ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: February 20, 1998

Author/Local: K. Van Vliet/6127

CC File No. 3651

TO:	Standing Committee on City Services & Budgets
FROM:	General Manager of Engineering Services General Manager of Fire & Rescue Services
SUBJECT:	Dedicated Fire Protection System - Progress Report & Implementation of Value Engineering Study Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION

A.THAT Council adopt a revised scope of work for the Dedicated Fire Protection System (DFPS) as derived from the Value Engineering Study and as outlined in this report. The revised scope of work includes deferring construction of the third pump station in Kitsilano, and slightly increasing and shifting the DFPS distribution main coverage area eastward.

B.THAT Council approve that $1.7 million in funding for the DFPS be transferred from Waterworks unallocated capital.

C.THAT the ultimate operating budget for the DFPS remain at $300,000 and the operating and maintenance savings obtained as a result of the revised project scope be reallocated to fund a Superintendent I position beginning in 1998.

COUNCIL POLICY

On April 16, 1992, Council approved the implementation of the Dedicated Fire Protection System (DFPS), including 3 shoreline pumping stations and a dedicated high pressure pipeline for Downtown and Kitsilano with a project budget of approximately $40 million. Implementation is to occur over a 12 year period.

On July 29, 1997, Council approved the Value Engineering Services contract to review the DFPS conceptual and detailed design.

SUMMARY

The Dedicated Fire Protection System (DFPS) was approved by Council in 1992 with a project budget of $40 million. The first two pump stations and a connecting pipeline between them downtown are now complete. As reported to Council previously, the projected completion cost of the project is higher than originally budgeted. As a result of the anticipated funding shortfall, a Value Engineering (VE) Study was approved by Council and conducted in the fall of 1997. The VE study was used to successfully reassess the design concept, determine the best way to meet the functional requirements for the remainder of the system, and develop alternatives with various funding requirements.

Some of the recommendations of the VE study were implemented in construction work late in 1997, reducing pipeline installation costs by 15 percent. System design alternatives, such as deferring construction of the third pump station, were also presented in the VE report.

This report presents four alternatives to complete the DFPS project for Council's consideration. The recommended alternative involves deferring construction of the Kitsilano pump station, shifting the pipeline installation slightly to the east, and adding approximately two blocks of pipeline to the program. The adjustment would have DFPS pipeline installed from Oak Street to MacDonald Street. The increased project cost of this alternative is $4.4 million, with $1.7 million available in waterworks unallocated funding. The net new project funding required is $2.74 million, which would be required in the next capital plan. The recommended alternative, based on results from the VE study, is more than $12 million less than the originally proposed system would have cost to complete.

It has also become apparent as the system gets completed that the current part time supervision of the system controllers and their maintenance and operational duties is inadequate. To ensure that the DFPS is fully operational, maintained, and integrated into the Fire Department firefighting operations, a full time supervisor is required.

PURPOSE

This report updates Council on the progress and financial status of the Dedicated Fire Protection System (DFPS) as well as the results of the Value Engineering Study of the DFPS conducted in the fall of 1997. The report recommends changes to the project scope, and provides alternatives for Council's consideration.

In conjunction with changes to the scope of the DFPS project, this report also recommends hiring a full time supervisor (Superintendent I) to administer and supervise the system operation and maintenance.

BACKGROUND

The preliminary design for the DFPS was approved for implementation in 1992 at an estimated cost of $40 million. This design included the construction of two pump stations downtown (False Creek and Coal Harbour) and one in the Kitsilano area. The preliminary design also called for approximately 7.5 kilometers of pipeline downtown, 5.5 kilometers of pipeline to service the Kitsilano area, valve stations, hydrants, and hose tender trucks. A plan of the approved concept is shown in Figure 1. The figure also indicates to what extent the system is complete as of January, 1998.

At the completion of the False Creek station two years ago, five system controllers were hired to operate and maintain the stations and system. Each controller works alone on 12 hour shifts (2 days, 2 nights, 4 off) to provide continuous coverage 7 days a week. In addition to their duties with the DFPS, the operators currently conduct engineering dispatch and monitoring duties from 3 p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays, and on weekends.

As reported in the specific contract award reports, design and construction costs for the pipeline downtown and the pump stations are above the initial preliminary cost estimate. Table 1 shows the current financial status of the project as approved in 1992. All expenditures have been translated into 1992 dollars for consistency.

While it is realized that the 1992 budget figure of $40 million was a preliminary budget estimate, the observed implementation costs were higher than staff were comfortable with. As a result, staff recommended undertaking a Value Engineering (VE) Study which was approved by Council in July 1997.

The study was conducted in September with implementation meetings following in October. The purpose of the VE study was to reassess the design concept, determine the best way to meet the functional requirements for the remainder of the system, and develop options with various funding requirements. Some of the recommended alternatives from the VE workshop were implemented on a trial basis for the last few blocks of pipeline constructed in November 1997, to evaluate their feasibility and cost savings.

The VE team also visited the existing pump stations and commented on their operability, as well as the working relationship between the stations and the Fire Department.

DISCUSSION

Staff feel that the VE Study was very successful. The study, which was the first major re-evaluation of the project since 1991, generated innovative and creative ideas relating to the DFPS and other emergency water supplies. The VE recommendations implemented to date, as well as those recommended in this report, reduce the DFPS project cost by over $12 million from the original design.

The study was not a simple cost cutting measure, but a review of the system to ensure that the best value is being obtained. New knowledge and experience gained from recent earthquakes, system construction to date, and on-going designs in another City combined to effectively challenge existing assumptions and design parameters. The team included an Assistant Fire Chief from the City of San Francisco and a Deputy Fire Chief from the City of Berkeley. These cities have, or are designing, dedicated high pressure systems similar to our own. The team also included seismic, construction and hydraulic engineering expertise.

As can be seen in Table 1, installation of the pipeline to date has been more costly than anticipated in 1992. As pipeline installation constitutes the bulk of the work remaining, the VE Workshop focused heavily on the DFPS distribution system, from concept to detailed pipeline design.

Some of the recommended changes in the detailed pipeline design result in significant cost savings with minimal impact on pipeline reliability. These involve the depth of the pipeline, backfill requirements, and construction method. Some of these changes were implemented in the most recent section of pipeline installed downtown and have proven to reduce the pipeline cost by approximately 15%. Further savings may be obtained in future sections of pipeline as additional design changes are implemented.

In addition to the pipeline design details, the VE team and staff felt that substantial cost-savings were possible by revisiting the need for a third pump station and evaluating the pros and cons of its deferral. The third pump station (Kitsilano) was included in the conceptual design for the following reasons:

·To provide 10,000 imperial gallons per minute (igpm) of flow as part of the 30,000 igpm total system goal (at 300 psi operating pressure).

·Ensure that 10,000 igpm would be available in Kitsilano should the False Creek crossing fail.

·Post seismic water supply requirement was set at 20,000 igpm downtown and 10,000 igpm in Kitsilano/Fairview slopes.

·To provide water for fighting all large fires in Kitsilano as a supplement to the potable system in Kitsilano, which has a relatively low fire supply capacity.

As a result of consultations with design experts during and after the VE study, staff feel that we could defer the third station because:

·The crossing of False Creek at Kitsilano Point would not be as vulnerable as first believed due to the likelihood of drilling the entire crossing through rock.

·The above ground hose distribution system is more effective than expected, allowing lower pressures to carry the same volume of water the same distance. At 200 psi discharge pressure, the two existing pump stations can provide a total of 30,000 igpm.

·There is significant uncertainty as to the likelihood that more than 20,000 igpm would be required post seismically.

·Eliminating the station has no significant effect on the system’s reliability for every day firefighting.

This report presents four alternatives to continue with construction of the DFPS. The pipeline cost for each alternative takes into account changes in the pipeline design and construction that have been implemented since the VE study.

Alternative A (Recommended). Revise project scope by deferring Kitsilano pump station and altering the pipeline route eastward.

This alternative defers construction of the Kitsilano Pump Station until a future phase, adds approximately two blocks of pipeline to the system, and adjusts the pipeline location as indicated in Figure 2. The scope as presented in 1992 provided coverage in Kitsilano but not the dense wood frame construction of Fairview Slopes. It was assumed at that time that a City owned reservoir would be constructed in the Oakridge area that would contain adequate water for fire fighting along the hospital corridor as well as into Fairview Slopes. As a result of further analysis through the recent storage and transmission review, and upcoming upgrades to the GVRD system, this reservoir has been deferred. Therefore, there is less likelihood of potable water being available for post- disaster fire fighting in Fairview slopes and along the hospital corridor, and the need for DFPS coverage in these areas has increased.

By shifting the pipeline location, coverage will also be reduced in west Kitsilano, where the fire demands are lower, but will still extend as far as Blenheim Street without relay pumping. This shift continues to ensure that the areas of largest fire demand, as well as weakest potable water distribution system, are covered by the DFPS.

The advantages of this alternative are that the coverage area is increased slightly to serve the largest area with the highest fire demands, maintaining coverage in those areas where the potable supply is weak, and takes into account the current understanding of anticipated improvements in the City and GVWD water supply system.

The disadvantages are that the total DFPS supply potential is reduced by one third, and that an increase in capital funding of $4.4 million is required.

Alternative B. Proceed with project with no alteration in scope.

This alternative proposes to continue with the project as presented to Council in 1992, with no significant alterations to the project scope. The advantages of this alternative are that the full design supply of 30,000 igpm is maintained via three stations, which provides added assurance and reliability, and system coverage extends west beyond Alma. The disadvantages are an increased capital funding requirement of approximately $12.6 million, and Fairview Slopes and Vancouver Hospital would not be covered by the system.

Alternative C. Maintain proposed pipeline route, defer construction of Kitsilano Pump Station

This alternative proposes to maintain essentially the same pipeline routing, and therefore system coverage, as proposed in the 1992 report but defers construction of the Kitsilano pump station until a future phase. The advantage of this alternative is a reduction in additional funding required to maintain the same coverage area as the original design. The disadvantages are that the total supply potential is reduced by one third, and that the emergency water supply to the Fairview Slopes and Vancouver Hospital area are lower than that anticipated in 1992 due to the deferral of a City reservoir in the Oakridge area.

Alternative D. Reduce proposed pipeline installation to run as far west as Carnarvon, defer construction of Kitsilano Pump Station

This alternative defers construction of the Kitsilano pump station and reduces the quantity of pipeline installed in Kitsilano to run as far west as Carnarvon, using all of the funds available in Waterworks unallocated. The advantage of this alternative is that it can be completed with increased funding of $1.7 million, all of which will be available in waterworks unallocated funding. The disadvantages are that the total supply potential of water is reduced by one third, and Fairview Slopes and Vancouver Hospital would not be covered by the system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A site for a pump station in Kitsilano has been identified that staff believe will be acceptable from both public and technical perspectives. However, after conducting the VE study it is recommended that the design and construction of a third pump station in Kitsilano be deferred (beyond 2004) until the system is further expanded beyond that envisioned in the 1992 report.

With limited funding, the uncertain quantity of water required post-seismically, and renewed confidence in a pipeline crossing of False Creek, staff feel that deferring the third pump station and maintaining coverage through pipeline installation provides best value.

It is further recommended that the coverage area be shifted slightly eastward, with pipeline installation running from Macdonald Street to approximately Oak Street (alternative A above). This shift in coverage area results in more protection for areas of higher fire demands while maintaining coverage in those areas of Kitsilano where the potable supply for fire fighting is weaker.

Addition of Superintendent I

With the completion of the second pump station at the Marathon site in 1997, and the construction of the first phase of dedicated water main, the DFPS is ready to become fully operational and integrated into the Fire Department’s fire fighting operations in the downtown peninsula. As the new infrastructure components were completed and incorporated into the system, more maintenance work, operational checks, practices simulations, etc. have added to the work load of the system controllers.

Supervision of the controllers was initially added to the duties of an Assistant Superintendent (Superintendent II) in the Waterworks Operations Branch. However, with the development and commissioning of new components to the system, it has become very apparent that the supervision of the system controllers and their maintenance and operational duties cannot be adequately handled by a part-time supervisor.

To ensure that the DFPS is fully operational, a full time supervisor is required. The supervisor will direct and plan system controller activities and maintenance duties, providing much needed continuity to the DFPS operation. The position will perform all administrative duties and act as liaison with Fire and Rescue Services to ensure that the system remains fully integrated into fire fighting operations. The position is also a ‘hands on’ position, helping with maintenance checks and two person maintenance work such as those requiring confined space entry.

The Human Resources Department completed a classification review of the proposed position and determined that the duties and responsibilities of the position should be compensated at a remuneration level equivalent to a Superintendent I. The Engineering Department concurs with this recommendation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Capital Accounts

Close-outs for the 1994-1996 Waterworks Capital Plan were recently reported to Council. The close-outs recommend the transfer of $1.7 million in unspent capital funds to a waterworks unallocated capital account. Should Council choose, this funding is available to offset any increase in costs required to complete the DFPS as outlined in one of the alternatives.

Table 2 indicates the financial impacts of the project alternatives available to complete the DFPS. At the bottom of each column is the change to the project budget required to complete each option.

It is recommended that Council approve alternative A, deferral of the third pump station in Kitsilano with a small shift in pipeline coverage area to the east (Fairview Slopes), at an increased project cost of $4.4 million, with $1.7 million coming from Waterworks unallocated capital funding and $2.7 million to come from future capital budgets.

Operating Accounts

The 1992 DFPS approval included a provision for $300,000 in system operating costs. The 1997 budget included $200,000 for operation of the existing system. This was expected to increase to $300,000 when the majority of the system was operational. With the proposed deferral of the Kitsilano Pump Station, and the experience gained in maintaining the existing stations and pipeline, it is recommended that the final operating costs for the system remain at $300,000 and that this funding include the hiring of a new staff position (Waterworks Superintendent I), beginning in 1998 to oversee the system operation, maintenance, training and coordination with the Fire Department.

CONCLUSIONS

The DFPS pipeline construction has cost significantly more than anticipated in the 1992 conceptual design. As a result, the concept approved in 1992 would not be completed within budget. The Waterworks Design Branch has investigated various project alternatives through a Value Engineering Study to determine how to achieve the best value from the DFPS system. It is recommended that the total coverage area of the system not be reduced, but that construction of the third pump station in Kitsilano be deferred until further system expansion is desired after completion of this phase in 2004. It is also recommended that the coverage area in Kitsilano be shifted to the east and slightly increased to provide more coverage in Fairview slopes and the hospital corridor.

In order to ensure that the DFPS is fully operational when needed for fire fighting, a Waterworks Superintendent I is required to oversee system operation, maintenance, training and coordination with the Fire Department. This position can be funded from changes in current operating practices and within the DFPS operating budget ultimately envisioned for the system. It is recommended that this position be created and funded in 1998.

* * * * *

(c) 1997 City of Vancouver