Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Comparison Table Comparison Of Traditional Vs. Alternative Project Delivery Approaches Criteria Traditional DBB DB Approach DBO Approach staff. Owner retains all operational performance risk. hired staff. Owner retains all operational performance risk. • Provides Guarantor for operational performance over the term of the Service Agreement. Start-up of Operations • Owner trains staff and manages treatment processes, including emergencies. • Owner retains all risk for operating costs of facility • Owner trains staff and manages treatment processes, including emergencies. • Owner retains all risk for operating costs of facility • DBO Contractor qualified in part on skill and capability of Operator. • Owner contracts with private sector experts for fixed fee structure to operate plant and respond to emergencies. Facility Modifications • Owner enhances/modernizes plant as needed when adequate funds are available. • Owner enhances/modernizes plant as needed when adequate funds are available. • Proposers, identify plant enhancement based on profitability under Owner approved processes. Long Term Capital Maintenance Risk • Owner establishes maintenance plan and annually adopts budget, addressing need for proposed enhancements. • Owner establishes maintenance plan and annually adopts budget, addressing need for proposed enhancements. • Owner contracts for fixed maintenance costs for 15 to 25 years, without need for annual review. • DBO Operator must maintain plant per contracted performance specifications. Training/Workshop R. W. Beck 3-5
Potential Areas Of Concern Traditional Versus DB/DBO Approach On Public Projects Criteria Traditional Approach DB/DBO Approach Abuses of Discretion • Subjective selection of designer is subject to criticism. • Presumption of objective result because competitive process selects Contractor. • Vendor selection not based on “lowest responsible bidder or most qualified designer” has potential for Owner abuses of discretion, fraud, and favoritism. Proposals • Engineer responsible for design and cost estimate only. • Response by Contractor to fully designed final plans and specifications allows objective price proposal development. • Substantial costs can be associated with producing DB or DBO/BOOT proposals due to the requirement for conceptual designs. This can limit competition to larger established participants. • Owners often only identify basic needs for project Owner and may not adequately establish standards for aesthetics and asset life. Review of Proposals • Engineers selected on subjective basis of capability and experience, not cost. • Contractor selected objectively on responsiveness to bid request and responsibility to perform work. • Public Owners may not have inhouse personnel with expertise in preparing and administering designbuild requests for proposals and contracts. • May be difficult to compare proposals. • Owner must evaluate both technical merits of design and quality, related to construction price. Legal Precedent • Long history analyzing and allocating responsibilities between designer, versus Contractor, versus Owner. • Very little case law regarding DB/DBO process and liability currently exists, so there is uncertainty about how courts and arbitrators will resolve new issues associated with the system. Oversight During Construction • Owner or its separate consultant can evaluate quality and workmanship of construction by Contractor. • Quality standards of performance for contractor are not always clearly defined. • Quality of construction should not be sacrificed for cost or schedule. 3-6 Texas Water Development Board Training/Workshop
Page 1 and 2:
Alternative Project Delivery Texas
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents VI. School Distri
Page 5 and 6:
Executive Summary statutory/regulat
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contents Areas of Concern.
Page 9 and 10:
Section 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction
Page 11 and 12:
Implementation of Stricter Regulati
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction TABLE 1-1 GLOBAL WATER
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction These large private fi
Page 17 and 18:
Section 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DE
Page 19 and 20:
Traditional Design-Bid-Build (“DB
Page 21 and 22:
Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28: Engineer-Procure-Construct (“EPC
Page 29 and 30: Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 37: Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 40 and 41: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TRADITI
Page 42 and 43: Section 3 One of the critical areas
Page 44 and 45: Section 3 Figure 3-2 DB or DBO Appr
Page 46 and 47: Section 3 TABLE 3-1 POTENTIAL AREAS
Page 48 and 49: Section 4 • The company, BexarMet
Page 50 and 51: Section 4 receive an up-front conce
Page 52 and 53: Section 4 • Rate stabilization
Page 54 and 55: Section 4 Pursuant to stringent tim
Page 56 and 57: Appendix A GLOSSARY - B - BOOT: Bui
Page 58 and 59: LEGAL REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE DELIVER
Page 60 and 61: Legal Review of Alternative Deliver
Page 64 and 65: Wastewater Legal Review of Alternat
Page 68 and 69: San Antonio Water System Legal Revi
Page 74 and 75: Neil Callahan - National Director f
Page 76 and 77: Comparison Of Traditional Vs. Alter
Page 80 and 81: Areas of Concern Potential Areas Of
Page 82 and 83: ISSUES CHECKLIST Introduction The d
Page 84 and 85: Issues Checklist • Public input o
Page 86 and 87: Design-Build-Operate (DBO) Issues C
show all

Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?