United States       Office of Water          September 1984
           Environmental Protection  Program Operations (WH-547)    430/9-84-009
           Agency         Washington, DC 20460
&EFA     Value Engineering
           For Wastewater
           Treatment Works

-------
                VALUE ENGINEERING FOR
             WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
                    Prepared  for:
    Office of Water Program Operations  (WH-547)
   United States Environmental Protection Agency
                Washington,  DC 20460
               Contract No.  68-01-6737
                    Prepared  by:

Contractor:   Roy F. Weston,  Inc.  (West Chester,  PA)
Subcontractor:  L-Z Associates,  Inc.  (Rockville,  MD)

        EPA  Project Officer:  James  Wheeler
     EPA Work Assignment Manager:  Haig Farmer
                 U S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
                 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12tn Floor
                 Chicago, IL 60604-3590

-------
                          FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency's  value  engineering  pro-
gram  is an extremely successful element  in its  construction
grants program.  Over  the seven-year period  from  1977  through
1983, the value engineering program produced a  $15 dollar
return on each dollar  invested in  value  engineering  and  a  5.4
percent net capital savings on $7.5 billion  worth of total pro-
ject  costs.  In addition to the obvious  benefit of lowering
capital costs for wastewater treatment facilities without
sacrificing performance or reliability,  the  value engineering
program produces additional benefits of  operating and  main-
tenance cost savings and enhanced  reliability for the
facilities.

Although value engineering is required on large wastewater pro-
jects, the Agency encourages its use on  smaller projects since
they  offer similar potentials for  cost savings.

This  document provides users with  state-of-the-art guidance
for conducting value engineering on wastewater  treatment pro-
jects.  The guidance document strives  to:

      •    Promote broader use of value engineering;

      •    Increase the knowledge of the  value engineering
          process; and

      •    Improve the quality and  effectiveness of value
          engineering in the construction grants  program.

With  the positive application of the value engineering process
described in this document, capital cost savings  of  five to
ten percent plus additional operation  and maintenance  cost
savings can be achieved for individual wastewater treatment
facilities.

Value engineering presents communities with  an  excellent oppor-
tunity to reduce the present and future costs of  their waste-
water treatment projects.

-------
                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contribution of the following participants in the development
of this guidance document is gratefully acknowledged.

Prime Contractor

Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA

Subcontractor

L-Z Associates, Inc., Rockville, MD

EPA

Project Officer: James Wheeler, Municipal Construction Division
Work Assignment Manager: Haig Farmer, Municipal Construction
     Division

Key Individuals

Document Development:

Bradford Gushing, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA
Haig Farmer, EPA, Washington, DC
Larry Zimmerman, L-Z Associates, Inc., Rockville, MD


Technical Consultation and Review:

Alphonse Dell'Isola, Smith, Hinchman, and Grylls Associates, Inc.
Roger Hyde, Roy F. Weston, Inc., Cleveland, OH
Edward Nichols, Edward J. Nichols and Associates, Inc.
     Alexandria, VA
Robert Williams, Culp/Wesner/Culp, Cameron Park, CA

Technical Review:

Bryan Chesson, EPA, Atlanta, GA
Hubert Duckett, EPA, Kansas City, MO
Glen Hart, Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc., Azusa, CA
Arwin Hothan, EPA, Chicago, IL
Ancil Jones, EPA, Dallas, TX
David Wohlscheid, Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc., Vienna, VA
                               11

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                          PAGE
FOREWORD	      1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	     ii

LIST OF FIGURES	      V

LIST OF TABLES	      V

SECTION  1   INTRODUCTION

             1.1  Overview	    1-1
             1.2  Purpose and Scope	    1-1
             1.3  Benefits of VE	    1-2
             1.4  History and Accomplishments	    1-4
             1.5  VE in the EPA Construction
                  Grants Program	    1-6

SECTION  2   MANAGEMENT OF VALUE ENGINEERING

             2.1  General	    2-1
             2.2  VE Sequence and Typical Schedule	    2-1
             2.3  Advertising for VE Consultant
                  Services	    2-5
             2.4  Response to the RFP (VE Consultant's
                  Proposal)	    2-6
             2.5  Number and Timing of VE Studies	    2-7
             2.6  VE Team	    2-8
             2.7  VE Team Coordinator (VETO	   2-11
             2.8  Level of Effort	   2-12
             2.9  Selecting the VE Consultant	   2-14
             2.10 Types of Contracts for VE Services...   2-15

SECTION  3   PREPARATION FOR THE VE WORKSHOP

             3.1  Overview	    3-1
             3.2  Coordination Meeting	    3-1
             3.3  Technical and Cost Data	    3-2
             3.4  VE Team Composition and Logistical
                  Arrangements	    3-5
             3.5  Cost Estimates	    3-5
             3.6  Cost and Energy Models	    3-6
                               111

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)
                                                         PAGE
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E
THE VE WORKSHOP
             4.1
             4.2
             4.3
             4.4
             4.5
             4.6
     VE Job Plan	,
     Information Phase	,
     Speculative/Creative Phase	,
     Evaluation/Analytical Phase	,
     Development/Recommendation Phase,
     Report Phase	,
POST-WORKSHOP ACTIVITY

5.1  Review of the VE Report	,
5.2  Final VE Report	,
5.3  Reviewing Agency Coordination
     and Approval	,
 4-1
 4-2
 4-7
 4-9
4-10
4-11
                                                            5-1
                                                            5-1

                                                            5-3
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

WORKSHEETS

SAMPLE VE REPORT

SAMPLE FINAL VE REPORT
                               IV

-------
                          LIST OF FIGURES



FIGURE NO.                                                PAGE

2-1  VE STUDY TASK FLOW  DIAGRAM	    2-2

2-2  VE FLOW DIAGRAM: NORMAL SEQUENCE (TWO VE STUDIES).    2-3

2-3  POTENTIAL VE SAVINGS VS.  WORKSHOP TIMING	    2-7

3-1  EXAMPLE COST SUMMARY MODEL	   3-11

3-2  EXAMPLE MATRIX COST MODEL	   3-12

3-3  EXAMPLE COST MODEL	   3-13

3-4  EXAMPLE ENERGY MODEL	   3-14

3-5  EXAMPLE LIFE CYCLE  COST MODEL	   3-15

4-1  EXAMPLE FUNCTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET	   4-14

4-2  EXAMPLE FUNCTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET FOR SUBSYSTEM.   4-15

4-3  EXAMPLE SPECULATIVE/CREATIVE PHASE WORKSHEET	 4-16

4-4  EXAMPLE EVALUATION/ANALYTICAL  PHASE WORKSHEET	   4-17



                          LIST  OF TABLES
TABLE NO.

1-1  SUMMARY OF VE SAVINGS  (EPA CONSTRUCTION  GRANTS
     PROGRAM	     1-7

2-1  IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION  COSTS	    2-10

2-2  TYPICAL LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR ONE VE  STUDY	    2-13

-------
                            SECTION 1

                          INTRODUCTION
1.1  OVERVIEW

     In 1974, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
     (EPA) started a voluntary program to encourage the use of
     value engineering (VE) in its construction grants program.
     Since 1976, the Agency's value engineering program has been
     a mandatory design element for all large wastewater
     treatment works.  The success of this value engineering
     effort has improved the reliability of new wastewater
     treatment works while reducing their costs.

     Value engineering is a specialized cost control technique
     performed by an independent group of experienced
     professionals.  The technique involves an intensive,
     systematic and creative study to reduce costs while
     enhancing reliability and performance.  The technique is
     used to achieve the best functional balance between cost,
     reliability, and performance of a product, process, system,
     or facility.  The value engineering effort provides a
     project designer with an additional source of engineering,
     construction, and operations expertise to enhance the
     project's design and operability.  When the VE efforts are
     properly coordinated, they will not delay work on a
     project's design.

     A glossary of terms common to value engineering is presented
     in Appendix A.  Users of this guidance document are
     encouraged to consult this glossary prior to a detailed
     reading of this document.

1.2  PURPOSE AND SCOPE

     The purpose of this guidance document is to provide
     municipal authorities, state agencies, design engineers, and
     VE teams with state-of-the-art guidance for conducting
     effective VE studies on wastewater treatment works.  This
     guidance document serves as a reference source for
     contracting, planning, performing, reporting, and evaluating
     value engineering studies.  It also consolidates and updates
     the EPA's existing information and experience on value
     engineering.  This document has not been developed as a
     training manual or textbook on value engineering.  The value
     engineering techniques are adequately described in numerous
     texts on the subject.  (Refer to the select bibliography in
     Appendix B).
                                1-1

-------
1.3  BENEFITS OF VE
     The use of value engineering methodology to reduce costs and
     enhance the operation and reliability of products and
     processes has been  successfully demonstrated by
     manufacturers and engineers  for over thirty years   The
     strength and ultimately  the  success  of VE in ?Se design of
     wastewater treatment  works lies in its systematic
     functional and creative  approach.       systematic,

     All project designs contain  unnecessary costs  due primarily
     to  the  complex nature of  the design  process.   The de si an of
     a project requires the interaction of  a variety of
     n^T^ ?nd  ^lented  technical professionals working
     under schedule and budget  constraints.   During  the  desian
     process   countless variables  must be considered,  select^
     and coordinated  under  circumstances which  limit  Seie°te<1'

               tnnr^ ^^  alternative ^sign options  with the
               to  reduce project  costs.
    The following are the most common reasons that lead to
    unnecessary project costs:

      •  Lack of Time;  Schedule constraints preclude the
         investigation of all design options and the development
         of cost comparisons for multiple design options.

      •  Lack of Information;  Since technological changes are
           °rrn       rapld pace' no ^signer can be expected
                                            - all new products
         Lack of a Key Idea;   Sometimes an innovative,

         thedlsign9 ^^ "  "^ recognized in time to  influence


         Lack of Budget;   Shortcuts  taken  to stay  on schedule
         andlvat!?tafn  ??e def^gn bud?et frequently minimize  the
         analysis  of alternatives which can improve the cost
         hn^°^eneSS  °^the  facilifcy-  Even  though the design
         budget  is  a small part  of the  total cost  of a  facility
         it can  adversely influence  the total  costs if  it is
         deficient .
                  Decisions which become Permanent-  Often a
        temporary decision is made in a particular area of the
        design to maintain progress, but time restraints or
        other factors do not provide an opportunity for its

        nJrralUati?K'  WhSn temP°rary design decisions become
        or^afn6? I theY,ca* have a cost impact on more than the
        original facility because they become a standard for
        future designs.
                              1-2

-------
  •  Habits;  Habits promote the use of standard design
     features because "we've always done it this way."
     Habit may increase project costs by the use of a design
     feature which may be outmoded, unnecessary or
     inappropriate for the current project.

  •  Politics;  Political factors and forces are complex
     and often dictate design features which are not the
     least-cost alternatives.  Pressure from local citizenry
     may "force" the use of certain design features.
     Funding constraints may allow first-cost considerations
     to prevail over life cycle cost considerations.
     Architectural and esthetic, or other, constraints may
     be imposed on the project by outside participants.

With the preceding factors inherent in every project design,
an independent VE team will, almost without exception,
identify areas of substantial cost savings.  The VE team has
a somewhat easier task than the project designer since the
VE team is simply reviewing instead of developing the
design.  In a sense, the VE team is in the position of a
Monday-morning quarterback.  The VE team members are able to
conduct their review from a detached viewpoint since they
did not participate in the initial design.  The team has a
unique opportunity to identify and compare design
alternatives using the systematic and creative VE
techniques.

The use of value engineering provides benefits for everyone
involved with wastewater treatment.  For example:

  •  Value engineering generates substantial cost savings
     while increasing facility reliability.

  •  The VE results are achieved with a relatively low
     expenditure of total project funds and administrative
     effort.

  •  Substantial operating and maintenance savings may be
     realized over the life of the wastewater treatment
     works.

  •  The overall level of design expertise for the entire
     wastewater treatment profession is raised by the
     widespread use of value engineering studies.

  •  VE increases overall sensitivity to project costs.

  •  Designers can utilize the value engineering studies to
     enhance their designs while minimizing the overall
     project costs.
                           1-3

-------
       •  A value engineering study by a group of experienced
          design, construction, and operations professionals
          provides a confidence factor for both the project owner
          and the designer. The owner is assured of receiving the
          best value for the project budget and the designer is
          more secure about the reliability and operability of
          the facility.  The latter is of increased importance to
          the designer with the advent of operability
          requirements in the EPA construction grants program.

       •  A value engineering study often results in a detailed
          construction cost estimate earlier than usual in the
          project schedule.  This provides an additional planning
          aid which increases the owner's awareness of the
          project's details.

     It is important to note that similar benefits are not
     achieved with peer reviews, traditional cost-reduction
     analysis, or cost-effectiveness analysis.  These techniques
     are often incorrectly confused with value engineering.  Peer
     reviews are generally limited to technical review of the
     design without specific regard to costs or cost-savings.
     Traditional cost-reduction analysis generally focuses on
     straightforward cost-cutting such as providing smaller
     quantities or less-expensive materials.  Cost-effectiveness
     analysis tends to be very broad in scope and applied by the
     designer in the early facility planning stages to establish
     design criteria.  Value engineering is not a substitute for
     any of the foregoing; rather, it is a procedure which uses a
     systematic, functional and creative approach to identify
     major savings in a facility without reducing its reliability
     or performance.

1.4  HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

     The concept of value engineering has been in existence for
     many years.  It evolved during World War II at the General
     Electric Company when shortages of materials and labor
     forced the introduction of many substitutes.  It was
     observed that these substitutes frequently reduced costs and
     improved the product.   The underlying reason for this
     phenomena was that even though the materials and design
     features were changed the function remained constant.  After
     the war,  General Electric refined this approach into a
     specific program for improving products and optimizing their
     costs.   This new systematized approach was developed by
     Lawrence Miles and called value analysis.   As  the value
     analysis techniques were adapted to other  processes,  the
     name was changed to value engineering.
                                1-4

-------
In 1954, the Navy's Bureau of Ships changed the value
analysis terminology to value engineering when it applied
the same techniques to its design process.  The reason for
the change in terminology was significant.  Previously, the
GE program was directed at the manufacturing process for
analyzing  existing products.  The Bureau's program was
directed at engineering drawings prior to procurement.
Following the Navy's lead, the Army and Air Force also
started using value engineering as part of their procurement
programs.

During the 1950's, when many companies in the private sector
established value engineering programs, a need developed for
a forum to share value engineering ideas.  As a result, the
Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) was created to
develop and administer a certification program for value
engineering practitioners.  The certification program
provides peer recognition as a Certified Value Specialist
(CVS).

A major stimulus for value engineering occurred in 1964 with
Secretary Robert McNamara's emphasis on cost reduction
programs at the Department of Defense.

In 1967, value engineering received a stimulus when the U.S.
Senate Committee on Public Works held hearings on its use in
Government agencies.  About this time, the General Services
Administration (GSA) became the first agency to establish
value engineering as a requirement for its architect/
engineer contracts.  In 1968, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) began applying value engineering
to their projects.

The EPA initiated a voluntary VE effort for its wastewater
treatment works construction grants program in 1974.  The
success of this VE effort prompted the Agency, in 1976, to
require VE on all treatment works projects with a total
estimated construction cost of $10 million or greater.
Congress formalized the Agency's VE requirements in the
Clean Water Act Amendments of 1981.

More recently the Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, adopted a voluntary value
engineering program for its transportation projects.

In 1983, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report
recommended that the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA) of the Department of Transportation
begin using VE to reduce the costs of its transit systems.
The GAO report concluded that "millions of dollars in
Federal, state, and local construction funds can be saved by
applying value engineering."
                           1-5

-------
     Recent publications have reported the successful application
     of value engineering to management functions in the area of
     administration as well as the customary VE -areas of design,
     manufacturing and construction.   Thus, the successful
     application of value engineering programs in both the
     Federal Government and the private sector is a well
     established fact.

     The use of VE in foreign countries has also increased
     steadily in recent years.   Japan plus most European and
     Scandinavian countries currently have active value
     engineering programs.

1-5  VE IN THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM

     During the seven year  history of the  EPA's mandatory VE
     program,  documented in Table 1-1,  VE  studies were  conducted
     on 273 projects  with a resulting net  capital savings of $401
     million.   The program  has  produced a  $15  return for each
     dollar invested  in VE  costs  and  a  5.4 percent net  capital
     savings on $7.5  billion worth of total project  costs.   These
     substantial savings and high rates of return make  VE an
     extremely successful element in  the Agency's construction
     grants program.
                               1-6

-------



TABLE 1-1




SUMMARY OF VE SAVINGS
EPA CONSTRICTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Fiscal
Year
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
Number of
VE Studies
76
58
39
18
31
23
28
Total Est.
Const. Costs*
2,143,252
1,174,578
943,378
490,229
807,220
501,897
1,426,700
Accepted
VE Savings*
Capital 0/M
120,233 31, 119
72,433 7,758
66,378
18,004
48,354
23,532
79,958
Cost* of
VE
Studies
8,833
3,910
2,348
1,061
3,287
1,660
6,354
Nat VE Savings*
Capital 0/M
111,400 31, 119
68,523 7,758
64,030
16,943
45,067
21,872
73,604
Net VE Savings
Percentage
Capital 0/M
5.2 1.4
5.8
6.8
3.5
5.6
4.4
5.2
Capital
Savings to
Cost Ratio
13:1
18:1
27:1
16:1
14:1
13:1
12:1
TOTALS
            273
7,487,254
428,892
                                                             27,453
                                              401,439
                                                                                               5.4
*  in thousands



-  not available
                                                                                                                15:1

-------
                              SECTION 2

                   MANAGEMENT OF VALUE ENGINEERING
2.1  GENERAL

          Successful value engineering involves the cooperative
     participation of three primary parties:  the project owner,
     the project designer, and the VE team coordinator (VETO.
     It is important to note that the VE goal of all three
     parties is identical, i.e., to ensure that the final design
     of the wastewater treatment works represents the most
     efficient combination of cost, performance, and reliability.
     During the design of a facility, the owner, the project
     designer, and the VETC function as a team.

          The success of VE depends heavily on the management and
     organization of the VE study as well as the attitude and
     cooperative spirit of the participants.  The diverse
     viewpoints and perspectives of the VE team provide an
     excellent opportunity for the owner and designer to enhance
     the value and reliability of the facility without delaying
     the design efforts.

2.2  VE SEQUENCE AND TYPICAL SCHEDULE

          The VE effort can conveniently be divided into four
     sequential periods of activity:   (1) administrative
     (contracting) activity,  (2) pre-workshop  activity,  (3) VE
     workshop, and  (4) post-workshop  (report)  activity.  Figure
     2-1  is a task flow diagram which outlines  the effort which
     occurs during these  periods of activity.

          For most wastewater  treatment works  designs, two VE
     studies are held at  different stages of design completion  to
     obtain maximum  benefits.   In  these instances, the
     pre-workshop activities,  the  workshop, and  the ppst-workshop
     activities will be performed  twice.  Figure  2-2  is  a
     schematic  flow  diagram  illustrating the primary  sequential
     steps  for  conducting VE  on  a  project with two VE studies.

     Administrative  Activity

          During this period,  the  owner issues a request for
     proposal  (RFP)  for the  services  of a VE consultant.  The  RFP
     defines  the wastewater  treatment project,  the VE schedule,
     the  scope  of VE studies,  the  available technical
     information, and the selection  criteria for the  VE
     consultant.  At the  completion  of  this period, the  owner
     will evaluate  the  proposals and  select a  VE consultant.
                               2-1

-------
 FIGURE 2-1   VE STUDY TASK FLOW DIAGRAM

 Administrative (Contracting) Activity
Designer's Services
Designer /Owner Contract
lo Support VE Study
VE Included in Design Schedule




RFP
Owner Supplies Facility
Information
Owner Defines Schedule,
Scope. Number of VE Studies,
and Evaluation Criteria




VE Consultant's Proposal
Defines Approach VE
Experience. VETC, Team
Composition, and Level of Effort





Negotiations/Selection
Review of VE Proposal for
Approach, Team, Level of
Effort, and VETC
Selection of VE Consultants
and Award of Contract
Pre-Workshop Preparation
 Coordination Mailing
  Schedule
  Outline Format for
  Cost Data
  Develop Format for
  Designer Presentation
  Outline Needed
  Background Data
  Outline Project
  Responsibilities
                           Preparation
Collect Design Data
Confirm Team Composition
Distribute to Team
Members
Assemble Cost Data
Familiarization with Data
by Team Members
Select Location lor
Workshop
                                                         Comtruct Coal Models
 Distribute Costs by
 Process Areas or Major
 Component, or Both
 Identify High Cost Areas
Devilop Energy Model
Distribute Costs by
Process Area or Major
Components, or Both
Identify High Cost
Energy Areas
VE Workshop
Orientation
Introduction
Project Description
and Presentation
Outline Protect
Requirements





—
Information Phase
Analyze Project Costs
Analyze Energy Usage
Function Analysis
Identity High Cost Areas
Identify High Energy
Areas
Develop Cost/Worth
Ratios

List Ideas Generated
During Function Analysis


•




-
Speculative/
Creative Phase
Creative Idea Listing
• Quantity of Ideas
• Association of Ideas

Bramstorming
Group Creative Ideas
Individual Creative
Ideas



•••
— ^ Use Checklist for Ideas |—

Evaluation/
Analytical Phase
Select Ideas lor Evaluation
Rank Ideas with Advantages
and Disadvantages
Select Best Ideas for
Development



Development/
Recommendation Phase
Develop Ideas
Prepare Sketches
Prepare Cost Estimate
Life Cycle Comparison
• Initial Cost
. O4M Cost
Evaluate Alternative
Ideas
Select VE
Recommendations
Prepare
Recommendations
lor VE Report
                                                                                                                                          Report Phase
                                                                                                                                           Summarize Findings
                                                                                                                                           Oral Presentation of VE
                                                                                                                                           Recommendations
                                                                                                                                           Complete VE
                                                                                                                                           Report
                                                                                                                                           (after Workshop)
Post-Workshop Activity
 Final VE Report
 Review VE Report
 Prepare Final VE
 Report
 Implement Accepted
 Recommendations
                                                                           SOURCE USEPA. Value Engineering tor Wastewster Treatment Works. 1984

-------
  Administrative
   (Contracting)
     Activity
  First VE Study
    at 20-30%
Design Completion
  Pre-Workshop
     Activity
                              Finalize VE
                           Team Composition
                                              VE Report
                                            First Workshop
                                                    Post-Workshop
                                                       Activity
                                               Final VE Report
                                               First Workshop
                                            Designer Implement
                                              Accepted VE
                                            Recommendations
 Second VE Study
    at 65-75%
Design Completion
Pre-Workshop
   Activity
                            Finalize VE
                         Team Composition
VE Workshop
                                                                          VE Report
                                                                       Second Workshop
                                                   Post-Workshop
                                                      Activity
                                              Final VE Report
                                             Second Workshop
                                          Designer Implement
                                            Accepted VE
                                          Recommendations
              FIGURE 2-2  VE FLOW DIAGRAM: NORMAL SEQUENCE (TWO VE STUDIES)

-------
Pre-Workshop Activity

     The VE team coordinator (VETO uses this period to
become familiar with the project, obtain and review the
technical and cost data, complete logistical arrangements
for the VE workshop, coordinate timing for the VE workshops,
complete the selection of VE team members, and establish a
comfortable working relationship with the owner and the
designer.

VE Workshop

     The VE Workshop typically lasts 40 hours and culminates
in the oral presentation of the VE team's recommendations.

     The VE methodology (Job Plan) used by the VE team
during the VE workshop has five distinct phases. Briefly,
these phases are:

     (1)   Information Phase;  During this phase, the
          VE team gains as much information as possible
          about the project design,  background,
          constraints,  and projected costs.  The team
          performs a function analysis of systems and
          sub-systems to identify high cost areas.

     (2)   Speculative/Creative  Phase;   The VE team
          uses  a group  interaction process to identify
          alternative ideas for accomplishing the
          function of a system  or sub-system.

     (3)   Evaluation/Analytical Phase;   The ideas
          generated during the  Speculative/Creative
          Phase are screened and evaluated by the team.
          The  ideas showing the greatest potential  for
          cost  savings  and project improvement are
          selected for  further  study.

     (4)   Development/Recommendation Phase;   The VE
          team  researches  the selected  ideas  and
          prepares  descriptions,  sketches  and
          life  cycle  cost  estimates  to  support the
          VE recommendations.

     (5)   Report Phase;  VE recommendations are
          presented to  the owner  and designer during  an
          oral  presentation at  the conclusion of  the  VE
          workshop. Shortly after  completion  of  the
          workshop, the written VE Report  is  prepared
          by the VETC.
                        2-4

-------
    Post-Workshop Activity

         Following  the VE workshop,  the owner  and designer
    thoroughly review the VE Report  and decide whether  to accept
    or  reject each  of the VE team  recommendations.   The designer
    prepares a Final VE  Report which documents the  acceptance  or
    rejection of each recommendation.

    Typical Schedule

    Typical time periods for accomplishing VE  are:
          •    Administrative/Contracting
               Activity

          •    Pre-Workshop Activity (each)

          •    VE Workshop (each)

          •    Prepare and Issue VE Report (each)

          •    Post-Workshop Activity (each)

2.3  ADVERTISING FOR VE CONSULTANT SERVICES
6 to 12 weeks


3 to 6 weeks

1 week

1 to 3 weeks

2 to 4 weeks
          A logical time for the owner to contract for the VE
     services is at the time contracts are established for the
     design services.  The scope of the VE study can be readily
     defined and coordinated with the design contract at that
     time.

          The designer's services required to support the VE
     study and implement the accepted VE recommendations should
     be included as part of the designer's contract.  Every
     effort should be made to avoid the development of a
     competitive situation between the designer and the VE
     consultant.  Such a situation should not develop if all
     parties fully understand the functions and objectives of the
     VE study.

          The request for proposal (RFP) to perform the VE study
     should include the following information:

          •    A description of the facility.  The Facility Plan
               should be referenced and available for review.
               The project designer should be identified if a
               design contract has been awarded by the owner.
                              2-5

-------
           •     The design  schedule  (typically  in milestone  form,
                showing percentage completion vs. date).

           •     The estimated construction cost for the facility.

           •     The scope of the VE study  (normally the entire
                wastewater  treatment works as described in the
                Facility Plan).

           •     The number of VE studies to be performed and the
                points in time (i.e. percentage of design
                completion)  at which each VE workshop is expected
                to be performed.

          •    The evaluation criteria which will be used to rate
               the proposals and select the VE consultant (e.g
               relative weight to be applied to qualifications!
               proposed approach,  oral proposal presentation and
               cost).

2.4  RESPONSE TO THE  RFP  (VE CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL)

     «-K  /?? VE co?sultant's  response to the RFP should  include
     the following information:

          •    The proposed approach  and schedule for  performing
               the VE  study,  including a brief  description of  how
               the pre-workshop  activity,  VE  workshop,  and
               post-workshop activity  will be conducted.

          •    The proposed number of  VE teams  for each workshop
               and the composition of  each  team.

               Note:  The response should  qualify the  team
               composition  and allow some  flexibility  in the
               final makeup of each team.  This is due to the
               fact that the design schedule for the major
               disciplines  (structural, mechanical,
               electrical,...) differs for each design firm.  For
               example, some firms develop electrical one-line
               diagrams with pump horsepower and other electrical
               loads early in the design; other firms perform
               this effort later in the design.  Therefore,
              precise composition of the team(s) should be
              subject to adjustment by the VE consultant based
              on the progress of the design and the high cost
              pffnLodeKtl?ied dur!!}? the pre-workshop activity.
              Resumes showing qualifications and experience of
              all potential team members should be provided
              in the  response to the RFP.   Also,  since the
              objectivity and independence of the VE team
              members  is  essential to the success of the  VE
              study,  the  response  must describe how  this  will  be
              achieved by the  VE consultant.
                             2-6

-------
          •    The  qualifications  of  the  VETC  including  VE
               training  and  experience.

          •    The  proposed  level  of  effort  (hours)  with details
               for  each  VE study.

2.5  NUMBER AND TIMING OF VE STUDIES

          All owners are encouraged to  conduct VE  studies on
     their facilities to enhance cost-effectiveness  and
     reliability.   However,  it is  emphasized that  any  wastewater
     treatment facilities with estimated  construction  costs
     greater than  ten million dollars must use VE  in the design
     process.

          The scope of the VE effort  depends on the  size, cost,
     and complexity of the facility.  Two VE studies are normally
     performed on  facilities costing  in excess of  ten  million
     dollars.  Facilities with costs  below ten million dollars
     frequently benefit  from two studies, but  the  actual number
     of studies should be based on the  complexity  of the specific
     facility.  On  small non-complex  facilities, one VE  study
     will usually  be sufficient.

          Since design decisions have a tremendous impact on the
     costs of a facility, the highest return on the  VE effort can
     be expected when a  VE workshop is  performed early in the
     design process before major decisions have been completely
     incorporated  into the design.  This  principle is  illustrated
     schematically  in Figure 2-3.

      FIGURE 2-3 POTENTIAL VE SAVINGS VS. WORKSHOP TIMING
       I-
       co
       o
       o
       LU
       O  O
       >-  z
       O  55
       iu  2
       u.  cc
       —•  o
 POTENTIAL
VE SAVINGS
                      (% OF DESIGN COMPLETION)
                        WORKSHOP TIMING
                    100%
                              2-7

-------
          When two VE studies are performed, the first VE
     workshop should be held at the 20 to 30 percent stage of
     design completion and the second at 65 to 75 percent of
     design completion.  If only one VE study is determined to be
     sufficient, the workshop should be performed at the 20 to 30
     percent stage of design completion.

          Typical study areas for a 20 to 30 percent VE workshop
     are the overall facility layout, hydraulic profile,
     architecture, materials of construction, interior layout for
     buildings, selection of unit processes, foundation designs,
     electrical concepts and process control concepts.  For the
     65 to 75 percent VE workshop, typical study areas include:
     piping layouts; structural, mechanical and electrical design
     drawings and specifications;  HVAC; and architectural
     details.

           When the VE studies are factored into the overall
     design schedule from the start of the project,  they can be
     accomplished concurrently with the design and not delay its
     completion.
2.6  VE Team
          The VE team members should be experienced design,
     operation and construction professionals familiar with  the
     principles of value engineering.  Their  minimum level of VE
     experience should include completion of a 40-hour VE
     training seminar and/or  participation as a team member  in a
     VE workshop.

          The technical composition  of each  VE team should
     reflect the complexities of the specific project.  At least
     two members of each VE team should be experienced in the
     major high cost areas of the project.   This criterion
     normally results in two  civil/sanitary  engineers being  on
     the VE team for a wastewater treatment  facility.  The
     creativity of a team will be proportional to the competence
     of its members,  the mix  of disciplines  represented,  and the
     ability of the team members to  interact in a cooperative
     manner.

          The VE team may be  assembled by either selecting
     individual members from  different firms or a single  firm.
     The team should not have any members from the designer's
     firm.  The key to a team's success,  ultimately,  hinges on the
     cooperation,  competence,  and objectivity of the individual
     team members.   It does not depend on the single-firm or
     multiple-firm composition of the  team.

          A VE team studying  a wastewater treatment  facility
     should consist of at least five multidisciplined members
     including the  VETC.  The  following  disciplines  should be
     represented on  the team:
                             2-8

-------
     •    Civil/Sanitary

     •    Civil/Structural

     •    Mechanical

     •    Electrical

     •    Construction Cost Estimating

     •    Operations

     It must be emphasized that the foregoing disciplines
are necessary for an effective VE study.  On a minimum size
VE team, one member can represent more than one discipline
(e.g. the civil/sanitary engineer may also provide the
operations experience).  In every VE study, the number of
members and disciplines of the team must be adjusted to the
characteristics of the particular project.  For example, if
unusual foundation problems are evident, a soils engineer
should be included on the VE team.

     The data presented in Table 2-1 show a breakdown of
major construction categories and their percentage of costs
for a typical wastewater treatment facility.  An examination
of the data reveals the relative importance of various
disciplines in the design of a wastewater treatment
facility.  The major costs are typically in concrete,
equipment, and mechanical components, each representing
approximately twenty percent of facility costs. The next
lower tier of construction costs includes site work, metals,
special construction, and electrical/instrumentation work,
each averaging between five and eleven percent of the
facility cost.  The combined total of the remaining
categories represents approximately ten percent of the total
construction costs.  These facts should be carefully
considered in the selection of VE team members because high
cost categories would be expected to offer the greatest
potential for cost savings.  The composition of a typical VE
team usually includes civil/sanitary and civil/structural
engineers since these two disciplines normally control
approximately seventy percent of the construction cost on
wastewater treatment facilities.

     Additional considerations for the selection of a VE
team include:

     •    When particular disciplines do not represent major
          cost areas or the design in a particular
          discipline is not sufficiently completed to
          warrant an in-depth study, consideration should be
                         2-9

-------
       TABLE 2-1.  IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction
Specifications
Institute (CSI)
Division Title
Percent of Total Construction Costs
    Average
  Range
 Concrete
 Mechanical Equipment
 Mechanical Components
 Sitework
 Electrical
 Metals
 Special construction
 General requirements
 Finishes
 Masonry
 Wood and plastics
 Thermal and moisture
 protection
 Doors and windows
 Specialties
 Furnishings
 Conveying Systems
      21.4
      21.3
      17.1
      11.0
       9.3
       5.4
       4.9
       2.6
       1.5
       1.5
       0.9
       0.9

       0.6
       0.5
       0.7
       0.4
12.7 -
12.5 -
10.0 -
6.0 -
5.0 -
2.6 -
2.3 -
1.6 -
0.8 -
0.0 -
0.1 -
0.4 -
35.0
30.4
30.5
21.7
18.0
10.0
7.4
4.0
1.6
2.9
3.8
1.5
0.3 -  0.9
0.0 -  1.0
0.0 -  1.7
0.0 -  1.4
       The treatment facilities used to determine the costs in
  Table 2-1 represent a cross-section of geographical locations,
  facilities and designs.  Since the facilities vary in size and
  complexity, they are representative of the treatment facilities
  constructed in the U.S.A.
                                2-10

-------
               given to the use of part-time VE team members.
               For example, an architect or electrical engineer
               may be needed for only two or three days during a
               VE workshop conducted at 20 to 30 percent of
               design completion.

          •    Although electrical work represents a relatively
               small percentage of a facility's construction
               cost, electrical (energy) consumption will be a
               major operational cost.  Accordingly, an
               electrical engineer is normally included on the VE
               team to aid in the identification of operational
               cost savings.

          •    Since operation and maintenance considerations and
               costs are a vital part of a VE study, one member
               of the VE team should have experience in the
               operation of wastewater treatment facilities.

          •    The VE workshop conducted at the 65 to 75 percent
               stage of design completion should have one or more
               VE team members with substantial construction
               experience. This experience stimulates VE
               recommendations related to the project's
               "constructibility."

2.7  VE Team Coordinator (VETO

          The VETC plays a key role in the success of a VE study.
     This individual is solely responsible for managing all
     aspects of the VE Study including management of the team
     members during the workshop.   Therefore, the VETC must have
     extensive experience with VE of wastewater treatment works.
     A typical level of experience for a VETC would be:

          •    Completion of a 40-hour VE training seminar.

          •    Participation in at least 10 VE workshops on
               wastewater treatment works.

          A Certified Value Specialist (CVS)1 would typically
     possess these qualifications  if a major portion of  the CVS's
     VE experience has been in the field of wastewater treatment.
       CVS  certification  is  administered by  the  Society  of
     American  Value  Engineers  (SAVE)  as  a national  standard
     recognizing  competence  in  the  field of  value engineering,
                              2-11

-------
          Additional attributes for the VETC include:

          •    Strong leadership,  management,  and communication
               capabilities.

          •    Knowledge of the abilities and  work attitudes of
               the team members.

          The VETC's duties include:  final selection of VE team
     members to ensure appropriate disciplines and cooperation;
     coordination of all aspects of the VE study with the owner
     and designer; collection and organization of design and cost
     information during the pre-workshop activity; management of
     the VE team(s)  during the VE workshop; organization of the
     oral presentation which  concludes the workshop; preparation
     of the VE Report; and providing assistance to the owner and
     designer in evaluating the VE recommendations.

2.8  Level of Effort

          The level  of effort required for a VE study is normally
     a function of the complexity of the facility's design.
     Frequently, a simple increase in the number of team members
     may be adequate to achieve sufficient disciplines and
     experience to maximize the potential for  identifying a
     complete cross-section of cost-saving ideas.  For facility
     designs of average complexity, one VE team per workshop with
     five to eight members is generally sufficient.  As the
     design complexity and construction cost increase, more than
     one VE team per workshop is needed to focus additional
     attention on particular  sub-systems.  Therefore, the number
     of VE teams and team members  will vary with the study areas
     and complexities of the  project.

          Although each additional team member added to the study
     produces an increase in  the costs, the additional team
     members will not produce a proportional increase in the
     efforts for the pre-workshop activity or  the post-workshop
     activity.  The  pre-workshop effort will generally remain
     independent of  the number of  team members or teams.  The
     post-workshop effort increases to some degree as team
     members and teams are added since their effort during the
     workshop increases the reporting effort.   For guidance
     purposes, Table 2-2 illustrates  the breakdown of effort for
     a "typical" VE  study.
                              2-12

-------
                                                             TABLE 2-2
                                             TYPICAL LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR ONE VE STUDY
                                                             Effort (hours)
NO
I
h-'
U)
Period


- Project
  Management

- Pre-Workshop

- VE Workshop

- VE Report     6(

- Final VE Report




Total Hours       180-290

VETC
20-30
40-80
40
to 120
20
VE Consultant
Cost Team
Estimator Member

20-40 4-8 each
40 40 each
12-24


Secretary/
Drafting

16-24
8
40-60


Designer
20-30
60-1201
10-20

1402
                                                 72-104
                                                        44-48 each
64-92
                                                                                                  230-310
          Notes:    1. Represents preparation of  the data required for the VE workshop.


                    2. Includes management,  engineering,  cost estimating, and
                      secretary/clerical  time.   Does not include any redesign time.

-------
          Meaningful cost guidance for a typical VE study is
     difficult to establish since cost variables include design
     complexity,  number of VE studies, number of VE teams per
     workshop, size and experience level of each VE team, and
     expense rates for the VE consultants and project designers.

          A review of historical cost data shows that VE study
     costs are often less than 0.4 percent of the total
     construction costs.  This figure represents a relatively
     insignificant cost when considering the VE study has the
     potential to yield an average net capital cost savings of
     5.4 percent  and a return of 15 dollars for each dollar
     invested in  the VE study (refer to 1.5 in Section 1).  For
     this reason, the owner should focus more emphasis on the
     qualifications of the VETC and the proposed VE team rather
     than on the  proposed VE study costs when contracting for VE
     services.  A slight increase in the study costs for a
     quality VE team will typically yield significantly greater
     increases in the VE savings and the quality of the VE study.

2.9  SELECTING THE VE CONSULTANT

          The owner should review each VE consultant's proposal
     for conformance with the evaluation criteria contained in
     the RFP and  the guidance contained in this document.  The
     major evaluation factors for selecting a VE consultant are
     listed below:

          •    Team Composition;  Ensure the proper mix of team
               disciplines; proper levels of design,
               construction, operational, and VE experience;
               appropriate number of teams and team members; and
               acceptable employment affiliations of team
               members (no members from the designer's firm).

          •    VETC:  Ensure the proper level of VE and
               management experience; ability to establish a
               productive working relationship with the proposed
               VE team members and the project designer.

          •    Schedule.  Ensure compliance with the design
               schedule.

          •    Approach.  Ensure that the proposed approach for
               conducting the VE study is consistent with the
               guidance in this document.
                              2-14

-------
          •    Level of Effort.  Ensure that the proposed level
               of effort is sufficient to meet the project needs
               and the intent of this guidance document.  Recog-
               nize that the ultimate project cost savings will
               far exceed the  higher study costs for a quality
               VE consultant and team.

          •    References.   Ensure a satisfactory level of
               performance on previous VE studies.

2.10  TYPES OF CONTRACTS FOR VE SERVICES

          Owners should favor the use of their normal engineering
     procurement procedures to contract directly for the services
     of the VE consultant.   However, in special circumstances,
     the owner may have the project designer procure the VE
     services under a subcontract arrangement.

          Lump sum contracts are usually- the preferred method of
     procurement for VE studies of average complexity because the
     level of effort can be predicted with reasonable accuracy.

          Cost plus fixed-fee contracts are appropriate for VE
     studies of large complex facilities since the final team
     size or number of teams per study may fluctuate
     significantly between  the time of the VE consultant's
     proposal and the pre-workshop activity.  Similarly, cost
     plus fixed-fee designer contracts are generally appropriate
     for large complex projects since it is difficult to predict
     the designer's efforts required to review the VE
     recommendations, prepare the Final VE Report, and implement
     the resultant design changes.

          Regardless of the type of contract, the owner should
     make adequate compensation provisions for those items where
     the level of effort cannot be readily determined at the time
     of the proposal, such  as the number of VE teams and team
     members. These items can be handled in a lump sum contract
     by stipulating optional lump sum add-ons (or deletions) to
     the proposed level of  effort.
                              2-15

-------
                            SECTION 3

                   PREPARATION FOR THE VE WORKSHOP

3.1  OVERVIEW

          The success of the overall VE study depends heavily on
     the organization and management of the pre-workshop
     activity.  During the three to six weeks of preparation for
     the VE workshop, the following activities should be
     accomplished in the general sequence listed below:

       •  A coordination meeting between the owner, project
          designer and value engineering team coordinator
          (VETO .

       •  Accumulation of the project's technical and cost
          data.

       •  Confirmation of the composition of each VE team
          and logistical arrangements for the VE workshop.

       •  Preparation of cost, energy, and life cycle
          models.

       •  Distribution of the technical and cost data to VE
          team members.

3.2  COORDINATION MEETING

          A meeting is held with the owner, designer, and
     VETC at the beginning of the pre-workshop activity to
     promote a common level of understanding about the
     objectives of the VE workshop, establish a productive
     working environment, confirm the schedule of events,
     and establish the responsibilities for completing the
     VE workshop preparations.  Items discussed during the
     meeting would include the availability and format of
     technical and cost  data,  conduct of the VE workshop,
     processing of the VE recommendations,  plus the date,
     location, and other logistical arrangements for the VE
     workshop.

          The coordination meeting provides an ideal
     opportunity for  the designer/owner to  provide a general
     overview of the  project and identify any unique
     aspects, constraints,  or  critical design features.

          The format  of  the designer/owner's presentation of
     project information to the VE team at  the start of  the
     VE workshop should  be  established during the
     coordination  meeting.
                              3-1

-------
3.3  TECHNICAL AND COST DATA

          The effectiveness of the VE workshop is ultimately
     dependent on the technical and cost data available for
     the VE workshop.  The designer and owner should supply
     the project data to the VETO at least two weeks before
     the VE workshop to allow sufficient time for review and
     development of the VE study models.

          The technical data consist of feasibility and
     engineering reports,  pertinent regulations,  discharge
     permits, plus all current drawings and specifications.
     The cost data consist of equipment, construction,
     operations (including energy), and maintenance cost
     estimates for the wastewater treatment works.

          The development  and organization of detailed
     technical and cost data prior to the VE workshop
     benefits both the design effort and the VE study by
     documenting the evolution of the design and  identifying
     high cost areas of the project.  This activity provides
     the owner with an updated cost estimate for  the
     wastewater treatment  works which bridges the gap
     between the  feasibility cost estimates and  the
     construction cost estimates developed at the completion
     of  design. These up-dated cost estimates allow the
     owner an opportunity  to make design changes  or budget
     adjustments to accommodate the construction  costs.

     Data for VE Workshop  at 20 to 30 Percent Design
     Completion

          The technical and cost data provided by the
     designer/owner to the VETC before the VE workshop  at 20
     to  30 percent of design completion should include  the
     following:

      •  A project summary which describes and highlights
          the major project considerations, including:

          - NPDES discharge requirements.

          - Design flows.

          - Site conditions including subsurface  conditions,
            flood data, existing property boundaries, and
            additional property availability.

          - Project constraints and the reason for each
            constraint.

          - Unit processes selected and alternatives
            evaluated.
                              3-2

-------
- Design redundancy requirements.

- Major equipment selected and alternatives
  evaluated.

- Architectural considerations.

- Power requirements and standby capacity.

- Method of sludge disposal and alternatives
  evaluated.

- Operation and control philosophy.

- Planned construction schedule and required date
  for facility completion.

Facilities Plan.

Local design and materials standards.

Reports of subsurface investigations, conditions,
and recommendations for major foundations,
including design loads.

Site and general layout drawings.

Process and instrumentation diagrams.

Mass balance and hydraulic profile.

Preliminary drawings and sketches for major units,
sub-systems, structures, and buildings.

Design criteria for each unit process including
criteria for process control.  Pertinent design
calculations should be included where appropriate
to clarify and document the design.

Design criteria for support facilities which
include criteria for administration, storage,
maintenance, employee facilities, roads, parking,
plus vehicle storage and maintenance.

Estimated energy demand (kwh) at average and peak
flow conditions for each major unit process,
subsystem, and support facility. Explanatory
material and/or backup calculations should be
provided to clarify the estimates.

Estimated construction cost for each major unit
process, subsystem and support facility including
backup cost estimating worksheets with quantity
takeoffs.
                    3-3

-------
   •   Estimated  annual  operations  and maintenance  costs
      (including energy,  labor,  and  chemicals)  with
      backup worksheets broken down  as much  as  practical
      into  the same  categories as  the construction
      costs.

   •   Estimated  costs and  frequency  of replacement for
      major equipment and  components requiring
      replacement during  the planning period.

   •   Power rate structure for the utility serving the
      project site.

   •   If the project involves the modification  and/or
      expansion  of an existing facility, the following
      additional information should  also be provided:

      - Construction or "as-built" drawings for the
       facility.

      - A description of existing facilities, method of
       operation, flow rates, special operating
       problems, and degree of  treatment.

      - Current  annual operating costs broken down into
       labor, energy, and chemicals.

      - Current  annual maintenance costs broken down
       into labor, repair, and  replacement.

      - Description of the condition of existing major
       equipment and structures.

      - Method and cost of sludge disposal.

      The preceding listing is representative of the
technical and cost data which should be provided  for
the VE study and the development of the cost and energy
models.  Sample forms for tabulating portions of the
data  are described in Section 3.6 and contained in
Appendix C.

Data  for VE Workshop at 65 to 75 Percent
Design Completion

     The technical and cost data which should be
provided by the designer/owner before the VE workshop
at the 65 to 75 percent stage of design completion
includes all of the above data plus updated technical
specifications,  design drawings  and cost estimates.
                         3-4

-------
3.4  VE TEAM COMPOSITION AND LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS

          The final selection of the VE team members should
     be accomplished by the VETC after a detailed review of
     the project's technical data to identify the need for
     specialized disciplines.  The selection of team members
     should be consistent with the guidance presented in
     Section 2.6.

          Once the VE team(s) selection is finalized, the
     VETC should distribute the project's technical and cost
     data to each team member for a brief review prior to
     the workshop.  The pre-workshop review should typically
     take 4 to 8 hours per team member.  This review is
     important because it avoids using valuable workshop
     time for this purpose.

          The VE workshop should be located at a site which
     is mutually agreeable with the owner, designer, and
     VETC.  A location in reasonably close proximity to the
     designer's office is usually desirable.   A site visit
     prior to the start of the workshop is frequently
     beneficial for the VETC and selected VE team members.

          Arrangements for the VE workshop facilities should
     be made with the following considerations in mind:

       •  The location should isolate the team members from
          their normal on-going work activities and promote
          interaction of the team members throughout the
          study.

       •  The facilities should be well lighted with ample
          working space.  The amenities should include a
          large table for each team member plus telephone,
          copying, and food services.

3.5  COST ESTIMATES

          The availability of accurate and comprehensive
     cost data is an essential element in the success of all
     VE studies.  This point cannot be overemphasized.
     The VE team uses cost data as its primary tool for
     evaluating alternative ideas.  The quality of the
     team's evaluations and recommendations will be only as
     good as the cost data.  Inadequate or inconsistent
     prestudy cost data must be avoided to achieve effective
     VE study results since such data reduce the
     productivity of the VE team by diverting its efforts to
     the development of cost data and resolution of cost
     inconsistencies.
                               3-5

-------
          The cost data should be prepared in a detailed and
     organized manner to serve as the basis for evaluating
     all VE recommendations.  Any identifiable differences
     concerning cost estimating procedures and practices
     should be resolved by the designer and the VETC prior
     to the start of the VE workshop.

          Particular attention should be devoted to
     establishing operational, maintenance, and energy
     costs.  The replacement frequency and costs of major
     subsystems or components with a service life less than
     the planning period should be established prior to the
     study.

          All cost data should be developed on the basis of
     market prices prevailing at the time of the VE study.
     Inflation is usually not considered since all costs
     tend to change by approximately the same rate causing
     the real value of goods, services and monies for
     wastewater treatment facilities to remain relatively
     constant over a given time-period.

          For wastewater treatment works, the salvage value
     of subsystems and components having a service life in
     excess of the planning period should be considered
     equal to zero for the following reasons:

       •  Identifying a specific use for wastewater
          treatment subsystems and components at the end of
          the planning period is very unpredictable.
          Frequently, the equipment and facilities are
          abandoned.

       •  Predicting the end-condition of the subsystems and
          components is difficult.  Rehabilitation costs may
          offset some or all of the salvage value.

       •  Assigning a reasonable salvage value for the end
          of the planning period (usually twenty years in
          the future) is very difficult.

3.6  COST AND ENERGY MODELS

          In VE studies, the cost and energy data are
     organized in a manner to facilitate rapid analysis and
     identification of high cost systems or components. This
     is accomplished by assembling the cost and energy data
     in the form of models. The VETC typically prepares the
     cost, energy and life cycle models with the assistance
     of a cost estimator prior to the VE workshop.
                              3-6

-------
Cost Models

     A cost model is a VE study tool.  There are two
general types of cost models commonly used for VE
studies.  One type is a cost matrix which presents
estimated costs by subsystem, functional area, or
construction trade. The cost matrix provides a one page
comparative display of each major cost element.  The
other type of cost model is a functional cost model
which presents both estimated and target construction
costs distributed by subsystem or functional area.  The
target cost is determined during the VE workshop since
it represents the VE team's estimate of the least cost
to perform the function of each subsystem or functional
area.

     Figures 3-1 and 3-2 (pages 3-11 and 3-12) are
examples of cost matrix-type models.  Figure 3-1
is a one-dimensional matrix which presents the
wastewater treatment works costs distributed by major
cost category.  Figure 3-2 is a two-dimensional matrix
which presents the same costs distributed by major unit
process and structure, and by CSI Division No.  Figures
3-1 and 3-2 present individual costs and/or individual
percentages of the total cost. The matrix cost models
are useful for identifying high cost subsystems or
functional areas which warrant special attention (high
potential for savings) during the VE workshop.

     Figure 3-3 (page 3-13) is an example of a
functional cost model.  This type of model breaks the
total cost for the wastewater treatment works down in
terms of major functional area, such as process stream,
solids handling, site, buildings, and support.  This
process is continued to successively lower levels.

     In a functional model, costs can be represented on
either a dollar or parametric basis.  The value of a
parametric format such as dollars per million gallons
of flow would be for ready comparison to historical
cost data.

     Even though the functional model is constructed
prior to the workshop, the identification of target
costs occurs during the workshop.  The past experiences
of team members and historical cost data serve as the
basis for developing the target costs.  The target
                         3-7

-------
 costs  represent  the  least  possible  cost  for  each
 subsystem  or  functional  area.  The target cost  can  be  a
 historical average value or  the worth  (a concept
 discussed  in  Section  4).   Large differences  between
 estimated  costs  and  target costs highlight areas with
 potential  for large  cost savings.

     The cost models  are used  by the VE  team for quick
 identification of high-cost  subsystems or functional
 areas  since these areas  frequently  offer the greatest
 potential  for cost savings.  An Italian  economist  named
 Pareto formulated a  law  of economic distribution which
 lends  credence to this approach.  Pareto's law states
 that 80 percent  of the cost  will normally occur in 20
 percent of the constituents.   Because this law of
 economic distribution holds  true for construction
 projects,  the cost models  aid  in the identification of
 the relatively few treatment works  systems or
 components which constitute  the bulk of  the  cost.

     The strong  emphasis placed on  identifying high cost
 elements within  a project  is based  on the fact that the VE
 team has a very  limited  timeframe to understand a  project
 and develop recommendations  for improving its  value.

 Energy Model

     The rising  cost of energy continues to  have a
 substantial impact on the  cost of operating  wastewater
 treatment works.  Therefore, energy optimization must
 be one of the  goals of a VE  study.   To achieve this
 goal, the VETC assembles an  energy model for the VE
 team to use in the same manner as the cost models. Such
 energy models  present displays of energy consumption
 for the wastewater treatment works by subsystem or
 functional area.  The models typically express energy
 in units of KWH per year or KWH per MGD.   An energy
model is normally based on average flow conditions with
separate notations for peak  flow demands.  As  in the
functional cost model, target energy consumption
estimates are assigned to each area by the VE  team
during the workshop.   The target estimates represent
the least possible energy consumption for each
subsystem or functional area based on historical energy
data and the VE team's experience.
                         3-8

-------
     It is important to note that great precision is
not essential in determining energy consumption for
each subsystem or functional area.  The energy model is
not intended to provide a precise projection of energy
demand or cost.  Its primary purpose is the rapid
identification of energy intensive areas which offer a
high potential for energy reductions and cost savings.

     Figure 3-4 (page 3-14) is an example of an energy
model for a wastewater treatment works.  The energy
model lists all major energy consuming items such as
motors, lighting, heating/cooling equipment, and
emergency generators.  The motor horsepower, electrical
demand, fossil fuel consumption, or other appropriate
energy parameters are converted into common energy
units of equivalent KWH/yr before they are transferred
to the energy model.

Life Cycle Cost Model

     Since the cost and energy models do not predict
the total costs of owning and operating the wastewater
treatment works, a life cycle cost (LCC) model is
prepared to illustrate these costs.  The LCC model
provides a complete cost picture for the wastewater
treatment works and serves as a baseline for the VE
team's determinations of the cost impacts of VE
recommendations.  In certain instances, it may be
advantageous to develop LCC models for individual
subsystems or functional areas.

     Since the total cost of owning an asset consists
of initial costs and all future costs, the latter must
be discounted to present value (present worth) before
they can be combined with initial costs to obtain the
total life cycle costs.  In other words, the time value
of the future costs must be taken into account.  For
example, a $100,000 replacement cost ten years in the
future would have a present worth of $38,554 at a 10%
discount rate.  More detailed discussions of life cycle
costing and present worth are contained in Bibliography
References 1 through 6.

     The interest or discount rate used to prepare LCC
models should be an appropriate value established by
the owner, designer and VETC.

     The data from the cost and energy models are used in
the development of the life cycle cost model.  However,
these models contain only a portion of the data needed to
establish the total life cycle costs for a wastewater
treatment works. The model must also include the additional
costs of operation, staffing, maintenance and equipment
replacement.
                         3-9

-------
      Operation, maintenance  and  replacement  costs  are
 typically  the most difficult of  all  cost  categories  to
 estimate because  of  limited  reference materials  and
 historical data.  Different  operational philosophies cause
 operation  and maintenance  levels  to  vary  greatly from
 facility to  facility. Frequently,  facilities with  high
 levels of  operation  and maintenance  have  lower equipment
 replacement  costs.   The most effective method for  estimating
 operation  and maintenance  costs  involves  an  examination of
 the historical data  from existing  facilities.

      Flow  dependent  operation and  maintenance costs are
 normally estimated on the  basis  of average flow  conditions.
 Since these  conditions will  not  normally  be  reached until
 well  into  the future, operation  and  maintenance  costs at the
 time  of facility  start-up  are usually considerably less than
 those presented in the cost  models.

      Staffing costs  for a  facility can often be  effectively
 estimated  at the  pre-workshop coordination meeting.  This
 joint effort can  be  beneficial since it (1)  increases the
 VETC's understanding of how  the  facility  will be staffed and
 operated,  (2) encourages the owner's early involvement in
 defining the staffing requirements,  and (3)  increases the
 designer's knowledge of the  owner's  operating philosophy and
 any attendant impact on the  design features.

     An example of an LCC model for  a wastewater
 treatment works is presented in Figure 3-5 (page 3-15).

WORKSHEETS

     The following worksheets are  provided in Appendix
 C to assist  in the development of  the various models.

        Title                         Number

     Cost Summary                     WS-1
     Cost  (or Energy) Model           WS-2A
     Matrix Cost Model                WS-2B
     Cost Summary Bar Chart           WS-2C
     Electrical Energy                WS-3
     0/M Labor                        WS-4A
     0/M Chemicals                    WS-4B
     Equipment Replacement            WS-4C
     LCC Summary                      WS-4D


     Filled-in examples  of these worksheets are
included with the Sample VE Report in Appendix D.
                         3-10

-------
  FIGURE  3-1
                   COST SUMMARY  MODEL
             XYZ WWTP (65%  Design)
 PROJECT.
 ITEM      COST  VS.  MAJOR COST  CATEGORY
                                               COST SUMMARY BAR CHART
                     TEAM NO..
                                  SHEET.
                                             OF_
Check one. use separate sheet for each
 Major Unit or Cost Category
                            Cost
                Construction Costs       US
                O&M Costs            D
                Replacement Costs      LH
                Energy Costs           LJ
Existing Structures
Chlorine/Postaeration
  229,OOP
Subtotal
8,470,000
Contingency  5%
                           424,000
Grand Total
                       $8,894,000
                                                    -ur
                                           DOLLARS OR % OF TOTAL COST
                                            2X10
                                                                           WS-2C
                                    3-11

-------
FIGURE  3-2   EXAMPLE MATRIX COST MODEL
PROJECT XYZ WWTP (65% Design) '
ITEM COST HATRltX: csl DIVISION NO. VS. 1
UNIT PROCESS

JJ












1
£
$



••









is
o a
u
2 S
MH
W

"
b
ZB
1 3
u
0
W V
t^H
"*
(*
OQ
CO 2


IB
B
« C/]
ins
£ en
3«
d t-4

CJ ^


e
j[

i



A M

00
ON
sO


O
m
m
m
c
sC
m
CM


m
sO

m
ON
sO
m

o
F-t
CO
m


0
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
r-4
CO
CM
m
CO




01
3
tr

iH
CO
M

«



£
o
in
CM


5
m
*£
5


o
VO
00

^
o
•a-
VO

o
o
_^
^

in
m
en
1
o
l

o
m
00
&







1

4J
•H
CO



CM
O
r-.


in
m
CO
o
in
so
CO
o


m
so
0
CM
r-
o
oo
SO
CM

O
ON
CO


m
CO
00
m
l
o
l

?








0)
4J

g



If
CO
CM


r-
CO
c«
o
so
c>


O
O
m
m
CM

O
r*.
00
CO

o
sO
r*.
"•*

m
sO
00
f^
1
0
1

o
1



CO
4-1


g
01
«0
iH
r-f
at
o
CO
•H



a
00
CO
sO


O
ON
O
r-
CM
CO


o
r-
CM
CO

o
o
ON
o

o
CO
CO
CM

O
CM
CM

o
U"
m


o
m
m

o
m
CO
so

O
in
m

r-»

O
r-
CO
r-x
o
CO
ON
m
00
CO







CO
CJ
-H

01









-
































MATRIX COST MODEL NO
FEAMNO 	 L_ SHEET 1 OF 1

O
O
O
r^.

CO
0
0
CO
o
o
o
ON


O
o
CO
o
^H
o
o
o
m
r-
O
O
oo


§
CO
CM
%
CM
OO
rO
O
O
o
in

.—i
9


M

1
g
o
in

















































































o
o
o
c\


o
o
vO
m
o
o
o
CM


p •"
o
o
in

0
o
o
Ov
en

o
0



o
o
0
-
o
o
0
cr*
o
0
co





i»

a>
bO
c
•H

o
















































o
1-1
ex
B


cu
00
i— i
CO
£?
g
•H
TJ
CO
B
0
°
0-
0
cx
o
cfl
0!
00
c
•H
4-t
•H
X CO
0) 0
CO
O CO
4-i a

CO 0
U M
•H 0)
4-1 4-1
« rH

•H 14-1
o "o

CO CO
0) 01
ts -a
3 3

CJ 0
c c
: *









































o
o
o
o-
a

0
o
u~l
o
o
o
-
CN

c
f*l
'
o
o
o

CO
— e-
o
o
in


o
o
en
CM
g
o
o



I

|
g





— ~j
X
                                                                      WS-2B
                             3-12

-------
FIGURE 3-3 EXAMPLE COST MODEL
PR
ITI
ndlcate 1
Check on*; use on* sheet for eacn.

OJEC1
:k«
- xyz WWTP (65% Design) COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL
CONSTRUCTION COST MODEL TEAM NO. l SHEET l OF—I 	

Construction Costs E
O&M Costs LJ
Replacement/Salvage Costs U
1
'
CONTINGENCY

PM
O
§

SUBTOTAL

o
o
o
00
00

o
o
o

Included

o
0
o
o
OO

DD
a*
.> "5
*••=
— — t
i
_j

— 1
— —
— l
t_.

S
i
T>
1
\
in
t/i -J
en ro
W
O CM 1— L
O <3-
OS CO
»




OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT


THICKENING
& DEWATERING

DISINFECTIO
POSTAERATIO

SECONDARY

I
PRETREATMENr
AND PRIMARY

a I""1
^ 1 ^"
- 5 H CM
W M -H
Z e,i
U CM
O i
-------
CO
 I
V
M
>










TOTAL PLANT
COST
1,791,840
1 	 j


ANNUAL
POWER COST
$ 125,429
J
1
1
OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT
549,000
J

LIGHTING 6,
POWER
24,000
L_ 	 	 1

PLANT
H & V
126,000
1 	 	 1

PLANT
WATER
39,000
	 	 _J

ODOR
CONTROL
360,000
	 	 _J



	 J











I

1
1

1
PROCESS
STREAMS
1,242,840
1 i
T"
1
PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT
69,260
1 	 J

COMMINUTOR
15,800


DETRITOR
8,760
i
_ _ _J

GRIT
CONTROL
44,700
	 J



i
	 	 1





L
Note:










I
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
122,060
1 	 1

PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
8,760

	 .
SLUDGE
PUMPS
113,000


SCUM
PUMP
300
u_ 	



I



J
I
o\











1
i



\_
#er Cost O.C
1
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
859,500
1 	

T.F.RECYCLI
PUMP
57,800

_
CLARIFIERS
27,200
_ j

AERATION
BLOWERS
604,500
. 	 1

SPRAY
PUMPS
1,600
1
_j


1
J
7




Check one, use
present worth o
Constructlo
O&M Costt
Replaceme
Energy Coi
Electrical Ir
$/kwh Le°end:







l
1
5ISINFECTI01
'OSTAERATIOl
62,960
1 	 	

CHLORINE
SYSTEM
8,760
l_

POST-
AERATION
54,200
l_ j

RETURN
SLUDGE PUMP
115,600


WAS PUMPS
47,300
1
/










one sheet for each Indicate
r annual
1 Costs D
D
nt/Salvage Costs D
its D
i kwh /year G3
COMPONCNTOft
SYSTEM
EtTWUTE


L.."."^.. J

1 1
THICKENING
82,200
1
|

1

THICKENERS
19,600
L_

1
j

AERATION OF
STORAGE
62,600


1






1
t

LIME
SYSTEM
5,500


DEWATERING
46,860


BELT FILTER
PRESS SYS.
17,300
i
l

SLUDGE
GRINDERS
13,700
1
i

SLUDGE FEEI
PUMP
13,700
l

CONVEYORS
2,160
1 |







1 ITEM ENERGY UTILIZATION MODEL
TEAM NO. 1 SHEFT 1 OF 1
1 PROJECT XYZ ™TP (65% Design)
COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL
FIGURE 3-4 EXAMPLE ENERGY MODEL

-------
nr.URF 1-S EXAMPLE LIFE CYCLE COST MODEL 	 ,
PR
ITE
OJECT
• W7 UUTP fASZ DpKlcn1)
I.TFE CYCLE COST MODEL
:M 	 — — — 	 — 	
Ch«* on*, u» on» «hwt lor ««eh. lndle»l»
prmont worth or «nnu»l.
Construction Costs LJ
O&M Costs U
Replacement/Salvage Costs U




DD
1 i Energy costs
1 — 	 	 J Electrics! In kwh



u ^
^


m
ON
OC
OC
CM
—
.
	 1
— i
U
COSTS ARE PRESENT WORTH Legena. eowonnrr on
trsTtin
m««rt
WOK™
	 1 	 1 	 	 1 	 1 	
1 	 1 — 1 — '
ON
in CM
en •>
u m i — L
L£ 00
b 00
•" J
1 	 1 — 1 — 1
NO |
. H « so |
3 £ 5 '
DH ^> O |
W ~ J



CONTROL/
BLOWER BLDG,


THICKENING
i DEWATERIN(

DISINFECTIO
POSTAERATIO

SECONDARY
I
JFRETREATMElrf
& PRIMARY
[ INITIAL
COSTS *





o
in

J

INITIAL
COSTS


00
S
J
| INITIAL
[ COSTS

CM
00
	 1
	 1
INITIAL
COSTS

I
r-t
NO
fM
O
ON
in
CM
	 1
.
— -I
J
	
INITIAL
COSTS
INITIAL
COSTS
LABOR


COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL
TEAM NO. l SHEET l Of— 	





o
00
CM
00
CM

ENERGY


OO
CO
CM

O
en
0
rM

O
oo
r-»
o
to
CO
ON
CM
CM
J
J
— 1
1
1
J
1 ENERGY

ENERGY

ENERGY
ENERGY j
1 ENERGY



	 1


Included
J
CHEMICALS


00
-a
CM
O
m
	 1

o
in

CM
ON
NO
00
ON
ON
m
ON
CM
0
r*.
ro
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_J
1
1
1
1
1
1
	 1
en

en
15

[CHEMICALS
| CHEMICALS
[LIGHTING & [
PHUTTR



1 Included


m
m
00
NO

NO
CM
in
0

CM
NO
-3-
O
ON
NO
ON
NO
1

	

	 1

1
— 1


--
	 1
1
	 1



|


REPLACEMENT

s

i
1 REPLACEMENT)
[MISC. & 1
SLUDGE DISPl




in
00
in
00
CM

NO
oo
•a
o
»n
CM

NO
in
o
CM

•-4
OO
in
o
CO
CM
cn
S
NO
NO
CM
-a

1 II II II II
I 	 i i 	 1 u 	 J u 	 1 1 	
Btruction supervision, yard electrical/piping, and contingency.
L_ . J
sltevork, con
1 i
* Includee

1 	 	 	 WS-2A
3-15

-------
                            SECTION 4

                         THE VE WORKSHOP

4.1  VE JOB PLAN

          The VE workshop is the major component of a VE
     study.  The systematic methodology used by the VE team
     to accomplish the workshop is called the VE Job Plan.

          Use of the Job Plan assists the VE team in a
     number of ways:

       •  It is an organized approach which allows the VE
          team to analyze a project by quickly identifying
          high cost to worth areas and selecting
          alternatives which minimize costs while
          maximizing quality.  VE teams which do not follow
          a formal VE Job Plan tend to perform design or
          cost-cutting reviews rather than true value
          engineering studies.

       •  It encourages the VE team to think in a more
          thoughtful and creative manner, i.e., to look
          beyond the use of common or standard approaches.

       •  It emphasizes total ownership costs  (life cycle
          costs) for a facility, rather than just initial
          capital costs.

       •  It leads the VE team to develop a concise
          understanding of  the purposes and functions of  the
          facility.

          The VE Job Plan consists of the following five
     distinct phases:

       1. Information Phase.
       2. Speculative/Creative Phase.
       3. Evaluation/Analytical Phase.
       4. Development/Recommendation  Phase.
       5. Report Phase.

     The  five VE Job Plan phases from the Information Phase
     through the oral presentation of the VE team
     recommendations in the Report Phase are normally
     performed  during a one week  (five consecutive days)  VE
     workshop.

           It should be noted  that  throughout the field  of
     value  engineering there  are variations  in  the titles
     for  these  phases.  However, despite these  variations in
     terminology,  all  job plans represent the  same basic
     methodology.


                               4-1

-------
          To aid the VE team in performing the five phases
     of the Job Plan, sample worksheets are contained in
     Appendix C.  The use of these worksheets is discussed
     in the remainder of this section.

4.2  INFORMATION PHASE

          During the Information Phase, the VE team solicits
     owner/designer comments on the technical and cost data
     to develop an overall understanding of the project's
     functions and requirements.  Most of the data,
     including the cost and energy models, will have been
     reviewed by the VE team members prior to the workshop.
     The Information Phase occurs during the morning of the
     first day of the workshop.

          An oral presentation by the owner and designer on
     the first morning of  the workshop provides the VE team
     with an understanding and appreciation of the factors
     that have influenced  the project's design.   This oral
     presentation serves to open the lines of communication
     between the VE team members,  the owner,  and the
     designer.   It allows  the designer to expose the VE team
     to the difficulties encountered during the design of
     the project.

          The oral presentation  should include a description
     of the rationale,  evolution,  constraints, alternatives,
     and percentage completion for the major  design
     components.   The quality and  organization of  the data
     presented  by  the owner and  designer are  important
     since these factors directly  impact the  usefulness  of
     the VE recommendations.

          Following the  oral  presentation,  the owner and the
     designer  usually leave the  VE workshop but  remain
     available  to  answer questions which may  arise  during
     the week.   Frequently,  the  VE team may solicit
     owner/designer  comments  on  the creative  ideas  before
     proceeding  with  the Evaluation/Analytical Phase of  the
     workshop.

          Discipline  must  be  exercised by  the  VE team during
     this  phase  to  ensure  that sufficient  time is taken  to
     collect and verify  data  before starting  the development
     of  alternative  ideas.  The  development of inappropriate
     VE  recommendations  can often  be  avoided  by  the  careful
     evaluation  of  project  background  information.
                             4-2

-------
     It is important for the VE team to appreciate that
the designer has spent considerable time and effort in
the development of the project's drawings and
specifications.  The team should understand the
designer's rationale for the project's  development,
including the assumptions used to establish the design
criteria and select the materials and equipment. The VE
team should identify and review the alternatives
considered by the designer.

     Function Analysis

     Function analysis is the cornerstone of value
engineering since it separates VE from other cost
reduction techniques.  The function analysis approach
is used in value engineering to arrive at the basic
purpose of wastewater treatment systems and sub-
systems.  It aids the VE team in determining the least
costs to perform primary functions and peripheral or
support functions.  While function analysis sounds like
a very simple technique, it is probably one of the most
misunderstood tools in value engineering.  A VE team
must be careful not to gloss over the function analysis
and simply start listing creative ideas to reduce
costs.  Cost reduction studies simply list
creative ideas for reducing costs while value
engineering focuses on a functional analysis of the
entire project.  The function analysis approach
provides the VE team with the mechanism for becoming
deeply involved in the facility design and identifying
costs which can be reduced or eliminated without
affecting the performance or reliability of the
facility.

     Functions are identified by a two word verb-noun
description.  The verb is an action verb and the noun
is a measurable noun.  As an example, the function of
an electric cable is to "conduct current."  "Conduct"
is the action verb and "current" is the measurable
noun.  Other examples are to "support load," "convey
flow," and  "concentrate sludge."

     The basic function of an item is the specific task
or work it must perform.  Secondary functions are those
functions that may be needed but are not actually
required to perform the specific task or work.
Required secondary functions are absolutely necessary
to accomplish the specific task or work, although they
                          4-3

-------
 do not exactly perform the basic function.  As an
 example, the basic function of an aerator is to supply
 air; however, it also mixes the wastewater.  In this
 case, mixing is a required secondary function for the
 aerator mechanism.

      The following is a list of questions which are
 helpful in determining the functions of an item:

   1. What is its purpose?

   2. What does it do?

   3. What is the cost?

   4. What is it worth?

   5. What alternative would accomplish  the same
      function?

   6. What would that  alternative  cost?

      In  function analysis,  it  is  important to identify
 functional areas sequentially  since  the functions  vary
 according to the selected area.   For  example,  the
 function  of  the total facility would  be established
 before  functions are  established  for  the unit
 processes.

      The  most  difficult part of the  function  analysis
 is establishing an estimation  of  the  worth of  each
 subsystem or component for  comparison with its
 estimated cost.   Since worth is an indication  of the
 value of  performing a specific function,  extreme
 accuracy  in  estimating the  worth  is not critical.
 Worth is  merely used  as a mechanism to  identify areas
 of high potential savings.  Subsystems  performing
 secondary  functions   have no worth because  they are not
 directly  related  to the basic  function.   As an example,
 an access  road  to a treatment  facility  does not provide
 the  primary function  of treating wastewater even though
 the  road may provide  a required secondary  function  for
 the  facility.   Thus,  the road  is an area  to examine for
 potential savings without affecting the basic function
of the facility.

     Value engineering looks for alternatives to the
original design that might effectively  increase the value
and/or reduce the cost of the project.  Alternatives may be
developed by asking the basic question,  "What else will
                         4-4

-------
perform the essential function, and what will it cost?"
The alternatives for performing a function identified
in determining worth become part of the creative idea
listing for the function.  Thus, the creative phase of
value engineering usually begins during the function
analysis.  When creative ideas are identified in the
Information Phase, the VE team should simply record the
ideas for later use in the Speculative/Creative Phase.

     Worksheet WS-5 can be used by the VE team to
accomplish a function analysis.  To complete this
worksheet, the VE team would follow the sequential
steps listed below:

  1. Identify the study area.

  2. Identify the basic verb/noun function of the study
     area.

  3. List the component parts of the study area.

  4. List the verb/noun function of each component and
     subcomponent.

  5. Identify whether each function is basic,
     secondary, or a required secondary function.

  6. Identify the estimated construction cost of each
     function.

  7. Speculate on the worth or the least cost to
     accomplish the function.

     To illustrate the use of function analysis, an
example worksheet for a wastewater treatment facility
is presented in  Figure 4-1 (page 4-14).  As shown, the
function of the treatment facility, the unit processes,
and other subsystems are identified in a verb/noun
description with the type of function, i.e., basic or
secondary or required secondary.  Similarly, the
estimated cost and worth is indicated for each of the
components.

     As part of the function analysis, the VE team
makes a comparison of the cost-to-worth ratios for the
total facility and its subsystems.  These cost-to-worth
ratios are obtained by dividing the estimated cost of
the system or subsystems by the total worth for the
basic functions of the system or subsystem.  High
                         4-5

-------
 cost-to-worth ratios suggest areas of large potential
 cost savings and identify systems or subsystems which
 would be selected for further study by the VE team.
 Similarly,  low cost-to-worth ratios indicate areas
 where further study efforts would not be justified due
 to diminished potential for cost savings.  Cost-to-worth
 ratios greater than two usually indicate areas with the
 potential for substantial cost savings.

      To refine the identification of study areas
 offering potential for  cost savings, each  facility can
 be divided  into subsystems which in turn can be divided
 into components.   The cost-to-worth ratio  of each
 component would be determined in the same  manner
 described for the facility or its subsystems.   For
 example,  the basic function of the aeration tank
 subsystem shown in the  Figure 4-2 example  worksheet
 (page 4-15)  differs from the basic function of the
 facility. The basic function of  the aeration tank is
 "convert  BOD and  ammonia,"  while the facility's basic
 function  is  "remove pollutants."   When the subsystem  is
 broken  down  into  its  components,  items such as
 reinforcing  steel which  are not  directly related to
 "remove pollutants"  acquire worth.

      FAST Diagramming

      FAST is  an acronym  for  Function Analysis  System
 Technique.   It  is  a tool  that  graphically  shows  the
 logical relationship  of  the  functions of an item,
 subsystem, or facility.   The FAST  diagram  is a block
 diagram based on  answers  to  the  questions  of "Why?" and
 "How?"  for the  item under study.

      A  FAST diagram is most  appropriately  used on
 complex systems as  a  road map  for  clear delineation of
 the basic and secondary functions  of a particular
 system.

      FAST diagramming may be used  to augment the
 function analysis portion of the Information Phase.

     A detailed description of the FAST diagramming
process can be obtained from the texts listed  in the
Select Bibliography.
                         4-6

-------
4.3  SPECULATIVE/CREATIVE PHASE

          The Speculative/Creative Phase is a group
     interaction process which the VE team uses to identify
     alternative ideas for accomplishing the function of
     systems or subsystems associated with specific study
     areas.  This phase involves an open discussion without
     any restrictions on the imagination or inventive
     thinking of individual team members.   All analysis,
     evaluation, or judgement of the ideas generated is
     delayed until the Evaluation/Analytical Phase.  All
     ideas should be immediately recorded to avoid
     forgetting them as the discussion continues.  The ideas
     should be listed by system, subsystem, and component to
     facilitate effective organization of the study.

          The desired objective of the Speculative/Creative
     Phase is to generate a completely free interplay of
     ideas between team members to create an extensive list
     of alternative ideas for later evaluation.  The key to
     successful results is the deferral of any critical
     judgments or comments which might inhibit any of the
     team members.

          Since a value engineering team is composed of a
     variety of personalities, some individuals will readily
     supply many ideas while others will have to be
     encouraged to express their ideas.  The active
     participation of all team members must be encouraged in
     the creative development of ideas.  A VETC must
     effectively provide a climate for the free exchange of
     ideas by directing the team members away from
     discussion or arguments about relative merits of
     individual ideas during this phase since such
     evaluations tend to suppress the creative thinking
     process.  Some thought provoking questions to activate
     a creative session include:

          What is the function?
          What is the input?
          What is the output?
       -  Is all of the known information available?
          Are specifications tight or loose?
          What other materials would accomplish this job?
          Could this be done somewhere else?
       -  What would happen if this weren't done at all?
          Could this be done mechanically?  Electrically?
          By hand?
          Could present structures be reconfigured or
          reoriented to improve them?
                              4-7

-------
     What other fields experience this problem?
     How much of this is a result of custom?
     Tradition?  Opinion?
  -  How would postponement of this objective affect
     the project?
  -  Can better use be made of existing facilities?
     What can be combined?
     What other layout might be better?
     Can it be made safer?

     Many engineers are very inhibited by the creative
phase of a VE study since it requires them to step
beyond the normal bounds of their problem solving
habits.  To overcome this reluctance to venture outside
familiar areas and risk the embarrassment of proposing
an idea that might be subject to ridicule, the "YES/IF"
technique is often used by the VE team.  When a team
member expresses an idea, another team member would
respond with the statement "YES that idea might work,
IF we take the idea and improve it as follows" rather
than condemning the idea.  In this manner, team members
build upon the idea of a fellow team member to improve
and refine the idea.

     The VE team should strive for quality and
performance through the free association of ideas.  As
ideas are brought forward in a creative session, they
stimulate additional ideas from other team members.
This process frequently causes VE team members to
express perfectly logical ideas outside their
discipline.  As an example, an architect may make
recommendations concerning the method of cleaning a
digester system based on the team's discussion of the
functions.

     The following points should be considered during
the Speculative/Creative Phase.

  1. When team members believe that improvements can be
     made to the project, they will work to achieve it.

  2. There is always room for improvement in a project.
     Most designers will have many ideas for improving
     their project after observing its construction.

  3. The word "impossible" should be eliminated from
     the team's thinking.  The synergistic effect of
     free flow of information generated by a
     multidisciplined team can create extraordinary
     results.
                         4-8

-------
       4. Develop as many ideas as possible.  This
          stimulates the creative ability of team members.

       5. Look for associations of ideas.  Often a function
          can be performed by a technique currently applied
          to another area or industry.

       6. Ask questions which elicit information based on
          the knowledge and experience of team members.

       7. Record all ideas as they are identified rather
          than risk forgetting them.

          Speculative/Creative ideas generated by the VE
     team can be listed on Worksheet WS-7.  This worksheet
     is used for both listing and evaluating ideas.  An
     example worksheet listing the ideas developed during
     the Speculative/Creative Phase is presented in Figure
     4-3 (page 4-16) .

4.4  EVALUATION/ANALYTICAL PHASE

          During the Evaluation/Analytical Phase, the ideas
     developed in the Speculative/Creative Phase are
     examined to assess which have the best opportunity for
     implementation and cost savings.  The VE team evaluates
     the feasibility of each idea by identifying its
     advantages and disadvantages.  The ideas are then rated
     on a scale of one to ten.  A ten represents either the
     best technical idea or the one with the greatest
     potential for cost savings.

          Even though detailed cost estimates for ideas are
     not developed until later in the study, the VE team
     would use its experience to estimate rough cost savings
     for ideas to aid in the evaluation process.  It is
     important to note that many ideas with high cost
     savings potential may not benefit the facility's design
     because they may reduce the wastewater treatment
     efficiency.

          In ranking ideas, the VE team should consider the
     following:

       -  Are the performance, quality and reliability
          requirements met or exceeded?

       -  Will excessive redesign or project delay be
          created?
                              4-9

-------
          Is there improvement in operation and maintenance?

          Will life cycle cost savings be achieved?

          The ideas with the highest ratings are selected by
     the VE team for more detailed investigations in the
     Development/Recommendation Phase.

          The evaluation of creative ideas can be done on
     the right hand side of Worksheet WS-7.  An example
     worksheet for the evaluation and ranking of creative
     ideas is presented in Figure 4-4 (page 4-17).

4.5  DEVELOPMENT/RECOMMENDATION PHASE

          In the Development/Recommendation Phase, the best
     ideas from the Evaluation/Analytical Phase are
     developed into workable VE recommendations. The VE team
     researches and develops preliminary designs and life
     cycle cost comparisons for the original designs and the
     proposed alternative ideas.

          During this phase, the technical expertise of each
     team member becomes very important.  A multidisciplined
     team provides the resources essential for the
     development of sound VE recommendations.  Frequently,
     VE team members must consult outside experts, vendors,
     and reference sources to obtain additional evaluation
     information before developing the VE recommendations.

          The development of an idea into a recommendation
     should include the following steps:

       1. Description of the original design and each
          alternative idea.

       2. Sketch of the original design and each alternative
          idea.

       3. Preparation of a life cycle cost analysis for the
          original design and each alternative idea.

       4. Discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
          each alternative idea including its impact on life
          cycle costs.

       5. Identification of the recommended alternative idea
          or a discussion for maintaining the original
          design.

       6. Discussion of the requirements for implementing
          the recommendation.
                              4-10

-------
          Worksheet WS-8 can be used to display the
     developmental information for each alternative idea and
     for presentation of VE recommendations.  All supporting
     documentation for a VE recommendation such as design
     calculations, cost estimates, and sketches should be
     attached to Worksheet WS-8 to aid the review process.
     When the determination of life cycle costs becomes too
     complex to be accomplished on WS-8, the data from the
     cost worksheets WS-1, WS-4A, WS-4B, WS-4C, and  WS-4D
     can be transferred to Worksheet WS-9 to calculate the
     life cycle costs. Filled out examples of these
     worksheets are included with the sample VE Report in
     Appendix D.  Worksheet WS-10 can be used to summarize
     the VE recommendations.

          It is important that the VE team be able to convey
     the concept of each VE recommendation in a clear and
     concise manner to avoid its rejection due to a lack of
     understanding by the owner or designer.  In preparing
     VE recommendations, each team member should strive to
     view the recommendation from the designer's perspective
     for reliability, cost effectiveness and implementation.

          In the development of the VE recommendations, each
     alternative idea should be presented as a single VE
     recommendation on a separate worksheet.  This procedure
     assures each recommendation will be reviewed on its own
     merit.

          Frequently, a number of ideas are identified by
     the VE team which have little impact in terms of cost
     savings.  However, these ideas may be worthwhile in
     terms of operation, maintenance, or design
     improvements.  The designer and owner should receive
     the benefit of reviewing these ideas even though they
     were not developed into formal VE recommendations.
     These ideas should be labeled as design suggestions and
     presented to the designer in the form of a simple list.

4.6  REPORT PHASE

          The Report Phase consists of both an oral and
     written presentation of the results from the VE study.

     Oral Presentation

          The VE recommendations are presented by the VE
     team in an oral presentation on the last day of the VE
     workshop (typically Friday afternoon).  The oral
     presentation should be a relaxed and informal meeting
                              4-11

-------
which lasts approximately one to three hours.  The
presentation provides an opportunity for the owner and
designer to discuss the VE recommendations with the VE
team.

     The VETC should start the presentation with an
overview of the VE study and a summary of the VE
recommendations including the potential cost savings.
The major factors which influenced the study would be
highlighted by the VETC.  This presentation would be
followed by a brief description of each VE
recommendation by selected team members.  The owner and
designer should seek only to understand the concept and
background of each recommendation during the oral
presentation.  They should delay discussions on the
merits of the recommendations until subsequent
meetings.

Copies of the handwritten VE recommendations should be
provided to the owner and designer during the oral
presentation so they can commence their review and
analysis prior to the receipt of the VE report.

     VE Report

     The VE consultant prepares a written VE Report
which summarizes the results of the entire VE study.
This report is used by the owner and  designer in their
review and evaluation of the VE recommendations.  The
report should be prepared and submitted to the
owner/designer within one to three weeks following the
workshop to avoid delaying the project's design.  Since
the VE Report stands alone as an independent document,
it should contain at least the following information:

  1.   Executive Summary.

  2.   Project Name.

  3.   Scope of the VE study.

  4.   Names of the owner, designer, and VE team
       members and their related responsibilities.

  5.   Location and date of the workshop.

  6.   List of the data provided by the
       owner/designer (list data obtained during the
       pre-workshop activity as well as during the
       workshop).

  7.   Project constraints.
                         4-12

-------
  8.   Information important to the background of the
       VE study, i.e., major environmental impacts and
       discussions at public meetings.

  9.   Project description, design criteria, process
       flow diagram, plant layout, description of each
       unit process, influent/effluent criteria,
       description of physical characteristics of the
       site, major design concerns, and existing
       facilities.

  10.  All cost, energy, and life cycle models, and
       worksheets from the Job Plan phases.

  11.  A summary of the conclusions from each phase of
       the VE Job Plan.

  12.  Summary of VE recommendations and cost savings.

  13.  Specific VE recommendations with supporting
       documentation.

  14.  Appendix with additional information which the
       VETC may find appropriate.

     The most important element in the VE Report are
the VE recommendations.  The VE team should refrain
from suggesting additional VE recommendations after the
oral presentation.  However, the information generated
during the VE workshop can be further developed for
accuracy and completeness before it is included in the
VE Report.  An abbreviated example of a VE Report is
provided in Appendix D.  The example highlights the
information which should be contained in the report and
the use of the VE worksheets.
                         4-13

-------
FIGURE 4-1 EXAMPLE FUNCTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
PRO.
ITEM
BASI



£
ipn
XYZ WWTP (65% Design)
IWastewater Treatment Facility
CFW
JCTION REMOVE POLLUTANTS
i
1!
I
11
u.
1

i
i
i
L
Simplify construction 1
rH
— n—
o
o
8
H
P-
m
,
Support
Equipment
House
Control Building
Reduce building size 1
rH
O
o
o
(N
,
Equipment
House
o>
c
•H
•C
-H
3
m
H
m
01
c
o
-H
o
VH
0
-H
•D
O
CN

O
o
o
o
VO
0
o
p-
rH
r-
a>
•H
a c
Convert
Aeration Tanks
Consolidate; simplify
construction fi Reinforcing
rH

8
I
S
(N
O
cn
!
(Q
Concen-
trate
Final Clarifiers
Simplify construction;
change gates
CM

o
o
o
0
o
m
o
OJ
m
Effluent
4J
u
1 0)
U) VM
•H C
0 -rf
Chlorine Tanks
Increase loading; modify 1
holding tank 1
^

8
O
o
VO
o
o
VO
,
Solids
Concen-
trate
Gravity Thickeners
-UNCTION ANALYSIS No
1
TEAMNO.-l 	 SHEET ] OF_J 	

Reduce no. pumps; modify
control s
n

o
o
S
8
VO
O
Grit &
Screeninc
Remove
Headworks

IT)
o

o
o
o
VO
o
o
VO
VO
r-l
2
Equipment
House
Existing Pump Room

CM

o
o
§
8
0>
o
,
Equipment
House
c
u
a
o.
c
-H
(D
•H
X
H
Consolidate; reconfigure
IN

0
O
s
CS
r-l
O
0
o
CO
.
Constru-
tion
Support
Site fi General
Basic function C/H only

s
§
tn
rH
o
o
VO
N
J-l
D
O
O
in
o
o
s
CO
a.


o
c
U-S-—
1 Other (including contin

1 TOTAL
ij
ii
is
\
j]
• M


WS-5
4-14

-------



SOD Coniponant
Earthwork
Concrete
Miscellaneous
Structural
Electrical/
Instrumentation
Process Pipe
Mechanical Equipment
Start-Up
Painting
TOTAL


Function Analysis
Function
Varb
Prepare
Support
Support
Energize
Control
Convey
Support
Support
Protect
Finish



Noun
Site
Load
Load
Facility
Process
Air
Sludge
Process
Process
Equipment
Space



Kind1
s
B
B
B
B
B
S
S



InMal
Cost'
64,000
393,000
44,000
16,000
40,000
149,000
13,000
11,000
730,000


Worth'
60,000
275,000
40,000
12,000
30,000
130,000
10,000
6,000
563,000


'B = Baric Function 'Original 'Worth- Laast Cost to
8 = Sacondary Function Cost Estimate Accomplish Function.
Cost/
Worth
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.3



f*nm mailla
WVIIIIIIVIIIV
Modify berming
Reduce weight and size
Modify reinforcing 	

Revise process controls
Change materials. Modify
fittings/routing. 	
Reduce and/or modify gates

Leave certain areas
unpainted 	
Basic function C/W only




?
O
•n
z
o
6
z
o
o
s
g
M


1 ITEM Aeration Tanks
m
Z
z
p
VI
X
m
m
-i
t-1
O
•n

1 PROJECT XYZ WWTP (65% Design)
FUNCTION ANALYSIS NO_J 	


-------
FIGURE 4-3  EXAMPLE SPECULATIVE/CREATIVE PHASE WORKSHEET
PROJFCT Mz WWTP (65% Design
CREATIVE/EVALUATION No
|TFM Aeration Tanks TEAM NO. 1 SHEET 1 Cc 1









O
p

3








CREATIVE


en
0

E
in
UJ
O
o

ID
O


O
o
<



'
c




















Delete one interior wall to provide
a four compartment tank
r-l




















Reduce size of tank to match flow ii
interior walls are eliminated
H
O
n
c
01
o
3
3




















Revise piping at air main takeoffs
(reduce no. of fittings)
CN


































UJ
O
I
UJ
_i

"*!
si
S
Jj
1
II
0
*

                                                                                    WS-7
                                      4-16

-------
FIGURE 4-4  EXAMPLE EVALUATION/ANALYTICAL  PHASE WORKSHEET
Dpn,CrT XYZ WTP (65% Design, CREATIVE/EVALUATION No
ITEM Aeration Tanks TEAM NO. SHEET OF










§
w
3
tS
























i

s




1
p
K


s
o


1
i
s





Mt
ADVANTAGE!


















o




6

in




o
4-1 M 0)
.cow

H *W

U 4-> 3
coo
H o i

•u

£;
,-.
ss maintenance
larly of gates
0 3
0

01
•o
*rt
o
fc
ft



,_)

_* *5
s 4 O
sB
C H
•H (0
s 1
o o
Delete <
a four i

rH
\D







V
3
4J
C
•rl

1

4J

83
S
fH 01
re 3
4J
re o  0
M
SB Q
•H
3 re TJ
•D tT> rl

* *

•H

g
rH

X 
4J (Q


e
o -S
4J rH
O

(0 rH
4-4 CO
O rH
rH
0> <0
s>
m u
Reduce ;
interio:

IN
VO




S
-H
o
c

§ §
(0 -i-t
o> tn
M M
O -H
C
Si!

4J
0)
r, 8
s _,
tn »H
3 «J
Improve difi
operation
Reduce caoit

* *



Q
4-1



4J
m

n
0)

rH
c
-H
0
4J
in
rH
rH
(0
C -H
•H ft
_C -H
4J ft
V H
0) T-l
D (0

m
M>





&
•H
tn
0)
•D
01
M
(0
5
c
•H



01
O
0
5
a,
re
o
0
u
3
•O
£
K






tn
rH
-r-f


ft)



c
•H
U
O
c
t-l
0>

Simplif;
i

*
tn
CO 
10 se
m re
0 h 01
u re 0
3 0 rl
•can
0 OirH
K fl rU
• •



ti
0
u
5
u
0
1
8.
K



ft
O
4->
_p
ID

ro
c
o
-H
^j
u

f
0
o
rH
4M 01
« rH
C rH
l«
rH I4H
U O

in










&
•H
tn
*
«

4J
to c
0 0
U -H

«H HJ
10 -P
-H 0
ft rH
Reduce Cc
Improve i

9 *
5
-H

C fl
O 1
-H A
O 1-t


4-> O
tO rH

Q
U tfl

rH ft

C r-l
6 0
E 4-1
B c
Provide
1 foundat

vD






C
•H

r-l
1C T3
•H >, ffl
W 4J 0)
0) 01 M
*O >H O
Slfl 0)
WO
• •



03
o
u
(0
&
u
OJ
u
-g
ft)







o
4J
O
(0


^
4J
0)

tn
&
1

Reduce .

*~














4J
01
O
O

re
••H £
Reduce c<
Improve (






c
o
01
0
rH


.H
f.


C
O
0}
c
0
4J
X 01
01 0
0 re
V tr
Elimina
sluice

00



4J
rH
3
&•"
•H MH
in UH
0 'H

0 01
rl TJ C
S-H
4J
re re 3
E 0 O
•9 rl rl
C U
.rl C C
JS M -rl
» «

V
01
o
c u
o
4-> re
U -rl
Improve 1
Reduce c;



•0
0
re

-H
u
re




4J
0


C
tfl
•o
c
0 01
Z 01
^
Elimina
[ sludge

01






&
-H
01
0
•o
01
VI
rH
O
|
£
0
rl

C
c re
o
4-> -rl
U 0
§ re
Improve i
Improve i
Hahilit-


1 01
*O 01
re 0
01 U
01 re
o a
0

o.^

rl rH
O -H
UH re
rl
01
rH 0
O 01
a >
C 4J
0 M
u
r* C
rH
Modify
1 justmen

0
i-H




^,
a
.s
4->

!U
0 -H
rH
Q) JJ
U -H
3 X
*D Q)
a £



0}
O
iduce capital c
,d O&M costs
& «





0)
*2
r- 1
to

4J
C
0)

rH

C
•rl
0
V-l
c
Reduce
gates

rH
rH
cn













t! £
tn c
O t-
o c t
o
Reduce capita!
Improve funct:
A f



CO
4-)
o
5
(0


c
-H .—
(0 tn
C &i
c

-H 4J
(0 4J
•H
ffl
UJ
CP O
c
•H •
ft O
ft
Revise
(reduce
«s
rH

















HI
& less leakage
potential)




































HI
5
5


u.
»-
II
I

U-

co
o
2
ii
o
















                                                                                   WS-7
                                      4-17

-------
                            SECTION 5

                     POST-WORKSHOP ACTIVITY
5.1  REVIEW OF THE VE REPORT

          The post-workshop VE activity involves a thorough
     review and evaluation of each VE recommendation presented in
     the VE Report and the preparation of the Final VE Report.

     The owner and designer evaluate each VE recommendation on
     the basis of technical, operational, and life cycle cost
     savings considerations. (Normally, redesign and
     implementation costs for the recommendations are not
     considered since these costs are usually insignificant when
     compared to the potential cost savings.)

          The owner and designer consult with the VETC to clarify
     any questionable items which arise during their review of
     the VE recommendations.  An in-depth evaluation of each VE
     recommendation provides the best basis for reaching a sound
     decision to accept or reject a recommendation.

5.2  FINAL VE REPORT

          Once all the VE recommendations have been reviewed by
     the owner and the designer, a Final VE Report is prepared by
     the designer to summarize the results of the VE study and
     describe the action taken on each of the VE recommendations.
     The Final VE Report and the VE Report serve as the complete
     documentation for the VE study.  A separate VE Report and
     Final VE Report must be prepared for each VE study conducted
     on a project.

     Accepted VE Recommendations

          The acceptance of a VE recommendation requires no
     justification in the Final VE Report.  Such action requires
     only a statement of acceptance.  When certain elements of a
     VE recommendation are acceptable and other elements of the
     recommendation are unacceptable, a justification should be
     provided for only the rejected portion of the
     recommendation.  Occasionally, the designer may modify a VE
     recommendation before incorporating it into the design.
     These modifications would be fully described in the Final VE
     Report.

          Accepted VE recommendations should be incorporated into
     the design as soon as possible by the designer.
                                5-1

-------
Rejected VE Recommendations

     Each rejection of a VE recommendation must be supported
by valid reasons which are specifically detailed in the
Final VE Report.  Several examples of insufficient reason
for rejection of a VE recommendation are:

  •  Lack of reliability (increased liability for the
     designer)

  •  Lack of flexibility

  •  Unsafe

  •  Project delay

  •  Preference or opinion

  •  New or unfamiliar technology

  •  Unproven technique

  •  Violates regulatory requirements

     In the Final VE Report, the specific reasons for the
rejection or partial rejection of individual VE
recommendations must be stated in sufficient detail to
convince the reviewing agency of the validity of the
rejection.  For example, the reasons for rejecting a
recommendation on the basis of safety would explain how  and
why the recommendation would create an unsafe condition.

Contents of the Final VE Report

The Final VE Report should include:

  •  A brief description of the project, the scope of the  VE
     efforts  (number of studies), and the percentage of
     design completion at the time of the study.

  •  The estimate of the project's total construction costs
     available prior to the VE study.

  •  A summary  list of the accepted and  rejected VE
     recommendations which includes a brief description  of
     each recommendation plus its capital and life cycle
     cost savings expressed in present worth.

  •  A detailed explanation for each rejected VE
     recommendation.
                            5-2

-------
       •  Tabulation of the total cost savings for the accepted
          VE recommendations which includes the capital costs and
          the present worth of the life cycle costs.

       •  Explanation of any significant differences  between the
          Final VE Report's cost estimates and the VE Report's
          cost estimates.

       •  The total additional design costs required  for
          implementing the accepted VE recommendations.

       •  An implementation schedule for incorporating the
          accepted recommendations into the design.

       •  The VE Report attached as an appendix.

     The Final VE Report should be a brief document which does
     not duplicate the information provided in the VE Report. The
     report should use the same identification number for each
     recommendation as the VE Report.

          An abbreviated example of a Final VE Report is
     contained in Appendix E.  This example is intended to
     illustrate the overall format and content of a Final VE
     Report.

5.3  REVIEWING AGENCY COORDINATION AND APPROVAL

          The owner should establish a working relationship with
     the reviewing agency's project officer during the early
     development of the project to ensure that it's final
     drawings, specifications, and VE reports are approvable for
     a construction grant award.  The owner should consult with
     the reviewing agency's project officer prior to  accepting VE
     recommendations which involve major design changes or
     rejecting VE recommendations which offer substantial cost
     savings.

          The VE process concludes with the acceptance of the
     Final VE Report(s) by the appropriate reviewing  agency.
                                5-3

-------
   APPENDIX A




GLOSSARY OF TERMS

-------
                         APPENDIX A

                     GLOSSARY OF TERMS

                     VALUE ENGINEERING
Value Engineering (VE)

A specialized cost control technique which is applied by an
independent team of experienced multidisciplined professionals
during the design of a wastewater treatment facility.  The
technique provides a systematic, functional, and creative
methodology for identifying project cost savings without
sacrificing reliability or performance.  The technique is used
to achieve the best functional combination of cost,
reliability, and performance for a specific product, process,
system, or facility.


VE Study (Review)

The combined efforts of the owner, project designer, and VE
consultant necessary for the successful accomplishment of value
engineering on a wastewater treatment facility.  Two separate
VE,studies are typically performed at different stages of a
facility's design to achieve optimum VE benefits.


VE Workshop

The brief and intense working session in which a VE team(s)
performs value engineering on the design of a specific
facility.  A workshop is typically conducted in 40 hours and
culminates with an informal oral presentation of the VE
recommendations.
VE Job Plan

The systematic methodology used by the VE team to perform value
engineering.  The VE Job Plan consists of five distinct phases
performed sequentially during the VE workshop.
VE Team

An independent group of experienced, multidisciplined
professionals.  The group performs value engineering on the
design of a specific facility during the VE workshop.
                             A-l

-------
VE Team Coordinator (VETO

The individual coordinating and managing the VE study.  This
individual leads the VE team(s) during the VE workshop.


VE Recommendation

A proposed change to the design of a facility.  VE
recommendations are developed during the VE workshop and
documented in the VE Report.


VE Report

A written report which formally summarizes the results of the
VE workshop and presents the VE recommendations.


Final VE Report

A written report which formally responds to the VE
recommendations contained in the VE Report.


VE Training Seminar

A recognized course which provides at least forty hours of
academic training in the methodology of value engineering. The
training includes the application of VE techniques to example
projects.
VE Consultant

The firm responsible for performing the VE workshop and
preparing the VE Report.  The firm provides the VETC and VE
team.


Designer

The firm primarily responsible for the design of the wastewater
treatment facility and the preparation of the Final VE Report.


Owner

The municipality or community which intends to construct the
proposed wastewater treatment facilities.
                             A-2

-------
Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

The total cost of ownership for an asset over its useful life.
This cost includes the initial cost and all significant future
costs, such as operation and maintenance costs.  Since life
cycle costs recognize the time value of money, all LCC's
(initial and future) are developed and compared on a present
worth basis.
Wastewater Treatment Works

Any devices and systems for the storage, conveyance, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage, domestic
sewage, or liquid industrial wastes, or necessary to recycle or
reuse water at the most economical cost over the useful life of
the works.  These include intercepting sewers, outfall sewers,
sewage collection systems, individual systems, pumping, power,
and other equipment and their appurtenances; extensions,
improvement, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof;
elements essential to provide a reliable recycled supply such
as standby treatment units and clear well facilities; and any
works, including acquisition of the land that will be an
integral part of the treatment process or is used for ultimate
disposal of residues resulting from such treatment (including
land for composting sludge, temporary storage of such compost
and land used for the storage of treated wastewater in land
treatment systems before land application); or any other method
or system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating,
separating, or disposing of municipal waste or industrial
waste, including waste in combined storm water and sanitary
sewer systems.  In this guidance document, the terms wastewater
treatment works, wastewater treatment facility or wastewater
treatment project are used interchangeably.
                             A-3

-------
     APPENDIX B




SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

-------
                                SELECT
                             BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.    Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, Lawrence D.
     Miles,  McGraw-Hill Book Company, Second Edition, 1972.

2.    Value Analysis in Design and Construction, James J.
     O'Brien,  McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976.

3.    Value Engineering in the Construction Industry, Alphonse
     J.  Dell'Isola, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., Third
     Edition,  1982.

4.    Value Engineering, A Practical Approach for Owners,
     Designers, and Contractors, Larry W. Zimmerman and Glen D.
     Hart, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982.

5.    Life Cycle Costing, A Practical Guide for Energy Managers,
     Robert J. Brown and Rudolph  R. Yanuck, The Fairmont Press,
     Inc., 1980.

6.    Life Cycle Costing for the Design Professional, Alphonse
     J.  Dell'Isola and Steven j.Kirk, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
     1981.

7.    Energy Conservation in Municipal Wastewater Treatment,
     U.S. EPA-430/9-77-011, March 1978.

8.    Energy Management Diagnostics, U.S. EPA-430/9-82-002,
     February 1982.

-------
             APPENDIX C

             WORKSHEETS
Reproduction of these worksheets is
 encouraged for use in VE studies.

-------
COST SUMMARY
DDmprr v/wsji w 	 _
TEAM NO. SHEET 	 OF 	

Check one, use separate sheet for each. Conslruc,ion costs D Replacement Costs
O&M Costs D Energy Costs
Major Unit or Item



















TOTAL
Original Estimate




















D
D
New Estimate












)






:
WS-1

-------
ro





I
I








1
	 (
	 j

1


	 	 ;



L J







|



1



L





i



i
J


1







J

I


, 	 	 	 1
T
1


j







L



i














i
I



	 	 _j

1


j



i







i.



i



i

i
i

i
t







	 	 _j

1






L_



L J



L



u _ _ _ _

Check one;
present wor
Construe
O&MCc
Replace
Energy
Electric
Legend
I
i









	 i







L J



L _ _.



1
L_ _ _ _.


1
1
1





use one sheet (or each. Indicate
th or annual.
lion Costs D
>sts n
ment/Salvage Costs D
Costs D
al in kwh D
COMPONENT OR
SYSTEM
ESTIMATE
WORTH

1






L_








1
1_ - J



U



1
L _




1

1






1
L -J



i
L



I



1
L_




^
n
••
<
^

11
* c
r
—i
m
5
z
p
m
m
H
O
Tl
a
a
D
n
•)
COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL

-------
ro
CD
No.


















x
X
Description


















Total Cost
Percent of Cost
Cost Category








































































































































































Total
Cost




















•
•
r
•

^
Tl

•\
3
c
c
r
•i
1
z
p
w
X
•n
n
O
•n
9
0
5
wm
n
t
MATRIX COST MODEL NO 1

-------
PRn.lFP.T
ITFM


COST SUMMARY BAR CHART
TEAM NO. SHEET OF

Check one, use separate sheet for each. Construction Costs 1 — 1
O&M Costs D
Replacement Costs LJ
Energy Costs CD
Major Unit or Cost Category Cost














































































|

























































I


































1
|















i ' ' <

: i '




! i (
I
i ! i

DOLLARS OR % OF TOTAL COST
WS-2C

-------
PROJECT
ITEM


Equipment Description





















TOTALS
Motors
No.






















HP(ea)






















EH






















No.
On-Line






















ELECTRICAL ENERGY
TEAM NO SHFFT OP

Avg Annual
Operating
Hours






















Annual
kwh






















Peak
Hourly
Load (kw)





















x^
WS-3

-------
PROJECT O&M LABOR
MAJOR UNIT OR ITEM T


Classification
















TOTAL LABOR COST
pAM NO SHFFT OF


Number

















Annual
Salary

















Annual
Cost

















WS-4A

-------
PROJECT
ITEM



Unit Process
\






TOTALS
Type of Chemical
Avg.
Units/
Day







Annual
Units







Unit
Cost







Annual
Cost







Type
Avg.
Units/
Day







O&M CHEMICALS
TEAM N(
•>

SHEE
T OF


of Chemical
Annual
Units







Unit
Cost







Annual
Cost







Type of Chemical
Avg.
Units/
Day







Annual
Units







Unit
Cost







Annual
Cost








Unit Process






TOTALS
Type of Chemical




























Type







of Chemical





















Type of Chemical




























WS-4B

-------
PROJECT

ITEM	
Original
Proposed
LJ check one
                           EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT NO.
                             TEAM NO..
                            . SHEET_
          .OF_
          Replacement
              Item
                Service
                 Life
                Future
             Replacement
                 Cost
  Present Worth
Replacement Cost
                                                                      WS-4C

-------
PROJECT
ITEM	
                                          LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY  NO
                                          TFAM NO
                                                       SHEFT
                                                                  OF
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST	

   CATEGORY              COMMENT/CALCULATION

   Electricity
                                                             COST
  Motors.
  Lighting
 Other Utilities

 • Water 	
• Natural Gas
Chemicals  	


Other

• Sludge Disposal
                                                         Annual
                                                                  Worth
Labor
Replacement—
                                                    TOTAL LCC
                                                                       WS-4D

-------
PRO
ITEN
BASI

JECT
1


C FUNG1
rioN

FUNCTION ANALYSIS NO
TFAM NO SHFFT OF


Function Analysis
Comments
o o
Worth3
75 2-
i i
= 0
Function

1
|
1
Sub Component
Description
























































































1B = Basic Function 2 Original 3 Worth - Least Cost to
S = Secondary Function Cost Estimate Accomplish Function.


ws-s

-------
PROJ
ITEM
ECT








z
o
<
_I
Ul












Ul
GREAT
*
CA
O
h-
oc
(A
Ul
H
Q

o
ii
o
*


WS-7

-------
 PROJECT.
 ITEM	
                                                VE RECOMMENDATION NO.
TEAM NO..
SHEET.
OF_
ORIGINAL: (Attach sketch where applicable)
PROPOSED: (Attach sketch where applicable)
DISCUSSION:
      LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
                                                  PRESENT WORTH COSTS
                                       INITIAL COST
      O & MCOSTS
           TOTAL
                          ORIGINAL
                         PROPOSED
                          SAVINGS
                                                                                WS-8

-------
PR
IT!
LIFE CYCLE COSTS
Nn

\_)JtlVs I 	 — 	 	 	 _ 	
TEAM NO. SHEET OF
iM 	 	 	 	 — 	 	 	 — 	 	 	 •• •••

j/>
to
o
0
"to
'E
Replacement Costs
Life Cycle Costs (Annualized
or Present Worth)
1. Initial (Construction) Costs
a
b
c
d
e.
, i. 	
2. Total Initial Cost
3. Initial Cost Savings
Single Expenditures ?t Interest (Discount) Rate
Present Worth = Amount x PW Factor
4 Arnr>iint fnr Hem at Year
5. PW Amount x (PW Factor ) =
6 Amount for Item at YMT
7. PW - Amount x (PW Factor ) =
8 Amount for Item at Y*»ar
9 PW Amount x (PW F^rtor ) =

10 Amoiin' «or |»om at Year
11. PW - Amount x (PW Factor ) =
12 Amount for l*»m at Year
13. PW = Amount x (PW Factor ) =
Annual Owning Cost for 20 Years at , %
PP Fartor
14. Total Initial Cost (line 2) x PP Factor
15. Annualized Replacement Cost
a. PW (line 5) x PP Factor =
b. PW (line 7) x PP Factor =
c. PW (line 9) x PP Factor =
d. PW (line 11) x PP Factor =
e. PW (line 13) x PP Factor =
16. Annual O&M Costs (from WS-4B)
17. Annual O&M Savings
18. Total Annualized Costs (lines 14, 15, 16)
19. Annualized Savings
20. Present Worth of O&M Costs
I ine 16 x (PWA Factor ) =
21. Total Present Worth of Costs
(lines 2, 5, 7, 9,11, 13 & 20)
22. Present Worth Savings
Original







7>~-=di

^^>
-------
DATE
BY
PROJECT
SUBJECT- CLIENT- PAGE
Of
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM VE RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM
NO.






















DESCRIPTION






















PRESENT WORTH COST SAVINGS
ORIGINAL
COST






















PROPOSED
COST






















INITIAL
COST
SAVINGS






















O&M
COST
SAVINGS






















TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS






















WS-10

-------
   APPENDIX D




SAMPLE VE REPORT

-------
   VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT
XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
         SANITARY  DISTRICT
              USA
  25%  DESIGN COMPLETION STAGE
          April  1984
             OWNER
       SANITARY DISTRICT
              USA
            DESIGNER

    A AND B ASSOCIATES, INC.
               USA
          VE CONSULTANT

            ABC, INC.
               USA

-------
               VALUE ENGINEERING  REPORT
            XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT  PLANT
                    SANITARY DISTRICT
                         USA
             25% DESIGN COMPLETION STAGE

                      April 1984
SECTION NO.
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                    DESCRIPTION
           Table of Contents
           List of Tables
           List of
^
           sP
         f
         > 1.3
             fneral
           'Scope  of  the Value
             Study
            Value  Engineering Repor
            The  Participants
            • Project Design
            • The Value Engineering
            • Owner
           PROJECT
       \*'
       2.1
       2.2


   X-
PV    r<&
G>
 .(?
                 2.3
               Treatment Units
   PreLattn^ri'ary Treatment
   Pr*^lery Sedimentation
   Q^bonaceous Aeration
   secondary Sedimentation
   Nitrification Aeration
   Final Sedimentation
•  Sludge Thickening
•  Excess Flow Facility
•  Odor Control
Process Design Data
                                            PAGE NO,

                                             D-i
                                             D-iii
                                             D-iv
                                                 D-ES-1
                                                  D2-1
                                                  D2-1
                                                  D2-3
                                                  D2-5
                                                  D2-5
                                                  D2-5
                                                  D2-6
                                                  D2-7
                                                  D2-8
                                                  D2-8
                                                  D2-9
                                                  D2-11
                         D-i
                       Sample

-------
VALUE ENGINEERING PROCEDURE

3.1  General
3.2  Pre-Workshop Preparation
     •  Project Constraints
     •  Economic Data
   VE Workshop
     •  Information Phase
           Cost Estimate
           Cost Models
           Energy Models
           0/M Summaries
           Life Cycle Cost Summary
           Function Analysis
     •  Speculative/Creative Phase
     •  Evaluation/Analytical Phase
     •  Development/Recommendation
         Phase
     •  Report Phase
   Post-Workshop Procedures

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

General
Summary of Cost Savings
VE Recommendations
Design Suggestions
   D3-1
   D3-1
   D3-3
   D3-3
   D3-4
   D3-4
   D3-7
   D3-8
   D3-14
   D3-19
   D3-21
   D3-23
   D3-24
   D3-26

   D3-26
   D3-33
   D3-33
   D4-1
   D4-3
D4 (JC-l)-l
  through
D4 (OC-2)-2
   DS-1
             D-ii
            Sample

-------
               VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT
            XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                   SANITARY DISTRICT
                          USA

                      April  1984


                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


     This report summarizes the results of the first value
engineering study for the XYZ Wastewater Treatment Plant
expansion program.

     The proposed facilities are being designed by A and B
Associates, Inc. The proposed facilities will expand the
plant capacity from 12.5 to 19.6 mgd plus provide excess
flow treatment and a storage facility for 50 mgd. The
estimated construction cost of the proposed facility is
$31.4 million.

     The scope of this VE study is the analysis of the
design documents and drawings for the proposed expansion
at the 25% design completion stage. Areas of study
include:  raw sewage junction chamber; excess flow basin
and control building; primary settling tanks; secondary
settling tanks; nitrification aeration system; blower
building; final clarifiers;  sludge thickening; and odor
control systems for the plant.

     The study was conducted during the week of April
11-15/ 1984 at the office of A and B Associates,  Inc.

     The VE team prepared cost, energy, and life  cycle
cost models for the total facility which  identify the
projected cost of owning and operating  the plant. The VE
team used the models to  identify areas  of high potential
initial  cost  savings, energy savings,  and operational cost
savings. As a consequence,  the VE  team  recommendations
will save energy  as well as  initial costs, resulting  in
substantial life  cycle benefits for the owner.
                         D-ES-1
                         Sample

-------
     The VE team generated 75 alternative design ideas
during the function analysis/creative idea listing phases
of the study. From these ideas, 25 recommendations and 16
design suggestions were developed and presented herein to
the Sanitary District and design engineers for
consideration. They represent both initial cost savings
and improved operating costs amounting to an estimated
total present worth cost savings of $8,500,000.

     Recognize that the proposals submitted are
recommendations. Final acceptance rests with the Sanitary
District, the design engineers and the state Environmental
Protection Agency.

     Major areas of potential cost savings identified in
the VE study include:   modular design and operation of
odor control systems;  modification to the excess flow
basin; elimination of the excess flow basin control
building basement, relocation of the north gallery from
between the final chambers to a location north of and
adjacent to the nitrification aeration tanks; and the
deletion of the dissolved air flotation thickeners from
the sludge process stream.

     Other areas identified for potential initial cost and
energy savings include a reduction in the number of
primary clarifier tanks and the use of a different type of
air diffuser device in the nitrification aeration tanks ..,
                        D-ES-2
                        Sample

-------
                    VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT
                 XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        SANITARY  DISTRICT
                               USA
                   25%  DESIGN COMPLETION STAGE

                           April 1984
                            SECTION 1

                          INTRODUCTION
1.1  GENERAL
          This report summarizes the findings and
     recommendations from the value engineering study of the
     design for the expansion of the XYZ Wastewater Treatment
     Plant. The topic of the VE workshop was the review of the
     design and conceptual plans for advanced wastewater
     treatment plant expansion of the existing capacity at the
     XYZ Plant, and for new facilities to provide for the
     storage of excess wastewater flows from the county-wide
     area.

          ABC, Inc., was retained to conduct the value
     engineering workshop for the project at the 25% design
     completion stage. The project designer is A and B
     Associates, Inc.

          The workshop portion of the study was held during the
     week of April 11-15, 1984 at A and B's offices. Prior to
     the value engineering workshop, the VETC visited the
     existing facilities to review physical constraints and to
     evaluate existing plant and operational procedures.

          An oral report of the VE workshop results was made to
     the Designer and representatives of the Sanitary District
     on April 15, 1984.

          Materials provided to the VE team by A and B
     Associates for this VE study included the following:

       •  201 Facilities Plan  (Vols. 1, 2, 3, and  4), dated
          March 1982.

       •  Process Design Data,  dated September 1983 and revised
          October 29, 1983.
                               Dl-1
                              Sample

-------
   •  Site plan with new facilities located.

   •  Plan and section drawings and sketches for all new
      structures at the 25% completion stage.

   •  Hydraulic Profile (latest revision 3/12/84).

   •  Unit process flow sheets for all new facilities
      (latest revision 3/12/84).

   •  Process Motor List.

   •  Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and
      Analysis,  dated August 17, 1983.

   •  Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and  Analysis
      (Wastewater  Treatment Plant),  dated September 28,
      1983 .

   •   Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and  Analysis
      (Stormwater  Retention Basin),  dated October  9,  1983.

   •   Preliminary  Construction Cost  Estimate, dated March
      5,  1984.

   •   Narrative descriptions and design criteria.

   •   Electrical one-line diagram.

   •   State Recommended Standards  for  Sewage Works, dated
      March 1980.

   •   Miscellaneous supporting  data.

SCOPE OF  THE VALUE ENGINEERING  STUDY

      The  scope of the value engineering services for the
XYZ Wastewater Treatment Plant  includes two studies on the
proposed  expansion of the waste treatment facilities and
the excess flow treatment and storage facilities  The
collection system, sludge transport and off-site sludge
treatment facility are not part of the proposed expansion.
These facilities have sufficient capacity for the
projected loads.  The first study,  which is the scope of
this report,  is  the evaluation of the treatment plant and
the excess flow  facilities at the 25% design completion
stage. Layout,  hydraulic profile,  design  criteria,
equipment selection,  building layouts and the system
designs  for  electrical,  architectural treatment and
instrumentation  are the  basic areas  for review


                         Dl-2
                        Sample

-------
                    VALUE  ENGINEERING REPORT
                  XYZ  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT PLANT
                        SANITARY DISTRICT
                               USA
                   25% DESIGN COMPLETION STAGE

                           April  1984
                            SECTION 2

                       PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1  GENERAL

          The Sanitary District (The District) operates four
     wastewater treatment plants.  In the planning stage of the
     expansion program, the District commissioned preparation
     of a 201 Facilities Plan to address the future wastewater
     management needs of the entire District service area shown
     on Figure 2-1.* The report included recommendations to
     increase the treatment capacity of the plant at XYZ and
     construct new facilities to pretreat and store excess
     flows beyond the treatment plant capability. A and B
     Associates, Inc. was commissioned by the District to
     design the recommended facilities for the XYZ Plant.

          The treatment facilities will increase the average
     annual flow capacity from 12.0 million gallons per day
     (mgd) to 19.6 mgd and expand the plant for a maximum
     treated flow capacity of 39.2 mgd. There are no present
     facilities on-site to treat flows in excess of plant
     capacity. The new required facilities will be 50-million
     gallons capacity and include:  excess flow, first flush
     storage; pre-sedimentation; storage; and chlorination. The
     excess flow retained in the first flush,
     pre-sedimentation, and storage chambers will be conveyed
     to the treatment plant during periods of less than peak
     flow.

2.2  DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT UNITS

          The following description of the process elements has
     been excerpted from the narrative description of the
     design disciplines prepared by A and B and dated March 5,
     1984. Additional information concerning design procedures,
     codes, et al., may be found in this document.

*Not included with sample.
                              D2-1
                             Sample

-------
     The basic process expansion requirements were
evaluated on a conceptual basis during the preparation of
the Facilities Plan.  This description provides additional
information of process expansion developed prior to the
25% VE effort. The Process Design Data/ page D-ll, which
follow the unit description,  supplement and identify
design loadings and criteria  for each process area. The
site layout, Figure 2-2,  shows the existing and proposed
treatment units as presently  arranged.

     Comments from the owner  and detailed investigations
by the designer resulted  in some changes to the Facilities
Plan. These changes are included in this narrative.

PRELIMINARY TREATMENT

     Raw sewage will be pumped to the new raw sewage
junction chamber from the existing raw sewage pumping
station and from Pumping  Station No. 5 (PS-5). Existing
force mains will be extended  to the location of the new
junction structure. The raw sewage is screened with
mechanical bar screens at the raw sewage pumping station
and at PS-5. Screenings are landfilled. The raw sewage
pumping station includes  three pumps with a total capacity
of 36 mgd. PS-5 includes  four pumps with a total capacity
of 40 mgd.

     The new raw sewage junction chamber will include
control valves to direct  raw sewage to the new excess flow
facility when the flow exceeds 39.2 mgd.

     The new raw sewage meter will be a Parshall flume
with a 5-foot throat. Provisions for chemical addition
will be provided in the channel just upstream of the new
raw sewage meter. The chemicals that could be added
include ferric chloride,  polymer, chlorine, and hydrogen
peroxide. Existing storage and feed equipment will be
utilized for all chemicals except hydrogen peroxide. Only
hydrogen peroxide will be added to the raw sewage on a
continuous basis.

     The new raw sewage splitter box includes nine 5-foot
weirs to split the raw sewage flow to  the nine primary
clarifiers. Overflows from the sludge  thickening
facilities will be returned to the new raw sewage splitter
box  .. .
                          D2-3
                         Sample

-------
Satmple

-------
2.3  PROCESS DESIGN DATA
                 XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT  PLANT
                        SANITARY DISTRICT
               PLANT EXPANSION PROCESS DESIGN DATA

                         September  1983
                   Revision 1 October 29, 1983
                (Prepared by A and B Assoc. Inc.)

                        Table of Contents
Plant Expansion Design Data

Summary of Existing and Projected Flows

Process Design Data

     Wastewater Treatment Systems

     Primary Clarifiers
     Carbonaceous Aeration Tanks
     Secondary Clarifiers
     Nitrification Aeration Tanks
     Final Clarifiers

     Aeration Systems

     Carbonaceous Aeration System
     Nitrification Aeration System

     Sludge Pumping Systems

     Primary Sludge Pumps
     Carbonaceous Return Sludge Pumps
     Carbonaceous Waste Sludge Pumps
     Dilution Water Pumps
     Nitrification Return Sludge Pumps
     Nitrification Waste Sludge Pumps
     Dissolved Air Flotation Feed Pumps
     Sludge Transfer Pumps

     Solids Handling Systems

     Gravity Thickeners
     Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners
     Sludge Storage Tank
     Primary Grit Separators
     Scum Separation System

     Miscellaneous Systems
Page

D2-12

D2-13

D2-14

D2-14

D2-15
D2-16
D2-17
D2-18
D2-19

D2-20

D2-20
D2-21

D2-22

D2-22
D2-23
D2-24
D2-25
D2-26
D2-27
D2-28
D2-29

D2-30

D2-30
D2-31
D2-32
D2-33
D2-34

D2-35
                              D2-11
                              Sample

-------
Secondary Clarifiers

   Number of Units
      Existing
      New
      Total

   Tank Geometry
      Bays per tank
      Length
   Bay width
   Side water depth

   State SWD Criteria
   10 SS SWD Criteria

   Surface area per tank

   Total surface area

   SOR (Plant Influent)
      State SOR criteria
      10 SS SOR criteria
      Fac. Plan SOR

   Solids Loading
      MLSS
      Return sludge flow
      Total flow
      Total SS
      Loading

       10 SS loading criteria

   Weir length per tank

   Total weir length

   Weir loading (plant influent)
   State weir loading criteria
   10 SS weir loading criteria
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
sf
sf
gpd/sf
gpd/sf
gpd/sf
gpd/sf
mg/1
MGD
MGD
Ib
Ib/sf
Ib/sf
If
If
gpd/lf
gpd/lf
gpd/lf
Annual
Average
8
4
12
2
114
16.15
11
12 (min)
12 (min)
3,700
44,400
441
482
2,000
19.6
40.6
680,540 1
15.3

222.66
2,672
7,335
Maximum
Week





883
1,000
1,200
964
3,000
19.6
60.8
,521,220
34.3
50


14,670
30,000
15,000
                              D2-17
                             Sample

-------
                     VALUE  ENGINEERING REPORT
                  XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        SANITARY DISTRICT
                               USA
                   25% DESIGN COMPLETION STAGE

                            April 1984
                            SECTION 3

                   VALUE ENGINEERING PROCEDURE
3.1  GENERAL

          This section provides a description of the value
     engineering procedures followed during the study. It is
     included to allow the reader to:  follow the thought
     processes of the VE team; review the conclusions drawn
     from each phase and understand the reasons for the
     recommendations.

          The workshop followed the Value Engineering Job Plan.
     Each step in this plan plays an important part in
     achieving results and assuring eventual savings to the
     owner.  A systematic approach is used in a VE study and the
     key procedures followed are organized into three distinct
     parts:   1)  pre-workshop preparation; 2) VE workshop; and
     3) post-workshop procedures.

3.2  PRE-WORKSHOP PREPARATION

          Pre-workshop preparation consists of scheduling study
     participants and tasks; gathering necessary background
     information; and compiling project data into cost, energy
     and life cycle cost models.  Information relating to the
     design,  construction and operation of the facility is
     important as it forms the basis of comparison for the
     study effort.  Information relating to funding, project
     planning, operating needs, comparisons of system
     evaluations, basis of cost,  soils conditions and
     construction of the facility must be a part of the
     analysis ...
                              D3-1
                             Sample

-------
3.3  VE WORKSHOP

          The VE workshop was an intensive 40-hour work session
     which analyzed the project using the VE methodology. A
     five-phase Job Plan was used during the workshop to
     identify high initial, energy, and life cycle costs. The
     workshop defined the functional requirements needed to
     operate and maintain the facility properly. The portions
     of the project with high initial or energy cost-to-worth
     ratios were selected as potential areas for cost
     reductions .. .
          The Job Plan included the following five distinct
     phases:

             Information Phase
             Speculative/Creative Phase
             Evaluation/Analytical Phase
             Development/Recommendation Phase
             Report Phase

Information Phase

          To assist the VE team to understand the background
     and decisions that have  influenced the development of the
     design,  the design engineer presented an oral overview of
     the project ...
                              D3-4
                             Sample

-------
PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% Design) <
ITEM CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TE


Check one, use separate sheet (or each. «n
Construction Costs £J
O&M Costs D
CSI NO. Major Unit or Item
1 General Requirements
2 Sitework (including excavation)
3 Concrete
5 Miscellaneous Metals
6-9 Building Work
11 Mechanical Equipment
13 Instrumentation
15 Mechanical Components
16 Electrical

SUBTOTAL

Contingency






TOTAL
:OST SUMMARY
•AM NO.__L_ SHEET
ABC, Inc.

Replacement Costs
Energy Costs
Original Estimate
$ 247,000
5,228,400
9,444,500
1,256,300
965,000
5,613,000
500,000
4,603,800
2,063,000

29,921,000

1,496,000






31,417,000
f
I OF 1


D
D
New Estimate




















D3-7
Sample
WS-1

-------
en O
*O CD
M
w
1
fo










SUBTOTAL
29,921,000

21,010,000 !
T — J
1
GENERAL &
SITEWORK
3,002,000
^,678,000 J

SITEWORK
480,000
390,000

YARD
PIPING
1,033,000
910,000

YARD
ELECTRIC
839,000
L 728,000 j

INSTRUMEN-
TATION
500,000
L 500,000 _j

START-UP
& TEST
150,000
L 150,000 J










CONTINGENCY
1,496,000
[_1, 050, 000

I
PROCESS
26,919,000
18,332,000

I
HEADWORKS
114,000
1 110,000
1 	 _J

R.S.JUNCTIOt*
CHAMBER
53,000
L 53,000

R.S. METER/
WEIR BOX
61,000
57,000 '



J



i
L 	 1

=

I
I





TOTAL
31,417,000
22,060,000

1 *
CLARIFICA -
TION/AERATK
11,046,000
9,055,000
i 	 	 	 |

PRIMARY
2,581,000
2,082,000

SECONDARY
1,658,000
1,561,000

FINAL
3,863,000
_ 3,123,000
NIT/AERATIOr*
TANK
2,830,000
i


J
)N





1


i





| 	 J
1
SLUDGE
THICKENING
2,716,000
317,000

THICKENER
MODS
728,000
L 317,000

FLOATATION
THICKENER
1,988,000
	 Q 	
L J







1
i
I
1
Check one; use
present worth o
Constructioi
O&M Costs
Replaceme
Energy Co;
Electrical ir
Legend:





i
1


1
BUILDINGS
5,689,000
3,850,000

BLOWER
BUILDING
1,488,000
ul, 145, 000

CONTROL RM
EXPANSION
982,000
L 416, 000 J

ODOR CONTROI
BUILDING
1,964,000
1,249,000 _,

E.F. CONTROI
BUILDING
1,255,000
! 1 040 000 S


1
;

* Further breakdown in subsequent model.



j
i
i


I
t

one sheet for each. Indicate
r annual.
n Costs 62
n
nt/Salvage Costs D
sts n
ikwh D
COMPONENT OR
SYSTEM
ESTIMATE
WORTH

1
EXCESS
FLOW BASIN
7,354,000


15,000,000




L_

J





J





J





1
_J











1
1

1






I J



|_ 1



1
!_ J



1
1 1




i


H
3
O
1 ITEM CONSTRUCTION COST MODEL
1
O
!—•
U)
m
m
O
•n
1 PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% Design)
COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL |

-------
o
U)
CO
N)











	 . 	 _.
r
i


i 	 _ j

PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
2,581,000
2, 082, 000

EXCAVATION
225,000
l 	 	 |

CONCRETE
834,000


EQUIPMENT
886,000
1 	 _j

PIPING/
PLUMBING
316,000
I 	 _ _j












I
1 	 	

1
:LARIFICATIC
AERATION
11,046,000
9,055,000
T 	
1


u_ 	 _.

HVAC
93,000
L

ELECTRICAL
8,000
_ J

METALS
159,000
_ J

ARCHITECT
60,000
i
L 	 1



1
N














I 	

1
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
1,658,000 j
1,561,000

EXCAVATION
343,000
_, J

CONCRETE
641,000
L _ _l

EQUIPMENT
365,000
l__



L _ 	 1


1











I 	 	

1


I 	 J



L

ELECTRICAL
10,000
L J

METALS
275,000


ARCHITECT
24,000
L. _____ — J



!

Check one; use
present worth o
Constructioi
O&M Costs
Replaceme
Energy Cos
Electrical ir
Legend:






1
FINAL
CLARIFIERS
3,863,000
L3, 123, 000

EXCAVATION
651,400


CONCRETE
1,066,500
L _ J

EQUIPMENT
1,007,000
L j

PIPING/
PLUMBING
678,000
L _ 	 I










one sheet for each. Indicate
r annual.
i Costs 13
D
nt/Salvage Costs D
its D
i kwh D
COMPONENT OR
SYSTEM
ESTIMATE
WORTH

1






HVAC
186,000
l_



ELECTRICAL
95.000



_.
METALS
132,100


J

ARCHITECT
47,000
1_

_ 	 |



J








1
SIIT/AERATIO>
TANKS
2,830,000
2,289,000

EXCAVATION
523,000
|_ J

CONCRETE
1.345.000
L

EQUIPMENT
378,000

	 	
METALS/
PIPING
584,000
t




CLARIFICATION/AERATION SYSTEM
H
O
ITFM CONSTRUCTION COST MODEL FOR
m
S
z
0
1 — '
CO
m
O
•n
i — >
•Q
J3
E
m
3
3
IN
H
,— X
IS5
Ln
O
(D
0)
H-
TO
13
COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL

-------
PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% Desisn> COST (OR ENERGY) MODEL
ITEM

ENERGY UTILIZATION MODEL TEAM NO. l SHEET l OP 1


Check one, use one sheet for each. Indicate
present worm or annual.
Construction Costs G
O&M Costs G
Replacement/Salvage Costs G
[ Energy Costs Q
Electrical in kwh/year H


t
_J



i
1
1

ANNUAL
POWER COST
ON
m
m
, — t
, — i
ffi-
n
TOTAL PLANT
POWER
ON
O
ON
co

1
CM '
!__
r-Tl
col



COMPONENT OR
SYSTEM
ESTIMATE
WORTH
•b
o>
o>
0)
o
o
4-1
M
O
0)
O
PH
0)
4-J
PROCESS
STREAM
1
ON in'
ON CO|
r^ ON' —
CO ON|
in --i|
i — < r^l
co. CM;

OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT

n
in ml
ON CM|
m •*)
' — i col
ON O.
1
-
ABC , Inc .
HT*" 	 . 	 . 	 .
[DISINFECTIO]
EFFLUENT

SLUDGE
THICKENING

ADVANCED
SECONDARY

SECONDARY

PRIMARY

PRELIMINARY


BUILDING
LIGHTING

o
CO
CO
CM
O
CM
o
00
CO
CM
O
CM
EFFLUENT
FILTERS

o
r-H
CM
vD
CO


0
00
in
o
fi
CM


O
CO
CM
co
o
, — 1
O
O
o
in
CO
	 1
0
00
vO
^O
^o
00
_ J
FLOTATION
THICKENER

O
00
r-H
in
r-H


AERATION
BLOWERS



-------
PROFIT XYZ WWTP (25% Desi8n)
ITEM PRELIMINARY/PRIMARY TREATMENT
and SECONDARY TREATMENT

Equipment Description
Raw Sewage Pumps
H and V
Sump Pump
Air Compressor
Sump Pump
Screens
Flush Pump/Nozzle
Dewatering Pumps
Clarifier Collectors
Cross Collectors
Scum Collectors
Sludge Pumps
Sump Pump
Secondary
Blowers
Clarifier Collectors
Cross Collectors
Scum Collectors
RAS Pumps
WAS Pumps

TOTALS
Motors
No.
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
9
9
9
6
1

4
12
12
24
4
4

(this
HP(ea)
200
15
7.5
7.5
10
2
125 +
40
5
0.5
0.5
0.5
15
0.75

500
0.5
0.5
0.5
50
15

sheet)
Eff
70%
80
70
70
70
70
70
70
75
70
75
70
70

70
60
70
70
70
70


No.
On-Line
1.2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
9
9
3
1

2
12
12
24
2
2


ELECTRICAL ENERGY
TEAM NO, .1 SHFFT 1 OF 1
ABC , Inc .
Avg. Annual
Operating
Hours
8,760
8,760
2,000
1,000
1,000
400
1,250
4,500
8,760
4,000
365
8,760
300

8,760
8,760
8,760
8,760
8,650
3,000


Annual
kwh
2,240,500
140,035
15,985
10,660
10,660
1,700
219,800
24,000
42,010
19,180
1,630
420,100
300

9,335,600
65,350
76,240
152,480
933,650
95,900

13,805,780
Peak
Hourly
Load (kw)





















^X^
                                       D3-15
Three additional sheets not included   sample
                                                      WS-3

-------
PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% Desist O&M LAROR
MAJOR UNIT OR ITEM TEAM NO. 1 SHEET 1 OF 1
TOTAL FACILITY WORKFORCE

Classification
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Chief Operators
Operator 3's
Operator 4's
Operator Trainees
Plant Mechanics
Laborers
Summer Help
SUBTOTAL
Overtime
Longevity
SUBTOTAL
Fringes (44%)


TOTAL LABOR COST
ABC , Inc .
Number
1
1
4
4
2
2
2
5
2
23







Annual
Salary
30,000
25,000
20,780
18,387
17,330
15,000
20,050
17,621
2,240








D3-19 	 	 "
Sample
Annual
Cost
30,000
25,000
83,120
73,550
34,660
30,000
40,100
78,105
4,420
398,955
51,100
5,230
455,285
200,325


655,610
WS-4A

-------
PRO.IFHT XYZ WWTP (25% Design)
ITCTIUI TOTAL FACILITY CHEMICAL USAGE


Unit Process
1
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
GRAVITY
THICKENERS




TOTALS
Type of Chemical
Hydrogen Peroxide
Avg.
Units/
Day
1350
Ibs






Annual
Units
492, 75C






Unit
Cost
0.35






Annual
Cost
172,500






O&M CHEMICALS
TEAM NO... 1_ SHFFT l OF1 ..
ABC , Inc .
Type of Chemical
NaCl
Avg.
Units/
Day
910
Ibs
180
Ibs





Annual
Units
332,150
65,000





Unit
Cost
0.02
0.02





Annual
Cost
6600
1300





Type of Chemical
Sodium Hydroxide
Avg.
Units/
Day
80
Ibs
16
Ibs





Annual
Units
29,200
6,000





Unit
Cost
0.20
0.20





Annual
Cost
5800
1200






Unit Process
EFFLUENT
DISINFECTION
EXCESS FLOW BASIN
DISINFECTION
GRAVITY
THICKENERS



TOTALS
Type of Chemical
CHLORINE
815
Ibs






297, 50C






0.08






23,800






Type of Chemical
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE








3200
gals






0.50






1600





Type of Chemical
CATIONIC POLYMER









246,000
Ibs






1.23






302,600




D3-20
Sample
WS-4B

-------
PROJECT 	XYZ WWTP (25% Design)



ITEM	TOTAL FACILITY	
                               LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
                               TEAM NO—I	 SHEET.
           OF.1.
                                                          ABC, Inc.
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST       Reference WS-2A




   CATEGORY               COMMENT/CALCULATION




   Electricity




   • Motors	   Reference WS-3  (33.667.164 kwh/yr)
     Lighting
                                                   $31,417,000
Reference WS-3 (2,81.1.930 kwh/yr)
                                                    COST



                                               Annual    P'fse"1
                                                         Worth
$1,515.022  14.953.267





   126.537   1.248.920
   Other Utilities
    Water
Unit Cost of $1.50 per 1000 gallons
    Natural Gas	   Unit  Cost of $1.307 per therm





    Fuel oil 	   Gasoline for plant vehicles
    Steam
  Chemicals  	  Reference WS-4B
  Other
  • Sludge Disposal   Landfilled; 13xlQ6 gal/yr;  20% solids




  . Equipment Rental/Repair
  .Miscellaneous   Contract labor,  insurance,  supplies,

                   telephone                       '	
  Labor
Reference WS-4A
  Replacement    Reference WS-4C
 12.000
                                              170,000
                                               2,000
                                               None
                                             515.400
                                             540,000
                                             130,500
                                             196,900
                                             655,610
                                              34,000
118,440
             1,677,900
                19,740
               -0-
                                                                             5.086.998
            5,329,800
                                                                             1,288,035
            1,943,403
            6,470,871
              335,580
                                                            TOTAL LCC  $69'889'954
                                      D3-21

                                      Sample
                                                               WS-4D

-------
Speculative/Creative Phase
          This step in the VE workshop involved developing
          creative ideas.  The VE team recorded all conceivable
          methods of providing the necessary functions within
          the project at a lower cost to the owner;  or with an
          improvement to the project quality. Many of the ideas
          were generated during the function analysis by
          determining the  worth of ...
                             D3-24
                             Sample

-------




































PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% Design)
ITEM Wastewater Treatment Facility
BASIC FUNCTION REMOVE POLLUTANTS
















.2
75
c
§
"o
c
LL











S
0>
E

8













00
Worth3

! !
sands)
3
0
4-1
' H





c
Functio




T>
_C



C
o
z

HI


Sub Component
Description



^
c

CD
ITj
4-
0)
4J
CO
C


m

CT
CTl
^
•sf
in
ro
^
w
«



0
rH
0
N
•H
O1
W


Excess flow basin












CN

o
o
iH
m
in
CM
M
w
«



a
•H

CD
CO
B
ffi


Control Building






M

z
Reduce


CN
H
CN
CO
O
CN
00
m
CN

m



Solids
0)
rH
4-1
4-1
0)
W


Primary Clarifiers

CQ
•H
(I)
S
0)
rd
4->
C
4-1
Eliminc


rH

rH
VD
rH
CO
m
rH

«



Solids

4J

c
•H

•H
P
X!
Reduce


ro

rH
rH
CO
CO
rH

PQ


CO
Proces
4-1
o
0,
en


Blowers


FUNCTION ANALYSIS No_2 	
TEAM NO. 1 SHEET 1 OF 2
ABC, Inc. 1






M
0)
fi
Reduce


ro
1-1
ro
CN
rH
ro
ro
CO
ro

CQ



Solids
0)
rH
4J
0)
en


Final Clarifiers
fi
T3
•H
pq
fa
w
CN

(i?
in
CO
ro
H
•CO-


^
CN
H

CN
CO
CD

cn



CO
Proces
4J
o
ft
B1
w


Control Room



e
(U
CO
CO

r«
rH
O
0)
W
D


«
rH
CTl
CN
iH
CTl
iH

K



i Odors
4J
rtf
•H
rH
W


Odor Control







0)
c
CD
o
•H
4-1



rH
CO
CN
t^

ro


«



Sludge
j^
0)
u
o


Gravity Thickeners








0)
4-1
Elimina


8

o
'
CO
CO
CTl
rH

X



Sludge
4-1
0)
O
C
0
o

rn
Flotation Thickener





CN

0)
CD
W
o
Tl
a
•H
c
0
CJ

rl
o £j
ro £
0) .(0
jl E
CO


01
n
E
C ^
i^w
6 o

c
t3
§.?
1B = Basic Funct
S = Secondary F
































D3-25 	 '
Sample WS'5

-------

W D
O OJ
3 i
>o to
fD
V
01




_
Function Analysis
Sub Component
Description
Instrumentation
Raw Sewage Junction
Chambers
RS Meter & Weir Box
Yard Piping
Site Electrical
Site Work
Start-up & test




Function
Verb
Control

Divert
Measure
Convey
Distr-
bute
Provide
Prepare
Verify

CON


Noun
Process
Flow
Flow
Waste
Energy
Access
Space
)peration
SUBTOTA
^INGENCY
TOTAL

Kind1
B
S
S
RS
B
RS
S




Initial
Cost2
(In tl
500
53
61
1,033
839
480
150
29,396
1,470
30,866

Worth3
usands)
500
53
57
910
728
390
150
21,417
1,071
22,488

Cost/
Worth
1
1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1


1.4

Comments
	 , 	 — • —

Appears low









1B = Basic Function 2 Original 3 Worth - Least Cost to
S - Secondary Function Cost Estimate Accomplish Function. 	


siNvirmoa aAowaH NOIlONOd OISV9
	 , 	 .. ..._ 	 .^-^..rvnc.pM 	 IAIU 1 1
n
H
O
\l
» C.
r
Z "
>
I
)
u
t
D
1
•3
D
D
-t
D
3
rt
D
O
I-1-
H
-"•
H
T1
Z
z
m
m
H
to
0
Tl
3
3
>
M
1
>
SI
to
en
*
O
(D
w
H-
FUNCTION ANALYSIS NO_I 	


-------
	 	 	 ,
PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% design) CREATIVE/EVALUATION No
ITEM Speculative /Creative Phase TEAM NO. 1 SHEET x OF 5














Z
O
p
3

LU














CREATIVE
T 	 — 	


ABC, Inc. j
,
V)
o
z
h-
OC



(A
LU
O

>
O
<
5





VNTAGES
^
O








LU
Q
o
z




























0

«
H

RAW SEWAGE JUNCTION CEl





00







cu
o
!a
H G
O CU
M 4J
-P C
o e
5 0)
O M
r1 3
CM S



unction
m
Improve

cu
rH
td
>

rH
m
rH
4J
X!
1
4-1
(U
4->
(8
W
CU
4->
nj
cu
CO
H
b



en




















	 ffl 	
•H
4J
(8
M
01
&

CU
H
•H
1
Review constructability
og
1
*



O
H
















unction
blems
4-4 O
Improve
fewer pr



H
-H
S
£
73
G
ITJ
(1) W
Use control gate on flun
to excess flow facilitie
n
*



LT>















£
3
etering t
e
Improve
down



-P
c
18
rH
ft
CO
Provide 2 Parshall flume
i

1


o
H















>i
ad loss;
perabilit
cu o
Reduce h
improve



o
-P
CO
3
4-1
Review size and number o
excess flow
in
i












m
i
"
3
*
0)
•H
!
u




w
0
.,H
-P
•H

•H
U
(8
Z
o
rH
M-l
CO 4->
CO 3

•H 0
ft M
0)1
g,.H
H O
W 4J
I
O



W
Q








CO
o
o
-S1
CO
cu
T3
£



mction
U_t
Improve



LI
o
M-l CO
•>
X 0
O rH
4J .G
•H CU
Consider larger flow spl
energy dissipation at hi





w
Q















s*
.exibilit;

Provide j

•o
CU
•O

8<

0)
X)
X
o
How will flow splitter b
in future
oo




w
Q
















operatioi
ility
... -y
Emergency
construtc







X
o
o
Second pipe to splitter 1
en

































£T
5
H
i
w
















4J
•H
rH
-H
CO
(8
CU



-P
CO
O
O
•CU
O
3
1








In system storage
rH
U



































d 1
O
•H
+J

rn
CO
G
&>
•H
W
CU
T3

II
W
Q

W
2


UJ
CD
DC
O
>
LL
I-
LU
_l
II
,_
LU
CO
or
O
>
LL
t—
CO
O

O
*



D3-28
Sample
WS-7

-------
PROIF^T xvz »»TP ,25* ^n, CREATIVE/EVALUATION No 	
.,...„ TEAM NO._J 	 SHEETS 	 OFS 	
ABC , Inc .







EVALUATION
















CREATIVE




O
P
tc.
Ul
o


DISADVAtt


V)
Ul
O
VANTA
O









Ul
o


o
z

co









0

-P
o
a
•o
Improve







Cfl
.^4
Paved sloped bottom bas

CM
i
fa
w

n






Odor control





•P
W
o
o
Reduce









Lagoon

ro
fa
H

ro






Maintenance





U)
o
o
Reduce



a)
rl
o


u
e
Rubber liner rather tha

•*
i
fa
w

in






Acceptance





-P
0
u
Reduce









Swirl concentrator

m
i
fa
w
co












w
o
u
Reduce



c
o
•H


(Ti
U
Raise tank to reduce ex

IO
fa
w
en






Aesthetics




y
•> o
•P 0)
01 W
0
O T3
Reduce
improve








c
Fence rather than raili

r-
&




0)
tr>
a
Criteria cha





+j
M
o
o
Reduce









Expand primary settling

CO
i
fa
w
m






Acceptance





-p
o
o
Reduce

0)
-p
i.
•P
0)
u
q
0
o

Store first flush-swirl
rest

en
fa
H
co












•p
w
o
o
Reduce




-------

PROJECT XYZ WWTP (25% desi
Q
rf
(/)
E







w
UJ
C3
<
Z
>
Q






LU
O

O
z



CO























4->
w
0
o

Reduce





Reduce number of tanks
rH
1
O
ft



CO


















G
o
•H
4J
03
0)

>i
U_l
Simpli





Review train concept
CM
i
u
ft
























,H
1
U
ft
4J
•H

Review


i — i
o
•rH
4->
Check soluble BOD of pharmaceu
wastes
ro
i
O
ft



CO























4->
u)
O

Reduce

in
0)
4J
ro
i — i in
tii a

C
£i

Improve





Revise influent channel
CM
1
O


































M
0)

CREATIVE/EVALUATION No
TEAM NO. 1 SHEET4 OF 5
ABC , Inc .



en

0)
u
G
0)
'd
n>

G
o
o
m
o

in
01
0
rH
(11
0
w







4J
O
o
Reduce





Remove walkways and handrail e
other tank
n
i
O
C/3
D3-31
Sample





c





















c
c
4->
u
G
5

Improve



0)
• H

Add metering for RAS for clari
9-12

i
u
w



CO























4J
in
0
c
Reduce

w
0)
m
rH
CM
Lj
Use concrete planks vs. checke
in selected areas
LT)
1
U
w




































EXISTING BLOWER BUILDING (EBB)





CO
Q


















(U
O
G
(13
G
4J
G
4-> -H
in ra
o g
0
Reduce
improve





Use centrifugal blowers for
carbonaceous aeration
rH
eq
w


































w
^.
NITRIFICATION AERATION SYSTEM




















LU
m
o:
O
^
LL

CO
LU
II
••-

LU
m
DC
O
u.

co
O
^>
O
*


WS-7

-------
                    VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT
                 XYZ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        SANITARY  DISTRICT
                               USA
                   25%  DESIGN  COMPLETION STAGE

                           April 1984
                            SECTION 4

                       SUMMARY OF RESULTS
4.1  GENERAL
          The results are the central feature of a VE study
     since they represent the benefits which can be realized by
     the owner and the designer. The results will directly
     affect the project design and require coordination between
     the designer and the owner's design and operations staff
     to determine the implications of each proposal. The
     results of this VE study are contained in the
     recommendations included in this section of the report.
     Also included are VE design suggestions.

          The development of a recommendation consists of a
     summary of the preliminary design, a life cycle cost
     comparison and a descriptive evaluation of the advantages
     and disadvantages of the proposed recommendation. Each
     recommendation included in this report is accompanied by a
     brief narrative to compare the original design and the
     proposed change. Sketches, where appropriate, are also
     presented. The comparisons reflect unit quantities,
     wherever possible, as well as overall  cost. A breakdown of
     cost  is provided and life  cycle cost savings are  shown.

          When  reviewing study  results, it  is important to
     consider each part of a recommendation on  its own merits.
     There  is often a tendency  to disregard a recommendation
     because of  concern regarding one portion of  it. However,
     consideration should be given  to the areas within a
     recommendation  that are acceptable and those parts should
     be  applied  to the final design  ...
                               D4-1
                              Sample

-------
en o
gf
•O CO
M
(D









ABC , Inc .
4-15-84 XYZ WWTP
SUBJECT: CLIENT: PAGE
VE (25% Design) Sanitary 1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM VE RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM
NO.

JC-1
JC-3
JC-5


EF-2

EF-7
EF-10
EF-12
EF-13
EF-15
EF-16
EF-18
EF-19
EF-24

EFC-1
EFC-2


DESCRIPTION
RAW SEWAGE JUNCTION CHAMBER (JC)
Use sluice gates in lieu of butterfly valves
Use control gate on flume.
Review size & number of pipes to excess flow
basin
EXCESS FLOW BASIN (EF)
Construct excess flow basin w/paved sloping
surfaces
Use chain link fence instead of alum. handrail
Eliminate three division walls from basin
Eliminate one division wall from basin
Lower wall height between chambers
Eliminate weir into chlorine contact chamber
Re-configure excess flow basin design
Eliminate Parshall flume. Use weir.
Reduce freeboard of the excess flow basin
Lower grading around excess flow basin
EXCESS FLOW CONTROL BUILDING (EFC)
Delete one flushing water pump.
Reduce size of basement & increase above
grade structure

PRESENT WORTH COST SAVINGS
ORIGINAL
COST

53,000
52,000

362,600


3,950,000
105,000
555,480
185,160
912,000
2,000
6,407,000
32,220
2,150,000
105,000

32,000

813,700

PROPOSED
COST

52,000
15,000

170,000


1,715,000
12,600
-0-
-0-
360,000
-0-
4,334,000
8,000
2,106,000
-0-

22,500

298,764

INITIAL
COST
SAVINGS

1,000
37,000

192,600


2,235,000
92,400
555,480
185,160
552,000
2,000
2,073,000
16,220
44,000
105,000

9,500

514,936

O&M
COST
SAVINGS

IMPROVED
7,700

-0-


-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
(44,400
-0-
(49,350
-0-
-0-
IMPROVED

IMPROVED

IMPROVED

TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS

1,000
44,700

192,600


2,235,000
92,400
555,480
185,160
507,600
2,000
2,023,650
16,220
44,000
105,000

9,500

514,936

WS-10

-------
en  o
    *>
BV: ABC, inc.
4/15/84
PROJECT: xyz WWTp S
UBJECT: vE (25% DESIGN) CLIENT: PAGE 2
Sanitary 3
District
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM VE RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM
NO.

PC-1
PC-2
PC-4


SC-3
SC-5


NAS-1

NAS-5

NAS-1 3
NAS-16


PC-6

DAF-1



DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY CLARIFIER (PC)
Reduce number of tanks

required
Review flow train concept
Provide concrete planks instead of checkered
plate covers in selected areas
SECOONDARY CLARIFIERS
(SO
Remove walkway & handrail every other tank
Provide concrete planks instead of checkered
plate covers in selected areas
NITRIFICATION AERATION
Relocate north gallery
SYSTEM (HAS)
adjacent to nitrifica-
tion tanks
Substitute WYSS diffuser for coarse bubble
aeration devices
Consolidate nitrification tank mixing chamber
Reverse orientation of mixing chambers to
facilitate future expansion
FINAL CLARIFIERS (PC)
Improve final clarifier sludge removal
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENERS (DAF)
Delete dissolved air flotation thickeners

PRESENT WORTH COST SAVINGS
ORIGINAL
COST

2,581,000


51,200

33,325

64,000


40,100

-
s 149, OOC



40,OOC

1,293, OOC

PROPOSED
COST

1,032,000


7,200

-0-

9,000


-0-

-
47,800



-0-

486,200

INITIAL
COST
SAVINGS

1,549,000


44,000

33,325

55,000


40,100

-
101,200



40,000

806,800

O&M
COST
SAVINGS

86,070


-0-

-0-

-0-


IMPROVED

1,428,600
-0-

DESIGN

IMPROVED

636, 40C

TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS

1,635,070


44,000

33,325

55,000


40,100

1,428,600
101,200

SUGGESTION

40,000

1,443,200

WS-10

-------
  PROJECT   XYZ  WWTP (25% Design)
  ITEM REVIEW  SIZE AND NUMBER OF PIPES
     TO EXCESS  FLOW BASIN
VE RECOMMENDATION NO. JC-5
TEAM NO..
SHEET.
                                                  ABC, Inc.
 ORIGINAL: (Attach sketch where applicable)

 Flow from the  junction chamber to the retention  basin is via 2-48 inch
 ?Sf in??'  *he.maximum headloss at 90 MGD is  some  7  feet, meaning ?he
 excess flow basin must be placed deep into the ground.

 (See attached  sketch JC-5-1)
PROPOSED: (Attach sketch where applicable)

Change the pipeline sizes to  1-36"  diameter and 1-60" diameter to reduce
headloss from 7 feet at maximum  flow conditions to about  3  5  feet   The
result is that the tanks may  be  raised some 3.5 feet.  Scouring veloci-
ties  are maintained by using  a smaller pipe for low flow  conditions and
a  larger pipe for higher flows.  (See attached sketch JC-5-1)
DISCUSSION:
     LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
                       ORIGINAL
                                              PRESENT WORTH COSTS
                                   INITIAL COST
                                    362,600
     O & M COSTS
                                                                    TOTAL
                      PROPOSED
                                    170,000
                        SAVINGS
                                    192,600
       -0-
                                  D4(JC-5)-l
                                   Sample
                                                                  192,600
                            WS-8

-------
<
lu
D

1
I
\


1 T~ "~
9
V,
f
L)
<
c
  <£

^1
  VJ
                               2^
                               or ^
                               at n
                                     Vft
      z?
                 T
^5
           D4(JC-5)-2

            Sample
                                                      -J
                                                      *r ^.
                                                      ?  I
                                                      o

-------
CALCULATION  SHEET
                       (zs%
Subject
                                                        .,     ~>       .
                                                        Page  3  of  &>
            go
          36
            "
           27
                                            0.57
                                  r  70
              ALLOTS
                                          or  7-***
                                          c*

-------
CALCULATION SHEET                                         Page  4  of  4
          Subject                        Date        „    No.
                                         Calculations By
                                     2000
                                              Be,
                           ,000

-------
  PROJECT  XYZ WWTP (25% Design)	

  ITEM  REDUCE  FREEBOARD OF THE EXCESS

        FLOW BASIN
VE RECOMMENDATION NO.
TEAM NO..
SHEET.
                       OF_
                                                  ABC,  Inc.
 ORIGINAL: (Attach sketch where applicable)


 The top of  the  perimeter wall is at elevation  674.00.   The water surface
 at maximum  flow is  at elevation 672.72 and  at  full flow it is at elevation
 672.10.  Corresponding freeboards are 1.28'  and  1.90'.
PROPOSED: (Attach sketch where applicable)

 Reduce elevation of  top  of perimeter wall to 673.5',  resulting in a re-
 duced freeboard of 0.78'  (maximum flow) and 1.40  (full  flow).
DISCUSSION:


 Freeboard is required only  for wave action and to contain  pile-up of
 floatables.   The freeboard  provided after the proposed change  is 1.4'
 under full flow and 0.78' under maximum flow.  These are judged to"be
 sufficient.
     LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
                                              PRESENT WORTH COSTS
                                   INITIAL COST
     O & M COSTS
                                                                    TOTAL
                       ORIGINAL
                                   2,150,000
         -0-
        2,150,000
                      PROPOSED
                                   2,106,000
         -0-
       2,106,000
                        SAVINGS
                                       44,000
         -0-
           44,000
                                 D4(EF-19}-1
                                  Sample
                             WS-8

-------
       APPENDIX E




SAMPLE FINAL  VE REPORT

-------
FINAL VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT
     SECOND VE STUDY  (70%)
          CITY OF MNO
  EPA GRANT NO. C-000000-000
           June 1984
            OWNER
     MNO SANITARY DISTRICT
          DESIGNER

   Y AND Z ASSOCIATES,  INC,
              USA
        VE CONSULTANT

           DEF, INC.
              USA

-------
                             SECTION 1

                           INTRODUCTION

 PROJECT

      The  City  of  MNO's  proposed wastewater  treatment project
 involves  improvements to  the existing activated sludge treatment
 process and  expansion of  the facility's  average capacity from 20
 MGD  to 30  MOD.

      The  estimated  total  construction cost  for  the  project  prior
 to the VE  study was $14,500,000.

 VE STUDY

      The  results  of the first  and  second VE study are summarized
 below in Table 1.   The  total project  capital  savings achieved
 from the  two studies was  approximately 11%  of the project's
 original  construction cost  estimate.   The present worth of  the
 O&M  savings  represents  approximately  6%  of  the  project's original
 construction cost.  The first  and  second study  were conducted at
 the  25% and  70% stage of  the project's design,  respectively.

      This  Final VE  Report presents  the results  of the second VE
 study performed by  DBF, Inc.   It completes  the  VE effort on the
 City's proposed wastewater  treatment  project.   Table 2  of this
 report contains the responses  to each  of the VE recommendations
 developed  during  the 70%  VE  workshop.  The  redesign costs and
 implementation schedule for  all accepted VE recommendations are
 contained  in Table  3.

      A copy of the  VE Report  from DBF, Inc. is  appended.

 COST  SAVINGS

      Total estimated savings from the  implementation of  the
 accepted VE recommendations  are summarized  below:

                             Table  1

           Initial  (Capital)   Present  Worth   Total  Present
              Savings          (O&M) Savings   Worth  Savings

 25% Study       $1,120,000       $320,000     $1,440,000

 70% Study         450,000        530,000        980,000

TOTAL           $1,570,000       $850,000       $2,420,000
                              E-l
                             Sample

-------
                                                                          TABLE 2

                                                        SUMMARY  OF  VE  RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSE
0)

I-1
n>
  M
VE Recommendation

1.  Reclaim & reuse existing
    D.I. and steel pipe.

2.  Eliminate standby power;
    use IP and L capability.

3.  Delete main circuit breaker
    and current limit fuses, and
    reduce conduit size.

4.  Use central computer for
    electrical load management.

5.  Simplify slab placement
    sequence on clarifiers.

6.  Use 18-inch Class 50
    D.I. pipe for the force
    main from Station A to the
    plant influent in lieu of
    24-inch.

7.  use Grade 60 reinforcing
    steel in lieu of Grade 40.

8.  Eliminate the berm and
    provide surface grading
    for drainage around
    settling tanks.

9.  Eliminate roof overhangs
    except at doors (Pretreat-
    ment Bldg.)

10. Modify blower capacity
    for grit chamber.

11. Reduce bar screen divider walls.


Response
Accepted
Accepted
Option A
Partially
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted
Accepted

Initial
Savings
$25,000
237,000
22,000
(-100,000)
27,000
35,000
211,000
34,000
Present Worth Total
O&M Present Worth
Savings Savings
$25,000
124,000 361,000
22,000
342,000 242,000
27,000
35,000
211, 000
34,000
                                                        Accepted



                                                        Accepted


                                                        Rejected
    5,000



(-11,000)


   17,000
64,000
 5,000



53,000


17,000

-------
                            SECTION 2

                 RESPONSE TO VE RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1   RECOMMENDATION/RESPONSE

      Item No.  1;   Reclaim/Reuse Existing D.I,  and Steel Pipe
      Modify specifications to include an allowance for all D.I.
      and steel pipe which can be salvaged and  reused on the
      project.   All unused salvaged piping would be turned over
      to the City.

      Response
      Accepted.

      Item No.  2;   Eliminate Standby Power; Use IP and L
      Eliminate the standby power generation system and make use
      of IP and L  generating capability.

      Response
      During consideration of this recommendation, the original
      recommendation was rejected due to  regulatory constraints;
      however,  two different options were identified.  These are
      as follows:

      Option A:  Install both proposed standby  generators to
      allow start-up of the 1,750 hp effluent pumps.   However,
      one 600 hp effluent pump drive unit will  not be installed
      at this time since under the peak flow conditions of 60
      mgd, the  effluent can be pumped into the  injection wells.
      The elimination of one effluent pump does not reduce the
      plant's total reliability but it will result in higher
      power costs  in the early design years.

      Option B:  Install one generator in lieu  of two proposed
      units. This  would require EPA to permit  less than 100
      percent emergency generation and allow limited  discharge  of
      treated effluent into the Collection Basin.  However,  one
      generator would not be adequate for pumping untreated
      sewage during periods of power outage since two generators
      are needed to operate the 1,750 hp  effluent pumps required
      for peak  flows.  The existing plant generator cannot be
      utilized  in  an automatic mode to substitute for one of the
      proposed  units.  This option reduces the  overall plant
      maintenance  reliability, and allows periodic discharge of
      treated effluent into the Collection Basin.

      We recommend  that Option A be implemented.
                              E-3
                             Sample

-------
 Item No.  3;  Delete Main Circuit Breaker  and Current
 Limit Fuses,  and Reduce Conduit Size
 The recommendation is  to (1)  delete the  main circuit
 breaker at the motor control  centers,  (2)  reduce conduit
 size to NEC  standard,  and (3)  use  intermediate  grade
 conduit with socket connections.

 Response
 (1)   Accepted.
 (2)   Rejected.   The conduits  are now sized to allow for
 future expansion.
 (3)   Accepted.

 Item No.  4;   Use Central Computer  for  Electrical Load
 Management

 Response
 Accepted.

 Item No.  5;   Simplify  Clarifier Slab Placement  Sequence

 Reduce the number  of pours on  Clarifiers T-12A,  B,  and C
 from sixteen  pours  each  to six pours each.

 Response
 Accepted.

 ITEM NO.  6; Use  18-inch  Class-50 Ductile Iron Pipe  for
 the  Station A to Plant  Influent Force Main
 Use  18-inch Class-50 ductile iron pipe on  the downgrade
 section of the Section  A to plant influent  force main in
 lieu of the specified  24-inch  pipe.  Affected length is
 7100  feet.

 Response
 Rejected.  If the force  main is reduced from  24  inches to
 18 inches, the frictional head loss with a  C-value  of 100
 is 57.7 feet, which is greater than  the 44  feet of
 available  static head.    If the pipe  is reduced,  "pigging"
 will  require  a special tee and structure (cost $6,000).

 Item  No. 7;   Use Grade-60 Reinforcing Steel
 Use Grade-60  reinforcing steel in lieu of the specified
 Grade-40.  Grade-60 is  more common and available than
 Grade-40.  The increase  in allowable stress will reduce  the
 amount of  steel required.

Response
Accepted.
                        E-4
                       Sample

-------
2.2
Item No. 8;  Eliminate the Berm and Provide Surface
Grading Around Final Settling Tanks
Eliminate the berm (diked area) and associated drainage
swales and provide surface grading for drainage around the
final settling tanks.  The berm offers protection greater
than that required since top of concrete is 14.5 feet and
the 100-year flood level is projected to be 14.25 feet.

Response
Accepted.

Item No. 9:  Eliminate Roof Overhangs Except at Doors

Response
Accepted.

Item No. 10;  Modify Aeration Blower Capacity for
Grit Chamber

Install four 7.5 HP positive displacement blowers instead
of two 20 HP positive displacement blowers.  Normal
operation will be at flow of 10 MGD, requiring use of only
2 of 6 aerated grit chambers.  One 7.5 HP blower can serve
2 grit chambers at approximately one-third the power cost
of a 20 HP blower.  As flow increases, add grit chambers in
banks of two.

Response
Accepted.

Item No. 11;  Reduce Size of Bar Screen Divider Walls

Response
Rejected.  The 16-inch thickness downstream of the bar
screens is dictated by the depth of grout pocket required
at the bar screens for installation.  Wall thickness of
6-inches and grout pocket of 10-inches is required between
bar screens for installation of the specified type of bar
screen.

DISCUSSION

COST DIFFERENCES

     New cost estimates were developed for Item  2 since  the
accepted option is different from  the VE recommendation.
                              E-5
                             Sample

-------
                             SECTION  3

            IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND  REDESIGN COSTS
Table  3  summarizes calendar time-f-or;  implementation and redesign
costs.

                              TABLE  3
 Item No.         Implementation Time           Redesign Costs

     1                nil                                  0

     2                3 weeks                         3,500

     3                1 day                             600

     4                3 weeks                         4,000

     5                1 day                             700

     6

     7                4 weeks                         3,500

     8                1 week                          1,500

     9                1 day                             500

     10               1 week                          1,800

     11
                                   Total            $16,100
 Implementation of these  accepted recommendations will  be
 concurrent with the normal  design process and will not cause a
 delay in completion of the  facility design.
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1984 0-461-221/24008

                                E-6
                               Sample

-------
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL  60604-3590

-------