AGENDA ITEM I1
DATE:
June 2, 2014
TO:
Matt Jordan, General Manager
FROM:
Alison Adams, Chief Technical Officer
SUBJECT:
Comprehensive Asset Management Program -
Status Report
and Presentation
SUMMARY:
A comprehensive asset management program is key to maintaining a
reliable water supply and delivery system. A status of all program activities
underway is provided in this item.
RECOMMENDATION
: Receive status report and Presentation
DISCUSSION:
Asset management is the systematic integration of sustainable management
techniques into a management paradigm that are applied to the entire portfolio of assets at
all levels of the agency. In October 2013, staff retained the services of CH2M Hill, Inc. to
develop the Asset Management Assessment Report and Implementation Plan and to
continue assisting staff in developing maintenance strategies that would be required prior to
implementing a new computerized maintenance management system.
The Asset Management Assessment Report and Implementation Plan were completed in
April 2014 (see attachment). These products detail a five year formal approach to asset
management through integrating and enhancing existing data, systems, business processes,
and practices into a comprehensive asset management program. The Implementation Plan
charts a set of 17 projects beginning January 2014 through December 2018; the majority of
costs occur within the first two years of implementation. The current estimated total funding
to complete the Asset Management Assessment Report and to implement the Plan is
$2,298,257.
The FY 2014 budget included $550,000 for procurement of a new computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS) software package and professional services for
integration of this new software program. The Board approved the use of rate stabilization
funds from FY 2013 to provide additional funding in FY 2014 of $300,000 to develop the
Assessment Management Program and assist staff in implementing the initial phase of the
program. Staff shifted internal priorities to allocate $194,957 of existing FY 2014 funds to
support development of maintenance strategies and deployment of new CMMS. Staff will be
allocating an additional $127,000 of FY 2014 funds to support implementation of several of
the asset management program projects. This results in an estimated total cost for FY 2014
of $1,171,957. This cost includes software purchase, professional services to integrate the
new software, and professional services to support staff in the initial steps of Asset
Management Implementation Plan. Staff has included an additional $619,050 of funding for
this program in the proposed FY 2015 budget, for a total two year projected cost of
Page 2
An incremental approach is being used to address completion of the 17 projects with the
intent to involve and train staff during the earlier project implementation steps and then
transition the work away from consultant services to staff. The completion of the
implementation plan is dependent upon staff availability and budget. Staff and consultants
will further refine expected implementation costs as the Phase I Maximo implementation
reaches the go-live stage in November 2014.
Asset Management Plan Development
In October 2013, staff retained the services of CH2M Hill, Inc. under contract 2014-007, to
assist in the development of an Asset Management Program and support first phase program
activities. The scope of services includes three tasks which are program development, first
phase program implementation, and support for asset management teams. The Plan was
completed in April 2014 and implementation has begun with the formation of cross
functional teams.
Implementation Phase
The Implementation Phase includes development of cross functional teams to complete the
17 projects identified in the Implementation Plan of the Asset Management Assessment
Report. Three projects were initiated prior to completion of the Asset Management
Assessment Report. These include project 2, (Asset Hierarchy), project 3 (CMMS
implementation), and project 5 (maintenance strategies). In October 2013 a second task
order was issued to CH2M Hill under contract 2014-007 to assist staff in the procurement of
Maximo integration services and to further develop maintenance business practices required
to fully implement Maximo. This task order is on schedule and budget.
Included in the implementation plan is the purchase and integration of Maximo, the agency’s
new computerized maintenance management software system. At the December 2013 Board
of Directors meeting, the Board approved procurement of Maximo as the agency’s new
Computerized Maintenance Management System software. At the April 2014 Board of
Directors meeting, the Board approved contract 2014-044 with EDI, Inc. to implement and
integrate Maximo into the agency’s information technology system and work processes.
Phase I Maximo implementation is scheduled for completion in November 2014.
Completion of this Phase I integration project, which also includes completion of the
agency’s asset hierarchy, development of maintenance business practices and job plans and
integration of Maximo with the agency’s enterprise data base, GIS, and Munis financial
system, is the highest priority in the Asset Management Implementation plan.
Table 1 summarizes the current estimate for fiscal year 2014 and the proposed and projected
expenditures for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Table 2 summarizes the teams, projects and
implementation start year.
BACKGROUND:
Since Tampa Bay Water’s inception in 1998, its infrastructure has
increased dramatically.
In April 2011, the Board adopted the 2011 Strategic Plan. In support
of the Board’s mission to provide water now and for future generations, the vision to be a
June 2, 2014
Page 3
leader in innovation and best practices, the value to strive for continuous improvement in
everything we do, the goal to achieve a reliable water supply and delivery system, and the
strategy to implement a framework for long term regional system reliability, Tampa Bay
Water staff are implementing a comprehensive asset management program, similar to several
of our member governments, in accordance with the water utility industry best practices.
Asset Management is maintaining a desired level of service at the lowest life cycle cost with
limited resources and at an acceptable level of risk. Lowest life cycle cost determines the best
appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset. Asset management is
implemented through as Asset Management Program which includes a written Asset
Management Plan. Implementation of a comprehensive Asset Management Program is the
foundation for long-term water supply planning.
Page 4
Table 1. Asset Management Program
Asset Management
Program Element
2014 Current
Budget
Estimate
2015
Proposed
Budget
2016
Projected
Budget
Total
Plan Development
$139,000
$139,000
Maximo Purchase
& Maint.
$169,957 $45,000 $50,000 $264,957
Maximo Phase I
Integration
Services
$395,000 $154,050 $549,050
Implementation
Plan Services
$468,000 $350,000
$357,250
$1,175,250
Maximo Phase II
$70,000
$100,000
$170,000
Total $1,171,957
$619,050
$507,250
$2,298,257
Note: FY 2016 Projected Budget is subject to further refinement following
completion of Phase I Maximo integration activities, progress on implementation
plan projects, and staff availability.
June 2, 2014
Page 5
Table 2. AM Implementation Plan Teams, Projects and Implementation Start Year
Cross Functional Teams ProjectsImplementation Fiscal Year
Asset Management
Advisory Team
Asset Management Program Review (Project 1) and
Plan Development 2014 Asset Hierarchy Team Asset Registry and Inventory (Project 2) 2014
Phases 2/3 Maximo Implementation (Project 4) 2015 Maintenance Workflows and SOPs (Project 5) 2014
Maintenance Strategies, FEMA, and PMs (project 6) 2014 Condition Assessment Process for Renewal and
Replacement (project 7) 2015 Condition Assessment Process for Renewal and
Replacement (project 8) 2016 Maintenance Strategies Implement Maintenance Strategies (project 9) 2015 Development of LOS (project 10) 2014 Risk Model development and implementation
(project 11) 2015
Continuous Improvement
Continuous Improvement/Performance Measures
(project 12) 2014
Financial Forecasting
Review of Financial Forecasting tools, review of
Renewal and Replacement model, CMMS data
extraction for R/R model (project 13 & 14) 2015 Development training programs related to asset
management (project 15) 2015
Incorporate Asset Management into Agency
Strategic Plan and Update Strategic Plan (project 16) 2014
Develop internal communication strategies specific
to asset management program (project 17) 2015 2014 CMMS Implementation
Maintenance Strategies
Condition Assessment
Level of Service/Risk
Organizational, Cultural and
Development
Phase I Maximo Implementation / EDI contract
Final Report
Asset Management
Assessment Report
and Implementation Plan
Prepared for
Tampa Bay Water
April 2014
3120 Highwoods Blvd Suite 214 Raleigh, NC 27604 P: (919) 875-4311 F: (919) 875-8491Executive Summary
Having gone through nearly a decade of new capital project construction, Tampa Bay Water (Agency) is now
concentrating on optimizing existing supplies and facilities, and there is a desire to focus more on enhancement
of core operations. The transition from large‐scale construction activities to a focus on renewal and replacement
(R&R) is allowing the Agency to consider ways to become more efficient and effective. Tampa Bay Water has
formalized the implementation of its Asset Management (AM) Program. CH2M HILL was retained to develop the
Asset Management Implementation Plan.
“Asset Management is an integrated set of processes to minimize the life‐cycle costs of infrastructure, at an
acceptable level of risk, while continuously delivering established levels of service” (CH2M HILL, 2002). It involves
simultaneously improving the combined effectiveness and efficiency of an organization’s assets – its physical
assets, its financial assets, its information assets, and its human assets. While AM principles can be applied to
any dimension of the Agency, comprehensive AM recognizes the synergies created from looking at the Agency
holistically across all business units. Tampa Bay Water is a sophisticated organization that invests heavily in
advanced management and decision support practices.
This assessment identified a number of discrete activities that are needed to improve the current asset
management practices to a level commensurate with the Agency’s industry‐leading status. At the same time, the
assessment recognized the relative size of the Agency and its local operating environment to assure that the
proposed activities were both relevant and scaled to the Agency’s specific needs. Implementation of a new
computerized maintenance management system (CMMS), IBM Maximo, is beginning in April 2014. It is a
foundational change that is key to developing an effective AM Program at this point in time for Tampa Bay
Water.
Three broad categories of needed activity were determined:
Improvements to the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) data collection, management, business
processes, and reporting system.
- This includes the implementation of asset inventory, asset hierarchy (functional structure able to “roll‐
up” or “roll down” to levels that meet the needs of a variety of users), data modification and input of
new data, work order tracking, closure and predictive use, and management reporting using Maximo.
Enhancement of CMMS use is anticipated to provide the single greatest impact on improving
operational efficiencies.
Improvements to asset management practices.
- This category includes such activities as level of service, risk analysis, review of maintenance strategies,
use of O&M failure codes, condition assessment and use of predictive tools for the renewal and
replacement of assets. The Agency has a high degree of focus on reliability and, at a planning and
management level, understands and values the balance and tradeoffs that are needed among the
effects of life‐cycle costs and risk on system reliability. Improvement in O&M data will support true life‐
cycle cost analysis decisions.
Improvements to performance communication and change management processes
- This category includes the communication of priorities and performance to allow for transparency and
to assist in building a team‐based approach across the organization. Establishing clear, quantifiable,
documented performance targets with a clear line of sight to the organization’s Strategic Plan allows
staff to track and measure successes, as well as providing guidance for where improvement is needed,
The implementation framework developed for Tampa Bay Water includes a list of tasks, timelines, critical path,
responsible parties, and budget estimates. The ultimate goal of implementing an AM Program is to augment
existing business processes to allow the Agency to make informed decisions about maintaining its assets. An
effective and sustainable program can provide improved financial modeling, accurate O&M cost predictions, and
decision‐making tools for balancing R&R; this program must be embraced organization‐wide and adopted as
Section Page
Executive Summary ... i
Acronyms and Abbreviations ... v
1 Organizational Context ... 1‐1
1.1 Agency History ... 1‐1
1.2 Strategic Plan ... 1‐2
1.2.1 Goal 1 ‐ Reliability ... 1‐3
1.2.2 Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency ... 1‐3
1.2.3 Goal 3 ‐ Financial Stability and Sustainability ... 1‐3
1.2.4 Goal 4 – Relationships with Stakeholders ... 1‐4
1.3 Existing Practices ... 1‐4
1.3.1 Governance Documents ... 1‐4
1.3.2 Strategic Plan ... 1‐5
1.3.3 Financial ... 1‐5
1.3.4 Long‐Term Demand Forecasting Model ... 1‐5
1.3.5 2035 System Hydraulic Analysis Update Project ... 1‐6
1.3.6 Long‐Term Master Water Plan (December 2013) ... 1‐6
1.3.7 Optimized Regional Operations Plan ... 1‐7
1.3.8 Well Mitigation Program ... 1‐7
1.3.9 CIP Prioritization ... 1‐8
1.3.10 Renewal and Replacement Program ... 1‐8
1.3.11 Safety Policy and Procedures Manual ... 1‐9
1.3.12 Security Policy and Procedures Manual ... 1‐9
1.3.13 Energy Management Program ... 1‐9
1.3.14 Management and Performance Audit ... 1‐10
1.3.15 Customer Survey ... 1‐10
1.3.16 Maintenance Strategies Evaluation ... 1‐11
1.3.17 CMMS Evaluation ... 1‐11
1.3.18 Data Management and Information Technology (IT) Systems ... 1‐11
2 Project Overview ... 2‐1
2.1 Background ... 2‐1
3 Project Approach & Findings ... 3‐1
3.1 Methodology and Approach ... 3‐1
3.2 Evaluation of Current Practices ... 3‐1
3.2.1 Data Review ... 3‐1
3.3 Benchmarking with Similar Organizations ... 3‐2
3.4 Mission, Vision, and Values Workshop ... 3‐2
3.5 Data Management and Storage ... 3‐2
3.5.1 Maximo Integration with Existing Systems ... 3‐3
3.6 Safety Program ... 3‐4
3.7 Asset Management Practices Evaluation ... 3‐4
3.7.1 Preparatory Agency Staff Interviews ... 3‐5
3.7.2 Gap Analysis Workshop ... 3‐6
3.7.3 Most Important Assets (“Dot”) Exercise ... 3‐14
3.7.4 Data Analysis and Briefing ... 3‐15
4.1 Organization Strengths ... 4‐1
4.2 Opportunities for Improvement ... 4‐1
4.3 Asset Management ... 4‐3
5 Implementation Focus Areas & Recommendations ... 5‐1
5.1 Computerized Maintenance Management System ... 5‐3
5.1.1 The Value of a CMMS ... 5‐3
5.1.2 CMMS Recommendations ... 5‐4
5.2 Maintenance Strategies ... 5‐5
5.2.1 Maintenance Strategies Recommendations ... 5‐5
5.2.2 Additional Comments on Condition Assessment ... 5‐5
5.3 Level of Service and Risk ... 5‐6
5.3.1 Level of Service (LR‐1) ... 5‐6
5.3.2 Risk (LR‐2) ... 5‐7
5.4 Continuous Improvement ... 5‐7
5.4.1 Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (CI‐1) ... 5‐10
5.5 Financial Forecasting ... 5‐10
5.5.1 Financial Forecasting Recommendations ... 5‐10
5.6 Organizational and Cultural Development ... 5‐11
5.6.1 Organizational and Cultural Development Recommendations ... 5‐11
5.7 Timing, Urgency, and Priorities ... 5‐12
6 Assessment Report and Implementation Plan ... 6‐1
6.1 Draft Asset Management Assessment Report ... 6‐1
6.2 Project Chartering and Implementation Roll‐Out ... 6‐2
7 References ... 7‐1
Appendices
Appendix A: Gap Analysis Detail
Appendix B: Most Important Assets Exercise
Appendix C: Project Descriptions
Appendix D: Preliminary Schedule
Appendix E: Link to 2010 Management and Performance Audit
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Summary of Tampa Bay Water’s System
Exhibit 2: Tampa Bay Water Regional Water Supply and Delivery System
Exhibit 3: Potential System Interfaces/Integrations with Maximo
Exhibit 4: Examples of Gap Assessment Scoring Result Examples
Exhibit 5: Differing Sample Scoring Histograms and Importance Intensity Scale by Subgroup
Exhibit 6: Similar Sample Scoring Histograms and Importance Intensity Scale by Subgroup
Exhibit 7: “Box & Whisker” Diagram of All Gap Survey Responses
Exhibit 8: Implementation Funding Summary
Exhibit 9: Maintenance Strategies vs. Cost
Exhibit 10: Practice Area 8c
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Agency Tampa Bay Water
AM Asset Management
AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
AUTHORITY West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
BUDW Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
DSS Decision Support System
EMMS Enterprise Maintenance Management System
EMS Environmental Management System
FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
FTE full‐time equivalent
GIS geographic information system
GNP Good Neighbor Policy
HR Human Resources
ILA Interlocal Agreement
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IT Information Technology
KDR Kerr & Downs Research
KPI key performance indicator
LIMS Laboratory Information Management System
LOS level of service
LTDFS long‐term demand forecasting system
MCDA multi‐criteria decision analysis
mgd million gallons per day
NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OROP Optimized Regional Operations Plan
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PM preventative maintenance
psig pounds per square inch gauge
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance
RPM Replacement Planning Model
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District
Team Asset Management Advisory Team
WEF Water Environment Foundation
SECTION 1
Organizational Context
1.1
Agency History
Tampa Bay Water (the Agency) was created by an Interlocal Agreement in 1998 to supply wholesale water to its
six member governments: Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, and the cities of New Port
Richey, St. Petersburg, and Tampa. Under the terms of the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement (ILA), it
is the Agency’s responsibility to provide quality water “for county and municipal purposes in such a manner as
will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of Water from
concentrated areas” (West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, 1998b).
The Agency has grown from a groundwater only system in 1998 to a much larger regional water delivery system
that includes groundwater and surface water sources, an off‐stream storage reservoir, a seawater desalination
plant, and a collection of pipes and pumps that distribute quality drinking water to the six member
governments. Tampa Bay Water’s regional network of water supply facilities includes the 120‐million‐gallon‐
per‐day (mgd) surface water treatment plant, the 25‐mgd Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant, a 15.5‐billion
gallon reservoir, and groundwater wellfields with a capacity of 120 mgd (permitted capacity). This use of river
water, groundwater, and desalinated seawater makes Tampa Bay Water’s system unique in the nation. The
growth in the system is reflected in the data presented in Exhibit 1 and the system diagram presented in Exhibit
2.
EXHIBIT 1
Summary of Tampa Bay Water’s System
1998 2013
Supply Sources Groundwater Groundwater, Surface Water,
Desalinated Seawater
Number of Delivery Points 7 19
Production Wells 207 177
Water Plants 2 12
Pump/Booster Stations 4 14
Transmission Lines – Miles 160 240
Horsepower 28,000 106,025
Pumps 228 259
Chemical Feed Systems 14 37
Ground Storage Tanks 5 10
Reservoir Storage – Billions of Gallons 0 15.5
Monitoring/Control Nodes 92 428
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
I/O Points
1,000 22,500
Communication Lines 20 65
The surface water treatment plant, Lithia H2S Removal Facility, and the desalination plant are currently
operated by outside contractors, but may revert to Tampa Bay Water operation in the intermediate term (5‐ to
10‐year time frame).
Tampa Bay Water has added additional water treatment facilities, an expanded surface water system, piping,
and pumps to form a flexible and adaptable water supply system. These sources are sufficient to meet the
region’s drinking water demands over the next decade.
EXHIBIT 2
Tampa Bay Water Regional Water Supply and Delivery System
Source: Tampa Bay Water, 2013b
1.2
Strategic Plan
In 2011, Tampa Bay Water adopted a Strategic Plan, which includes four main goals intended to guide the
Agency in fulfilling the mission of providing clean, safe, and reliable water. The Asset Management
Implementation Plan maintains a line of sight with the Strategic Plan. The plan included new Mission, Vision,
and Values statements along with the four major goals:
Goal 3: Maintain Agency's financial stability and sustainability
Goal 4: Develop, improve, and maintain collaborative relationships with stakeholders
1.2.1
Goal 1 - Reliability
The key driver for Tampa Bay Water is its unequivocal obligation to provide quality water to the member
governments now and in the future according to Section 3.03 of the Interlocal Agreement. In addition, Section
3.11 of the ILA requires service disruptions be remedied as “quickly as technically feasible” which are being met
through the Agency’s dedication to an AM program approach. The strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan
under the Reliability goal are aimed towards meeting this obligation. The details of how Tampa Bay Water will
meet this obligation are documented in the Agency’s Long‐Term Master Water Plan (Tampa Bay Water, 2014),
which is updated every 5 years. The master plan considers: future demands; requirements for capital projects;
staffing; and the reliability of present and future supply and treatment facilities.
Other activities that support supply and delivery reliability include the Optimized Regional Operations Plan
(OROP). The plan is part of the Tampa Bay Water Decision Support System (CH2M HILL, 2002), which uses
forecasted surface water flows, current groundwater level conditions, and rainfall data to determine how to
rotate production among available supplies to meet demands in an environmentally sound manner (Tampa Bay
Water, 2014).
1.2.2
Goal 2 - Efficiency
Tampa Bay Water is a sophisticated organization that invests heavily in advanced management and decision
support practices. The Agency has many existing practices and programs which incorporate principles of Asset
Management (AM), such as:
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan, which incorporates a multi‐criteria evaluation for each proposed
project and considers levels of service (LOSs) and life‐cycle cost.
A Renewal and Replacement (R&R) Program, which estimates R&R funding requirements and incorporates
risk assessment and condition assessment.
An Energy Management Program, which includes the implementation of energy conservation and
alternative/renewable energy capital projects.
A Demand Forecasting system, which incorporates point forecast projections and manages uncertainty by
considering probabilistic projections.
These practices and programs support the goal of improving efficiency of operations.
1.2.3
Goal 3 - Financial Stability and Sustainability
To meet the financial stability and sustainability goal, Tampa Bay Water looks to develop predictable rates that
consider uncertainties, looks for innovative ways to reduce cost, and focuses on developing reliable budget
models, which also considers uncertainty.
Several of the programs and plans described above, such as the Long‐Term Master Water Plan, the R&R
Program, and the CIP, combine to help meet the Agency’s financial goals. These programs and plans are
collectively aimed at understanding the short‐term, intermediate‐term, and long‐term needs of the Agency and
1.2.4
Goal 4 – Relationships with Stakeholders
Within the Strategic Plan, Tampa Bay Water considers both internal and external stakeholders. Current practices
that support enhancement of relationships with external stakeholders include a public opinion survey, which
explores public attitudes toward the Agency and its operations.
Internally, Tampa Bay Water periodically reviews staffing through formal audits and pay plan and benefit
package reviews. Tampa Bay Water has an active Communications Department.
1.3
Existing Practices
In addition to the practices and programs described in Section 1.2, Tampa Bay Water incorporates many
advanced practices into their operation, some of which are described below. These practices are highlighted as
they specifically relate to the AM Program.
1.3.1
Governance Documents
The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) was created pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement
among Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, the city of St. Petersburg, and the city of Tampa
dated October 24, 1974. Sections 373.1962 and 163.01, Florida Statutes, authorize the creation of regional
water supply authorities. The Authority was created for the purpose of developing, recovering, storing, and
supplying water for county and municipal purposes while giving priority to reducing the adverse environment
effects of excessive or improper groundwater withdrawals from concentrated areas. New Port Richey was added
as a non‐voting member in 1982.
During the 1996 session, the Florida Legislature directed the Authority and its member governments to evaluate
the Authority’s operations to look for potential improvement opportunities. An independent report, entitled
“West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority Governance Study for the Florida Legislature,” prepared by KPMG
Peat Marwick LLP, analyzed and confirmed the strength of a regional solution.
The Governance Study and its recommendations were approved for submittal to the Florida Legislature by the
Authority’s Board of Directors in January 1997. The Florida Legislature recognized the need for coordination
between water management districts, regional water supply authorities, and local governments. Therefore,
clear direction was provided as to each entity’s respective role in ensuring that sufficient water is available for
Tampa Bay area water users to meet reasonable‐beneficial needs and water needs of natural systems. The
involved parties, including the Authority, its member governments, and the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), agreed that it was in their best interest to work together toward
accomplishing their respective statutory responsibilities, including the coordination and development of new
and additional water supplies to meet existing and future demands.
On May 1, 1998, the Authority reorganized under the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement among
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg, Tampa, and New Port Richey. The
reorganization changed the Authority from operating under an “entitlement” or “subscription” funding
approach to operating as a true utility. Wellfields and associated infrastructure owned by the member
governments were purchased by the new utility to create a true regional water supply and delivery system. As
part of the transition, the utility assumed a new name: Tampa Bay Water (AwwaRF, 2006).
The May 1998 contract documents the Authority’s responsibility to “sell and deliver sufficient Quality Water to
the Member Governments to meet their needs…in accordance with the terms of the Contract and the Interlocal
manner as will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of
Water from concentrated areas” (West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, 1998b). Exhibit C in the Contract
defines design pressures at points of connection ranging from 20 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 80 psig.
Exhibit D in the Contract defines supplemental water quality parameters at points of connection, including
sulfides, total hardness, and alkalinity.
The Interlocal Agreement includes three major components related to the reliable and sustainable delivery of
finished water:
If demand exceeds permitted capacity by 75% during any 12‐month period – initiate preparation of permit
applications.
If demand exceeds permitted capacity by 85% during any 12‐month period – file permit applications.
Production Failure – actual delivery during any 12‐month period exceeds 94% of the aggregate permitted
capacity.
The Water Use Permits (WUPs) issued by the SWFWMD establish the maximum withdrawals from the various
fresh water sources. Tampa Bay Water’s desalination plant capacity is permitted through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
1.3.2
Strategic Plan
In 2011, the Board adopted the 2011 Strategic Plan. The plan included new Mission, Vision, and Values
statements, along with four major goals. Each goal included a number of individual strategies to guide efforts in
achieving the goals. The strategies were further divided into objectives to support those strategies. In total,
there were 65 objectives supporting 19 strategies.
In the first quarter of 2013, the first report of progress against the Strategic Plan was presented to the Board
(Tampa Bay Water, 2013a). This document was based on a group meeting where 20‐30 staff members assigned
weighting factors to each goal, strategy and objective. A time‐based scoring scale was developed and scores
were applied to each weighted strategy. The roll‐up of the scores gave an overall performance score by
objective, which showed progress toward implementing the plan. The intent is to create annual updates going
forward.
1.3.3
Financial
Tampa Bay Water owns assets with a book value of $1.22 billion and has bond ratings of Aa2, AA+, and AA+
from Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch, respectively (Citigroup et al., 2013). In fiscal year 2012, the Agency
had an average water production of 164.3 mgd and revenue from sales of $166 million (FY2012) (Citigroup et al.,
2013). The fiscal year 2014 budget for the Agency is $168.9 million (Tampa Bay Water, 2013g), which includes a
CIP of $89 million.
Overall, perceptions and opinions of staff indicate that the financial situation of the Agency is considered good,
and the organization is investing in programs that will save money in the long run. Routine audits support this
conclusion.
1.3.4
Long-Term Demand Forecasting Model
In 2004, Tampa Bay Water developed a long‐term demand forecasting system (LTDFS) in response to the need
to develop new water supply and reduce pumpage from existing wellfields (Hazen and Sawyer, 2004). The LTDFS
quantifies how socioeconomic, meteorological, and policy conditions influence potable water demand. The
forecasting models were updated to include an additional five years of water use data and to extend the water
The LTDFS incorporates both point forecast projections and probabilistic projections using Monte Carlo
techniques to account for uncertainty in variables which influence demand projections.
In 2013, Tampa Bay Water initiated the next update of the long term demand forecasting models to incorporate
about five years of additional water use data, evaluate the most appropriate spatial scale for the econometric
models, and to incorporate the effects of passive water use efficiency directly into the demand forecasting
process.
1.3.5
2035 System Hydraulic Analysis Update Project
Tampa Bay Water is currently undertaking a project to update the regional system hydraulic evaluation using
2035 average day water demand projections for the points of connection. . The evaluation includes Emergency
Scenario Planning, facility‐level risk assessments and review of operating conditions.
1.3.6
Long-Term Master Water Plan (December 2013)
Under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement, Tampa Bay Water is required to update the Master Water Plan
every 5 years. The third such update was completed at the end of 2013 (Tampa Bay Water, 2013e). The purpose
of the document is to ensure that Tampa Bay Water meets the unequivocal obligation to provide quality water
to its member governments both now and in the future.
According to the Interlocal Agreement, the 5‐year update shall, to the extent deemed necessary or advisable by
the Board:
Identify current customers, projects, and future customers
Review and generally inventory existing Tampa Bay Water facilities
Identify a CIP(or a component of overall CIP)
Review current Tampa Bay Water permits along with existing and projected regulations
Identify proposed new water supply facilities
Evaluate staffing
Provide hydraulic analysis of both existing and proposed systems
Evaluate present and future sources and treatment requirements in terms of capacity, reliability, and
economy
Update the list of water supply facilities required to meet the anticipated water quality needs of the
member governments for the next 20 years
In addition, the Board’s goals for the Master Water Plan projects include: environmental stewardship, cost, and
reliability.
With the significant shift toward reliance on surface water, the most recent plan includes details on how the
Agency will incorporate/address climate variability into water supply planning. Water demands and the quantity
of available surface water supply can vary greatly between wet to normal rainfall years versus drought years and
can also be different intra‐annually due to expected seasonal rainfall patterns. Tampa Bay Water has developed
a system‐wide model which allows the entire regional supply and delivery system to be analyzed. Quantifying
the performance of the regional system under varying demand and weather conditions is accomplished through
the use of this simulation model. This approach incorporates both risk‐based decision making and adaptive
Management Plan is one way to further the Agency’s strategic goal to achieve reliability of its water supply and
delivery system.
Tampa Bay Water regularly performs hydraulic analyses for its regional supply and transmission system to study
current system operating conditions and to evaluate plans for projected future operating conditions (Section
1.3.5). Tampa Bay Water uses a number of tools to perform modeling and analysis.
1.3.7
Optimized Regional Operations Plan
The OROP, developed by Tampa Bay Water in compliance with permit conditions, utilizes an integrated
hydrologic simulation model, surface water forecasting tools, and an optimization model to manage pumpage
from the 11 wellfields under the Consolidated Permit, the Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells (BUDW), and surface
water withdrawals (Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass Canal system and Alafia River). The result is an
interconnected regional water supply system through the development of an optimized production schedule.
The hydrologic model, which is based on the physical characteristics of the surface water and groundwater
system, simulates changes in water levels resulting from changes in pumpage and rainfall. The optimization
model is used to schedule production from the wellfields, based on current hydrologic conditions, forecasted
treated surface water available from the regional surface water treatment plant, and available desalinated
seawater, to meet member government demands. The optimization model also seeks to maintain groundwater
levels as high as possible at a selected set of surficial aquifer and Upper Floridan Aquifer monitoring wells known
as control points. The pumpage/water level relationships are based on the hydrologic model providing a unit
response for each production/monitoring well combination, which relates incremental pumpage changes to
water‐level changes. The output of the optimization routine is a weekly schedule that directs pumpage from
production wells (AwwaRF, 2006 and Tampa Bay Water,2011a).
The OROP is part of the Tampa Bay Water Decision Support System (DSS) (Tampa Bay Water and CH2M HILL,
2002) that uses forecasted surface water flows, current groundwater level conditions, and rainfall data to
determine how to rotate production among available supplies to meet demands in an environmentally sound
manner (Tampa Bay Water, 2014). Tampa Bay Water is currently developing a daily systems operations model
that will be integrated with OROP. Hydraulic and mechanical reliability analyses of systems, subsystems, and
components are currently being developed through integrated efforts from the planning, engineering,
operations, and maintenance groups.
1.3.8
Well Mitigation Program
The Tampa Bay region has historically relied on groundwater wells as its major source of drinking water. As
early as the 1970s and 1980s, and preceding the formation of Tampa Bay Water, there were increasing
community and environmental concerns related to the sustainability and negative impacts of continued sole
dependency on groundwater supplies. One of the core objectives of Tampa Bay Water since its inception in
1998 has been to reliably and sustainably diversify the region’s raw water sources for drinking water uses.
From 1979 to November 30, 1992, the Agency followed SWFWMD’s WUP conditions as part of its well
investigation and mitigation policy. The WUP conditions required the mitigation of any domestic well that was
impacted by wellfield withdrawals. A water well contractor and a consultant investigated each domestic well
complaint. A complete investigation and evaluation were conducted on each well to determine if the well was
being adversely impacted by wellfield activities.
The Good Neighbor Policy (GNP) for well complaints was approved in November 1992 and provided for domestic
well complaints to be addressed with no need to determine the cause of the problem. Prior to this, the permit
conditions required the Agency to mitigate any adverse impacts, related to wellfield water withdrawals, to a
well owned by an existing legal user. As a result, the Agency would investigate whether or not wellfield
activities were the cause of the complaint. This investigation in many cases took several days and often yielded
By implementing the governing board’s GNP, Tampa Bay Water complies with the Florida Well Mitigation Policy.
This policy includes investigating and resolving, normally at no expense to the owner, any water level issues
regarding domestic wells within the mitigation area established in each wellfield’s current WUP. Well Complaint
Summary Reports are compiled and submitted monthly for each of the WUPs (Larson Allen, 2010).
1.3.9
CIP Prioritization
Tampa Bay Water’s CIP is a comprehensive 5‐year plan of approved and proposed capital projects. It is updated
annually to adjust for need and timing of projects. In developing and updating the plan, Tampa Bay Water staff
take several actions to guide decision making and recommendations for projects being considered for inclusion
in the CIP. These are:
Identify and prioritize capital projects through a coordinated, Agency‐wide effort that considers planning
and development, engineering, construction, financing requirements, and O&M costs.
Develop a schedule for each project.
Develop a funding scenario that identifies funding sources, projected cash flow, and future O&M cost
estimates.
The evaluation process includes a multi‐criteria evaluation for each proposed project against each of the
following criteria: Compliance, LOS, Contractual Obligations, Security and Safety, Operating Costs, Maintenance
Costs and R&R Urgency (Tampa Bay Water, 2013h).
1.3.10
Renewal and Replacement Program
The Tampa Bay Water R&R Program estimates annual R&R funding requirements, projects future funding
requirements, determines asset condition, and prioritizes R&R projects and activities. The program provides
Tampa Bay Water with a way to help manage its assets from installation through disposal. The R&R Program
development process follows five steps: Data Collection, Risk Assessment, Sensory Condition Assessment,
Desktop Assessment, and Replacement Planning Model.
Risk is calculated by scoring each asset for Vulnerability and Criticality using defined metrics for each. The
metrics consider aspects such as useful life of asset, water quality, financial impact, health and safety, and
impact on the environment. The sensory condition assessment is completed for Tampa Bay Water facilities
approximately every 3 years, and the Desktop Assessment is completed for underground assets, such as
pipelines and buried power lines. The Replacement Planning Model (RPM) is a custom application used to
forecast asset R&R needs over a given timeframe. The RPM considers type, useful life, renewal activities,
probability of failure, condition, and utilization of assets to estimate timing of their renewal and replacement.
The RPM is updated annually as new assets are added and as assets are renewed or replaced. R&R activities or
projects arising from the RPM are considered for incorporation into the CIP or for funding through the operating
budget R&R Fund.
The RPM is significantly dependent on the internally developed Enterprise Maintenance Management System
(EMMS). However, for numerous reasons, the asset lists, asset attributes, and work order histories have not
been well maintained over recent years. In the fall of 2013, the decision was made to move to a robust
commercially available computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). The new CMMS is currently in
the process of being implemented; concurrently, best management practices are being implemented to better
assure that the data contained in the CMMS, and which are required for meaningful use of the RPM, are in
place.
1.3.11
Safety Policy and Procedures Manual
A draft of the Tampa Bay Water Safety Plan, the Safety Policy and Procedures Manual, is currently in
development (Tampa Bay Water, 2013d). This document outlines the Agency’s overall plan for ensuring the
safety of its employees and contractors by implementing the best practice of maintaining Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance in all facets of its operations. The objectives of the Safety Plan
are to:
Ensure the safety of all Tampa Bay Water employees, contractors, and the general public who come in
contact with Agency assets.
Continually monitor, maintain, and periodically update engineering controls and work practices to ensure
the safety of Agency employees, contractors, and the general public.
Promptly evaluate and respond to accidents or incidents that endanger Agency employees, contractors, and
the general public.
Prioritize safety of Agency employees and contractors to minimize impacts on the ability to provide drinking
water.
Regularly communicate with Agency employees and contractors and maintain awareness and priority for
safety.
1.3.12
Security Policy and Procedures Manual
The Security Manual is a confidential document that outlines the Agency’s overall plan to provide the reasonably
necessary physical measures, management systems, security forces, information sharing, and protective
measures to secure its facilities (Tampa Bay Water, 2013b). The objectives of the Security Policy and Procedures
Manual are to:
Proactively protect the Agency’s facilities, property, and employees from criminal acts.
Continually monitor, maintain, and periodically update physical and operational security systems and
procedures.
Promptly evaluate and respond to credible security threats.
Prioritize security for critical assets to minimize impacts on the ability to provide drinking water.
Regularly communicate with employees and maintain awareness and priority for security.
1.3.13
Energy Management Program
Tampa Bay Water’s Energy Management Program includes the implementation of energy conservation and
alternative/renewable energy capital projects. This programmatic approach to improve energy efficiency
through implementation of emerging technology and other opportunities is a top priority for the Agency. The
Program follows a 10‐year Energy Roadmap that looks at issues related to energy consumption. The Roadmap
aligns with the Agency’s overall Strategic Plan, identifies elements of technology and energy infrastructure to
enhance financial stability and sustainability of operations, and identifies gap/key projects necessary to connect
1.3.14
Management and Performance Audit
Every 5 years, the Agency contracts with an independent auditor to assess the Agency as an entity and to report
conditions and make recommendations. The two completed since the creation of Tampa Bay Water were
published in 2010 (Larson Allen, 2010) and 2005 (KPMG, 2005).
The aim of these management and performance audits is “to review program results and make
recommendations regarding its governance, structure and the proper, efficient, and economical operation and
maintenance of the Agency’s Water Supply Facilities.” The audits include staff interviews, employee surveys,
customer satisfaction surveys for the six member government utility directors, and peer benchmarking. The
audits also include a review of relevant Agency policies, procedures, guidelines, plans, and reports.
The Executive Summary of the 2010 performance audit states “this performance audit has found specific areas
where the Agency can now concentrate to enhance the services provided, while remaining cost‐effectiveness.
Focus should be on (1) comprehensive strategic planning; (2) definition and adoption of a performance
measurement and continuous improvement program at all levels of the Agency; (3) completion and
implementation of the renew and replace (R&R) program; (4) methodical review of the cost‐effectiveness of the
professional services currently outsourced; (5) proper succession planning; (6) strengthening the human
resources function; and (7) increasing maintenance and operations field work productivity.”
In the spring of 2013, the Agency implemented a re‐organization that had been formulated over approximately
2 years. A new General Manager was hired in July 2013, and additional modifications to the organization
structure are currently underway. Progress was made on the major aspects of the 2010 performance audit,
including throughout the re‐organization period. The Human Resources (HR) manager position has been vacant
since December 2013, and that position was filled in March 2014.
1.3.15
Customer Survey
Tampa Bay Water conducts regular customer surveys, the most recent one being in 2012 (Tampa Bay Water,
2012). For this Public Opinion Survey, Tampa Bay Water contracts with a third party whose personnel conduct
telephone and internet surveys of randomly selected households in the Tampa Bay Water service area.
The objective of surveys studies is to explore public attitudes regarding the following: Regional water supply issues
Tampa Bay Water
Water conservation
Tap water
Information sources for water issues
The most recent report presented results from the 2012 survey aggregated for the entire service area and
broken down by county (Kerr & Downs Research [KDR], 2012). Comparisons to results from 2003, 2005, and
2007 were also shown in the survey summary reports when appropriate.
The most recent customer survey included telephone and online surveys of 1,200 randomly selected households
in the Tampa Bay Water area, the results of which are statistically valid for both the tri‐county region as a whole,
as well as each county individually. Some key findings of the survey included:
One‐half of respondents believe that public officials adequately address water supply issues; the public
Two‐thirds of respondents believe that Tampa Bay Water effectively supplies water to the region and 6 in 10
agree that the Agency is concerned about the environment.
More than 50 percent of respondents think that Tampa Bay Water is concerned about finding new water
sources and helps local governments cooperate on water problems.
Half of respondents think that Tampa Bay Water listens to the community and accepts ideas – this is up 16
percentage points since 2007.
Around a third of respondents believe the Agency meets wholesale water needs, advocates for the
protection of water sources, and plans, develops, produces, and delivers a high‐quality water supply.
Half of respondents are not aware of where their water comes from. In addition, desalination (both
brackish and seawater), as well as surface water, were listed as undesirable water resources.
Water quality remains a priority with the respondents. Forty‐five percent think bottled water is safer to
drink than tap water, and the number of respondents who believe tap water is safe to drink has decreased
by 5 percentage points since 2007.
Respondents indicated they would be willing to pay an additional $2.81 per month on average to improve
water quality.
1.3.16
Maintenance Strategies Evaluation
Prior to the AM evaluation project, CH2M HILL worked with Tampa Bay Water to support their current
Maintenance System and practices. In the evaluation of the CMMS, it became apparent that a number of
workflows, business processes, and preventative maintenance (PM) work orders needed to be improved within
the framework of the reorganized Agency. The project introduced the concepts of best industry practices,
including Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). In addition,
the project included training and defining required roles and responsibilities within work processes and
assignments within various departments.
The training series consisted of 10 sessions addressing such topics as Reliability & Failure Modes; FMEA;
Operator Driven Reliability/Maintenance; Predictive Maintenance–Applicability; Predictive Maintenance–Data
Use/Trending; Development of Workflows; and Development of PM Programs. Staff level evaluation included
review of the development of multi‐tier classification for maintenance workers, similar to those used by
operators.
1.3.17
CMMS Evaluation
Also prior to the AM evaluation project, CH2M HILL assisted Tampa Bay Water in evaluating the existing
Enterprise Maintenance Management System (EMMS) and the associated business processes and practices. The
evaluation is documented in the Technical Memorandum, Tampa Bay Water CMMS Review (CH2M HILL, 2013).
The evaluation concluded that it was in Tampa Bay Water’s best interest to replace the existing EMMS with a
commercially available system. Tampa Bay Water subsequently selected IBM Maximo as the new CMMS, and is
currently moving forward with that implementation.
1.3.18
Data Management and Information Technology (IT) Systems
The following provides a summary of the major data management and IT systems, as related to the CMMS. A
separate IT Master Plan is being developed concurrently with this AM Implementation Plan.
MUNIS – All financial transactions are currently performed in MUNIS. Creation of a Work Order in the existing
Orders. Open Purchase Orders within MUNIS do not prevent closure of Work Orders within EMMS, and costs
from those Purchase Orders can still be charged to a closed Work Order when the Purchase Order is closed.
Employee data are also currently pulled from MUNIS into the existing CMMS.
GIS – A GIS Viewer application allows users to see the Agency’s assets geographically but can also show location
of work orders and can pull in data from other systems. GIS Viewer pulls data from an ArcSDE geodatabase,
which is the primary repository of asset data.
Enterprise Database – The central point of data collection and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for all
Agency infrastructure attributes and associated measurements will be the Enterprise Database. Data sources
such as SCADA, wireless automated data loggers, manual data readings, and other “devices” will transmit time‐
series data to the Agency’s enterprise database at varying frequencies
HP Records Manager – Document management and records retention are performed using TRIM/HP Records
Manager. Certain documents (O&M manuals, record drawings, bid/contractor specifications) are linked to an
asset or work orders within CMMS, while version control is managed within HP Records Manager.
TrackStar – The Agency has recently begun to track its fleet in a stand‐alone spatial application for the vehicles
for which TrackStar is enabled. TrackStar is used for maintenance reminders, such as oil changes, certain
vehicles.
R&R Model – RPM is an R&R model that incorporates assets data and projects R&R requirements. The R&R tool
incorporates asset data, age, and replacement cost, which are not directly linked to the current CMMS. CIP – The CIP application is not directly linked to the current CMMS.
Fleet Management – The Agency currently does not have fleet management software.
BEAMEX – This is a stand‐alone application for the calibration of meters.
LIMS – The Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) is a stand‐alone application. Consideration of
SECTION 2
Project Overview
2.1
Background
Having gone through nearly a decade of new capital project construction, Tampa Bay Water is now
concentrating on optimizing existing supplies and facilities, and there is a desire to focus more on enhancement
of core operations. The transition from large‐scale construction activities to a focus on R&R is allowing the
Agency to consider ways to become more efficient and effective. To better serve its customers and keep track of
its assets, Tampa Bay Water has formalized the implementation of its Asset Management (AM) program. CH2M
HILL was retained to develop the AM Implementation Plan.
During the second half of 2013, CH2M HILL also supported Tampa Bay Water in evaluating their existing
maintenance management system (internally developed and called EMMS), in the selection of a new
commercially available CMMS (Maximo), and in reviewing and advising on the Agency’s maintenance strategies
and practices. These tasks were performed in advance of the AM Implementation Plan for several reasons. In
the case of the EMMS/CMMS, the issue had been debated extensively within the organization for nearly 2 years
without consensus; however, the Agency realized that a robust CMMS was needed regardless of the detailed
formal AM Program. Consensus was achieved prior to the selection of Maximo. The shortcomings in the
current O&M program had been identified following the re‐organization in the spring of 2013 as managers
assumed new roles and with the addition of new staff dedicated to the maintenance planning function and the
R&R model. The gap related to O&M practices was significant enough to make it meaningful to implement
some improvements before implementing a new CMMS and before developing the formal AM Implementation
Plan. Improvements to the O&M practices and the R&R program have also been identified as major needs in the
2010 management and performance audit.
The primary focus of this project is to develop and define the AM program for the next 3 to 5 years and to
support the implementation of that plan. Before the project began, Tampa Bay Water established an
organization framework for the AM Program. This framework defined the Asset Management Executive Team
and the Asset Management Advisory Team. The AM Advisory Team includes management across the Agency and
core staff with pivotal roles in implementing key aspects of the AM program. This framework is a best practice
that allows a better understanding of roles and responsibilities throughout the planning and implementation
process and enables necessary cross‐functional participation from the Agency’s departments. Other major
benefits include assuring that the AM program is well coordinated with other Agency activities and initiatives, as
well as helping to assure the support of senior management, which is key for any organizational change
management activity.
The AM Program is being completed in three tasks to provide ideal assistance to Tampa Bay Water. These tasks
are broken down below:
Task 1: Asset Management Program Development included an assessment phase and occurred over the fall
and winter of 2013. This report is the culmination of that effort.
Task 2: Asset Management Program Implementation will include the core implementation phase and will
be conducted during 2014.
Task 3: Asset Management Team Support will include the core team support phase and will be conducted
during 2014 and 2015.
The asset management teams will continue beyond 2014, but it is anticipated that Tampa Bay Water will rely
Completion of these three tasks should represent substantial completion towards reaching the AM goals of
