| 
|
The Little Morongo Water Project, designed to address
continuing Mission Springs Water District population growth,
entailed the successful development of four new water system
components by the district: a 2-million-gallon reservoir,
a well, a pipeline, and a booster pump station. The construction
management approach employed by the District can be successfully
applied to any water project. The key issues are: multiple
project coordination, strict adherence to project schedules,
necessary adjustments to reflect project execution dynamics,
and effective team-building.
The Setting
The Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) covers 135 square
miles in southern California. Customers are served by more
than 10,823 water connections and 4,452 sewer connections
to the areas of Desert Hot Springs, Desert Crest Country Club,
and Dillon Mobile Home Park. The district's infrastructure
currently includes more than 1.25 million feet of pipelines,
11 water wells, and 23 reservoirs, as well as a wastewater
treatment plant with a capacity of 2 million gallons per day
of wastewater.
In the late 1990s, district management conceived the Little
Morongo Water Project (LMWP) as a response to the rapid growth
of the Desert Hot Springs area around the Interstate 10 corridor.
This project encompassed the development of four new water
system components: 1.) a reservoir (the 900 Zone Reservoir);
2.) a well (Well No. 32); 3.) a pipeline (900 Zone Little
Morongo Pipeline); and 4.) a booster pump station.
The project got the go-ahead based on favorable geotechnical
research of the area by GIS/Water Surveyors, Inc. The Mission
Creek Groundwater Sub-basin (aquifer) provides the Desert
Hot Springs area with its municipal water supply. This aquifer
is bordered on the north by the Mission Creek Fault and on
the south by the Banning Fault.
Geotechnical investigations at the Little Morongo location
indicated that a well with a yield of approximately 2,000
gallons-per-minute was to be expected at that location. Based
on that geotechnical research, MSWD designed a water system
comprising a 2-million-gallon, prestressed concrete reservoir,
together with a 2,000-gallon-per-minute, 125-hp well pump
station feed and 2x75-hp booster pump station in order to
capture well yield. The system was also designed to address
the growth of Desert Hot Springs in this area, with space
for an additional 75-hp pump if needed in the future.
Construction costs were: $1,700,000 for the 900 Zone Reservoir;
$1,354,000 for the 900 Zone Little Morongo Pipeline; $374,000
for Well No. 32, and $670,000 for the booster pump station.
Combined construction costs for the four projects totaled
$4,098,000.
The Schedule
From early 2004 through May 2005, MSWD completed four contracts
for the new water system at Little Morongo Road. These contracts
specified the following work sequence:
- The pipeline contract, including the 1070 Pipeline, was
the first notice to proceed (NTP) to be issued. This contract
was to be completed within 150 calendar days, including
the portion completed by the reservoir contractor.
- The well-drilling contract NTP was issued 40 calendar
days after the NTP for the pipeline contractor, to allow
for contract water, with a total construction period of
75 calendar days.
- The reservoir contract NTP was issued concurrently with
the pipeline contract, with a construction duration of 320
days.
- The wellhead and booster pump station contract NTP was
issued 100 days after the NTP for the pipeline contract,
with total construction period of 235 calendar days.
The schedule developed by MSWD followed the contract outline.
This schedule was distributed to contractors and other parties
involved at the preconstruction meeting on May 11, 2004.
MSWD issued the four contracts to construct Little Morongo
Pipeline; the contracts involved four general contractors
and numerous subcontractors. Construction management was awarded
to R.W. Beck Inc. for the 900-Zone Reservoir and the 1070-Zone
Booster Pump Station. MSWD provided construction management
on the pipeline contract and well contract, respectively,
and also delegated a construction management coordinator and
provided most of the project inspections.
The LMRP project site is shown in Table 1.
The overall duration of the four contracts, with overlaps,
was 335 calendar days. Total net contract duration of all
contracts was 780 calendar days. Therefore, the four-project
overlapping was planned for a period of 445 days. Careful
planning during the design stage, coupled with coordination
and necessary adjustments during project implementation at
the project management level, achieved most of the planned
overlapping, and the project was completed with one slight
delay.
Project Economics
For the economic analysis and conclusions, which preceded
actual construction and were based on the MSWD 2004 Water
and Sewer Rate Study prepared by R.W. Beck Inc., it was assumed
that the well would operate between four to 24 hours per day,
providing water to households and for construction activities.
The daily well production range was estimated to be between
64,171 cubic feet per day to 385,027 per day, assuming a well
capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute. Using 2005 fiscal year
water consumption charges from the 2004 MSWD Water and Sewer
Rate Study and O&M assessments, analysts found that the
average value of water that could potentially be produced
with O&M expenses for reference period, according to a
theoretical scenario of maximum project overlapping, would
be $1,696,147. By contrast, in the case of the contract-overlapping
period as outlined in the contract documents, the water production
value was estimated to be $1,629,425. Finally, the average
water production value during the actual contract overlapping
was estimated at $1,214,440. Thus, theoretical overlapping
resulted in 41% savings, while contract overlapping resulted
in 40% savings, and actual overlapping resulted in 30% savings
relative to overall construction cost. Therefore, perfect
scheduling would improve project performance and produce an
additional 11% savings.
These numbers show that both contract and actual project
overlapping provided significant savings relative to overall
project construction costs.
Lessons Learned
A significant 3-month delay occurred at the start of the booster
pump contract execution because of NTP delays. Since the booster
pump was close to the reservoir, the start of construction
had to be adjusted for reservoir backfilling completion, in
order to provide full access to the construction site. This
detail had been missed during the contract phase, so necessary
adjustments had to be made during the construction phase by
the contract management coordinator. As a result of this delay,
overall contract execution was postponed for a period of 116
days. The booster pump project kickoff delay was a direct
result of not implementing the project-overlapping process,
as specified in the contract documents. However, effective
construction management during the project-implementation
phase minimized the effects of the booster pump kickoff delays.
Therefore, the next level of implementation of multiple
projects should provide direct control of project overlapping
in the design phase, as well as in the implementation phase.
Certainly, careful planning and overlapping management are
significant tools in successful project implementation of
concurrent water system projects. This is especially important
for small water districts like MSWD, with small budgets, whose
projects must be managed cost-effectively for the water districts
to function effectively.
 |
| The project was designed to address the growth of the Desert Hot Springs area. |
Another issue concerned LMRP contractors who conducted major
construction during this period of time. Although some of
the contractors involved were familiar with local conditions
and with the MSWD, others were completely new to both the
MSWD system and desert conditions. During the course of contract
implementation, strong teaming ties were developed between
the district and several of the construction teams. This process
identified possible future courses of action for the next
level of district contract execution.
Another lesson learned was that a single project manager
on all four projects was essential for the successful execution
of the contracts. This would ensure that all project work
would be completed and no loose ends would be transferred
from one contract to another. The success of the contract
construction management implementation may be represented
in immediate benefit calculated as produced water returns
as a result of concurrent project overlapping.
Concurrent project overlapping must be defined in the design
phase and implemented and finalized in the construction phase.
On the LMRP project, it was estimated that the theoretical
overlap of concurrent projects represented a savings of $1,696,147,
or 41% of the overall capital costs, and actual savings was
estimated to be $1,214,440 or 30% of the overall capital costs.
Therefore, perfect overlapping and project coordination would
provide an additional $481,707 in savings, representing 11%
of overall capital costs. It was concluded that overall duration
of the longest contract could have been structured to provide
additional savings in the design-contract stage and, consequently,
in the implementation stage. Based on our experience on LMRP
with four concurrent architectural-engineering projects, the
following formula for the successful economic effect of project
implementation could be derived:
Optimized CC= Min (L) + Max (O)
Where
CC = Project Capital Cost
L = Longest Contract Duration
O = Overlapping Duration
In addition, a strong team-building process indicated the
possibility of exploring contract alternatives that would
further shorten the construction schedule and strengthen the
concurrent construction process.
Conclusion
Multiple project execution of the Little Morongo Road Project
under an architectural-engineering contract required strong
scheduling skills, strict scheduling implementation, and good
scheduling adjustments during project execution. Strong project
management coordination between the Owner's Project
Management Coordinator, the district project management coordinator,
and the consultant's project manager were also essential.
To facilitate this coordination, all contracts were closely
monitored by means of weekly project meetings. In addition,
the MSWD provided assistance with construction inspections
whenever immediate onsite help was necessary.
The key issues for successful, cost-effective project management
of the Little Morongo Road Project were: 1.) multiple project
coordination, 2.) strict adherence to construction schedules,
3.) necessary adjustments to reflect project execution dynamics,
and 4.) effective team-building.
GARY BROCKMAN is director of operations
and maintenance for the Mission Springs Water District, and
MOMO SAVOVIC, P.E., DEE, is project manager, R.W. Beck Inc.
OW - January/February 2006 |
