Marketplace

The Wastewater Market

Session 2-1
Market Evaluation Basics
1. How many clients are in the market?
2. Can these clients pay for our services?
3. Do these clients have a need to solve?
4. How many competitors are competing for your clients
business?
5. How does your business compare to your competitors?

Our Nations Infrastructure
Over 19,739 sewer systems
800,000 miles of sewer mains
Most installed after World War II
Our Nations Infrastructure
Aging pipes and inadequate capacity
Symptoms:
Over 700 cities and towns in violation of the Clean Water Act
Over 900 Billion Gallons of untreated sewage illegally discharged each
year

Our Nations Infrastructure
Washington D.C.
3 Billion gallons per year of raw
sewage illegally discharge
Miami, FL.
25 Million gallons per year of raw
sewage illegally discharge
Indianapolis, IN
7.8 Billion gallons per year of raw
sewage illegally discharge
Our Nations Infrastructure
2011 EPA Congressional Report
20% of our nations streams unfit:
Fish and wildlife
Human recreation
Only 16% of streams assessed

Our Nations Infrastructure
American Society of Civil Engineers
Four year report card on Americas Infrastructure
D(+)

Our Nations Infrastructure
The federal government share of wastewater infrastructure spending has shrunk from
78 percent in 1978 to just 3 percent today.

Our Market
Water and Wastewater US market: $ 125 Billion per year
Estimated market by 2020: $190 Billion per year
Wastewater Infrastructure and stormwater systems market: $39
Billion per year
AWWA estimates water and wastewater Infrastructure
spending: 1 trillion over next 25 years






Sources:
ASCE 2013 Infrastructure Report 2012
EPA-Congressional Budget Report
ASCE Failure to Act Report
AWWA Sustainability Report
RJN In the Market (2014)
RJN: $ 27M
0.02% of US market
0.07 % of WW & Stormwater


RJN In the Market
Wastewater Inspections
and Studies
Wastewater Design &
Construction
GIS & Software Services
Drinking Water
Stormwater & Misc.
Engineering
RJN Company Services 2012
96% of work in sewers
RJN In the Market
850 Clients
1,600 projects
Sales Coverage
Sales Coverage
Donna
Donna
Z
A
C
h
Clay
Paul
Jeff K
Stephen
Marketplace
Market Entrance Strategy
Session 2-2
Evaluating Markets
1. How many clients are in the market?
2. Can these clients pay for our services?
3. Do these clients have a need to solve?
4. How many competitors are competing for your clients
business?
5. How does your business compare to your competitors?

The Competition
Firm
Name(s)
Local/
Regional
National
Firm
Only Field
Service
Only
Engineering
Both Engineering
& Field Services
CDM X X
Brown
and
Caldwell
X X
MWH X X
B&V X X
H&S X X
ADS X X
TREK X X
CES X X
Burgess
& Niple
X X
The Competition
Boston, MA
Design Firms: 112
National Field Services Firms: 0
Regional Field Service Firms: 5

Indianapolis, IN
Design Firms: 84
National Field Service Firms: 1
Regional Field Service Firms: 6
Develop and deliver exceptional Niche services by encouraging
innovation at all levels
Enter new geographic markets beyond Regional Offices
through Niche services
Sustain our presence by broadening client base and
diversifying capabilities through Core and Other Services

Organization-Wide Strategies
Niche Services
Enhance our Portfolio of Niche Services
Incorporate Best-in-class Products and Services
Roll Out RPM
Integration of RPM / Telog Plan
RPM Implementation Plan for All Projects
Improve Mobile Data Acquisition Capability
Improve Equipment Hardware
Improve Software Interface
Implement an Engineering Quality Control Program

Sustain Our Presence
Niche services Differentiation Flow
Monitoring, Modeling, SSES, Rehab
Design/RE in separate and combined sewer
systems

Sustain Our Presence
Enhancements GIS, Capital Planning, Asset
Management, etc.

Core services Supplemental Sustainable
Services - Program Management, Master Planning,
Design Build, New Sewer Design, Stormwater,
Water Distribution, Lift stations (new/rehab), WWTP,
Construction Phase Services.

Other Services Diversity Maintenance Management, Other

Why Lead With Our Niche?

A niche establishes our credibility and industry expertise
Offer services that are not easily duplicated due to experience
and/or capital costs
Limited Competition
Develop client from niche to full service offering
Marketplace
Wilmette Story
Session 2-3
Wilmette Initial Project
Initial Project (2012) - $133,385
Competitive Selection with Pricing
System Modeling and Recommendations
$20,000 Over Budget
Field Challenges
Extra Report Effort

Poor Project?
Wilmette Key Client Data
Affluent Client
Significant Basement Backups
Village Board Wants Action
Report
Draft Report with Recommendations
Clients Requests Schedule Acceleration
Develop $25M Bond Program
Extra Effort Program Development
Wilmette Program Initiation (2012-2013)
2012 3 Small Projects ($32,000 total)
2013 Start Program
$330,779 Phase 1
Quick Hit Items
Flow Monitoring
Study for Core Project
$266,870 Phase 2
Initial SSES
Preliminary Design Core Project
Wilmette Challenges
3 Follow Up Projects ($264,100 total)
Significant Construction Cost Increases
Challenges = Opportunity
Need Park District Approval
Park District Requests Tight Window
Village Questions Feasibility
Design-Build Opportunity?
Key Hire Needed Construction Manager
Wilmette Closing the Deal
Multiple Meetings Staff and Board

40% Design $226,134 Approved 7/8/2014
6 Week Push 3 Sheets to 43 Sheets
Phase I Bidding
Phase II Pricing
JV and DB Agreements

$15,024,432 DB Contract Approved 9/9/2014
Marketplace
Little Rock Story Maturing a
Client
Session 2-4
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
First Project for LRW
Flow Monitoring as a Dub to MWH
Used Project to Begin Developing a Relationship with Key Staff

Continued Building Relationship with Staff After
Completion of First Project

Used RJNs Reputation and Relationships to Obtain a
Sole Source 5-Year SSES Program

Completed 3 SSES Projects in First Years of Program
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
At Beginning
LRW Perceived RJN Only as a Field Service Provider

At End of 1
st
Project
Continued Marketing Client by BD and PM
Client Asked RJN to Provide MH Rehab Design for First Study
Contracted with RJN to Provide Construction Inspection
Services
Contracted to Train LRWs Staff to Perform Construction
Inspection
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
For 2
nd
SSES Project
LRW Requested that Hydraulic Modeling be Added to Scope
Also, Requested MH Rehab Design

Even Though LRW Now Perceived RJN as More Than a
Field Service Firm
We were still Perceived as a Firm that Only Provided FM, SSES,
Modeling and Some Limited Design
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
In 2009, LRW Decided to Update their SECAP
Developed by MWH in 2002
SECAP was developed as a result of LRW being under a CO
due to suit by Sierra Club due to Sanitary Sewer Overflows
(SSOs)
CO requires that all SSOs be eliminated by end of 2016

Purpose of SECAP
Update was to provide a review of where LRW was in meeting
CO requirements and develop other alternatives in necessary
LRW originally thought that RJN was not qualified to provide the
update and was looking at larger National Firms to do
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
Based on RJNs past performance and our staff
relationships with LRW, we invited them to our Dallas
office
Dallas staff developed a presentation on our capabilities in flow
monitoring, hydraulic modeling and planning
Based on this presentation, LRW decided to award the SECAP
update to RJN sol source
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
SECAP update completed in 2010 and resulted in
recommendations for $180M of additional improvements,
including:
Flow Equalization Storage
Collection System Capacity Improvements
Pump Station Upgrades
Changes to WWTP Operations
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
RJN was selected for the First Design / RE Project from
the SECAP recommendations based on:
Deeper appreciation of RJN capabilities developed during the
workshops
SECAP update development
Continued marketing efforts
Little Rock Story Maturing a Client
Cantrell Road Project
Design of a 32 MGD pump station
Design of a 30 inch diameter force main
Little Rock Story Conclusion
BD and PM must develop a strong relationship with
client staff

RJN must be seen as an extension of client staff

BD and PM must continuously convey to client full range
of services that RJN can provide

Always be looking for the next opportunity with the client
Marketplace
Baltimore County Story
Session 2-5
Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
Rain Gauge Program Contract 42903 (2006)
Piggy-back on Baltimore
City Project
Started in August 2006
45 Total County Network
Sites
11 Shared Rain Gauges
Two-Year Contract
Extended 4 times (10 years
total)
Tried to extend for 10 year
term
$2.5M contract budget to
date
Established reputation
Quality work
On-time deliverables
Responsive to County
needs

Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
Joint Venture with JMT Contract # 2005-10
On-Call Contact
Started in October 2006
RJN does SSES studies
RJN did Hydraulic
Modeling
JMT does Design
$5M Contract Budget to
Date
RJN + $3-3.5M
Two Sewersheds
Flow Monitoring
Field Work
SRRR Plan Development
Design

Joint Venture with JMT Contract # 2005-10
Differentiated from Other Consultant
Clearly outperformed JMT
Go-to Contact for County, even though JMT was managing JV
Partner

Asked to represent County in City-County modeling
boundary condition dispute

Instrumental in establishing County Guidelines for
Preparing SRRR Plans
Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
Subcontract to ACS County Contract # 2008-06
On-Call Contact
Started in November 2009
One Sewershed
RJN subcontracted to ACS
Scope
Provided flow meters
Limited manhole inspections
Hydraulic Modeling and Capacity Analysis
I/I Analysis
$622K initial contract
$200K amendment to prepare SRRR plan
Subcontract to ACS County Contract # 2008-06
Strategic Partnership (Balt Co / VA Beach)

ACS almost terminated by County
RJN was asked if we could take over
County mandated that RJN become more involved in writing
report
Subcontract amendment
ACS assigned new Project Manager

County starts to ask When is RJN going to Prime one of
these?
Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
Force Main Assessment Contract # 2010-01
On-Call Contact
Started in January 2011
17 Task Orders
$4.75M Contract Budget to Date
Two contracts/assessments teams
RJN clearly outperformed the other team
Captured 80% of remaining work in last task order
Force Main Assessment Contract # 2010-01
Two Teams
RJN
PHRA/Pure JV

Clearly outperformed the other team
On-Time, Under Budget

Captured 85% of Remaining Work after Priority Force
Mains completed
Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
South Area Flow Monitoring Contract # 2010-02
Flow Monitoring 8 Sewersheds
Started in August 2011
One-Year Monitoring Period
December 2011-November 2012
130 Locations
I/I Analysis
$5.5M Budget
South Area Flow Monitoring Contract # 2010-02
Two Teams (North Area / South Area)

Contract in Place 6 Months Earlier

More Difficult Area (low-lying, pump stations)
Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
SRRR Plan Development Contract # 2012-01
On-Call Contract

SRRR Plans for 4 Sewersheds
Started in March 2013
4 years with four 1-year renewals
$6M Contract Budget
9 Task Orders to Date
$2.2M Under Contract

SRRR Plan Development Contract # 2012-01
4 SRRR Consultants

4 Design Consultants

1 Modeling Consultant


Highest Ranked SRRR
and Modeling

First Under Contract
SRRR Plans
Ahead of all others in
Completion

Baltimore County Progression
2006 Piggy Back on City Contract, and Local Firm
2006 2008 Establish Reputation
2009 Differentiator in Selection
2010 2012 Selection as Prime
Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rain Gauge
$500K $500K $500K $500K $500K

JMT JV
$5M

ACS Stemmers $820K
Force Mains $4.8M
South Area FM $5.5M
SRRR Plans $2.2M
On-Call FM $1.1M
On-Call Flow Monitoring Contract # P-112 (2013)
On-Call Contract
Two Year Initial Term (start 4/22/2014)
Three One-Year Renewals (thru 4/21/2019)

Flow Monitoring by Task Order
$5.7M Contract Budget
Awaiting Approval of First Task Order
20 meters, 18 months
$1.1M

Two Consultants (RJN / ADS)

Need to Out-Perform
Key Reasons for Success
Superior Quality Work
Sound Advice / Consultation
Established Working Relationship
On-Time / Early Deliverables
On or Under Budget
Responsiveness