
disseminated. collaborative, problem-
solving nature and
• Documentation of how responses to emergency protocols are completed; innovative technical and
who is responsible; how the information is disseminated. delivery solutions brought
to the permitting, design,
• Developing procedures for making information from the monthly reports
construction and startup of
available; who is responsible. an important project.”
• Procedures and responsibilities for managing and updating the project —City of Atlanta
website; who is responsible; who has a secured access. Department of
Watershed Management
Cost and Budget Management

When managing the project to completion within the agreed-upon budget,
whether it is fixed price or GMP, a successful outcome with a collaborative-
delivery model is more likely to occur as a result of early involvement of pro-
fessionals providing constructability input and real-time estimates that enable
cost-based scoping decisions. There is also a higher likelihood of managing
the project within its budget when cost is identified as a priority throughout
the entire project delivery continuum rather than just the construction phase.
Schedule Management
A project schedule identifies all major milestones and project activities and
includes permits and other third-party requirements, review of design prog-
ress documents, transition from design to construction, substantial and final
completion dates, startup and commissioning, and facility turnover to the
owner. The opportunity to accelerate a schedule is far greater with collabora-
tive delivery due to simultaneous design and construction tasks, as well as the
strategic/early release of construction scope because of long-lead equipment
procurement and early work packaging.
The collaborative-delivery team manages and reports to the owner the follow-
ing key schedule elements.
• Work breakdown structure organizing the schedule into a hierarchy of
work areas and disciplines.
• Key milestones and deliverables.
• Detailed activities and associated durations for all items in the scope of
work.
• Assignment of firm and individuals responsible for each activity.
• Early start and finish dates.
• Predecessor and successor relationships between all activities.
• Critical path (longest duration path through the project).

Reducing the use of chlorine by disinfecting segregated effluent at the City of
Hopewell Water Renewal Facility instead of primary effluent saved nearly $500,000
annually, which will grow to nearly $1 million in annual savings by 2040.
(HDR, Inc./PC Construction)
A noteworthy difference in the collaborative-delivery approach is that some

of the owner’s activities and tasks will be on the project’s critical path. Timely
decisions, reviews, and participation by the owner are required for suc-
cessful collaborative delivery.
Change Management
While Chapter 3 identifies and clarifies the topic of risk encountered in a
project, it is during procurement that the owner defines and drafts a plan
to mitigate risks during execution. During the execution of a collaborative-
delivery contract, managing risk and minimizing the impact of changes are
possible by leveraging owner, designer, and constructor resources when the
consequences of a change can be mitigated. In addition, change management
is a common objective since the single point of contract responsibility (in a
fixed-price and PDB delivery method) encourages development of a solution
rather than assignment of blame. Unplanned activities in water and waste-
water projects are common and sometimes complex. Unexpected situations
are likely to occur during project delivery and require upfront planning to
prevent major issues from occurring.
Owners report that they choose collaborative delivery for complex and lengthy
projects because it includes a well-defined method for managing change that
helps to avoid delays and impacts. One reason owners have embraced collab-
orative delivery is the flexibility it allows for changes in scope and schedule.
Change management situations are generally one of four types.
1. Expected (but unquantifiable) changes such as material cost escalation.
2. Uncontrollable circumstances such as differing site conditions, changes
in law, permitting or third-party delays, and labor issues.
3. Unforeseen changes or circumstances.
4. Owner-directed changes.

Addressing both expected and unexpected changes early in the project
(preconstruction) helps preserve the collaborative nature of these delivery
models. Changes can be made more easily and at lower cost in the early stages
of a project. This reinforces the importance of the owner’s comprehensive pre-
RFP risk management planning, a well-crafted RFP, and close communica-
tion between the owner and collaborative-delivery team.
Whenever a situation arises that may change the scope, schedule, and/or
budget, the collaborative-delivery team’s project manager and the owner’s
project manager should be alerted immediately, and if applicable, the issue
logged to avoid escalation.
The owner and collaborative-delivery team need to agree on necessary
changes, documenting needed actions and anticipating impacts to avoid or
minimize the need to revisit decisions.
Dispute-Resolution Procedures
Embarking on a collaborative-delivery project substantially reduces the
chance of disputes, unplanned occurrences, unexpected situations, or ques-
tions arising during the contracting process. Despite the best intentions of
owners and the collaborative-delivery team to address all situations amicably,
differing expectations or needs may not be resolved without involving a third
party. It is again emphasized that a well-defined process/plan for making
decisions at the lowest level minimizes the need for formal dispute resolution.
Tracking. Any issues that arise should be monitored and tracked on the issue
log. Figure 5.2 provides a sample issue log used on projects. Tracking ensures
that all critical issues are identified and that the project team can address them
in a timely manner. Once an issue has been identified, the applicable team
should address it, define the action plan, decide on mitigation, and solve the
problem. When an issue cannot be resolved, it is escalated to the next level.
Owner Name ______________________________

Project Name ______________________________
Issue Log _________________________________ Status Date_______________
Dates Estimated Cost and

Schedule Impact Approved Approved Comments, Action
Date
Log Issue 1 Reference Cost Schedule Owner Risk Items/
Decision Originator Discipline
No. Description Status Origin Resolved Documents Cost Schedule Impact Impact Priority2 Mitigation/ Next
Needed
($) (Weeks) Avoidance Steps
1 2
Status Legend Owner Priority Legend
Open Item identified, but undeveloped in terms of impact to cost and schedule 1 Top priority — must have
Pending Decision made, cost and schedule impact quantified, but item not yet
2 Medium priority — add if budget available
incorporated into contract.
Closed Decision made, and item has been incorporated into contract or deleted 3 Low priority - wish list
from the project.
FIGURE 5.2 – Sample issue log

The Withlacoochee River Water Pollution Control Plant was fast-tracked to meet
stringent effluent limits (4 mg/L biochemical oxygen demand, 5 mg/L total
suspended solids, 0.5 mg/L ammonia, and 1 mg/L phosphorus) and produce
Class B biosolids. (Parsons)
Solutions. Effective incident escalation and resolution requires defining and

documenting escalation triggers and determining the most effective solu-
tion. Examples include if the solution exceeds the authorized budget, creates
a delay in the overall project schedule, or if an issue requires a higher level
of authority to resolve. Reaching agreement on solutions to known incidents
that trigger escalation is a part of this plan.
Health and Safety Plan

A best practice for every project is developing and implementing a job-specific
health and safety plan. The selected collaborative-delivery team would likely
have been evaluated on their safety record during the procurement process.
In collaborative delivery, the participation of construction and O&M person-
nel in design development leads to minimizing unnecessary risks and enhances
safety during construction. Designing safety into infrastructure facilities is
possible in collaborative-delivery projects. Designers learn that they can and
do have an impact on construction safety. Research indicates that designing
for safety is a viable way to improve construction worker and O&M personnel
health and safety.
One of the biggest challenges on projects is working in an existing operating
facility. Frequent design review and input by O&M and construction experts
also significantly improves project safety in the maintenance of plant opera-
tions and the facility startup and commissioning plans.
Figure 5.3 is an example table of contents for a health and safety plan that fol-
lows best practices.
Quality Plan (QA/QC)

Owners choose collaborative delivery to increase the quality of their project.
If the owner chooses the collaborative-delivery team based on previous work

Pl An
AlTH & SAFETy
SiTE SPECiFiC HE
COnTEnTS
uction
CHAPTER 1 – Introd
ency Information
CHAPTER 2 – Emerg
Emergenc y Fas t Pac k
Emergency Numbers
mbers
Utility Company Nu
Plans
Occupational Action
ns
Emergency Action Pla location)
ation (insert photo of rally
Rallying Point Inform n
ergenc y Pla
Medical/Trauma Em
Plan
Disaster Emergency
Emergency Plan
Chemical Spill/Release
Fire Emergenc y Pla n
ency Plan
Severe Weather Emerg
Chemical Work Plan
t/Owner Spe cific Requirements

CHAPTER 3 – Projec
Restricted Areas
Chemical Safety
g
etent Persons/Trainin
CHAPTER 4 – Comp
nat ed Res pon sib le Individuals
Desig
ety Training
Field Supervisory Saf
Operator Trainin g
s
ety Communication
CHAPTER 5 — Saf
Co mp ete nt Per son s
gs
Preconstruction Meetin
nning
CHAPTER 6 – Prepla
Safety Equipment
Hazard Assessment
ement Tools/Forms
CHAPTER 7 – Manag
FIGURE 5.3 – Sample table of contents for a health and safety plan
experience and performance, then the facility is more likely to be delivered

with the intended quality. The collaborative-delivery firm provides QA/QC
measures to ensure compliance with contract-established metrics; however,
project quality in collaborative delivery must be reviewed within the context
of the contract. Measures desired by the owner to validate delivered quality
must be defined. When preparing the RFP and contract documents, owners
must clearly define the additional quality responsibilities of the collaborative-
delivery firm.
The QA/QC manager must have the authority to stop work and freely com-
municate with project teams if the project quality is at risk. Inspection, find-
ings, and recovery actions should all be posted on the project website avail-
able to the owner and collaborative-delivery team.
It is a best practice to require the collaborative-delivery team to provide a com
prehensive, project-specific quality management plan (QMP) that outlines
the overall quality system for both design and construction. The construction
QMP should describe all QC activities that will be conducted to ensure that
the work will meet the specified level of quality. As an example, Figure 5.4
presents a sample table of contents for a QMP.

Quality ManageMent Plan
Contents
7.1 Pre-Mobilization
Municipal Water Agency 7.2 Definable Features of Work
Preface 7.3 Three-Phase Inspection Process
1.0 Introduction 7.3.1 Preparatory Phase
1.1 Project Description 7.3.2 Initial Phase
1.2 Definitions (Acronyms) 7.3.3 Follow-Up Phase (Daily Observations,
1.3 Quality Management Approach Monitoring, Inspection)
1.4 QC / QA Objectives 3pt 7.3.4 Additional Preparatory, Initial and
Follow-Up Inspections
2.0 Quality Management Organization
7.4 Site Visits
2.1 Principal in Charge (PIC)
(iDPM) 7.5 Independent Testing / Inspection
2.2 Integrated Delivery Project Manager
(DQAM) 7.5.1 Testing Laboratories / 3rd Party
2.3 Design Quality Assurance Manager Inspection firms
2.4 Design Manager (OM)
7.6 Testing Plan and Log
2.5 Construction Manager (CM)
) 7.7 Testing Records
2.6 Quality Assurance Manager (QAM
7.8 Completion Inspections
2.7 Procurement Manager
7.8.1 Construction Punch List Inspection
2.8 Other members of Quality Management
7.8.2 Substantial Completion Inspection
Organization
7.8.3 Final Acceptance Inspection
2.9 Project Partnering Charter and
7.9 Management of Construction Deficiencies
2.10 Project Quality Organization
Documents Non-Conformance
3.0 Receipt and Distribution of Construction 7.9.1 Work Deficiencies and Nonconforma
nce
electronic
3.1 Procedure for distribution of hard and Items
IFC Drawing 7.9.2 Rework of Deficient Items
4.0 Quality Control/Quality Assurance in
Design 7.9.3 Nonconformance Reporting
4.1 Project Approach and Resource Review 7.9.4 Corrective and Preventive Actions
g
4.2 Project Quality Management Plannin 8.0 Quality Control Reports and Documentatio
n
4.3 QC Review Form 8.1 Daily Construction Report
4.4 Deliverables 8.2 Quality Control Report
4.5 Sub consultants 8.3 As-Built Records
5.0 Submittals 8.4 On-Site Record Maintenance
5.1 Submittal Procedures 8.4.1 Material Certificates
5.2 Requirements and Routing 9.0 Quality Meetings
5.3 Review and Approval. Meeting
able) 9.1 Coordination and Mutual Understanding
5.4 Municipal Agency Approval (If Applic 9.2 Pre-Construction Kick-Off Meeting
6.0 Quality Control in Procurement 9.3 Preparatory Phase Meeting
Content
6.1 Control of Procurement Document 9.4 Weekly Quality Meetings
6.2 Inspection upon Receipt 10.0 Project Audits
ry
6.3 Handling, Storage, Packaging and Delive nance and
11.0 Municipal Agency Operations, Mainte
6.4 Care and Maintenance
Construction Training Records
7.0 Quality Control/Quality Assurance in
12.0 Project Close-Out
FIGURE 5.4 – Sample table of contents for a QMP
The resulting project implementation and management plan is the roadmap

that the owner and collaborative-delivery team use to complete the work and
coordinate activities to the point of completion. It gets the project ready for
acceptance and transition, which is discussed in Chapter 6.

Chapter
6
Getting to Project Completion
and Transition
A s the construction phase of a collaborative-delivery project reaches its final mile-

stones, activities for the completion and acceptance of the project come into focus.
These activities include implementation of the transition plan, owner training,
commissioning, startup, and performance testing, together with warranty resolu-
tion and post-project support. As discussed in Chapter 2, design-build-operate
(DBO) and public-private partnership (P3) projects do not transition immediately
to the owner after the capital improvement, since the collaborative-delivery team
retains control of operations and maintenance (O&M) for a contractually stipu-
lated period of time.
➤
The goal of this chapter is to provide owners, owner advisors, and collaborative-
The 7-mgd Lawton Valley
delivery teams a roadmap of activities essential to the success of the final project
Water Treatment Plant
includes a new O&M
stages. While it is important to reiterate that the planning activities for completion
building with high-rate begin during the initial stages of the project, they are further developed, enhanced,
dissolved air flotation and refined throughout the management and project implementation stages. This
(DAF) and granular effort culminates in a roadmap for the project’s transition that allows all stakehold-
activated carbon (GAC) ers to view the project with the most balanced risk profile and clear understanding
filtration facilities,
of critical success factors.
chemical-feed equipment,
laboratory, clear well for
finished water storage,
post-filter absorbers using
PLANNING FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION
nine new GAC contactors, A successful project transition plan begins with incorporating the owner’s p
riorities
and a new 2-mg elevated
and drivers into the draft project implementation plan (described in Chapter 1 and
water storage tank for
distribution system
Chapter 5), which always includes the turnover of the completed project to the
storage. (AECOM) owner’s O&M staff. Anticipating, identifying, and in some cases, developing the
6-1
In a greenfield project for a new master planned community in Madera, California,
the PLC was programmed during the commissioning phase, the steps of which
are discussed in this chapter. (Tesco Controls, Inc.)
owner’s requirements for training, commissioning, startup, performance test-

ing, warranty resolution, and other transition activities is a core responsibility
of the owner during project planning, as is identifying transition responsibili-
ties of the owner’s team. Having the owner consider requirements for transi-
tion activities in the procurement documents is essential to avoid unneces-
sary and/or unrealistic conditions for the collaborative-delivery firm.
Components of the project’s transition plan should be included in the owner’s
procurement documents, contract, and final project implementation plan and
schedule. Transition planning happens early in the project so the owner can
incorporate the knowledge and input of management and O&M staff into proj-
ect delivery, as well as initiate an overall staffing plan for the completed project.
The difference in project transitions between collaborative-delivery methods
and traditional design-bid-build (DBB) is the timing and involvement of O&M
staff during the project delivery process.
Within the transition plan is a matrix with team responsibilities (split between
the owner and collaborative-delivery firm). The matrix also includes tasks
related to completion of the collaborative-delivery team’s work during
mechanical and system testing, acceptance testing, punch-list resolution,
and warranty services. Additional responsibilities within the plan include the
following.
• Payment for power and chemicals to operate the facility during startup
and commissioning, both prior to and after acceptance.
• Disposal of treated water or effluent and residuals that may not conform
to applicable performance requirements and regulatory permits.
• Operator license requirements, both prior to and after facility acceptance.
• Engagement of O&M staff during acceptance testing.
• Ensuring that the O&M staff participates in each project execution step
so that they are fully prepared for long-term operation.

While the project agreement specifies each party’s responsibilities, both the
owner and the collaborative-delivery firm share responsibility for ensuring a
smooth transition from the construction phase to long-term operation. For
retrofit projects, at least some of the owner’s O&M staff will be involved in the
operations during the delivery of the project; however, the extent and nature
of the retrofit determines any additional staffing needs. For greenfield proj-
ects or major additions to existing facilities, the owner may add O&M staff
to operate and maintain the completed project properly. During the initial
execution phase, the owner needs to identify not only additional resources
but also staff education and training needs for new equipment.
OPERATIONAL TRAINING NEEDS

The success of any collaborative-delivery project depends on training staff
that will be responsible for the long-term O&M of the new facilities. Involving
O&M staff early in the design and construction phase allows them to provide
input into the following various components in the design phase.
• Construction materials.
• Vendor preferences.
• Maintenance of plant operation plans (in the case of facility upgrades).
• Access requirements to core equipment and instrumentation.
• Facility configuration.
• Safety plans.
• Instrumentation and control.
Often, projects introduce technologies that are unfamiliar to O&M staff or
new operational strategies involving automation by programmable logic con-
trollers and SCADA systems. To address this situation, the assessment of the
O&M team skill set identifies the core areas of training needed in order to
support the new technologies and unit processes, together with updating or
preparing job descriptions, all of which is included after the collaborative-
delivery firm is selected.
Another important consideration during project implementation is how
the O&M team will support the new project while undergoing training and
performing day-to-day core job functions. Often, O&M staff are asked to
learn new systems while maintaining current operations. These additional
activities can put tremendous strain on staff, so owners should work with the
collaborative-delivery firm to develop a comprehensive action plan to prepare
the O&M staff for longer hours and provide outside support as needed during
project startup.
Once the owner and collaborative-delivery firm agree on a price to construct
(or complete the design and construct the project for progressive design-build
delivery) the project, O&M manuals and training development is built into
the overall project schedule by the collaborative-delivery firm. This task
occurs before owner takeover.
Getting to Project Completion and Transition 6-3

TRANSITION STEPS:
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION TO TURNOVER
As construction nears completion, the collaborative-delivery firm should ini-
tiate transition with equipment and system testing, which is often captured
as part of the startup and testing plan. During this period, staff O&M train-
ing begins and preparations are made for owner participation during the
testing. When performance testing results conform to requirements in the
design/contract documents, the project has reached a “substantial comple-
tion” milestone.
Substantial Completion is the date on which the work, or an agreed-upon
portion of the work, is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract
documents so that the owner can occupy and use the project or a portion
thereof for its intended purposes; provided, however, that Substantial
Completion shall be deemed to have been achieved no earlier than the date
of issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued by the local
building official, if a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is applicable to
the project.
Punch-List Development
At the substantial completion stage, the owner and collaborative-delivery
team agree on a punch list of needed system and construction fixes, identify
any equipment malfunctions, and fine-tune instrumentation and control sys-
tems. The punch list is a document prepared near the end of a construction
project by the team, to be reviewed by the owner, listing work not conforming
to contract specifications that the contractor must complete prior to final pay-
ment. The work may include incomplete or incorrect installations or inciden-
tal damage to existing finishes, material, and structures. Resolving all items
on the punch list is a major step toward project final acceptance.
Initiation of O&M Training

During the construction phase, the O&M staff should actively observe con-
struction activities to understand where critical systems, project components,
and pipes and conduits are located below grade or above ceilings. The O&M
staff should also undergo hands-on training sessions developed by the collab-
orative-delivery team. Training sessions are conducted during critical project
completion milestones and may include site visits to other facilities with com-
parable equipment. They include the following activities.
• Major process equipment placement.
• Vendor certification and checkout of equipment installation.
• Mechanical completion certification (including electrical and
instrumentation testing).
• Individual systems testing.
• Full testing with the clean water product.
• Overall system performance testing.

A pump station for the PCCP, a major flood control project —offering pumping capacities of 12,600
cubic feet per second (cfs), 9,000 cfs, and 2,700 cfs—has a concrete substructure and a steel/precast
superstructure. (Kiewit/Stantec)
Formal training sessions conducted by vendor representatives of equipment

and process systems, mechanical and electrical equipment, and instrumenta-
tion and control systems typically take place in a classroom. These may also
be field sessions that cover topics such as normal operation, optimization,
troubleshooting, and schedule of maintenance activities. Information covered
in the training is documented in equipment-specific O&M manuals provided
by each equipment vendor.
In addition, the collaborative-delivery firm provides an overall training pro-
gram addressing how the entire system is intended to operate, including key
design criteria and considerations, instrumentation setpoints and alarms,
standard operating procedures, sampling locations and frequency, SCADA
trends and reports, chemical system optimization, overall system trouble-
shooting, and emergency power scenarios.
Developing the O&M manuals is usually part of the collaborative-delivery
firm’s scope of work. While some owners still require paper hard copies,
today most prefer electronic documents and information systems. The use
of electronic documents allows owners to align the requirements of specific
equipment as outlined in the O&M manuals to pre-existing or planned asset
management programs. Web-based O&M information systems can integrate
a variety of project information such as vendor cut sheets, project as-built
drawings, and videos of operator training sessions.
This robust information provides O&M staff with a single system to quickly
access all aspects of facility operation. Collaborative-delivery firms are well-
suited to put together such documentation since they are responsible for prod
ucing and coordinating the content that forms the backbone of the technical
operation of all systems. In addition to consolidating vendor-specific infor-
mation, the O&M manual provides O&M staff with a holistic overview of
how the total system is intended to be operated, optimized, and maintained.

Acceptance Testing
Because most projects are designed based on future conditions, industry
practice is to conduct a limited-duration acceptance test to demonstrate that
the new facilities meet performance requirements. Understanding the spe-
cifics of acceptance is critical for an owner when using collaborative-delivery
approaches. Acceptance testing, which follows successful mechanical testing
and commissioning of project components, is almost universally required in
design-build contracts to demonstrate compliance with owner-specified per-
formance requirements. It is conducted prior to turning over the completed
facility to the owner and is detailed in the project agreement.
In the case of construction management at-risk (CMAR) projects, there is
no performance guarantee, as explained in Chapter 2. A CMAR project is
required to meet the design requirements as defined by the owner and its
design engineer.
In contrast, if the project does not pass the acceptance test, the design-builder
will need to address any issues, including adding facilities or adjusting system
operations, to ensure that the owner’s performance standards are met.
Acceptance testing includes the following key components.
• Defining the test duration. A two- to four-week acceptance test period
is common. This duration is compatible with the monthly permit
requirements. Moreover, the test must be conducted long enough to
show a reasonable level of reliability in process controls.
• Establishing seasonality/temperatures. Owners often require testing
under worst-case design conditions, which might mean winter con-
ditions with the lowest water temperatures for wastewater projects or
during the season when influent turbidity may be the worst for water
projects. However, if acceptance testing is conducted only at a certain
time of the year, owners will need to weigh if the additional design-
builder costs for the period between the date of substantial completion
and acceptance testing are worth it.
• Identifying loading conditions. As designs are commonly based on
future conditions, flows and loads may approximate the design condi-
tions by taking units out of service to simulate higher loadings on the
units in service.1
• Specialty test requirements. Shorter testing is normally conducted for
certain processes to assess performance. Typical testing for specialized
equipment is three days. Other specialty tests include a full- or partial-
plant hydraulic capacity test and individual hydraulic capacity tests for
major pumping equipment.
This activity is usually accomplished using a statistical analysis of the most recent plant data
1
during development of the detailed performance testing plan. Typically target loadings are
adjusted downward by one standard deviation to minimize the risk of overloading treatment
facilities beyond design capacity.

Performance Guarantees
Performance guarantees are divided into primary and secondary categories.
• Primary performance guarantees relate to compliance with governing
industry standards for water and wastewater treatment. For water treat-
ment projects, guarantees would address the Safe Drinking Water Act
standards. For wastewater treatment projects, guarantees would address
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards.
• Secondary performance guarantees are project specific and relate to unit
process guarantees (e.g., sludge cake dryness after dewatering), opera-
tion reliability guarantees, community/environmental guarantees (e.g.,
odor), and consumable guarantees.
Testing protocols and measurement methods should be clear in both primary
and secondary performance guarantees. When owners specify performance
guarantees, the language and structure of the guarantees must directly tie to
the design criteria, account for variability of the specified inputs, facilitate
accurate measurement, and include a plan for how the performance testing
results will be compared with design conditions. Clarity and concise word-
ing are necessary to avoid the possibility for differing interpretations of the
results.
Table 6.1 presents example acceptance testing criteria for a wastewater treat-
ment project. Each unit process is a system and often consists of auxiliary
equipment and appurtenances that work together to create a functional step
in the treatment process. For example, the primary clarifier system includes
influent flow distribution weirs, effluent weirs, sludge rakes, cross conveyors,
sludge pumps, scum collection system, scum pumps, etc.
Additional examples of acceptance testing criteria are listed below.
• Performance. Process specific performance criteria, such as effluent
quality, are included for unit processes if applicable (e.g., UV disinfection
and centrifuge dewatering). For most unit processes, the overall goal is to
meet the permit requirements as measured in the finished treated water
or final treated wastewater effluent.
• Hydraulic capacity. This is defined as the maximum design flow.
Hydraulic testing, however, may be limited by the amount of available
flow, and it may not be possible, for example, to test the performance of
the fine screens or vortex grit units under full wet-weather flow condi-
tions. Accordingly, hydraulic capacity for all the main unit processes will
be tested by the maximum flow that occurs during the acceptance test
period with reduced numbers of units in service for simulating maxi-
mum month flows and loadings. Special short-term hydraulic tests (15 to
30 minutes) are commonly included to check capacity of new pumping
equipment.
• Reliable operation. System operation for each unit process over the
acceptance testing period will be used to demonstrate adequate reliabil-
ity. This standard of adequacy does not mean perfection nor imply that
testing must restart should some component prove troublesome. Instead,

adequacy is defined by (1) overall treatment system performance that
meets the performance requirements and (2) demonstration that the sys-
tem controls are adequate to control the process over the duration of the
demonstration period.
TABLE 6.1 – Example Acceptance Testing Criteria for a Wastewater Treatment Project
Unit Process Criteria Acceptance Criteria
Fine screens Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
Reliable operation Adequate performance during the testing period.
Influent pump station Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate pump capacity for each pump.
Vortex grit chambers Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
Primary clarifiers Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
Aeration basins Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
Performance Meet final effluent quality during the testing period.
Secondary clarifiers Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
Tertiary filtration Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
UV disinfection Hydraulic capacity Demonstrate hydraulic capacity during wet-weather flows.
Performance Meet final effluent quality for coliforms during the testing period.
Centrifuge Capacity Demonstrate design capacity (e.g., lb/hr dry solids of
dewatering digested sludge).
Cake dryness Greater than 20% solids.
Solids capture Greater than 90%.
ACCEPTANCE TESTING FOR DBO PROJECTS

Performance testing for design-build projects, as discussed previously, is com-
pletely applicable for DBO projects. All the typical requirements under a
design-build collaborative-delivery model are still relevant for project deliv-
ery that includes the additional step of long-term operation. Two main dif-
ferences are generally found for performance testing under DBO projects
as opposed to DB projects. First, performance testing, in addition to moni-
toring effluent quality requirements, generally includes efforts to test out
long-term operational guarantees such as energy efficiency/electrical power

consumption and chemical usage, while requiring the DBO entity to operate
the facilities using only the proposed O&M staffing. As with all guarantees,
the performance criteria defined in the contract should be objective, measur-
able, and achievable.
The second main difference is that for DBO projects, because of the long-term
contract structure and the fixed O&M pricing provided by the DBO entity,
the owner already has the equivalent of a long-term warranty on operational
costs. Thus, performance testing, while a prudent step to confirm facility
design and any operational savings, does not need to be especially rigorous
given other protections for the owner that are already in place.
FINAL ACCEPTANCE
To achieve final acceptance, certain activities must be performed by the
collaborative-delivery team. In general, the requirements of final acceptance
include the completion of all specified O&M manuals, completion of all
record documents and drawings, resolution of all punch-list items, prepara-
tion of an acceptance testing results report, either the performance/system
testing for CMAR or the acceptance testing report for design-build delivery,
and the release of liens on the project. The project agreement will specify all
of these items so that facility control and long-term O&M are turned over to
the owner.
TRANSITION TO OWNER OPERATION

Once the owner acknowledges successful completion of acceptance testing,
the collaborative-delivery firm begins the project closeout activities and final
transition of plant operations and responsibilities by the owner. It is at this
point in time that the collaborative-delivery firm has demonstrated that the
owner’s project will operate in a manner consistent with the design documents
and contract requirements. Involving the owner’s O&M staff in the process
with manufacturers’ representatives in certifying equipment further reinforces
classroom training and provides a review of O&M procedures. To reiterate,
active involvement in the final acceptance testing, startup, and commissioning
of key equipment and systems over a range of flow and water-quality condi-
tions is a critical step which gives the owner’s operations staff an understand-
ing of systems and increases their ability to troubleshoot any problems that
may arise.
This step further gives the owner’s staff the benefit of running the plant with
guidance and oversight from the collaborative-delivery team, key subcontrac-
tors, start-up specialists, and key manufacturer’s representatives. Not only
does this collective effort demonstrate that the facility complies with contract
requirements, it also gives the operations staff a chance to become familiar
with the wide range of operational conditions while the collaborative-delivery
team is in place to address any questions or other issues, such as performing
the start-up operations to customize key setpoints, alarms, reports, and dis-
plays to further optimize the plant for their day-to-day needs.

Warranties and Post-Transition Support
Following acceptance of the project, the owner then assumes permanent con-
trol of the project. Members of the collaborative-delivery team are respon-
sible for honoring the contractual obligations associated with performance
guarantees and warranties. Performance guarantees were discussed earlier. As
described in Chapter 2, the party responsible for warranties ranges from the
general contractor in DBB and CMAR, to the design-builder in progressive
and fixed-price design-build. The design engineer does not hold contractual
liability for construction warranty. Within a DBO contract, the warranty typi-
cally transfers to the operations entity.
Implied and Express Warranties

As indicated previously, warranties are entirely optional in a contract and,
in some instances, may not be included in the contract. Note that certain
implied warranties may be imposed by state law (e.g., Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC)) or local law, and therefore, the collaborative-delivery team must
be aware of the existence of any implied warranties. The two most common
types of implied warranties that may be encountered are (1) implied warranty
of merchantability and (2) implied warranty of fitness for a particular pur-
pose. While many implied warranties contained in codes like the UCC do
no generally apply to immovable goods like water and wastewater treatment
facilities, it is a best practice to address the exclusion of implied warranties
during contract development to avoid a broad interpretation of these types of
codes. Implied warranties can represent a significant financial liability that,
if left unidentified and are actually realized, can be obstacles to successful
completion of the project.
Express warranties are written guarantees, and it is critical that the owner
and collaborative-delivery team provide for a specific and well-written war-
ranty for the project. In addition, the express warranty should conspicuously
exclude implied warranties (as required by the UCC) in the contract. The best
way to mitigate the risk associated with implied warranty is to have a clear
express warranty in the contract.
Extended Duration Warranties

Extended duration warranties are generally considered to be warranties over
12 months since this time period provides ample time to make sure the work
was completed correctly. If the owner requires a 24-month warranty, it should
be clearly stated in the contract when the warranty starts since, with com-
plex water and wastewater projects, the warranty could start at mechanical
completion or it could start with the start of operations. Given that some proj-
ects have multiple mechanical completions within the same project (e.g., the
liquid treatment process could be mechanically complete before the solids
processing and handling facility), any extended duration warranty should be
carefully contemplated in order to avoid unneeded project costs in the form
of contingencies, insurance premiums, expensive contract flow-downs, and/
or maintenance costs. If the owner does prefer to include extended duration
warranties, the collaborative-delivery team should consider limiting certain

The Lawton Valley project included a full startup and testing program for
two separate WTPs that incorporated a full mechanical testing as well as
an acceptance program for a treatment process that included dissolved air
flotation (DAF) and granulated activated carbon (GAC). (AECOM)
conditions related to warranties including, but not limited to, normal wear
and tear, normal corrosion, environmental-caused deterioration, third-party
damage, improper use, improper operation, and improper maintenance.
Pass-Through Warranties
Water and wastewater facilities containing complex mechanical and electrical
systems oftentimes will only have a standard warranty. The specialty manu-
facturer’s warranty can contain specific conditions, durations, and limiting
provisions, and depending on how the equipment was procured, may not
match the CMAR or design-builder’s warranty with the owner. For example,
the owner may have procured the equipment and the procurement agreement
required a one-year warranty. Then, as part of the overall contract, the CMAR
or design-builder is required to provide a two-year warranty, thereby creating
a gap in warranty for the equipment. Further, other warranty provisions may
not match the specialty equipment procurement and the overall contract, cre-
ating a major risk exposure for the CMAR or design-builder. An option is for
the CMAR or design-builder to “pass through” the specialty manufacturer’s
warranty to the owner.
Post-Transition Warranty Support

After the owner takes control of operations and during the warranty period,
access to a single point of contact on the collaborative-delivery team stream-
lines the resolution of items that arise during the warranty period. Having a

single point of contact helps resolve issues in a timely manner, compared to
DBB project delivery. It also enables the owner to confer with an integrated
group for operational modifications or unusual events and then receive cohe-
sive feedback about resulting design, construction, and equipment optimiza-
tion and adjustments.
Another benefit of collaborative delivery is that owners can contract with
the single firm for follow-up training, process optimization, and operational
support after project acceptance. Owners can establish a transitional, or on-
call, arrangement with the collaborative-delivery firm to conduct periodic
refresher training, evaluate seasonal water-quality challenges, and reoptimize
the process train to operate at peak conditions. This access to the integrated
team that designed, built, and commissioned the plant provides O&M staff
with a safety net of professionals in troubleshooting difficult situations.
SUMMARY
While this chapter addresses the sequence of the major activities as they
apply to all forms of collaborative delivery, it must be noted that for a CMAR
project, there is no form of performance guarantee; rather, the constructed
project must meet design requirements. Any issue with a CMAR project not
meeting the design requirements other than construction related should be
addressed between the owner and design firm. The collaborative-delivery firm
will provide a performance guarantee that the competed project will perform
consistent with the owner’s performance requirements. If the acceptance test-
ing cannot demonstrate all owner requirements are met, the collaborative-
delivery team will need to address any deficiencies and incur costs until the
acceptance testing is passed.
Owners should address the practicalities of acceptance testing to avoid unre-
alistic conditions for the collaborative-delivery team. Impractical, unneeded,
or unattainable requirements can result in confusion, delays, and project costs
with little or no value gained in return.
Assuming all of the noted activities for project delivery are completed, the
owner should be prepared for the transition to long-term O&M. When an
owner is not prepared, the delivery team will need to continue facility opera-
tions after completion, resulting in additional costs to be reimbursed by
the owner.
Design features at the Fowler Water

Reclamation Facility include multiple
chemical dosing points with ultimate
flexibility to treat changing water
conditions on site, resulting in a water-
recycling system that makes the overall
plant treatment process 99.5% water
efficient. (AECOM)

Chapter
7
Public-Private Partnerships
I n recent decades, economic conditions and technical changes in the water and
wastewater sector, along with increased public and industrial demand for water
and wastewater services, have opened new avenues to infrastructure projects using
a public-private partnership (P3) model. Today's P3s offer innovative approaches
to financing and facility ownership. DBO and P3 projects include large-scale or
complex storage, conveyance, and treatment facilities for water and wastewater,
residuals, energy recovery, water reuse, and stormwater management that offer
public benefits. As in other sectors (e.g., transportation and social infrastructure),
water sector P3s are built on the strengths of design-build delivery methods while
affording owners innovative approaches to risk management and lifecycle costs.
These attributes address the unique characteristics of water projects that require
a high degree of collaboration throughout the planning, financing, management,
and operations and maintenance stages.
➤
San Antonio Water System's However, there is still an important need for the public to understand that a P3
BGD Plant generates project in most cases is not privatization. To facilitate this understanding, this
approximately six million chapter details the fundamental components and principles of P3 for water and
gallons of treated water
wastewater projects. Because of the complex structure of P3 projects, including
per day, or 13,440 acre-feet
per year, from the Wilcox
legal, commercial, financial, and technical components, owners need to embrace
Aquifer, an untapped collaboration to achieve success.
water source of brackish
groundwater which will both P3 CONCEPTS
diversify and meet regional
water needs over the next In a P3 delivery model, owners partner with the private sector by outsourcing all or
50 years. (Parsons) certain aspects of a project or program. While numerous services can be provided
7-1
as part of this model, P3 water/wastewater projects typically involve one or
more of the following contract structures.
• Design-build-operate (DBO)
• Design-build-finance (DBF)
• Design-build-operate-finance (DBOF)
• Design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM)
• Design-build-own-operate (DBOO)
• Design-build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT)
In general, P3 projects encompass a collaborative-delivery method (e.g., FPDB
or PDB) that is combined with a performance commitment and a defined
level of O&M for a capital asset. As defined in Chapter 2, the P3 project model
uses the collaborative-delivery method for design and construction and
extends collaboration into long-term contract O&M and repair and replace-
ment of certain elements of the capital asset. In some situations, the private
partner will arrange for the financing of the project on behalf of the owner, or
even own the facility for a defined period and transfer ownership back to the
owner at the end of the contract period.
While contract structures may vary depending on the delegation of services
to the P3 partner, Figure 7.1 illustrates a typical DBO model, based on a FPDB
collaborative-delivery model as the basis of delivery. In essence, even with
varying structures and strategies, the basic approach is modeled as shown in
Figure 7.1
The following paragraphs provide additional explanation of the various con-
tract models typically found in water/wastewater P3s.
DBO. The owner retains ownership and provides financing but outsources
the design, construction, and long-term O&M through an extended contract
period, typically 10-20 years or longer, with renewal options.
OWNER
Ad
vi
s
or
....
P OJECT
Public-Private
R
ENTITY
Partnerships
LDER
-B T O R
(P3)
UI
A
R
E
DB OP GN
O SI
DE
Figure 7.1 – Public-private partnership contractual relationships

DBOF or DBFOM. The owner retains ownership and outsources DBO and
financing and possibly maintenance (either short- or long-term) as detailed
later in this chapter.
DBOOT. This model has the same components as DBOF except the project
assets are owned by the private firm for a defined time period and then trans-
ferred back to the owner at the end of the P3 term, typically 20–25 years.
Concession (purchasing the right to own and operate). This method includes
the design, build, own, operate, maintain, and finance, but the private party
assumes a significant degree of user demand/revenue risk and reward. A
concession may include ownership transfer at the end of the term and direct
billing of users/ratepayers and full outsourcing of all business operations to
the private entity. The assumption of revenue risk is a major differentiator
compared to DBOOT and DBOF, in which the owner retains revenue risks
by making fixed “availability” payments. The steps described in Chapter 1
provide information on the organization’s analysis as owners consider P3
delivery models. It is particularly important to understand the drivers and
other critical factors that influence or define the success of the project, as well
as the legality of P3 by state and local statutes. In addition to the project driv-
ers identified in Chapter 1, innovative financing, legal matters, operations and
maintenance, and the ability to share or transfer risk across the lifecycle of
the project may also influence owners in their consideration of a P3 delivery.
Progressive P3. An emerging variation in P3 procurements uses the progres-
sive methodology of off-ramps as depicted by the dashed lines in Figure 7.2.
From a delivery perspective, the preliminary design and the final design and
construction follows a two-phase approach similar to PDB and construction
management at-risk with a variation that incorporates a high level of owner
control during the preceding development phase with substantially reduced
at-risk proposal costs for private entities. It allows public and private partners
to explore project design and financing options through a highly transparent
LIC SPONSOR
PUB
OWNER
DESIG N
Optimized
Ratepayer
Solution
M
BU
O&
D
IL
FIN A N C E
TH ER
E PR
I VAT E PA R T N
Figure 7.2 – P3 procurement using progressive

design-build methodology with "off-ramps"
Public-Private Partnerships 7-3

and collaborative process. The public sponsor may also choose to implement
an O&M contract with the private partner, as well as extend ownership to the
partner. However, the public sponsor is able to weigh out the benefits of each
element of the overall project during Phase I development and, ultimately,
co-develop the best solution for the project that provides the optimum solu-
tion for the ratepayers. This variation warrants further exploration where
improvements for the water/wastewater infrastructure can take a more pro-
grammatic approach and where a more holistic strategy p rovides greater
public benefit. Much like other forms of P3 procurement, progressive P3s can
be highly complex.
P3 PROJECT DECISIONS
In deciding whether to pursue a P3 project, owners should consider the prac-
tices described in the preceding chapters, especially the project drivers and
crucial success factors in Chapter 1. This chapter provides a baseline of infor-
mation for the decision-making process where ultimately a P3 project must
demonstrate the need and public benefit, as well as public support.
One of the first steps the owner should take is to conduct a thorough educa-
tion and evaluation process to fully understand the benefits and challenges of
P3 projects. Table 7.1 includes a high-level list of benefits and challenges to
consider in this process. However, it is also very important for the owner to
evaluate the P3 project in a transparent manner while considering the rate-
payers’ perspective, as they ultimately pay for the project.
Decisions to be made by owners must also center on maximizing public ben-
efit through P3 project delivery, as summarized in Table 7.2.
When owners need to explore other complex issues in a P3 project, procur-
ing an experienced owner advisor (OA) who can guide the conversation and
assist in evaluating various delivery options is another option to consider.
This option needs to take into consideration the types and level of expertise
Owners should investigate
to be provided by an OA.
the availability of enabling
legislation in their state
when contemplating Owner Advisor (OA) Services
P3 delivery. Currently,
enabling legislation Chapter 1 discusses the option to hire an OA for specific expertise in project
is available for P3s in procurement and management. Obtaining these types of s ervices is particu-
various forms around larly important and highly beneficial when the P3 project is being evaluated.
the United States, and
Listed below are examples of OA services for a P3 project.
for water/ wastewater
it is available in many Legal. Obtaining advice from an attorney familiar with the enabling law,
states and the District financing and legal arrangements, and commercial elements required for P3
of Columbia. It is
projects is an important early step. Specific legal advice helps build a com-
important for the owner
to understand the prehensive understanding of the legal consequences of financing through the
enabling legislation in traditional public financing model and alternative private financing model
their respective state as (most commonly on a “project finance” model). Either financing method or
it applies specifically to a hybrid solution should optimize benefits and minimize risks to ratepayers.
water infrastructure.
Financial. OAs can also help in decisions on P3 project financing and related
commercial arrangements for revenue generation. Because of the complexities

of the transactional characteristics of P3s in the water and wastewater indus-
try, along with the business nature of P3s, experienced advisors can educate
owners on how P3s can be structured to support the business case of P3s.
It is also important to understand not only the financing approach of the
arrangement, but also the supporting revenue stream. In addition, advisors
can help owners understand the application of “value-for-money” and life-
cycle analysis and the rate structure that should be applied. OAs can help
evaluate proposals and validate potential proposer arrangements to add con-
fidence that a proposed approach is viable.
Risk management. Understanding risk allocation for a P3 project is criti-
cal for an owner. The most successful P3 projects allocate the risks to the
party most able to manage said risks. As discussed in Chapter 3, a thorough
TABLE 7.1 – Benefits and Challenges of P3 Projects
Benefits Challenges
• Innovative financing structures • Cost of financing is higher
• Owner retains control of rate setting in most models • May be perceived as privatization, with ratepayers at
• Rate leveling over life of asset(s) the mercy of private industry
• Optimization of the risk profile, including: • Limited experience in the U.S. water industry, and
limited proposal pool in some cases
º Performance risks • Requires significant advisory support to set up
º Labor risks • Tends to be complex for owners and the private
º Cost/schedule risks sector alike
º Financing risks • Limited experience in water P3 market
• Collaboration during the development period and
• Public sentiment can be negative
beyond, where appropriate
• Political will may not be strong
• Overall lifecycle cost can be lower
TABLE 7.2 – P3 Project Considerations
Area Consideration
Financing Obtain all or a portion of funding from alternative financing sources using a combination
of private equity and debt that is typically repaid by the owner after construction through
a monthly service fee. Also, check to see if information exists as to whether there is any
flexibility in the project financing costs.
Innovation Promoting innovative projects with new technology is outside the owner’s usual experience
or capabilities.
Asset management Increase in accountability and efficiency, and optimization of assets.
Risk management Allocating design, build, O&M cost, changes in law, and performance risks to qualified
private entities.
Public benefit Support for a business case decision to offset the potential added cost of private financing
(especially equity) in return for added performance commitments and risk transfer.
Technology Technology solutions allow design flexibility in conjunction with appropriate performance
guarantees.
Customer rates Providing a mechanism for rate stability can occur by providing price certainty for an
extended term period for operations, maintenance, and capital renewal.

Using a progressive design-build delivery for the Honey Creek Pump Station, Force
Main, and Gravity Sewer Improvements Project, the collaborative-delivery team was
able to work together from the beginning of the design process, thus fostering a
strong project understanding needed to deal with each unique situation and deliver
a quality project within the Consent Decree deadline. (Garney Construction)
understanding of the risks, the assignment of those risks, and how to best
manage those risks are vital to overall project success. When owners consider
the cost of capital—design and construction—and O&M for P3 delivery, they
have an accurate picture of the overall project cost. A more thorough discus-
sion on risk and risk management is included later in this chapter.
Technical. Traditionally, OAs, as described in Chapter 1, can help develop
project scope performance standards; a management plan and procurement
documents; facilitate meetings during the procurement process; monitor
delivery of the asset under a P3 arrangement; and offer technical advice and
expertise. Best practices for OAs in this role are included later in this chapter.
In this capacity, an OA should demonstrate the ability to work effectively with
P3 legal and financial advisors.
Other Decision Factors

Owners that have a clear understanding about the characteristics of P3 proj-
ects are better able to make the essential decisions required for the project.
As recommended in Chapter 1, it is important that owners have a champion
dedicated to facilitating stakeholder education while garnering industry
interest in the project. Through education about the public benefits and
risk, and understanding how the project is implemented with a transparent

decision-making process, owners can connect the dots between project driv-
ers and the most appropriate delivery model.
The hallmark of a successful design-build and P3 project is the commitment
to collaboration by multiple stakeholders who have made a commitment to
be involved in the project as part of the totality of the lifecycle of the asset.
The outcome of this commitment is the optimization of design and construc-
tion, timely and cost-effective construction, and increased efficiencies during
facility operation. The collaboration further leverages each party’s strengths,
offering advantages to those bearing the lifecycle cost of the asset—the owner
and ratepayers.
It should also be noted that design-builders for P3 projects typically absorb
substantial levels of project delivery risk (often at higher levels than stand-
alone design-build projects) to support the P3 entity’s financing arrangements.
P3 PROJECT FUNDING AND FINANCING

For this discussion, it is important to understand the difference between
project funding and project financing. In the water and wastewater sector,
“funding” refers to monies obtained by public entities through traditional
appropriations, taxes, user fees, development fees, and other means to pay the
costs of a project, including capital, O&M, repair and replacement, financing
costs, and repayment of debt used to finance the project. “Financing” refers to
the arrangements made to fund a project from one of many sources. In a P3
project, public- and private-sector entities finance capital costs over the life of
the project to reflect the timing needed for each phase of a project.
Typically, the term “cost of capital” refers to the cost of financing a project.
Under current U.S. income tax laws, government agencies can finance proj-
ects at lower rates than private entities. This is because public debt is usually
tax-exempt and can cover 100% of a project’s capital costs.
On the other hand, financing in the private sector is generally taxable (unless
a private activity bond with tax-exempt status can be utilized for the project).
Private financing includes the relatively expensive equity (typically 15% to
25% of the capital cost in P3 financing is equity and carries an annual rate of
return of 10% to 15%). Consequently, a misperception exists that privately
financed projects (e.g., P3s) are not financially viable. This response depends
on two key factors: (1) whether the lifecycle costs can be significantly reduced
with P3 and (2) whether the cost of risk (where the “cost” of risk involves a
somewhat subjective analysis) provides a benefit. Therefore, when evaluat-
ing a project’s financial suitability, it is important to consider these additional
factors (via a “value-for-money” analysis) to holistically assess project cost.
Benefits of private financing may include other considerations.
• Depending on state law and specific provisions of the P3 arrangement,
private financing may not impact the owner’s borrowing capacity, pos-
sibly enabling the owner to preserve credit capacity for other purposes
or projects.

• While subject to debate as a matter of public policy, P3 projects that are
privately financed can be structured to include an upfront concession
payment that the owner can use for other needs and obligations.
Financing Decisions
There are three financing approaches to P3 projects that are most commonly
used.
1. Public financing. The design and construction costs are fully financed
by the owner, typically via municipal tax-exempt bonds, grants, and
loans from governmental agencies (e.g., DBO).
2. Private financing. The design and construction costs are fully financed
by the private sector, typically via a combination of equity and debt.
3. A hybrid of public and private financing.
Financing terms currently in use on water/wastewater P3 projects include the
following.
• Debt. This consists of loans and bonds secured by the financing entity
(public or private). Debt can be a combination of short- and long-term
loans, sourced from commercial banks, investment banks, or institu-
tional investors (pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign
funds). General obligation and revenue bonds issued by a public entity
include tax-exempt, taxable, and tax-exempt private-activity bonds.
• Equity. This typically constitutes cash, capital shares, or quasi-equity
products (e.g., junior or subordinated debt) invested by the P3 sponsors.
The P3 team comprises one or more participants whose core business
includes investment, construction, O&M, or a combination of these
activities. These participants have a shared interest in investing their
own equity into a P3 within their core business area (investment, design,
construction, and O&M of the infrastructure).
When private financing is used, the P3 entity is responsible for financing
the project. How the P3 entity raises the required amount and type of debt
depends on a range of factors.
• The anticipated design and construction costs.
• The terms and conditions of the P3 agreement.
• Location of the P3.
• The type of P3.
These factors and others influence the P3 project’s “gearing” (debt-to-equity
ratio). In a privately financed, long-term water/wastewater P3 project, gearing
is typically 75% to 85% debt and 15% to 25% equity.
Repayment
In a typical water/wastewater P3 project, the P3 entity will be paid in one of
two ways, a combination of a fixed-fee (also called availability payment) and
a variable fee.

A fixed-fee payment (also called availability payment) is paid to the P3 entity
as long as it makes the asset available for use. The term “available” means the
asset can fulfill its intended use according to the contract (including perfor-
mance and capacity requirements), and the P3 entity is fulfilling its contractual
obligations. The fixed-fee payment represents fixed O&M costs and fixed
financing costs (including debt service and equity returns) associated with
design and construction costs. In addition, a variable payment is made based
on usage of the asset to cover the actual costs of O&M.
A demand payment is a fixed-unit price approach that covers essentially all
costs (financing, O&M, R&R) and is typically accompanied by a minimum
level of usage (take-or-pay).
A typical P3 project agreement includes terms and conditions for the P3
entity’s contractual performance obligations and owner remedies if perfor-
mance obligations are not met, including not having to pay for services that
are not delivered according to contractual obligations. The P3 project agree-
ment defines the owner’s right to perform routine (annual, quarterly, weekly,
etc.) inspections and audits to ensure that the P3 entity is meeting all its O&M
and repair and replacement obligations. In the event the P3 entity fails to
meet its obligations, it is required to submit a plan to the owner to remedy
deficiencies in an expeditious manner.
Using fixed-price design-build delivery, the innovative Terminal Island WRP Advanced Water Purification
Facility Ultimate Expansion in Los Angeles, CA, now takes wastewater that would have been discharged
into the nearby harbor and cleans the water using advanced water purification technology including
microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and an advanced oxidation process (AOP), using ultraviolet (UV)
purification. (The Walsh Group/Carollo Engineers/Xylem, Inc.)

Short- and Long-Term Financing
Short-term financing refers to financing design and construction costs orig-
inating from the project’s notice to proceed through successful acceptance
testing and final completion. This type of financing is used by the P3 entity
for design and construction costs, after which long-term financing is put into
place by either the P3 entity or owner for debt repayment (principal and inter-
est) as stipulated in the P3 agreement. Long-term financing would span the
remaining life of the P3 project arrangement or the useful life of the project.
Long-term financing for a P3 project could also include monies for a major
maintenance/replacement fund. As a result, the P3 project approach offers
maximum flexibility in financing.
P3 PROJECT PROCUREMENT
While P3 project procurements can be complex, the collaborative-delivery
practices described in Chapter 2 expedite the process. Incorporating one of
two delivery models—PDB or FPDB—for the procurement process is rec-
ommended. One of the key differences in P3 procurement, however, is that
when the contract is awarded, projects are often initiated with a single project
notice to proceed at financial close. While this step eliminates distinct design
or construction stages, it starts the clock at the project’s substantial comple-
tion milestone (often with several milestones in between). However, there is
no single consistent approach to P3 project procurement, and precedents in
transportation, social infrastructure, and public facility P3 projects may not
be appropriate for water and wastewater projects.
Procurement Differences
P3 projects differ from other collaborative-delivery procurements in several ways.
• Nomenclature. In a P3 project, proposers may also be referred to as “pro-
ponents,” “sponsors,” or “offerors.” Also, the private entity may be referred
to as the “project company,” “special purpose vehicle,” or “developer.”
• Duration and cost. Owners typically engage technical, financial, and
legal advisors experienced with P3 projects. For proposers, poten-
tial lender third-party advisors independently validate the P3 entity’s
approach. Following the validation of the approach, the contract must
be finalized, financing must be arranged, and final pricing agreed upon.
These activities can add time and cost to the proposal process. In some
cases, it can take several months between selection of the successful pro-
poser and financial close.
• Bifurcated submittals. P3 procurements can require separate technical
submittals that must be evaluated and approved before proposers can
submit cost information.
• Emphasis on more than capital costs. Proposals for a P3 project are
sometimes evaluated based entirely on monetary factors. These factors
may include design, construction, O&M, and repair and replacement,
and project financing is often combined into a single lifecycle cost. This
approach may not be in the owner’s best interest as it differs from a

best-value evaluation process where a combination of price and non-
price evaluation criteria are applied.
• Communication. The project entity is the proposer, and as such, all for-
mal communication throughout procurement and delivery is between
the owner and the proposer. The project entity, its design-builder, and
its O&M team will agree on a communication plan approved by the
owner that encourages communication throughout the period of the P3
arrangement.
• Contract definition. Many P3 project procurements are based on a
single agreement that is modified based upon input during the pro-
curement process. A final contract, to which all parties must agree,
may be issued as part of the final request for proposals (RFP) prior to
the proposal deadline. Having an almost completely negotiated project
agreement in place before the financial submission usually helps both
the owner and project entity to achieve certainty.
• Security for performance. Many P3 projects require security in the
form of surety bonds, letters of credit, and parent company guarantees.
Security for performance guarantees covers the work performed for
design and construction, O&M, and financing. Since the project entity
is responsible for these elements, the work in advance of payment from
the owner, absent legal restrictions, and the size of the security can be
less than 100% of the value of the work. Security for performance guar-
antees can be overprescriptive or overprotective, which can be costly.
Striking the right balance of risk mitigation is critical to a cost-effective
project.
Procurement Tactics
During the P3 procurement process, the following guiding principles can
facilitate success and a win-win outcome for both the public and private
partners.
“Competition Is A Good Thing”

Robust competition with a level playing field for all proposers is a must. The
owner should establish an objective benchmark to measure the value that the
private partner brings to the project. The optimal number of highly qualified
proposers is three to four. To further ensure that the internal procurement
process is of value to the organization, the owner should develop its own pri-
vate benchmarks on the expected value of the procurement, based on recent
comparable procurements in the market.
The owner should then finalize its benchmarks before receiving proposals
and compare them to the submitted proposals to determine if the proposal
that appears to bring the best value is also meeting the defined expectations.
It may also be advisable for the public agency to prepare a benchmark for
estimated costs and risks under non-P3 project delivery, such as design-build
or traditional design-bid-build with public financing and public operation.

“Due Diligence Pays Off ”
The owner should analyze the project’s feasibility, including anticipated costs,
risks, and revenues, to gain private-sector interest in the project. As previ-
ously discussed, engaging with the right OAs to support the project early
and throughout the process is important. These OAs can identify situations
that require due diligence prior to a P3 project, such as the status and tim-
ing of environmental approvals, utility matters, extensive soil condition data
collection, and detailed hazardous materials investigations.
The results of early due diligence are factored into the overall risk-adjusted
project costs and calculated through a structured process whereby the public-
sector procurement team evaluates the risks, likelihood of their occurrence,
and potential effects on cost and schedule.
“Get It In Writing”
Procurement documents and the terms and conditions for P3 project agree-
ments need to clearly protect both parties’ interests. Procurement documents
should describe what the owner wants and expects, the drivers for the project,
and how proposers will be evaluated. As a project transitions to implementa-
tion following the financial close, the individuals who initially procured the
project will likely change. If these key changes are not defined in writing, new-
comers could have different interpretations of agreement provisions.
“Stakeholder Support Is A Must”

All parties with an interest in the project—including the public, users, elected
and appointed government officials, utility management, and O&M staff—
need to support the value proposition to proceed with P3 project procurement.
This assumes, of course, that the business case for a P3 procurement has been
made and available and analyzed by all stakeholders. With respect to munici-
pal utility projects, and because the value proposition of a P3 project can be
challenging, stakeholder involvement cannot be neglected.
For example, when low-cost public financing with tax-exempt bonds and
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are available, a complex and costly P3 project
is difficult to justify due to local preference for municipal O&M and small
projects.
APPORTIONING AND MANAGING PROJECT RISK

One of the greatest values the P3 approach offers the owner is the flexibility to
manage project risk across all parties and throughout the project lifecycle.
This characteristic benefits both parties and may reduce overall costs to the
ratepayer. Table 7.3 identifies some of the common risks in water/wastewater
P3 projects. The risks associated with the other collaborative-delivery ap-
proaches embedded within a P3 project are also addressed in Chapter 3.
While many risks in a P3 project are common across different sectors (e.g.,
transportation, vertical construction, water), some are unique to a given
sector or project. Many sources of information are available to help owners
navigate the process of evaluating, developing, and delivering a P3 project

TABLE 7.3 – Apportioning Owner's Risks in a P3 using DBO (DBOM) or DBFO (DBFOM) delivery methods
Risks Owner Retains Risks Owner Transfers
Design and Construction (refer to Chapter 3) Design and Construction (refer to Chapter 3)
• Land and easement acquisition • Design and construction cost (subject to UCs)
• Technical requirements • Schedule (subject to UCs)
• Environmental approvals and permits • Building and administrative permits
• Quality and quantity of influent (raw water) • Quality and quantity of output (e.g. finished water,
• Site conditions effluent)
• Uncontrollable circumstances (UCs) • Performance (quality/quantity of output; subject to
• Owner-directed changes quality and quantity of input)
• Damage to owner’s property • Construction warranty
• Payment responsibility
• Condition of existing infrastructure Operation and Maintenance
• O&M costs (subject to UCs)
Operation and Maintenance • Include costs to meet any turnover condition
• Uncontrollable circumstances requirements as per the P3 agreement
• Quality and quantity of input (e.g., Influent, raw water) • Could include major maintenance, repair and
• Condition of existing infrastructure replacement costs
• Performance (subject to quality and quantity of input)
Funding and Financing • Quality and quantity of output (e.g. finished water,
• Establishing user or tax rate to cover the true cost of effluent)
services • Safety
• Responsibility to arrange for municipal financing and • Payment of fines (subject to quality and quantity of
meet all financing requirements (DBO and DBFO in input)
hybrid financing approach) • Major maintenance, repair and replacement costs
Financing
• Responsibility to arrange for private financing (raise
required equity and place debt) and meet all financing
requirements (DBFO only)
Note: In the water sector, public owners tend to favor owning the water and wastewater infrastructure, and the private ownership of
infrastructure in a water sector P3 would not routinely be considered. In instances where a DBOOT or DBOO contract structure is
used, the risk transfer would be virtually the same as for a DBFOM except that the additional transfer terms and conditions would
have to be considered.
(including procurement practices and documents, forms of contracts, and

lender guidelines and requirements). It is important to note that while these
P3 information sources are useful, certain practices may not apply to water
and wastewater design, construction, and O&M. Therefore, owners should
adapt P3 project approaches to their specific requirements. Fortunately, the
P3 delivery model is extremely flexible and can accommodate unique require-
ments and objectives.
PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR

P3 PROJECT DELIVERY
For a P3 project to be successful, it must be developed to align with each
party’s unique goals and expectations. From the owner’s perspective, the
project must deliver benefits to the public often measured in terms of cost,
schedule, and risk. From the P3 entity’s perspective, the project must be
structured to allow it to manage risks, achieve the owner’s goals, and realize a
reasonable return on investment. Table 7.4 summarizes key actions required
for water/wastewater P3 contracts that best align owner and P3 entity goals
for a successful P3 project.

TRANSITION TO OWNER OPERATIONS
The transfer from the P3 entity to the owner at the end of the operations
is contractually described in the project agreement and detailed in a transi-
tion plan. The transition plan is usually a submission requirement of the RFP
process. The transition process for a P3 project occurs within several different
sequences of decision milestones relative to the performance and warran-
ties, depending on the owner’s approach to risk transfer and how the owner
decides it wants to proceed.
The P3 project agreement refers to the owner’s transfer requirements—the
obligation to hand the infrastructure back to the owner at the end of the term
in the required condition. Transition requirements can include the following.
• Minimum required condition and performance levels of the project at
the end of the operating period prior to transfer.
• A suitable remaining service life.
• Remaining design life expectations.
• Fully operational infrastructure.
• Up-to-date documentation for the infrastructure.
• Resolution of outstanding safety issues.
• Hands-on training for the owner’s O&M staff or nominated representatives.
Both partners can also jointly agree to appoint an independent inspector to
evaluate the project and provide a transition report, also referred to as a “con-
dition assessment report.” The inspector is usually a consultant with expertise
in engineering design discipline and cost estimation. The independent inspec-
tor may conduct a series of inspections, examinations, and tests to assess what
is likely to be required in order to achieve the transition acceptance. A result-
ing written report, given to the P3 entity, entails the work required and the
cost of performing the work. The report may include the following contents.
• Photographs of equipment and structures inspected at the sites.
• The availability of tools, testing, and laboratory equipment to perform
O&M functions.
• An inventory of spare parts and supplies for critical and noncritical
equipment.
• The structural condition of buildings, tanks, and vessels.
• The mechanical condition of pumps, motors, blowers, and chemical
feeders.
• Health and safety issues that could impact O&M personnel.
• The electrical condition of motor control centers and panels.
• Status of the SCADA system, alarms, and other monitoring equipment.
Following the receipt of the report, the P3 entity prepares a comprehensive
workplan and schedule acceptable to the owner that meet the transition
requirements.

TABLE 7.4 – P3 Project Action Plan
Project Phase Action Steps
Evaluation of P3 • Review and confirm legal authority to pursue a P3 project, identify legal requirements and
viability and merits flexibilities provided to the owner
• Assess P3 project characteristics (e.g., scope, term, funding requirements, etc.) to evaluate
viability
• Evaluate existing performance of the project infrastructure and service (past experiences and
results of design, build, and O&M elements)
• Identify and develop the key performance metrics and confirm current performance to these
metrics
• Perform risk analysis and proposed allocation
• Perform value-for-money analysis, on an equal basis, to compare potential delivery models
• Develop a funding plan necessary to perform the value-for-money analysis
• Develop a financing plan if the project does not include private financing
• Prepare a condition assessment of existing assets, if applicable
• Identify a transition plan for existing employees and address employee and labor union
concerns
• Evaluate market interest in the project via market assessment
• Formulate and initiate a public education plan
Assignment of the • Identify and empower project leadership to facilitate support and alignment of owner staff
owner P3 project • Assign adequate qualified resources to the project
team • Procure qualified advisors with expertise in key areas, including financial, legal, and technical/
engineering
• Determine internal and external communication needs and establish protocol for all
stakeholders
Development of the • Establish clear and comprehensive scope over the life of the P3
P3 project approach • Develop an approach for funding
• Develop an approach for financing (for publicly financed projects)
• Develop the owner’s oversight and monitoring program implemented during the project term
that includes all owner rights and reservations
• Procurement
o Use a two-step process: RFQ, RFP
o Use best-value procurement approaches
o Review team and personnel experience and qualifications, financial strength, ability to
secure insurance, and project security during RFQ stage
o Conduct confidential one-on-one meetings
• Include a draft P3 project agreement in procurement documents that should:
o Be largely performance-based and allow innovation throughout the project’s lifecycle
o Incentivize performance and/or disincentivize nonperformance
o Clearly address regulatory compliance risks
o Address change-in-law requirements
o Address technology risk, obsolescence, and capital modifications during the P3 project
term
o Clearly specify security for performance, guarantee terms, and insurance requirements
o Promote collaboration throughout the project lifecycle
o Include a mechanism to address revenue sharing (savings resulting from delivery
efficiencies) throughout the P3 lifecycle
o Clearly address handback requirements at the end of the P3 project agreement
Implementation of • Implement monitoring and oversight plan
the P3 project o Attend scheduled status meeting and monitor design and construction
o Provide a process for acceptance testing
o Transition to the O&M phase
o Attend scheduled status meeting and monitor O&M
o Perform scheduled audits of O&M services and performance
o Identify and manage any disputes in accordance with the dispute resolution developed for
the P3 agreement
o Manage the transition and turnover of the infrastructure in accordance with the
P3 agreement

FINAL P3 CONSIDERATIONS
P3 projects have received increasing attention in recent years as public
agencies strive to identify new ways to deliver projects under increasingly
challenging conditions. While some projects are well suited for P3 delivery,
the number of P3 projects in the water/wastewater sector has been limited to
date due to the following factors.
• The need for equity investment is likely to result in a significantly higher
cost of capital (before adjusting for project risk allocation) with private
financing.
• P3 project arrangements are complex and costly to procure.
• While P3 risk-transfer benefits may be attractive for complex projects
with technologies unfamiliar to public agencies (e.g., desalination, bio-
solids, and nutrient harvesting), many water and wastewater projects
are relatively straightforward and do not typically generate significant
risk-adjusted cost savings.
• While cost savings attributable to P3 lifecycle cost efficiencies may be
significant, the level of savings on a particular project can be difficult to
predict and involve subjective considerations that are subject to debate
and uncertainty.
• Local government and public attitudes tend to favor public over p rivate
operation, particularly in the water market, given that public perception
places public health responsibility on the government, raising concerns
over private operation of water facilities.
While there are a number of factors that have limited the use of P3s in the
water market, it is important to recognize P3s remain a viable delivery model
for owners with specific circumstances that lend themselves to P3 delivery,
including the desire to:
• Improve project risk allocation between the owner and private-sector
entity across the project lifecycle;
• Reduce capital and/or lifecycle project costs by transferring responsi-
bility for long-term facility operation and performance to the private
sector; and
• Use innovative financing approaches to benefit the owner in terms of
rate setting, etc.
A successful P3 will align these interests to deliver long-term financial value
to the owner and ratepayers.

CASE STUDIES
Construction management at-risk (CMAR), progressive design-build, and fixed-price design-build delivery
methods for water and wastewater projects are now used throughout the United States. These case studies
feature a selection of projects representing the delivery methods discussed in the handbook. For additional
information on these and other design-build projects completed by WDBC members, please visit the WDBC
website: WaterDesignBuild.com/projects. Please remember that laws vary from state to state; to determine
whether you can use a specific collaborative-delivery method, seek local legal advice.
WDBC MEMBER FIRM PROJECTS

AECOM Carollo Design-Build Group
City of East Providence (RI) (Carollo Engineers and PCL Construction)
East Providence Wastewater Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . CS-3 West Valley Water District (CA)
City of Newport (RI) West Valley Water District Perchlorate Treatment Plant . . CS-13
Lawton Valley Water Treatment Plant City of Longmont Water Department (CO)
[CDM Smith (OA); Xylem, Inc. (supplier)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-4 Longmont WWTP Ammonia Treatment and
Biosolids Dewatering Improvement Design-Build . . . . . . . CS-14
Arcadis
Hampton Roads Sanitation District (VA) CDM Smith
Basin VB 340 Design-Build Sewer Rehabilitation
[Brown and Caldwell (OA)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-5 City of Boynton Beach (FL)
Ion Exchange Resin Plant and East Water
City of Lancaster (OH) Treatment Plant Improvements
River Valley Highlands Sewer Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . CS-6 [Carollo Design-Build Group (Subcontractor)] . . . . . . . . CS-15
Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority (CT)
Black & Veatch Mystic Water Pollution Control Facility
Metropolitan Water Reclamation [Xylem, Inc. (supplier)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-16
District of Greater Chicago (IL)
Nutrient Recovery Facility at Stickney Water
Reclamation Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-7 Garney Construction/Burns & McDonnell
Medina County (OH) Left Hand Water District (CO)
Kenneth W. Hotz Water Reclamation Facility . . . . . . . . . . . .CS-8 Dodd Water Treatment Plant Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-17
Brown and Caldwell/Haskell Joint Venture Garney Construction

Bush Brothers & Company (TN) DeKalb County (GA)
Honey Creek Pump Station, Force Main, and
Bush Beans Process Water Reclamation Facility . . . . . . . . . CS-9
Gravity Sewer Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-18
Brown and Caldwell
North Davis Sewer District (UT) Haskell/Black & Veatch
Biosolids Design-Build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-10 Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (VA)
Opequon Water Reclamation Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-19
Burns & McDonnell/CAS Constructors –
an Alberici Enterprise – Joint Venture Haskell
City of Hays (KS) City of St. Petersburg (FL)
Chetolah Creek Water Reclamation and Southwest Water Reclamation Facility Biosolids Waste
Reuse Facility Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-11 to Energy Project [AECOM, Brown and Caldwell, Black &
City of Emporia (KS) Veatch, Carollo (Design Teams)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-20
Emporia Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements . . . . CS-12
CS-1
WDBC MEMBER FIRM PROJECTS (continued)
Hopewell Nutrient Partners Stantec

(HDR and PC Construction) Capital Regional District (BC, Canada)
City of Hopewell (VA) Capital Regional District Wastewater
Hopewell Water Renewal’s Alternative 4A-1 Light, Treatment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CS-31
Phase 2 Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-21
TESCO Controls, Inc.
HDR Phelan Piñon Hills Community Services District (CA)
San Jose Water Company (CA) Phelan Piñon Hills SCADA/PLC/Telemetry
Montevina Water Treatment Plant Improvements . . . . . . . CS-22 Replacement Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-32
Roseville Department of Environmental Utilities (CA)
Jacobs SCADA System Replacement Project [Jacobs (Designer)] . CS-33
Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (CA)
Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project The Walsh Group/Carollo Engineers
[Xylem, Inc. (supplier)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-23 City of Los Angeles (CA)
Terminal Island WRP Advanced Water Purification
Facility Ultimate Expansion Design-Build
Houston Waterworks Team
[Xylem, Inc. (supplier)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-34
(Jacobs and CDM Smith)
City of Houston (TX)
Northeast Water Purification Plant Expansion Project The Walsh Group/Arcadis
[Carollo Engineers (OA); Balfour Beatty, McCarthy City of Scottsdale (AZ)
Building Companies, Inc. (Subcontractors)] . . . . . . . . . . . CS-24 Scottsdale CAP Water Treatment Plant
Expansion CMAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-35
Kiewit/Brown and Caldwell
City of Atlanta, Department of Watershed Management (GA)
RM Clayton WRC Headworks Improvements Design-Build WDBC ADVISOR FIRM PROJECTS
[Xylem, Inc. (supplier)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-25
ACCIONA Agua
Kiewit/Stantec City of Saint John (NB, Canada)
Safe Clean Drinking Water Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-36
USACE – New Orleans District (LA)
Permanent Canal Closures and Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CS-26
Goodwin Brothers Construction
City of Liberty (MO)
OBG, Part of Ramboll Liberty Wastewater Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-37
Honeywell (NY)
Honeywell Water Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-27 McCarthy Building Companies, Inc./Carollo Engineers
Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RI) Colorado Springs Utilities (CO)
Leachate Pretreatment Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-28 Edward W. Bailey Water Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-38
Parsons PC Construction
City of Valdosta Utility Department (GA) DC Water (DC)
Withlacoochee River Water Pollution Control Plant McMillan Stormwater Storage and Green Infrastructure . CS-39
[Reynolds Construction (Construction Subcontractor);
Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. (supplier)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-29 Xylem, Inc.
San Antonio Water System (TX) Town of Berthoud (CO)
Brackish Groundwater Desalination Program Berthoud Regional Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-40
[Black & Veatch (Program Manager)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CS-30
CS-2 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Fixed-Price Design-Build Challenge
East Providence, Rhode Island, with a population of about 47,000, required
East Providence (RI) improvements to the city’s 8.9 million gallons per day (mgd) wastewater
East Providence collection, treatment and pump systems to bring it into regulatory compliance
and protect water quality in Narragansett Bay, New England’s largest
Wastewater Treatment
environmentally-sensitive estuary.
Plant
Approach
AECOM and an operations partner were awarded a fixed-price design-
build-operate contract in 2010 through a competitive bidding process.
AECOM designed a unique approach that moved and constructed a major
interceptor line from Pawtucket Avenue to the East Bay Bike Path. The
contract included improvements for total nitrogen removal, as well as sludge
thickening, aeration tanks, odor control, and sludge dewatering, as well as
improvements to clarifiers and pump stations. AECOM performed a BNR
upgrade and other capital improvements to comply with limits on nitrogen
levels in effluent and to provide a system that can be expanded in the future.
The treatment technology, integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS), will
enable compliance with more stringent nitrogen limits in the future. Collection
system modifications increased pumping capacity and reduced sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs) through increased pumping capacity and the self-cleaning
pump-station wet-well design.
Results
With overall costs at $50.6 million, AECOM’s collaborative approach resulted
in lowering capital costs by $4 million and meeting performance guarantees
on schedule. Innovations, such as re-routing the pipeline along the bike path,
provided numerous community benefits. Completed in 2013, the project
brought East Providence’s collection system and wastewater treatment plant
into compliance with new state regulatory requirements—a critical step in
protecting the environmentally sensitive Narragansett Bay.
“In my opinion, what the City has done is nothing short of spectacular.”
—East Providence Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr., in the Providence Journal
as the City Council approved the design-build-operate contract
PROJECT STATS
Start & End Year: 2010–2013
Size: 8
.9 MGD
Design & Construction
Value: $50.6M
Population Served: 47,000
Case Studies CS-3

Under a consent order to address challenges stemming from its nine surface
City of Newport (RI) water reservoirs, Newport, Rhode Island, needed to upgrade the existing Station
Lawton Valley Water No. 1 Water Treatment Plant, improve its process train, and demolish the
1940s-era water treatment plant at the Lawton Valley site and replace it with a
Treatment Plant new one. The new treatment plant would need to reduce the amount of total
organic carbon (TOC), which—if not removed from the source water—would
combine with the chlorine used for disinfection to produce resulting toxins
of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs). In addition,
during construction of the new facility, the city could not afford to lose the
storage capacity provided by the existing 4-mg reservoir buried on the site.
Subsequently, upgrades to the existing plant, from pulsator clarifiers to high-
rate drinking water activated filter (DAF), had to be made while continuing to
deliver drinking water to customers.
Approach
AECOM, as part of a joint venture, was awarded a fixed-price design-build
contract for the two projects. Working collaboratively with the City and
regulatory agencies, the joint venture developed a complete set of design, testing,
and start-up plans together with a water-quality testing protocol to facilitate
a smooth transition from the aging facilities to commissioning the new water
treatment plant. AECOM’s resourceful solution to the logistical challenges at the
Lawton Valley site included adding a new 1-mg bolted steel storage tank that
provided water to the existing plant operations and distribution to customers
during the construction. The older buried reservoir could be demolished early
in construction and the new plant built at a lower cost due to eliminating
costly sludge-pumping, storage and backwash tanks, and pumping at the plant.
Design and permitting for both facilities was completed in six months, allowing
construction to begin on schedule.
Results
The new Lawton Valley WTP is a 7-mgd plant with a new O&M building, high-
rate DAF and GAC filtration facilities, chemical-feed equipment, laboratory,
clearwell for finished water storage, post-filter absorbers using nine new GAC
contactors, and a new 2-mg elevated water storage tank for distribution system
storage.
AECOM’s unique design features multiple chemical dosing points and with
ultimate flexibility to treat changing water conditions on site, resulting in a
water recycling system that makes the overall plant treatment process 99.5%
water-efficient. High-efficiency motors, VFDs, and a design approach focusing
on LEED-certified standards make this plant one of the Northeast’s most
energy-efficient and cost-effective facilities, as well as its first water treatment
facility to specifically target difficult-to-treat surface waters and significantly
reduce TTHMs, using high-rate DAF and advanced water treatment using GAC
PROJECT STATS contactors. Operators can now draw from marginal raw-water sources they
haven’t been able to use for over 30 years, while exceeding all finished-water
quality parameters.
Size: 9
MGD (Lawton Valley)
The upgraded Station No. 1 plant was five months ahead of schedule, and the new
7 MDG (Station No. 1)
Lawton Valley plant was more than three months ahead of schedule—and both
Design & Construction were delivered for less than the City’s capital budget. The two water treatment
Value: $64M plants will provide safe, reliable drinking water to Newport for years to come.
Population Served: 25,0000 Other WDBC firms involved: CDM Smith (owner advisor) and Xylem, Inc.
(supplier of dissolved air flotation system and granulated activated carbon filters)

Progressive Design-Build Challenge
To fulfill the objectives of the Clean Water Act and achieve full compliance,
Hampton Roads HRSD used the progressive design-build project delivery method to
Sanitation District (VA) rehabilitate Basin VB 340 which is located in the city of Virginia Beach’s
collection system. HRSD set a goal of reducing the peak one-hour flow during
Basin VB 340 a 10-year design storm by 20% as determined using HRSD’s hydraulic model
Design-Build Sewer and pre- vs. post-rehabilitation flow data for calibration. Due to the fact that
much of the basin consisted of privately owned sewers interspersed with public
Rehabilitation sewers, a good portion of the 500 laterals was private and outside the right of
way and therefore off limits to rehabilitation. Of the five miles of pipe in the
basin, only two were public and available for this project, dictating a >50%
removal requirement from the available assets. Of the two miles of publicly-
owned sewers, one mile had been televised, and the video indicated the pipe
had almost no structural defects, indicating that structural repairs to the main
were redundant and that the leakage must be coming from the mainline joints,
the laterals, or inflow sources.
Approach
Arcadis proposed to approach this design-build project as a Buried
Infrastructure Guaranteed Outcome (BINGO) RDII project using Arcadis’
Grout First approach. ARCADIS engaged five trenchless subcontractors,
providing significant overlap of capabilities to minimize performance risks.
This turnkey work featured the testing of 1,743 mainline joints, 310 lateral tap
connections (8’ and 20’ lengths), and 1,153 lateral joints tested through the
cleanout. 30% of the pipe joints, 19% of the lateral joints, and 35% of the tap
connections failed the air test and were successfully grouted. In addition, 66
laterals connected to manholes were tested and grouted. Only two cured-in-
place point repairs were required, and no mainline lining or lateral lining was
needed. Perhaps most significantly, almost all the cleanouts were found to be
below grade and leaking, functioning as area drains, so Arcadis placed cleanout
caps in nearly all of the 500 cleanouts.
Results
Rainfall derived inflow and infiltration volume was reduced by 36%. Peak one-
hour flows during the 10-year storm were reduced by 12%. However, the target
peak hour removal was not achieved even with various rehabilitation strategies
employed. All work was completed for 84% of the allotted cost.
Other WDBC firm involved: Brown and Caldwell (owner advisor)
“HRSD would like to acknowledge the efforts of Arcadis in delivering our Locality
Rehabilitation Design-Build Pilot Project. The project involved evaluating and
implementing the most cost-effective solution for reducing inflow and infiltration
into a gravity sanitary sewer collection system. The Arcadis project manager, Jim
PROJECT STATS Shelton, was knowledgeable, responsive, and a great communicator. The level
of collaboration between HRSD, the City of Virginia Beach, and Arcadis was
Start & End Year: 2015–2017 outstanding. The project was delivered within the guaranteed maximum price
Size: N/A and on time, due in large part to the efforts of the Arcadis project team. I look
forward to the opportunity to work with Jim and the Arcadis team in the future.”
—John J. Dano, PE, PMP, ENV SP, Chief of Planning & Analysis
Value: $1.7M
Case Studies CS-5

Less than 10 years ago River Valley Highlands turned over an unfinished,
City of Lancaster (OH) developer-constructed sewer system to the City of Lancaster, OH. One to three
River Valley Highlands times a year numerous homes experienced unexplained basement backups
during heavy rain events. An investigation showed a significant increase in flow
Sewer Rehabilitation during these events with peaks greater than 10 times the norm. Spot CCTV
revealed no visual defects in the pipes.
Approach
The project work included inspecting and testing joints in 22,582 linear feet
of pipe consisting of 8-inch and 12-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP). 4,652
joints were tested; 961 (21%) failed the air test and were successfully grouted.
Notably, the project work also included inspecting and testing 10-inch and
12-inch sewer pipe. 45% of the 10-inch and 12-inch pipes, which tended to
be in the wetter, lower lying area, were found to leak. 489 lateral taps and the
first 10 lf of the lateral were air tested; 256 (52%) failed the air test and were
successfully grouted. Significantly, 93% of the laterals on 10-inch pipe and 70%
of the laterals on 12-inch pipes, which tended to be in the wetter, lower lying
area, were found to leak. For the entire project, only one fracture was found in
any of the pipes.
Results
Since completion of the project, the 2018 summer and fall seasons were the
wettest on record in more than a decade. During this period, no sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs) or basement backups have occurred. Post-rehabilitation flow
monitoring is underway to quantify the reduction in I&I. It is believed that more
follow-up monitoring will demonstrate success beyond the initial success, which
was the elimination of SSOs and basement backups.
PROJECT STATS
Size: N/A
Value: $1.9M

The largest ocean hypoxic area, or dead zone, currently affecting the United
Metropolitan Water States occurs in the northern Gulf of Mexico, adjacent to the mouth of the
Reclamation District of Mississippi River. This dead zone, roughly the size of Connecticut, forms along
Greater Chicago (IL) the Louisiana and Texas coastlines each summer. It’s caused by agricultural
runoff that is loaded with nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as a number of
Nutrient Recovery other sources, such as urban wastewater treatment facilities.
Facility at Stickney Water Phosphorus washes into the Mississippi River and eventually into the Gulf.
Reclamation Plant Excess phosphorus in waterways can cause algae to grow and bloom, eating up
oxygen and creating toxic conditions that threaten aquatic life in lakes, rivers,
and even the ocean.
Approach
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago has taken
a lead in dealing with this problem by transitioning its Stickney Water
Reclamation Plant (WRP), the largest wastewater treatment facility of its kind
in the world, into a water resource recovery facility.
Black & Veatch designed and built the world’s largest nutrient recovery facility
at the Stickney WRP. The plant is providing an environmentally progressive
solution to support the larger goal of reducing Gulf hypoxia.
Results
The recovery facility is reducing nutrient loads to the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Des Plaines River, Illinois River, and downstream in the Mississippi
River to help address the problem in the Gulf. It also enables the recovery
of phosphorus and nitrogen waste streams, which are converted into a new
generation of slow-release fertilizers.
Selling the finished product as a commercial fertilizer helps close the nutrient
loop in another way. When it’s placed on agricultural fields, excess phosphorus
not taken up by plants does not immediately run off into adjacent waterways
when it rains, as is the case with many commercial fertilizers.
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago installed
three Ostara Pearl® 10,000 reactors in the Stickney nutrient recovery facility.
The Pearl phosphorus recovery system can recover more than 85 percent of the
phosphorus and up to 15 percent of the nitrogen from wastewater streams.
The facility has a production capacity of up to 10,000 tons of a high-value,
continuous-release fertilizer product per year that will be marketed and sold as
Crystal Green®.
“Black & Veatch partnered with us to do the design and construction of this
innovative phosphorus recovery facility, and we’re really pleased to be part of the
collaboration.”
PROJECT STATS —Mariyana Spyropoulos, President of the Board of Commissioners
Start & End Year: 2013–2016 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Size: 1200 MGD “We used Black & Veatch’s expertise in phosphorus treatment, as well as process
modeling, to optimize the sizing of the phosphorus recovery facility and achieve our
goal for efficiency.”
Value: $31M
—Glenn Rohloff, Supervising Civil Engineer
Population Served: equiv. to 2.3M Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Case Studies CS-7

It can take a lot of energy to kill pathogens and harmful bacteria in waste-
Medina County (OH) water. That is, when your processing technology is 40 years old like Medina
Kenneth W. Hotz Water County’s was at the Kenneth W. Hotz Water Reclamation Facility (formerly
the Liverpool Wastewater Treatment Plant). To process the facility’s biosolids
Reclamation Facility
more efficiently and save energy costs, the county implemented a design-build
performance contract.
Approach
Performance contracting is a design-build method that helps owners fund
efficiency-related improvements. Generally, the contract specifies the improve-
ments to be made, and the efficiencies to be achieved. Savings from the effi-
ciencies are used to pay for the improvements. For a set time after a project is
completed, its performance is monitored and savings verified. If a shortfall oc-
curs, the owner is reimbursed. Put another way, improvements delivered under
a design-build performance contract are guaranteed to pay for themselves.
Black & Veatch served as the performance contractor on Medina County’s
project. Under the contract, the county implemented numerous efficiencies,
including:
• Digester Improvements. The facility features thermal hydrolysis process
(THP) technology. Applied in pretreatment, THP increases the biodegrad-
ability of wastewater residuals. This leads to increased digester loading
rates. THP also produces more digester gas. Seizing this opportunity via a
combined heat and power (CHP) system, the facility is designed to capture
digester gas, fuel about 30 percent of its energy requirement, and cut in half
its energy costs.
• Tank Savings. The project features steel tanks, two for anaerobic digestion,
one for high-strength waste storage. The tanks were built from the ground
up using an innovative steel-coil, spiral-seam construction. It was the tech-
nology’s first-ever installation in the U.S. The steel tanks are safer and take
less time to build, and cost about a third less than traditional concrete tanks.
• Phosphorus Recovery. Previously, the county only removed phosphorus.
Facility upgrades included adding Sidestream-Enhanced Biological Phos-
phorus Removal (SEBPR) to the liquid process, allowing the county to gain
additional treatment capacity. Additionally, a struvite harvesting system was
added to recover phosphorus from the biosolids stream, and convert it back
into fertilizer form.
Results
The Kenneth W. Hotz Water Reclamation Facility serves about 35,000
customers, and it processes an average of 9 million gallons a day (mgd), or
34 ML/d. The upgrades completed under the performance contract are
expected to reduce the facility’s energy costs by $1.5 million and its annual
PROJECT STATS operating costs by approximately 50 percent, while increasing its effectiveness
and environmental sustainability.
Size: 9 MGD “Black & Veatch’s team has been great to work with. Their process experts
have been readily available, open to many questions, and deeply engaged in
Design & Construction understanding our operations and wastewater treatment plant.”
Value: $35M
—Amy S. Lyon-Galvin, P.E., Medina County Sanitary Engineers,
Population Served: 35,000 in WaterWorld, January 31, 2017

Bush Brothers & The Brown and Caldwell/Haskell Joint Venture (BC/Haskell) designed and
constructed a new process water reclamation facility (PWRF) to provide
Company (TN) a long-term solution for process water management that allows for future
Bush Beans Process production growth and water reuse at the Bush Brothers & Company (BB&C)
facility in Chestnut Hill, Tennessee.
Water Reclamation
The project involved planning, process design, detailed design, and
Facility
construction of a new PWRF. The vision for the new PWRF had three goals:
(1) organically treat vegetable wastewater to a high degree of purity, (2) reduce
Brown and Caldwell/Haskell demands on source water, and (3) enable future alternatives disposal of the
Joint Venture balance of treated wastewater.
From a delivery perspective, BB&C considered traditional delivery options but
decided that progressive design-build (PDB) was a perfect fit for this project
because it provided a single point of accountability, accelerated the project
schedule, and enabled collaboration during design and cost development to
enhance decision-making.
Approach
BB&C requested and reviewed preliminary, conceptual design documents
from three select, prequalified firms, for which each firm was compensated.
Additionally, BB&C leveraged best practices as it placed value in seeking
innovative rather than wholly prescriptive technical concepts, balanced with
price and schedule considerations. In keeping with DB best practices, BB&C
compensated all the proposers for their design work based on budgets agreed
upon beforehand. They evaluated qualifications, experience, work plan, and
staff commitments and made key decisions about the project scope and work
plan before choosing BC/Haskell as its DB partner.
Results
This project was a textbook example of how a PDB project should evolve. All
challenges were handled in a way that achieved the best possible outcome for
BB&C, the project, and the design-build team.
The PDB delivery model was instrumental in helping BB&C make choices
during the formative stages of conceptual design that were well-informed by
real-time cost and schedule impacts, delivering BB&C the project it wanted,
at its target price, when BB&C needed it—an outcome that would be difficult
to arrive at using any delivery model other than PDB. For example, some
treatment process decisions, like screening options and solids separation,
had major impacts on other treatment design decisions. Working alongside
BB&C, BC/Haskell evaluated all key design issues and clearly outlined PWRF
process impacts and considerations. This enabled BB&C to feel confident
in the collaborative decision-making process as a whole—working together
to understand cost and schedule implications as we progressively defined
PROJECT STATS project scope. Additionally, BC/Haskell helped BB&C identify $13M of value
engineering savings by optimizing the required treatment processes, refining
materials selection, and maximizing the use of existing infrastructure for
Size: 2.1 MGD influent process water treatment and conveyance. The PWRF was delivered on
Design & Construction schedule and $2M under budget.
Value: $56M The project was the recipient of a 2018 Design-Build Institute of America Merit
Population Served: N/A Award for water/wastewater.
Case Studies CS-9

As one of the fastest growing states in America, Utah is on track to double its
North Davis Sewer population by 2050. With increasing demands for wastewater infrastructure
District (UT) to support this growth, several of the North Davis Sewer District’s biosolids
treatment processes were operating at or over capacity. Obsolete equipment
Biosolids Design-Build was also impeding efficient operations. In 2010, the District hired Brown
and Caldwell to complete a Biosolids Master Plan, which included
recommendations to handle projected future solids production, increase
capacity, and significantly increase energy efficiency. Brown and Caldwell was
rehired in 2012 to bring its recommendations to life through a $58M capital
improvement project.
The three-phase project expanded capacity and achieved the District’s goals to
harness and generate power and heat with a new cogeneration facility.
Approach
The District was drawn to progressive design-build delivery because they
wanted a single point of responsibility for design and construction that would
provide high-quality workmanship and collaborate throughout. Collaboration
was critical for designing around specific preferences for equipment selection,
configuration, control, and functionality. Brown and Caldwell was chosen as
the design-builder based on relevant qualifications and strong relationships
established earlier and the fact that they also performed open-book and
transparent GMP negotiations, enabling the District to have an earlier
understanding of construction costs and greater control over scope and
equipment selection.
To maintain cash flow and maximize local involvement, the program was
broken down into three projects/phases:
Phase 1 – Secondary Digester Mixers: Saved $8M in capital costs
Phase 2 – Primary Sludge Thickening: Saved the District $22M
Phase 3 – New Cogeneration Facility: Significantly reduced the plant’s
reliance on purchased power and uses biogas waste as a renewable energy
source to provide power and heat for the plant
The most critical goal and the most challenging aspect of this progressive
design-build project was delivering the work without interrupting operations.
Since most of the plant processes were already operating at or over capacity,
backups and unplanned shutdowns threatened permit violations and penalties.
With less than a month scheduled for new system integration, impacts were
minimized by holding weekly meetings with operators, the plant manager, and
the plant superintendent to address risks.
Results
The District’s expectations for budget and schedule performance were exceeded
when construction was completed on schedule and approximately $5M under
PROJECT STATS budget. Total project cost savings gained through progressive design-build
Start & End Year: 2012–2016 innovation is estimated at more than $30M, achieved by finding ways to reuse
Size: 34 MGD existing infrastructure while delivering uninterrupted operations.
Design & Construction In addition, air emissions (NOx and CO) have been significantly reduced
Value: $58M allowing the District to remain below the threshold of a major source
classification. The District is now able to provide the community effective,
Population Served: 200,000 affordable, and environmentally sustainable services.

The original wastewater treatment facility in Hays, Kansas, was constructed in
City of Hays (KS) 1953 and several of the original processes and structures are still in use today.
Chetolah Creek Water Upcoming changes to required effluent water quality drove a need to upgrade
nearly all liquid and solids processes. The new treatment process provides
Reclamation and Reuse biological nutrient removal plus chemical phosphorus removal and tertiary
Facility Expansion filtration. The result is very high-quality water that protects the community’s
waterways and provides a reuse water that is used by the municipality as well as
local businesses.
The City desired to use progressive design-build to implement needed
improvements within a tight construction schedule and budget. After a
competing design-build firm was unable to provide the necessary facilities
within the available budget, the City turned to the Burns & McDonnell/CAS
Constructors – an Alberici Enterprise – Joint Venture to make the project a
success.
Approach
Challenges to the project include keeping the existing facilities online during
construction activities as well as providing all the necessary new facilities
while staying within the client’s budget and schedule. An example of this is
the new influent lift station, which is being constructed through a sunken
caisson construction method to minimize site disruptions and complete
work on an accelerated schedule. Budget control was provided by designing a
unique biological treatment system using a single tank with separate mixing
and aeration equipment that could be built at a substantially reduced cost.
The design performance was confirmed by our team using dynamic modeling
to simulate the conditions at the plant and predict effluent quality. As part
of the design-build overhaul to the existing WRRF, the project includes
all new facilities for both liquid and solids processing, a new SCADA and
communications system, and a new administration space.
Results
The project saved the City approximately $2 million compared to previous
designs and is on track to be completed two months ahead of schedule. A
large portion of the treated effluent (up to 2 mgd) will receive additional
ultraviolet disinfection to achieve reuse quality and be used to irrigate a
municipal golf course and a sports complex, for various in-plant needs, and
other miscellaneous uses. The hydraulics of the new design will allow for
gravity discharge from the plant, eliminating an interim pump station currently
required to discharge effluent from the plant.
“Based on their superior experience track record, the City selected Burns &
PROJECT STATS McDonnell/CAS – an Alberici Enterprise – team for our design-build wastewater
Start & End Year: 2017–2019 treatment plant expansion. Our project is complex and impacts nearly every unit
process in our existing facility. The team worked together very effectively, planning
Size: 2
.5 MGD average; and coordinating the project to assure that we could keep our facility online and
peak 7.5 MGD meet our community’s needs throughout construction. Working collaboratively with
Design & Construction our staff and owner’s representative with the team brought forth innovations in
Value: $28M treatment processes and approaches that saved the project close to $2 million.”
Population Served: 20,000 —Jeff Crispin, Director of Water Resources, City of Hays, Kansas
Case Studies CS-11

City of Emporia (KS) Burns & McDonnell and CAS Constructors – an Alberici Enterprise – provided
the City of Emporia an integrated design-build team for the implementation
Emporia Wastewater of improvements necessary for the impending discharge permit requirements
Treatment Plant for effluent nitrogen (10.0 mg/L) and phosphorus (1.0 mg/L). The City desired
to use design-build to implement needed improvements ahead of impending
Improvements
regulatory changes.
Approach
Improvements include reconfiguration of the conventional treatment facility to
an integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) process for biological nutrient
removal (BNR). All work was completed within the available space and site
constraints on the existing plant site, while keeping the plant online and meeting
the NPDES permit limits during construction.
The overall treatment facility improvements include: replacement of influent
pumps and controls; new Parkson headworks fine screen and replacement of
the existing screen element; new washer-compactor for debris processing and
removal; new Headcell grit removal system; conversion of aeration basins to
IFAS BNR, with dedicated anaerobic/anoxic, oxic and deox zones; new large
bubble mixing system for anaerobic, anoxic, and deox zones; new Aerzen high-
speed turbo blowers for air delivery to the IFAS system; rehabilitation of final
clarifiers and mechanism replacement; replacement of UV disinfection system
and controls; repair of effluent pump station valving; new aerobic digester;
new WAS solids thickening processes; provisions for stand-by power; and new
2,000-square-foot laboratory, office, and administrative space.
Results
Our innovative solution is based on an integrated fixed-film activated sludge
(IFAS) process, the first of its kind in Kansas, but one of more than six similar
installations that our team has implemented across the nation for biological
nutrient removal (BNR). Our approach was selected for the easy installation
in the existing aeration basin, effectively eliminating the need to build separate
anaerobic/anoxic basins for nutrient reduction—an area of significant cost
savings for the City.
The collaborative-delivery application was proven through successful progression
of the design without setback to the design team. Individual design packages
allowed for City approval and early construction start dates to expedite the
schedule and still meet budget goals.
“The team brought forward an innovative fixed-film treatment process that allowed
us to repurpose existing infrastructure, significantly reducing project costs and
PROJECT STATS schedule. The partnership and high level of dialogue that exists between the City
and the Burns & McDonnell/CAS Constructors – an Alberici Enterprise –
team is delivering results that the City is proud of.”
Size: 4
.6 MGD —Frank Abart, Former Public Works Director, City of Emporia, Kansas
Value: $29M

Hybrid Progressive Challenge
Design-Build Located in San Bernardino County, California, the West Valley Water District
is comprised of five treatment plants, 360 miles of pipeline, 25 reservoirs, 17
West Valley wells, 20,000 service connections, and serves drinking water to approximately
Water District (CA) 66,000 residents. Approximately 51 percent of their water supply comes from
the 17 wells.
West Valley Water
The West Valley Water District (WVWD) has wells in the Rialto Colton
District Perchlorate
Groundwater Basin that are contaminated with high levels of perchlorate.
Treatment Plant Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and manufactured chemical anion
that consists of one chlorine atom bonded to four oxygen atoms (ClO4).
Perchlorate is commonly used as an oxidizer in such things as rocket
Carollo Design-Build Group
propellants, munitions, fireworks, airbag initiators for vehicles, matches,
and signal flares. The water source is within a designated Superfund site,
and a special A 97-005 permit was required for the direct domestic use of an
extremely impaired water source.
In 2016, WVWD opened the nation’s first perchlorate treatment facility to
bring clean water directly to ratepayers. WVWD needed to double the amount
of water it treated for perchlorate and wanted a system that was energy efficient
and did not generate large amounts of solid waste.
The new treatment train needed to be constructed within a portion of an
existing building that was originally constructed to house a different treatment
process. The treatment system needed to be constructed without impacting
treatment operations. However, exterior walls of the building needed to be
removed to set the equipment. The degree of difficulty was further increased
because WVWD needed the exterior wall to be removed and replaced within a
24-hour window.
Approach
Carollo Engineers, Inc. worked on multiple fronts — assisting in securing funds,
managing a complex process treatment design, and sequencing and staging
a complicated construction workflow. Carollo obtained a grant from the U.S.
Department of Defense to develop a conceptual level design system that could be
piloted and developed into a full-scale system. At the end of successful piloting,
Carollo then assisted WVWD in obtaining a grant from the State of California
Water Board to fund the remaining cost of construction to take the project
to full scale. Carollo incorporated their patented Biottta® two-stage biological
treatment system developed for perchlorate removal. Construction of the project
was led by Carollo Engineers, with support from PCL Construction as a primary
subcontractor.
Results
Carollo Engineers designed, permitted, and constructed this first-ever fixed-
bed biological perchlorate treatment system. One hundred percent of the
PROJECT STATS project costs were funded through grants obtained from the U.S. DoD and
Start & End Year: 2016–2017 California Water Board. The treatment process went through exhaustive testing
Size: 950 MGD and proved to destruct perchlorate to non-detect levels, allowing the treated
water to be introduced directly into the WVWD water distribution system.
Design & Construction The system also demonstrated its ability to treat the water for nitrates and
Value: $7M trichloroethylene (TCE) contaminants commonly found in this region.
Case Studies CS-13

City of Longmont Founded in 1870, Longmont, Colorado, located within Boulder County, is a
city of 22 square miles. Longmont sits at an elevation of 4,979 feet above sea
Water Department (CO) level. It is located 37 miles north of Denver, 16 miles east of Boulder, and 30
Longmont WWTP miles from Rocky Mountain National Park.
Ammonia Treatment and Longmont was spending about $600,000 per year to haul away liquid and
Biosolids Dewatering thickened biosolids. The plant’s 40-year-old belt filter press could only handle
Improvement Design-Build 35 percent of the liquid biosolids generated. They needed a system that had the
capacity to handle 100% of their biosolids. However, the new system had to be
constructed without impeding the flow of tanker trucks used in the removal of
liquid biosolids.
The existing facility, constructed in 1956, also had structures that had reached
the end of their useful life and could not treat ammonia to a level that would
meet the new discharge permit requirements issued in 2012. Aeration tanks
and clarifiers needed to be replaced while the plant remained in operation.
Approach
Having completed other successful projects in the past using fixed-price design-
build, the City opted to use a hybrid of the progressive design-build delivery
method for this project. The Carollo Design-Build Group, a general partnership
between Carollo Engineers, Inc. and PCL Construction was selected through a
two-stage procurement.
In 2013, Longmont voters allowed the City to issue $32 million in bonds to
upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. Shortly after the project began,
the City elected to make changes to their original approach to project
implementation. The flexibility of progressive design-build delivery allowed the
team to incorporate these changes seamlessly. The Carollo Design-Build Group
designed, permitted, and constructed a centrifuge process that has the capacity
to treat 100 percent of the biosolids generated by the facility. This included
the centrifuge, a truck loading bay, truck scale, and liquid return. The Carollo
Design-Build Group also designed and constructed replacement aeration
basins and clarifiers sized to provide the required treatment. Construction was
completed in a phased approach to ensure that the plant continued to meet
effluent requirements throughout construction.
Results
Working closely with the plant operations staff, the Carollo Design-Build
Group engineered and constructed a solution that allowed the replacement of
existing aeration and clarifiers with minimal disruption to the operation of the
facility. It was vital that the plant continued to meet its permit requirements
throughout the construction phase. The new aeration and clarifier tanks allow
the City to reduce ammonia concentrations to a level that meets its discharge
PROJECT STATS permit requirements for discharge to the St. Vrain River. Now, instead of
spending $600,000 per year to haul away liquid biosolids, the City now
Start & End Year: 2014–2015 anticipates only spending $325,000 to haul away drier biosolids.
Size: 17 MGD
Value: $37M

Boynton Beach expects to grow to upwards of 140,000 customers by 2035 and
City of Boynton Beach coastal aquifers are unable to provide the needed water supply without risking
(FL) saltwater intrusion. With significant water supplies located on the western side
of the city, Boynton Beach had the water it needed, but needed to move it from
Ion Exchange Resin Plant inland to the waterfront, treat it, and combine it with the water from the coastal
and East Water Treatment aquifers. Boynton Beach partnered with CDM Constructors Inc. as the prime
Plant Improvements contractor, engineer, and design-builder, along with its integral subcontractor
Carollo Design-Build Group (Carollo Engineers and PCL Construction). The
solution took the form of the Ion Exchange Resin Plant using a state-of-the-art
MIEX® pretreatment system to help with odor removal and reduce chemical
costs. The City chose progressive design-build delivery because staff and
elected representatives wanted to be involved in the design process to make
decisions based on risk while allowing for cost control of the project.
Approach
The project included the design and construction of an Ion Exchange Resin
Plant at the East WTP site for pretreatment of the water supply to the eastern
service area from the western wellfield while upgrading the WTP to a capacity
of 24 mgd. The utility’s water treatment capacity was constrained by: restriction
in a consumptive use permit for the east wellfields, growth in the eastern
downtown areas, and a West WTP with raw water capacity but no space to
expand. The solution to provide long-term potable water included using raw
water from the west as a supply to an upgraded East WTP with magnetic ion
exchange (MIEX) as a pretreatment technology to allow blending of different
groundwater supplies into high quality and compliant potable water with a
reduction in chemical costs. Significant reinvestment in plant upgrades, site
layout efficiencies, and control systems allow the East WTP to provide the
volume and water quality needed for generations.
Results
In operation since May 2017, this largest and most modern MIEX treatment
plant in the world will support the potable water needs of a growing population
and a thriving business community for the 30-year planning cycle and will
ensure that the long-term potable water supply for the service area is protected
and delivered effectively. The upgraded plant meets the community’s need
to diversify water sources to reduce dependence on the surficial aquifer. The
new MIEX treatment technology, the full replacement of the filter valves and
high service pumps, 3.0-MG ground storage tank, and a new Profibus SCADA
and HMI system for better control are the crowning achievements for this
technically complex water treatment plant expansion.
CDM Smith identified over $2.5M in cost savings. Nearly 20 local firms were
engaged on this project that won DBIA’s 2018 National Project/Team Merit
Award and Florida Region Best Overall Design-Build Project of the Year.
PROJECT STATS
Size: 24 MGD
Value: $25.5M
Case Studies CS-15

Stonington is a waterfront town of about 18,000 residents known for its
Stonington Water picturesque harbor and popular tourist destinations. In recent years, the town’s
Pollution Control 1970s-era wastewater infrastructure had begun to show its age. Odor-control
Authority (CT) issues and adverse press reporting, state regulations on nitrogen levels in
effluent, and the rate of community and commercial growth all placed strain
Mystic Water Pollution on the town’s wastewater system. The town’s Mystic, Borough, and Pawcatuck
Control Facility water-pollution-control facilities were located near residential, commercial,
and cultural sites, and no additional real estate was available to expand the
facilities or build a new one.
Approach
CDM Smith used design-build delivery to make significant upgrades to all
three facilities. Collaboration among engineers, contractors, operators, and
the owner improved the design by encouraging constructability feedback
that improved the project’s speed and safety. Input from town staff and staff
operators from United Water made the finished facilities safer and more
reliable. Value engineering and testing maximized the facility’s efficiency
and effectiveness. Involving the construction team early facilitated detailed
planning, equipment ordering, subcontractor selection, and scheduling.
CDM Smith installed BioMag ballasted flocculation technology at the Mystic
facility to achieve better effluent quality without additional tankage—one of the
first implementations of BioMag in the United States. The Mystic facility also
received I&C and SCADA system upgrades, new sludge-processing equipment,
and building and grounds renovations. Disinfection technology at all three
facilities was upgraded from chlorination to ultra-violet (UV), and high-
efficiency blowers were installed.
Results
Because the operations and design teams were committed to maintaining plant
operations throughout the project, residents experienced no interruption to
wastewater services during the upgrades—even during the busy summer tourist
season. The project was completed on time and, at $16 million, $1 million under
budget, with Stonington and CDM Smith sharing the savings. With unobtrusive,
well-executed infrastructure upgrades, visitors and residents can continue to
enjoy Stonington’s beauty and charm. The upgraded system now runs cleaner
and more reliably, with room for future growth.
Other WDBC member firm involved: Xylem, Inc. (supplier of aeration system)
PROJECT STATS
Size: 0.88 MGD
Value: $16.2M

In an effort to better serve the Left Hand Water District’s (the District) 20,000
Left Hand customers during summer peak demand, the 8-mgd Dodd Water Treatment
Water District (CO) Plant needed additional capacity. As a peaking plant for the District, the
facility only operates during the summer when water demands increase from
Dodd Water Treatment farmers and residents within 110 square miles throughout Boulder and Weld
Plant Upgrade counties. The existing plant had to remain in operation until September 2015
and return online by late spring 2016. This limited the construction schedule
to a nine-month winter shutdown. The demolition and installation of the Pall
membranes in the existing plant could not begin until shutdown, leaving no
margin for error in coordinating work activities.
Approach
The partnership between Burns & McDonnell, Garney Construction, and the
District during all aspects of design and construction was vital to the project’s
success. The accelerated project schedule would not have been possible
without using a design-build approach. This type of partnership allowed for
flexibility and more collaboration than a traditional approach. To proceed with
a two-design package approach to constructing the project, the team began
by communicating with funding and permitting agencies early in the design
process. The team saved 10 months of project schedule by streamlining the
permitting processes and utilizing early work packages for foundation work
and equipment selection.
The team worked closely with the District throughout the complex and
fast-paced project to achieve the client’s goals, including achieving treatment
standards to provide safe drinking water to the community, completing the
project on time and under budget, and preventing downtime during the WTP’s
annual operating season.
Results
The project schedule required several phases to be active simultaneously.
Construction of the new pretreatment building began during peak season and
the plant remained operational.
Use of early design packages for foundation work, early procurement of long
lead-time equipment, and phased construction resulted in a functional WTP
by the scheduled timeline without impact to the WTP’s annual operating
season.
A primary goal of the project was protecting public health by allowing
the facility to meet future drinking water treatment standards. The new
pretreatment processes greatly improve the removal of total organic carbon
from the water, and microfiltration membranes remove contaminants more
effectively than the plant’s previous filter system.
PROJECT STATS
Burns & McDonnell incorporated sustainability into the design by reusing
Start & End Year: 2014-2016
existing facilities to drastically reduce costs and decrease consumption of
Size: 1
0 MGD with expansion new materials, developing a WTP Site Beneficial Use Plan, and including
to 16 MGD components to abide by Boulder County requirements for recycling. Reusing
Design & Construction existing facilities benefited the District by allowing it to reinvest saved dollars
Value: $29.4M into additional work to the facility. This project was funded by the State
Revolving Fund, and because it was completed significantly under budget,
during summer peak demand customers saw only minimal changes to what they pay for water.
Case Studies CS-17

In 2014, DeKalb County, Georgia, was issued a Consent Decree from the
DeKalb County (GA) Environmental Protection Agency due to the high level of sanitary sewer
Honey Creek Pump overflows that occurred in the previous 10 years. The system included the
existing Honey Creek Pump Station and a 16-inch force main that ran 17,000
Station, Force Main, feet along Rockland Road to an existing discharge manhole. From there, the
and Gravity Sewer flow was carried via a 24-inch gravity sewer to the Pole Bridge WWTP.
Improvements The Honey Creek Pump Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer Improvements
Project was identified under the $1.3B Capital Improvements Program with a
Consent Decree date of December 31, 2017. Garney and their design partner
were contracted to design and build it using the progressive design-build
delivery method due to the strict schedule constraints required to complete
this project. The two-month design timeline challenged the DB team to work
creatively and communicate effectively to meet the aggressive design schedule.
Approach
The first task was to determine which route option for the new force main
alignment would best meet the County’s expectations and project objectives.
Option A included installing the force main following the existing alignment
for approximately 6,000 LF and transitioning to a new gravity alignment;
however, the gravity portion of the line would have to run along, and through,
a sensitive nature preserve park. This would require significant blasting,
permitting, and easement acquisition, potentially resulting in extensive traffic
delays, costs, and scheduling issues that wouldn’t meet the deadline.
Option B, which was selected, consisted of a Dig and Relay Method involving
bypassing the existing line in three sections and then replacing the existing
force main with the new force main which saved 10 months of project
schedule. Challenges along the selected route included rock, creek crossings,
narrow/highly traveled residential roads, and traffic management.
The team also installed the Interim Peak Storage System that allows sewage
to be held in an existing holding tank. This could be used during times when
the existing pump station was offline for maintenance issues, when tie-ins
for bypass pumping were being conducted, and would also allow for the new
pump station to be taken offline for future maintenance work.
Results
By using a progressive design-build delivery, the team was able to work
together from the beginning of the design process, thus fostering a strong
project understanding needed to deal with each unique situation and deliver a
quality project within the Consent Decree deadline. Some examples of project
milestones:
• Built confidence and integration through owner involvement in process
and equipment selection
PROJECT STATS
• Worked diligently with Georgia EPD regulators and DeKalb County
Permitting to fast-track the project
Size: 7.5 MGD • Exceeded the 20% goal of minority and women business enterprise
Design & Construction with 22% utilization
Value: $24.4M

Construction Challenge
Management At-Risk Providing an average of 8.4 million gallons per day (8.4 mgd) of wastewater
treatment to the more than 27,000 customers in the Winchester, VA, area,
Frederick-Winchester the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) needed to improve its
Service Authority (VA) operational cost-efficiency at its Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The
overall goal of a cost-efficient facility is to provide greater benefits to taxpayers
Opequon Water and its customers, and increase the plant’s capacity to support private industry
Reclamation Facility growth. The resulting green-energy facility now serves a broad range of
customers, including both private and public entities.
Approach
Based on their technical qualifications, FWSA and its energy performance
contractor Energy Systems Group (ESG) selected Haskell to serve as CMAR
firm (construction manager/general contractor) on the project. Haskell further
partnered with the engineer at FWSA and ESG to select Black & Veatch to
design, permit, and construct three new anaerobic digesters, a digester control
building, high-strength waste receiving stations, a nutrient-harvesting system
(OSTRA), a new combined heat and power (CHP) system, as well as replace the
existing plate-frame presses with belt presses and perform various other facility
upgrades.
Results
Today, the methane gas produced by the new facility meets more than 50% of
the treatment plant’s electrical needs. The green-energy facility also harvests
phosphorus—a rare element that is an essential ingredient for fertilizer and
crop production—from the wastewater stream. New dewatering facilities
replaced worn-out plate and frame presses which used lime as a stabilizer. The
energy savings from these upgrades and improvements will ultimately entirely
offset their cost, while giving FWSA a valuable asset.
In addition to being a great example of a government entity striving for

operational efficiency and advancing sustainable infrastructure solutions,
this project also has a positive impact on the environment. The new sludge
dewatering process halves both the use of chemicals and the amount of biosolids
hauled offsite for land disposal. New high-efficiency turbo blowers greatly reduce
the power consumed by the aeration process. And the extra capability enables
the utility to augment its annual revenues with new tipping fees for high-strength
waste from the nearby industry. The project, which began in July 2014 and was
completed in 2016, increases the reclamation facility’s processing capacity from
8.4 mgd to 12 mgd (or 30 dg hydraulic capacity).
“The facility will provide food processing companies with local, sustainable, cost-
effective, and environmentally sound waste disposal solutions and significantly
PROJECT STATS promote local economic growth by creating jobs and attracting new business to
the area.”
—Jesse Moffett, FWSA Executive Director
Size: 12 MGD
Value: $45.9M
Case Studies CS-19

Management At-Risk The project serves and is located in the Southwestern portion of the City of
St. Petersburg, FL. The purpose of the project is to consolidate the City’s
City of St. Petersburg (FL) biosolids operations at one facility and generate enough biogas to fuel their
trash truck fleet. However, the plant is in close proximity to a college and
Southwest Water residential neighborhoods, which necessitates attention to odor control and
Reclamation Facility biosolids handling challenges.
Biosolids Waste to
Energy Project Approach
Haskell competed with a broad range of construction managers, ultimately
being selected based on qualifications, interview, and CMAR fee. The City
selected CMAR as their delivery method due to the highly complex nature of
the project, proximity to the adjacent college, and the absolute necessity of
keeping the current facility active throughout construction. Haskell’s Water
Division was awarded a CMAR contract for the City of St. Petersburg’s
Biosolids Waste to Energy Project, valued at $64,868,267, with a construction
schedule of 38 months. Once completed, the facility has the potential to save
the City $3.7 million in operational costs each year through the production of
Class AA biosolids and biogas, and by consolidating the City’s biosolids
processing to the Southwest Water Reclamation Facility (SWWRF). The
project is dually funded through SRF and City funds. Using value engineering
and constructability, the Haskell team was able to work with the City to
cut costs to make this project a reality. As the CMAR, Haskell worked
with four design teams — Brown and Caldwell, AECOM, Black & Veatch,
and Carollo Engineers.
Results
The project will improve the facility’s ability to produce Class AA biosolids
utilizing a temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) process. Class AA
biosolids meet the U.S. EPA guidelines to use as fertilizer, which the City can sell
for additional revenue.
The facility will produce enough biogas to fill the City’s fleet of sanitation trucks
and run the SWWRF during peak periods of electric usage.
Pipes will transfer sludge from the City’s two other biosolids processing plants to
the SWWRF, saving the City a considerable amount in operational costs. Upon
completion, the City will also be able to accept fats, oils, and grease waste from
the community, which enhances biogas production.
The new facility will have specialized odor control systems assuring that it will
remain a good neighbor. The new facility will utilize anaerobic digesters to
produce a class AA biosolid and renewable biogas which will power the City’s
trash trucks.
As design progressed, the projected construction costs surpassed the available
PROJECT STATS funding of the City. After selection the Haskell team was able to identify value
engineering alternatives to bring the project within the available budget.
Size: 24 MGD
Value: $69.5M
Population Served: 260,000+

The Hopewell Water Renewal Facility is a unique 50-mgd publicly-owned
City of Hopewell (VA) treatment facility serving 23,000 customers, with 85 percent of influent from
Hopewell Water Renewal’s industrially sourced wastewater — posing a distinct treatment challenge.
Without cost-effective treatment, nitrogen would be discharged to the James
Alternative 4A-1 Light, River, a tributary to the nationally treasured Chesapeake Bay, at higher loads
Phase 2 Improvements than the new regulatory requirements allow. Other challenges included high
influent temperatures, variable influent characteristics, frequent spike loading,
Hopewell Nutrient Partners and high concentrations of volatile organic compounds.
Under Virginia’s Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of
2002 (PPEA), Hopewell Nutrient Partners developed an unsolicited design-
build proposal for solving Hopewell’s industrial-sized wastewater challenges.
The primary reasons the City chose design-build delivery were their ability to
select the treatment technology (MBBR+DAF) and cost certainty.
The City and its funding partners set a maximum price on the project and
Hopewell Nutrient Partners committed to that cost, making fixed-price design-
build delivery the most practical way to meet the budget and complete the
project in the most economical fashion.
Approach
Hopewell Nutrient Partners signed teaming agreements with key equipment
suppliers that provided the innovative moving bed biofilm reactor and
dissolved air flotation (MBBR+DAF) treatment process to conquer the main
challenge of nitrogen reduction. Segregating industrial flows allows reduction
in high temperatures, variable and spike loads, and VOC’s, then flows are
integrated under more stable conditions for secondary treatment. Extensive
performance testing proved that the project reduced the quantity of nitrogen
discharged to below regulatory requirements. It also improved control of high
influent temperatures, variable influent characteristics, frequent spike loading,
and volatile organic compounds. The project also provided additional capacity
to support the growing $1.6B regional manufacturing industry through the
year 2040.
This project will also reduce chlorine use by disinfecting segregated effluent
instead of primary effluent — saving nearly $500,000 annually from day one,
which will grow to nearly $1M annual savings by 2040. The pump systems
were sized to provide the most efficient arrangement for quantity and speed to
efficiently meet performance requirements and reduce operational cost
Results
The Phase 2 improvements provide additional treatment capacity needed by
the manufacturing industry. The team’s leadership and vision allowed the City
to achieve significant nitrogen reduction at the lowest possible cost. The project
finished six weeks early and, through an extensive value engineering process,
saved $14M from the original budget. Removing more than 500,000 pounds of
PROJECT STATS nitrogen from the river annually is a daunting task. Doing so for less than $4
per pound is a true indication of the efficiency of our installed system.
The final scope included 15 definable features of work — proficiently
Size: 50 MGD engineered, expertly constructed, and skillfully commissioned on the first
Design & Construction run — producing a positive image for the stakeholders. From the public’s
Value: $71.4M perspective, the most visible improvement is the exceptional water quality
entering the James River and Chesapeake Bay for decades to come.
Case Studies CS-21

San Jose Water Company (SJW) is an investor-owned public utility serving
San Jose Water over one million people and is one of the largest and most technically
Company (CA) sophisticated urban water systems in the U.S. The Montevina Water Treatment
Plant (WTP) is SJW’s largest surface water treatment facility with a treatment
Montevina Water capacity of 30 mgd. The existing Montevina WTP utilized a mono media direct
Treatment Plant filtration process and was over 40 years old with source water coming from
Improvements various intakes located in the Santa Cruz Mountains. During winter storm
events, when abundant water is available, the existing plant could not reliably
treat the high turbidity source water to meet current state and
federal standards for surface water filtration. The existing plant also lacked
tools to manage disinfection byproducts, making compliance with the
Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Regulation more challenging.
Other water treatment plant processes and support facilities reached their
useful life and were in need of retirement and replacement.
Approach
In 2010, SJW conducted a feasibility study to look at plant improvement
alternatives that addressed the high raw water turbidity challenge as well as
the disinfection byproduct compliance and aging infrastructure needs, which
recommended membrane treatment to replace the existing mono media
direct filtration process as well as improved pretreatment and solids handling
facilities. Progressive design-build appealed to SJW because of the high level
of collaboration and flexibility to modify the scope of the project to fit within
SJW’s fixed budget. SJW selected HDR as their design-builder after a proposal
review and interview process.
The plant improvements included an improved flash mix and flocculation
process followed by settling basins and a membrane filtration system. Improved
solids handling facilities including clarifier thickeners and screw presses
for managing residuals were constructed. Also included were construction
of a new administration building, water quality laboratory, standby power
generation, and site access improvements from the adjacent state highway and
county road. The plant improvements will allow SJW to treat water with raw
water turbidity levels as high as 100 to 500 NTU during and following
storm events.
Results
The progressive design-build approach met SJW’s expectations in terms of
innovation, collaboration, and flexibility to adjust the scope of the project to
meet a fixed budget. HDR and SJW worked together during the 12-month
design phase to optimize the project scope by incorporating several innovative
ideas into the project such as conversion of the existing filters to plate settling
basins, utilizing an existing clearwell for temporary off-spec basin storage
during construction, and incorporating a new administration building into the
PROJECT STATS project. Montevina WTP plant improvements will allow SJW to continue to
Start & End Year: 2014–2018 deliver high quality drinking water to its customers, increase the reliability of
plant facilities, and reduce SJW’s need for more expensive imported water from
Size: 30 MGD
other water utilities.
Value: $55M
Population Served: 1M

Design-Build-Operate Challenge
In October 2013, the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) awarded
Woodland-Davis Clean a $141M design-build-operate-finance contract to Jacobs for the design, con-
Water Agency (CA) struction, and long-term operation of a new 30-mgd surface water treatment
plant and nearly 13 miles of pipeline to treat water from the Sacramento River.
Davis-Woodland
Following a qualifications-based shortlist and issuance of a request for propos-
Water Supply Project als, two of the three shortlisted teams withdrew from the procurement due to the
strict budget limitations and technical requirements. Jacobs subsequently worked
directly with the Agency to convert the project from a lump-sum contract to an
open-book lump-sum contract, which resulted in approximately 20% reduction
in capital costs and 10% reduction in overall net present value when compared to
Agency cost estimates.
Approach
Design and construction management complexities and solutions of the Davis-
Woodland Water Supply Project (DWWSP) included:
• DB/PDB of Municipal W/WW Treatment/Conveyance. When two of the
three shortlisted teams pulled out, Jacobs submitted an innovative cost and
technical proposal that led to service contract negotiations and ultimately the
contract award. Jacobs maximized the benefits of DB delivery by closely col-
laborating with the WDCWA to define a total DB price of $141M.
• Coordination with Other Interfacing Projects/ Bypass Planning and Instal-
lation. Construction of the raw water intake structure was performed under
a DBB contract by a third-party contractor. When this fell behind schedule,
Jacobs installed temporary raw water pumps to keep commissioning and
startup on schedule.
• Integration of Designers into Construction. When our resident engineer
discovered that the WDCWA’s preferred pipeline alignment would cross a Yolo
County fiber optic telecommunications line, incurring significant expense
and potentially delaying construction to reroute, Jacobs met with Yolo County
officials, who preferred relocation of the fiber optic line miles away from the
original location, a less expensive, more efficient solution that provided much
higher value to the County.
• Startup, Commissioning, and Acceptance Testing. Although occurring last
in the timeline, developing a well-defined commissioning plan was one of the
first tasks initiated during design development. Achieving buy-in from all proj-
ect delivery participants helped establish timely and effective communication,
collaboration, and issue resolution.
Results
Substantial completion of the DWWSP was completed approximately four
months early by:
• Expedited Design Packages: Expedited development and approval of design
packages for early construction work set the stage for ahead-of-schedule per-
formance on the DWWSP. With exclusive subcontractor input, Jacobs planned
early work packages, which allowed for an early start to construction.
PROJECT STATS • Compressed pipeline construction schedule: To protect the California giant
DB Start & End Year: 2013–2016 garter snake habitat while still maintaining construction progress, Jacobs
Contract Operations: 2016–Ongoing developed a construction schedule to complete pipeline installation within a
five-month timeframe. Meeting this compressed schedule required pipeline
Size: 30 MGD
installation via the “weld after backfill” approach.
The Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project was awarded the 2016 Design-Build
Value: $141M
Institute of America Project/Team Award for water/wastewater projects.
Population Served: 128,000 Other WDBC member firm involved: Xylem, Inc. (supplier of multimedia
filtration system)
Case Studies CS-23

The City of Houston, Texas, in association with their four regional water
City of Houston (TX) authorities, is expanding its Northeast water purification plant (NEWPP) from
Northeast Water 80 mgd to 160 mgd by 2022, with ultimate expansion to 400 mgd by 2024. The
NEWPP will dramatically support steady residential and commercial growth
Purification Plant while reducing dependency on groundwater.
Expansion Project
Approach
Houston Waterworks Team
(A 50/50 Joint Venture) The Houston Waterworks Team (HWT), a 50/50 joint venture between Jacobs
Engineering and CDM Smith, is delivering the largest water progressive
design-build project of its kind in the United States. Carollo Engineers, Inc.
serves as the owner advisor and works as an extension of staff to facilitate
effective project planning and execution, including project management,
controls, and contract administration. Construction is underway on this
90-acre site.
Leading Water Supply Innovation

HWT is designing and constructing a new raw water facility, including intake,
pumping, and conveyance to withdraw raw water from Lake Houston and
deliver it to the NEWPP. One challenge HWT is addressing through water
supply innovation is treating the variable raw water characteristics from
Lake Houston, making the water difficult to treat with a single treatment
process alone.
“To help the City nimbly adapt to the variable raw water conditions, the team
developed two basic recipes for water treatment, a wet-weather recipe and
a dry-weather recipe, which the City can switch between as needed,” says
Randy Rogers, CDM Smith senior vice president and the project’s engineering
manager. “We are bringing to bear innovative treatment strategies like chlorine
dioxide, ozonation, and biological filtration, which have been proven at other
Texas facilities using similar source waters. We are helping the City to deliver
much larger production rates for its customers, and even given a broad range
of raw water qualities, preserving high-quality finished water.”
Results
1. The largest progressive design-build of its kind in North America.
The project includes many quantities and firsts: 1+ million cubic yards
of earthwork; 200,000+ cubic yards of structural concrete; 4 million
construction man-hours; 1,400 jobs; and the largest installation of 40-inch
diameter dual purpose centrifuges at any WTP in the U.S.
2. Design-build helps solve project challenges. HWT is working together to
solve treatment challenges such as raw water quality and a smaller facility
footprint to preserve space, cost, and construction time.
3. Procurement approach. The team’s design-build experience, as well as
knowledge of the Houston construction community, will help the City
achieve lower construction costs. Balfour Beatty was selected for the North
PROJECT STATS Plant package while McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. was selected for the
Start & End Year: 2015–ongoing Central Plant, Filters & EPS Structure and Intake Pump Station packages.
Size: 320 MGD 4. Phased delivery meets City’s budget requirements. The project will be
implemented in phases, allowing the City to meet budget and funding
Design & Construction requirements. Early work construction packages are already underway
Value: $1.8B
to assist the HWT team in achieving the contract-required production
Population Served: 2.3M milestones.

Challenge
Fixed-Price Design-Build
The RM Clayton Water Reclamation Center (WRC) treats an average daily
City of Atlanta, flow of 122 mgd with peak flows frequently exceeding 240 mgd. The plant is
Dept. of Watershed designed for 320 mgd. The headworks facility collects and treats flow from an
aging, combined sewer system that routinely contains large quantities of grit
Management (GA) that are difficult to remove. To help mitigate harmful effects of grit accumulation
RM Clayton WRC throughout the plant, the City of Atlanta needed a design-builder that could
offer immediate grit relief solutions as well as a new headworks facility to
Headworks Improvements provide long-term reliability.
Design-Build With this project’s schedule demands, using the collaborative-delivery
model was vital to success. With goals of delivering rapidly implementable
and long-term solutions, the City’s selected design-builder needed to
leverage best practices throughout the project to create an environment of
open communication, trust, and accountability to support development of
innovative alternatives, accelerated design, and early procurement of specialized
equipment.
Approach
After choosing the Kiewit (Western Summit) and Brown and Caldwell
(BC) team, collaboration began through a series of workshops, side-by-side
comparisons, and drawing reviews to examine how the original RFP-defined
solution would be problematic given the current O&M demands of the
prescribed systems on the plant staff. The DB team’s collaboration with the City
resulted in a solution that improves plant reliability and long-term operational
simplicity by implementing a more robust technology that requires minimal
oversight and maintenance attention. The DB team delivered the headworks
improvements design in only seven months, while accommodating more than
16 adjustments in the design based on a series of City-requested changes to
improve the performance of the facility. Close collaboration with the City’s
operational staff was crucial to helping operate and maintain the WRC
throughout construction with no impact on operations. During start-up the
DB team provided extensive training and support of the O&M staff to become
familiar with all the new equipment and processes.
Results
Kiewit (Western Summit) and BC’s solutions provided immediate and long-term
relief from an ongoing, chronic grit-removal challenge while improving facility
reliability and mitigating impacts to downstream unit operations. The DB team
delivered the design in rapid order to allow for an early start to permitting and
construction, met the project schedule, delivered on budget, met the minority
and female business enterprise participation requirements, and safely delivered
the project while continuing to operate and maintain a very large and active
treatment facility and logging 187,000 hours without a lost-time incident.
The City estimated that the overall schedule was reduced by 18 months using
design-build vs. a traditional design-bid-build delivery method. This project
supported 100 design and construction jobs.
PROJECT STATS The project was the recipient of a 2018 DBIA National Excellence Award for
Start & End Year: 2015–2016 water/wastewater.
Size: 240 MDG

Design & Construction Other WDBC member firm involved: Xylem, Inc. (supplier of centrate and
Value: $53M sludge pumps)
Population Served: 1M
Case Studies CS-25

The three main outfall canals in New Orleans, located at Lake Pontchartrain,
USACE – New Orleans are critical elements of the area’s flood control system, serving as drainage
District (LA) conduits for much of the city. Running south to north near the Orleans Parish
lakefront, the 17th St., Orleans Ave., and London Ave. canals include floodwalls
Permanent Canal and levees. To block storm surges at these flood-prone canals, the U.S. Army
Closures and Pumps Corps of Engineers elected to replace interim closure structures built in 2006
with new separate, permanent closure structures and pump stations (designed
to operate concurrently or in series with existing drainage pumping stations).
The project is part of the $14.5B Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction
System for southeast Louisiana.
Approach
USACE awarded the work to PCCP Constructors, a joint venture, the best-
value team led by Kiewit as majority partner with Stantec as lead designer.
Upon NTP, the team had approximately 3.5 years to reach substantial
completion, which was later extended by 300 calendar days due to client-
requested changes.
The project involved permanent canal closures and pump stations (PCCP),
with control stations and associated flood protection at three locations. The
scope of the workin included architecture, engineering, permit support,
procurement, site grading and drainage, demolition, construction, testing,
project management, quality control, and commissioning. Significant
coordination with contractors at multiple project sites was needed, as well as
consideration of environmental, HTRW, and construction impacts.
The design provided permanent gated storm surge barriers and three brick
façade pump stations to move rainwater out of the canals, around the gates,
and into Lake Pontchartrain. Each pump station has a concrete substructure
and a steel / precast superstructure. Standalone emergency generators allow
operation independent from public utilities for up to five days.
Results
The new system, with a total pumping capacity of 24,300 cfs (15,700 mgd),
reduces the risk of storm surges while maintaining a continuous capability
to evacuate stormwater and normal drainage flows from the interior of the
protected area.
The design-build delivery model contributed in many ways to the project’s
success. Colocation off-site with USACE and the team during early design
contributed significantly to productive, expedited design reviews, issue
resolution, constructability, value engineering, and efficiency. Later, the same
groups moved on-site. Task forces allowed the entire team to share information
and reach outcomes that met diverse needs. Each team member could learn
about the designs in real time and participate so individual perspectives were
PROJECT STATS understood and addressed.
Start & End Year: 2013–2018 Kiewit identified major procurement items and suppliers early and
Size: 15,700 MGD communicated delivery schedules well ahead of time—leading many suppliers
Design & Construction to meet or beat the schedule. Risks were identified and mitigation plans
Value: $726.8B implemented early, before the project could be impacted. The team visited
subcontractors and suppliers regularly, ensuring schedule and quality were
Population Served: Orleans &
maintained.
Jefferson Parishes

Design-Build-Operate Challenge
A 25-year undertaking, the remediation and restoration of the Onondaga Lake
Honeywell (NY) Superfund site in central New York is one of the largest and most complex
Honeywell Water remediation programs in the United States.
Treatment Plant The Onondaga County (Lake) cleanup and restoration program, which
was completed under supervision of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
included the removal of approximately two million cubic yards of sediment.
The hydraulically dredged sediment from the lake was first pumped to a
sediment-processing area (SPA) and then to a sediment-consolidation area
(SCA) for dewatering by geotube and long-term isolation. The effluent from
the SPA and SCA was pretreated in the SCA water-treatment plant; and then
discharged for final polishing (removal) of ammonia and phosphorous at
the municipal publicly owned treatment works. The SCA WTP was a critical
component of the lake dredging program, as its design and construction were
the critical path to the initiation of lake-dredging operations.
Approach
OBG, Part of Ramboll was responsible for the design, construction, and
operation of the 6.5-mgd sediment-consolidation area water treatment plant.
Key considerations during this dynamic project included:
• The treatment of mercury to meet 50-ng/L effluent limits
• Enhancement of the project schedule to allow lake-dredging operations to
commence as soon as possible
• Adaptive changes during dredge operations to address the highly variable
nature of the dredged material
As an alliance partner with Honeywell, OBG, Part of Ramboll provides
leadership for the 15 uplands subsites, which are part of the Onondaga Lake
Superfund site. In addition, OBG, Part of Ramboll is the water management
and treatment lead for all the Onondaga Lake sites. An industry leader in
dredging-related water management and project delivery, OBG, Part of
Ramboll provided bench-scale treatability testing, design, construction,
start-up, and commissioning services, as well as operations and maintenance
services for the SCA WTP.
• Building on bench-scale testing performed by OBG, Part of Ramboll as part
of the conceptual design, the SCA WTP consistently met the 50-ng/L effluent
limit for mercury, using pH adjustment and chemical co-precipitation.
• Through early issuance of design packages to facilitate equipment
procurement and site work, OBG, Part of Ramboll was able to shorten the
design and construction schedule by two months. This, along with adaptive
strategies during construction of the WTP, allowed the initiation of lake-
dredging operations ahead of schedule.
Results
PROJECT STATS
A high level of coordination among the owner, local municipality, and
Start & End Year: 2010–2015 NYSDEC was required to implement the project successfully. The project
Size: 6.5 MGD was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. The project has brought
significant improvements to water quality, aiding in the return of native plants
and animals and restoring the habitat of Onondaga Lake.
Value: $50M
This project received a Western Dredging Association Annual Safety Award for
Population Served: N/A
its outstanding safety record and performance.
Case Studies CS-27

The RIRRC, which handles most of Rhode Island’s municipal waste and
Rhode Island Resource recycling from neighboring cities and towns, needed to design and build a
Recovery Corporation 0.650-mgd treatment plant to comply with projected changes in the discharge
standards for disposal of wastewater, including leachate, into a public sewer
Leachate Pretreatment system. Specifically, the new facility needed to pretreat landfill-related leachate
Facility from RIRRC’s Central Landfill to help the RIRRC comply with projected
changes in nitrogen-discharge standards set by the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management (RIDEM) for the disposal of wastewater.
Approach
OBG, Part of Ramboll, with their contracting partner, designed and built a $27
million, state-of-the-art leachate pretreatment plant. Using green principles,
the plant treats wastewater generated by the landfill before it is released into
the public sewer system via the Field’s Point Treatment Facility operated by the
Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC). The contract was awarded by a pre-
qualification approval process (SOQ) followed by a detailed fixed-price design-
build procurement process.
The new facility’s treatment process was designed with sequencing-batch-
reactor (SBR) technology that could process up to 650,000 gallons of
wastewater a day, reducing biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids, ammonia and nitrate, to comply with enhanced nutrient-
removal pretreatment standards. The main components of the treatment
process are: influent equalization and pumping, three 1.3-million-gallon
SBRs and ancillary equipment, bulk-chemical storage and metering, effluent
equalization and pumping, sludge holding and dewatering, a fully integrated
control system consisting of a programmable logic controller (PLC) and a
supervised computer and data-acquisition control system (SCADA), and
electrical distribution and standby power.
In addition to providing the design for the facility, OBG, Part of Ramboll also
obtained regulatory permit approvals from RIDEM, designed the integrated
instrumentation and control SCADA system, and performed commissioning
and operational start-up services for all equipment and systems.
Results
The new plant is allowing for more environmentally friendly processes,
advancing regulatory compliance, and saving money by treating the leachate at
the source. The overall project will improve water quality by reducing the BOD
and the nitrogen load discharged from RIRRC to publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) located downstream. With sustainability in mind, the project
is designed to LEED Silver standards and with architectural details to reduce
consumption of natural resources. The new plant began operating in March
2015, allowing RIRRC to continue its mission of providing solid waste disposal
services for the Rhode Island community, which is supported by the employment
of more than 200 people.
PROJECT STATS
Start & End Year: 2013–2015 “The building has been designed with great detail paid to various architectural
and operational considerations – water efficient landscaping, construction
Size: 0.65 MGD
waste, and air quality management procedures. Water use reduction and the
Design & Construction use of building materials with recycled content will all be incorporated into the
Value: $27M building’s construction. These considerations, among many others, will provide
for a reduced consumption of natural resources over time.”
Population Served: N/A —Mike O’Connell, Executive Director for RIRRC

The old Withlacoochee River Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)
City of Valdosta Utility experienced extensive flooding, causing damage to the facility, permit
Deparment (GA) violations, and spills into the Withlacoochee River. In response to a Georgia
Environmental Protection Division consent order resulting from the flooding,
Withlacoochee River the City of Valdosta sought a design-builder to fast-track a new greenfield plant
Water Pollution to meet stringent effluent limits (4 mg/L biochemical oxygen demand,
Control Plant 5 mg/L total suspended solids, 0.5 mg/L ammonia, and 1 mg/L phosphorus)
and produce Class B biosolids.
Approach
Using a one-step, performance-based fixed-price design-build procurement,
the City of Valdosta selected Parsons and construction subcontractor Reynolds
Construction to design and build the new 12-mgd Withlacoochee River
Water Pollution Control Plant. The procurement documents specified a
qualifications-based proposal together with a technical and a cost proposal, as
well as phone interviews for any technical clarifications. The rigorous scoring
system defined in the RFP placed significant value on the technical approach to
be used to meet the regulatory-driven completion date, as well as ensuring that
the City received the best value for its money for the $24 million project.
Parsons chose the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) biological nutrient-removal
technology with rotating cloth filters and aerobic digestion to comply with
stringent permit limits and Class B biosolids requirements.
Results
Parsons completed the project using the following project-specific design
approaches:
• Worked closely with Aqua-Aerobic Systems to arrange for all process
equipment to be delivered to the site within four months of the notice to
proceed to eliminate potential equipment delays and accelerate start-up
activities
• Used prestressed concrete tanks for the SBR and aerobic digester to
significantly reduce tank construction time
• Employed a gravity-flow design approach to reduce structural requirements
and eliminate capital and operating costs associated with pumping facilities
Parsons achieved more than $1 million in cost savings by reusing equipment
from the existing WPCP, including:
• Influent fine screens and controls
• Positive-displacement blowers for the aerobic digester
• Two-meter belt filter press
• Dewatered cake screw conveyors
• Existing standby generator not being used at the City’s Mud Creek WPCP
(saving $1 million)
• Use of WPCP discharge piping in lieu of a chlorine contact tank (saving more
than $500,000)
• Three-belt gravity belt thickener/belt filter press as a unique solution for
PROJECT STATS
Class 1 biosolids reliability (saving $250,000)
Parsons delivered this project at the very low cost of $1.93 capital cost per gallon
Size: 12 MGD treated for the project scope, providing tremendous value to the citizens of
Design & Construction Valdosta while delivering a reliable facility protected from future flooding.
Value: $24M
Other WDBC member firm involved: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. (supplier)
Case Studies CS-29

Management At-Risk To reduce dependency on the Edwards Aquifer, the main water supply source
for nearly 1.6 million in San Antonio, Texas, officials with the San Antonio
San Antonio Water Water System (SAWS) approved a unique brackish groundwater desalination
System (TX) program as part of its overall 2012 water management plan. Located in the
southern Bexar County region, this previously untapped water source of
Brackish Groundwater brackish groundwater will both diversify and meet regional water needs over
Desalination Program the next 50 years. Once treated, the brackish groundwater will augment current
surface water sources with production of 30 million gallons per day (mgd).
Approach
As the CMAR firm for the project, Parsons and its joint venture partner
constructed the first portion of this critical brackish groundwater desalination
(BGD) program. Projected to cost $119 million, the project included: a 12-mgd
reverse osmosis membrane water treatment plant, 12 raw water production
wells, raw and finished water conveyance, residual conveyance, a new deep
injection well, a chemical treatment system, supervisory and data acquisition
controls, and a new administration building.
Black & Veatch was retained by SAWS as the program manager. The company’s
role included pre-design, design, and construction and commissioning
phase services. The engineering services included the RO treatment facilities,
groundwater wells, raw and finished water conveyance, concentrate conveyance
and concentrate injection wells.
Using a unique milestone constructability review and cost-estimate process,
Parsons collaborated with the project designers and program manager to adapt
alternative construction methods, resulting in substantial cost savings. The
permit team—consisting of experts from SAWS, Parsons, and its JV partner—
worked quickly to obtain needed environmental and construction permits and
avoid delays.
Creating individual work packages for the early critical-path scopes involved
coordinating multiple complex tasks—which included integrating smaller
subcontract firm participation and an accelerated work schedule—but also
provided more and greater opportunities for local firms to participate in the
project.
A significant factor in any project is its safety program, which is designed to be
proactive and interactive in order to achieve a safety goal of zero incidents. The
SAWS project safety program includes: daily “Take 5” meetings, weekly safety
meetings, monthly mass safety meetings, and a host of safety related items
resulting in a record of one lost time incident with over 650,000 man-hours
worked, not only meeting the target milestones, but also exceeding all quality
standards.
Results
PROJECT STATS SAWS’ BGD plant generates approximately 6 million gallons of water per day,
Start & End Year: 2013–2017 or 13,440 acre-feet per year, from the Wilcox Aquifer. The project’s SMBE/
SWBE program maximizes participation and promotes equal opportunity
Size: 10 MGD and exceeded SAWS’ goal of awarding 17% to SMBEs/SWBEs with 36.4%
Design & Construction participation.
Value: $119M

Challenge
Public-Private
In Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, the Capital Regional District (CRD)
Partnership/
is currently in the process of implementing a major wastewater treatment
Fixed-Price Design-Build program to provide tertiary level treatment. Stantec is leading the procurement
and owner’s engineering services for support of 10 major contracts including
Capital Regional District two major pumping stations, two large-diameter forcemains, a SCADA system,
(BC, Canada) a wet-weather attenuation tank, a 108-MLD wastewater treatment plant,
a 20-km residuals pipeline, and an anaerobic digestion and drying facility.
Capital Regional
This program culminates a five-year effort in which technical planning was
District Wastewater completed by Stantec and District representatives. The largest capital project
Treatment Program undertaken in the region’s history, it will upgrade their wastewater conveyance,
pumping, and treatment facilities.
Stantec developed conceptual designs of the facilities, and established project
controls including scheduling and budgets. Stantec led the preparation of
technical procurement documents and provided assistance in the selection of
contractors for the project. Stantec is assisting the CRD with design reviews
and construction management.
Approach
The project is being delivered by several procurement methods including
DBFOM/DBF/DB and conventional DBB delivery models. Capital costs,
schedule, affordability, and procurement strategy were the key challenges
within the overall program. Determining the most appropriate procurement
method took into consideration various risk allocation and transfer scenarios,
together with a business case evaluation for the different program components.
The business case evaluations determined that an optimal mix of procurement
strategies for each of the program’s components could be delivered using an
overall hybrid procurement model. This hybrid approach to procurement,
using multiple delivery types based on best fit for each project, enables the
program to be delivered in a much shorter period than previously anticipated
while at the same time optimizing risk transfer and adhering to local market
conditions.
As the owner’s engineer and technical consultant, Stantec developed all
of the contract documents for procurement of the $765 million program.
This included preparation of procurement technical specifications for the
following major contracts:
• McLoughlin WWTP, DBF
• Hartland Biosolids Facility, DBFOM
• Clover Point Pump Station, DB
• Macaulay Point Pump Station, DB
Results
The project is progressing well with the McLoughlin Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Hartland Biosolids Facility, Macaulay and Clover pumping stations and
conveyance facilities currently under construction. The construction program,
PROJECT STATS including procurement, is being delivered in only four years, much quicker
than comparable programs.
Stantec fast-tracked the technical planning phase to meet a stringent Ministry
Size: 108 MLD of Environment order. The innovative plan developed in partnership with
Design & Construction CRD will result in cost savings of $400 million over previously developed
Value: $765M concepts. Technical options for the plan were evaluated using a value-based
TBL framework considering social, economic, and environmental factors, with
a focus on minimizing energy consumption and greenhouse gases.
Case Studies CS-31

Formed in 2008, Phelan Piñon Hills Community Services District (PPHCSD)
Phelan Piñon Hills inherited facilities formerly managed by San Bernardino County including an
Community Services aging controls and communication system. Faced with failing and unsupported
District (CA) controls, PPHCSD was locked out of its own source code—code urgently
needed to manage water operations at 28 remote sites across 128 square miles
Phelan Piñon Hills of rugged terrain in the high desert of Victor Valley, California. SCADA, PLCs,
SCADA/PLC/Telemetry and radio networks failed frequently. With components no longer available,
Replacement Project repairs were impossible. Without visibility into true field conditions, the staff
were forced to visit remote sites frequently to check status.
On the recommendation of neighboring agencies, PPHCSD retained TESCO in
2013 to reverse engineer their system, design, build, and support a centralized
monitoring and control system using the fixed-price design-build approach.
TESCO consulted with PPHCSD staff to identify critical operational objectives
that could be achieved within their budget. Concurrently, PPHCSD joined a
Southern California Edison (SCE) program that incentivizes users who accept
power curtailments. To be eligible, PPHCSD needed to integrate an Automated
Demand Response (ADR) gateway into their SCADA system.
Approach
With no documentation or system access, TESCO worked collaboratively with
PPHCSD to conduct an extensive assessment of the existing control system,
then used the findings to develop a fully-engineered specification incorporating
previously uncontrolled equipment. To centralize monitoring and control, a new
SCADA system, server, and historian were deployed. New systems reduced the
need for staff to visit remote sites including: 11 wells, 35 reservoirs, 4 de-sanding
tanks, 24 booster stations, 63 booster pumps, 32 pressure reducing stations, and
353 miles of pipeline. New process instrumentation and I/O interfaces were
added for automating chemical treatment; and security monitoring was added
for personnel, public safety, and assets. Antiquated serial communications
telemetry systems were migrated to a high-speed, trunked Ethernet-radio
backbone with repeaters at high points in the Piñon Hills. TESCO integrated
Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions’ OpenADR Gateway (Automated Demand
Response) to manage SCE curtailment requests and established load-shedding
algorithms that prioritize water needs should a conflict arise.
Results
The two-phase Phelan Piñon Hills SCADA/PLC/Telemetry Replacement
Project began in 2013 and was completed in 2016. A collaborative design-build
approach was key to meeting the District’s expectations for an improved control
automation system that addressed operations, security measures, maintenance,
sustainability, and system management — and came within their budget. Real
cost savings were captured by reducing travel to remote sites and integrating the
OpenADR Gateway with the SCADA system. The adoption of ADR funded most
PROJECT STATS of the project through grants and incentives available by joining SCE’s power
curtailment program.
Today, the high-speed communications backbone, centralized monitoring
Size: 2.7 MGD
and control, real-time trending, and performance data capture relays critical
Design & Construction information for use in reporting, analysis, and troubleshooting and helps
Value: $934,813 PPHCSD proactively manage their water infrastructure to consistently deliver
Population Served: 21,000 quality drinking water to customers.

To meet the demands of their growing community, (pop. 45,000 to 136,000
Roseville Department in 27 years) Roseville Department of Environment Utilities (DEU) expanded
of Environmental its water and wastewater infrastructure multiple times. Expansions included
Utilities (CA) updates to their SCADA systems, however the updates were added to
technologies that were first installed in 1991. In addition, Roseville DEU’s
SCADA System operations were divided between multiple independent control systems and
Replacement Project software platforms, including both DCS and HMI/SCADA.
Roseville DEU recognized that updating and centralizing their controls would
improve operational effectiveness and visibility into operations. It would also
add a vital component — advanced cyber security in the system architecture.
Following a master plan and preliminary (60%) design developed by Jacobs,
Roseville set out to replace their systems with a unified solution.
For Roseville, the design-assist delivery method afforded them better upfront
communication with the system integrator planning and delivering their
solution. It reduced the risk of differing spec interpretations during the project
and developed a “we” relationship as opposed to “us vs. them.” The submittal
process was streamlined, given the clearer understanding of owner wants and
needs. Once the Jacobs design was completed to 60%, Roseville interviewed
teams. The TESCO team was chosen to engineer the completed design, build,
and commission the system.
Approach
Through a collaborative partnership with Roseville, TESCO team developed
the pre-design into a 100% architecture. SCADA standards and governance
were defined to ensure consistency, reduce operating risk, simplify
programming, support maintenance, and accommodate growth.
Beyond the local monitoring and control of their respective facilities, the new
SCADA systems provide remote monitoring and control of water distribution,
recycled water, wastewater collection, and stormwater facilities via various
communication methods. The SCADA system interfaces with a variety of PLC
types, including Modicon, Allen-Bradley, and Symax, at plants and remote
sites. In addition to replacing the DYNAC system for the three plants, Roseville
DEU implemented the SCADA platform to replace standalone systems at
the Dual-Purpose Pumping Station, Dry Creek UV, Pleasant Grove UV, and
Hypochlorite at Dry Creek.
Roseville’s security plan was then aligned with Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), NIST 800‐82, IEC-62443, and ISA-99 recommendations
for defense-in-depth. Their final system architecture allows business users
unprecedented access to operational history without compromising security.
Results
PROJECT STATS Roseville DEU achieved its desired outcome to improve operational effectiveness,
Start & End Year: 2013–2018 tighten security, and avoid failures common to aging systems. They were also
Size: 1
00 MGD (Water) able to realize time and cost savings by automating all operations on a single
12 & 18 MGD (WW) platform, improve consistency of water quality through centralized monitoring,
reduce overtime call-outs and travel time, provide secure data accessibility
Design & Construction to business users without compromising operational security, and establish a
Value: $7.7M
scalable architecture to accommodate future growth.
Case Studies CS-33

With increased water shortages projected within the next 10 years, increased
City of Los Angeles (CA) population growth, and increased emphasis on environmental footprint,
advanced water treatment technologies assist in providing more high-quality
Terminal Island WRP
water supply, protecting groundwater quality, and decreasing potable water
Advanced Water demand. This ultimate expansion project leads to reusing all effluent and
Purification Facility ceasing discharges to the harbor to comply with future NPDES requirements.
Ultimate Expansion This innovative facility takes wastewater that would have been discharged
into the nearby harbor and cleans the water using advanced water purification
Design-Build
technology including microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and an
advanced oxidation process (AOP). The AOP uses ultraviolet (UV) light and
sodium hypochlorite (industrial-strength bleach) to provide disinfection for
the entire AWPF. An advantage of the AOP is the disinfection of almost all
contaminants without creating more pollution.
Approach
In order to gain some experience with collaborative delivery and reduce the
overall project schedule, the City of Los Angeles chose to use fixed-price
design-build delivery. The design-build team of Walsh Construction and
Carollo Engineers completed the advanced water treatment facility expansion,
which increases total wastewater treatment capacity to produce 12 mgd of
high-quality water for groundwater replenishment and reuse.
The Walsh-Carollo team designed the expansion to integrate seamlessly
with existing treatment systems and into the existing plant footprint while
minimizing impacts to operations during tie-ins and shutdowns. Walsh, in
collaboration with plant operations staff, successfully completed 81 Special
Plant Accommodations. Walsh also installed a visitor experience kiosk to
demonstrate the final product, as well as vista points explaining each
process area.
The control system for the entire LASAN district was being upgraded at the
same time as the Terminal Island WRP AWPF Ultimate Expansion. The control
system upgrade project required a 90-day complete plant shutdown to modify
all controls for the existing RO and MF systems and bring the new RO, MF, and
AOP systems online. Walsh decreased the shutdown duration by approximately
two months by using alternate electrical space, which allowed all team members
to perform most of their work outside of the shutdown period. This schedule
saved the client potential downtime, enabling them to continue selling reuse
water and reducing the impact to facility operations.
Results
On February 3, 2017, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti dedicated the Terminal
Island WRP Advanced Water Purification Facility Ultimate Expansion, the city’s
first large-scale design-build project. Four awards have been bestowed on this
project:
PROJECT STATS • 2017 Best of the Best – Water/Environment, ENR National
• 2018 ENVISION Platinum
• 2017 Best of the Best Water/Environment, ENR California Region
Size: 12 MGD • 2018 Best Industrial Project, Los Angeles Business Journal Commercial Real
Design & Construction Estate Awards
Value: $45.4M Other WDBC member firm involved: Xylem, Inc. (supplier of advanced
Population Served: 4M oxidation process)

Management At-Risk Archer Western (The Walsh Group) was selected as the CMAR for the City
of Scottsdale’s CAP Water Treatment Plant Expansion project. The existing
City of Scottsdale (AZ) facility capacity provided 50 mgd of potable water for the northern region of
Scottsdale. Construction of the new 20-mgd expansion was completed in four
Scottsdale CAP design packages and included a new 10-mgd finished underground concrete
Water Treatment water reservoir, a new pretreatment complex, a dissolved air flotation facility
Plant Expansion for pre-membrane treatment, and a new 22-mgd microfiltration facility with
associated CIP systems, chemical storage area, air scour equipment, and
electrical equipment. This scope also included miles of large diameter pipelines
to interconnect the existing and new facilities while maintaining flow to the
plant. Flow meter vaults and valve stations made it possible to load the plant
raw water feed without interruptions to maintain operations and maximize
plant process capacities during construction and after completion.
Archer Western worked with the designer, Arcadis, on a daily basis to optimize
the design and minimize project cost impacts.
Final original contract value for this project was just over $78M, with change
orders awarded to add $13M worth of additional scopes of work that were
completed through the same cooperative efforts by Archer Western and Arcadis.
Approach
The project had several constraints, including schedule to meet upcoming
regulatory requirements and additional production demands forecasted for
2012 and beyond. The City selected the CMAR delivery method for three
reasons:
1. Arcadis completed a design study report for the plant conditions and
developed the most appropriate approach to improve the plant capacity and
water quality in 2005.
2. Expansion of this facility required staged construction so that early
requirements could be met while technology piloting and microfiltration
design were completed.
3. The performing contractor had to be part of the design team to execute
proper constructability review to alleviate plant flow bypassing and to
develop construction alternatives that would allow for raw water flows to be
directed to the new microfiltration building with any remaining flows being
conveyed to the adjacent conventional treatment plant.
Results
Project scope included expansion to an existing facility whereby the new
expansion would be the base loaded treatment facility and the existing systems
would be used for trim production demand as needed. To make these hydraulic
improvements, Archer Western worked with Arcadis to collect as-built
information to better predict new system integration so that plant outages could
be minimized, and execution of system tie-ins were seamless.
PROJECT STATS
Early in the design phase, Archer Western defined “packages” that would
allow drawings and specifications to be completed, approved by permitting
Size: 70 MGD agencies, and competitively bid to prequalified contractors without schedule
Design & Construction impact. This allowed Arcadis to focus on specific packages and not the entire
Value: $92M expansion, saving time in the design phase and kicking off construction
activities a year in advance.
Case Studies CS-35

Public-Private Partnership Challenge
& Design-Build-Operate Prior to the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project, water delivered to Saint John
residents was coarse screened and chlorinated. This unfiltered surface water
City of Saint John contained significant amounts of disinfection byproducts, at levels that often
(NB, Canada) exceeded those prescribed by current standards. These byproducts, together
with the inability of the system to adequately treat potentially harmful protozoa
Safe Clean Drinking such as giardia and cryptosporidium, created a risk to public health. This
Water Project unfiltered water, with a low pH, is highly corrosive which results in damage to
the water system.
The Safe Clean Drinking Water Project was undertaken to address these
issues and provide city residents with safe, clean drinking water which meets
Canadian and New Brunswick standards.
The City decided to use design-build delivery for the following reasons:
• To ensure that the City’s design, operational, and lifecycle performance
criteria were met
• To achieve the optimum balance of risk transfer between the City and the
design-builder whilst maintaining a focus on whole lifecycle costs
• Value for money analysis
• Foster competition via a request for qualifications short-listing process; only
short-listed teams were allowed to participate in the request for proposals
phase
• Benefit from the private sector’s innovative solutions and best practices for
similar projects
• Ensure a fair and transparent procurement process
Approach
The project consisted of design, construction, operation, rehabilitation and
financing of raw water source and transmission system improvements, a new
drinking water treatment facility and water storage facilities, industrial system
improvements in East Saint John, and the implementation of a groundwater
system and treatment in West Saint John.
There were thirteen components of work grouped into five categories, which
together were required to address the technical objectives of providing city
residents with good quality water, providing an adequate supply of water for
customer use and fire protection, and rehabilitating the water supply system.
Categories 1 and 2 are comprised of a new 20-mgd water treatment plant and
8.7 MG of new storage reservoirs. Categories 3, 4, and 5 included various
improvements to the water source infrastructure, construction of new water
mains, the rehabilitation of selected existing water mains, well site development
and related improvements.
Results
This project was technically complex due to the separation of the city water
PROJECT STATS system. The existing network of water mains, pressure zones, and storage
reservoirs was improved to meet current standards for reliability, hydraulic
functionality, and the maintenance of water quality. System limitations
Size: 20 MGD were addressed, and aging infrastructure replaced or rehabilitated so that
Design & Construction good quality water suitable for its intended use and at adequate pressure
Value: ~$216M (Canadian dollars) can be delivered to consumers across the city. The project is scheduled to be
completed on time and on budget.

In January 2017, the City of Liberty, Missouri, began operating its new
City of Liberty (MO) wastewater treatment plant, which is the first in the state of Missouri to utilize
Liberty Wastewater fixed-price, performance-based design-build as its delivery method, as well as
the first design-build in Missouri to be approved and financed with the State
Treatment Plant Revolving Funds (SRF) program. With enactment of the 2016 Missouri design-
build legislation, projects such as the Liberty WWTP now make it possible for
other municipalities throughout the state to maximize their dollars through the
combined efficiency of design-build delivery and low-interest SRF financing.
Since the 1980s, the City of Liberty had outsourced its wastewater treatment to
a neighboring community. Because the City was facing current rate increases,
uncertain future increases, and potential capacity issues, it began studying
alternatives. Building new facilities would enable Liberty to discontinue
outsourcing its wastewater treatment and save the City $27M over a
30-year period.
Liberty worked with consultants to determine the scope of work, budget, and
user rates required for such an undertaking. It was determined that it would
take $95M to construct the facilities while maintaining and leveling user rates.
Approach
With 91 percent of residents voting in favor of issuing bonds for this project,
the City had to ensure that the project financing, schedule, and costs would
support the promised user rates.
A key project driver to maintaining stable user rates was to have new facilities
completed and operational by early 2017. The City realized that the only way
to achieve such an aggressive schedule was to pursue a fixed-price design-build
delivery procurement.
The second key project driver to maintaining user rates was obtaining
State Revolving Funds to finance the new facility. The Missouri DNR had
never approved SRF financing for a design-build project, but through the
collaborative efforts of the MDNR and City of Liberty, the project was granted
up to $79M in SRF financing.
Following review of conceptual designs, proposals, and interviews, the
team of Goodwin Brothers and CMT was selected. Construction of the new
7-mgd plant, two 10-mgd pump stations, 18,000 feet of force main, 6,000
feet of collector roadway, and administration and maintenance facilities was
completed by December 2016.
Results
Based on cost and schedule savings gained through the design-build process,
additional work was added to the original contract, including constructing
over 6,000 feet of trunk sewer. The total project cost came in just under the
PROJECT STATS $79 million loan authorization allowing the project to be fully financed
utilizing SRF.
This project is a great example of a city looking out for the best interest of its
Size: 7 MGD citizens’ hard-earned dollars. Rather than continuing the status quo, Liberty
Design & Construction pursued different treatment options and innovative delivery methods that will
Value: $79M positively impact the citizens of Liberty for future generations to come.
Case Studies CS-37

Colorado Springs Utilities needed to increase its water production to meet
Colorado Springs future demands for safe, economical, and reliable water supply. The Southern
Utilities (CO) Delivery System program included bringing Arkansas River water from the
Pueblo Reservoir to Colorado Springs, Fountain, and Pueblo West and Security
Edward W. Bailey Water Water districts. The project consisted of an intake at the reservoir, miles of
Treatment Plant raw water pipelines and pump stations, and a new water treatment plant and
finished water pump station with an initial capacity of 5 to 50 mgd expandable
to 130 mgd. Site constraints and location of distribution pipelines needed to be
carefully considered during design.
CSU selected progressive design-build delivery as the best approach for
the project because it would withstand the pressures of a tight schedule,
stakeholder scrutiny, and ongoing budget concerns. It was also determined
that a 100% level of design should be achieved for all the facilities before
establishing a final GMP for construction.
Approach
McCarthy Building Companies and Carollo Engineers brought a unique
approach to the Edward W. Bailey Water Treatment Plant. The McCarthy/
Carollo team developed a plan that would consolidate the treatment structures
and limit their exposure to the poor soil conditions. It would include a
10-million-gallon raw water tank, flash mixing, 4-stage flocculation, lamella
plate sedimentation, ozone contactors, GAC filters, sodium hypochlorite
disinfection, and a 10-million-gallon finished water reservoir and finished
water pump station. Solids would be handled through sedimentation drying
beds onsite. The team also managed the hydraulic profile of the plant, using
the natural slope of the site and burying the structures to minimize pumping
and ensure the critical treatment structures were founded on good soils.
The consolidated treatment structures eliminated more than four miles of
yard piping, multiple pump stations, and allowed for easier operations and
maintenance within a smaller facility footprint.
CSU was heavily engaged throughout the life of the project. Value engineering
was introduced during conceptual design to reinforce ratepayers receiving
maximum value for their dollars spent. The soil conditions continued to create
challenges for the team. The project team ended up utilizing Deep Dynamic
Compaction as the ground improvement solution which saved the project over
$1 million.
Results
The collaborative-delivery approach fostered a partnering environment for the
project team, which resulted in water being delivered on time and significantly
under budget.
PROJECT STATS During conceptual design, CSU developed an initial opinion of probable
construction cost which was estimated at $190 million. The McCarthy/Carollo
Start & End Year: 2011–2016 team worked closely to save the project more than $60 million prior to the 30%
Size: 5
0 MGD (expandable to cost model. The final GMP was established at $124.6 million which resulted in
130 MGD) a 34% reduction from the initial OPCC. The project also brought opportunity
Design & Construction for more than 50 local subcontractors and vendors and employed more than
Value: $124.6M 150 men and women from the local community.

DC Water developed this emergency fast-track, design-build project to
DC WATER (DC) alleviate flooding in two Washington, D.C. neighborhoods that was caused by
McMillan Stormwater heavy rain events. The technical solution for this project used a combination of
new infrastructure, existing structures, and new green infrastructure to reduce,
Storage and Green capture, and store more than three million gallons of stormwater.
Infrastructure
Approach
• Conversion of one below-grade catacomb-like sand filter cell (approximately
one acre in area) into an underground storage basin for three million gallons
of stormwater during a wet-weather event
• Temporary flume bypass of live sewers to enable construction of two
underground diversion structures under heavily traveled city streets
• Installation of eighty 65-foot-deep secant piles to support a 50-foot-deep
diversion structure excavation
• Construction of a 25-foot-deep diversion structure and installation of a
48-inch-diameter pipe under North Capitol Street to divert flow into the
storage basin
• Construction of a 65-foot-long × 20-foot-wide × 60-foot-deep steel/reinforced
concrete “hybrid” diversion structure under First Street NW to route flow to a
future tunnel drop shaft
• Fourteen green infrastructure retention basins to assist in the collection of
stormwater and free capacity within the conveyance system
Work included extensive night work and maintenance of traffic plans required to
minimize disruptions on the surrounding areas.
This project went on to receive a 2015 Engineering News-Record Best Project

Award in the Water/Environment category for the Mid-Atlantic Region.
PROJECT STATS
Size: N
/A
Value: $15.3M
Case Studies CS-39

Management At-Risk In 2014, the town of Berthoud, located on the Front Range of Colorado, north
of Denver along the I-25 corridor, was faced with development requests from a
Town of Berthoud (CO) combination of residential, commercial, and light industrial users. This request
coincided with the implementation of stringent nutrient regulations by the
Berthoud Regional State of Colorado for new wastewater treatment facilities. With the planned
Wastewater Treatment development of the eastern area of the community, particularly a major
complex serving the trucking industry, a new east-side treatment facility would
be necessary to sustain the planned growth of the city to the east of the existing
service area. As a result, Berthoud officials made the decision to build a new
wastewater treatment plant under an expedited schedule to accommodate the
growth on the eastern part of the town.
Approach
The project proceeded initially as a traditional design-bid-build approach
until it became clear that approach would not be able to meet the project
budget or timing needs. At that time, Berthoud officials decided to utilize the
construction management at-risk (CMAR) delivery method and a competitive
CMAR request for proposals was sent to pre-qualified contractors along with
50 percent design documents.
The collaborative-delivery team invited Xylem, Inc. to supply an integrated
package of major process equipment for the plant, inclusive of influent pumps,
sequencing batch reactor, UV disinfection system, effluent pumps, and digester
aeration equipment. Since Colorado has tight effluent limits on new plants
being built since 2012, town officials and the design-engineer pre-selected the
treatment process incorporating Xylem’s specialized equipment, all of which
was delivered as an integrated system. The combined approach of the CMAR
delivery model and the major equipment integration brought the project to a
timely completion within the project budget.
Results
Xylem’s advanced Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) — the Sanitaire (a Xylem
brand) ICEAS (Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System) — allows for
continuous inflow to the biological treatment basins and utilizes the advanced
NDNP (Nitrification, Denitrification, Bio-Phosphorus Reduction) process cycle
which can consistently meet the effluent limit of Total Phosphorus at 0.7 mg/l.
The Wedeco (a Xylem brand) TAKSmart open channel UV system was delivered
to the construction site in a pre-fabricated stainless-steel channel to minimize
construction efforts, and the pumping process and disinfection equipment
controls were integrated into a single system, optimizing the overall cost and
timing associated with procurement and installation. This delivery approach
resulted in total project cost reduction of nearly $1 million below the original
guaranteed maximum price, ultimately enabling the town to meet the $3.8
million project budget.
PROJECT STATS
Size: 3
MGD
Value: $3.8M

APPENDIX
Glossary
Acceptance Testing – A contractually defined business case considers the discount rate applied
milestone that signifies completion of specific system to cash flows expected from a project, efficiency
testing to demonstrate that a project meets the factors resulting from delivery of the project by a
specified technical and performance requirements of third party, the potential for capital and O&M cost
a DB/DBO project. (Chapter 6, p. 6) savings, and risk allocation and any risk premiums
to compensate for transferring risk from the project
Agreed-Upon Price – The determined price of owner to the third party. (Chapter 7, p. 5)
the project, such as a guaranteed maximum price
(GMP), a lump sum, or fixed price, which is Collaborative-Delivery Methods – Approaches
incorporated into a project agreement between the to procuring and delivering capital projects that
owner and collaborative-delivery firm. involve close collaboration among all stakeholders—
(Chapter 2, p. 9) specifically the owner, designer, technology provider,
construction, and operations participants. The
Assumption of Risk – Determining which party collaborative process formally begins when the
is best able to assume, manage, and ultimately be contract is signed at the design phase and runs
responsible for the associated potential financial and through final acceptance and possibly long-term
performance burden of a specific risk element in a operations. Collaborative-delivery methods include
project. (Chapter 3, p. 4) construction management at-risk (CMAR), design-
Availability-Based Payments – Often used in build (DB)—both fixed-price and progressive—
DBOF and similar P3 projects, this is a business design-build-operate (DBO), and public-private
arrangement in which an asset is always available partnerships (P3). Collaborative-delivery methods
to deliver a defined level of service to an owner in differ from the design-bid-build (DBB) method in
return for a steady stream of payments back to the two important ways: first, construction personnel
financing party. (Chapter 7, p. 3) become involved early in the design process; and
second, selection of the collaborative-delivery firm
Best Value – Method of selection which includes is generally based on best value rather than on the
price and qualitative factors. (Chapters 2, p. 2; and lowest bid. (Chapter 2, p. 1)
Chapter 4, p. 8)
Consequential Damages – Indirect results of
Bridging Documents – Convey design and con- alleged failures. Collaborative-delivery contracts
struction requirements to collaborative-delivery generally hold neither the owner nor the delivery
teams bidding a project through a summary of work, firm responsible for the indirect results of alleged
technical requirements, plans, project constraints, failures. Due to the subjective nature and varying
reference materials, and contractual requirements. scope of state laws, it may be desirable to include
(Chapter 1, p. 16) a waiver of consequential damages in the contract
which clearly defines the types of damage that are
Budget – Anticipated amount of funds allocated for
expressly excluded. (Chapter 3, p. 12)
the project by the owner. (Chapter 1, p. 2)
Concession (purchasing the right to own and
Business Case – Documentation developed by an
operate) – Variation of a P3 method that includes
owner when evaluating the financial implications
the design, build, own, operate, maintain, and
of a project considering the use of a public-private
finance components. Use of a concession will result
partnership (P3) for financing a capital project. The
in the private party providing the financing for
A-1
the project to assume a significant degree of user Design-Build-Operate (DBO) – Delivery
demand/revenue risk and reward. A concession method with a single contract held by the
may include ownership transfer at end of the owner that combines the components of design,
term, direct billing of users/ratepayers, and full permitting, procurement, construction, testing
outsourcing of all business operations to the and commissioning, and long-term operation
private entity. (Chapter 7, p. 3) and maintenance (O&M) services. The owner’s
final acceptance of the project does not conclude
Construction Management at-Risk (CMAR) with delivery and related services, but continues
– Collaborative-delivery method in which the through a defined operational term.
owner retains an engineering firm and a CMAR (Chapter 2, p. 8; Chapter 7, p. 2).
firm under two separate contracts—one for design
and one for construction. CMAR delivery is most Design-Build-Operate-Finance (DBOF) –
often chosen when the owner wants to capture Further extension of DBO in which the owner
some of the benefits of collaborative delivery while enters into a single contract with a DBOF team
maintaining direct control of project definition and for the design, construction, long-term operations
design. (Chapter 2, p. 4) and maintenance, and financing of a project. The
financing arrangement may encompass either
Contingency – Common practice within a project the entire project—in which case fees paid to
that establishes a special category of costs in a the DBOF team cover all costs for constructing
project budget to cover unanticipated costs of the the project—or a long-term financing structure
work that can occur and are not the basis for a with repayment of the financing costs over the
change order. (Chapter 3, p. 18) contractual period for long-term operations.
Cost of Capital – Refers to the cost of financing a (Chapter 2, p. 3; Chapter 7, p. 2 and 3)
project. (Chapter 7, p. 6) Design Firm/Design Team/Design Engineer –
Cost of Work – Term used in a collaborative- A company and/or certified professional engineer
delivery contract that defines the costs reasonably or individual responsible for the project design.
incurred in the delivery of a project that do not (Chapter 2, p. 4)
include profit and overhead. (Chapter 3, p. 27) Embedded Relationship – A separate relationship
Demand-Based Contract – Business arrangement with an entity for the purpose of providing specific
in which an owner makes payments to a service services to the owner and their organization
provider in return for the actual level of service to integrate and facilitate the defined work
provided. (Chapter 7, p. 8) components in a collaborative-delivery project.
(Chapter 2, p. 2)
Design-Build (DB) – Delivery method in which
an owner enters into a single contract with a Fee – Applies where a GMP is the pricing
design-build firm to design, permit, construct, test, methodology. Fee is a single number that is
and commission a project. Within design-build inclusive of all profit and office overhead and
delivery there are two basic variations: progressive may be either a % markup or a fixed $ amount
and fixed-price. (Chapter 2, p. 2) applied to the cost of work as defined in the project
agreement. (Chapter 4, p. 7)
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – Delivery method in
which an owner contracts with an engineer to Equity – Typically constitutes cash, capital
prepare detailed design plans and specifications shares, or quasi-equity products (e.g., junior or
for a project. Public bidding is the procurement subordinated debt) invested by the P3 sponsors in
method where a separate firm to construct the a project. (Chapter 7, p. 8)
project is selected via the lowest responsible Financing – Source of funding for a project.
bid. (Chapter 2, p. 2) (Chapter 7, p. 7)
Designer – A licensed professional engineer that Fixed-Price Design-Build (FPDB) – Delivery
becomes signatory to the design documents of a method in which the owner has a contract with
project as the engineer of record. (Chapter 2, p. 3) a firm to both design and construct a project for
A-2 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

an agreed-upon fixed price. FPDB is used when this context, the interface agreement describes the
the owner has defined the project requirements conditions for testing, turnover, and warranty of a
and scope of work sufficiently for proposing firms facility. It typically covers contractual obligations
to accurately predict the project cost early in the for both parties, including risk transfer from
procurement process. The owner’s requirements, design and construction to long-term operations
as expressed in procurement documents, and maintenance. (Chapter 2, p. 17)
may be either prescriptive – (well-defined) or
performance-based, which encourages and allows Joint Venture – Business arrangement of two or
more innovation on the design-builder’s part. The more firms that agree to form a new entity for a
fixed price is an established price for a fixed scope specific business purpose. The parties to the joint
of work. (Chapter 2, p. 12) venture manage the enterprise—sharing all profits,
losses, expenses, and assets—and have joint and
Force Majeure – Term in a contract clause several liability. Joint ventures can be formed for
representing an unplanned occurrence, any collaborative-delivery method. (Chapter 2,
unavoidable accident, war, strike, or “act of p. 16; Chapter 5, p. 2)
God” (earthquake, flood, etc.) or some other
extraordinary circumstance. This clause usually Liquidated Damages – Dollars payable that are
frees the owner and collaborative-delivery firm not a penalty, are fair and reasonable, and represent
from liability for failure to perform if an event a reasonable estimate of fair compensation for
outside their control occurs. (Chapter 3, p. 22) the losses that may reasonably be anticipated
from failure to meet certain project milestones.
Funding – Amount of financial resources an Liquidated damages are in lieu of specified liability
owner has in hand to spend on the project. There for certain costs, losses, expenses, claims, penalties,
are many sources of funding available to owners and other damages that result from any delay in
including tax-exempt and taxable public debt, as completing a project. (Chapter 3, p. 22)
well as private-sector funding through issuance of
debt and investment of equity. (Chapter 7, p. 6) Loss Prevention – The act of taking measures
to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, adverse
Gearing – The ratio of the equity contribution to events occurring in a project. Collaborative-
the amount of long-term debt in a P3 project; a key delivery contracts spell out for each project those
consideration that functions much like the down foreseeable adverse events in which a party can
payment required for a residential mortgage. most efficiently be responsible for taking loss-
(Chapter 7, p. 8) prevention measures. (Chapter 3, p. 4)
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) – An Loss Control – Measures taken to minimize
approach used for pricing a collaborative-delivery the extent of damage resulting from an adverse
project and as may be set in a contract which event occurring during the project’s delivery.
includes the sum of all reimbursable costs (cost of Collaborative-delivery contracts spell out the
work), plus a fee for the firm’s overhead and profit. responsible party related to foreseeable adverse
All costs incurred above the contracted GMP are events. (Chapter 3, p. 4)
generally the responsibility of the delivery firm,
unless they result from an owner-approved change Market Sounding – A market survey mechanism
in project scope. (Chapter 4, p. 11) that allows informal, pre-procurement input to an
owner regarding the viability of a potential project
Incentives – Established financial compensation or procurement. (Chapter 1, p. 4)
contract relief offered when a project is completed
earlier than the defined contractual milestone and/ Materials Cost Escalation – Unforeseen increases
or there is a specified enhanced performance in in the cost of materials used on a project, which
delivering a project. (Chapter 3, p. 27) can be an issue, particularly in contracts that span
several years. The materials escalation clause in a
Interface Agreement – Contractual arrangement collaborative-delivery contract may be premised
commonly used in DBO and P3 projects in which on agreed-to cost elements or market indices for
the design and construction (design-builder) certain cost components included in the price for a
entity is separate from the operations entity. In project. (Chapter 3, p. 6)
Glossary A-3
Mechanical or System Testing – Initial verification does not meet contractual requirements.
of separate components typically using clean water. (Chapter 6, p. 4, 6, and 8)
(Chapter 6, p. 8)
Phase I – All project activities conducted prior to
Off-Ramp – Contractually defined option for agreement on price. The scope of services for Phase
the owner to use with a CMAR or PDB project I may include preconstruction CMAR and design
that terminates a project agreement prior to the through a certain defined level of completion and
Notice to Proceed for Phase II services related to preconstruction for progressive design-build.
the construction of a project. The off-ramp may (Chapter 3, p. 15)
be taken when the owner and the collaborative-
delivery firm are unable to agree on the price to Phase II – All project activities conducted after
construct the project.. (Chapter 2, p. 11) agreement on price; e.g., construction phase for
CMAR and final design and construction for PDB.
Owner Advisor (OA) – An individual or firm (Chapter 3, p. 15 )
(third party) with demonstrated skills and
expertise that is retained solely by an owner to Plant-Performance Guarantee – The requirement
provide identified technical, procurement, and of a DB firm to demonstrate that the project will
management services related to a project. An operate as intended, consistent with the technical
OA can serve as the owner’s representative and and operational criteria, project design, and all
advisor during procurement, contracting, and / applicable permits. If the project does not meet the
or management of a project, but does not make an defined performance standards, the design-builder
owner’s decisions during the delivery of a project may be required to pay liquidated damages and to
unless authorized to do so. (Chapter 1, p. 10) make any modifications needed for the project to
perform as intended. (Chapter 3, p. 14)
Owner-Directed Changes – Changes that can
occur within the contracted scope of work. Prescriptive Requirements – Specific technical
Owner-directed changes may result in additional details and mandated equipment and features to
compensation owed to the collaborative-delivery be provided by a design-builder within an RFP.
firm. (Chapter 5, p. 8 ) (Chapter 1, p. 7; Chapter 2, p. 13)
Open-Book Process – Collaborative approach Private Financing – Design and construction

that the owner and the contracted firm costs of a project that are fully financed by the
use in developing costs and pricing during private sector, typically via a combination of equity
preconstruction for either a CMAR or PDB and debt (e.g., bonds or loans). (Chapter 2, p. 18;
delivery in which agreement is achieved by both Chapter 7, p. 4)
the owner and collaborative-delivery firm as to the Privatization – Form of public-private-partnership
cost elements of the project scope (cost of work). that includes private ownership of assets for public
These cost elements are then used to transparently use. Chapter 7, p. 1)
negotiate the final price to construct the project
(for CMAR) and the final design and construction Process-Performance Criteria – Detailed
for a PDB project. (Chapter 2, p. 9; Chapter 3, p. operational and technical requirements on which
27) the design of a project’s process systems and
equipment is based. These requirements address all
Performance-Based Requirements – Criteria input (influent or raw water) and required output
in an RFP that define measurable project of material (e.g., NPDES permit or finished-water
performance criteria and operational objectives. quality standards). (Chapter 4, p. 8)
These criteria include technical requirements,
standard construction specifications, and quality Project Agreement – Legal arrangement between
standards. Performance-based FPDB procurement an owner and a collaborative-delivery firm that
allows and encourages more innovation than encompasses the responsibilities of each party,
does prescriptive procurement. (Chapter 2, p. 13; the method of payment, liability, schedule and
Chapter 4, p. 7) performance requirements, and defined conditions
that lead to achieving acceptance and project
Performance Testing – Project-wide, systematic completion through a defined warranty period.
testing that validates whether a project does or (Chapter 5, p. 5)

Project Debt – Amount of loans and project- bonds, grants, and loans, to fund a specific project
related bonds secured by the financing entity (e.g., DBO). (Chapter 7, p. 8)
(public or private). Debt can also be a combination
of short- and long-term loans, sourced from Public-Private Partnership (P3) – Approach that
commercial banks, investment banks, or can range from a DBO, where no private financing
institutional investors (pension funds, insurance is provided, to other project structures where
companies, and sovereign funds). (Chapter 7, p. 7) private investment is provided to fund the delivery
and often includes long-term O&M. (Chapter 2,
Project Entity – Business organization with whom p. 4; Chapter 7, p. 1)
the owner enters into an agreement for the delivery
of services for a specific project using a public- Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) –
private partnership (P3). The project entity has full Procurement of a collaborative-delivery firm
responsibility for design, construction, operations with qualifications as the basis for determining
and maintenance, and repair and replacement selection. (Chapter 2, p. 4)
of system equipment, and in some cases project Quantity and Quality of Untreated Water
financing. The project company is sometimes or Wastewater Influent – Measurement and
referred to as the special-purpose entity or special- characteristics of untreated water or wastewater
purpose vehicle. (Chapter 7, p. 1) entering a facility, which support the design,
Project Implementation Plan – Document(s) construction, and operation of a project.
developed by the owner in the planning phase (Chapter 6, p. )
of a project to serve as a roadmap to successfully Risk – Term used to recognize and understand
guide it through its internal processes to complete what could potentially go wrong throughout a
a project. The plan defines the owner’s capabilities project. Effective risk management identifies
and goals, priorities and drivers, and management the real and potential sources of problematic
oversight for the project, along with its process issues in the project, whether they are inherent
for selecting a delivery method and procuring a in performing the work or embodied within the
collaborative-delivery firm. (Chapter 1, p. 2) contract. Fundamental aspects of risk management
Project Drivers – Priorities that are deemed to include identification and assignment of each risk
be most important for an owner to achieve a event to a responsible party and quantification of
successful project. They are identified early in the the risk to cost, schedule, quality, and safety based
project planning phase and are communicated on probability and level of impact.
throughout all of the owner’s documentation. (Chapter 3, p. 1)
(Chapter 1, p. 6) Risk-Allocation Principles – Process of
Proponent – Firm or entity that is capable determining which party—owner or collaborative-
of performing all of the services requested in delivery firm—will assume project risk as
a collaborative-delivery RFP. The entity may identified. In collaborative-delivery contracts, risks
be a single firm, joint venture, or consortium should be allocated to the party best positioned to
encompassing firms that will perform the specified manage them. (Chapter 3, p. 2)
design, construction, operations and maintenance, Risk Matrix/Register – The result of an assessment
equity investment, and overall management of by either the owner or the collaborative-delivery
the completed asset. The latter three grouping firm, and agreed to by both parties, that identifies
of services apply exclusively to a P3 approach. potential project risks and the likelihood of
The proponent is sometimes referred to as the occurrence and allocates the responsibility for
proposer. (Chapter 7, p. 10) mitigation of each risk element. The objective is to
Proprietary Processes or Equipment – Equipment, reduce the project’s risk-related costs by addressing
system, or processes sold commercially in the open them at the outset. (Chapter 3, p.18)
marketplace inclusive of a license to the purchaser. Risk Shifting – The approach taken to allocate a
(Chapter 3, p. 17) particular risk element to a party that is not likely
Public Financing – The means by which a public to have the ability to control and manage said risk
owner provides the capital, typically via municipal element successfully. (Chapter 3, p. 4)
Glossary A-5
Shared Savings – An incentive that can be Uncontrollable Circumstances – Acts, omissions,
incorporated into a project agreement whereby any conditions, events, or circumstances that are
dollar savings can be shared between the owner beyond the control of the collaborative-delivery
and the collaborative-delivery firm on the basis of firm and the owner—and are not the fault of either
an agreed-upon sharing ratio. (Chapter 3, p. 28) the firm or others for whom the firm is responsible.
Examples include acts or omissions of the owner or
Standard of Care – General definition for the anyone under the owner’s control, changes in the
performance of professional services as the scope of work, differing site conditions, hazardous
ordinary and reasonable care usually exercised by conditions, wars, floods, labor disputes, unusual
one in that profession, on the same type of project, transportation delays, epidemics, earthquakes,
at the same time, and in the same place, under adverse weather conditions that cannot reasonably
similar circumstances and conditions. Perfect be anticipated, and other circumstances beyond
performance is not required by the common law. the reasonable control of the owner or the
(Chapter 2, p. 5) collaborative-delivery firm. (Chapter 3, p. 24)
Subrogation – Legal right that an insurance carrier Value for Money – Result of a calculation to
frequently reserves to pursue a third party that determine whether the potentially higher cost of
caused an insurance loss to occur to the insured, as private financing in a P3 project will be offset by
a means of recovering the amount of the claim the potential benefits that the owner has identified
carrier paid to the insured. Collaborative-delivery as valuable (such as risk transfer, innovation, or
contracts generally include waivers of subrogation schedule savings). (Chapter 7, p. 7)
by both parties, which prohibit each party’s insurer
from attempting to recover a claim paid to the Waiver of Consequential Damages – Standard
other party. (Chapter 3, p. 11) contract term incorporated in collaborative-
delivery contracts in which each party agrees not
Surety Bond – Performance security issued by to hold the other party responsible for incidental,
a third party, called a surety, that provides some indirect, special, punitive, or consequential
level of financial guarantee to the owner that damages resulting from its failure to meet
the collaborative-delivery firm will perform contractual obligations. Matters that are considered
its contractual obligations in designing and as part of such a waiver include, but are not limited
constructing the project. (Chapter 3, p. 22) to, harm to reputation, economic losses, loss of
Turnover – Milestone at which an operating use of a facility, loss of market position, loss of
facility is “handed back” to the public owner at customers, or debt-service costs. (Chapter 3, p. 12)
the end of a private operations and maintenance
contract term. Turnover may also apply to the
transition from one operator to another.
(Chapter 6, p. 11)

References
Water Design-Build Council (WaterDesignBuild.com)
2016 Procurement Guide for Progressive Design-Build Projects
2016 Procurement Guide for Construction Management At-Risk Projects
2017 Procurement Guide for Fixed-Price Design-Build Projects
2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey
2014 Research Study on Impediments to Design-Build Delivery
2015 Research Study on Lessons Learned from Owners Using Design-Build Delivery
2017 State of the Demand for the Use of Design-Build Delivery in the Water/Wastewater Sector
(2013–2017)
2019 Analysis of the 2017-2018 Market for Collaborative Delivery in the Water/Wastewater Sector
Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA.org)

Design-Build Done RightTM — dbia.org/best-practices
DBIA Water/Wastewater Sector Design-Build Best Practices
The DBIA Design-Build Manual of Practice
Standard Contract Templates – In Sample Form as DBIA Contracts — dbia.org/contracts
References A-7
List of Figures and Tables
FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1.1 Procurement process checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Figure 1.2 Identifying key project priorities and drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Figure 2.1 Contractual and collaborative relationships for DBB, (CMAR, PDB, FPDB,
DBO, and P3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 & 2-3
Figure 2.2 Design-bid-build delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Figure 2.3 Construction management at-risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Figure 2.4 Progressive and fixed-price design-build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Figure 2.5 Progressive design-build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Figure 2.6 Fixed-price design-build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Figure 2.7 Performance- and prescriptive-based criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Figure 2.8 Design-build-operate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Figure 2.9 Public-private partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Figure 3.1 Traditional vs collaborative-delivery risk allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Figure 3.2 Sample project risk register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Figure 4.1 Owner decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Figure 4.2 Single-step procurement process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Figure 4.3 Two-step procurement process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Figure 4.4 Qualifications documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Figure 4.5 Proposal documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Figure 4.6 Evaluation criteria: best-value selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Figure 4.7 CMAR procurement considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Figure 4.8 PDB procurement considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
Figure 4.9 FPDB procurement considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
Figure 4.10 DBO (single- or multiple-entities) procurement considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Figure 5.1 Partnering charter template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Figure 5.2 Sample issue log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Figure 5.3 Sample table of contents for a health and safety plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
Figure 5.4 Sample table of contents for a QMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
Figure 7.1 Public-private partnership contractual relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
Figure 7.2 P3 procurement using progressive design-build methodology with “off-ramps” . . . . . . 7-3
TABLES
Table 1.1 Examples of responsibilities of the owner, the OA, and the collaborative-delivery firm . 1-15
Table 1.2 Examples of organization positions and responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22
Table 3.1 Common risk components in water and wastewater projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Table 3.2 Examples of allocated risks and responsibilities in collaborative-delivery approaches . . 3-17
Table 5.1 Roles and responsibilities of the owner and collaborative-delivery team . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Table 6.1 Example acceptance testing criteria for a wastewater treatment project . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Table 7.1 Benefits and challenges of P3 projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
Table 7.2 P3 project considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
Table 7.3 Apportioning owner’s risks in a P3 using DBO (DBOM) or DBFO
(DBFOM) delivery methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13
Table 7.4 P3 project action plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

The Water Design-Build Council’s mission is advancing WDBC Resources for the Water and
design-build delivery methods to transform the water
industry—through collaborative thought leadership
Wastewater Design-Build Sector
and education, supported by research. Resources are available on WDBC’s website: WaterDesignBuild.com
WDBC REGULAR MEMBER COMPANIES WDBC Advisor Companies WDBC Research Reports
WDBC is currently comprised of 17 regular member firms. Regular membership in WDBC advisor members are an affiliated “category” of firms Executive Summary: 2018 Annual
working with, and providing services to, engineering and 2017 State of the Demand for Design-
the Council consists of any private sector legal entity of whatever form, including Research Report on Collaborative-
affiliates and subsidiaries, who: (1) are frequently and regularly engaged in providing construction firms in the water design-build industry. Candi- 2017 STATE OF THE DEMAND FOR DESIGN-BUILD Build in the Water/Wastewater Sector
Delivery Trends and Growth in the DELIVERY IN THE WATER/WASTEWATER SECTOR
design-build and other forms of collaborative delivery in the water industry as a dates for this group include legal, insurance and finance firms, Water and Wastewater Sector updates presents the results of the WDBC’s 2017
prime contractor (including joint venture partner or member of a special purpose equipment suppliers, consultants, contractors, vendors, trade the 2017 Annual Research Report with Produced by the Water Design-Build Council
market research, which confirm that
corporation) accepting performance guarantee risks; and (2) have in-depth, in-house associations, and academic institutions. WDBC created this an analysis of the 2017 research data, design-build delivery is widely used by
comprehensive professional engineering capabilities or self-perform construction membership category to provide opportunities for service which stated that owners chose one the nation’s public utilities for a variety
capabilities. Regular members must have appropriate licenses or authority to providers engaged in the water industry to collaborate with of the three collaborative-delivery of related infrastructure projects—a
perform its work as recognized by the appropriate governmental body in which the other member firms and gain further recognition of their ser-
In collaboration with
methods (progressive design-build, clear trend of its increasing popularity in

organization conducts its business to design and build public or private (including vices in design-build and other forms of collaborative delivery. fixed-price design-build, or construction
2017 State of the Demand for Design-Build Delivery in the Water/Wastewater Sector | i
this market space.

investor-owned, rate-regulated utilities) water or wastewater systems or facilities management at-risk) to reduce lifecycle
in North America. Regular members directly engage in contracting for design- costs, reduce risk to their customers,
build and other forms of collaborative delivery, as opposed to providing ancillary and deliver projects faster.
activities, such as serving as a consultant to owners on technical, institutional, legal, 2013 Survey of Municipal Officials 2013 Survey of Municipal Officials
procurement, commercial, or other collaborative-delivery project related issues.
and Owners on Impediments to
2015 Research Report: Lessons

Using Collaborative Delivery Methods
for Water and Wastewater Projects and Owners on Impediments to Using
Learned by Owners Using Design- Collaborative-Delivery Methods
Build Delivery, an interview survey of for Water and Wastewater Projects
utility/agency executive and managers, documents that organizations are
captures the experiences they gained unwilling to use collaborative delivery
in using collaborative delivery, but primarily because of the lack of
reinforces the value of education in Water Design-Build Council
education on the delivery methods.
preparing to use these delivery models
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and the need to begin the process early.
2012 Research Report: Municipal WDBC 2012 and 2014 State Statute
2012 Municipal Owners
Owners Customer Satisfaction Survey Research on Progressive Design-Build
Customer Satisfaction Survey
of Water Design-Build Projects
of Water Design-Build Projects Delivery reports on the changes that
highlights greater levels of data about occurred over a two-year period with
users of design-build delivery with enabling legislation in selected states
key findings reporting on why their on allowing the use of progressive
satisfaction levels are high. design-build delivery on water and
wastewater projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Procurement Guides for Collaborative-Delivery Projects

Progressive Design-Build WDBC has long realized the industry’s need for Construction Management at-Risk Procurement Guide
Fixed-Price Design-Build
Construction Management At-Risk materials specifically directed to effectively and This guide provides owners with a framework to use in CMAR
Project Delivery
Procurement Guides
efficiently procure and select qualified contrac- procurement. The information in the guide is based on the
tors for collaborative-delivery projects. Thus, the industry’s best practices and on practitioners’ experiences with
goal of this initiative is to give public officials and successful projects. It includes guidance in developing a request
decision makers user-friendly guides presenting for qualifications (RFQ) and a request for proposals (RFP).
the steps in the three most used procurement
processes that they may adapt and use for their Fixed-Price Design-Build Procurement Guide
own projects.
This guide concentrates on the types of procurement used for
fixed-price design-build projects and also includes templates
Progressive Design-Build Procurement Guide
for an off-the-shelf best practice that encompasses both
This guide concentrates on the four types of procurements used for designing and constructing the project, which is established
progressive design-build projects and includes templates for an off- when the contract is signed. It focuses on the steps after an
the-shelf best practice one- or two-step procurement process. owner has defined the project requirements and scope of
• Single-Step Process: Request for Qualifications work sufficiently for proposing firms to accurately predict the
• Single-Step Process: Request for Proposals project cost early in the procurement process—together
• Two-Step Process — Step One: Request for Qualifications with the ability to integrate either a prescriptive- or 1
performance-based procurement into the process.
• Two-Step Process — Step Two: Request for Proposals
WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN-BUILD HANDBOOK

Fifth Edition
Fifth Edition
P.O. Box 1924 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Edgewater, MD 21037 Washington, DC 20004
waterdesignbuild.com dbia.org Fifth Edition
Endorsed by
6666 W. Quincy Ave. 601 Wythe Street

Denver, CO 80235 Alexandria, VA 22314
awwa.org wef.org

2019 WDBC Handbook 5th Ed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 WDBC Handbook 5th Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATER AND WASTEWATER

WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN-BUILD HANDBOOK

P.O. Box 1924 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW

6666 W. Quincy Ave. 601 Wythe Street

methods (progressive design-build, clear trend of its increasing popularity in

this market space.

2015 Research Report: Lessons

and the need to begin the process early.

Procurement Guides for Collaborative-Delivery Projects

CASE STUDIES | CS-1

Recognition and appreciation are especially given to member

ii Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

iv Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Case Studies and References

© 2019 Water Design-Build Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

vi Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

PROJECT PROJECT SPECIFICATION PROJECT

Figure 1.1 – Procurement process checklist

1-2 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

• What collaborative-delivery methods are legally and/or contractually

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-3

1-4 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-5

Control and Sharing of Risk

KEY PROJECT PRIORITIES

Figure 1.2 – Identifying key project priorities and drivers

1-6 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Definition and Importance of “Cost”

Meaning and Value of Innovation

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-7

Alignment of Project Drivers

1-8 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

EVALUATING THE USE OF AN OWNER ADVISOR

One More Thing: Should You Test the Market?

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-9

The OA’s role may be

1-10 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-11

1-12 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-13

Developing Project Specifications

1-14 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

RESPONSIBILITY Owner OA CD firm

Preselection/ Sourcing and obtaining funding P S n/a

KEY: P = Primary role/decision-maker | S = Secondary role/advisor

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-15

What Are “Bridging Documents”?

1-16 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

• Soliciting and evaluating responses. Legal Advice and

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-17

Also included in procurement documents, this framework is later used to

1-18 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Additional Work Elements

PREPARING FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECT

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-19

1-20 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-21

Position Title Roles/Responsibilities

1-22 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

Project Implementation Plan

Deciding to Implement a Collaborative-Delivery Project 1-23

design-build or CMAR firm in the management process (described in Chap-

1-24 Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook

collaborative-delivery method, as well as how they compare with DBB delivery.