DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase II/III Preliminary Design: Design Review Committee #3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase II/III Preliminary Design: Design Review Committee #3 City of Nampa Wastewater Program Nampa WWTP Phase II/III Preliminary Design: Design Review Committee #3 November 15, 2018 Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Industrial Capacity Review 3. Energy Recovery/Production Opportunities and Economics 4. Capital Costs Comparison 5. Secondary Treatment Technology Evaluation 6. Tertiary Treatment Technology Evaluation 7. Project Delivery and Package Options 8. Parallel Path Update 9. Next Steps Design Review Committee #3 2 Design Review Committee #2 Meeting Summary • Permitting and Regulatory Requirements • Current & Future Flow and Loadings • Cost of Service Review • Overview of Resource Recovery Options Design Review Committee #3 3 Industrial Capacity Review Design Review Committee Briefing #6 Sources of Current Flow and Loadings • Domestic Contributions - Domestic flows and loads are generated by the general public (residential and commercial), • Industrial Contributions – The Nampa WWTP receives wastewater from several industrial customers categorized as Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all industrial dischargers use their full flow and capacity allotment established by the City’s Industrial Waste Acceptance (IWA) permits as a conservative approach. • Infiltration and Inflow – Infiltration and inflow flows are a combination of those influenced by irrigation and those influenced by storm events (i.e. non-irrigation). • Future Domestic Contributions – The City has made future capacity commitments to developers through the platting and building permit processes. Until these structures are occupied, this capacity is not realized as influent to the Nampa WWTP but must be accounted for within the allocated flow and loadings. • Vacancy Allowance – The City’s policy has been to assume that an additional 5 percent of the current domestic flow and loadings are allocated to vacant properties. Design Review Committee #2 5 Current Nampa WWTP Flow and Loadings 100% 16% 18% 90% 23% 29% 80% 39% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Flow BOD TSS TKN TP Domestic Industrial Infiltration and Inflow Future Domestic Contributions Design Review CommitteeVacancy #2 Allowance Unallocated Maximum Month 6 Allocated Capacity & Planning Process WWTP Capacity = Domestic + Allocated Industrial Population and water Based on IWA Permit terms usage dependent • All industrial dischargers are assumed to use their full capacity allocations at all times during the year • Actual used industrial capacity often is below the allocated portion (recently, 30 – 40% of allocated capacity is actually used) Design Review Committee #3 7 Allocated vs. Used Capacity Design Review Committee #3 8 Allocated vs. Used Capacity Design Review Committee #3 9 Allocated vs. Used Capacity Design Review Committee #3 10 Allocated vs. Used Capacity Design Review Committee #3 11 Table 1. Comparison of Allocated and Utility Industrial Capacity Maximum 30-Day Rolling Permitted Maximum Month Percent Utilization of Permitted Year Average Capacity Maximum Month Capacity 2016 2.38 2.82 84% Flow 2017 0.82 2.82 29% (mgd) 2018 0.87 2.82 31% 2016 7,015 20,554 34% BOD 2017 7,531 20,554 37% (ppd) 2018 8,868 20,554 43% 2016 4,192 10,661 39% TSS 2017 3,258 10,661 31% (ppd) 2018 4,278 10,661 40% 2016 1,040 1,940 54% TKN 2017 593 1,940 31% (ppd) 2018 884 1,940 46% 2016 50 350 14% TP 2017 22 350 6% (ppd) 2018 67 350 19% Design Review Committee #3 12 Factors Leading to Capacity Differential • Allocated capacity assumes all industrial dischargers are sending full allocation, at the same time • Industrial discharges are often seasonal, below their full allocation, and are not in alignment between industries • Balance between providing certainty (and value) to purchased capacity versus unused capacity • Simplot retains unused capacity within the system • The Capacity Optimization Fee (COFee) helped optimize industrial capacity use and allocations • Some industries opted to retain capacity for future growth (and pay the COFee) Design Review Committee #3 13 Factors Leading to Capacity Discrepancy What if Simplot’s capacity were given back to the City? Impacts to Capacity Utilization Percent Utilization of Permitted Percent Utilization of Permitted Year Maximum Month Capacity Maximum Month Capacity (including Simplot) (Simplot removed) 2016 84% 109% Flow 2017 29% 37% (mgd) 2018 31% 40% 2016 34% 53% BOD 2017 37% 57% (ppd) 2018 43% 67% 2016 39% 86% TSS 2017 31% 67% (ppd) 2018 40% 88% 2016 54% 79% TKN 2017 31% 45% (ppd) 2018 46% 67% 2016 14% 45% TP 2017 6% 20% (ppd) 2018 19% 61% Design Review Committee #3 14 Design Review Committee Considerations The Preliminary Design Technical Team will continue to progress with the preliminary design based on the flow and loading projections from the Facility Plan until otherwise directed. This DRC briefing is intended to be informational to the committee as the preliminary design process advances. Design Review Committee #3 15 Energy Recovery/Production Opportunities and Economics Design Review Committee Briefing #7 Energy Recovery Opportunities Generating Value from Biogas • Two primary means for generating value from biogas • Sale of renewable natural gas (to pipeline) • Sale of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) • Value does not come without consequences • Capital and operating costs to make biogas “pipeline quality” • Purchase of natural gas to offset loss in biogas use for in-plant demands • Early analysis has shown relatively short (~12 year) payback periods for these investments Design Review Committee #3 18 Value of RINs • RINs sales account for approximately 8X the value of RNG sales • Preferred approach is sensitive to value of RINS • Current value is approximately $2.50 per Gallon Ethanol Equivalent (GEE) Design Review Committee #3 19 Recommendation This briefing is intended to provide an overview of the general economics associated with biogas recovery. If this is a topic that the DRC is interested in pursuing further, the Preliminary Design Technical Team recommends developing an evaluation of potential biogas recovery opportunities and selecting the opportunity that is most favorable economically for the City. These opportunities could include cogeneration, biogas recovery for vehicle fueling, and biogas recovery for pipeline injection. Each of these opportunities would require additional capital costs. The DRC could then elect in the future to recommend pursuing the preferred approach to biogas recovery by increasing the overall Program budget or through cost savings realized on other parts of the project. Design Review Committee #3 20 Capital Cost Comparison Design Review Committee Briefing #8 Design Review Committee #3 21 Capital Cost Approach • Developed during the facility planning process • Equipment manufacturers • Local commodity (e.g. chemical) pricing • Local labor prices • Markups capture the fully-loaded cost of a project • Markups nearly double raw costs based on level of estimate Design Review Committee #3 22 Cost Estimate Limitations Cost Estimate Classification System Class 4 Class 3 Level of Project Definition 1% to 15% complete 10% to 40% End Usage Concept Study or Feasibility Budget, Authorization, or Control Accuracy Range Low: - 30% Low: - 10% High: + 50% High: + 30% As applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for Process Industries; adapted from American Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International Design Review Committee #3 23 Potential Consequences: Cost Estimating Contingency • Used to account for undefined scope of work, unforeseen conditions, and changing More Contingency Less Contingency economic factors • These unknown variables cannot be Planning Stage Construction captured in each of the markups (labor, Stage contractor overhead & profit, etc.) • AACE International specifies 30% as the appropriate level of contingency – this was Contingency reduces with level used in the Facility Plan of Project Definition Design Review Committee #3 24 Programmatic Contingency • Contingency Goals: • Provide adequate funding to complete planned work • Account for programmatic risks • Contingency funds are only used when needed and approved by City leadership • Current Program Contingency = $19,285,511 (future $) • Developed using a risk register – considers Process, Regulatory, Repair and Replacement, Construction and Policy risks Design Review Committee #3 25 Programmatic Contingency Known Costs (Capital Costs) + Known Unknowns (Cost Estimating Contingency) Unknown Unknown Costs (Programmatic Contingency) Total Program Costs Programmatic contingency represents funds that can be used to address potential risks for capital program during design and construction Design Review Committee #3 26 Impacts of Inflation • Inflation impacts the overall project cost over time 2017 Program-Level Future Program-Level Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: $150.1 M $213.1 M Inflation Cost Impact = $59.4 M 44% Increase in Program-Level Cost Design Review Committee #3 27 Secondary Treatment Process Evaluation Overview of Options for Secondary Treatment Secondary Treatment Alternatives • BCE Alternatives: • Alternative 1: Base Case (Expand Existing) • Alternative 2: Secondary Nitrification and Denitrification • Alternative 3: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) • Alternative 4: BioMag • Alternative 5: Design Review Committee #3 29 Alternative 1: Expand Existing Process Alternative 1: Expand Existing Process 4th Aeration Basin Alternative 2: Alternate process configuration SND Alternative 2: Alternate process configuration SND Update diffusers and mixing in all 4th Aeration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Design Review Procedure
    IDM UID 2832CF VERSION CREATED ON / VERSION / STATUS 30 Nov 2012 / 3.1/ Approved EXTERNAL REFERENCE MQP Procedure Design Review Procedure This document describes how to conduct IO Design Reviews on ITER Systems. It is applicable to all the Conceptual, Preliminary and Final Design Reviews performed by IO on the ITER Project. Approval Process Name Action Affiliation Author Guigon A. 30-Nov-2012:signed IO/DG/DIP/CIE/TI/SYSA CoAuthor Reviewers Alejaldre C. 19-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/SQS Bora D. 04-Dec-2012:recommended Chiocchio S. 03-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/DIP/CIE/TI Haange R. 19-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/DIP Hawryluk R. 04-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/ADM Kondoh M. 12-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/DIP/CIE Sands D. 19-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/SQS/QA Shirao T. 19-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/ODG Bak J.- S. 18-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/DIP Alekseev A. 03-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/DIP/TKM Merola M. 03-Dec-2012:recommended IO/DG/DIP/TKM/INC Approver Motojima O. 04-Jan-2013:approved IO/DG Document Security: level 1 (IO unclassified) RO: Croset Jean-Philippe Read Access LG: CODAC team, LG: Blanket add right persons, LG: IO Cryogenic Section All, GG: In-kind Management Administration, GG: TBM Committee, LG: IN DA cryogenic collaborator, LG: PBS32 JA, LG: [DOC] Baseline Managers, LG: PBS48 EXT, LG: Cryogenic IN DA PT, LG: Code & Standards external experts, LG: JADA_RH, LG: CDR reviewers, LG: Kraftanlagen, LG: Design Office, LG: SES DR Team, GG: TBM_IM_Teams, LG: FST/TBM staff, LG: IO PA project team, LG: DA PA project team, LG: IO TRO, LG: heatings,
    [Show full text]
  • Design Review Principles and Practice
    Design Review Principles and Practice Landscape Institute Inspiring great places Published in 2013 by the Design Council. Cover photo: Granary Square at King’s Cross, © John Sturrock All photos by Design Council unless otherwise stated. Although every care has been taken in preparing this report, no responsibility or liability will be accepted by Design Council, its employees, agents or advisors for its accuracy or completeness. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, copied or transmitted without the prior written consent of the publisher except that the material may be photocopied for non-commercial purposes without permission from the publisher. Contents Foreword 3 The purpose of this guidance document 4 Part One: Principles of Design Review Chapter 1: The essentials of Design Review 6 What is Design Review? 6 Ten principles of Design Review 7 Chapter 2: The role of Design Review in the planning system 8 Design Review and national planning policy 8 How Design Review adds value 9 Chapter 3: Who benefits from Design Review? 10 Local authorities 10 Developers 10 Project design teams 11 Community groups 11 Chapter 4: Local and National Design Review 12 Local Design Review arrangements 12 National Design Review 12 Who reviews what? 12 Part Two: Design Review in practice Chapter 5: Delivering the principles 14 Chapter 6: A robust Design Review process 23 Preparation 23 Review 25 Observers 26 Advice 27 Other practical matters 28 Useful contacts 29 Contents 1 William Gates Building, University of Cambridge, © RMJM Foreword Our standards of design can be so much higher.
    [Show full text]
  • Rome Laboratory Reliability Engineer's Toolkit
    Rome Laboratory Reliability Engineer's Toolkit April 1993 j* ROME LABORATORY RELIABILITY ENGINEER'S TOOLKIT April 1993 An Application Oriented Guide for the Practicing Reliability Engineer Systems Reliability Division Rome Laboratory Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) 525 Brooks Rd. Griffiss AFB, NY 13441-4505 QUICK REFERENCE Quick Reference Application Index How Do I... ? • Understand the Principles of TQM 2 Understand Basic DoD R&M Policy and Procedures 7 Develop Quantitative Requirements Reliability (R) 11 Maintainability (M) 17 Testability (T) 20 • Tailor R&M Task Requirements 23 R&M Task Application/Priorities 25 Develop a Contract Data Requirements List 26 • Specify Information To Be Included in Proposals 28 Evaluate Contractor Proposals 31 Specify Part Stress Derating 37 Determine the Limitations of Common Cooling Techniques 44 Understand Basic Parts Control 46 Identify Key R&M&T Topics for Evaluation at Design Reviews 55 Evaluate Contactor's Method of Managing Critical Items 62 Understand Design Concerns Associated with Dormant Conditions 63 Understand Basic SMT Design Issues 66 Evaluate Power Supply Reliability 67 Determine Part Failure Modes and Mechanisms 69 Evaluate Fiber Optic Reliability 73 Understand R&M&T Analysis Types and Purposes 77 Understand Reliability Prediction Methods 80 Understand Maintainability Prediction Methods 81 Understand Testability Analysis Methods 84 Evaluate a Reliability Prediction Report 85 Evaluate Existing Reliability Data 86 Evaluate a Maintainability/Testability Analysis Report 87 Evaluate a Failure
    [Show full text]
  • Ida Announces Winners of 12Th Annual Design Competition!
    For Immediate Release Press Contact: Hannah Lillethun / [email protected] IDA ANNOUNCES WINNERS OF 12TH ANNUAL DESIGN COMPETITION! (Friday, March 1, 2019) The world-renowned International Design Awards has just announced the final winners in its 12th Annual contest, representing the most revolutionary designs in 5 major categories: Architecture, Interior Design, Graphic Design, Product Design, and Fashion Design. The International Design Awards (IDA) received thousands of outstanding designs submitted by companies and designers from 89 countries, all competing for the top prizes in this prestigious global award, which has been leading the way in discovering and celebrating fresh new designers from around the world for over a decade. With so many incredible entries and so much outstanding talent, the task of selecting the final winners was difficult to say the least, but after careful consideration and much anticipation, the jury’s selection for this year’s prestigious “Design of the Year” awards have been announced in both the professional and student divisions. The Jury’s winner selection showcases a diverse range of designers whose truly outstanding work and visionary designs captured the jury’s votes and garnered the year’s top awards. PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY WINNERS: ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN OF THE YEAR: DESIGN OF THE YEAR: Challenge Design / Gensler / Yuanlu Community Center In Chongqing Gusto PRODUCT GRAPHIC DESIGN DESIGN OF THE YEAR: DESIGN OF THE YEAR: https://idesignawards.com/winners/zoom.php?eid=9-21881-18&count=1&mode=Valery
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Biotic Approaches in Performance Based Design Aparna Joijode a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirem
    Exploring Biotic Approaches in Performance Based Design Aparna Joijode A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Architecture University of Washington 2019 Committee: Rob Pena, Chair Chris Meek, Co-Chair Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Architecture © Copyright 2019 Aparna Joijode University of Washington Abstract Exploring Biotic Approaches in Performance Based Design Aparna Joijode Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Robert B. Peña, Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Coordinator Department of Architecture For any building, its façade provides the first layer of interaction with its environment, an optimum design can harness significant synergies while a linear design could considerably increase the energy consumption. As designers, we are required to make informed decisions and educate stakeholders of all potential criteria in selection of the design and engineering approach. ‘My thesis goal is to develop such a framework for adaptive façade design based on biomimetic logic and value engineering and test it with parametric modelling. The design subject is a proposed low-income housing project enhanced with biophilic application to provide comfort at low cost.’ Page left blank intentionally This thesis is best viewed as a two-page spread with this page on left hand side. 3 Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Table of contents………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
    [Show full text]
  • ENTRY and CONSENT FORM Yves Saint Laurent-Inspired Fashion Design Competition
    ENTRY AND CONSENT FORM Yves Saint Laurent-Inspired Fashion Design Competition Fashion students and recent graduates are invited to create an original look inspired by the fashion icon Yves Saint Laurent and Seattle Art Museum’s special exhibition, Yves Saint Laurent: The Perfection of Style on view from October 11, 2016 through January 8, 2017. Take one of three iconic YSL looks described below as inspiration and create a sketch design; finalists will be selected to produce their looks. Finalists will have the opportunity to produce the entire look and the best three will be displayed in the Seattle Art Museum’s Brotman Forum for the duration of the exhibition. The top three winners will also receive an invitation to the Yves Saint Laurent Opening Celebration on October 8 and a SAM membership to inspire their creativity. Note: travel to Seattle to attend the Opening Celebration not included in prize package. The first prize winner will also receive a photo shoot of their winning look with a Seattle fashion photographer (including model and makeup), gift certificates to fabric stores, and consultation with SAM’s marketing team to help launch their career. 1. Mondrian dress, 1965 Possibly YSL’s most famous look ever, bringing fine art into fashion with a playfulness that was perfectly in tune with Pop art and music of the moment. YSL audaciously applied the modernist concept of flatness to the dress—no darts, no zippers. 2. Safari dress, 1968 This iconic look reached back to France’s colonial past and images of big game hunting. But it took hold with a new audience in the late 1960s as Saint Laurent adapted the laced-up tunic for both men and women, a revolutionary idea of androgyny that would help define the decade of the 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Executives of Moma and Bloomingdales Explain Purpose of Design Competition and Introduce Mexican Amd South American Winners
    ••§••• YU TNli4MtfcSEUM OF MODERN ART ,, WEST 53RD STREET, NEW YORK gpHONE: CIRCLE 5-8900 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EXECUTIVES OF MUSEUM OF MODERN ART AND BLOOMINGDALE*S INC. EXPLAIN PURPOSE OF DESIGN COMPETITION AND INTRODUCE MEXICAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN WINNERS A unique industrial design project for the twenty-one American Republics has resulted in a new group of home furnishing to bs known as Organic Design, it was announced by executives of the Museum of Modern Art and Bloomingdale's Inc. at a luncheon-meeting held Monday, June 16, in the penthouse of the Museum, 11 West 53 Street, Wallace K. Harrison, noted architect and Chairman of the Museum's Industrial Design Committee, presided. Speakers were John Hay Whitney, President of the Museum, who introduced the Mexican and South American winners of the Museum1s Industrial Design Competitions for Home Furnishings; Ira A. Hirschmann, Vice-President of Bloomingdale's; and Eliot F. Noyes, Director of the Museum's Depart­ ment of Industrial Design. Also present at the luncheon-meeting were winners of the Design Competition in the United States, and guests. The purpose of the Design Competitions was to select a group of designers capable of creating a useful and beautiful environment for today's living in terms of furniture, fabrics and lighting. The winners of the Competitions were announced February 1. Winners of the Competition in the United States received royalty contracts for the manufacture of their designs. Winners from the other American Republics received a round trip ticket to New York and $1,000 for ex­ penses during a three or four months' stay here to visit stores and manufacturing plants and look into ways of utilizing the products of their countries for North American use.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Impacts of Design-Build on the Design Engineer
    Practical Impacts of Design-Build on the Design Engineer Presented by: Joseph C. Staak, Esq. Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP 2700 Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30303-1227 Tel: 404.582.8026 [email protected] www.smithcurrie.com November 2012 NOTES Practical Impacts of Design-Build on the Design Engineer I. INTRODUCTION Project delivery using Design-build has become increasingly popular over the last thirty years. Owners have recognized the advantages of using a single source of responsibility for a project’s design and construction. Many contractors have recognized the popularity of design-build and have made adjustments to their business model allowing them to offer this one-stop system for project delivery. Architects and engineers also recognize that, unless they want to avoid this ever growing segment of the project design market, they too must adapt to working directly with the contractor. Nearly half of all commercial construction in the United States is being awarded using design-build as the project delivery vehicle, and the reasons are obvious. Owners perceive multiple advantages in using design-build. These advantages include, but are not limited to, a single source of responsibility for design and construction, the increased risk design-build transfers to the design- builder, the opportunity to fast track design and construction to reduce the time from concept to completion, and the owner’s ability to take advantage of the design-builder’s expertise in identifying design solutions. Changes in public procurement during the last 20 years have precipitated an explosion in the use of design-build by government agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Uia Competition Guide
    International Union of Architects International Competitions Commission GUIDELINES UIA COMPETITION GUIDE FOR DESIGN COMPETITIONS IN ARCHITECTURE AND RELATED FIELDS interpreting and implementing the UNESCO “Standard Regulations for International Competitions in Architecture and Town-Planning” Adopted by the 130th Council in Seoul, March 2017 Amendments adopted by the 131st Council in Kuala Lumpur, July 2017 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Task force: Esa Mohamed, Malaysia, UIA President 2014-2017 Thomas Vonier, USA, UIA Secretary General 2014-2017 Regina Gonthier, Switzerland, ICC Co-Director Jerzy Grochulski, Poland, ICC Co-Director ICC Member-Contributors: Roger Schluntz, USA Serban Tiganas, Romania, Council Member Patrick Colombier, France Paula Huotelin, Finland Kyriakos Pipinis, Greece Pierre Sauveur, Belgium, Council Member Tan Pei Ing, Malaysia Secretariat: Emily Bonin PREFACE In 2016, sixty years after the UIA and UNESCO ratified the standard regulations for international competitions, the UIA International Competition Commission (ICC) spent several months reviewing the rules and guide for conducting competitions. This was in response to growing demands for competitions for increasingly complex projects that not only include buildings but also city development, planning and urban regeneration. During the early stages of the ICC activities, the objectives were to emphasize fairness in the evaluation, quality and innovation. Now these objectives are set against the challenges of sustainability and climate change. There is a strong call for more creative solutions that will enhance the quality of life for the communities where the projects are located, as well as for their users. The designs and creations must take into account the impact on the local social framework while serving as an inspiration for future planning and architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Design-Build Contracts As an Alternative Method for the Construction of Public Buildings Sam Niece, P.E., Esq
    Design-Build Contracts as an Alternative Method for the Construction of Public Buildings Sam Niece, P.E., Esq. Can a California general law city use design-build? It depends on what you mean by “design-build.” I. What is Design-Build? The term “design-build” refers to a range of alternatives to the traditional project delivery system. A useful way to look at design-build is by what it is not. Traditional design-bid-build is a segmented, sequential process where the owner first contracts with a design professional to prepare detailed, suitable-for-construction plans and specifications (or sometimes has them prepared by its in-house engineers), then uses the detailed plans and specifications to solicit competitive price bids for construction, and finally awards the construction project to the low bidder. In design-build, one entity performs both design and construction under a single contract. Government Code § 14661(b) defines the term as follows: “‘design-build’ means a procurement process in which both the design and construction of a project are procured from a single entity.” Public Contract Code § 20133(c)(2) defines the term in identical language. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) defines the term as “a process in which the Owner contracts directly with one entity that is to provide both design and construction services.” Usually, the design-build contract is awarded by some process other than competitive bidding. Government Code § 14661(d)(3)(A)(i) provides that “[a]ward shall be made to the design-build entity whose proposal is judged as providing the best value in meeting the interest of the department and meeting the objectives of the project.” Public Contract Code § 20133(d)(4)(B) provides that “[a] county may use a design-build competition based upon best value .
    [Show full text]
  • In the Footsteps of Dior
    SCHOOLS FASHION DESIGN COMPETITION 2020 IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF DIOR DOES YOUR SCHOOL OR COLLEGE HAVE ANY BUDDING FASHION DESIGNERS? IS FASHION DESIGN AN AREA THAT YOUR STUDENTS ARE INTERESTED IN? IF SO, THEN YOU WON’T WANT TO MISS OUR LATEST SCHOOLS FASHION DESIGN COMPETITION! The chosen theme for this year’s competition is ‘In the Footsteps of Dior’. Taking inspiration from Christian Dior: Designer of Dreams, the V&A’s most successful exhibition ever, students are asked to research the House of Dior and present their application to take over the helm from Maria Grazi Chiuri as the current Creative Director of Dior! Overall A fabulous sewing machine for their PRIZES Winning School: D&T department. 1st Prize Student: £75.00 worth of design and craft books, threads and a crafting goody bag. 2nd Prize Student: £50.00 worth of design and craft books, threads and a crafting goody bag. 3rd Prize Student: £25.00 worth of design and craft books, threads and a crafting goody bag. Will take place at the Fashion & Embroidery show on JUDGING Friday 20th March 2020, at the NEC Birmingham. PLEASE NOTE The competition is open to students aged between 13 and 18 only DESIGN BRIEF You are applying to take the reigns of the House of Dior as Design Director, research the background to Dior and the subsequent designers who have held the post to present day, showing you have understood their varying styles and then make your presentation to the ‘House of Dior’ – or rather the competition judges. USING VARIOUS MEDIA WE WOULD LIKE ALL ENTRANTS TO PRODUCE THREE A3 MOOD BOARDS: BOARD 1: This mood board should reflect their chosen direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings: 15 Best Practices for Overcoming Cost Barriers in Project Acquisition, Design, and Construction
    Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings: 15 Best Practices for Overcoming Cost Barriers in Project Acquisition, Design, and Construction Shanti Pless, Paul Torcellini: NREL Commercial Buildings Research Group Phil Macey: Haselden Construction Executive Summary First costs, or capital costs, for energy efficiency strategies in office buildings often present a significant barrier to realizing high-performance buildings with 50% or greater energy savings over the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 90.1-2004 Standard. Historically, the industry has been unable to achieve deep energy savings because it has relied on energy cost savings and simple payback analysis alone to justify investments. A more comprehensive and integrated cost justification and capital cost control approach is needed. First cost barriers can be overcome by implementing innovative procurement and delivery strategies, integrated design principles and cost tradeoffs, life cycle cost justifications, and streamlined construction methods. It is now possible to build marketable, high-performance office buildings that achieve LEED Platinum, save more than $1/ft2 annually in energy costs, and reach net zero energy goals at competitive whole-building first costs. This is illustrated by the U.S. Department of Energy’s and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s latest high-performance office building, the Research Support Facility (RSF) on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s campus in Golden, Colorado. The RSF is a 220,000-ft2 headquarters and administrative office building with a corporate-scale data center. The RSF reached its energy goals while maintaining a firm fixed price budget at competitive whole-building capital construction costs (move-in ready) of $259/ft2.
    [Show full text]