1 MPT – 95% designed CHP – design in progress FDF – design completed Coordination  Utilities  Cranes  Geotechnical Information  Weekly meetings – Internal and Intra-Contractor  CFA meetings Partnering – MPT/CHP  Coordination of design/construction and Intra-Contractor Improved Coordination

2 Potential Innovation Limited in proposals  “Prescriptive”  30 Alternatives – developed a “No Fly Zone” Construction – MPT  Schedule offer 5 months less than anticipated in RFP CHP Negotiation  Better steam control with condenser  Arrangement of equipment  Innovation accepted if not already vetted by Owner

3 CHP Not Part of DC Water Expertise CHP – different review philosophy  Owner – smaller review group, interested in interfaces, and “were not going to operate it”  DBO – “We have to operate it, so we want to make changes  PM/CM – find the balance to get full contract value and understanding  DC Water recognizing benefit of when DB is appropriate

4 Lessons Learned To Date Owner likes to be able to short list 3 qualified proposers First time Design Build  Owner and Engineers need to take time to understand process Design issues come to head early Design Build Joint Venture = skin in the game 3D modeling understanding accelerates Regulatory dust should be settled Start-up and Commissioning – start early “Haz Ops” meeting very important Prescriptiveness can serve “mature” Owners well Performance guarantees force designer and contractor to work together and could be a key to being less prescriptive

5 Artist Rendering

6

7 DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT PRESENTED BY Donal Barron

8 P F WHITE HOUSE U.S. CAPITOL NORTHEAST BOUNDARY TUNNEL POTOMAC TUNNEL ROCK CREEK TUNNEL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (MULTIPLE SITES THROUGHOUT DISTRICT) RFK POTOMAC RIVER ANACOSTIA RIVER ROCK CREEK LUZON VALLEY (SEPARATED) P P REHAB POTOMAC P.S. SEPARATE CSO 031, 037, 053 AND 058 ROCK CREEK REGULATOR ADJUSTMENTS CSO 033, 036 AND 057 F F ABANDON NORTHEAST BOUNDARY SWIRL COMBINED SEWER AREA MAIN PS TUNNEL DEWATERING P.S. ENHANCED CLARIFICATION TREATMENT & NITROGEN REMOVAL AT BLUE PLAINS BLUE PLAINS BLUE PLAINS TUNNEL ANACOSTIA RIVER TUNNEL P P PP SEPARATE CSO 006 REPLACE POPLAR POINT P.S. PUMP STATION KNOWN FLOODING AREA DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT: $2.6 BILLION NITROGEN REMOVAL: $950 MILLION TOTAL > $ 3 BILLION 20 YR IMPLEMENTATION (2005 – 2025) 96% REDUCTION IN CSO FLOOD RELIEF IN NORTHEAST BOUNDARY DC CLEAN RIVERS PROJECT AND NITROGEN REMOVAL PROGRAMS EPA HEADQUARTERS

9 Anacostia River Projects are Being Implemented on Schedule 9 ABlue Plains Tunnel CCSO 019 Overflow and Diversion Structures DJBAB Overflow and Potomac Outfall Sewer Diversion E M Street Diversion Sewer (CSOs 015, 016 and 017) GCSO 007 Diversion Structure and Diversion Sewer HAnacostia River Tunnel IMain Pumping Station and Tingey Street Diversions JNortheast Boundary Tunnel KNortheast Boundary Branch Tunnels LNortheast Boundary Diversions MMt. Olivet Road Diversions YBlue Plains Dewatering Pumping Station and ECF ZPoplar Point Pumping Station Replacement 9 Blue Plains Tunnel ($ 397 M) Poplar Point PS ($ 31M) Anacostia River Tun. ($ 291 M) Main PS Diversions ($ 40 M) Tingey St Diversions ($ 17M) CSO 007 ($ 5 M) CSO 019 ($40 M) Northeast Boundary Tunnel ($ 282 M) M St Div. Sewer ($ 41 M) NEB Branch Tunnels & Diversions ($283 M) Project Status Legend: Construction Completed Procurement Design Prelim Engineering Blue Plains Tunnel Site Prep (Digester Demolition) ( $ 12 M) Tunnel Dewatering Pump. Station and ECF ($ 333 M) DC Water Facilities ($3 M) Mt Olivet Rd Diversions ($ 41 M) JBAB Overflow & Diversion ($25 M)

10 Anacostia River Tunnel Overview  23-foot diameter TBM tunnel  Soft ground  100 ± feet deep and 12,500 feet long  Mining from CSO-019 south to PP- JS  6 shafts (15 to 75-foot I.D.)  3 Adits (4.5 to 10-foot I.D.)  2 Diversions  6 Odor Control and Venting Facilities  Instrumentation & Data Collection System  System Start-up  Design-Build contract value: $200 – $250 million CSO-019 CSO-018 M Street CSO-007 CSO-005 PP-JS

11 ART Estimated Schedule EventDate Issue RFQ  October 16, 2011 Pre-SOQ meeting  November 16, 2011 Last day to submit RFQ questions  December 1, 2011 SOQ Due  December 16, 2011 Shortlist Notification  February 10, 2012 Issue RFP  April 13, 2012 Collaboration period  April 2012 – December 2012 Proposals Due  December 12, 2012 Notice to proceed  June 3, 2013 Occupy site at CSO 019  November 2013 Substantial Completion  June 2017 Final Completion  September 2017

12 Vision Anacostia River Projects Potomac & Rock Creek Projects DC Water is Implementing Tunnels Most severely impacted by CSOs There is a brief window of time to consider new approaches GreenGray Hybrid GI will provide additional CSO control

13 Why is a Multi Million Dollar Demonstration Project Necessary?  Need it to be a large scale demonstration – address entire subsewersheds  Representative sites - not “cherry picked” so scale-up is realistic  Sound technical basis  Potential for innovative solutions and creative alliances  Targeted performance is high degree of CSO control  Resolution of institutional issues  Analysis of other factors Triple bottom line benefits Public acceptability Testing over several meteorological / climate cycles O&M impacts The magnitude of investment by DC ratepayers to control Potomac and Rock Creek CSOs requires a sound technical and institutional basis for making decisions

14 Demonstration Project (6 sites)  Completed evaluation of sites for GI demonstration projects in Potomac River and Rock Creek sewer sheds.  After construction, monitor for 2 years  Use results to design Potomac River and Rock Creek projects using combination of tunnels and GI

15 Lessons Learned 1.Verify Financial Capabilities Evaluate need to compare proposers’ financial capabilities with respect to estimated cash flow needs 2.Process Projects Designer needs a “skin in the game,” possibly as a JV partner

16 3.RFQ Content/Solicitation Set a realistic page count; identify what pages do/do not count Avoid requests requiring subjectivity or similar responses among proposers Include standard forms in RFQ for simpler organization/evaluation When answering questions, send responses to all proposers 4.RFQ Evaluation Have technical staff at selection panel discussions to answer questions Obtain completed score sheets before selection panel adjourns Lessons Learned

17 Lessons Learned 5.Contents of Technical Proposal Resist requesting more items; identify points that differentiate better schedule, better quality, less risk Avoid asking for identical things in different sections Ask key personnel to list only what contributes to project success 6.Confidentiality Emphasize confidentiality among all teams; require signed agreements Don’t put confidential evaluations/comments on shared computer drives Don’t meet with individual proposers after release of RFQ; exceptions are official proprietary meetings Be careful what is printed to shared printers

18 TUNNEL DEWATERING PUMPING STATION AND ENHANCED CLARIFICATION FACILITY PRESENTED BY Bo Bodniewicz

19 Long Term Control Plan Overview 20-year program with a goal of reducing CSO events

20 Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) TDPS & ECF Project furthers control & treatment of CSOs Capture Uncontrolled CSO Discharges Potomac and Anacostia Rivers Rock Creek Relieve flooding in Northeast Boundary Area Implemented under a Federal Consent Decree U.S. EPA / U.S. DOJ District of Columbia DC Water