My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-129
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2003
>
2003-129
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2016 4:22:06 PM
Creation date
9/30/2015 6:35:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Work Authorization
Approved Date
06/03/2003
Control Number
2003-129
Agenda Item Number
11.H.2.
Entity Name
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Subject
Plant RO Clearwell addition and post-treatment modifications
Work Authorization No. 3
Archived Roll/Disk#
3161
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3263
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ORIGINAL <br /> -3 , 0 <br /> NON-EXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AGREEMENT <br /> CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES <br /> FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS <br /> between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY and <br /> KIMLEY - HORN AND ASSOC ATES INC . <br /> Scope of SCADAystem services <br /> for <br /> South Plant RO Clearwell Addition and Post-Treatment Modifications <br /> WORK AUTHORIZATION #3 <br /> Revision 1 <br /> GENERAL <br /> The clearwell addition and post-treatment modifications project requires SCADA system <br /> programming in order to allow operator interface with the new treatment system . PLC <br /> Programming and HMI (computer) software programming is necessary to allow this <br /> interface . We believe this work should be provided under KHA ' s scope of services for <br /> the following reasons : <br /> 1 . There is more control over the quality of the final programming with this <br /> approach since it is more performance based than price based . <br /> 2 . There is more flexibility to changes during the operational testing and startup <br /> mode, both in terms of programming changes and screen modifications . <br /> Typically, operators have more input on how the screens are setup after <br /> operational testing and it is more difficult to enforce this work after the GC have <br /> completed the project. <br /> 3 . It is more logical to place the operational control philosophy under the designer' s <br /> scope . With a written control logic , it is nearly impossible to define ALL the <br /> operating scenarios, or what-ifs , that could occur during the long-term operation <br /> of the system . Therefore, it allows the designer more flexibility in addressing <br /> these items in the field with all parties . Allowing the work to be done under a GC <br /> tends to be more "black-box" approach and does not allow much flexibility to <br /> changes and thorough de-bugging of the system . <br /> 4 . There is more vested interest in making the new system operate seamlessly within <br /> the existing system . Typically, under the GC scope , the I& C programmer is only <br /> responsible for the new work and usually minimizes the effort in integrating the <br /> new programming with the existing system . <br /> The following Scope of Services is recommended . <br /> - 1 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.