Council must demand a higher performance from city management. They should be appalled by the misrepresentations and procedures employed to avoid proper value engineering analysis. This water project is the most expensive project ever undertaken by the city.
It’s most costly and controversial components must be thoroughly reviewed. This project must be delayed until necessary value engineering of these two elements can be made. A delay is much less costly than an improperly engineered and overpriced project.
On November 6, 2013 the Bend City Council voted to proceed with the membrane filtration system for the Surface Water improvement Project. The estimated cost is $35 million, substantially more than the $15 million alternative ultra violet treatment process. That vote was made after staff provided totally false information.Previously, on November 3, 2010, the council voted for the $68 million surface water project that included a 10 mile pipeline estimated to cost $24 million (necessary if the project were to include the power production then planned).
Without the power component the water could be delivered by the river to a lower point with piping then estimated to cost a fraction of that. What these two costly votes have in common is that each was excluded from the invaluable value engineering review of the project, thereby not subjecting the study to qualified third party review.A value engineering study (VE) is a review of plans by an independent professional team.
They are designed to evaluate the “engineering” thought and approach used on a project. VE studies question the design team’s paradigms and concepts. It is critical for cost control and function of complex construction projects like this one.In fact on highway projects over $20 million funded by the federal government or the state of Oregon it is required if the cost is over $20 million. For Corp of Engineering projects the threshold is much lower. The city had a value engineering study for the overall project.
However the VE review of a 10 mile long pipe and the type of filtration, each costing over $20 million, were specifically excluded by staff. The value engineering report to the City of March 2011 was undertaken with the assumption that there would be a power production facility built.
The report noted that the City is committed to maintaining the current point of diversion, maintain a dual source for water, and a membrane filtration system. It stated “THESE ARE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECTS THAT THE CITY DOES NOT WANT SCRUTINIZED BY THE TEAM….BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT PROJECT ELEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED.”Now fast forward to the November 6, 2013 meeting of the City Council.
Councilor Chudowski in promoting the membrane filtration system desired by staff stated: “We had the value engineering study which brought in people completely unconnected from any, you know, way to benefit from one choice or another, they came in totally blind and with a very critical eye, looked at our system and chose membrane. And these are people with a lifetime of professional experience.
I think the person with a lifetime of experience who comes in and looks at our situation, they know all the variables..… as a result of their experience and they are able to say that you know, look, membrane is a better choice for you.”Following this no one from the City staff commented on this misstatement of fact regarding the VE study: not the City manager, not the City engineer, not the public director, not the project coordinator, not the city attorney, all of whom have been involved and knowledgeable about the project for several years.
Finally Councilor Russell asked staff what the constraints were on the value engineering study and if alternative filtration systems were reviewed. City Engineer Hickman answered regarding the value engineering study of the water project and what restrictions were in place: “In this particular case it wasn’t regarding treatment. It was regarding the location of diversion and the idea that we would have a dual source.
Those were the constraints that we said, you know, the City is committed to a dual source and the City’s committed to maintain the current point of diversion.” THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON TREATMENT. In fact the VE team when they came, the protocol for these is very strict, and we weren’t allowed to interact with them as staff, and when we did it was under very kind of strict protocol and it was a really amazing experience actually.
But then when all is said and done, the head of the VE, what he told me was he was convinced coming into this that he was going to find substantial savings in the treatment. He was convinced that we’d probably had made the wrong decision on treatment or that there was cheaper alternatives available to us.
And he was shocked at the end that they could not basically say that that was not the correct choice…. That was probably the strongest statement they came out with: “to stay in pursuit of the membrane treatment.”THIS WAS AN ABSOLUTELY FALSE STATEMENT. A TOTAL FABRICATION.IN FACT THE FILTRATION SYSTEM WAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FOR REVIEW BY THE VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM. He must have known that a review of the filtration system was not subject to value engineering as he was responsible for writing the Value Engineering study parameters that excluded it.A citizen in the audience had a copy of the City’s value engineering study.
It stated: “aspects of the project that the city does not want scrutinized by the team because they represent project elements that, in the opinion of the city, cannot be changed” —- the following projects constraints were defined for this VE study: “water withdrawal location must not change; must have a surface water supply; must have membrane filtration.”This was shown City Engineer Hickman, Public Works Director Paul Rheault and Project Coordinator Heidi Lansdowne. They were requested to correct the information for Council. They refused.
So the council voted with the clear understanding that the filtration system was highly recommended by the Value Engineering team. This seems an intentional and deliberate presentation of incorrect data to the council. It is similar to a technique they employed when the council was deciding on the method of piping the water to the treatment plant.
Council had voted for a 10 mile long pipeline because it was essential for power production. Despite the major impact of dropping power production from the project, no Value Engineering review of the necessity for that $24 million component was undertaken. Then in December 2011 the city announced it “would review the underlying assumptions the City used in reaching some of its decisions.” However at a hearing held on March 7, 2012 they absolutely refused to review the decision regarding piping or any potentially less costly alternatives.
So we now have a project with a $35 million membrane filtration component and $24 million piping component neither of which has been subject to a value engineering analysis.It appears city management predetermined the results they wanted in these areas and then excluded them from outside expert review. There is no excuse for excluding the most costly and controversial elements of the plan from Value Engineering. One wonders why staff is so determined to prevent such a review.
What conceivable reason is there other than that staff believes they have an unsupportable position. Council must demand a higher performance from city management. They should be appalled by the misrepresentations and procedures employed to avoid proper value engineering analysis.
This water project is the most expensive project ever undertaken by the city. It’s most costly and controversial components must be thoroughly reviewed. This project must be delayed until necessary value engineering of these two elements can be made. A delay is much less costly than an improperly engineered and overpriced project.
Comments may be directed Allan Bruckner at adbruckner@gmail.com.
