B08_Attachment_04_Appendix_L_-_MiniVA-1_meeting_minutes_fnl_0002.pdf

Version: 6/17/03 Page: 1

VALUE ANALYSIS - Mini VA

Park: Gateway / Fort Wadsworth

PMIS: GATE 318739

Project: Rehabilitate Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utility Systems at Ft. Wadsworth Date: July 25, 2023

Component Evaluated: Feasibility of Rehabilitating/Replacing only Critical Sanitary Sewer

Phase I - Information:

Background Information/Special Concerns/Constraints/Previous Decisions/Description of Present Proposal/Design Assumptions

Fort Wadsworth is a former US military installation located on the eastern shore of Staten Island at the Narrows of New York Harbor. It is now currently part of the Staten Island Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area.

The goal of this project is to fully renew the water, wastewater, and stormwater utility systems at Fort Wadsworth. The current scope of work for this project includes the replacement of the entire water system and the entire wastewater system and rehabilitate or replace the stormwater system based on the assessment of the existing condition.

This VA will evaluate the feasibility of adding the condition assessment of the wastewater system to the scope of work for the DBE to determine if only portions of the sewer are in critical condition and require rehabilitation or replacement rather than replacing the entire existing wastewater system, ultimately resulting in a cost savings.

There are approximately 11,000 LF of sanitary sewer on site. Sewers are typically the deepest utility and therefore are the most costly and impactful to install.

Constraints/concerns for this component include:

• Limited funds for the additional assessment work

• Additional disturbance and maintenance of access to historical park area

• Additional disturbance to trees

• Long-term integrity of the wastewater system

Version: 6/17/03 Page: 2

Phase II - Functional Analysis:

Functional Analysis/Description of the Present Proposal:

Active Verb Noun

1. Optimize Funds

2. Minimize Disturbance/Impact

3. Improve Sewer System

4. _______________ _______________

5. _______________ _______________

6. _______________ _______________

Phase III - Creativity (Alternatives):

# Alternative (Brainstormed) Action (consider further, reject and why) 1 Replace the entire existing wastewater system Consider further, original scope 2 CCTV the sewer system to determine the need for rehab/replacement Consider further, Stantec and NPS to look into costs and schedule impacts to televise the sanitary system 3 Model wastewater system Not discussed

Version: 6/17/03 Page: 2

Phase IV - Evaluation

Evaluation Sub-Factors or Variables:

# Evaluation Variables or Sub-factors Definition of Variable or Sub-factors 1 Optimization of the project 2 Long-term integrity of the system 3 Cost 4 Construction schedule 5 Impacts to the Park during construction

Version: 6/17/03 Page: 3

Phase V - Development (Confirm proposal feasibility, Initial and Life Cycle Costs):

NPS staff expressed concerns about the ability of the DBE to provide an educated bid if they will need to evaluate the system during design.

NPS also discussed how they would realize savings if not all the sewer is replaced.

As a result, it was suggested that Stantec could perform the inspections. The scope could be to inspect the pipes and not perform an assessment, or Stantec could also perform an assessment, similar to assessment of the storm drain system.

Phase VI – Recommendation (Recommendations, Preferred Alternative's Advantages, Benefit-Cost Issues Why should we do it?):

Determine whether the sanitary sewer system can be inspected by Stantec as part of the POR. Determine the costs and schedule impacts associated with inspecting the sanitary sewer.

Phase VII - Implementation (Considerations and Options for Implementation, Next steps, Who does what?)

TBD, NPS to meet internally to discuss issuance of RFP 003.

Study Team Members

Discipline Name Organization Phone Facilitator: Brendan O’Brien Stantec Facilitator: Noel Guercio Stantec Heather Breysse Stantec Brooklyn Harris Stantec Ben Warner Axias Mark Ethridge NPS Andrew O’Toole NPS Brandon Williams NPS

Version: 6/17/03 Page: 4

Amy Sebring NPS Matthew Kutch NPS Adam Supplee NPS Francis Opperman NPS Athena Zissis NPS James Mealey NPS Victoria Cacchione NPS Margo Brooks NPS Michael Ownens NPS Holly Staggs NPS Margaret Powell NPS Richard Daniels NPS Jim Estioco NPS

Version: 6/17/03 Page: 1

Summary of Improvements, Cost Savings and Study Costs (All are reported to OMB)

Project Improvements e.g. increased benefit or importance of advantage

Cost Savings e.g. of the recommended VA proposals, which are to be implemented