HomeMy WebLinkAboutCH2M HILL AMENDMENT 6 TO STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
~.. 'i,
",
CH2MHILL AMENDMENT 6 to STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This AMENDMENT 6 to STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES is between CH2M HILL INC., and
Augusta, Georgia, acting by and through the Augusta-Richmond County Commission ("OWNER") for a PROJECT
generally described as:
Program Management Services For Bond Issue Projects For The Augusta Utilities Department
This AMENDMENT 6 is to the AGREEMENT between CH2M HILL INC. ("PROGRAM MANAGER"), and The Augusta-
Richmond County Commission ("OWNER"), Dated April 6, 1998, for a PROJECT generally described as:
, Program Management Services for 2002 Series Bond Issue Projects for the Augusta Utilities Department
The purpose of this AMMENDMENT 6 is as follows: furnish specific services that are in addition to those outlined in
AGREEMENT or previous amendments of AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROGRAM MANAGER will perform the Scope of Services set forth in Attachment A.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION
OWNER will compensate PROGRAM MANAGER as set forth in Attachment B.
ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT
No changes.
ARTICLE 4. OBLIGATIONS OF PROGRAM MANAGER
No changes
ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF OWNER
No changes
ARTICLE 6. GENERAL LEGAL PROVISIONS
Add: "6.18 Employees. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year after Substantial Completion of
the Project, neither party shall hire any employee of the other party without the prior written consent of both parties."
ARTICLE 7. ATTACHMENTS, SCHEDULES, AND SIGNATURES
This AMENDMENT, including its attachments and schedules, constitutes the entire AMENDMENT to AGREEMENT,
supersedes all prior written or oral understandings, and may only be changed by a written amendment executed by both
parties. The following attachments and schedules are hereby made a part of this AGREEMENT:
Attachment A--Scope of Services
Attachment B-Compensation
"' ,
..
>,
ATTACHMENT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES
.'
This attachment is to AMENDMENT 6 to STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES between CH2M
HILL, INC., ("PROGRAM MANAGER"), and
Augusta, Georgia, acting by and through the Augusta-Richmond County Commission, ("OWNER"), for
a PROJECT generally described as:
Program Management Services for 2002 Series Bond Issue Projects for the Augusta Utilities Department
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROGRAM MANAGER agrees to furnish OWNER the following specific services in addition to those outlined in
previous amendments:
Task 5 - Additional and Special Services
The PROGRAM MANAGER will provide Additional or Special Services directed by the OWNER during the program
including but not limited to the following:
5.8: Fort Gordon Privatization. Support the OWNER in the development, preparation and submittal of a proposal for
the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) Solicitation SP0600-01-R-0119 for privatization of the water and sewer
infrastructure at Fort Gordon Army Installation, Georgia. . (Budget Amount = $216,000)
5.9: J.B. Messerly WPCP Gas Utilization Evaluation. This task would address: (1) Verification/prediction of current and
future gas production, (2) Technical requirements to collect, clean, store, and deliver digester gas in appropriate
volumes at required pressures to points of possible beneficial use (e.g., engine driven pumps/blowers, digester boilers;
electrical generation equipment, thermal oxidizers, etc); (3) Benefits to be derived by gas recovery/usage versus
required initial capital investment and annual costs; and, (4) Potential benefits and costs for AUD to solicit additional
quantities of high strength, readily degradable materials from local industrial customers. (Budget Amount = $65,000)
5.10: Genetic Algorithm (GA) Optimization of Water Distribution System Modeling. The aim of the GA optimization
review study of planned water distribution improvements is to identify one or more near-optimal improvement plans
that fully meet the city's needs at significantly less cost than the current recommended plan. The GA review study will
also consider several "what-if' scenarios such as the potential inclusion of the Fort Gordon Water System to ensure a
highly redundant and robust solution. (Budget Amount = $215,000)
Form 398A
REVISED: 512000
~
'.
ATTAC.HMENT B - COMPENSATION
. \.~
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION
Compensation by OWNER to PROGRAM MANAGER will be as
follows:
A. COST REIMBURSABLE-PER DIEM (TIME AND EXPENSE)
No Changes
B. BUDGET
A budgetary amount of $496,000 (Four Hundred Ninety-six
Thousand Dollars), excluding taxes, is hereby established
for the Amendment 6 additional tasks defined in Attachment
A. The budget amount for any additional services not listed
in ARTICLE 1 wilt be established by further amendment to
this AGREEMENT.
FORM 398B.2
REVISED: 3/98
PROGRAM MANAGER will make reasonable efforts to
complete the work within the budget and will keep OWNER
informed of progress toward that end so that the budget or
work effort can be adjusted if found necessary.
PROGRAM MANAGER is not obligated to incur costs
beyond the indicated budgets, as may be adjusted, nor is
OWNER obligated to pay PROGRAM MANAGER beyond
these limits.
C. PER DIEM RATES
No Changes
D. DIRECT EXPENSES
No Changes
.
,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said parties have hereunto set their seals the day and year written below:
::GU~RGI:WNER)
4YO'
DATE: . 1/ (, ~
ADDRESS FOR GIVING NOTICES:
CH2M HILL (PROGRAM MANAGER)
BY~~& ~
PRINTED NAME:
Gerri B.Dickerson
TITLE:
Vice President
DATE:
June 26, 2003
ADDRESS FOR GIVING NOTICES:
115 Perimeter Center Place N.E.
Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30346-1278
,., ...
,
Work Scope for
James B. Messerly Water Pollution Control Plant
Anaerobic Digester Gas Utilization Feasibility Study
Background & Objectives
The James B. Messerly Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) has four primary and two
secondary anaerobic sludge digesters. These anaerobic digesters are utilized to stabilize and
reduce the volume of primary and waste activated sludge byproducts of the wastewater treatment
process. Following digestion, the sludge is dewatered and land applied.
The existing anaerobic sludge digesters are of adequate capacity to meet projected needs of the
WPCP well beyond 2020. Over the last several years, the digester structures and covers and, also
mechanical and safety equipment have been extensively rehabilitated and upgraded. Also, the
units have been cleaned to remove accumulated grit materials. In summary, the existing anaerobic
digesters at the James B. Messerly WPCP are in excellent condition and will provide many years
of future service to the City of Augusta.
A byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process employed at the James B. Messerly WPCP is
methane gas. This gas, following processing to remove moisture and minor impurities, has
characteristics approaching pipeline quality natural gas. Currently, the gas is utilized to fire
boilers that maintain the operating temperature of the anaerobic digesters at approximately 95
degrees F as required for the effective processing of primary and waste activated sludge.
The quantity of methane gas produced by the anaerobic digesters exceeds the gas required to
meet the heating requirements of the treatment process. Preliminary estimates indicate that the
excess gas volume may approach 200,000 standard cubic feet per day.
The primary objective of the project is to identify the technical requirements and costlbenefits of
utilizing the anaerobic digester gas that is excess to heating requirements for additional beneficial
purposes such as fuel for engine driven pumps and process air blowers, electrical power
generation, and for thermal oxidation of odorous air. Usage of excess gas would be for the
specific purpose of reducing current and future operating costs of the James B. Messerly WPCP.
A secondary objective of the project is to quantify the potential benefits and costs of handling
additional quantities of high strength, readily degradable materials from existing and future
industrial customers of the Augusta Utility Department (ADD) to produce even more volume of
gas than can be derived from processing existing WPCP sludges.
If the outcome of this anaerobic digester gas utilization study is positive, the next phase of the
project will be more detailed implementation investigations and possibly design and construction
of auxiliary facilities as required to maximize the beneficial use opportunity.
". ,,_'I
'-
Project Scope
The scope of work will generally consist of the following tasks.
Task 1: Pre-Site Visit Data Review & Preliminary Assessments
CH2M HILL will request: (1) electronic copies of operations data (most recent 12 months)
pertinent tothe operation of the anaerobic digesters; (2) a copy ofthe existing electrical power
supply agreement and billing records (most recent 12 months); and, (3) copies of available
structural, mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and control drawing of the anaerobic
digesters and digester head house.
Furnished data will be reviewed and summarized, solids and heat balances will be developed,
and estimates of total and excess gas production will be prepared. Based on the outcome of this
review, potential opportunities for gas utilization will be identified.
Task 2: Site Visit and Alternatives Identification Workshop
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of Task 1 will be confirmed by a site visit and
inspection of facilities. Immediately following the site visit a workshop will be conducted by
CH2M HILL to update AUD on the progress of the workand to discuss future opportunities for
beneficial use of excess anaerobic digester gas. Up to 4 of the most promising alternatives will be
carried forward for evaluation in Task 3.
Task 3: Preliminary Technical & Cost Evaluation of Alternatives
Technical requirements for the most promising alternatives identified for excess anaerobic
digester gas utilization in Task 2 will be further developed in Task 3. Preliminary estimates for
new capital facilities will be prepared and also a payback analysis.
Task 3 deliverable will be a document that summarizes the selected alternatives,
evaluation criteria and methods, cost development of each, a ranking of the alternatives
and the recommended option.
Task 4: Final Review Workshop
A one day workshop will be held with AUD to present the results, findings, and conclusions of
Task 3 and to solicit feedback on methods and recommendation and receive comments.
Task 5: Draft and Final Technical Memoranda
The information developed in the previous tasks will be consolidated into a draft Technical
Memorandum (TM) for AUD review and comment. Following discussion and adjudication of
AUD comments, the draft TM will be finalized. The final project deliverable will be ten copies
of the TM.
- '.
. .
.:..
Project Schedule
The following table lists the proposed tasks, the expected period of task commencement, and a
preliminary task completion period.
Task
Task Completion
(preliminary)
Task Commencement
1. Pre-Site Visit Data Reviews
& Preliminary Assessments
Within 6 weeks of receipt of
requested operations data.
Within 3 weeks of Notice to
Proceed.
2. Site Visit & Alternatives
Identification Workshop
Two days.
Immediately following
completion of the pre-site visit
data reviews and preliminary
assessments, Task 1.
3. Preliminary Technical &
Cost Evaluation of
Alternatives
Immediately following the
Alternatives Identification
Workshop, Task 2.
Within 6 weeks following the
Alternatives Identification
Workshop, Task 2.
4. Final Review Workshop
One day.
Immediately following the
completion of Task 3.
5. Draft & Final Technical
Memoranda
Preparation of the Draft
Technical Memorandum will
commence following the Final
Review Workshop, Task 4.
Preparation of the Final
Technical Memorandum will
commence following receipt
of AUD comments.
The Draft Technical
Memorandum will be
submitted within 3 weeks
following the Final Review
Workshop, Task 4.
Within 2 weeks of receipt of
comments.
Project Cost
Time and materials per the terms of the existing Program Management contract not to exceed
$65,000 without pre-approval of the Augusta Utility Department.
. ,. ,~
.'
GA Optimization Study of AUD
Distribution System Master Plan .
Assessment Report
May 2003 (Revised for Optimatics/Frey Proposal)
Prepared for:
Augusta Utilities Department
Prepared by:
,.
--
Optimatics pty Ltd.
Adelaide, South Australia
Frey Water Engineering, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
.
'." .......". ".....
In association with:
CH2M HILL I Atlanta
1 Background and Understanding
, In September 2001,CH2M lULUAtlanta completed a study called Water Distribution System
Analysis for Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia for the Augusta Utilities Department (ADD).
This work was part of the comprehensive ADD Master Plan 2000. The study scope included
preparation of a hydraulic data model and hydraulic simulation model, model calibration, water
demand projections, system analysis, and the identification of recommended near-term and
long-term (2020) improvements.
On October 25,2002, CH2M HILL and OptimaticslFrey met with the AUD Director to discuss
the advantages of applying genetic algorithm (GA) optimization to review the recommended
capital improvements in the September 2001 Water Distribution System Analysis report.
Although some of the improvements had already moved ahead into design and construction,
there still remain $30-$40 million in capital improvements to be implemented over a period of
years to meet future projected 2020 demands. A GA optimization review of the proposed
improvements could potentially identify an alternate mix of improvements that would better
meet ADD's needs and satisfy the required design and performance criteria at significantly
lower cost, perhaps saving AUD several million dollars in improvement costs.
On November 20, CH2M HilL and OptimaticslFrey met with the AUD Director and Assistant
Director to review the specific data needs and improvement options that could be considered in
a GA optimization review of AUD's planned improvements. The meeting identified a number
of interesting issues that the GA could refine, such as the choice of the Central Connector or
alternative pipelines and the sensitivity of the improvement plan to shifts in demand.
It was agreed that CH2M lULL and OptimaticslFrey should prepare an Assessment Report to
outline a scope, schedule and cost for a GA optimization review, to describe a likely approach,
and to estimate an expected "payback" in terms of cost savings to A UD for undertaking the GA
study. AUD and CH2M HILL with OptimaticslFrey as subconsultants were expected to reach
agreement and proceed immediately with the GA review study. The Assessment Report was
submitted in December 2002. The December 2002 Assessment Report was later modified in
May 2003 to include the evaluation of Fort Gordon as part of the Augusta system.
1.1 Optimization Study Objective
The aim of the GA optimization review study of AUD's planned improvements is to identify
one or more near-optimal improvement plans that fully meet AUD's needs at significantly less
cost than the current recommended plan. At AUD's direction, the GA review study may also
consider several "what-if' scenarios to ensure a highly redundant and robust solution. The
study is to be completed as quickly as possible, which will require good coordination between
AUD, CH2M IillL and OptimaticslFrey staff.
Optimatics/Frey & CH2M HILL
AUgU5ta As""nm<.' R<poTl Ma}'2003_r..060403.doc
GA Assessment Report for AUD
. .'
"
1.2 AUD Distribution System
Since the City of Augusta and the Richmond County water system administrations were joined
in 1996, all of the water facilities have been owned and operated by the Augusta Utility
Department. The City obtains water from surface and groundwater sources. The northern part
of the City draws its water from the Savannah River through the Augusta Canal that was
constructed in the 1870s. Raw water is pumped from the Augusta Canal to raw water
reservoirs located at Highland A venue Water Treatment Plant. The southern part of the City
draws water from the Tuscaloosa Aquifer beneath South Richmond County to feed raw
groundwater to WTP#l and WTP#2, and several other smaller wells in South Richmond
County.
Currently the Augusta-Richmond County area is supplied 65 mgd of treated water from three
water treatment plants: Highland WTP with 45 mgd production capacity, WTP#l with 10 mgd
capacity, and WTP#2 with 10 mgd capacity. Groundwater treatment capacity is being cut back
at WTP#1 and WTP#2, but the addition of the recently constructed 5-mgd WTP#3 has kept
current treated groundwater capacity at 20 mgd.
Plans call for a reduction in the use of groundwater in the near-term. Highland WTP is soon to
be increased to 60 mgd. A New WTP with a capacity of 15 mgd is to be constructed by year
2005 at Tobacco Road to replace water from WTP#1 and WTP#2, and to reduce groundwater
usage to 10 mgd. Groundwater usage will drop to zero by year 2020 with an increase in the
New WTP capacity to 30 mgd.
Construction of an additional treatment plant WTP#4 (5 mgd capacity) is proposed for 2010 to
supply future industry in the southeast area on State Hwy 56. WTP#3 and WTP#4 will provide
reserve capacity for the system in the future. Various associated pipeline, storage and pump
station facilities are to be added or upgraded to permit the transition from current to near-term
and to long-term future supply sources and to meet projected future demands. Table 2-1(b) in
CH2M IDLL's September 2001 report projects future demand increases from 68 and 73 mgd in
2002 and 2003 to 80 mgd in 2010, and to 86 mgd in year 2020 (see Appendix A.)
1.3 AUD Hydraulic Model
The September 2001 Water Distribution System Analysis report describes how CH2M IDLL
developed a hydraulic data model and calibrated hydraulic simulation model of the AUD
system. The simulation model was developed in EP ANET Version 1.0 software.
In October-November 2002, CH2M lllLL revisited the model to verify its setup and run results
for a number of different demand cases in preparation for a start on the GA optimization review
study. EP ANET runs were checked for maximum day demand (MDD), peak hour demand
(PHD) and minimum hour tank refill demand (TRD) cases for years 2003 and 2020. Five
EPANET runs as well as summary spreadsheets were sent to OptimaticslFrey on November 14.
Model statistics for the various runs differ slightly. The 2020 PHD model (RllO-20PH.inp of
11/11/02) listed the following statistics: 3129 pipes, 2821 junctions, 16 reservoirs, 0 tanks, 17
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
Augusta Asus"".., RQcm May2003Jtv060403.doc
2
GA Assessment Report for AUD
pumps and 7 valves. These statistics give us some idea of the size and complexity of the
hydraulic model. In the PHD run, the system is supplied fully by surface water with 60 mgd
coming from the Highland WTP and 30 mgd from the New WTP at Tobacco Road.
1.4 AUD Baseline Master Plan
Following the November 20 meeting with AUD, CH2M HILL spent additional time reviewing
the baseline Master Plan solution represented in the hydraulic model runs. Several corrections
were made to the existing system representation and the hydraulic performance of the baseline
solution was checked. Some adjustments were made to the selection and sizing of the baseline
Master Plan improvements.
CH2M HILL next proceeded to detail the improvement projects in the tentative baseline Master
Plan in list form as shown in Table 1 below. The improvement projects that have moved ahead
into design and construction were identified and marked as "committed" in the table. The
estimated cost in year 2000 dollars was revised by CH2M HILL based on the latest data
available for pipeline and other AUD construction projects. Experience has shown that the unit
pipe costs given in the September 2001 report were approximately 30% lower than actual
current bid prices. Table 1 costs have been adjusted to correct for this.
Figure 1 on the following page shows an EP ANET model screens hot in which the proposed
new (and parallel) pipes in the baseline Master Plan solution are depicted as 1" pipes (in red).
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
Augusta As....m.., RtpOn May2003Jt\0()6()403.dor
3
GA Assessment Report for AUD
Table f. Proposed Baseline Year 2020 Solution Capital Improvement Proiects and Costs
Year Project # Improvement Project Diameter Length Already Estimated Cost
Needed Hi) Committed? Year 2000 $ (million)
2000 10160 Raw water line conversion 18' 19,300 Yes
2000 10450 Dennis Rd. Tank connection line 16' 2600 Yes
2000 70125 Alex Rd. line 16' 2,700 Yes
2000 10725 Peach Orchard Rd. line reolacement 12' 6700 Yes
2000 10106 Tobacco Rd. line 16" 14,200 Yes
2000 10175 McEIMurrav Rd. line 20" 15443 No $1.50
2000 10425 Brown Rd. Tank connection line 16' 100 Yes
2000 10235 ElIenee 51. line 10' 5,700 Yes
2000 10375 YMCA line 12' 14.100 Yes
2000 PRVs 521->457 Yes
2000 Dennis Rd GST Yes
2000 New Brown Rd EST Yes
subtotal $1.50
2002 Fort Gordon lines - Hiohland WTP-Barton Chacel Rd. 30' 18.700 No $2.80
Fort Gordon lines - Barton Chanel Rd.-Moroan PS line 24' 2500 No $0.30
2002 Old Savannah Rd. line 12' 2,500 No $0.20
2002 New WTP-Plant1 line on Hiohwav 56 24' 9.900 No $1.90
New WTP-Plantl line on Hiohwav 56 20' 8500 No $0.90
2002 Rose Hill lines - Peach Orchard Rd. 16" 4,000 No $0.30
Rose Hill lines - Willis Foreman (check lenoths..l 12" 12,200 No $0.80
Rose Hill lines - Windsor Sorino Rd. (check lenothsl 12' 5,500 No $0.40
2002 Stovall PS uoorade No $0.25
Additional Pioino near Dennis Road Neiohborhood 12' 3,900 No $0.25
Norton Road vs Central Connector Ontlons f$6.5 to $7.6 MI: Norton Ootlon Is Listed Here
Norton Pumo Station Upgrade- Norton Pumo Station No $0.94
Norton Central Connector - Hiohland to Norton Road (16' & 20'1 16'&20" 17,000 No $3.1D
Norton Central Ave. Line - Ootion A2. 24' 12,000 No $2.50 .
subtotal $14.64
2006 Fort Gordon lines - Barton Chaoel Rd. 16' 5400 No $0.50
2006 New Tank for 500/417 zone' 1.5 mo No $1.20
2006 New Tank for 630 zone; 1.0 mo No $0.90
subtotal $2.60
2015 Fort Gordon lines - Fort Gordon Hwv.-This oioe needs BP station. 16" 6.500 No $0.50
New Booster PS for 630 zone: South Dart of 630 zone No $0.25
Fort Gordon lines - Wriohtsboro PS-Belair Tank 12' 11 ,400 No $0.80
2015 New WTP-Plantl lines - Lumpkin Rd. 16' 4,700 No $0.70
NewWTP.Plant1lines - Phinizv 51. 12' 7,400 No $0.50
2015 New WTP-Plant2 lines - Tobacco Rd. 30' 6,500 No $1.00
New WTP-Plant2 lines - Parkwav 24' 3,900 No $0.50
extension to Brown Rd.TanklPlant4 on Parkwav & Hwv. 56 24' 19,700 No $2.50
extension to Brown Rd. Tank on Brown Rd. 16' 18.500 No $1.40
extension to Plant4 on Hwv 56 20' 12,6DO No $1.10
2015 Clark 51. line 12' 36,300 No $2.30
Old Wavnesboro line 12' 38,600 No $2.40
Brown P5 upgrade; needed to fill Brown Rd Tank. (other option to
consider will be filling Brown Rd Tank directly Irom the New WTP via
2015 loioeline on Old Wavnesboro Rdl No $0.25
subtotal $14.20
Total $32.94
NOTES:
1. The list of improvement projects has been updated based on the most recent solution review by CH2M
HILL; the baseline solution may be lurther revised in the first weeks of the Assessment Report study.
2. Projects already committed to construction are listed lor completeness, but no cost is recorded.
3. Costs are order-ol-magnitude, intended to be conservative, but they could be 50% too high or 30"10 too low.
Costs include pipe malerial, installation, trenching, street restoration, and an average number 01 valves and
hydrants; they are based on Year 2000 installation costs and were not adjusted for luture inflation in the
case 01 pipelines proposed lor 201 0 and 2020.
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
Augusta As"s.,...' R.pon May2003Jev060403.dac
4
GA Assessment Report for AUD
Diameter
1.10
12.00
24.00
36.00
in
FiQure 1. PrODosed New Pi De AIiQnments in Tentative 2020 Baseline Master Plan Solution
OptimalicslFrey & CH2M HILL
Augusro Mstssm<n' RtpOrt Moy200J_",v06040J.doc
5
GA Assessment Report for AUD
. ."
2 Optimization Approach and Scope
In the November 20,2002 meeting, AUD, CH2M HILL and OptimaticslFrey staff discussed in
detail the scope of the GA optimization review study. We reviewed the timing of the expansion
of the Highland WTP, the shutdown ofWTP#l and WTP#2, and the initial construction and
later expansion of the New WTP on Tobacco Road. It was agreed thatthe GA study should
focus on optimizing the system for the year 2020 demand condition. AUD could elect later to
optimize also the year 2010 or 2005 demand cases if that would be advantageous.
For the 2020 demand case, the September 2001 report listed the planned Highland WTP
capacity at 60 mgd and the New WTP capacity at 30 mgd. It was suggested and agreed that the
GA should optimize the supply levels for the two plants to see if a different mix of supply
would be better-this analysis could be performed as a "what-if' scenario. AUD noted that to
increase the capacity of the New WTP above 38 mgd would require a large capital expenditure
for construction of a second raw water pipeline.
The decision variables to be considered in the GA optimization were next discussed. The
recommended pipe, tank and pump station improvements shown in Figure 6-2 of the September
2001 report were reviewed. It was agreed that aU of the improvements not yet committed to
construction should be included as GA choices-which corresponds fairly closely to the
improvements list shown in Table 1 above. In addition, a number of other new pipe options
were identified to expand the range of GA pipe alignment choices. Figure 2 presents an
EPANET model screenshot showing all ofthe tentative GA pipe alignment options as blue
pIpes.
It was also agreed that the GA optimization would be carried out based on several critical
steady state demand cases, rather than developing an extended period simulation model for the
analysis. The demand cases should include maximum day demand (MDD), peak hour demand
(PHD), tank refill demand (TRD), and one or more maximum day plus fire flow demand cases.
Emergency demand cases should also be considered to ensure system redundancy in the event
of a critical main break or source outage.
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
Au~usra "'ses_nl Report M'ry2003J,,{)6()401doc
6
GA Assessment Report for AUD
,
.
Diameter
1.10
12.00
24.00
36.00
in
Fiqure 2. Year 2020 Model Screenshot Showinq Allowable GA Pipe Choices
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
AUKurm Asre,'sm<nt R<poll MI1)/2003_m0()60403.doc
7
GA Assessment Report for AUD
2.1 Steps in the Optimization Study
Over the past eight years, OptimaticslFrey has developed a carefully conceived step-by-step
process for applying GA optimization to complex distribution system problems. For the ADD
GA study, we propose the following steps:
1. Data collection and hydraulic model review
2. Design Data Summary (DDS) report
3. Optimatics GA (OGA) model formulation and preliminary runs for each separate
analysis scenario
4. OGA production runs and interim results memo for each separate analysis scenario
5. OGA final runs for preferred solution and solution presentation in GA final report
Under step 1, OptimaticslFrey and CH2M HILL will finish compiling and checking the data
required for the year 2020 optimization. This step should proceed quickly since much of the
required data is available from the September 2001 Water Distribution System Analysis report,
and supplemental data is described in this Assessment Report. Also, CH2M HILL has
completed the work to update the ADD baseline Master Plan solution and model, and updated
the costs of improvements.
In step 2, the relevant system data and information will be summarized by OptimaticslFrey in a
Design Data Summary (DDS) report to document our understanding of the basic system and
hydraulic model data, and the assumptions, constraints (i.e., design and performance criteria)
and objectives to be used in the analysis. The report will be submitted to AUD (via CH2M
Hll..L) in draft form with a request that the information be reviewed and corrected or confirmed
prior to initiating any OGA production runs. This is necessary to ensure that everyone is clear
on exactly what is being optimized. Our proposed methodology for the GA base case scenario,
the modified base case scenario and the alternative scenarios will be presented.
Under step 3, our generic OGA model will be customized to suit the AUD system analysis as
described in detail for the GA base case scenario in Section 2.2 below. The optimization
minimization objective, the allowable GA decision variables, and the design and performance
constraints to be met will be agreed before the analysis of each scenario is begun.
A series of preliminary OGA runs will be conducted to first debug the OGA model and then
refine the model settings. The OGA parameters will be adjusted to ensure the optimization
search process proceeds in the most efficient and comprehensive manner possible, striking a
balance between convergence time and search thoroughness. The Optimatics team controls the
evolutionary process by carefully selecting the appropriate GA solution string format, the trial
population size, the type of selection process (tournament, etc.), and rates of mutation, as well
other key parameters.
Step 4 will involve performing production runs for each scenario. The OGA runs will identify
several alternative solutions to be presented in an Interim Design Memo for discussion with
AUD and CH2M HilL. The solutions will be presented in the form of one-page system maps
(generated from customized screen shots of EPANET results). Preliminary cost estimates for
each design will be provided, along with all critical data summarized in a tabular format. Steps
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
AugUSTa Asses",""" R.pon M<1)'200J-'IN06040J.dJn:
8
GA Assessment Report for AUD
3 and 4 will be repeated for the GA base case scenario, the modified base case scenario, and the
agreed additional scenarios.
In step 5, Optimatics/Frey will follow the direction of AUD and CH2M HILL to conduct the
final OGA runs to develop a preferred near-optimal solution that meets AUD's needs. The
preferred solution may require some refinement including manual adjustments to best suit
AUD's planning objectives. The preferred solution will be presented in a GA final report that
describes the solution and its performance and cost in detail. The final report will make
extensive use of data tables to summarize the solution, supplemented by detailed explanations
where required. Optimatics/Frey will verify the final preferred solution by running independent
simulation runs in EP ANET.
The following sections describe in more detail the tentative scenarios that will be optimized:
the GA base case scenario, the modified base case scenario, and the additional scenarios.
2.2 Optimization Base Case Formulation
OptimaticslFrey will first formulate a base case scenario in order to develop an optimized
solution for comparison to the CH2M IDLL baseline Master Plan solution. The base case
formulation of the Optimatics GA (OGA) will .solve the same year 2020 problem that the
baseline Master Plan solution solves. For example, if there are any minor pressure violations in
the baseline solution, then the OGA will be formulated to attain at least the same pressures as
the baseline solution at those nodes.
The GA optimization base case scenario will solve the following problem:
Select the set of infrastructure improvements:
. Select from among the two Central Connector pipeline options and the Norton Road
pump station option and size the new pipes and facilities
. Select pipe size for all other allowable new or parallel pipe choice locations
. Select open/closed status for certain identified existing pipes
. Select location and size for new storage tanks
. Select size for possible raising of Highland WTP storage tank
. Select location and capacity of new pump stations, and capacity for expanded pump
stations; this includes the expansion of the 521 zone
. Select status and operating range of existing and new pump stations
. Select location and setting for new control valves, and setting for existing valves
. (For the base case runs, the Highland WTP and New WTP capacities will be fixed at
60 mgd and 30 mgd as is assumed in the baseline Master Plan solution)
... that minimize the present value of infrastructure improvement costs:
. New pipe costs
. New tank costs
. New pump and pump station capital costs
. New valve costs
Optimatics/Frey & CH2M HILL
Augusta Ass...",<., R<port Mrry2003_T<\>06IJ403.doc
9
GA Assessment Report for AUD
... and that satisfy design criteria, operational limitations and system performance
constraints when subject to the same 2020 demands as the baseline Master Plan:
. Minimum and maximum allowable pressures (same as baseline Master Plan)
. Maximum allowable pipe velocities (same as baseline Master Plan)
. Maximum inflow and outflow rates to/from storage tanks/reservoirs (same as baseline
Master Plan)
The optimized solution developed for the GA base case scenario will be compared to the
updated baseline Master Plan solution prepared by CH2M HILL in November-December 2002.
The comparison will reveal the capital cost savings achieved by applying GA optimization to
the AUD distribution system for the 2020 demand case.
2.3 Modified Base Case Scenario
The above 2020 GA base case scenario will be formulated to meet the same criteria being met
by the baseline Master Plan solution. As the base case scenario is being optimized, AUD may
decide that there are certain aspects of the baseline Master Plan solution that it would like to
improve. There might be minor pressure or velocity vIOlations in the baseline Master Plan
solution that AUD would like to correct. Alternatively, AUD might like to improve the
redundancy and reliability of the solution by enhancing system performance under emergency
demand conditions, or to improve the solution to ensure it meets critical maximum day plus fire
flow demand cases that may not be met by the baseline Master Plan solution.
The modified GA base case scenario analysis will involve revising the OGA model formulation
to upgrade the pressure, velocity or tank flow rate constraints, or to take into account the
appropriate supplemental demand conditions (such as fire flow or emergency conditions). In
addition, the Ft. Gordon water system will be added to the model so that improvements to serve
that area can also be optimized. The OGA will then be run for the revised 2020 demand
conditions to develop an improved base case solution that fully meets ADD's specifications.
The cost of the modified or improved base case solution will be higher than the first GA
optimized base case solution (described above in Section 2.2), and likely also higher than the
November-December 2002 baseline Master Plan solution since the Ft. Gordon area will be
included (see Figure 3).
2.4 Additional "What-If" Scenarios
At the November 20 meeting, AUD and CH2M HILL expressed interest in investigating one or
more additional scenarios using GA optimization. After completing the modified GA base case
scenario analysis, the OGA could be re-run for an alternative 2020 demand pattern. The total
demand would remain the same, but the distribution of 2020 maximum day demands would be
shifted to increase the demands in the 630 and 521 pressure zones in the west and south. The
OOA would be formulated to allow the supplies provided by the Highland WTP and the New
WTP to vary-in particular, more than 30 mgd could be supplied by the New WTP if cost
savings could be achieved. The resulting optimized solution could be compared to the
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
AUBlLlIa AsstS......1I1 Rtporr May2003_rtv060403.doc
10
GA Assessment Report for AUD
modified GA base case solution to see if any improvement choices should be revised to better
handle the uncertainties in future demands.
Another additional scenario that was discussed involved the possibility of supplying water to
the Town of Hephzibah. The OGA could be re-run using the agreed 2020 demands with added
Hephzibah demands located at one or more interconnection points at the edge of the AUD
distribution system. The difference in cost between the AUD 2020 base case and the AUD plus
Hephzibah 2020 case would represent the minimum capital cost for required improvements to
supply water to Hephzibah. AUD and CH2M HilL can later choose to optimize other
additional scenarios, if desired, such as for year 2010 or 2005.
Fiqure 3. Year 2020 Layout Showinq Allowable GA Pipe Choices plus Fort Gordon System
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
Augusta "'<<smom Ropon May2003J<VfJ6D403.doc
11
GA Assessment Report for AUD
3 Optimization Study Cost and Schedule
This section presents our proposed GA study cost and schedule for the base case and the other
optimization analyses outlined above.
3.1 Base Case Optimization
At the start of the study, CH2M Hll...L will do a final check of its model runs and the proposed
baseline Master Plan improvements (shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 in Section 1.4). The
improvements and costs will then be fixed for the baseline Master Plan solution.
Optimatics/Frey and CH2M HILL will next work together on the year 2020 base case
optimization to be compared to the CH2M HILL baseline Master Plan solution. The work
tasks will be as described in Section 2.2 and shown in the preliminary schedule in Figure 4
below. (The tasks and schedule for the other optimization scenarios are also presented in
Figure 4.)
The preliminary schedule for the 2020 base case optimization indicates that the 2020 EP ANET
model will be finalized by CH2M l:ll-L and sent to Optimatics/Frey by June 30, 2003.
The EP ANET model will be set up with different time steps representing thePHD, MOD and
TRD cases for the year 2020 maximum day. The model will- include the baseline Master Plan
recommended improvements as updated in November-December 2002.
A second version of the 2020 EPANET model will also be provided by CH2M Hll...L. This
version will have removed from it all of the baseline Master Plan improvements, and will
include instead the 2020 allowable GA optimization pipe alignments choices-input as 1"
diameter pipes as tentatively shown in Figure 1 above. Optimatics/Frey will input the other GA
choices for new tanks, pump stations, valves, etc. into the OGA model setup.
CH2M Hll...L will also assist in collecting any remaining data for the GA study, including.
allowable pipe route options, new facilities options, system performance criteria, and cost data.
Optimatics/Frey will prepare and present the initial Design Data Summary report to be
reviewed and confirmed by AUD and then finalized by week 7 in the schedule.
Preliminary and interim runs for the base case scenario will be carried out, and draft interim
solution(s) presented in an Interim Design Memo (IDM). Following AUD's review, the base
case scenario solution will be finalized and compared to CH2M Hll...L's baseline Master Plan
solution.
3.2 Modified Base Case Optimization
If appropriate, AUD will provide direction on how the base case solution should be upgraded to
better meet the needs of the utility. The GA search constraints might be modified and/or
additional demand cases (e.g., fire flow or emergency outage conditions) incorporated to
OptimaticslFrey & CH2M HILL
Au&usta Ass..m",", Rtpon May2003Jtv06IJ403.dor
12
GA Assessment Report for AUD
~. ..
-
improve system redundancy, for example. In addition, the Ft. Gordon water system will have
been added to the hydraulic model by CH2M HILL and the improvement options to be
considered by the OGA will be agreed with ADD. The modified base case optimization will be
formulated and preliminary and interim runs completed and results presented to AUD as shown
in the schedule.
3.3 Optional Optimization Analyses
Similarly, other additional GA scenarios could be agreed with AUD to test or confirm the
adequacy of the optimized solutions. These optional GA analyses could be completed in 2-3
weeks each and then reviewed by AUD.
3.4 Anticipated Payback from Optimization Study
OptimaticslFrey and CH2M Hll...L have carefully reviewed the estimated person-hours required
to perform the GA optimization review study outlined in this report. To finalize the 2020
baseline Master Plan solution, and to perform the 2020 base case scenario optimization and
compare it to the baseline Master Plan solution will cost $179,000. Assuming that the modified
base case analysis will involve upgrading system redundancy and meeting fire demand
conditions at 3-4 locations as well as incorporating the Ft. Gordon water system in the analysis,
the cost to optimize the modified base case scenario will be $48,500 bringing the total to
$227,500. The cost of performing the additional GA "what-if' scenario for a revised year 2020
demand pattern to increase demands in the south will cost $25,400, which would bring the total
cost to $252,900.
To run other basic "what-if' scenarios identified by AUD, the cost will likely be $20,000 to
$25,000. If AUD decides to optimize a year 2010 or 2005 demand condition, the cost will
likely be $30,000 since the GA decision choices would need to be revised.
Depending on the mix of analyses selected, the total cost of the GA optimization review study
will range from $227,500 to $310,000. After considering the nature of the current
recommended 2020 improvements, Optimatics/Frey believes that the base case optimization
will cut the cost of the 2020 baseline Master Plan solution by 15% or more. This amounts to
capital cost savings of more than $4,000,000, or about 20 times the cost of the GA review
study. In addition to cost savings, the process of applying GA optimization to the year 2020
improvements will enable AUD to develop a much more refined solution that is tailored
specifically to AUD's needs. This represents a significant payback or return on investment,
and would seem to be a strong argument for proceeding with the proposed GA optimization
study.
Optimatics/Frey & CH2M HILL
Augusta AsstssmJ!nt Rtparr May2003Jtv060403.doc
13
GA Assessment Report for AUD
Figure 4
Preliminary Work Plan & Schedule for AUD Master Plan Optimization Review Study
: I : . I :
- - I - I... 1m "n~ 17"" 11121 ,,. en, ... .... .... ,..." lCl'27 11110 ..,.. 12111 '2122 ""
en, ..., ... &'Z! ,... ""0 111' '1117 1211 "I'" ,_ If
Seeping RllIIiew & Assessment Report - JJ 1212010211Ubrr1llOAUD I I I
R.Submit Assessment Report V 513'03 - to Include Fl n
Approval to Proceed on GA sludy enAl3 AID ii
2020 Baseline Master Plan Model Final - - - !J &'3ll EPANET mocleI by CH2M HILL
I I I I
1. Data Collectlon & Model RllIIiew ~lJ~ll
RllIIiew& Tes!2020 EPANET Model - -
Meetings & Confirm Data. Improvement -
Options. Unit Costs & Design Criteria
2. DesIgn Data Summary (DDS) Report ~ ~
AUO Revlew & Comments ...
Anal DDS Report i-
3. OGA Formulation & Preliminary Runs
Base Case Scenario ... ..
Modified Base Cas&' A. Gordon Scenario ~_oII01l) ~ -
Additional Scenarios (Optional) -
4. OGA Interim Runs & Solution Memos ,
Base Case Scenario Inlllrim Deslgn Momo
AUD Re'.~aN & Comments .. ..
Finallza Base Case & Cannam Baseline
AUD Direction on ModIfied Base Case .. ..
Mod. Base Casel A. Gordon Interim Runs. -
AUD Revlew & Comments ...
Revlsed Growlh or Hephzlbah Option Runs -
AUD R9IItew & Comments
5. OGA Final Runs & Report
Anal Runs
Draft Final Report
AUO R9IItew & Comments .
Final apUlnlzatlon Report
0pImrtIcsIFt&y 6G(J3
OptImatlcslFrey & CH2M HILL
...,_............Rcpon/ll.,1(1()J~.oloc
14
-GA Assessment Report lor AUD
. ( ..
, .
Figure 4
Preliminary Work Plan & Schedule for AUD Master Plan OJ
~ . . . :
7n 7/21 814 8118 9/1 9115 8129 lG'13 lG'z.
- - - 6130 7/14 7/28 8111 8125 918 9122 lG'6 10120
Scoping Review & Assessment Report - Jl 12/20102 submit to AUD
Re-Submlt Assessment Report V SI3I03 revised to Include Fl Gordon
Approval to Proceed on GA study ~ 6f2I03 AUD approwl I I
I "I I
2020 Baseline Master Plan Model Rnal - - i- ~ 6/30 EPANET model by CH2M HILL
1. Data Collection & Model Review
Review & Test 2020 EPANET Model U 7/14 GA kick-olf mtgs
Meetings & Confirm Data, Improvement
Options, Unit Costs & Design Criteria
2. Design Data Summary (DDS) Report
AUD Review & Comments ...
Final DDS Report -
3. OGA Formulation & Preliminary Runs
Base Case Scenario ... ..
Modified Base Casel Ft. Gordon Scenario (limited effort)
Additional Scenarios (Optional)
4. OGA Interim Runs & Solution Memos
Base Case Scenario r Interim DesiQI
AUD Review & Comments .. .'. .
Rnalize Base Case & Compare Baseline ~
AUD Direction on Modified Base Case
Mod. Base Casel Ft. Gordon Interim Runs
AUD Review & Comments
Revised Growth or Hephzibah Option Runs
AUD Review & Comments
5. OGA Final Runs & Report
Final Runs
Draft Rnal Report
AUD Review & Comments
Final Optimization Report
Optimatlcs/Frey 6f.W3
Optimatics/Frey & CH2M HILL
Au,u.IIa AsSUS1IWIt Rrpon May2003 _rt!\&50403.doc
14