The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-03-2018 Item 09 - WRRF Design Services Contract Amendment Meeting Date: 4/3/2018 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater SUBJECT: WRRF DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve a contract amendment with CH2M, Inc. for $790,767 for completion of Design Services for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, Spec. No. 91363; and 2. Approve transfer of $790,767 from the Sewer Fund working capital for the WRRF project to the project account. DISCUSSION As the WRRF project completes final design, a variety of elements key to completing the project for bidding on schedule were identified. Described in the February 20, 2018 WRRF Project Update Council Agenda Report, these changes will result in the WRRF accomplishing the City’s long-range goals related to water resiliency, recycled water, and environmental stewardship, while meeting regulatory mandates, needed capacity for 2035 build-out, aging infrastructure and creating a community asset (Attachment A). Some of the necessary design contract amendments are: • MBR procurement that resulted in a lower cost and better warranty. • Value engineering that has resulted in the reduction of some processes, optimization in others. • Removal of the berm surrounding the equalization basin to ensure the protection of critical neighboring facilities such as the Corporation Yard and Homeless Services Center. • A building for the UV (Ultra-Violet) disinfection system and conversion of the WRRF Packet Pg 201 9 electrical system to medium voltage to enhance reliability and safety. • Pumping to return flows from the equalization basin to the WRRF during wet weather to comply with regulatory requirements and optimize the size of the MBR (membrane bioreactor). This request is for the out-of-scope items to complete final design and critical to getting the project out to bid and maintaining the project schedule. The program management team has thoroughly reviewed the contact amendment, discussed and negotiated with CH2M for several weeks, resulting in the request being presented to be accurate, appropriate, and fair. CH2M’s design services and the team they bring have been key to the success of this complicated design. CH2M has been a dedicated and committed partner in this project. Attachment B contains the complete contract amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council adopted Resolution 10740 (2016 Series) certifying the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project (SCH #2015101044) on August 16, 2016. The proposed contract amendment for additional design services is consistent with the project analyzed under that EIR and this action does not trigger the need for additional environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT The original design agreement was entered into in July 2015 for an amount of $6,229,323. Since that time, project design has evolved, and components have been added (MBR process and pre- selection, architectural, value engineering and existing facility modification), amended, and revised. This lead to a first amendment of the contract in January 2017 for $1,519,049. This is the second amendment that should allow the project to proceed to 95% design considering the magnitude and complexity of a project of this scale. This amendment to CH2M’s design contract will cost $790,767. This expenditure has been included in the sewer fund analysis. At this time, it is not anticipated this will affect the sewer fund that has a current unreserved working capital of $25,345,818. Complete impacts to the sewer fund will be analyzed after costs for construction, additional services and contingencies have been finalized. CH2M Contract for Design Services $7,748,372 Amendment for Phase 3 $790,767 Total CH2M Contract for Design $8,539,139 Industry average for design related services for a project such as the WRRF range from 7% to 9% of construction cost. Total construction cost for the WRRF is estimated to be $95-$109 million, which places CH2M’s anticipated total design contract within the industry standard. Total costs for the project will continue to be refined as bids and proposals are authorized for project construction, construction management, engineering services during construction, contingencies and phases 4 & 5 of program management. Packet Pg 202 9 ALTERNATIVE Elect not to approve the contract amendment. The City Council may elect not to approve the contract amendment at this time. Council may select this alternative if it believes that design services may be accomplished in a different manner. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to complicated nature of the project, the extent of the present design, cost of modifying the current project and the probable loss of desired design elements. Attachments: a - 02-20-2018 Council Agenda Report b - CH2M Contract Amendment 180309 Packet Pg 203 9 Meeting Date: 2/20/2018 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT UPDATE AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve a contract amendment with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. for $1,124,453 for completion of Phase 3 Program Management Services for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, Spec. No. 91219; and 2. Approve transfer of $1,124,453 from the Sewer Fund working capital for the WRRF project to the project account. DISCUSSION WRRF Project Update The WRRF project is in the final design phase with the recent completion of sixty percent project design as a major project milestone. Completion of construction documents and bidding is scheduled for September 2018 with construction beginning the end of the calendar year. The WRRF project will deliver the key project drivers of regulatory compliance, replacing aging infrastructure, providing needed capacity for the future, maximizing recycled water production, and community resource center. The WRRF project changed considerably in early 2017 after comprehensive analysis determined that Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) technology offered considerable benefits from the conventional denitrification technology originally envisioned for the WRRF. MBR technology will produce a higher water quality, maximize recycled water production, and position the City for potable reuse. This major change and other conditions described later in this report have added additional time and cost to the project scope and schedule. Contract Amendment While best aligning with the City’s long-range goals related to water resiliency, recycled water, and environmental stewardship, the change to the MBR process have resulted in schedule Packet Pg 204 9 impacts. In addition, a variety of conditions were identified that required additional studies to provide more information to progress with design. These studies revealed important issues that required further analysis and changes to the Program Manager’s existing scope of work to keep the project moving forward. The necessary changes listed below have resulted in significant cost and schedule impacts: • MBR procurement to ensure the most efficient MBR system with the best warranty for the City. • Additional value engineering that has resulted in the reduction of the size of some processes, and efficiencies and optimization in others. • Flood studies that have provided enhanced analysis to inform the protection of the WRRF, the City’s Corporation Yard, and future and existing infrastructure in the Prado Road area. • Additional inflow and infiltration studies to ultimately reduce process replacement. • Additional analysis of cooling wetlands process. This study determined that regulatory constraints make this alternative infeasible. The extended schedule will require additional funding for the WRRF project program to complete the final design phase. These costs include ongoing program management, engineering support, permitting, funding support, and public and stakeholder engagement. This request is for the out-of-scope items and to complete program management for the final design which is critical to keeping the design phase on schedule. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the contract amendment (Attachment A) and believes the request to be accurate, appropriate, and fair. Program management services have been essential to the success of this highly complicated project. Water Systems Consulting Inc. (WSC) has been a valued partner in this project. Design services for the project have also been impacted by the schedule and out-of-scope items outlined above. The City is anticipating a contract amendment request to be submitted by the project designer CH2M. Staff will again thoroughly review the request and discuss and negotiate with the designer before seeking Council consideration. Project Costs and Funding On January 26, 2018, the City received written assurance that it will receive a low interest loan for up to $140 million in project costs from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) (Attachment B). This low interest loan will allow the City to save millions of dollars in interest. An SRF loan is based on the State’s General Obligation Bond and charged at 50% of the current rate. Based on the written confirmation, City and State legal staff will soon begin consultation on the draft agreements. Final loan documents will be presented later this year for Council consideration. The current bidding and building climate in California has seen a rapid escalation of construction Packet Pg 205 9 WRRF Project Phases Phase Schedule Status Phase 1 - Project Planning January 2014 – June 2015 Complete Phase 2 - Preliminary Design July 2015 – August 2016 Complete Phase 3 - Final Design October 2017 – December 2018 Ongoing Phase 4 – Construction December 2018 – January 2022 Phase 5 - Close Out November 2021 – February 2022 costs statewide. The most recent cost document presented a low-medium-high range of estimated project construction costs with the high range exceeding the sewer fund’s financial capacity. The WRRF Project team continues to analyze the project and will modify the bidding documents to offer flexibility at the time of award to stay within budget. This will include a separate bid item for the Water Resource Center (WRC) to allow the required improvements to move forward and the City to determine if project funding can support the building. This approach allows competitive bidding for two distinctly different projects and may offer savings. If the WRC cannot be a part of the project, the building will be placed in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for construction at a later date. Grants, partnerships and other funding mechanisms are being actively pursued for a variety of processes and improvements at the WRRF and the surrounding area. These include flooding, recycled water, energy, inflow and infiltration reduction, and transportation. Staff has identified a goal of fifteen million dollars in grants, loan forgiveness, and partnerships to help offset the cost of the project. Project Phases, Schedule, and Next Steps This calendar year will see the completion of project final design phase and the beginning of the construction phase for the project. Several key project objectives are on-track for this year and are summarized on the project milestone schedule below. Several key items that will be coming to Council for funding consideration include program management for phase 4 and 5 and engineering support for the project. Other activities for 2018 and 2019 include the revision and negotiation of the WRRF’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) permit and Time Schedule Order (TSO). Packet Pg 206 9 Packet Pg 207 9 FISCAL IMPACT This amendment to WSC’s phase 2 and 3 program management contract will cost $1,124,453. The Sewer Fund has sufficient unreserved working capital for this expenditure. On June 30, 2017, the City’s comprehensive annual financial report showed an unreserved working capital of $27,656,818. Original WSC Contract for Phase 2 and 3 $2,311,000 Amendment for Phase 3 $1,124,453 Total WSC Contract for Phase 2 and 3 $3,435,453 Industry average for total program related services for a project such as the WRRF are 6% of the entire project cost. Total project costs for the WRRF are estimated to be $120-$140 million, which places WSC’s anticipated total program management contract for Phases 1 through 5 within an acceptable range. Total costs for the project will continue to be refined as the design nears completion. ALTERNATIVE Elect not to approve the contract amendment. The City Council may elect not to approve the contract amendment at this time. Council may select this alternative if it believes that program management may be accomplished in a different manner. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to complicated nature of the project, the expense of bringing on a different program manager mid-project, and the lack of in-house expertise and resources. Attachments: a - WSC Contract Amendment b - Funding Letter from State Water Resources Control Board Packet Pg 208 9 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 2 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 Water Systems Consulting Inc, hereinafter referred to as Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on November January 29, 2014 the City entered into an Agreement with Program Manager Services for the Water Resources Recovery Facility per Specification No. 91 219; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to extend Program Management Services for Phase 3 of the Water Resources Recovery Facility Project and the 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. a. Program Management Services per proposal dated December 26, 2017, at a cost not to exceed $1,124,453.00 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 209 9 Packet Pg 210 9 Packet Pg 211 9 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 2 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 related to: Project Management, Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Rebid, Equalization Pond Return Pump Station, Ferric Chloride Facilities, Primary Effluent Screens, Process Air Blowers, 3W Pump Station, UV Electrical Building, Medium Voltage Distribution, Flow Meter Vault, Temporary Pumping Design for UV, Value Engineering, Removal of the Berm at EQ (Equalization) Basin, and Water Resource Center, 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 212 9 CH2M 1501 W. Fountainhead Pkwy Suite 401 Tempe, AZ 85282 (480) 966‐8188 (T) (480) 966‐9450 (F) www.ch2m.com March 9, 2018 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 Revised Amendment No. 2 Request Dear Mr. Hix, As we progress towards the Construction Document Development (95%) Stage of the Project, there are a number of changes that have occurred during the 60% phase resulting in additional scope for the project. The additional scope of the project has developed in the following areas:  Item No. 1 – Additional Project Management due to Schedule Extension  Item No. 2 – MBR Rebid  Item No. 3 – Equalization Pond Return Pump Station  Item No. 4 – Ferric Chloride Facilities Addition for CEPT  Item No. 5 – Primary Effluent Screens  Item No. 6 – Process Air Blowers Evaluation  Item No. 7 – 3W Pump Station  Item No. 8 – UV Electrical Building  Item No. 9 – Medium Voltage Distribution  Item No. 10 – Vault  Item No. 11 – Temporary Pumping Design for Interim UV Operation  Item No. 12 – Value Engineering Items  Item No. 13 – Remove Berm at EQ Basin  Item No. 14 – Water Resource Center Item No. 1 – Additional Project Management Due to Schedule Extension The schedule for the WRRF project was updated based on the delay in the MBR contract award, per our letter provided on December 15, 2017. Additional project management has been required during this period for additional meetings and requests from the City and Program Management team. Additional effort for three months has been assumed. As of the date of this letter, the start of the Construction Document Development (95%) design phase has been delayed by four weeks for the Value Engineering reconciliation. Packet Pg 213 9 PAGE 2 MARCH 9, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 Item No. 2 – MBR Rebid After receipt of the original bids from two membrane vendors on April 20, 2017, the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance Legal Counsel advised the City that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements were not met, thus both bids were determined to be nonresponsive. As part of the rebid activities, the City requested additional items be included in the specifications, including an extended warranty and change to a mandatory pre‐bid meeting. As a result of the rebid, additional work was performed including the following:  Revised specifications for the rebid as requested by the City and provided the final rebid package (June 29, 2017).  Additional bid phase services, including issuing addenda. Developed and issued Addenda No. 1 (July 19, 2017), No. 2 (July 20, 2017), No. 3 (August 3, 2017), No. 4 (August 9, 2017), and No. 5 (August 17, 2017).  Attended the mandatory pre‐proposal meeting on July 7, 2017.  Attended additional meetings during the bid phase to support the City’s procurement processes, address City and Program Manager questions, discuss addenda, and discuss the proposal review findings (August 2, 16, 28 and September 1, 5).  Evaluated the lowest present worth cost bid, upon receipt of proposals on August 22, and provided letters summarizing proposal review comments (September 7 and 9, 2017).  Attended exceptions review meetings with the City, Program Manager and successful vendor (September 12, 14, 20 and 22, 2017).  Developed two versions of conformed bid documents as requested by the Program Manager to incorporate addenda and City, legal and vendor revisions (September 29 and October 16, 2017). With the rebid, the City received a 10‐year full warranty for a similar system price as identified in the original bid, which provided a 7‐year full warranty with a 3‐year cliff. Item No. 3 – Equalization Pond Return Pump Station Based on the Facilities Plan, the original scope of work included modifications to the return pump station to operate at an increased water surface elevation, providing a redundant pump in the existing pump station and providing additional automation (level control). The scope also included raising the perimeter berm to prevent inundation during the 100‐year storm event. The 30% design showed the addition of a second vertical turbine solids handling pump in the existing wetwell, matching existing. During the development of the 60% design, further investigation showed that the existing diversion structure could not be structurally retrofit to accommodate the higher water surface elevation and provide flood protection; relocation of the pump station was required. A new pump station with vertical turbine solids handling pumps was designed and modeled. During the July 5‐6, 2017 P&ID review meetings, the City requested that submersible pumps be used instead of vertical turbine solids handling pumps. Redesign of the station was required to accommodate the change in pump type. The following drawings and specifications were impacted by the addition of the new pump station and the subsequent change from vertical turbine pumps:  Additional mechanical, structural drawings, and electrical drawings to modify the existing control structure and design a new flow equalization pump station, including the following: o 14‐XS‐1101, Structural Existing Control Structure Demolition Plan and Section o 14‐S‐1101, Structural Existing Control Structure Demolition Plan and Section o 14‐S‐1102, Structural Pump Station and Water Cannon Structure Plans and Sections o 14‐D‐1101, Process Pump Station Plan and Section Packet Pg 214 9 PAGE 3 MARCH 9, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 o 14‐D‐1102, Process Control Structure Plan and Section o 14‐EF‐1100, Electrical Pump Station Facility Plan o 14‐EP‐1101, Electrical Pump Station Process Plan  Redesign to change to submersible pumps, including evaluating the pump selection revision and developing specifications. o 14‐S‐1102, Structural Pump Station and Water Cannon Structure Plans and Sections o 14‐D‐1101, Process Pump Station Plan and Section o 44 42 56.04, Submersible Pumps Item No. 4 – Ferric Chloride Facilities Addition for CEPT As discussed in workshops during the 30% and 60% design, chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) is recommended as a backup for enhanced settling during peak flow events or when a primary clarifier is out of service, depending on plant flows. There was agreement with the need for using CEPT under these conditions. CEPT was not identified as being required in the Facilities Plan and therefore was not included in the original project scope. There was a decision by the City to reuse the existing ferrous tank for ferric chloride, but add a new feed pump as the existing units are 20 years old. The 60% design includes drawings and a specification for a new ferric chloride feed system for CEPT. The 60% design deliverable includes selection of a ferric chloride chemical pump and development of drawings and a specification for the pumps. The 95% and 100% drawings and specifications will include further detailing of this system. The following drawings and specifications were impacted by the addition of the new ferric feed system pump:  08‐I‐0021, Ferric chloride P&ID (modified)  16‐XD‐1100, Process Demolition Plan and Sections  16‐D‐1100, Process Plan and Sections  16‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan  44 42 56.16, Peristaltic Hose Pumps ‐ Ferric chloride metering pump specification Item No. 5 – Primary Effluent Screens The scope for this item is based on changing the fine screening facility from the band screen currently included in the 60% design deliverable to a horizontal drum screen, as requested by the City. Drawings requiring revision include:  28‐S‐1100, Structural Foundation and Top Plans  28‐S‐3001, Structural Sections  28‐D‐1100, Process Plan, Sections and Detail  28‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan The following specification will need to be revised:  44 42 32, Fine Screen Systems Item No. 6 – Process Air Blowers Evaluations The Facilities Plan indicated the City would be installing two new Neuros turbo blowers as part of a WRRF Capital Improvement Project. In the Facilities Plan, Table 7‐12, Design Criteria Required for Upgrades Permit Compliance indicated a total of 5 blowers, 2 existing and 3 new. The 30% design drawings were based on the use of turbo blowers, matching this proposed approach. The City indicated during 30% that they wanted CH2M to evaluate blower types. Based on the City’s request, several presentations were developed, including an extensive evaluation of various blower combinations, including energy Packet Pg 215 9 PAGE 4 MARCH 9, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 comparisons at the range of conditions to optimize energy benefits for City. As a result of this evaluation, a blower system was selected with mixed blower types to most closely meet the wide range of projected operating conditions, including turndown and peak events. The scope for this item is the evaluation of a range of blower options and combinations including:  Development and delivery of initial presentation of blower options, including general approach proposed for blower evaluation (July 26, 2017).  Analysis of blower types and sizes, with combinations of blowers to optimize annual operating efficiencies.  Development and delivery of final blower evaluation presentation with recommendation (September 27, 2017).  Follow‐up meeting to review City decision (October 11, 2017). Item No. 7 – 3W Pump Station The original scope of work was based on expanding the capacity of the existing 3W pump station by replacing the two existing 300 gpm pumps with two new 600 gpm pumps. Based on the new 3W capacity requirements, additional wet well space was required and reuse of the existing wet well was not compliant with Hydraulic Institute Standards. CH2M proposed pumps with variable frequency drives (VFDs), which is standard practice for 3W systems. The City and the Program Manager requested further development of alternatives to allow further turndown during night time low flow conditions. The resulting system includes both VFDs and a hydropneumatic tank. Meetings were held on July 26 and August 22, 2017 to present alternatives and evaluations of the 3W pumping system options. The new 3W pump station is shown on the following drawings:  08‐I‐0030, Effluent Cooling & 3W Pumps  08‐I‐0033, 3W Pump Station Discharge  68‐XD‐1100, Process Demolition Plan  68‐S‐1100, Structural Foundation Plan  68‐S‐1100, Structural Lower Level Plan  68‐S‐1100, Structural Sections  68‐D‐1100, Process Lower Plan  68‐D‐1200, Process Ground Level Plan  68‐D‐3001, Process Sections  68‐D‐3002, Process Sections  68‐D‐3003, Process Sections  68‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan Item No. 8 – UV Electrical Building The Facilities Plan did not identify the need for a new electrical building to serve the new UV system, located in the vicinity of the existing chlorine contact basins. There was an assumption that existing electrical buildings would have space for the UV system electrical components, but they do not. Therefore, a new electrical building was included in the 60% design to house the UV system electrical. The 3W system electrical equipment is also located in this building. The 60% design deliverable included the following drawings for the UV system electrical building:  53‐A‐1100, Architectural Plans  53‐A‐2001, Architectural Elevations and Section  53‐S‐1100, Structural Plans Packet Pg 216 9 PAGE 5 MARCH 9, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 7  53‐S‐3001, Structural Sections  53‐S‐3002, Structural Sections  53‐M‐1100, HVAC Plans  53‐F‐1100, Fire Protection Plan  53‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan  53‐EF‐1100, Electrical Facility Plan Item No. 9 – Medium Voltage Distribution The Facilities Plan and the 30% design for site electrical were based on low voltage distribution. During 60%, the City elected to provide medium voltage power distribution within the plant and use step‐down transformers to power 480‐volt facility loads versus continuing with low voltage power distribution. Two meetings were held on June 14 and July 26, 2017 to present and discuss alternatives. The decision was based on increased operational safety through reduction of the arc flash hazard, increased power reliability, increased flexibility for future expansion (potable reuse) and simplification of the service connection from PG&E. As an outcome from the Value Engineering activities, the City has elected to implement a single‐loop system in lieu of the double‐loop system included in the 60% design. This change in approach resulted in the need to update the single line diagrams, site plan drawings to show the location of the medium voltage equipment, electrical plan drawings to show the power distribution, and add technical specifications for medium voltage equipment. The following drawings were affected as part of the change to medium voltage distribution:  09‐E‐1000, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Overall  09‐E‐1001, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 1  09‐E‐1003, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 3  09‐E‐1004, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 4  09‐E‐1005, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 5  09‐E‐1007, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 7  09‐E‐1008, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 8  09‐E‐1009, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 9  09‐E‐1010, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 10  09‐E‐1011, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 11  09‐E‐1012, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 12  44 ‐EF‐1100, Electrical Facility Plan  98‐E‐6001, Electrical Main Single Line Diagram Revised  98‐E‐6011, Electrical Overall Single Line Diagram 44‐MSG‐01  98‐E‐6012, Electrical Single Line Diagram 40‐SWBD‐01  98‐E‐6015, Electrical Single Line Diagram 40‐SWBD‐02  98‐E‐6018, Electrical Single Line Diagram and Elevation 53‐SWBD‐01, 68‐MCC‐01 and 40‐MCC‐04  98‐E‐6019, Electrical Single Line Diagram and Elevation 53‐SWBD‐02 and 68‐MCC‐02  98‐E‐6301, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 01  98‐E‐6302, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 02  98‐E‐6303, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 03  98‐E‐6304, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 04 Item No. 10 – Vault The Facilities Plan proposed providing flow meters on the influent pumps discharge piping. Evaluation of the discharge piping revealed that it does not remain full under all operating conditions. Therefore, a Packet Pg 217 9 PAGE 6 MARCH 9, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 flow meter vault was included in the 60% design deliverable for primary influent flow measurement. The following drawings were developed for the primary influent flow meter vault:  18‐S‐1100, Structural Plans and Section  18‐D‐1100, Process Plans and Sections Item No. 11 – Temporary Pumping Design for Interim UV System Operation The final design will be based on MBR permeate pumping to the UV system. Because of the Time Schedule Order date for THM compliance, interim operation of the UV system on filtered effluent was considered for approximately one year through installation of a temporary pumping system. Additional evaluation and testing by the City revealed that THM compliance would not be met without the MBR system in operation. The effort for defining temporary pumping has included the following:  Hydraulics evaluation for the temporary pumping system  Site/location evaluation and plan for piping tie‐ins for temporary system  Coordination with vendors of temporary pumping systems  Specification 01 57 28 Temporary Flow Control  Drawing 06‐Y‐1010 Yard Piping Plan Area 10 Item No. 12 – Value Engineering Items The final design will incorporate the value engineering items discussed and agreed to during the January 10th meeting among the City, WSC, HDR and CH2M. The specific items identified below will require additional design time to incorporate the changes into the contract documents.  Delete photovoltaic systems at Facilities 10, 14, 36, 40, 54, 72 and 83  Change UV facility to slab on grade  Reduce the effluent cooling capacity to align with recycled water goals by eliminating 1 tower A credit has been provided for the deletion of the new screw press at Facility 86, however, the scope of work will still include modification of the existing belt press load out conveyor to accommodate roll‐off bin handling and relocation of the existing feed pump. Although the sidestream treatment facility has been deleted from the project, design elements need to be addressed with this change. The filtrate pump station will still be required and additional dynamic process modeling of the centrate return will need to be conducted to confirm the need for the equalization basin to attenuate the ammonia loading variability on the bioreactors. As a result, no credit has been applied. Item No. 13 – Remove Berm at Equalization (EQ) Basin To mitigate off‐site impacts during a flood event, the City has elected to remove the berm around the EQ basin that is currently shown in the 60% design drawings. This change will involve re‐grading the EQ basin to provide the required 8.75 million gallons of storage volume within the basin. Further evaluation of the existing control structure, primary effluent diversion box overflow and return pump station will be required to accommodate the new footprint, grading and operating water surface elevation. Re‐grading of the adjacent roadways is required to align with the new exterior elevation. The following drawings will be affected by this change: Packet Pg 218 9 PAGE 7 MARCH 9, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7  01‐G‐0043, Hydraulic Profile 1  05‐XF‐1000, Overall Site Facility and Piping Demolition Plan  05‐C‐1000, Site Plan Overall Key Plan  05‐CL‐1001, Location Plan Area 1  05‐CL‐1002, Location Plan Area 2  05‐CL‐1005, Location Plan Area 5  05‐CG‐1001, Grading and Drainage Plan Area 1  05‐CG‐1002, Grading and Drainage Plan Area 2  05‐CG‐1005, Grading and Drainage Plan Area 5  06‐Y‐1001, Yard Piping Plan Area 1  06‐Y‐1001, Yard Piping Plan Area 2  06‐Y‐1001, Yard Piping Plan Area 5  14‐C‐1001, Civil Plan  14‐C‐3001, Civil Section  14‐C‐3003, Civil Section  14‐XS‐1101, Existing Control Structure Demolition Plan  14‐S‐1101, Existing Control Structure Plan and Sections  14‐S‐1102, Pump Station and Water Cannon Plan and Sections  14‐D‐1100, Process Overall Plan  14‐D‐1101, Process Pump Station Plan and Section  14‐D‐1102, Process Control Structure Plan and Section  14‐D‐5001, Process Plan Section and Detail Item No. 14 – Water Resource Center As an outcome from the Value Engineering activities, the City has elected to include the Water Resource Center as an additive alternative in the construction bid. Additional level of effort has been identified for this change. We look forward to discussing the details of this change order at your earliest convenience. Regards, CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. Ronald E. Williams, P.E., BCEE Vice President C: Jeff Szytel, WSC Jasmine Diaz, WSC Lianne Westberg, WSC Jennifer Phillips, CH2M Barb Engleson, CH2M Emilio Candanoza, CH2M Packet Pg 219 9 2017$258 $226 $196 $175 $165 $153 $135 $110 $155 $175 $1092018$260 $228 $198 $177 $167 $154 $136 $111 $156 $177 $1101288 $74,885 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 288$74,885$4,800 $0$0$79,6852017 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 $02018 288 $74,885 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 288$74,885$4,800 $0 $0 $79,68524.5 $1,161 10 $2,260 4.3 $843 0.4 $70 4.8 $792 32 $4,896 20.7 $2,795 19 $2,090 0 $0 0 $0 244 $26,596 340$41,502$2,919 $0$0$44,4212017 4.5 $1,161 10 $2,260 4.3 $843 0.4 $70 4.8 $792 32 $4,896 20.7 $2,795 19 $2,090 0 $0 0 $0 244 $26,596 340$41,502$2,919 $0 $0 $44,4212018 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 $0363 $16,254 0 $0 0 $0 7 $1,225 14 $2,310 136 $20,808 90 $12,150 0 $0 151 $23,405 14 $2,450 11 $1,199 486 $79,801 $0 $0 $0 $79,8012017 63 $16,254 0 $0 0 $0 7 $1,225 14 $2,310 136 $20,808 90 $12,150 0 $0 151 $23,405 14 $2,450 11 $1,199 486 $79,801 $0 $0 $0 $79,8012018 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 $0418 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 27 $4,131 18 $2,430 0 $0 30 $4,650 4 $700 3 $327 106 $17,892 $0 $5,500 $5,500 $23,3922017 18 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 27 $4,131 18 $2,430 0 $0 30 $4,650 4 $700 3 $327 106 $17,892 $0 $5,500 $5,500 $23,3922018 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 $0518 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 39 $5,967 26 $3,510 0 $0 44 $6,820 4 $700 3 $327 140 $22,978 $0 $0 $0 $22,9782017 18 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 39 $5,967 26 $3,510 0 $0 44 $6,820 4 $700 3 $327 140 $22,978 $0 $0 $0 $22,9782018 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 $068 $2,064 0 $0 0 $0 16 $2,800 0 $0 40 $6,120 38 $5,130 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 102 $16,114 $0 $0 $0 $16,1142017 8 $2,064 0 $0 0 $0 16 $2,800 0 $0 40 $6,120 38 $5,130 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 102 $16,114 $0 $0$0 $16,1142018 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$0750 $12,900 0 $0 0 $0 6 $1,050 12 $1,980 100 $15,300 70 $9,450 0 $0 110 $17,050 12 $2,100 9 $981 369 $60,811 $0 $11,650 $11,650 $72,4612017 50 $12,900 0 $0 0 $0 6 $1,050 12 $1,980 100 $15,300 70 $9,450 0 $0 110 $17,050 12 $2,100 9 $981 369 $60,811 $0 $11,650 $11,650 $72,4612018 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$0881 $20,898 0 $0 0 $0 9 $1,575 18 $2,970 143 $21,879 95 $12,825 0 $0 158 $24,490 18 $3,150 14 $1,526 536 $89,313 $0 $0$0 $89,3132017 81 $20,898 0 $0 0 $0 9 $1,575 18 $2,970 143 $21,879 95 $12,825 0 $0 158 $24,490 18 $3,150 14 $1,526 536 $89,313 $0 $0$0 $89,3132018 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$09108 $27,864 0 $0 0 $0 12 $2,100 24 $3,960 130 $19,890 86 $11,610 0 $0 144 $22,320 24 $4,200 18 $1,962 546 $93,906 $0 $0$0 $93,9062017 108 $27,864 0 $0 0 $0 12 $2,100 24 $3,960 130 $19,890 86 $11,610 0 $0 144 $22,320 24 $4,200 18 $1,962 546 $93,906 $0 $0$0 $93,9062018 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$01010 $2,580 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 36 $5,508 24 $3,240 0 $0 40 $6,200 4 $700 3 $327 123 $19,565 $0 $0$0 $19,5652017 10 $2,580 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 36 $5,508 24 $3,240 0 $0 40 $6,200 4 $700 3 $327 123 $19,565 $0 $0$0 $19,5652018 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$0114 $1,032 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 26 $3,978 0 $0 0 $0 6 $930 0 $0 6 $654 42 $6,594 $0 $0$0 $6,5942017 4 $1,032 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 26 $3,978 0 $0 0 $0 6 $930 0 $0 6 $654 42 $6,594 $0 $0$0 $6,5942018 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$012122 $31,722 0 0 0 0 14 $2,478 27 $4,510 166 $25,565 111 $15,097 0 0 184 $28,705 27 $4,780 20 $2,200 671 $115,057 $0 $0$0 $115,0572018 122 $31,722 0 $0 0 $0 14 $2,478 27 $4,510 166 $25,565 111 $15,097 0 $0 184 $28,705 27 $4,780 20 $2,200 671 $115,057 $0 $0$0 $115,0571399 $25,742 0 0 0 0 11 $1,947 23 $3,842 149 $22,947 100 $13,601 0 0 166 $25,897 22 $3,895 17 $1,870 587 $99,740 $0 $21,500 $21,500 $121,2402018 99 $25,742 0 $0 0 $0 11 $1,947 23 $3,842 149 $22,947 100 $13,601 0 $0 166 $25,897 22 $3,895 17 $1,870 587 $99,740 $0 $21,500 $21,500 $121,2401424 $6,240 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $6,240 $0 $0$0 $6,2402018 24 $6,240 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24$6,240$0 $0$0 $6,240898 $232,629 10 $2,260 4 $843 81 $14,296 135 $22,343 1024 $156,989 679 $91,837 19 $2,090 1033 $160,467 129 $22,674 348 $37,969 4360 $744,398 $7,719 $38,650 $38,650 $790,767Task No.Comments:2(32,878)$ 3EQ Pond Return Pump Station(20,127)$ 4(25,837)$ 7(6,176)$ 10(7,593)$ 12(33,368)$ Credit provided for removal of new screw press at Facility 86, scope will include reconfiguration of cake loading at the belt press bldg. and relocation of feed pump.The total estimated cost shown on this sheet include the following credits requested during the review of the January 29, 2018 Amendment Request.‐Level of effort reduced. Credit provided for work not required at the existing 3W pump station.Level of effort reduced. MBR RebidFerric Chloride Addition for CEPT3W Pump StationVaultVE ItemsCredit provided for work not required at the existing pump station.Amendment No. 2Detailed Fee EstimateWater Resource Recovery Facility City of San Luis ObispoEngineering TechnicianTechnician Office / ClericalPrincipal in Charge Principal Professional 1 Sr. Professional 2 Sr. Professional 1Task Nos.Task/Activity DescriptionLabor ClassificationProject Professional 2TOTAL Estimated Cost ($)TOTALPrimary Effluent ScreensProcess Air Blowers3W Pump StationUV Electrical BuildingTemp UV OperationMedium Voltage DistributionVaultVE ItemsRemove Berm at EQ PondWater Resource CenterFerric Chloride Addition for CEPTProject ManagerSubconsultant TotalTotal Labor Hours Total Labor Costs ($) Travel and Other Expenses ($)Cannon Corp.Project Professional 1 Staff Professional 2MBR RebidEQ Pond Return Pump StationSubconsultant Costs ($) Project SchedulePacket Pg 2209