HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2017 Item 12 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project - Draft Predesign and Cost Estimate - CH2M Contract Amendment Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
PREPARED BY: David Hix, Deputy Director – Wastewater
Jasmine Diaz, Assistant Program Manager – WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – DRAFT
PREDESIGN AND COST ESTIMATE; CH2M CONTRACT
AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive and file the Water Resource Recovery Facility Draft Predesign Report; and
2. Approve a CH2M contract amendment in the amount of $1,519,049 for changes in project
scope and membrane bioreactor preselection.
Report-In-Brief
The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project draft Predesign Report has been
prepared based on the July 2015 Facilities Plan and City Council direction on four project
components. The City Council authorized a State Revolving Fund application up to $140 million
at the December 13, 2016 meeting. The draft Predesign Report estimates project construction
costs between $91.8 and $119.3 million with total project cost going forward, including
construction and professional services, is estimated between $107 and $140 million, inclusive of
all contingencies and estimated price escalators. City Council is being asked to receive and file
the draft Predesign Report (PDR). The purpose of filing the PDR is to present the bridge
between the Facilities Plan and the path towards final design.
To best support future potable reuse and regulatory requirements, the secondary/tertiary process
recommended in the Facilities Plan, which was the basis for the CH2M design contract, has
changed from conventional activated sludge and granular media filtration to Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR). The benefits of MBR vs conventional filtration is outstanding performance in
meeting current and future regulatory requirements and best positioning the WRRF towards
potable reuse.
Due to the assortment of MBR process configurations available from manufacturers, the specific
type of MBR must be selected now to move forward with project design. Other changes to the
design project scope have also been required. Authorization of a CH2M contract amendment in
the amount of $1,519,049 is being requested to do this work. If approved, CH2M’s contract
amount would be $7,748,372.
The following are the WRRF project summary highlights:
1. The December 1, 2014 NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
permit issued by the Central Coast Water Board for the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF) requires process changes to the facility in order to meet the new
regulations.
Packet Pg. 235
12
2. The City needs to rebuild and rehabilitate many components of i ts Water Resource
Recovery Facility on Prado Road in order to maintain compliance with its Central Coast
Water Board permit to discharge water to San Luis Obispo Creek. The facility has been
on-site since the early 1900’s. Structures and processes built over time must be
modernized.
3. The City kicked off the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project in January
2014. Focus group outreach, community workshops, and City Council feedback created a
WRRF Project vision to create a community asset that is recognized as supporting health,
well-being and quality of life. The Project Mission is to deliver a Water Resource
Recovery Facility in partnership with stakeholders that provides economic, social and
environmental value to our community.
4. The City is, essentially, rebuilding the Water Resource Recovery Facility at its current
site. When complete, it will position the City to create an additional 1500 acre feet per
year for potable water reuse while further improving the quality of the 1800 acre feet of
water discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek for environmental benefits.
5. The City has applied for a $140 million State Clean Water Revolving Fund loan in order
to fund the Water Resource Recovery Facility project. The City has been preparing its
wastewater fund to support this loan. Rates are expected to continue to track with past
projections of increasing 3 / 3-1/2% a year to support both operations and capital work
efforts of the wastewater division.
BACKGROUND
From Sewer Farm to Water Resource Recovery Facility
The City of San Luis Obispo has processed the community’s wastewater on property off Prado
Road between Higuera Street and Highway 101 since 1920 when the City purchased Schow
Place, a 10-acre sugar beet farm, for $2,000. Over the last century, many wastewater treatment
process changes have occurred and the plant has grown with the City.
Noteworthy changes to the plant occurred in 1994 when a project to improve plant processes also
focused on improving habitat
for fish in San Luis Obispo
Creek. This was the beginning
of a decades-long journey that
has expanded what was a sharp
focus on solely meeting
minimum regulatory
requirements to include the
provision of recycled water in
2006 for irrigation purposes (as
well as the dedication of
environmental water to San
Luis Obispo Creek) to energy
Packet Pg. 236
12
recovery, beneficial reuse of biosolids, a major energy efficiency project completed in 2015, and
a purposeful shift toward One Water resource management. The plant’s name was changed from
Water Reclamation Facility to Water Resource Recovery Facility in 2014 to better represent its
function as a facility to treat and recover water for beneficial uses.
The property on which the WRRF is located is also currently home to the City’s Corporation
Yard, Transit Operations bus barn, Prado Day Center, a small bore gun range, a secured storage
yard, and part of the Bob Jones Trail; all of which, over time, have constrained the way the
WRRF has been able to grow. Over the last century, equipment, processes, piping, and assorted
buildings related to treating wastewater have been added wherever there is room on the property.
While maintained to high
standards, the plant will no longer
meet future discharge future
discharge requirements... Some
processes installed in 1920 are
still operating; while other
processes, piping systems, and
several buildings have reached
the end of their useful lives and
need to be demolished.
The WRRF operates under a
permit issued by the Central
Coast Water Board. This permit
is called a NPDES permit.
NPDES stands for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The NPDES permit, which has a five-year term, details
both prescriptive and narrative parameters the Water Resource Recovery Facility must meet in
order to operate in compliance with the permit. If the permit parameters are not met the City can
be assessed regulatory fines. There are numerous complex rules surrounding the plant operation.
The City’s current WRRF NPDES permit runs through November 30, 2019.
Packet Pg. 237
12
Water Resource Recovery Facility Project
The WRRF Project kicked
off in January 2014 with the
selection of a program
manager (WSC) and the
creation of a project charter.
The WRRF Project Charter
is a key tool that has been,
and will continue to be, used
as a filter to inform
knowledge-based decision
making for the project.
Months of varied
stakeholder engagement and
outreach informed the
WRRF Project Facilities
Plan. The Facilities Plan
took the project to about ten
percent design. It was
accepted by the City
Council in July 2015.
On July 7, 2015 the City
Council authorized a
Request for Proposals for
Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project design.
CH2M was the successful
proposer. The draft
Predesign Report is a key
project milestone. It was
submitted to the City for
review on August 5, 2016.
DISCUSSION
From Facilities Plan to Draft Predesign Report
The Facilities Plan is a foundational document that provided a solid framework necessary to bid
the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project design. Based on the information in the Facilitie s
Plan, CH2M commenced design work on the draft Predesign Report in November 2015. The
draft Predesign Report takes the project to 30 percent design. Plans, ideas, and changes to the
project accomplished during this phase have the least impact on project scope and budget. A very
critical point for the Council and Community to understand is that while the design will certainly
continue to be refined, any major changes made after 30 percent design become costlier as time
goes on – both in meeting critical timelines and staying within project budget.
Packet Pg. 238
12
With the addition of the new design team members, some key aspects of the Facilities Plan were
re-analyzed and subsequently changed to the betterment of the project. Some changes increase
initial project costs but holistically best meet the triple bottom line criteria in the long-term,
Attachment A provides a cost comparison of the Facilities Plan and the draft Predesign Report.
While there are numerous improvements to the Facilities Plan detailed in the draft Predesign
Report, major changes are the secondary and tertiary treatment processes, inflow and infiltration
management, water cooling alternatives, and the One Campus concept.
Secondary Treatment Process. Based on the Project Charter, the City Council provided
direction to do more with recycled water and create the plant’s capacity for the rapid acceleration
of potable reuse options spurred on by drought. CH2M brought forward an alternative that
strongly challenged the Facility’s Plan selection of a secondary treatment process. In the
community’s best interest, CH2M’s recommendation warranted consideration and needed to be
fully vetted.
After numerous workshops, several interviews and facility tours, and an extensive triple bottom
line analysis, that considers the economic, environmental and social aspects of the project, the
membrane bioreactor (MBR) was selected to replace conventional activated sludge as the
secondary process. The MBR process will preserve the existing filters for future use, allow the
disinfection process to be downsized, it has the ability to consistently meet or exceed regulatory
requirements (including anticipated future), and provides the City with the most flexibility for
future potable reuse options.
Holistic Inflow and Infiltration Management. On October 4, 2016 City Council conducted a
study session on collection system inflow and infiltration during which time it learned about
some of the impacts of inflow and infiltration on the system. Water that enters the wastewater
collection system through inflow and infiltration can result in normal flows to the WRRF being
increased from 3 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to over 24 MGD during storm events.
All flows to the WRRF must be treated to the standards set forth in the NPDES permit. Peak wet
weather flows coming into the facility require all processes and equipment throughout the plant
to be sized large enough to handle these unusually large amounts of water.
Applying holistic thinking to the project, the WRRF Project team is current ly analyzing the
impacts and timing of collection system and lateral improvements in selected areas and whether
those improvements could be made quickly enough to eliminate sufficient storm flow to the
Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow the design team to reduce the process sizing and
produce significant construction savings at the plant. Modern collection system pipe can have a
lifespan of 100 years or more and uses little to no energy aside from that expended in its
manufacture and installation. WRRF processes and equipment use tremendous amounts of
energy and must be replaced every 15 to 35 years depending on the component. Chemical use is
also high at the WRRF. While the project cost impacts to apply the reduced inflow and
infiltration strategy are, if not greater, at least equal to construction costs on the WRRF site, the
long-term triple bottom line benefits are significant. Analysis on this option is underway. If it is
determined to be a viable project option, it will be incorporated into the WR RF Project. If it is
not a viable project option, projects will be addressed over time in the capital improvement
Packet Pg. 239
12
program.
Water Cooling Alternatives. The WRRF NPDES permit requires creek discharges do not
increase the temperature of San Luis Obispo Creek’s cold fresh water habitat beneficial use. The
WRRF’s discharge cannot increase the creeks temperature by more than 5 degrees or above 72.5
degrees. The Facilities Plan identifies cooling towers as the treatment process to meet this
requirement. During the draft Predesign Report process, CH2M proposed an option of cooling
treatment wetlands. This treatment option was included as an alternative in the Environmental
Impact Report approved by Council on August 16, 2016. There are promising benefits and
potential serious drawbacks to this option that require additional research and investigation
(including a robust triple bottom line analysis) in order to make a full knowledge-based decision.
This work continues in the concept validation phase of the project. Because it is a project
alternative, design and construction are additional costs. Maximum project cost includes a
preliminary construction estimate for a cooling wetland.
One Campus Concept. The Facilities Plan envisioned the repurposing of the existing laboratory
and office building into a One Water interpretive learning center. Unfortunately, it was
determined that the existing building cannot cost-effectively be repurposed due to building code
upgrades required with the proposed change in use. The building will be used as a satellite
process control lab for WRRF operators. The interpretive One Water learning center was
incorporated into the new Water Resources Center in the draft Predesign Report.
The Facilities Plan envisioned a new one-story Water Resources Center to house operators and
the plant control center, laboratory analysts and a new laboratory, supervisors, a large conference
room, lunch room, and adequate restroom/locker room facilities. Exactly how maintenance and
control systems operations were to be incorporated into the footprint was not clearly defined in
the Facilities Plan but noted as an outbuilding near the bus barn. Transit Operations bus
navigation and access, and Corporation Yard access were incorporated into the Facilities Plan,
but essentially the WRRF site was cleanly separated from those functions.
Based on its understanding of the Project Charter, professional experience, and in-depth
interviews and job shadowing with Utilities workgroups, CH2M’s architectural design firm
challenged the thought processes that led to the Facilities Plan Water Resources Center concept,
which were admittedly focused on WRRF functions and not meant to be fully fleshed out at that
stage of project planning. It recommended incorporating all operational functions, including
WRRF maintenance, control systems, wastewater collection, and water distribution personnel,
along with the associated supervisors, under one roof. This recommendation resulted in much
dialogue to ensure functional needs were met.
The design team architect challenged the team to view the new Water Resources Center as a new
addition to the Corporation Yard (much like a new building on a university campus). The
community won’t see the Water Resources Center as a different property fro m the Corporation
Yard; all is a City resource. This approach will resolve multiple operational issues, including
providing potential solutions for other City operations that are space constrained. Viewing the
Corporation Yard and the new Water Resource Recovery Facility as one campus led to
significant and positive changes in the draft Predesign Report. The new concept requires a two-
Packet Pg. 240
12
story building, incorporates the
One Water Learning Center, and
increases the building cost
estimate from the Facilities Plan.
City Council Triple Bottom
Line Analysis. At its March 3,
2015 meeting, the WRRF Project
program management team
brought four items to City
Council on which to receive
triple bottom line feedback
related to the direction the team
was headed. These items were 1)
odor control strategies, 2)
inclusion of a RV dump station,
3) recycled water production
efforts, and 4) incorporation of
interpretive center/public
amenities.
Odor Control Strategies. There is
no change from the Facilities
Plan to the draft Predesign Report related to odor control strategies. The focus remains on being
a good neighbor and incorporating odor control by design wherever possible across the site.
Operational changes resulting from the project will reduce or eliminate odor sources. Allowing
time to see how the changes impact odors once the new plant is operating through post-project
evaluation and then adding additional odor controls as required at that time remains the approach
moving forward.
RV Dump Station. City Council encouraged partnering with the Elks Lodge and its current
facility. If nothing could be accomplished through this avenue, Council indicated it was
important to have an easily accessible RV dump station somewhere. The Elks Lodge is not
interested in partnering to be a designated discharge point for RV generated wastewater; the only
alternative the City has been able to identify to-date is a facility be installed at the new WRRF.
The draft Predesign Report has designated space at the WRRF for a RV dump station.
Recycled Water Production. City Council clearly said do more. MBR (membrane bioreactor) is
now the secondary/tertiary process, and further studies have either been performed or are
underway to not only maximize production but maximize distribution of recycled water for
beneficial use. Preparations to take the next step to potable reuse are incorporated in the current
design.
Interpretive Center/Public Amenities. The Council indicated satisfaction with the direction the
project was headed with the One Water interpretive learning center and other public amenities
and encouraged the pursuit of grant funding and other partnerships to help with the effort. It was
Packet Pg. 241
12
determined repurposing the existing laboratory/office building into a learning center is not
feasible. The One Water learning center has now been incorporated into the design of the Water
Resources Center. A demonstration wetland at the entrance to the Water Resources Center and
other public amenities surrounding and throughout the facility are also in the design.
Value Engineering. The draft Predesign Report was provided to an independent team of
industry experts to evaluate opportunities to increase the economic, social and environmental
value of the project. This process is called Value Engineering and it encourages development of
critical, practical and out-of-the box ideas to achieve the objectives defined in the Project Charter
in a more cost efficient manner. The Value Engineering team identified concepts and ideas such
as alternatives for peak wet weather flow management, and ways to optimize the solids treatment
process that could have the potential to positively impact project components and/or reduce
overall project cost.
Constructability Review. As part of the review of the draft Predesign Report, the design was
evaluated by a team of discipline specialists to determine the constructability of the project based
on 30 percent design. The reviewers determine if there are built-in problems, or flaws that may
hinder construction or cause delays. Comments were provided to the project design team. At 60
and 90 percent design there will be additional opportunities to ensure the constructability and
ability to bid the WRRF Project based on the updated design.
Program Management Team and City Stakeholder Review. Hundreds of comments were
compiled, sorted by subject matter, and submitted for review to the project design team. These
comments will inform the design as it moves forward toward the 60 percent design milestone.
The completion of the draft Predesign Report is a major project milestone.
Where to From Here?
The draft Predesign Report bridges the gap between the “what’s” of the Facilities Plan
conceptual design and the “how’s” of the detailed design that eventually produces final design
and construction drawings. The City is now in the detailed design phase. Milestones in the
detailed design phase will be broken into 60%, 90% and final detailed drawing and specifications
for project construction. Its anticipated design will be complete at the end of 2017.
Concurrent with WRRF Project design other project work in 2017 includes:
1. Refining the costs estimates
2. Analyzing collection system improvements to reduce I/I as a part of the WRRF project
3. Examining treatment options for potable reuse
4. Investigating treatment options for peak wet weather events.
5. Evaluation cooling wetlands
6. Requesting proposals for pre-selection of MBR
7. Requesting proposals and hiring a construction management team
8. Additional value engineering
9. Continuing outreach to stakeholders and other interested parties.
Packet Pg. 242
12
Packet Pg. 243
12
CH2M CONTRACT AMENDMENT
A triple bottom line exercise with design engineer, CH2M, surfaced components of the Facilities
Plan that warranted reconsideration. After considerable analysis, several of these have
demonstrated significant advantages to the project. To include these components into the project
will require additional design services. CH2M has provided a contract amendment (Attachment
B) which addresses six areas;
1. Architectural
2. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
3. Existing Facility Modifications
4. Value Engineering
5. Concept Validation
6. MBR Pre-selection
Architectural. To realize a One Campus concept described earlier in this report that will
combine workgroups and facilitate staff efficiencies and effectiveness will require additio nal
architectural design for the new Water Resource Center. Because the concept of having all the
workgroups under one roof wasn’t wholly envisioned in the Facilities Plan, the design scope did
not include the additional work space and only included 30% design for the maintenance facility.
This portion of the amendment includes design of the additional personnel space including the
maintenance facilities for all the workgroups and a remodel of the existing administration
building into a process laboratory and some additional offices.
MBR and MBR Preselection. To support the City’s objective of the most flexible use of
recycled water, the secondary/tertiary process recommended in the Facilities Plan, which was the
basis for the CH2M
design contract, has
changed from
conventional activated
sludge and granular
media filtration to a
membrane bioreactor
(MBR). MBR offers
many advantages such
as the best path for
potable reuse of
recycled water,
meeting future
regulatory
requirements and
simplifying
disinfection. This change requires additional design funding and, due to the assortment of MBR
process configurations available from manufacturers, the specific type of MBR must be pre-
selected soon to move forward with project design.
Diagram of a Membrane Bioreactor
(MBR)
Packet Pg. 244
12
Existing Facility Modifications. Several existing plant deficiencies were not well described in
the Facilities Plan. These include matching digester heating and mixing systems which will
ensure the most effective sludge treatment and maximum production of gas for the creation of
energy and sludge storage which will allow for efficient dewatering of biosolids. Both digester
and sludge storage processes will be incorporated into the odor control system.
City Fire and the Utilities Department have worked collaboratively examining the WRRF’s fire
protection system. The existing fire protection system is not adequate for the new plant and will
require some modifications that will better protect the facility and its users. The WRRF’s
primary clarifiers have been in service since the 1940’s and additional inspection revealed
several critical component replacements such as pump and pipe replacement, and junction box
removal.
Treatment processes such as MBR utilize biology to remove and convert pollutants and require
chemicals to ensure a suitable environment to thrive. The existing alkalinity feed system does not
allow efficient and safe chemical deliveries. Finally, the WRRF’s landscape irrigation system has
experienced several time consuming and expensive repairs. This portion of the amendment will
utilize a performance specification which will evaluate the existing system and will design only
the portions that need to be replaced.
Value Engineering. To make sure the City receives the maximum value from the WRRF
project, a process referred to as value engineering is performed at several milestones during
design. The value engineering for the pre-design discovered several valuable changes regarding
the flows that enter the WRRF and the subsequent sizing of processes and that will reduce
construction and operational costs. This portion of the amendment addresses the design and cost
estimates and also provides a bridging document that summarizes the basis of this change.
Concept Validation. As part of the original scope of CH2M’s contract, three elements of the
project design were intended to be evaluated. These elements are treatment options for potable
reuse, dual treatment for peak wet weather events and cooling wetlands. Presently significantly
more work than originally scoped has been performed on these important elements. Additional
funding is being requested to complete the evaluation.
Based on the changes that have occurred between the Facilities Plan and the Predesign Report it
became apparent CH2M had more to design than was originally set forth in the Facilities Plan.
CH2M submitted a request for a design contract amendment in September 2016. The City
diligently compared the request with CH2M’s existing scope, ensured the amount of design
requested was adequate to meet the facility design needs and negotiated with CH2M in a
collaborative fashion to produce an amendment that will adequately complete the WRRF
Project’s design and best meets the future needs of the WRRF and community.
Authorization of a CH2M contract amendment in the amount of $1,519,049 is being requested to
complete the remaining design and related construction bid documents. A Request for Proposals
for MBR selection is scheduled for the February 21, 2017 City Council meeting.
Packet Pg. 245
12
PROJECT SCHEDULE
FISCAL IMPACT
The amendment to the CH2M design contract for MBR pre-selection will cost $1,519,049. There
are adequate funds in the sewer fund working capital balance for this amendment and the
increased cost has been taken into account in the long-term fiscal forecast for the fund and the
recent authorization to apply for State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding Total design costs are
shown below:
Original CH2M Contract $6,229,323
Amendment $1,519,049
Total CH2M Contract $7,748,372
Construction and construction-related professional services for the WRRF Project are estimated
between $107 to $140 million. The relationship of design costs to construction costs is generally
that design costs run between 7% to 9% or $7,490,000 to $9,630,000 of a $107 million
construction project which places CH2M’s total contract after the amendment at the bottom of
that range. The sewer fund has been carefully planning for this project to be adequately
positioned to fund the debt service in the project rate sch edule. Total costs for the project will
continue to be refined as the design nears completion and funding analysis for subsequent stages
of the project will be presented to Council throughout this process
Packet Pg. 246
12
ALTERNATIVE
1. Council could choose not to amend CH2M’s contract for design services. This action would
significantly shift the course of the project. Staff could request CH2M to use its existing
contract funding which would result in returning to the original design. The original design
did not address existing facility deficiencies, had no MBR process, still requires additional
funding for completion of a WRRF maintenance facility and did not include a one campus
concept. Also completion of studies such as cooling wetlands, and peak wet weather flow
management would be discontinued. Lack of design funding will require significant changes
to the draft predesign report and decrease the overall ability of the WRRF project to meet
important aspects of the Project Charter.
Staff would return to Council to request additional direction for key elements of the design,
such as the existing facility deficiencies, potable reuse, architectural scope and other
elements to complete design and construction documents.
Attachments:
a - Facilities Plan Preliminary Design Cost Opinion Comparison
b - Amendment No 1 to CH2M Agreement
c - Council Reading File - SLO Draft Predesign Report
d - Council Reading File - SLO WRRF Drawings
e - Council Reading File - Basis of Estimate
Packet Pg. 247
12
WRRFProjectFacilitiesPlanPreliminaryDesignCostOpinionComparisonComponentFacility Plan w/ Division 1 & ContingencyFacility Plan w/ Division 1 & Contingency & EscalationGroup TotalHigh End of Estimate(Class 4)ItemPDR w/ Division 1 & Contingency & EscalationGroup TotalHigh End of Estimate(Class 3)EQFlow Equalization$1,501,000$1,741,000 $1,741,000 $2,350,350 Equalization Pond$2,222,685 $2,222,685 $2,889,491 $481,685 $539,141 23%Primary Clarifiers$2,879,000$3,338,000Primary Clarifiers$1,590,480Sludge Pump Station$237,872Aeration Basins$13,682,390$15,862,000Primary Effluent Screens$2,010,642Final Clarifiers$4,272,000$4,953,000Bioreactor 3 & 4$4,465,529Tertiary Filtration$4,975,689$5,769,000MBR$23,289,242Bioreactor 1 & 2 Modifications$2,337,457Recirculation Pump Station$1,321,222Disinfection UV Disinfection$7,485,000$8,678,000 $8,678,000 $11,715,300 UV Disinfection$5,156,821 $5,156,821 $6,703,867($3,521,179) ($5,011,433) (43%)Solids (Digestion, Thickening, Dewatering)$6,759,000$7,836,000Digester Building$1,957,461Dewatering Building$1,672,317Digester No. 2$1,387,135Solids Area Electrical Building$719,040Biosolids Blend Tank$521,734Thickening$1,666,672Sidestream Sidestream Treatment$3,642,000$4,223,000 $4,223,000 $5,701,050 Sidestream Treatment$2,497,294 $2,497,294 $3,246,482($1,725,706) ($2,454,568) (43%)Water Resource Center$4,800,000$5,565,000Water Resource Center & Amenities$12,009,690Maintenance Building$1,953,000$2,265,000Learning Center and Public Amenities$1,505,000$1,745,000Renewable Energy Generation$1,066,000$1,236,000General Site$9,616,850$11,149,000Site Work$11,005,063Flood Protection$1,500,000$1,739,000Yard Piping$5,206,105Headworks$500,181DemoDEMOLITION (Originally included in General Site)$1,473,150$1,708,000 $1,708,000 $2,305,800 Demolition$2,234,203 $2,234,203 $2,904,464 $526,203 $598,664 26%OdorHeadworks Odor Control$788,000$914,000 $914,000 $1,233,900 Odor Control$2,108,666 $2,108,666 $2,741,266 $1,194,666 $1,507,366 122%Cooling COOLING (Originally Included in Filtration)$1,187,311$1,377,000 $1,377,000 $1,858,950 Cooling Towers and Cooling Wetlands$5,048,233 $5,048,233 $6,562,703 $3,671,233 $4,703,753 253%Chemical Chemical (Originally in Aeration)$438,610$509,000 $509,000 $687,150 Chemical Storage$610,658 $610,658 $793,855 $101,658 $106,705 16%Construction ManagementConstruction ManagementOffice EngineeringOffice EngineeringProgram Management During Construction PhaseProgram Management During Construction PhaseEnvironmental Document and PermittingDesign ServicesTotal$90,381,200$104,787,000$104,787,000 $135,091,115Total$91,776,402 $111,709,415 $139,242,336 $6,922,415$4,151,221 3%* A Class 4 estimate is appropriate for a preliminary plan or study, and is generally based on limited information. Level of project definition required: 1% to 15%.** A Class 3 estimate is appropriate for budget authorization, and are generally prepared based on a preliminary design. Level of project definition required: 10% to 40%.$19,933,013($6,338,652) (24%)OtherConstructionRelated Costs***$20,857,200$24,180,000$26,271,665$24,180,000$19,933,0137%General$12,888,000 $17,398,800$16,711,349 $21,724,754 $3,823,349 $4,325,954 25%$14,594,850$12,009,690 $15,612,597 $1,198,690 $1,017,747Solids$7,836,000 $10,578,600$7,924,359 $10,301,667$88,359($276,933) (3%)PrimaryTreatment$3,338,000 $4,506,300$1,828,352 $2,376,858($1,509,648) ($2,129,442)GroupAdd / (Deduct) Add / (Deduct) (47%)***The Facilites Plan estimate for construction related costs (ex. construction managment, program management, etc.) included Design and Environmental Services cost estimates. To accurately compare the PDR and Facilities Plan estimate, it was removed from the high end estimate since the costs have already been incurred and were not included in the PDR estimate (total $6,371,335).($4,246,987)Facility Plan (June 2015)Draft Predesign Report (August 2016)%ChangeSecondary + TertiaryTreatment$26,584,000 $35,888,400$33,424,092 $43,451,320 $6,840,092 $7,562,920 21%Buildings$10,811,000Revised11/18/16Packet Pg. 24812
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 1
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
______________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after
referred to as City, and CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015 the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for Design Services
for the Water Resources Recovery Facility per Specification No. 91363; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to include Architectural, future and existing
facility design, value engineering modifications, concept valuation changes and MBR pre-selection, and Contractor
has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor Heidi Harmon
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 249
12
CH2MCH2MCH2MCH2M
1501 W. Fountainhead Pkwy Suite 401
Tempe, AZ 85282
(480) 966-8188 (T)
(480) 966-9450 (F)
www.ch2m.com
December 8, 2016
Mr. Dave Hix
Deputy Director - Wastewater
Public Utilities
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710
Subject: City of San Luis Obispo – Water Resource Recovery Facility Project - Architectural, MBR, Existing
Facility Upgrades and VE
Dear Mr. Hix,
As we progress towards the Design Development (60%) Stage of the Project, there are a number of
changes that have occurred resulting in additional scope for the project. The additional scope of the
project has developed in the following areas:
•Item No. 1 - Architectural Scope Changes
•Item No. 2 - MBR Facility Design
•Item No. 3 - Existing Facility Modifications
•Item No. 4 - Value Engineering Modifications
•Item No. 5 – Concept Validation Changes
•Item No. 6 – MBR Pre-Selection
Item No. 1 - Architectural Scope Changes
The original scope of work included the following elements:
•A new 12,200 square foot Water Resources Center.
•30% design for a new 12,881 square foot Maintenance Facility based on the revised Maintenance
Facility Building Program dated October 16, 2015. The 60%, 95% and final contract documents were
based on the original maintenance facility program and presented in the Facilities Plan.
•Remodel of the existing 3,800 square foot Administration Building to a Public Learning Facility.
The current scope of work for the project includes the following:
•A new 27,500 square foot Water Resource Center will be constructed. The spaces within the new
WRC include an Interpretive Center, a large conference room, a new warehouse, maintenance space
for the Water Distribution, Wastewater Collections and WRRF Operations, men’s and women’s
locker facilities, process lab, team space for Water Distribution, Wastewater Collections and WRRF
Operations, SCADA Control room, offices, lunch room and public areas.
•The existing Administration Building (3,800 sf) will be remodeled, with spaces generally serving the
same functions as in the existing building. WRRF Operations will have the lab remodeled to serve as
Exhibit A
Packet Pg. 250
12
PAGE 2
DECEMBER 8, 2016
a process laboratory and office spaces will be remodeled to house regulatory compliance. It is not
anticipated that there are any structural modifications or space remodeling that will occur.
The additional architectural scope of the project is related to the Combined Maintenance Facility
Program identified in the October 16, 2015 document prepared by RRM Our original proposal only
included effort through 30% Preliminary Design for these combined functions. Therefore, additional
effort is required to reflect the change in the building programming for the additional design phases of
the project including the 60% submittal, 95% submittal, Final Contract Documents, Bidding Services and
building permitting assistance. The increase in personnel spaces as part of the increased staff functions
in the Water Resource Center results in additional design for architectural, structural, electrical, HVAC,
and plumbing.
Item No. 2 – MBR Facility Design
During the Concept Validation phase of the project, the City made the final decision to implement a
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) in lieu of the Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) treatment train. The
following items were included in the original scope of work and are deleted from the scope for
secondary/tertiary treatment:
• A separate blower building
• Two new final clarifiers, with new RAS and WAS pumps per clarifier
• Expansion of the filter feed pump station
• Expansion of the tertiary filter complex, including two new mono-media filters, new backwash
pumps and air scour blowers
The stated capacity of the MBR is still not determined. WSC recently issued a revised storm hydrograph.
This revised hydrograph will require that CH2M re-evaluate the equalization basin capacity. However,
the basic MBR Facilities required for treatment will be as follows:
• Membrane feed pump station, with submersible axial flow can arrangement pumps located in a wet
well.
• Membrane tanks with the associated mechanical and control systems. The tanks will be equipped
with tank covers, but will not be located in a building. Membrane tanks are proposed as above
grade tanks, with gravity flow of return activated sludge to the bioreactors.
• Membrane chemical cleaning systems, with chemical storage, metering, and cleaning systems
located outside, under a canopy cover.
• Blower room, including process aeration blowers and air scour blowers.
• Electrical room.
• Permeate pumps, located outside under a canopy cover. The permeate pumps will pump flow to an
in-pipe UV system.
• The original proposal from GE for a 16 mgd sustained peak flow peak flow for 2 days with one train
out of service required the following facilities; 1) 5 trains, 2) 10 full cassettes (room for 11) per train.
This configuration would result in a net flux of 22.5 gfd with 4 trains. The revised proposal from GE
for a 12 mgd sustained peak flow for 4 days with one train out of service requires the following
facilities; 1) 5 trains, 2) 7.5 cassettes (room for 9) per train. This configuration would result in a net
flux of 22.5 gfd with 4 trains.
In addition to the MBR Facility, the following will be incorporated, based on MBR operating
requirements:
• Primary effluent fine screen facility, with two screens with 2mm openings. The facility will include
the fine screen channels and flow split gates for the bioreactors. The primary effluent screen facility
Packet Pg. 251
12
PAGE 3
DECEMBER 8, 2016
will be located outside, with channel covers. Two washer compactors will be included for screenings
washing/dewatering. The washer compacters and screening bin will be located outside.
• Primary effluent mixer. A primary effluent mixing chamber will be located upstream of the screens,
with a vertical rapid mixer installed for mixing calcium hydroxide.
• WAS pumps configured for bioreactor surface wasting.
Item No. 3 – Existing Facility Modifications
The following existing facility modifications will be added to the project scope:
• Existing Digester Heating and Mixing System Upgrades. The WRRF Operations and Maintenance
staff have requested that the heating and mixing systems for existing Digester No. 1 be replaced to
match the new digester and be located with the heating and mixing systems for the new digester.
The June 2015 Facility Plan identified that the mixing system for existing Digester No. 1 be replaced
as part of the project; however, upgrade of the heating system was not specifically identified. In an
effort to provide a complete mixing and heating system for the digester complex to optimize
operation and maintenance, CH2M is proposing that the mixing and heating system for the new
digester be expanded to include the digester heating and mixing system for the new digester. Thus,
based on the scope identified in the Facilities Plan, the new work for this effort includes additional
design of the expanded heating system, additional yard piping to connect the existing digester to the
new mixing and heating system and the ancillary mechanical, electrical, and I&C work to incorporate
the expanded scope elements. Structural work is limited to any provisions for modified piping
penetrations of the structure. This scope does not include modifications to the existing digester gas
piping systems.
• Sludge Storage Tank Piping Modifications. The WRRF Operations and Maintenance staff have
requested that Digester No. 2 be converted to a digested sludge storage tank upstream of sludge
thickening. This approach will provide significant flexibility for the operations staff in managing the
dewatered sludge operation. The Facility Plan did not identify this approach so this scope is new
scope added to the project. Digester No. 2 has a connection to the existing digester gas system. A
site walk was conducted with WRRF to review the needs for converting the existing digester to a
sludge storage system. It was determined that some of the valves/piping, given the age and
potential condition need to be replaced. However, a detailed assessment is required to be
conducted to understand the full scope. Thus, the specific scope required to re-purpose existing
Digester No. 2 to a digested sludge storage tank is limited to modifications of the sludge inlet and
outlet piping, level control and valve modifications. The sludge storage tank will be de-coupled from
the digester gas system and will be connected to the odor control system. WRRF staff have
requested that a new mixing system is required to avoid the existing gas mixing system. It is
assumed that the installation of odor control for the Sludge Storage Tank will de-classify the space
around the sludge storage tank and thus eliminate the need to upgrade other equipment to be in
compliance with NFPA 820 and the NEC code.
• Site Fire Protection System Modifications. The WRRF Program Management Team in conjunction
with the City is anticipating that the existing Site Fire Protection system is inadequate and will
require upgrades to meet the current codes and standards. The June 2015 Facilities Plan did not
address the overall site fire protection plan or requirements. The level of effort for this scope is
based on the assumption that the existing fire loop inside the WRRF site is adequate to meet the
new fire flows. Thus, the planned scope to meet the current standards is as follows; 1) Installation
of a new connection to the existing water main along the WRRF’s entrance road to provide a new
Packet Pg. 252
12
PAGE 4
DECEMBER 8, 2016
water supply that can meet the flow requirements, 2) installation of a new backflow assembly near
the point of connection, and 3) connection to the existing fire loop. The scope includes modeling the
fire protection system modifications to demonstrate compliance with the required fire flow. It is
anticipated the existing Administration Building, and the new Water Resource Center will include
sprinklers to reduce the overall site fire flow requirements. There may be additional spaces on the
site where the Fire Marshall will require that sprinklers be added to existing spaces. The meeting
scheduled with the City Fire Marshall will provide clarity on this item. The scope assumes adequate
water supply is available to the site from the water main connection and fire pumps and fire water
storage are not required.
• Additional Primary Clarifier Modifications. Subsequent to submittal of the Preliminary Design
Report, the City has identified the need to evaluate and develop a plan for additional modifications
of the existing primary clarifiers. The City has expressed concern that these pipes may experience
severe corrosion given the fact that these pipes were installed in the 1940’s. These additional
improvements were not identified in the June 2015 Facilities Plan. The additional scope items
include the following: 1) Repair of the primary clarifier influent pipes beneath the primary clarifier
structures. For this scope item, the City will be completing an inspection of these existing pipes and
will determine the structural condition of the existing influent pipes. For the purposes of this scope
of work, it is assumed that the structural integrity of the existing primary clarifier influent pipes is
intact, thus only slip lining will be required to replace these pipes. It is not anticipated that new
pipes will be required to be installed beneath the existing primary clarifiers; 2) Replacement of all
piping in the primary effluent island; 3) Replacement of the old biofilter pumps and upgrading with
gates as necessary for individual primary clarifier effluent isolation, 4) Remove the two junction
boxes located south of Primary Clarifier 1 and direct route the lines to the primary clarifiers.
• Alkalinity Feed System. The current location of the alkalinity connection for off-loading chemicals is
not conducive to safe and efficient delivery of chemicals. The June 2015 Facilities Plan did not
identify the remedy of this issue. The specific scope of work for this item includes the relocation of
the alkalinity off-loading connection. This scope includes the relocation of the chemical supply
connection along the road where other chemicals will be delivered. A spill containment slab will be
provided to capture incidental spills. CH2M is also to confirm the appropriate location for chemical
dosing. Currently the WRRF is dosing above the amount required for nitrification for pH control. A
sodium hydroxide dosing station is partially installed in tertiary treatment, and could be used for pH
control to lower the calcium hydroxide dose.
• Irrigation System Replacement. The WRRF Operations and Maintenance staff have identified that
the existing landscape irrigation system is in poor working order and needs to be replaced. This item
was not identified in the June 2015 Facilities Plan. The scope of work for this item is to replace the
irrigation system serving existing and new landscaping. It is assumed that the irrigation system
water will be supplied from the plant’s W3 system. It is also assumed that the existing W3 system
will be tapped at the appropriate location, a new backflow preventer and flowmeter will be installed
to monitor the amount of reuse water being used on-site for irrigation. This item will be addressed
utilizing a performance specification.
Packet Pg. 253
12
PAGE 5
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Item No. 4 - Value Engineering Modifications
A value engineering study was conducted based on the Predesign Report and a decision was made to
proceed with several of the value engineering cost saving revisions, including the following:
• WSC has proceeded with re-evaluating the storm hydrograph, resulting in a reduction in peak flows
to the WRRF.
• Additional equalization basin volume will be provided by expanding the existing equalization basin,
resulting in a reduction of peak design flow to the liquids treatment processes.
• Reduce the size of the membrane bioreactor system and the UV disinfection system to
approximately 10 to 12 mgd or as small as possible based on lower peak flows and increased
equalization volume.
In order to incorporate the value engineering modifications, additional design work is required to revise
design work already completed during the Predesign. The scope of the additional design work includes
the following:
1. Value engineering proposal evaluations, including presentation development and attendance at
meetings occurred during September and October 2016. The original design scope included
providing responses to value engineering comments, but did not include design or analysis related
to value engineering.
2. Update treatment plant hydraulic modeling based on the peak flow revisions. This task will include
an update of the hydraulic profile. Update treatment plant process modeling, based on the revised
flow to treatment.
3. Revise membrane bioreactor and UV disinfection system sizing and update design memoranda
based on the reduced size. Coordination with equipment suppliers based on the revised system
sizing.
4. Expand the flow equalization pond size to the north to increase flow equalization capacity. This task
includes developing sizing criteria, coordinating geotechnical and civil requirements for the
increased size, design for equalization modifications, including developing drawings, and developing
a basis of design memoranda for the revised sizing.
5. Cost estimate update to incorporate value engineering revisions.
6. Develop a Bridging Document, summarizing the value engineering modifications, basis of design
revisions, and information as needed for cost estimating and as required to proceed with final
design for the value engineering modifications.
Deliverables for Task 4 include the following:
• Presentations and meeting notes (for meetings already conducted, through October 14)
• Updated hydraulic profile, incorporating the value engineering modifications
• Updated mass balance
• Updated design memoranda summarizing the revised sizing for the MBR and UV disinfection
systems including an updated process flow diagram
• Flow equalization basin design drawings and basis of design memoranda. Final design drawings will
be developed concurrently with final design for the WRRF project. Preliminary drawings will be
developed initially and submitted with the basis of design memoranda.
• List of existing facilities that will remain and facilities that will be demolished.
• Documentation of management of flow events greater than the 10-Year design storm.
• Updated construction cost estimate, incorporating the value engineering revisions.
• Site plan including a list of upgrades and design criteria
Packet Pg. 254
12
PAGE 6
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Item No. 5 – Concept Validation Changes
The intent of the Concept Validation tasks included in the original scope of work was to evaluate three
elements of the project: 1) Treatment options to facilitate future potable reuse, 2) Dual treatment for
peak flow events, and 3) Effluent cooling utilizing wetlands. Consideration of theses alternative has
provided the City the opportunity to consider additional options that were not previously considered in
the City’s 2015 Facilities Plan. As it stands today, there has been significant consideration, dialogue and
discussion of each of these alternatives with the City and the Program Manager. This additional
consideration, dialogue and discussion with the City has resulted in additional work and effort by CH2M
beyond the original scope of work for these items. The paragraphs below will provide a detailed
discussion of the additional work that has been completed for each area.
Item No. 1 – Treatment Options to Facilitate Future Potable Reuse
In an effort to position the City on the path to potable reuse, during the Concept Validation stage of the
project the City decided to utilize a membrane bioreactor (MBR) in lieu of conventional activated sludge
(CAS). Utilizing an MBR will achieve the following benefits for the City:
• Consistent production of high quality Title 22 reuse water to maximize effluent reuse.
• Consistent production of high quality effluent that will consistently meet the NPDES permit limits.
• Position the City to implement future potable reuse and preserve some existing facilities in an effort
to achieve that goal. For example, not utilizing the tertiary filters to produce Title 22 effluent will
preserve them for future utilization in an advanced treatment scheme aimed at implementing
indirect or direct potable reuse.
CH2M expended additional effort beyond the scope of work in developing and evaluating detailed
information to compare MBR with CAS. This additional effort included the following items:
• CH2M conducted the following additional workshops: 1) December 15, 2015, 2) MBR 101 workshop
on February 9, 2016, 3) Triple Bottom Line workshop on February 24, 2016, 4) MBR Working Session
on March 16, 2016 and 5) an MBR Follow Up workshop on March 23, 2016. The additional effort
associated with these workshops included advanced preparation of the presentation materials,
review of these materials with WSC and then presentation to the City team.
• CH2M attended with the City and the Program Manager the IRWD and Fillmore MBR site visits on
February 10 – 11, 2016.
• CH2M arranged and led the City of Henderson and City of North Las Vegas site tours on June 23,
2016.
CH2M produced multiple versions of the MBR and CAS cost comparison utilizing our CH2M Cost
Parametric Estimating System.
Item No. 2 – Dual Treatment for Peak Wet Weather Events
The original focus of this task was to evaluate dual treatment for disinfection to optimize infrastructure
provided to treat wet weather flows. This was later expanded to CH2M working with the City’s Program
Manager to identify and evaluate treatment alternatives aimed at “right sizing the secondary and
tertiary treatment train” as well as developing approaches to manage the peak wet weather events. The
specific additional work that has been completed includes:
• Multiple meetings were conducted with the Program Manager in discussing alternatives for
managing peak wet weather events. Included in these meetings were consultations with CH2M Wet
Weather Senior Technical Consultants seeking advice and approaches aimed at reducing the size the
of the wet weather events. Process evaluations and cost estimates were developed to evaluate
potential scenarios. These meetings, consultations, and evaluations resulted in the approach to
focus on a strategy to expand flow equalization, coupled with the Program Manager revisiting the
design storm hydrograph based on updated rainfall data.
Packet Pg. 255
12
PAGE 7
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Item No. 3 – Cooling Wetlands. There has been additional effort expended in evaluating and considering
the alternative of implementing the cooling wetland for effluent cooling. The additional effort included
the following items:
• CH2M conducted the additional following workshops: 1) December 17, 2015, 2), August 24,
2016 and September 29, 2016. The additional effort associated with these workshops included
advanced preparation of the presentation materials, review of these materials with WSC and
then presentation to the City team.
• CH2M attended an additional meeting with the Regional Board on June 3, 2016.
Based on the last workshop with the City on September 29, 2016, the City is requesting that additional
analysis be conducted to determine the long term implications of implementing cooling wetlands. The
City’s Program Manager has requested that CH2M implement the relocation of the cooling towers and
addition of the new cooling towers on the southern end of the site. The final decision on the
implementation of wetlands will occur at a later date.
Item No. 6 – MBR Pre-Selection
In late March 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo Utility Department made the decision to utilize a
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) technology for implementation at the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF). This decision was based in part of the City’s consideration for the future implementation
of Potable Reuse at the City’s WRRF. Thus, this scope of work is for CH2M to work with the City’s
Program Manager and the City to go through a process to pre-select the MBR manufacturer, approve
the submittals for the selected manufacturer and assign the final equipment contract to the City’s
contractor. The basic tasks that will be required to accomplish this are as follows:
• Establish the Bidding Requirements
• Develop the Contract Forms
• Develop the Conditions of the Contract
• Prepare the Technical Specifications
• Develop Required Drawings
• Conduct Vendor Presentations
• Prepare Addenda
• Conduct a Bid Evaluation and Recommendation
• Review Equipment Supplier Submittals
This scope of work has been prepared with the following assumptions:
• CH2M will be required to coordinate with the State Board Division of Financial Assistance to confirm
that all pre-selection activities are in compliance with SRF requirements
• Pre-selection will incorporate elements of the Project Charter
• CH2M will be required to coordinate with the City’s Legal and Finance Department
• The MBR is separate from any other equipment pre-selection process
• The pre-selection of the MBR will be conducted as a separate and distinct task
• The MBR pre-selection will be conducted to position the City for future potable reuse alternatives
Criteria specific to obtaining log removal credits will be included in the pre-selection documents
Section 1 – Scope of Work
The specific scope of work for this effort is as follows:
Task 1 - Bidding Requirements
Packet Pg. 256
12
PAGE 8
DECEMBER 8, 2016
CH2M will be responsible for developing the Bidding Requirements for the project. The specific items
that will be developed include:
- Invitation to Bid
- Instruction to Bidders
- Bid Form
- Supplements including:
Bid Schedule A – Bid Schedule A – Life Cycle Cost Evaluation Form and Worksheets
Bid Schedule B – Warranties and Service Contracts
Bid Schedule C – Technical Data for Membrane System
Bid Schedule D – Scope of Supply
Bid Schedule E – Drawings
Bid Schedule F – Baseline Wastewater Quality Conditions
- Bid Bond Form
This task includes one meeting to coordinate with the City’s pre-selection and legal department on the
Bidding Requirements for pre-selection.
Deliverable: Bid Documents
Task 2 - Contract Forms
CH2M will be responsible for developing the Contract Forms for the pre-selection. The specific items
that will be developed include:
- Agreement including the following sections:
- Supplementary Conditions and Supplements:
Exhibit A-1: Assignment of Contract, Consent to Assignment, Acceptance of Assignment
Exhibit A-2: Agreement to Assignment by Sellers Surety
- Performance Bond
- Payment Bond
This task includes one meeting to coordinate with the City’s pre-selection and legal department on the
Contract Forms for pre-selection.
Deliverable: Contract Forms
Task 3 - Conditions of the Contract
CH2M will be responsible for developing the Conditions of the Contract for the pre-selection. It is
anticipated that the Standard General Conditions of the Procurement contract utilized will be Engineers
Joint Contract Document Committee (EJCDC) general conditions. It is assumed that the EJCDC General
Conditions contract are acceptable to the City. Supplementary Conditions will also be developed that
are specific to each pre-selection.
This task includes one meeting to coordinate with the City’s pre-selection and legal department on the
Conditions of the Contract forms for pre-selection.
Deliverable: Conditions of the Contract
Task 4 - Technical Specifications
CH2M will be responsible for developing the technical specifications required for the pre-selection of
the equipment. The technical specifications that will be developed for the pre-selection of the MBR
equipment will include:
- Technical Specifications:
Packet Pg. 257
12
PAGE 9
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Division 1: Section 01011 – Summary, Section 01025 – Measurement and Payment, Section
01250 – Contract Modification Procedures, Section 01301 – Administrative Requirements,
Section 01601 – Product Requirements, Section 01701 – Special Services
Division 9 – Finishes
Division 11 – Equipment
Division 13 – Special Construction
Division 15 – Mechanical
Division 16 – Electrical
Deliverable: Conditions of the Contract
Task 5 – Drawings
CH2M will develop a general layout drawing to inform the equipment suppliers the area allocated for
installation of the equipment.
Deliverable: General Layout Drawings
Task 6 - Vendor Presentations
It is anticipated that as part of the equipment pre-selection process, the potential equipment suppliers
will come in and make a presentation to the Program Management staff and the City WRRF staff. The
purpose of these presentations is for the potential equipment vendors to present the performance and
operating requirements of their equipment. It is also anticipated that the WRRF staff that will be
responsible for the operations and maintenance of the equipment can become knowledgeable and
familiar with the equipment to understand the pros and cons of each equipment supplier. This task
assumes that there will be up to three presentations MBR equipment vendors. For this task, it has been
assumed that two CH2M team members will be in attendance at the presentations.
Deliverable: Presentation Summaries
Task 7 - Addenda Preparation and Bid Evaluation
It is anticipated that based on the Vendor Presentations, questions and clarifications that evolve from
issuance of the contract documents, that an addenda will be required. Furthermore it is anticipated that
only one addenda will be needed for each equipment pre-selection activity. The addenda will be issued
prior to the bid for the equipment but after the Vendor Presentations.
Upon receipt of the bids from the equipment vendors, CH2M will complete an evaluation of the bids for
compliance with the contract documents. CH2M will then make a recommendation to the City for award
of the preferred equipment supplier based on the selection criteria provided in the contract documents.
CH2M will submit a formal letter to the City with a recommendation for award.
Deliverable: Addenda and Letter for Recommendation of Award
Task 8 - Supplier Submittal Reviews
CH2M will perform up to 2 submittal reviews for each equipment vendor. The objective of these
submittal reviews is to ensure that the assignment of the contract to the Contractor for construction is
completed with the approved submittals. If more than two reviews of the submittals is required, CH2M
is entitled to additional compensation if required.
Deliverable: Submittal Review and Comments
Packet Pg. 258
12
PAGE 10
DECEMBER 8, 2016
We look forward to discussing the details of this proposal at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc.
Ronald E. Williams, P.E., BCEE
Vice President
C: Jeff Szytel, WSC
Jasmine Diaz, WSC
Howard Brewen, City of San Luis Obispo
Jennifer Phillips, CH2M
Barb Engleson, CH2M
Packet Pg. 259
12
2015$252$252$220$220$191$170$161$149$132$108$99$151$91$1062016$256$256$224$224$194$173$163$152$134$109$101$154$92$1082017$258$258$226$226$196$175$165$153$135$110$102$155$93$1091.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 180 $40,680 0 $0 38 $6,650 150 $24,750 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $15,100 0 $0 0 $0 468$87,180$0 $96,362 $0 $95,900 $0$0$0$192,262$279,4422015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 180 $40,680 0 $0 38 $6,650 150 $24,750 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $15,100 0 $0 0 $0 468$87,180$96,362$95,900$192,262 $279,4422.225 $58,050 0 $0 0 $0 50 $11,300 0 $0 25 $4,375 820 $135,300 0 $0 0 $00 $0 0 $0 690 $106,950 0 $0 40 $4,360 1850 $320,335 $0$0$0 $320,3352015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02017 225 $58,050 0 $0 0 $0 50 $11,300 0 $0 25 $4,375 820 $135,300 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 690 $106,950 0 $0 40 $4,360 1850 $320,335$0 $320,3353186 $47,988 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 31 $5,425 62 $10,230 615 $94,022 410 $55,307 0 $0 0 $0 682.8 $105,834 62 $5,766 46.5 $5,069 2094.5 $329,640 $20,000 $54,340$54,340 $403,9802015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$54,340$54,340 $54,3402017 186 $47,988 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 31 $5,425 62 $10,230 615 $94,022 410 $55,307 0 $0 0 $0 682.8 $105,834 62 $5,766 46.5 $5,069 2094.5 $329,640 $20,000$0 $349,6404.216 $55,296 0 0 0 0 50 $11,200 0 0 80 $13,840 878 $143,114 0 $0 0 0 0 0 00 158 $24,332 0 0 28 $3,024 1410 $250,806$0$0 $250,8062015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 216 $55,296 0 $0 0 $0 50 $11,200 0 $0 80 $13,840 878 $143,114 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 158 $24,332 0 $0 28 $3,024 1410 $250,806$0 $250,8062017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$05. Concept Validation Changes40 $10,240 0 $0 0 $0 128 $28,672 50 $9,700 0 $0 0 $0 70 $10,640 0 $0 50$5,450 0 $0 54 $8,316 0 $0 0 $0 392 $73,018 $10,000 $0$0 $83,0182015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $2,500$0 $2,5002016 40 $10,240 0 $0 0 $0 128 $28,672 50 $9,700 0 $0 0 $0 70 $10,640 0 $0 50 $5,450 0 $0 54 $8,316 0 $0 0 $0 392 $73,018 $7,500$0 $80,5182017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$06 MBR Pre-Selection0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 244 $54,656 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 416 $63,232 0 $0 71 $7,739 240 $24,240 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 971 $149,867 $0 $31,601$31,601 $181,4682015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 244 $54,656 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 416 $63,232 0 $0 71 $7,739 240 $24,240 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 971 $149,867$31,601$31,601 $181,4682017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$0667 $171,574 0 $0 0 $0 652 $146,508 50 $9,700 174 $30,290 1,910 $313,394 1,101 $167,894 410 $55,307 121 $13,189 240 $24,240 1,685 $260,532 62 $5,766 115 $12,453 7,186 $1,210,846 $30,000 $182,303 $0 $95,900 $0$0$0 $278,203 $1,519,0492-Dec-16Total Labor Hours Total Labor Costs ($) Travel and Other Expenses ($)Cannon Corp.Project Professional 1 Staff Professional 2 Staff Professional 1Architectural Scope ChangesMBR Facility DesignProject Professional 2Project Manager Process OptimizationTOTALExisting Facility ModificationsValue Engineering ModificationsTOTAL Estimated Cost ($)Public Learning Facilities Amenities DesignSurveying Utility PotholeGeotech BoringsMWA ArchitectsSubconsultant TotalDetailed Fee EstimateWater Resource Recovery Facility City of San Luis ObispoEngineering Technician Technician Office / ClericalPrincipal in Charge Principal Professional 2 Principal Professional 1 Sr. Professional 2 Sr. Professional 1Task Nos. Task/Activity DescriptionLabor ClassificationSubconsultant Costs ($) Packet Pg. 26012