HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2016 Item 16, 17, & 18, JohnsonCity of San Luis Obispo, City Administration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
12-13-1DATE: December 13, 2016
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
RE: December 13, 2016 Agenda Item Questions
Staff received the following questions in anticipation of tonight’s agenda items. The questions
and brief responses are provided below.
1.Item 16, page 243 - The funding amount of $140 million is noted as an increase.
What was the previous funding amount listed?
(a) The cost estimate based on the Facilities Plan (in 2014 dollars) was $
$90,381,200. The July 7, 2015 staff report provides greater details. More
details concerning the change in costs will be provided to the City Council on
January 3, 2017.
2.Item 17, page 299, Item F.5. - There is a specific percentage on aggregate fee levels
of 10-12% of value of the development. Where does that figure come from?
Another policy, industry standard...?
(a) The 10-12% standard is considered an industry standard and a benchmark by
which agencies evaluate whether fees are a barrier to development. It is a
general standard and one that is commonly used as a ceiling when evaluating
permitting and offsite infrastructure costs. A 2014 study conducted by the
City indicates that residential development, at current median price are below
the 10-12% threshold. Retail and industrial development in the Margarita
Area Specific Plan area exceeds this benchmark and other specific plan areas
require further research to determine the economic impacts of the current fee
structure.
(b) Based on the 2014 analysis, the Request for Proposal to update the City’s AB
1600 fees was authorized by the City Council to update the program and will
take into account the 10-12% maximum burden. The intent is to identify ways
to minimize financial and economic impacts to construction and ensure that
received SLO City Clerk
12-13-2016
Item: 16, 17,18
development pays its fair share for new infrastructure and services consistent
with long standing general plan policies.1
3. Item 18 - For Nacimiento, what is the annual draw down from sources other than
City of SLO, and how much is dead pool? Meaning, our current allocation far
exceeds our current water demand, even without other sources, but what would it
take for there to not be enough water for us to even get our draw? There are
currently 87,000 acre-ft. If the other users plus dead pool have rights to 82,000 acre
ft, we would get our entire allocation this year, but we would be starting from
scratch next year, very dependent on rainfall.
(a) The downstream fishery releases are a minimum 60 cubic feet per second.
When the reservoir hits the minimum operating pool, the fishery releases stop.
There is no 82,000 acre feet of “rights”. Through its contract with Monterey
County, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control District has a contractual
right to 17,500 acre feet of water which are below that minimum operating
pool. The Nacimiento Project has first in and last out water rights. To-date
there has not been a year when the Nacimiento Project would not have been
able to deliver the full allocation.
1 Land Use Element Goals: Pg 1-20, 25. Have developments bear the costs of resources and services needed to serve
them, except where the community deliberately chooses to help pay in order to achieve other community goals.
1.13.9. Costs of Growth
The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development be borne by the new
development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-
wide benefits. The City shall consider a range of options for financing measures so that new development pays its
fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are required to serve the project and which are reasonably
related to the new growth attributable to the development.
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
Jeffery Szytel, Program Manager - WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – FACILITIES
PLAN AND DESIGN ENGINEER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Facilities Plan;
2. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design engineering services
for the WRRF Project; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a design engineering consultant services agreement
if the selected proposal does not exceed $6.3 million.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project is nearing the completion of its first phase;
Project Planning. Phase 1 focused on preliminary engineering, facilities planning and public
outreach. Now that the Facilities Plan is complete, the project will enter into Phase 2, Preliminary
Design.
On February 3, 2015, staff and the Program Management (PM) Team presented Council with a
Project Update, which included draft project scope and phasing, work completed to date and future
milestones. On March 3, 2015, staff and the PM Team conducted a Triple Bottom Line Evaluation
with Council. During the study session, Council provided input and guidance to staff on four key
components of the WRRF Project: RV Dump Station, Odor Control, Interpretive Center and Public
Elements, and Recycled Water (Attachment 1). The input gathered from the study session was used
to help finalize the Facilities Plan.
The purpose of this report is to:
1. Review and respond to Council feedback from the Triple Bottom Line Evaluation that was
held on March 3, 2015;
2. Update Council on the public and stakeholder outreach activities conducted since the Triple
Bottom Line Evaluation;
3. Present the Facilities Plan to Council; and
4. Request authorization to advertise for Design Engineering Services proposals.
Triple Bottom Line Evaluation – Recap and Response
On March 3, 2015, staff conducted a Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with Council. During the study
session, Council provided feedback on how well the following four project components met the
economic, social and environmental objectives of the Program Charter (included in Attachment 1):
7-7-15
B1
B1 - 1
WRRF Facilities Plan and Design RFP Page 2
1. RV Dump Station
2. Odor Control
3. Interpretive Center and Public Elements
4. Recycled Water
In addition, staff asked Council to provide guidance on how staff should address each of these
components in the final Facilities Plan. The actions that staff has taken to respond to this guidance
and next steps are summarized below.
1. RV Dump Station
2. Odor Control
Preference is
partnering with
the Elks and its
existing RV
dump station as
opposed to
building a new
one at the
WRRF. It is
important to
have an easily
accessible RV
Dump station
somewhere.
Council
Feedback
City staff and
Elks reps met to
explore
potential RV
dump station
partnership
opportunities. A
future RV dump
station location
is outlined in the
draft WRRF
Facilities Plan
with no funding
in the budget.
Actions
Taken Staff attendance
at the Elks June
Board meeting
to discuss
mutually
beneficial
opportunities to
work together
to improve the
RV dump station
accessibility.
Further steps
based on
meeting
outcome.
Next
Steps
Continue with
the odor control
strategy
presented in the
draft Facilities
Plan. This
strategy
provides odor
control by
design, active
odor control for
key areas, and a
post-project
evaluation to
determine if
additional odor
control is
necessary.
Council
Feedback
Staff proceeded
with the odor
control strategy
plan as
presented.
Actions
Taken
The final
Facilities Plan
includes the
odor control
strategies
presented in the
draft Facilities
Plan. Staff will
proceed with
preliminary
design of the
odor control
strategies.
Next
Steps
B1 - 2
WRRF Facilities Plan and Design RFP Page 3
3. Interpretive Center and Public Elements
4. Recycled Water
Public and Stakeholder Outreach Update
Staff and the PM Team facilitated a WRRF Community Open House at the Thursday Night
Farmer’s Market in downtown San Luis Obispo on March 19, 2015. The goal of the Open House
was to update the community on the WRRF Project and work that has been completed since the
Continue with
the interpretive
center and
public elements
as shown in the
draft Facilities
Plan. Pursue
grant funding
and partnerships
to fund these
improvements.
Council
Feedback Continued
design of the
public amenities
site plan, Water
Resource Center
and Learning
Center. Draft
plans and
renderings were
presented at the
WRRF
Community
Open House on
March 19.
Funding sources
and cost-saving
strategies are
being identified
for project
elements.
Actions
Taken
Preliminary
design of the
Water Resource
Center and
Learning Center.
Preparation of
capture plans to
obtain outside
funding for as
many project
components as
possible.
Next
Steps
Do more with
recycled water
than the
recycled water
strategy
presented in the
in the draft
Facilities Plan.
The draft
Facilities Plan
focused on
upgrading the
plant to
maximize the
production of
high quality
recycled water
at the WRRF.
Council
Feedback The scope for
the Recycled
Water Facilities
Planning Study is
almost
complete. This
study will
investigate
beneficial reuse
options for the
treated WRRF
effluent. The
range of reuse
possibilities has
increased
significantly in
the past year, in
part due to the
drought and
regulatory
changes.
Actions
Taken
Submit grant
application to
the State Water
Resources
Control Board
for $75,000 of
grant funding
(grant
application was
authorized by
Council at the
February 3
meeting). Study
will be initiated
upon approval
from State
Board.
Next
Steps
B1 - 3
WRRF Facilities Plan and Design RFP Page 4
June 4, 2014 Community Workshop, and to gather additional feedback from the community on the
project, in particular the public elements. There were six stations at the Open House (see pictures
below). Approximately 200 people stopped by one or more of the stations at the Open House. The
feedback from the community was generally positive. The public was interested in learning what
the WRRF does and how it will be improved through this project. The Water Resource Center and
public amenities, as well as the high water quality of the effluent, were of key interest to the public.
A few people expressed their desire to keep rates low and the WRRF to consider accepting fats, oils
and greases (FOG) for processing.
Welcome – What is the WRRF Project?
The WRRF Today
Community Feedback
The Science – How are we making it better?
The Triple Bottom Line
Imagine Tomorrow
B1 - 4
WRRF Facilities Plan and Design RFP Page 5
Following the WRRF Community Open
House, a tour of the WRRF was given to City
department heads. The tour was held on April
2, 2015. Tour attendees discussed the proposed
improvements and feedback and ideas were
gathered on how to improve the triple bottom
line of the project. The ideas generated during
the tour were incorporated into the Facilities
Plan and will be further developed as the
project moves forward.
Facilities Plan
The vision of the Facilities Plan is to
recommend improvements to create a community asset that is recognized as supporting health, well-
being and quality of life. It was developed during Phase 1 of the WRRF Project to plan the future
upgrades for the WRRF to meet the City’s new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. In addition to meeting new wastewater discharge permit requirements, the
Facilities Plan includes recommendations to treat future flows and loading, replace aging
equipment, maximize the production of recycled water, and incorporate interpretive features and
public amenities to the facility. Significant work and detail has been put into the plan to provide a
document that supports the tight regulatory schedule of the project, has thoroughly evaluated all
alternatives and adheres to the triple bottom line and project charter.
The recommended improvements are summarized below and described in detail in the Facilities
Plan:
1. Flow equalization for wet weather flows and process optimization
2. Improvements at the headworks for flow monitoring
3. Rehabilitation of the primary processes and equipment
4. Odor control
5. Three new aeration basins and process equipment such as aeration blowers, mixers, and
chemical feed
6. Two new final clarifiers
7. Additional filters and process equipment
8. Additional effluent cooling for creek discharge
9. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
10. Solids treatment and handling upgrades, including a new anaerobic digester
11. Sidestream treatment to address the concentrated flows from solids handling
12. New Water Resource Center, including operations, laboratory facilities, locker rooms,
public learning facility and associated amenities
13. New maintenance facility
The total project cost is estimated to be $90,381,200 in 2014 dollars. An escalator of three percent
per year has been utilized in the Facility Plan to forecast conservative total project costs. This
amount is more than the amount presented in the adopted Financial Plan because it is a more up-to-
date estimate. The increase is a conservative largely based on our consultant’s concern of
possible additional design services that may be required during construction.
The Facilities Plan provides a plan and schedule that meets the requirements within the Time
Schedule Order (TSO) provided by the Central Coast Water Board (CCWB). The Project
Department Head Tour
B1 - 5
WRRF Facilities Plan and Design RFP Page 6
implementation schedule is shown below. Specifically, the construction of the UV portion of the
WRRF will be complete and operational by the November 30, 2019 due date of the TSO. The
secondary treatment (denitrification) will be very near completion, if not completed by that time.
The City will plan to be in compliance with the disinfection portion of the TSO by 2019 and will
have an opportunity to request additional time to meet the secondary treatment requirements if
needed. The City will be demonstrating its good faith efforts by ensuring compliance with
disinfection and by updating the CCWB on a regular and on-going basis.
The Facilities Plan is available in the Council reading room for review.
Design Engineering Services Request for Proposal
Staff is requesting authorization to solicit an RFP for design engineering services for the WRRF
Project. The scope of work to be performed by the design engineering consultant includes
preliminary design and final design. Value Engineering will be independently performed on the
design at 30 and 60 percent completion to ensure the City receives the most effective and affordable
design. Design services for projects, such as the City’s WRRF, range from seven to nine percent of
construction costs or $4.9-$6.3 million for design services. Section A of the attached RFP describes
the full scope of work requested by the City.
B1 - 6
WRRF Facilities Plan and Design RFP Page 7
Upon authorization from Council, staff will release the RFP for design engineering services. Staff
and the PM Team will evaluate proposals and negotiate costs to provide a recommendation of the
most qualified consultant for the City Manager’s consideration. Staff expects to initiate the
preliminary design process as soon as the consultant agreement is executed (approximately October
2015).
Next Steps
With approval of the Facilities Plan, Phase 2 of the WRRF Project will begin. On May 19, 2015,
Council authorized the issuance of an RFP for environmental services for the WRRF project. Those
RFP’s have been received and staff is anticipating recommending the award of a contract within 45
days. Phase 2 will encompass preliminary design, as well as additional technical analysis outlined
in the Facilities Plan. In parallel, the Program Management Team will be preparing the Recycled
Water Facilities Planning Study and pursuing outside funding and partnerships for the WRRF
Project. Staff will also be returning to Council in 2016 for authorization to submit a financing
application to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) for construction and construction
services and present additional updated cost and funding information.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $7.3 million has been identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement
Plan, pages 3-72 to 3-75, Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade, for design engineering
services. Work on the preliminary design is anticipated to begin in October of 2015. The sewer
fund currently has sufficient funding for the WRRF Project to execute this contract and proceed
with the preliminary and final design phases. The most recent fund review assumed a total
project cost of $87.6 million. As value engineering is completed and additional financial analysis
is completed the fiscal impacts will be assessed and recommendations made to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. March 3, 2015, Council Agenda Report
2. Request for Proposal for Design Engineering Services for the Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project
COUNCIL READING FILE
1. Facilities Plan
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-07-07\Approval of WRRF Facility Plan and RFP for Design Servcies
B1 - 7
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
B1 - 8
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
Jeffery Szytel, Program Manager - WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT -
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a triple bottom line analysis on four project components and provide feedback needed to
finalize the draft Facilities Plan for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project.
DISCUSSION
Background
The recent adoption of a revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) has resulted in the
need to upgrade treatment processes. Replacing aged infrastructure and addressing future growth (as
detailed in the City’s 2035 General Plan) is also required.
On February 3, 2015, a WRRF Project update was presented to Council which included project
scope and phasing, work completed to date and future milestones. (Attachment 1). The next step in
the process is to finalize the Facilities Plan.
Creating the Project Foundation
1. Program Charter
The first step in building the project foundation was to establish a
Program Charter. The Program Charter (Attachment 2) memorializes
a unified project vision and mission, economic, social and
environmental objectives, and guiding principles for all aspects of
the WRRF Project. Careful attention was given to ensure the Charter
aligned with the City’s Organizational Values and the Utilities
Department’s Strategic Plan.
2. Facilities Plan
In addition to a Program Charter, a Facilities Plan is another
foundational document for projects such as the WRRF. During the
creation of a Facilities Plan numerous inputs are filtered through
multiple decision-making processes. The output is a comprehensive and balanced plan of action for
the project which influences each future step made on the project – the Facilities Plan.
The WRRF’s draft Facilities Plan was complete in December 2014 and contains improvements to
meet the requirements of the City’s new NPDES permit. It is responsive to feedback received from
the community and staff and creates a compliant facility that staff can operate and maintain at peak
3-3-15
SS1
ATTACHMENT 1
B1 - 9
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 2
Social
Environmental Economic
efficiency. Aging infrastructure is addressed as well as capacity for future growth as outlined in the
City’s 2035 General Plan.
In January 2015, a Value
Engineering (VE) workshop was
held during which time an
independent VE Team evaluated the
project and draft Facilities Plan using
the Program Charter as its guiding
document. The VE Team’s report is
available in the Council reading file.
The report contains numerous
recommendations that, in the VE
Team’s opinion, had potential to add
value and/or reduce project and/or
life cycle costs. These
recommendations have been
evaluated further by the Project
Team and several recommendations,
such as reuse of an existing aerated
grit basin, elimination of diurnal flow equalization, modification of Laguna Pump Station to reduce
peak flows, and building larger, fewer aeration basins were incorporated into the draft Facilities
Plan. The updated Executive Summary (Chapter 1) to the draft Facilities Plan describes the current
set of recommended improvements which incorporate the VE process revisions.
The City Council will be asked to consider approving the WRRF’s Facilities Plan on May 5, 2015.
3. Application of the Triple Bottom Line
An apt definition of the Triple Bottom Line was found
at mindtools.com: “The Triple Bottom Line is a way
of measuring an organization's impact on people and
the environment as well as its finances. Some
companies find that using it to monitor more than just
the financial line helps them improve the way that
they treat people both within and outside the
organization, and reduce their adverse impact on the
environment.”
The Program Charter establishes the objectives and
performance measures that will determine whether or
not the triple bottom line has been met by the WRRF
project.
Components included in the draft Facilities Plan, including those required by the WRRF NPDES
permit, were evaluated and screened through triple bottom line criteria. As an example, in addition
to complying with new permit limits, process alternatives were analyzed based on other criteria such
as being a proven technology, minimizing chemical use, meeting future discharge requirements,
odors, ease of operations, reduced greenhouse gases and other regional and holistic goals such as
salts reduction.
Updated Executive
Summary
ATTACHMENT 1
B1 - 10
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 3
Council Feedback and Assistance
The Project Team has received much input and made many decisions to reach this milestone. Over
the last year, stakeholders ranging from City staff and department heads, to business and property
owners, regulators, WRRF neighbors and others were interviewed. A community workshop was
also held. All of this input has been considered and added value to creating the draft Facilities Plan.
There are four components of the Facilities Plan that are uniquely scalable in scope. Decisions made
in these areas will have varied degrees (plus and minus) of impact on how the community interacts
with and views the facility. The project vision is to create a community asset that is recognized as
supporting health, well-being and quality of life. Its mission is to deliver a Water Resource
Recovery Facility that provides economic, social and environmental value to our community.
Council feedback through a triple bottom line analysis of these components is necessary for staff to
finalize the draft Facilities Plan with the appropriate weight and balance to these components.
1. RV Dump Station
1. RV Dump
Station 2. Odor Control
3. Interpretive
Center and
Public Elements
4. Recycled
Water
Community
partners have
expressed the
need for a
Recreational
Vehicle (RV)
dump station for
the homeless
who are living in
RV’s. Issues such
as the lack of RV
dump stations in
the City, cost
and illegal
dumping have
resulted in
discussions
about a dump
station being
part of the
WRRF project.
What
was
Heard There are limited
facilities for RV
owners to empty
their waste tanks
in San Luis Obispo.
Preliminary
discussions with
CAPSLO regarding
the construction
of the Homeless
Services Center
have revealed the
need for an RV
dump station may
not be as great as
earlier thought.
The near-by Elks
Club, which
operates an RV
dump station, has
expressed it might
be open to greater
access to its
facility.
Analysis An RV dump
station at the
WRRF would
require City
design and
construction and
some resources
to staff, monitor
and operate. A
dump station
could generate
some additional
revenue.
Prospects near-
by at the
proposed
Homeless
Services Center
and the Elks
Club remain
viable
opportunities or
alternatives.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
B1 - 11
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 4
2. Odor Control
3. Interpretive Center and Public Elements
Almost all
stakeholders
indicated that
odor was a
concern and
needed to be
addressed and
considered in the
WRRF’s design.
What
was
Heard Odor is an
important factor
to consider in the
WRRF project.
Odor control was
an important
criteria when
evaluating the
processes and
much will be done
to reduce the
existing odors
currently
generated at the
facility through
process changes
without additional
active controls.
The alternative
evaluation process
incorporates odor
control into its
recommendations.
Because odor
sensitivity is often
subjective it can
be hard to
quantify.
Analysis
Because of the
community's
concern about
odor, the facility
design focused on
significantly
reducing odors.
Active odor
control technology
can be installed to
further reduce
odors either as a
part of this project
or at a later time.
If phased after
construction,
additional studies
can be performed
to better quantify
the issue and
determine the
effectiveness of
the odor controls.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
Stakeholders
revealed they
found the WRRF to
be fascinating after
taking a tour and
identified it as a
learning center.
Feedback identified
a community room
or related feature
would be of value.
Many stakeholders
enjoyed the facility
when using the Bob
Jones Bike Trail,
either because it
added a level of
security to the trail
and/or offered
learning
opportunities as
they rode or walked
on the trail. Some
stakeholders
identified that
interpretive signage
or others elements
should be
considered.
What
was
Heard The WRRF hosted
over 1,500 visitors
in 2014 and
continues to attract
a wide variety of
interested parties
in ever-greater
numbers. An
interpretive center
could engage
visitors in learning
about the journey
of San Luis Obispo’s
water. The WRRF
site allows
opportunities for a
variety of activities
and meeting places.
Presently parking
and access are an
issue, but the
Facilities Plan will
address many of
these issues. A new
operations building
is planned.
Interpretive
elements and
options can and
should be
considered.
Analysis Of all the
stakeholder input
gathered, this
subject created the
most engagement
and provides the
most opportunities.
Because of the size
of the facility, many
indoor and outdoor
alternatives are
possible. The VE
study presented an
alternative of
reusing the current
administration
building for some of
the discussed uses.
Presently the
proposed
operations building
contains
opportunities for
interpretive
elements. Site
interaction with the
Bob Jones Trail may
also lend itself to a
variety of public
amenities or
improvements.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
B1 - 12
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 5
4. Recycled Water
These four important elements of the WRRF Project came from our community stakeholders and
will help shape the final project. While the Project Team believes it understands stakeholders
concerns, ideas and what they value, Council input is critical to help shape the final draft Facilities
Plan.
Next Steps
Council input from this Study Session will be utilized to develop the final draft Facilities Plan. On
May 5, 2015 City Council will consider the approval of the final Facilities Plan. If approved,
Council authorization to release Requests for Proposals for preliminary design services and
environmental services for CEQA compliance will be requested.
In parallel to finalizing the Facilities Plan, bench scale testing is being conducted at the WRRF to
evaluate an emerging treatment technology that may provide significant life cycle cost savings.
A grant application is being prepared for submission to the State Water Resources Control Board
for a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study Grant (approved by Council on February 3, 2015).
The Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study will evaluate potential opportunities to expand
beneficial use and recycling of treated effluent from the WRRF that could provide multiple benefits
Stakeholders used
words such as
“critical” and
“maximize,” as
ways to describe
their ideas about
the importance of
recycled water.
Almost all
stakeholders
articulated they
believed recycled
water was a good
thing.
What
was
Heard The WRRF can
produce more
recycled water.
More recycled
water can be
produced if some
processes are
optimized and
production can be
streamlined.
Current
production is not
efficient. Staff is
anticipating
additional recycled
water customers
in the recently
annexed portions
of the City over
the next several
years.
Opportunities for
recycled water
may exist outside
of City limits in
bordering
agricultural
parcels. Recycled
water offers the
most
opportunities to
develop
partnerships,
protect resources
and meet other
City and regional
goals.
Analysis
Recycled water
production
remains one of the
key objectives in
the WRRF project.
While analyzing
disinfection
processes,
recycled water
was evaluated and
the facility plan
presents a
streamlined
process for
production which
should maximize
and simplify
production. The
VE report has
some options that
include recycled
water and some
very different
approaches
maximizing
production and
distribution.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
B1 - 13
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 6
to the City including enhanced management of regional water resources and reduced life cycle costs
for the WRRF project.
Pursuit of alternatives and partnerships that reflect the City’s goals of environmental, economic and
social stewardship with the goals of maximizing the WRRF’s resources and benefit to San Luis
Obispo will continue.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with giving feedback to staff on this matter. Estimated
project costs will be updated within the final Facilities Plan and presented to Council on May 5,
2015. $63.7 million was identified in the 2013-15 Financial Plan for this project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 3, 2015, Council Agenda Report
2. Program Charter
3. Updated Executive Summary
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-03-03\SS1-WRRF Triple Bottom Line
ATTACHMENT 1
B1 - 14
Notice Requesting Proposals for Design Engineering Services
for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project
Specification No. 91363
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for professional design engineering services for the
Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project pursuant to Specification No. 91363. Associated cost proposals
shall be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope. All proposals must be received by the Finance Department at
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 by 3:00 P.M. on August 6, 2015.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Finance Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title,
specification number, Consultant name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted
using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals page
Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above address
Requests must include the RFP title and specification number.
Project Detail Information
Project detail information may be obtained by contacting Dave Hix, Deputy Director – Wastewater, at (805) 781-
7039 or dhix@slocity.org.
Pre-proposal Conference
A mandatory pre-proposal conference will be held at the City Corporation Yard at 25 Prado Rd on July 23, 2015 at
1:30 P.M. to answer any questions that the prospective Consultants may have regarding the City's request for
proposals. A site visit will convene at the WRRF, located at 35 Prado Road, directly after the meeting.
Rev 11.20.12 BL
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 15
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 2 of 31
Specification No. 91363
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 12
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 12
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION .............................................................................................................. 13
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 14
PROPOSAL CONTENT ......................................................................................................................................... 14
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION ............................................................................ 15
FORM OF AGREEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 17
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 24
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 24
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 25
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 27
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 16
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 3 of 31
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A1. BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates the WRRF located on Prado Road in San Luis Obispo, California. The WRRF treats
municipal wastewater collected from the City, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), and San Luis
Obispo County Airport under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) R3-2014-0033 and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA0049224.
The WRRF is currently rated for 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) for average dry weather flow (ADWF) conditions
and currently treats an average of approximately 3.1 mgd under ADWF conditions. After being treated, the water is
either recycled or discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.
The plant was originally constructed in 1923 and upgraded or expanded in 1942, 1962, 1980, and 1994, and in
2006 the water reuse facilities were added. In partnership with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the plant is
completing an upgrade to incorporate energy efficiency projects, referred to as the WRRF Energy Efficiency
Project. This upgrade includes improvements to the cogeneration system, headworks, primary sludge pumps,
solids dewatering, filter towers, aeration, outdoor lighting, and the supervisory control and data acquisition system
(SCADA).
A2. OVERVIEW
The City has a program to upgrade the WRRF to update treatment processes to meet the City’s new NPDES
permit, treat future flows and loading, replace aging equipment, maximize the production of recycled water, and
incorporate interpretive features and public amenities. The program is expected to be completed in 2020.
A key driver of the WRRF Project is the new NPDES permit adopted in September 2014 (effective December 1,
2014). The new permit includes discharge limitations that will require significant process upgrades. Specifically, the
new permit includes strict disinfection byproduct limits which will require a new disinfection technology, as well as
nitrate limits which will require a significant upgrade of the secondary treatment processes. A new Time Schedule
Order (TSO) was also adopted in September 2014 which requires the City to achieve the disinfection byproduct
limits and nitrate limits by November 30, 2019.
The City and Program Management Team developed a Program Charter to guide the project through completion
(Appendix 1). The Charter establishes a unified project vision and mission, economic, social and environmental (triple
bottom line) objectives and guiding principles for the WRRF Project. The Charter is designed to serve as a guiding
document for everyone and for all related work throughout the project.
A Facilities Plan was developed to identify improvements needed at the WRRF to create a valued community asset
and meet the objectives of the Charter. The Facilities Plan is a result of significant engineering and outreach effort
by the City and Program Management Team, and is intended to guide the detailed design of the improvements.
The Facilities Plan is available for download from the City’s website at: http://www.slocity.org/doing-business/doing-
business-with-the-city/bids-and-proposals Below is a summary of the upgrades proposed in the Facilities Plan.
1. Flow equalization, including relining and reconstruction of the perimeter berm for the existing wet weather
equalization pond
2. Improvements at the headworks, including new influent flow monitoring and odor control
3. Rehabilitation of the primary clarifiers, including new weirs, new sweeps and arms, new sludge and scum
pumps, new primary sludge pump pit
4. Primary effluent diversion box retrofits
5. Three new aeration basins, as well as new blowers and blower building, diffusers, mixed liquor pumps and
mixers, and chemical feed
6. Two new final clarifiers and new RAS and WAS pumps per new clarifier
7. Expansion of the filter feed pumping station
8. Expansion of the tertiary filter complex, including two new mono-media filters, new backwash pumps and
air scour blowers
9. Additional cooling towers, new effluent chillers, and pumps
10. UV disinfection
11. Solids treatment upgrades, including new thickening and conversion of the DAFT to a blend tank, a new
screw press, odor control, and a new anaerobic digester
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 17
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 4 of 31
12. Sidestream treatment using a deammonification technology, includes one new tank to replace Digester 3
as a biological reactor, aeration blowers, and a diffused air system and conversion of Digester 2 to a
sidestream treatment feed flow equalization tank
13. New Water Resource Center, including operations and laboratory facilities
14. Public learning facility and associated amenities
15. New maintenance facility
16. Solar energy generation
The next phase of work will include additional studies to confirm the basis of design and preparation of plans,
specifications, and estimates.
The City has procured a Program Manager to facilitate the execution of the WRRF Project, including providing
oversight and management of the associated professional services contracts, including the design engineering
consultant (Consultant). It is expected that the selected Consultant will work with the City and Program
Management Team to execute the scope of services, following the procedures and norms described in the Program
Management Plan (Appendix 2).
A3: SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this RFP is to solicit proposals for design engineering services, including preliminary design and the
production of construction documents as identified in the Facilities Plan. The Facilities Plan is the guiding document
for design of this project. Proposers are expected to develop optimized design solutions based on the
recommendations provided in the Facilities Plan. In executing the scope of work, the Consultant is expected to
follow the procedures and norms described in the Program Management Plan.
The following are the minimum required services that will need to be included in the Scope of Services in the
Proposal:
Task 1 – Kick-Off and Progress Meetings
Kick-off meeting and progress meetings with the Project Team, coinciding with major milestones. Within Proposal,
identify the number of progress meetings with the Project Team. The Consultant shall prepare and submit
electronic copies of all presentation materials and meeting summaries via Procore.
Deliverables:
(1) Progress meeting agendas and minutes via Procore. PowerPoint presentations and materials for
distribution as required
(2) Monthly progress status reports
Task 2 – Data Collection
Consultant will be allowed access to project records and plans via Procore. Consultant shall be prepared to
research electronic and hard-copy documents at City facilities. If information, drawings, specifications, reports, and
manuals are not found by Consultant’s research at City archives or Procore, Consultant shall develop a data
request list and submit to the Program Management Team through Procore. As-built information for the existing
facilities is available on Procore, but limited.
Task 3 – Document Management
Consultant team will utilize and make all electronic submittals available through Procore, the management
information system being used by the City for this project. Program Management Team will provide limited training
for Consultant on how Procore is used for the project. Additional technical support is available online through
Procore.
Task 4 – Utility Research, Review and Assessment
The following key utilities were mapped based on the available as-built records:
1. Influent wastewater
2. Primary influent and effluent
3. Biofilter influent and effluent
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 18
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 5 of 31
4. Equalization basin influent and effluent
5. Return Activated Sludge
6. Aeration Basin influent and effluent
7. Mixed Liquor
8. Nitrified effluent
9. Filter influent and effluent
10. Primary and secondary sludge and scum
11. Waste Activated Sludge
12. Thickened and Digested sludge
13. Plant Drain
The mapping does not include all of the existing facility utilities. The Consultant shall review mapping and perform
any additional research and coordination in order to identify existing utilities, verify as-built locations and determine
unknown utility locations throughout the Project site. Perform potholing and subsurface surveys to locate and verify
underground installations and identify any potential conflicts. Locations and depths shall be shown on construction
drawings.
Deliverables:
(1) Utility pothole data/results
(2) Utility mapping included on basemap
Task 5 – Topographic Survey
A topographic survey has been performed for the Project area. Consultant shall review topographic information and
determine if additional survey work may be needed to complete the objectives of the Project. If necessary, the
Consultant may conduct additional base mapping, site surveys, control surveys, aerial photography, and digital
aerial mapping; locate existing facilities in vicinity of the Project; and establish vertical and horizontal control points
of Project facilities.
Task 6 – Geotechnical Engineering Report
There are five (5) geotechnical reports available for specific areas of the project site and surrounding areas:
• Geotechnical Study for San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, November 1988
• Geotechnical Engineering Report for Laguna Lift Station Force Main Upgrade and Replacement Project,
November 1999
• Geotechnical Report for City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project, August 2002
• Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange, November 2002
• Geotechnical Engineering Report for Calle Joaquin and Laguna Lift Station Replacements, June 2012
If necessary, the Consultant shall prepare a complete geotechnical report necessary to complete the objectives of
the Project, including but not limited to, locating test borings and producing boring logs for the Proposed Facility;
report results of all laboratory tests; make recommendations regarding site preparation, backfilling and grading;
discuss foundation conditions under each existing and new structure; make recommendations for foundation and
structural design, geologic hazards, and structural evaluation; perform chemical analysis to determine corrosivity of
soils; determine depth of groundwater; discuss proposed dewatering methods; perform R-value testing; and
recommend pavement sections. This document shall be a stand-alone document and will be made available for
construction bidders.
Task 7 – Structural Evaluations
The information contained in the Facilities Plan represents the extent of the structural evaluations conducted for the
Project. Consultant shall conduct all the necessary evaluations and testing, and document such results, which are
necessary to carry-out the intent of the Facilities Plan.
Task 8 – Preliminary Design Report
Consultant shall prepare a Preliminary Design Report (PDR), detailing the proposed design for the WRRF Project.
Prior to the start of drafting, Consultant shall submit its CAD or BIM Manual for approval. The CAD or BIM Manual
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 19
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 6 of 31
should contain detailed information on the content and format for drawings, layering and naming conventions,
record drawing requirements, etc.
The PDR shall refine and optimize the expansion and upgrade concepts identified in the Facilities Plan. The PDR
shall result in a final process design and well-conceived treatment process arrangements, equipment selection,
building concepts, and site design. The PDR equates to a 30% design submittal.
This information may be presented in either 1) a single report organized into logical chapters, or 2) a series of
technical memoranda addressing the specific design needs of each unit process. Either approach must allow each
discipline to clearly and efficiently communicate the design concept. The PDR shall include, but is not limited, to the
following:
• Updated Design Criteria
o Flow and loading criteria
o Treated water quality requirements
o Residual disposal requirements
o Applicable codes, standards and design conditions
o Reliability and redundancy requirements
• Site Investigation
o Complete and final base map
o Property survey (not standard, but may be required for project)
o Potholing of underground piping and utilities
o Spot survey of structures and piping
o Geotechnical report, including borings results, and final foundation design recommendations
for all structures including flood protection facilities
• Process Design
o Mass balance diagram
o Plant-wide process flow diagram
o Process flow diagrams for individual unit processes
o Summary of unit process design criteria and projected operating conditions
o Process narrative for individual unit processes
• Hydraulics
o Hydraulic profile
o Line size calculations for major process piping
o Identification of special hydraulic analysis requirements (surge, CFD modeling, etc.)
• Site and Civil Design
o Site plan showing new and existing structures, including flood control structures
o Preliminary grading and paving plan
o Preliminary stormwater management plan
o Preliminary yard piping plan (major piping systems)
o Landscaping concept
• Architectural Design
o Architectural theme
o Architectural elevations and roof and floor plans
o Space and function program for administrative, laboratory and similar support facilities
o Area and room classifications
• Buildings and Structures
o Footprints and sections of major structures showing rooms and major equipment
o Structural design concepts, including conceptual design of foundations and preliminary sizing
of wall and slab thicknesses
o Building material selection (with input from corrosion engineer)
o Structure dimensions
• Process Mechanical Design
o Sizing of major equipment
o Preliminary equipment lists and data sheets for major equipment
o Layouts and elevations for equipment areas, including major piping and valves
o Equipment access and hoisting plan
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 20
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 7 of 31
o Piping and equipment material selection (with input from corrosion engineer)
o Chemical storage and feed requirements
o Utility requirements (natural gas, potable water, non-potable water, compressed air, etc.)
o Odor control design criteria and mitigation plan
o Noise control design criteria and mitigation plan
• Mechanical Design
o HVAC, plumbing and fire protection concepts
o Preliminary equipment lists and data sheets for major equipment
o Preliminary layout of major ductwork and HVAC equipment
• Electrical Design
o Preliminary electrical load list
o Electrical service requirements
o Standby power requirements
o Electrical power one-line diagrams
o Preliminary electrical site plan
o Communications and security design concepts
o Sizing of major equipment
o Preliminary equipment lists and data sheets for major equipment
• Instrumentation and Control
o Control philosophy
o Control system block diagram
o Process control descriptions
o P&ID drawings for major equipment and systems
• Cost Estimates
o Opinion of probable construction cost, commensurate with a Class 3 estimate
o Estimate of annual operation and maintenance cost
• Implementation and Procurement Plan
o Preliminary implementation plan and construction schedule
o Equipment procurement plan including potential sole-source, pre-purchase, pre-qualification or
base-bid candidates
• Documentation
o Meeting notes and decision log
o Action Item Log
o Calculations
o Equipment catalogue cuts and vendor information
o QC documentation
Upon submission of the Preliminary Design Report, the Program Management Team will conduct Value
Engineering and Constructability Review.
Deliverables:
(1) PDR
(2) Updated Design Schedule
Task 9 – Supplementary Geotechnical Investigations
Based on the preliminary design, perform supplementary geotechnical investigations.
Task 10 – Design Development (60%)
Consultant shall develop the approved 30% submittals into 60% design plans, specifications, and cost estimates.
All critical drawings that define the size, configuration, process control and key features of the project components
shall be developed to a high level of completion. Other drawings showing details and refinements shall be in
progress. Technical specifications shall be developed to a “first draft” level. Draft front end specifications shall be
required for this submittal.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 21
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 8 of 31
Additional submittal components shall include updated cost estimates, equipment data sheets and catalogue cuts,
a construction sequencing plan, and calculations.
Expected contents of the 60% Design Submittal include:
Drawings:
• General and Civil Drawings
o Process flow diagrams – draft final
o Hydraulic profile– draft final
o Site plan – 80% complete
o Grading and paving plans – 80% complete
o Yard piping plans – 80% complete
o Piping profiles, civil details and site details – in progress
• Flood Control
o Plans and sections – 80% complete
o Details – in progress
• Demolition Drawings
o Plans and sections – 80% complete
o Details – in progress
• Structural Drawings
o Structural plans – 80% complete
o Structural sections and details – in progress
• Architectural Drawings
o Architectural elevations – draft final
o Architectural plans, sections and details – in progress
• Process Mechanical Drawings
o Process mechanical plans and major sections – 80% complete
o Process minor sections and details – in progress
• HVAC and Plumbing Drawings
o HVAC and plumbing plans, sections and details – in progress
• Electrical Drawings
o Single-line diagrams – draft final
o Electrical site plan – 80% complete
o Electrical plans, sections and details – in progress
o Lighting plans, sections and details – in progress
o Conduit and cable schedules – in progress
• Instrumentation and Control
o P&IDs and control strategies – draft final
o Network block diagrams – In progress
o Draft I/O list – In Progress
o Control panel elevations and schematics – in progress
o Instrumentation details – in progress
Project Specifications:
• Technical specifications
o Complete Table of Contents
o Major equipment – 80% complete
o Other technical specifications – In progress
• Front end sections – draft
Cost Estimate:
• Updated opinion of probable construction cost, commensurate with a Class 2 estimate
• Updated estimate of operation and maintenance cost
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 22
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 9 of 31
Project Support Documentation:
• Written responses to City comments received on PDR
• Updated equipment notebook with equipment data sheets and technical cut sheets
• Technical memoranda addressing issues resolved since Preliminary Design Report
• Construction sequencing plan and schedule
• Calculations
• QC documentation
Upon submission of the 60% design submittal, the Program Management Team will conduct Value Engineering and
Constructability Review.
Deliverables:
(1) 60% Design Submittal
Task 11 – Design Development (95%)
Consultant shall develop the approved 60% submittals into 95% design plans, specifications, and cost estimates.
All comments from the previous submittal shall be resolved and incorporated. The submittal for the 95% design
submittal shall include all finished, checked and complete drawings and specifications. The consultant shall
consider these documents ready for bidding before submitting them for review.
The 95% Design Submittal shall include:
Drawings:
• General and Civil– Final
• Demolition– Final
• Structural– Final
• Architectural– Final
• Process Mechanical– Final
• HVAC and Plumbing– Final
• Electrical– Final
• Instrumentation and Control – Final
Project Specifications:
• Technical specifications – Final
• Front end sections – Final
Cost Estimate:
• Final opinion of probable construction cost, commensurate with a Class 1 estimate
Project Support Documentation:
• Written responses to City comments received on 60% Design Submittal
• Final equipment notebook with equipment data sheets and technical cut sheets
• Technical memoranda addressing issues resolved since PDR and 60% Design
• Final calculations
• QC documentation
Upon submission of the 95% Design Submittal, the City will conduct Bidability Review.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 23
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 10 of 31
Deliverables:
(1) 95% Design Submittal
Task 12 – Final Design
The Final Design submittal shall provide final construction documents suitable for bidding. The final construction
documents shall consist of a complete set of contract documents (front end specifications) and all supporting
documentation included in the Consultant’s Scope of Work.
Expected contents of the Final Design submittal are listed below:
• Final Drawings
• Final Project Specifications
• Final Cost Estimate
• Final Project Support Documentation
Deliverables:
(1) Final Design Submittal
Task 13 – Pre-Procurement and Pre-Qualification
Consultant shall provide recommendations for pre-procurement of equipment/materials, and prepare appropriate
pre-procurement bid packages. Coordinate with State Board Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) to confirm pre-
procurement meets State Revolving Fund (SRF) requirements.
Consultant shall prepare appropriate pre-qualification package and questionnaire for prime contractor. Provide
recommendations, if any, for pre-qualification of specialized subcontractors and prepare respective pre-qualification
package(s) if City agrees. Coordinate with Program Management Team on evaluation criteria and questions.
Coordinate with State Board DFA to confirm pre-qualification process meets SRF requirements.
Deliverables:
(1) Equipment Pre-Procurement Bid Package(s) (Draft and Final)
(2) Contractor Pre-Qualification Package(s) (Draft and Final)
Task 14 – Bidding Assistance
Consultant shall attend a pre-bid meeting. Consultant shall prepare required responses for any addenda, letters of
clarification, etc. issued to respond to design questions during the bidding period.
Deliverables:
(1) Responses for Addenda, Letters of Clarification, etc.
Any follow-up services will be solicited under a separate request and negotiated near or at the end of the
preparation of design documents. The City does not guarantee such assignment at this time and reserves the right
to determine methods and assignments that will provide the best work products and future program quality.
A4: PROJECT SCHEDULE
A preliminary implementation schedule is presented below. The schedule assumes that the construction contract is
awarded in October 2017. The construction duration is estimated to be just over three years and assumes that
equipment is not pre-purchased by the City.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 24
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 11 of 31
It is anticipated that the City will continue discussions with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
to determine if the final THM or nitrate permit limitations can be extended.
Refer to Final Facilities Plan for construction sequencing schedule.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 25
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 12 of 31
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal
documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Finance Department,
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall include one
electronic copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard
against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification
number, name of Consultant, and date and time of proposal opening. Costs of the proposal shall be submitted
in a separate, sealed envelope. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant’s insurance coverage
during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until
contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City for its withdrawal, in which
event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time specified
or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All properly
received proposals will be declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present at
the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from
the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested by the City, the proposer may submit an alternative
proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this
case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives,
and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 26
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 13 of 31
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for
examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities in any
proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to
the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "Special Terms and Conditions" in
Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 27
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 14 of 31
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
MINIMUM DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS
The following minimum qualifications are desired:
1. The Consultant has been in business for a minimum of fifteen (15) years performing professional consulting
services in the wastewater field in the state of California.
2. The Consultant has completed at least five (5) designs of wastewater treatment plants in California with a
construction value over $30 million within the last ten (10) years.
3. The Project Manager is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California.
4. The Project Manager is available, committed to the project and present.
5. Key discipline leads have appropriate professional licenses commensurate with their proposed role on the
project.
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References from at least three public agency clients for whom you have provided similar services (also
include three references for each subconsultant with more than 20% of the proposed fee or hours)
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Executive Summary
a. Provide a two-page summary of the key elements of your proposal.
3. Personnel
a. An organizational chart to show the names of all key personnel assigned to the project and their primary
area of responsibility, years of experience, office location, and availability to work on this project
b. Three references each for the Project Manager and Key Project Team Members, respectively
c. Experience of the staff to be assigned to the project in performing similar services
d. The City shall approve all key personnel changes proposed by the consultant which includes but are limited
to project manager and key design team members including sub consultants.
e. Statement: “We commit key project team members for the duration of the project. Any proposed
substitutions require the prior written approval from the City.”
4. Firm Qualifications
a. Been in business for a minimum of fifteen (15) years performing professional consulting services in the
wastewater field in the state of California.
b. Experience of the Consultant in performing similar services within the past 5 years. Provide project
summary, Consultant’s role and responsibilities on the project, Consultant’s team members who worked on
the project, client contact information, dates when the projects were performed, and performance on
delivering the project on schedule and on budget
c. Description of subconsultant experience
d. Description of past projects and experience working with proposed subconsultants
e. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
5. Project Approach
a. Description of your approach to completing the work, including both your technical approach and project
management approach.
b. The proposal shall include a detailed scope of services with the following at a minimum:
i. Itemized work breakdown structure
ii. List of deliverables
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 28
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 15 of 31
iii. List of meetings and workshops
iv. List of any assumptions
Procedures should be included showing how the Consultant plans to coordinate with City staff and the
Program Management Team.
c. Proposed project schedule for completing the work, including major milestones
d. Estimated hours for staff in performing each task, including sub-consultants, by task and labor category
e. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City or Program Management Team
f. Any other information that would assist the City in making this contract award decision.
6. Proposed Compensation (in a separate sealed envelope)
a. Proposed fee, which includes an itemized summary of personnel, labor hours, labor rates, and expenses
by task , including all sub-consultants
b. Hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
7. Resumes
a. 2-page resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub-consultants
shall be submitted in an appendix.
8. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other short form
approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. 10 copies of the proposal (printed double sided) must be submitted.
c. 1 pdf format electronic copy must be submitted on CD.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
9. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a selection committee based on the following criteria:
a. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal
b. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications of the proposed team, including the project
manager and key team members
c. Proposed approach for working effectively with the Program Management Team
d. Proposed approach in completing the work
e. Proposed schedule
f. References
g. Proposed fee
10. Oral Presentations/Interviews
The City may elect to conduct interviews with a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 proposers),
in which case finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions
about their proposal. The purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding
questions or issues about the proposal; and, in the case of presentations, to evaluate the proposer’s ability to
clearly and concisely present information orally.
11. Consultant Selection
After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected
Consultant, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount
of compensation. If the City is unable to come to an agreement on the terms of the contract or the amount of
compensation, the City reserves the right to negotiate with the next highest ranked consultant.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 29
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 16 of 31
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing
the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria described above; results of
background and reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed
com pensation.
12. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFP……………………………………………… 7/9/15
Conduct pre-proposal conference…………………… 7/23/15
Receive proposals……………………………………. 8/6/15
Complete proposal evaluation………………………. 8/14/15
Conduct finalist interviews…………………………… 9/1/15 and/or 9/2/15
Finalize staff recommendation………………………. 9/3/15
Award and execute contract.………………………… 9/21/15
Start work………………………………………………. 10/1/15
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 30
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 17 of 31
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested proposals for Design Engineering Services for the Water Resources
Recovery Facility per Specification No. 91363.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written
above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin within X calendar days after contract
execution and shall be completed within X calendar days thereafter.
3. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between [month/year] and [month/year].
4. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified
of the increases in advance. Rates may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal
to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
5. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by
changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other
Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions
arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended
for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient
time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of
acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due
to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice,
such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written
notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations,
responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 31
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 18 of 31
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any
offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes
fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the
project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of
costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not feasible due to funding
shortages or unforeseen circumstances, the City reserves the right to terminate the contract. Consultant will be
paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
7. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all
capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work
hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
8. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
9. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract,
or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any
kind without the previous written consent of the City.
10. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this
contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and
approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or
otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the
performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 32
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 19 of 31
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe
and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the
public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such
fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures
as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the
City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work
hereunder.
22. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 33
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 20 of 31
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall
waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts
provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time
extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s standardized title blocks and
coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review using either the full D (24x36) format or a reduced 11x17
format. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format.
Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals shall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate.
2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies and 50% plans and estimate
1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups
2 copies of the 90% plans, specifications and estimate plus 50% markups
1 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups
1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% markups
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies.
Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side,
including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction AND one electronic copy
submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original stamps and signatures
In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s work, the final
specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 34
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 21 of 31
In the event the City will be completing the Record Drawings, the final plans will also be required to be
submitted in AutoCAD
Electronic files shall be submitted on CD and all files must be compatible with the Microsoft operating system.
Each CD must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. Files may be emailed to the City in
lieu of putting them on CD.
29. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
30. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property
of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior
written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
31. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies
as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Consultant's direct expense.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is
attendance by the Consultant at up to a minimum of 4 public meetings to present and discuss its findings and
recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing
workscope tasks.
33. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s
within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed,
miscellaneous charges, any sub-consultant invoices similarly broken down as supporting detail. Invoices shall
conform to the WRRF Program Management Plan, dated February 6, 2015, and included as Appendix B of
specification 91363.
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the agreed upon project fee. Should the Consultant’s
designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required to correct
them at no increase in cost to the City.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly
rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be
reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 35
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 22 of 31
agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that
currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an
original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Consultant (Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Agreement Parties.
City: Carrie Mattingly
Utilities Director
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
39. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal Specification No. 91363 and Consultant's proposal
dated _________________, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
40. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Engineer.
41. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates
or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
42. Complete Agreement. This written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by
reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement,
understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force
or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this
agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such
party.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 36
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 23 of 31
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 37
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 24 of 31
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 91363
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 38
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 25 of 31
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has
ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local
government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 39
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 26 of 31
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 40
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 27 of 31
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993
or CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate
limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
5. General Aggregate applying separately to work performed under the agreement; $2,000,000
6. Umbrella or Excess Liability; $5,000,000
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage
required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 41
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 28 of 31
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences.
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 42
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 29 of 31
Section G
APPENDICES
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 43
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 30 of 31
Appendix 1: Program Charter
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 44
RFP No. 91636 City of San Luis Obispo WRRF Design Engineering Services Page 31 of 31
Appendix 2: Program Management Plan (double click below on PMP to open as a PDF)
ATTACHMENT 2
B1 - 45
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
B1 - 46