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 OFI
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 NOI 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
------- |