HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-22 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
,,n�r AREA COODOE 4
540-291 O
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1
P. O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY)
September 15, 1977
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 21 31 5, 6, 7 & 11
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1977 - 5 ;30 P.M,
10544 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of September 14, 1977, the
Boards of Directors of County Sanitatation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, b, 7
b.d and 11 of Orange County, California, will meet in an adjourned regular Iaeeting
at the above hour and date.
The purpose of the meeting is to consider the bid protest submitted by Per-tech
Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc. re the proposed award of contract for
Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen
Dissolution Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job
No. P2-23-2.
Enclosed with the agenda are supporting documents which have been received up
to the time of agenda mailing. Additional documents received by noon, Tuesday,
September 20, 1977, will be mailed to Directors under separate cover.
It is important that the Districts have a quorum present to consider this bid
protest. The Joint Chairman has, therefore, requested that active Directors
unable to attend make an extra effort to have their appointed alternate at
the meeting.
Sectary
JWS:j c
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
JOINT BOARDS ^96224ode11
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR 'MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1977 - 5:30 P, M,
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2) Roll Call
(3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary
(4) Hearing and consideration of bid protest by Pentech Division, Houdaille
Industries, Inc. , re proposed award of contract for Division 1 - Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-2,
to Catalytic, Inc. , the second low bidder, in the amount of $8,273,000.00,
and rejection of the low bid of Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries,
Inc., as nonresponsive.
(a) Report of General Counsel
(b) Consideration of motion to receive and file the following
documents:
(1) Bid tabulation and analysis by John Carollo Engineers/Greeley
and Hansen, Districts' consulting design engineer. See page "A"
(2) Memorandum from General Counsel dated August 4, 1977, con-
cerning the validity of bid proposals and award to Catalytic,
Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder. See page "B"
(3) Letter from the State Water Resources Control Board dated
August 31, 1977, approving award to Catalytic, Inc. See
page "C"
(4) Letter from Troy & Malin, Attorneys at Law, dated September
14, 1977, on behalf of Pentech/Houdaille re bid protest.
See page "D"
(5) Notice of General Counsel dated September 15, 1977, re
bid protest hearing. See page "E"
(6) Report of John Carollo Engineers/Greeley and Hansen, Districts'
consulting design engineers, dated September 16, 1977 re
comparison of system specified and bid by Catalytic, Inc. ;
and alternate system bid by Pentech/Houdaille Industries,
Inc. (to be mailed under separate cover) .
(7) Correspondence and written material received from Pentech/
Houdaille, if any (to be included in meeting folders) .
(8) Correspondence and written material received from other
interested parties, if any (included in meeting folders) .
(c) Hearing on bid protest of Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
(1) Open Hearing
(2) Verbal report of engineers re basis of findings that the
bid documents and proposals submitted by Pentech/Houdaille
for Job No. P2-23-2 are nonresponsive.
(3) Oral presentation of protest by Pentech/Houdaille
(4) Discussion
(5) Close Hearing
(d) Consideration of Resolution No. 77-122 to receive and file bid tab-
ulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Division 1 -
Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen
Dissolution Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at. Plant No. 2,
Job No. P2-23-2, to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
See bid tab page "F" (Resolution included in meeting folders)
(5) Other business and communications, if any
(6) Consideration to motion to adjourn
i
2 -
BOARDS OF OUIRECTONS )
County-Sanitation Districts Post office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
JOINT BOARDS Area
9540-2910
62-241 1 4
-- �I -- AGENDA
REVISED AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1977 - 5:30 P,M,
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2) Roll Cali
(3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary
(4) Hearing and consideration of bid protest by Pentech Division, Houdaille
Industries, Inc. , re proposed award of contract for Division 1 - Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 i`IGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2 , Job No. P2-23-2,
to Catalytic, Inc. , the second low bidder, in the amount of $8,273,000. 00,
and rejection of the low bid of. Pentech Division, floudaille Industries,
Inc. , as nonresponsive:
(a) Verbal report of General Counsel
(b) Consideration of motion to receive and file the following documents:
(1) Letter from State Water Resources Control Board, dated
April 6, 1976, giving concept approval for the construction
of said project. See page "A"
(2) Letter from State Water Resources Control. Board, dated March 16,
1977, approving plans and specifications for Job No. P2-23--2,
and letter approving Phase I Value Engineering Report. See
Page "Bit
(3) Resolution No. 77-59, approving plans and specifications for
Job No. P2-23-2, adopted by the Board of Directors on May 11, 1977
See page "C"�
(4) Memorandum on Conference botween Pont ech/Eloudai11e and John
Carollo I:nbineers/Greeley €l Hansen, dated August 1, 1977. Sec
page "D"
(5) Bid tabulaVion and analysis by John Carollo Engineers/Greeley £,
Hansen, Districts' consulting design engineer. See page "E"
(4) (h) (Continued)
(6) Memorandum from General Counsel, dated August 4, 1977,
concerning the validity of bid proposals and award to
Catalytic, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. See
page "F"
(7) Letter from State Water Resources Control Board, dated
August 31, 1977, approving award to Catalytic, Inc. See
page "G"
(8) Lcttcr/report of Ray E. Lewis, dated September 8, 1977, to
protesting party and other addressees in response to protest
See page "FP'
(9) Lotter from Troy F, Malin, Attorneys at. Law, dated September 1.4,
1977, on behalf of Pentech/Houdaille re bid protest. See
page "I..
(10) Notice of General Counsel, dated September 15, 1977, re bid
protest hearing. See page "J"
(11) Report of John Carollo Engineers/Greeley F, Hansen, Districts'
consulting design engineers, dated September 19, 1977, re
comparison of system specified and bid by Catalytic, Inc.
and alternate system bid by Pentech/Houdaille Industries, Inc.
See page "K"
(12) Correspondence and written material received from Pentech/
Iloudai 1 le:
(a) Letter dated September 16, 1977. See page "L"
(b) Letter dated September 20, 1977. See page "M"
(c) "A Technical Report on the PentoxTM Modified Pure Oxygen
System" (See pink-covered copy in meeting folders)
(13) Legal opinion of General Counsel, dated September 22, 1977.
See page 'IN"
(14) Correspondence and written material received from other interested
parties, if any I / j
� �i�,a.; — ��,•�Lt l)_'(�•cr.. �J nA/ /aK�.✓ `.�,v/„1
,&w v tISIL ,
(c) Hearing on bid protest of Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc Y
(1) Open Hearing ,( vy��r•
(2) Verbal report of engineers re basis of findings that the bid
documents and proposals submitted by Pentech/l}oudaille for
Job No. P2-23-2 are nonresponsive V0or4 i
(3) Oral presentation of p o est by Pe h/Houdaille
AAA J
- ( ) Discussion SIM C1 F, rc 'LecGAo .
(5) Close Hearing
—2—
r, o
:(4) (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 77-122, to receive and file bid
tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Division 1 -
Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen
,ll Call Vote or Cost Dissolution Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2,
Unanimous Ballot Job No. P2-23-2, to the second low bidder and making a determination
of protest. See pages 110" and "P"
(5) Other business and communications, if any
(6) Consideration of motion to adjourn
-3-
' - i
-i BOARDt bF DIRECTORS
County.Sanitation Districts Post office Box'8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
!///-���R
Telephones:
JOINT B Jnx D S Ar 962-24L1 1 14
- II AGENDA
-
REV I SED AGENDA ADJOURN 'ENTS POSTED...—
COMM & MHLEA"E_...fe�....
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING FILES SET UP ... ..............
RESOLL'Ti':%, CERTii"IE":)
SEPTEMBE R 22, 1077 - 5:30 P.M. LETTERS t:,II-,
MINUTES VIRiTi£N.............
MINUTES FILED..................
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2) Roll Call
(3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary
(4) Hearing and consideration of bid protest by Pentech Division, I"loudaille
Industries, Inc. , re proposed award or contract for Division 1 - Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved 'treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-2,
to Catalytic, Inc. , the second low bidder, in the amount of $S,273,000. 00,
and rejection of the low bid of Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries,
Inc. , as nonresponsive:
(6-,�. Verbal report of General Counsel
(b) Consideration of motion to receive and file the following documents:
(1) Letter from State Water Resources Control Board, dated
FILE `� ..�! April 6, 1976, giving concept approval for the construction
LETTER ............. of said project. See page "A"
A/C ....TKLR ....
(2) Letter from State Water Resources Control Board, dated March 16,
- --"�" " 1977, approving plans and specifications for Job No. P2-23-2,
"--------- and letter approving Phase I Value Engineering Report. See
page "LB"
(3) Resolution No. 77-59, approving plans and specifications for
Job No. P2-23-2, adopted by the Board of Directors on May 11, 1977
See page "C"
(4) Memorandum on Conference butween Pentech/Iloudail.l o and John
Carollo Engineers/Greeley FT Hansen, dated August 1, 1977. See
page T,DII
(5) Bid tabulation and analysis by John Carollo Engincers/Greeley U
Hansen, Districts' consulting design engineer. See page "I:"
(4) (b) (Continued)
(6) Memorandum from General Counsel, dated August 4, 1977,
concerning the validity of bid proposals and award to
Catalytic, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. See
page "F"
(7) Letter from State Water Resources Control Board, dated
August 31, 1977, approving award to Catalytic, Inc. See
page "G"
(8) Letter/report of Ray E. Lewis, dated September 8, 1977, to
protesting party and other addressees in response to protest
See page "Hit
(9) Letter from Troy $ Malin, Attorneys at Law, dated September 14,
1977, on behalf of Pentech/Houdaille re bid protest. See
page "I"
(10) Notice of General Counsel, dated September 15, 1977, re bid
protest hearing. See page "J"
(11) Report of John Carollo Engineers/Greeley & Hansen, Districts'
consulting design engineers, dated September 19, 1977, re
comparison of system specified and bid by Catalytic, Inc.
and alternate system bid by Pentech/Houdaille Industries, Inc.
See page "Kit
(12) Correspondence and written material received from Pentech/
Houdaille:
(a.) Letter dated September 16, 1977. See page "Lit
(b) Letter dated September 20, 1977. See page limit
(c) "A Technical Report on the PentoxTM Modified Pure Oxygen
LETTER .............. System" (See pink-covered copy in meeting folders)
A/C ....TKLR ....
(13) Legal opinion of General Counsel, dated September 22, 1977.
See page "N"
FILE .................. (14) Correspondence and written material received from other interested
LETTER ....-......_ parties, if any t
A/C ....TKLR ._ (I� cx�Cl,lY-t.
(c) Hearing on bid protest of hentec Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
- -- -•• (1) Open Hearing cP °c'
(2) Verbal report of engineers re basis of findings that the bid
documents and proposals submitter; by Pentech/Iloudaille for
Job No. 112-23-2 are non responsive
(3) Oral presentation of protest by Pentech/Iloudaille
(4) Di scussion
(5) Close Hearing ?W,
_2-
(4) (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 77-122, to receive and file bid
tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Division 1 -
►� Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen
..c.� Dissolution Facilities for 7S MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2,
A/C . R -' Job No. P2-23-2, to the second low bidder and making a determination
_- ---� of protest. See pages "0" and "P"
(S) Other business and communications, if any
(6) Consideration of motion to adjourn �7-- /7
-3-
MEETING DATE September 22 , 1977 TIME 5•30 P.M. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7&11
DISTRICL1 41W y= JOINT BOARDS
SALTAFELL I)...... SHARP•...... Jz- RILEY) ...••.•••ANTHONY•.
RILEY)EIGGS)
............ANTHONY.--• . BARRETT.....
RTHE ........... EVANS.• . �" DOSTAL).
v �•�•• -�� --w- — RILEY .........CLARK .......
........... RIMA........� � GAEDE ...COOPER ......
PERRY .........CULVER ......
WILLIAMS)......DOSTAL......
[DE
OOT .......••••WEDAA -•--••_/ / GARTH€l:.......EVANS..
YT) ..,,...... SMITH ..... GAEDEI..........FOX:.. ���•••
LEY),.,,,.,,,,,,Ei�4Ri('...... � PRIEST) ........FRESE........ —
EDE •• . FOX............Z EVANS) ........GARTHE..
ANS)....•.......GARTHE-...... WARREN)........GLOCKNER...
JES 1S).-.......HOLT. ..... ....LVER) ..,.,...PERRY ..... LACKMAN) GRAY.EV NS) .........ROGET...... DE JESU ..... GRIFFI ...
€ . �! DE JESUS�.. HOLT..OMJ. .........ROTH.........AL LACAYO) . ....HUDSON .. ..ANTON�,,.,,-.,,.SCOTT....... WEISHAUPT)......MARSHOTT...PTON) ........WINN........� __d DOSTAL) . ....MC INNIS...NTERS�....-.....WOOD,,•..... �( F I NLAYSON).....OLSON ...... —
GIBBS) ....... PATTINSON..
DISTRICT 3 CULVER) ......PERRY.......
STANTO(V ......._.•SVALSTAD::•—��! ANTHONY).....,.RI LEY.......
LACAYO) •HUDSON. •_� BRIGGS) ......RIMA ..•.....
GAEDE •--•••••-.• COOPER •••.. ,...�,C �L sTEV�NS).......ROGET.......
PERRY ............�; R. .... � .......ROTH . ...
--l�l THOM .. —
EVANS .•..• • GARTHE.•.•••. _Q, DOSTA ) ........ RYCKOFF ....
BLACKMQN) ........ GRAY ••••••• SHARP.........SALTARELLI..
PRIEST) FRESE ...... RILEY RILEY .......SCHMIT........ —
JARRELLT :••......GRIFFIN ....�C STANTON)...
AN T ON). � ....
WEISHAUPT�.......MARSHOTT... S .. SHARP......
..
PATTINSON .....SHENKMAN...FINL(YSON .......OLSON ......
THOM) .............ROTH ...... �1 HOYT) ........SMITH .......
RILEY ...........SCHMIT ....._�/ __C� YOUNG. ......STEVENS. .. —
YOUNG�,,..,.......STEVENS ..-,_� STANTON).......SVALSTAD...
BROWN).. ......SYLVIA .... BROWN ..........SYLVIA .....
PATTINSON) ,......WIEDER .....� GAIDOGROOT ..........VARDOULIS...
_
WOOD) .............WINTERS ....4 PATTINSO0....,WIEDER.....TSTRTCT .. —
TIPTON).........WINN.........
—
DOSTAL ...........MC INNIS..._� WOOD). ......WINTERS .... —
ANTHONY).•...•••••RILEY........ WINTERS).......WOOD.........�WILLIAMS) ........DOSTAL•......1C_ OTHERS
DIS I�R CT 66 HARPER.......
BRIGGS ...........RIMA........ %/ SYLVESTER ...
DOSTA�............RYCKOFF ....— LEWIS....
RILEY ...........ANTHONY .... lz
-Wool CLARKE...... —
BROWN........
DISTRICT 7
DOSTA ...........BARRETT - •.`�/
GA I DO ............VARDOUL I S.
RILEY)) .......G484 �4 ...�� WOODRUFF.... —
GARTHE .......EVANS........ HOHENER ....WARRE �::::
...........GLOCKNER .. HOWARD...•..
SHARe).........•..SALTARELLI. ✓ HUNT ........
HOYT1.. ..........SMITH. ... 7 �CEITH....... —
KENNEY.......
DISTRICT 11 LYNCH.......
GIBBS PATTI NSON.• Y MADDOX....... —
SPATTI�SON7,,,,,,•SHENKMAN ... �i1 MARTINSON ...
(RILEY)_•„••...••.SCHMIT•..... _11 PIERSALL ....
STEVENS...... —
DISTRICT 8 TRAVERS..... .
AWRENCE
BRAND —
(CLA ,•,,,,,,,,,•RILEY....... —
R/ini77
MEETING DATE September 22 , 1977 TIME 5 :30 P.M. DISTRICTS 1,2 , 3 , 5, 6,7&11
DISTRICTc. �«t� �113
SALTARELLI)...... SHARP ...•�' /� � -," R I LE� • •• ANTHONY
RILEY I...•..... ..• ANTHONY.•• ` ••,
GARTHE •••••••••• EVANS•••••• � DOSTAL). . BARRETT.
�I c� RILEY) ... .. ....CLARK ...... . —
BRIGGS�,.......... RIMA.-; j/ GAEDE) .........COOPER ...... —
T PERRY) . .....CULVER
STRICT 2 WILLIAMS)..... .DOSTAL.... ...•. �
GROOT ...•••••••• WEDAA ••••• _ 1 GARTH�).........EVANS........ — —
HOYT) .•........ SMITH Y GAEDE ........FOX.......... — —
R'LEY
,....,...... C•-LAft ...... PRIEST) ........FRESE. ....... —
GAEDE • FOX.. •...... _iL EVANS) .. ... ....GARTHE.......
_
EVANS.. �........ GARTHE•••-. L WARREN). . .....GLOCKNER.... _
DE JES�IS)•••••.•• HOLT'j:•=.-.. r" LACKMAN)......GRAY.. ....
CULVERJ ........ PERRY—,,.— � � � JARRELL) . .... GRIFFIN .... —
STEV€NS),......... ROGETI::..�.: DE JESUS5, HOLT. . ..... — —
THOMJ.. ......... ROTH....... LACAYO) . .... HUDSON ...... —
STANTONI......... SCOTT....... f� WE I SHAUPT).....MARSHOTT...
TIPTON) ...WINN........ iDOSTAL) . . .... MC INNIS... —IWINTERST.*.'.':...WOOD....... F I NLAYSON). ....OLSON ......
GIBBS) ........ PATTINSON.. —
DISTRICT 3 CULVER) ...... PERRY....... — —•
STANTO ........ L .. RILEYBRIGGS) . ......RIMA .......
GAEDE ••••••-•••• COOPER ••••• _� STEVENS)....... ROGET........
PERRY .......... .... — THOM) .......ROTH. ....... — —
EVANS .. ..... • GARTHE•• - DOSTA �) ...... .. RYCKOFF ...
BLACKMON) ...... .. GRAY •••••• (L SHARP ... ...... SALTARELLI.. —
PRIEST) ......... FRESE ...... RILEY) . ..... SCHMIT. ......
JARRELL ,. ....GRIFFIN .... STANTON). ... SCOTT. .......
WEISHAUPT�.......MARSHOTT...�
f _. SALTARELL ). . .. SHARP. . ......
F I NLAYSON .......OLSON ...... PATT I NSON ..... SHENKMAN... —
THOM) ............
R0TH HOYT) ...SMITH .. .... — —
RILEY ... .........SC-� YOUNG):::::::...STEVENS .... —
YOUNG ...........STEVENS . STANTON) . . .....SVALSTAD...
BROWN ......SYLVIA . BROWN)......... ..SYLVIA ..
PATTINSON) .......W-1EDER GAIDO .. .. .....VARDOULIS.. —
(WOOD) .............WINTERS .... GROOT) , ....WEDAA... .... —
PATTI WI EDER.. .....
DISTRICT 55 / TIPTON) ... ... ..WINN. ........
— —
NI-LIAMS)
STAL ...........MC INNIS.. Y WOOD). ......WINTERS .... —
THONY)• •..,.•••RILEY.:.:: J T r WI NTERS) .......WOOD... ..... _
.........DOSTAL••••..
DISTRICT 6 OTHERS _
NLEY
IGGS ..........RIMA::,. ... � HARPERTER .. — —
STA ......... ..RYCKOFF .....1.G LEWIS
... —
LEWIS.
�,...........ANTHONY ....�/ CLARKE. ... .. .
— —
DISTRICT 7 BROWN....... .— —
DOSTA . -•.••••••BARRETT • .:� rl
.GAIDO . ..VARDOULIS. —�
RILEY)))) :.'.' .' .CL-ARK ..... � cam, WOODRUFF.... _
GARTHE . ........' EVANS. ..`,,. .� �, HOHENER ....
NYT
RREN ...........GLOCKNER . �v HOWARD. ......
—
ARe)............SALTARELLI. � HUNT ........ —J .............SMITH;-:l ::. J KEITH....... .
—
KENNEY.. ....
DISTRICT 11 LYNCH,...... . —
G I BBS PATT I NSON,, �L I� MADDOX.. ..... _
TTINSON)...,,,.SHENKM N MARTINSON .. — —
RILEY)))) ........... ��•�'r PIERSALL . . _
STEVENS. .
DISTRICT 8 TRAVERS. .....
—_ —
LAWRENCE •- -EDWARDS — -
-�RAND —
(CLARK)-r ... ......RIL-E-Y;.... . —
xiini»
Agenda Itcm No. q L-,, bg?�
PE14TECH �JOUDRILLE Pentech Division Howd,!ille Industries. Inc.*
219 East Fourth Street.Cedar Falls. lo•;:a S^r ';+ U ;' A
Telephone (319)277•4220 Telex 465632
"Mo/
Confirmation of telegram sent
September 16 , 1977
September 16 , 1977
County Sanitation District #1
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley , CA 92708
Re : Division #1 - Oxygenation and Storage Facilities
Division #2 Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
For 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant #2
Job P2-23-2
Gentlemen :
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the letter of September 15 , 1977
from Rourke and Woodruff, your counsel , Pentech/1loudaille
hereby extends the period for the acceptance of bid and
bonds from October 26 , 1977 to December 1 , 1977 .
`J
Very truly yours ,
4---lir�41-M�
Marshall L. ;•lallak
Marketing Manager
PEN'TFC11/110UDAI LLE
11•1LM/t j b
cc : Rourke & Iloodruff
Lou Giordano
GeorRe Pankey
Troy $ Mah1in
T A0__Y & MALI NT
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
�.✓ Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Two
5. A State of California Contractor 's License is not
required to bid on the above-referenced project. Pentech is
not an inexperienced company, having been in business for
over ninety years and being a Fortune 500 company.
DISCUSSION
Violation of Due Process
Pentech 's procedural rights are violated by the time
period set forth by the District to the extent that they do
not allow Pentech adequate time to prepare and present a
full, complete, and reasonable discussion of its product.
The time periods provided do not allow Pentech time for
anything other than to explain its system. The time period
provided should also allow Pentech time to explain the
nonessential variances from the plans and specifications set
forth by the Board . Further , it should be noted that
Pentech desires to have an independent third party make a
presentation regarding the PENTOX SYSTEM, but was unable to
obtain anyone at such short notice . While Pentech is
prepared to proceed on September 22, 1977, with its oral
presentation , we nevertheless object to the procedural
restraints as a violation of our rights.
Pentech ' s Bid is Responsive
The PENTOX SYSTEM as offered in our quotation is equal
in all respects to the system covered in the Districts '
specifications. Pentech warrants that it has reviewed the
plans and special provisions and detailed specifications for
Division 1 and Division 2 of Job No. P2-23-3, and that its
proposal is for a combined equivalent of the "Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities" and "Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities" contained within the detailed specifications.
Our detailed calculations of the treatment capa-
bilities of the PENTOX SYSTEM as applied to the proposed
tankaged outlined in the plans and detailed specifications,
the treatment capabilities of the PENTOX SYSTEM are equi-
valent to those required in the plans and detailed specifi-
Agenda Item NACLYW7)
TROY & M.AJ- 11T
RONALD H.MALIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EUROPEAN OFFICE
OSEPH F.TROY
MAYNARD J. KLEIN 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, Ifi- FLOOR 44,AVENUE DES CHAMPS-ELYSkES
RONALD M.RESCII 7SO08 PARIS,FRANCE
RONALD WARNER LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90067
BOYNTON M.RAWLINGS TELEPHONE:2SG.14.00
NEIL B.FISCHER TELEPHONE:(213)5S3-«<I TELEX:280023
HERBERT E.SCHWARTZ
LUIS CARLOS Or CASTRO TELEX:69-1737
LEE M.POLSTER
SANFORD J.HILLSBERG CABLE:TROMALAW
PETER H.ALPERT
CLIFTON B.CATES.IU
PAUL B.HERBERT
JEFFREY W.KRAMER
PHILIP N.LEE
SHELDON P. BERGER
September 20, 1977
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Re: Bid Protest - Pentech Division,
Houdaille Industries, Inc.
Dear Directors:
SUMMARY
1. Pentech 's rights to procedural due process are
violated by the following County Sanitation Districts
rulings:
(a) The requirement that Pentech supply no later
than 12:00 P.M. , Tuesday, September 20, 1977,
any written material of any nature whatsoever
it desires the Board of Directors to consider
regarding its appeal;
(b) The Bid Protest Hearing being scheduled for
September 22, 1977 at 5 :30 P.M. , and
(c) The Districts allowing Pentech only twenty
minutes to make its presentation.
2. Pentech ' s bid is responsive in that its PENTOX
SYSTEM is the functional equivalent in all respects to the
equipment and systems outlined in the Special Provisions and
Detailed Specifications for Division 1 - Oxygen Generation
and Storage Facilities, and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job
No. P2-23-2.
3. Pentech 's bid is 1 . 7 million dollars lower than
�d the bid by Catalytic, Inc. to which you propose to let the
contract.
4 . The PENTOX SYSTEM would provide the Sanitation
Districts with power cost savings estimated to be in excess
Of $150,000 per year.
TROY & M A L I N
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Three
cations.
The PENTOX SYSTEM is essentially a high rate system
which provides functionally the same performance specified
in Division 1 and 2 of the detailed specifications. The
system use optimum amounts of air and high purity oxygen for
supporting metabolic activity of the activated sludge
process and maintaining a high DO on the order of 6mg/1 or
greater in the effluent of the last stage of the system.
Capital , Operational and Maintenance Cost Savings
The system is designed around the specifications to
offer a substantial saving in the total cost of the treat-
ment plant . This is why our bid is 1 . 7 million dollars
lower than the next lowest bid. It is important to note
that none of the innovations in the treatment system create
a limiting factor effecting the desired treatment. Further-
more , the use of compressed atmospheric oxygen in the first
three stages of each four stage train in combination with
the use of a liquid oxygen in the fourth stage offers
several marked advantages because the need for cryogenic
plants has been eliminated . These advantages include a
higher degree of operational safety, a substantial decrease
in operation and maintenance requirements , and reduced
chance of component breakdown.
Because of these modifications , not only can the
District expect to save in excess of $150 ,000 per year in
power cost expenses, it is also estimated that the District
can expect to save nearly one-half of one million dollars
annually on reduced operation and maintenance cost. While
it may not be significant to the District 's budget, being
only 12-1/2% of a total expenditure on this project, that
our bid is 1 .7 million dollars lower than the next lowest
bid, it should be noted that the savings in power , opera-
tions and maintenance cost are direct expense saving for the
Districts.
Thus, our system not only provides increased simplicity
and reliability, but it also means that the District can
have greater assurance of and confidence in continuous
TROY & M A L I N
PROFESSIONAL,CORPORATION
Board of Directors
`..� County Sanitation Distsricts of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Four
operation of a plant in achieving treatment requirements.
Pentach 's Experience
Pentech has over thirty years experience in the waste
treatment area. While much of this experience has been with
industrial high-strength wastes, which are less predictable
than the sewage waste we are concerned with here, such
experience should show that Pentech is a reliable corpora-
tion. It should be noted that Pentech has in operation
working installations which require higher oxygen input than
the Sanitation District' s project.
It is important to note that Pentech 's deviation from
the letter of specifications is only in its device to put
the oxygen into the reactor . The PENTOX SYSTEM is a new
development in technology based on previous field experience
and testing. While we agree that 40 Federal Register, 35,
Sub-Section 937-3 notes the importance of past record of
performance in evaluating the qualifications of a bidder, it
should also be noted that Sub-Section 936-13 of that same
part, notes that;
The general use of experience clauses re-
quiring equipment manufacturers to have a
record of satisfactory operation for a
specific period of time. . . is restricted to
special cases where the grantee 's engineer
adequately justifies any such requirement in
writing .
No such written justification has been provided in this
situation.
Regarding the necessities for a California Contrac-
tor 's License , it should be noted that no such license is
required in order to make a bid. If a bidder is successful,_
then at that time procedural steps can be taken to get the
necessary Contractor ' s License . In this situation, it
should be noted that the people who will be doing the
installation and construction are already California
Contractors . It should also be noted that 40 Federal
Register 35.936-2, Sub-Section B notes that,
ROY & 1VALI N
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 20, 1977
Page Five
State or local laws, ordinances, regulations
or procedures which are designed to or
operate to give local or in-state bidders or
proposers preference over other bidders or
proposers shall not be employed in evaluating
bids or proposals for sub-agreements under a
grant.
Your insistance that Pentech have such license prior to
its bidding for the above-referenced jobs is clearly a
violation of this regulation.
CONCLUSION
Paragraph 35.936-3 of the EPA' s regulations note that
" it is the policy of the Eviornmental Protection Agency to
encourage free and open competition appropriate to the type
of project work to be performed. In that regard Pentech 's
bid is responsive in that it meets the technical results set
forth by the approved plan and specifications , and it
provides requist treatment within the tankage and processing
standard provided with less use of power.
Clearly the drawing of the specifications in such a way
that only certain systems can be supplied in spite of the
fact that other systems can produce the same treatment
results is a proprietary, exclusionary, and discrimatory
requirement other than one based upon performance . Such
action is a violation of 40 Federal Register , Part 35 .
936-13.
Thus, it is our opinion that the PENTOX SYSTEM pro-
posed by Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc. is
responsive to the bid specifications and plans set forth by
the Sanitation Districts of Orange County California. There
is no justification for rejecting such bid and
awarding the contract to Catalytic, Inc. of Philidelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to 40 Federal Register , Part 35.939 (d) (2)
( iv) , your determination of this protest should be promptly
delivered to us in writing and should set forth a legal
TRO-Y & MALIN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
I-eiiiII) Board of Directors
County Board of Sanitation of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Six
opinion addressing issues arising under state, territorial,
or local lava, if any , and since Step 3 Construction is
involved an Engineering Report is also appropriate.
Sincerely,
Philip N. Lee
Troy & Malin
Attorneys for Protestor
PHN/be
�.d
�r
RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
SEPTEMBER 22 , 1977 - 5 :30 P.M.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R.. Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
0. Box 100
lft dcramento, CA 95801
(9i6) 445-7971
-' In Reply Refer
to: 510:RAG
Mr. Fred Harper
General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
P. 0. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
COUNTY• SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY PROJECT NO. 1073, 75 MGD
SECONDARY TREATMENT, CONCEPT APPROVAL
This office has reviewed the Project Report and the supplemental information
for the subject project. The Division of dater Quality with the concurrence
of the Environmental Protection Agency hereby approves the concept of
constructing the 75 MGD of pure oxygen improved treatment presented as
alternative 104 in the supplement to Project Report and as described in
this letter.
ELIGIBLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The following items will be eligible for grant participation:
A. Construction of secondary lift station with an eligible peak
flow of 150 MGD.
Be Oxygen Generation and Storage - The eligible average daily flow
is 75 MGD with a diurnal peaking factor of 1.3 and a peak wet
weather flow of 150 MGD. The average BOD of the primary effluent
has been determined to be 225 mg/1 with a diurnal, weekly and
monthly total peaking faction of 1.8. These numbers are to be
analyzed and confirmed during the design work.
C. Oxygenation Tanks, Secondary Clarifiers and Waste Activated Sludge
Flotation Thickener - The design of these is to be based upon an
average daily flow of 75 MGD and a peak wet weather flow of 150 MGD.
D. Necessary in-plant piping and appurtenances.
E. Flood Protection Facilities to include a levee from the Santa Ana
River flood control levee on the north end of Plant 2 to Brookhurst
Avenue and along Brookhurst to the flood control channel.
The eligible project cost for the above facilities is estimated at $73,800,000.
"A-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) "A-1"
Mr. Fred Harper -2-
Project No. 1073
CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT APPROVAL:
This concept approval is contingent on the following:
Receipt of the complete final plans and specifications by
the date specified below. If the plans and specifications
are not submitted by this date, concept approval may be
withdrawn.
INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PREPARATION OF FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS:
Concept approval is authorization to proceed with preparation of final plans
and specifications. Clean Water Grant Bulletin #30 had previously stated that
Step 2 work could not begin until a Step 2 grant had been executed. However,
a recent determination by EPA, Region IX, permits the State to authorize
Step 2 work for your project prior to execution of the Step 2 grant with no
reduction in the grant amount for work otherwise eligible accomplished before
grant award.
The design criteria in Table V-3 of the supplement to the Project Report is
approved with the following clarifications:
1. The food to microorganisms ratio of 0.5 at a MLSS of 4500-5000
and 80 percent VSS at 75 MGD. 1,�1
2. Oxygen storage time of 3 days.
3. The design of the secondary clarifier will be based upon
a solids loading of 1.6 lbs/ft2/hr at peak daily flow with
50 percent recycle.
After the Step 2 grant award is made and design work has been started, the
information outlined below should be submitted in some fashion (design
drawings, design notes, calculations, flow schematics, etc.) either by
meetings with our staff or in a written format (preferably) . We are not
concerned so much with the format of these "in progress" reviews as we are
with the fact that they are accomplished. The information desired is as
follows:
1. At the estimated 10 percent design completion level, the submission
should include, as a minimum, process schematics, finalized design
criteria with supporting calculations regarding process unit sizing,
solids balance sheet, and proposed service building floor plans
delineating dimensions.
"A-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) "A-2"
Mr. Fred Harper -3-
Project No. 1073
2. At about the 50 percent completion point, the submission should
include available design drawings, pumpings and piping diagrams
and supporting design calculations. The mechanical and architec-
tural design drawings should also be submitted. Additionally,
only the mechanical portion of the "draft" specifications (e.g.,
PUMPS.,, blowers, etc.) should be submitted.
After the material is reviewed by our staff and, if a meeting is warranted,
you will be contacted for an informal review meeting. For further information
and for mailing arrangements for submittals, please contact Tom Korpalski
of the Facilities Design Section at (916) 322-3052.
Upon completion of final plans and specifications, the .following must be
submitted to this office for review:
1. Two signed sets of the final plans and specifications.
2. Two copies of -the complete Operation & Maintenance Manual in draft
form.
3. An outline of the proposed Instructional Program in conformance with
State guidelines.
4. An updated project cost estimate which includes a breakdown of all
engineering costs, (i.e., Project Report, plans and specifica-
tions, inspection, soil testing, etc.) , 0 & M Manual, Revenue
Program, and other costs.
The design of the oxygen generation and storage facilities should be delayed
until a decision has been made concerning the treatment process to be used
in the 100 MGD treatment project.
The plans and specifications, and Operation & Maintenance Manual must be
submitted by April 1, 1977. Upon receipt and approval, the State will
certify the eligible project to the EPA for a Federal Grant.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NEEDED PRIOR TO STEP 3 CERTIFICATION:
The following additional information and documents must also be submitted
and approved prior to project certification:
The documents and requested information contained in the enclosed
Step 3 application packet. If the application and supporting documents
cannot be returned within 60 days of receipt, please contact this office.
"A-3" AGENDA ITEM #4(a) (1) "A-3"
Mr. Fred Harper --4-
Project No. 1073
Substantiation of the influent and primary effluent characteristics
of SS and BOD and their peaking factors.
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION:
In addition to any standard provisions, the State and EPA will place the
following special conditions on the project certification or any grants
that might be awarded on this project:
1. The Grantee shall operate its treatment works as a coordinated
regional facility providing service on a fait and equitable
basis and in accordance with guidelines and regulations of the
State Board to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
and its vicinity, specifically including the service area designated
in the Grantee's Project Report of March 1974, and supplement of
February, 1976. f
2. Adoption and implementation of an approved system of user charges by
July 1, 1977.
This concept approval includes only that project described above and does
not include any associated projects which may have been referred to in the
_Project Report and does not guarantee grant funding on any subsequent project
which may be necessary to assure that the approved project is functional.
Should you have any questions, please contact Robert Gillette, the State
evaluator assigned to your project at (916) 322-6484.
/,,Larry F. Walker
Division Chief
Manager - Clean Water Grant Program
cc: CRWQCB, Santa Ana River Region (8)
Mr. Fred Krieger
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
"A-4" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) "A-�"
�fwft Or CA11fOR141A—THE RESOURCES AGENL. EDMUND G. BROWN 1R.. Governor
SPATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY '
P. 0. Box 100
&ramento, CA 95801
(916) 445-7971
In Reply Refer
to: 550:BC
Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS APPROVAL, - PROJECT NO. C-06-1073
Subject to your compliance with the conditions on the attached
approval form, in the Federal Grant Offer and the State Grant
Contract, the plans and specifications for the above-referenced
project are hereby approved by the State Water Resources Control
Board. A description of the eligible portions of the project
is contained on the attached approval form. Any ineligible or
partially eligible item will be bid as a separate bid item. Two
copies of the plans and specifications as advertised must be
submitted to this office for review and approval no later than
30 days prior to the bid opening.
Enclosed is a checklist of items which are required to be in-
cluded in all contract specifications on grant projects . Our
review has indicated the items marked on the checklist were
missing from the specifications . The documents attached to the
checklist must be included in the final specifications prior to
bid opening.
You are authorized to advertise for and open bids on the project.
Approved plans and specifications should be made available to
bidders for at least 30 days prior to bid opening. Please fur-
nish this office with proposed dates for advertisement of bids,
bid openings and contract award as soon as possible. After bid
opening and at least 15 days prior to contract award, you must
contact Mike McDonald of the Division of Water Quality, Equal
Employment Opportunity Section, at (916) 445-4062 for scheduling
of a pre-construction conference.
Addendums that are initiated during the bid period must be
reviewed and approved by the State Board prior to opening of
bids. Major additions that add to the project cost must be
listed as separate bid items .
"B-1" wQ 550-2 (10/76) AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (2) "B-1"
-2-
Enclosed are copies of Approval to Award (ATA) and the latest
list of firms or persons currently debarred for violations of
various Public Contracts Acts incorporating labor standards
provisions . It is necessary to assure the SWRCB that none of
the firms or persons listed will be employed or contracted by
you for this federally funded project. When bids are opened,
one copy of the ATA should be sent to the SWRCB. Submit the
material promptly after the opening of bids so approval to
award contract will not be delayed. Do not award any contracts
until you have received approval from this office.
The responsibility for the examination of contractor 's and sub-
contractor's payrolls and statements of compliance rests with
the applicant. An explanation of these requirements is contained
in the Labor Standards. We have enclosed a copy of "Certification
on Payrolls and Statements of Compliance" for this purpose. This
certification is to be available at, the time of final payment
inspection.
An identical set of plans and specifications should be available
at the project site at all times .
Bart Christensen
WRC Engineer
Enclosure
cc : Consulting Engineer John Carollo Engineers and
(with enclosures) Greeley & Hansen Engineers, JV
Walnut Creek Plaza, Suite 750
1990 North California Blvd.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
"B-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (2) "B-2"
RESOLUTION NO. 77-59
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR JOB NO. P2-23-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIVISION
1, OXYGEN GENERATION $ STORAGE FACILITIES, AND
DIVISION 2, OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITIES FOR
75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2,
JOB NO. P2-23-2
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents
this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by John Carollo Engineers/Greeley
and Hansen, Districts' Engineers, for construction of DIVISION 1, OXYGEN GENERATION
$ STORAGE FACILITIES, AND DIVISION 2, OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITIES FOR 75 MGD
`rn✓ IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-23-2, are hereby approved and
adopted; and,
Section 2. That the project is hereby approved and that the Secretary be
directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with the guidelines
implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and,
Section 3. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for
bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of
the State of California; and,
Section 4. That upon receipt of grant approval from the State Water Resources
Control Board, the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time
until which bids will be received and publicly opened and read; and,
Section S. That the Secretary of the Boards and Districts' Engineers be
authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held May 11, 1977.
"C" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (3) "C"
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2 l„�J
JOB NO. P2-23-2
DIV. 1 - OXYGEN GENERATION AND STORAGE FACILITIES
DIV. 2 - OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITIES
Memorandum on Conference
John Carollo Engineers - Greeley and Hansen
August 1, ,1977
1'. A meeting was arranged with Pentech Houdaille for
Monday, August •l, 1977 at 10: 00 in the Greeley and
Hansen Chicago Office, at the District' s direction.
The purpose of the meeting was to generally discuss
the Proposal submitted by Pentech Houdaille on
July' 27, 1977•, in response to Job No. P2-23-2 Con-
tract Documents. The following persons attended the
meeting:
For Pentech Houdaille
Mr. Marshall Mallak - Marketing Manager
Mr. James Clark - Appl. Engineer
Mr. Mikkel G. Mandt - UP & GM
Mr. Latona - Engineer
Mr. Dave Clemmans - Energy Assoc. - Manufacturers Rep.
For Joint Venture
Mr. Walter Howard -- John Carollo Engineer
Mr. Wallace Ambrose - Greeley and Hansen
Mr. Mory Hochberg - Greeley and Hansen
2. The JV explained that the meeting was arranged at the
District's direction. . Accordingly, the JV explained
"D-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (4) "D-1"
2.
that they were quite surprised to see Pentech Houdaille
submit a proposal considering:
a. Content, of Contract Documents
b. No previous involvement with Pentech Houdaille
concerning the Contract Documents.
3. The JV requested the Pentech Houdaille people to
provide background on how they came about submitting
a proposal.
Pentech Houdaille explained that they -had • just recently
developed the system proposed. Without being asked
they went on to briefly describe their process.
`✓ 4. The JV asked if they (P.H. ) had any previous experience
with the proposed process or as a General Contractor
in the State of California.
Pentech Houdaille explained that they have no installa-
tions to date and have no pilot work data to back up
their process. Their process was developed empirically.
Pentech Houdaille as a General Contractor was uncertain
as to whether they had experience that could qualify.
They were offered some time alone to determine that.
Pentech Houdaille determined that they• have no General
Contracting experience.
"D-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (4) "D-2"
3.
5. ' The JV pointed out that during their bid evaluation
report work which is currently underway, Pentech
Houdaille on their proposal indicated that they did
have a G.C. License in the State of California.
Research by the JV indicated that the license on
the Houdaille Proposal was, in fact, not registered
to them, but to an indicated sub-contractor. Pentech
Houdaille agreed that they were not licensed to
practice in the State of California.
6. The JV stated that their findings on all proposals to
• Job P2-23-2 will be tabulated in a bid-evaluation
report by. the JV and submitted to the Districts.
7. The JV .indicated it has no additional questions. The
meeting was adjourned.
Note:
Pentech Houdaille did not include Oxygen Generation
and Storage Facilities in the Proposal Did but
indicated .that liquid oxygen would be purchased off-
site.
"D-3" AGENDA ITEM #4(a) (4) "D-3"
JOHN GREGLEY
C:.ARL1L1_0 AND*
ENGINE RS HANSEN
AJOINT VENTURE
10437 Mi.Langley St.;uiren.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 02YU3Aroa Code Q1.1)063.9351
P1 EASE AU:)N_5'5 t';PLY TO
CAFELEY ANt)h-`.g,N
222 SOLI r1i 14M =3.-E PLAZA
CHICAGO• It.I.:%C;S 6C6.16
,Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County , California
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California . 9?708 .
Re : County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
75 NGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2
Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities
Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
Orange County , California (Job No. P2-23-2)
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your instructions , we have reviewed and
tabulated the Proposals for Division 1 - Oxygen Generation
ann storage Facilities and . Division 2 - Oxygen ]Dissolution
Facilities for 75 NGD Improved 'Treatment at Plant 'No. 2 ,
invt_stigated the qualifications of the three low bidders
and present our findings herewith.
1. General
Proposals were received , opened and read aloud zit 11 :00 A .M.
Local Civil Time on July 26 , 1977 , in accordance with an ad-
vertisemont fo bids published in the Enq;ncerin:r Ne,--), R cor
as required on May 1.6 , 1977. —Proposals were were invited for the construction of Division 1 Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 -
Oxygen DissOl ut.ion Facilities Iror 75 i-jGD Improved. C!Ciy..i; •.=n 1
at Plant ido. 2 located viithln the city limits oL Huntinc,ten
Beach , just west of the Santa Ana River and approximately
1, 800 foot north of Coast Iiighway State Route 1, Orarig :
Califo+_ni.a..
2• P;:o-posa1J 1:_�C elvcd
Fourtcz-n (14) i)L'Uj•7osals :'c:l'C: ru-coi-v^Cl, ec:ch Of i•:hic11
paniud by the. !):i c: F;ectlri.ty.
The f011)7t(!t2I'1 (14 ) r))70")C)S:115 hilVC' IWt !)1 t:ill)L11i1t:C!C1,
:ihCiL:il C:n I:ho .1L' �:.1C:1Ctl i,,:l'! l.l�li: �. . '11iC
n �.
:1 c� t'.1�(•:: i:.�..;ll Cc;a,=)Lt. .'_i :,� (:•. :•�
dnt:C!rrll].:' cd I)y Lho 1.00(!(i0>l1: , t_,tl(lllil: l(111 ill't: a.,; %C)•L.j�,'.J:i :•
"E-i'� AGENDA ITEM MB) (5) E-111
board of Director!:
county Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
Deduction
Name & Address Bid Division Division for Total
of niddcr Security 1 2 Combination
F.ngi.neer's Estimate - $5,500,000 $5,500,000 - $11,000,000
rentech Division
i
Houdaille Ind., Inc, 101
219 E. Fourth St. Bid No No No
Cedar Falls, Iowa Bond Bid Bid Did $ G,498,000
Catalytic Inc.', A '
Subsidary of Air
Products & Chen.Inc. 10%
1500 Market St. Bid !
Phila.,•Pa.19102 Bond $4,556,000 $3,885,000 $168,000 $ 8,273,000 f
H. C. Smith Const. Co. 10%
P. O. Box 2330 Bid
Newport Beach,Ca.92663 Bond $4,662,000 $4,077,900 $173,500 $ $,566,500
Granite Constr. Co. 10%
P. O. Box 900 Bid
liatsonville,Ca.95076 Bond $5,050,000 $5,000,000 $906,000 $ 9,144,000
University Mechanical `
& Eng'ring Contrs. ,Inc.108
301 Vest Dyer Road Bid
Santa Anna,Ca.92707 Bond $5,380,000 $4,440,000 $440,000 $ 9,380,000
Kenneth Fraser Co.,Inc.10%
707 S. Arroyo Parkway Bid
Pasadena, Ca.91105 Bond $5,180,000 $4,620,000 $320,000 $ 9,480,000
Haecon, Inc.
13546 E. Imperial Ilwy. 105'
Santa Fe Springs, Bid
Ca. 90670 Bond $5,544,527 $40-1328,617 $340,000 $ 9,533,144
Burke Mechanical Contts.
(A Div.of Natkin &
Company) 10%
1150 Uest Trenton Bid
Orange, Ca. 92667 Bond $5,400,000 $4,600,000 $300,000 $ 9,700,000
Gentry-Rados
(A Joint ver3ture) 10%
180 North Sherman Ave. Bid
Corona, Ca. 91720 Bond $5,543,000 $4,682,000 $420,000 $ 9,805,000
Brinderson Corp. 10%
100 East Baker St. Bid
Costa Mesa, Ca.92626 Bond $5,290,000 $4,800;000 $250,000 $ 9,840,000
F. B. Gardner Co.,Inc. lot
3311 San Fernando Rd. Bid
Las Angelces,Ca.90065 Bond $5,589,300 $4,659,400 $300,000 $ 9,940,700
Alaska Constr. , Inc. 10%
3160 Telegraph Rd. Hid
Wntuaa, Cal.93003 Bond $6,085,000 $4,415,000 $420,000 $10,000,000
1'c•Yer Kiewit Sons:'Co. 10%
303 East :Tanta Clara Bid
Arcadia, Ca.93006 14ond $6,111,000 $4,943,000 $730,000 $10,324,D00
Va:cal and midwiq,inc. 10 L
1!,00 Pic•;:L Nin:l: St. Did
111,3a1td, Ca.91.706 Bond $6,246,734 $4,490,567 *345,000 $10,40U,301
'Total includvs clvduction for comhil%inU uivinion:: 1 and 2.
1
s
"E-2" AGENDA ITEM #r4(B) (5) "E-1"
-3
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
3. Irregularities
The following irregularities were noted:
a. Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries , Inc.
(1) Bidder entered the following statement in
lieu of lump sum prices in the spaces pro-
vided for prices for Divisions 1 and 2 on
Pages D50-6 and D50-7:
"See Combined Price, page D50-9"
(2) Bidder revised the wording on page D50-6 of
the proposal as follows:
Original: "The following performance guarantees
are included in the proposal: " (This
statement is followed by Paragraphs
a and b which stipulate the specific
`�►� guarantee requirements .)
Revised "The performance guarantees are
included in Pentech/Houdaille
Proposal nM-94-0013, dated July 22 ,
1977, annexed hereto. and supercedes
paragraphs a) and b) below. "
(3) Bidder revised the wording on page D50-7 of the
proposal as follows :
Original: "The following guarantees are
included in this proposal: " (This
statement is followed by Paragraphs
a, b and c which stipulate the speci-
fic guarantee requirements . )
Revised "The performance guarantees are
included in Pentech/Houdaille Quota-
tion OM-94-0013, datec? July 22, 1977,
annexed hereto and su�perccdes para-
graphs a) , b) and c) below. "
"E-3" AGENDA ITEM #.4(B) (5) "E-311
i
-4-
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(4) Bidder revised the wording on page D50-9 of
the proposal as follows:
Original: "Combination of Divisions 1 and 2
Lump Sum to be deducted from the
Sum Total of the Bid. " (This
statement is followed by space to
enter words and figures for the
Bidder 's deduction, if any. )
Revised "Combination of Divisions 1 and 2
Lump Sum for the Sum Total o£ the
Bid. For the combined equivalent
of Division 1 & 2. Six million,
four hundred ninety-eight thousand
DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($6,498 ,000 . 00) . "
(5) Bidder entered the following statement on page
D50-9 in the space to be used for entering any
statements contingent upon award:
"Does not apply - see Pentech/Houdaille
Quotation M-94-0013 , dated July 22, 1977. "
(6) Bidder proposal was signed by Marshall L. Mallak,
Marketing Manager. Mr. Mallak' s name does
appear as a principal on the list of persons and
parties interested in the proposal as shown on
page D50-12.
(7) Bidder attached the following documents to his
proposal: .
(a) Pentech 's letter to the Board of Directors-
of .-County Sanitation District ;;1 dated
July 22, 1977. (Exhibit II)
(b) Pen-tech's proposal. (Exhibit III)
(8) Bidder 's letter contains the following statement:
"Our quotation is Lased upon an "'installed
basis" for which installation will ue provided
by a California licensed contractor as shown
in the proposal and bond forms. " �
11E-4" .AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) _ : _ :. "E-4"
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(9) Bidder •entered the Contractor 's License No. of
Weardco Construction Co. , 10910 S . Shoemaker,
Santa Fe Springs, California on page D50-11 of
the Proposal instead of the Bidder's license
number. (Exhibit IV) (It should be noted that
the Contract Documents require the Bidder to
be licensed in the State of California and
qualified to perform the work described in the
Contract. )
(10) Bidder included the following statements in
his proposal:
(a) Page 1', last paragraph:
"Equipment and services proposed under this
proposal will be furnished as per the follow-
ing description. In the event of any differ-
ences in requirements of the specifications
and items quoted below, the following quoted
v items will take precedence. Any items not
included in this proposal which are not
required for the PENTOXF process but are
required under the scope of the detailed
specifications will not be furnished. A
general layout drawing is attached as to
how the equipment will be arranged. "
(b) Page 5, last paragraph and page 6 , first
paragraph:
"ITEM ;116 PERFORMJTTI10E TESTS AFTER INSTALLATION
The test shall be conducted by
Pentech per section 52-11 of Job
No. P2-23-2 with the following
modifications .
1) Items , f, r, g, on page D42-12
will not be" followed. Instead, air
flow to each stage shall rye measured
by a manometer. The oxygen feed rate
to last stage in cu. ft./day shall be
monitored. The oi:ygen uptake rate
measurement in each stage shall then
be conducted according to the inethod
\"ol followed by the Iowa State University. "
(It :should be noted that the specifications dc)t:-,s
not contain a page "D42-12" and page: D52-12 of
the: specifications does not contain an itcrn "r" . )
"E-5" AGENDA ITEM! ##(B) (5) "E-5"
-6-
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(c) Page 6, second paragraph:
I
"The method of making such corrections
and averages shall be mutually agreed
upon by the Engineer and Pentech. "
(It should be noted that this statement
in the Bidder 's Proposal conflicts with
the intent of the Contract Documents
with regard to the responsibilities of .
the Engineer. )
(11) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not affixed
to the Bidder's Proposal 'or to the Bidder's Bond.
(12) The corporate seal of the surety was not affixed
to the Bidder's Bond.
(13) The Bidder 's Bond was signed by Richard W. Greene,
Assistant Treasurer. Mr. Greene 's name does not
appear as a principal on the list of persons or
parties interested in the proposal as shown on
page D50-12 . Mr . Greene did not sign the Pro-
posal. Mr. mallak did not sign the Bidder 's Bond.
(14) Bidder listed Neardco Construction Co. as the
only entry on their list of subcontractors and
indicated Weardco' s Portion (Type of Work) as
"installation" . Bidder did not specify- Civil,
Mechanical , Electrical or other construction
as to the type of work Weardco would perform.
b. Catalytic, Inc. :
(1) Bidder 'entered the following on page D50-9 in
the space to be used for entering any statements
contingent upon award:
IV. J. O' Connor, Senior Vice President
Catalytic, Inc. , a .,holly owned sub-
sidiary of Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc. "
(2) The corporate seal of the Ridder was not affixed
to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the Bidder 's Bond. �
"E-6" AGENDA iTEM.44W (5) 11E-6"
-7-
,low Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(3) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
c. H. C. Smith Construction Co. i
(1) Bidder did not enter the name of the major
equipment supplier for oxygen generation
and storage facilities under the list of
subcontractors on page D50-10 of the Proposal.
(2) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(3) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
d. Granite Construction Company:
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) ,The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder's Bond.
e. University Mechanical & Engineering- Contractors , Inc.
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) Thy corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to' the Bidder 's Bond.
(3) The Bidder 's proposal was signed by Fred C.
Kirschner, Senior Vice President. The Bidder 's
Bond was signed by a different individual,
signature undecipherable.
f. Kenneth Fraser Co. , Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
1,E-7" AGENDA ITEM A(B) (5) 11E-7"
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
g. Maecon, Inc.•:
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
h. Burke Mechanical Contractors :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder' s Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
i. Gentry-Rados (A Joint Venture) :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
j . Brinderson Corp. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder ' s Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
(3) The Bidder 's Proposal was signed by N. Hyde.
The Bidder 's Dor_d was signed by Gary
Brinderson, President.
k. F. B. Gardner Co. , Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Didder ' s Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
"E-8" AGENDA -ITEM #4(B) (5) "E-o"
-9-
v.d
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
1. Alaska Constructors , Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder's Bond.
(3) Bidder submitted his Bidder 's Bond on his surety
Company 's form in lieu of the Bidder's Bond form
in the bidding documents.
m. Peter Kiewet Sons ' Company:
(1) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
n. Pascal and Ludwig, Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond:
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
4. List of Subcontractors
A Schedule of the List of Subcontractors as indicated by the
Bidders on Page D50-10 of their Proposals , is attached here-
with as Exhibit V.
5. Contingent Conditions
a. Granite Construction Company:
(1) Bidder entered the following statement on page
D50-9 :
"Granite Construction Company will not
accept Award of Division 2 alone. "
"E-9" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) „E_9„
-10-
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
6. Combination of Bids
The two combinaL-i.ons of the separate bids for Divisions 1 and
2 submitted by the second and third low bidders does not re-
sult in a price that is lower than the combined price for
both Divisions submitted by the low and second low bidders .
The low and second low combined bids are lower than any com-
bination of individual bids for Divisions 1 and 2.
The low bidder did not submit separate prices for each
Division, thus they are. not available for combination with
separate prices submitted by other Bidders .
7. Reference Requirements
a. In a letter from the State of California State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to the County Sanitation
Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) dated April 6 , 1976
(Ref. 510 : RAG) , which approved the design concept, the
following statement appears :
"The Division of Water Quality with the
concurrence of. the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency hereby approves the concept
of constructing tie 75 MGD of pure oxygen
improved treatment presented as alternative
104 in the supplement to Project Report and
as described in this letter.
b. The above letter lists the following items as eligible
for grant participation:
(1) Oxygen Generation and Storage - The eligible
average daily flow is 75 MGD with a diurnal
peaking factor of 1. 3 and a peak wet wea t'�er
flow of 150 MGD. The average BOD of the pri-
mary effluent has been determined to be 225
mg/1 with a diurnal, weekly and monthly total
peaking faction of 1. 8. These numbers are to
be analyzed and confirmed during the design work.
(2) Oxygenation Tanks , Secondary Clarifiers and Waste _
ActivaL 'd Sludge Flotation Thickener -- The design
of these is to be based upon an average daily
flow of 75 MGD and a peak wet- weather flow of
150 MGD.
"E-10" AGEENDA ITEM #f4(B) (5) "E-10"
-11-
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
C. A letter from the SWRCB to the CSDOC dated February
17, 1977, included a request as to the methods that
would be used to insure compliance with two specific
contractural conditions. The two conditions (C) and
the subsequent methods (14) to insure compliance are
listed in the Engineer '.s letter dated March 2, 1977,
to the CSDOC as follows :
(1) (C) Award of the contract must be to the
"lowest responsive responsible bidder. "
(M) Detailed specifications include this
statement on page D50-28.
(2) (C) There should be a means of guaranteeing
that sufficient oxygen will be transferred
to the mixed liquor to remove the required
amount of BOD.
(M) The specifications do provide a guarantee
for oxygen transfer. - Refer to page D50-12.
We question whether we can get a contractor
to bid based on a guarantee to remove BOD,
particularly since there was no pilot work
done.
8. Recommendation
The low bidder, Pentech-Houdaille, is not the lowest respon-
sive responsible bidder. This statement is based upon the
following:
a. Non-compliance with the requirement for being
licens2d in the State of California as stated
in Section 50," Article 50-2, page D50-3 of the
Special Provisions .
b. Non-compliance with the requirement for being
qualified to perform the work as a Prime Contrac-
tor as stated in Section 50, Article 50-2, page
D50-3 of the Special Provisions. Pentech-Houdaille
has not performed as a Prime Contractor on a pro-
ject of this magnitude.
c. Non-compliance with the requirements for guarantees
as listed on pages D50-6 and 50-7 of the Proposal.
"E-11" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5)
-12-
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California l,„J
d. Non-compliance with the general requirement to
furnish equipment in accordance with the plans
and specifications.
e. Non-compliance with following the decisions of
the Engineer regarding tests as authorized by
the Contract Documents.
f. Non-compliance with submitting a list of com-
parable facility installations indicative of
a successful record of performance as required
by Item No. 4 , Page 2 of 5 of Addendum No. 1.
g. Non-compliance with the Contract Documents in
accordance with the above references to the
concept approval letter.
The second low bidder has been investigated and found to be
qualified.
Subject to the opinion of your attorney that the proposal
of the second low bidder, Catalytic, Inc. is a legal and
binding proposal complying with the requirements of the
• County Sanitation Districts of Orange County , California,
we recommend that a Contract for Divisions 1 and 2 be
awarded to Catalytic, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of
Air Products & Chemicals , Inc. , 1500 I•:arket Street, Centre
Square West, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the amount of
$8,273,000. 00.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS/
GREELEY AND HANSEN
EFB:mk Elmer F. Ballotti
�.d
"E-12" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) "E-12"
PENTECH PAOUDAILLE Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
219 East Fourth Street. Cedar Falls. Iowa 50613 U.S.A.
Telephone (319)277-4220 Telex 465632
July 22 , 1977
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District 81
Orange County, State of California -
' Re : Division I - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities
Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
For 7S MGD Improved Treatment at Plant #2
Job RP2-23-2
Bids Due 11 : 00 a.m. , July 26, 1977
Gentlemen :
In accordance with your advertisement for bid for subject
project , Pentech Division , Houdaille Industries , Inc. is
pleased to submit herewith its formal proposal tM-94-0013,
dated July 22 , 1977 .
Your proposal and bond form has been fully executed and
is accompanied with our bid bond covering 10% of our
bid price.
The "PENTOX" system as offered in our quotation is equal
in all respects to the system covered in your specifications
and offers substantial savings to the Orange County
Sanitation Districts its initial capital costs and operating
costs . The combined savings offer you the opportunity to
consider the Pentech/Houdaille "PENTOX" system as a viable
alternative in a system that will offer the same performance
treatment efficiencies to that specified.
The equipment covered in our proposal is substantiated with
a performance guarantee covering the "PENTOX" system and in
accordance with the bid requirements will be fully supported
with the necessary performance bonds to the satisfactio;l of
the Orange County Sanitation Districts . All equipment which
we propose herewith will be installed in the structures as
provided for in the engineers plans .
"E-13"' AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) "E-13"
Orange County Page 2 July 22 , 1977
Our quotation is' based on an "installed basis" for which
installation will be provided by a California licensed
contractor as shown in the proposal and bond forms .
Your review and study of this offering will find the
"PENTOX" system as being most cost effective meeting
the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is our sincere desire to reassure you that Pentech/
Houdaille , backed with 90 years of experience in
American industry, meets the full intent in being a
responsive bidder. Included herewith is a copy of
Houdaille Industries , Inc. annual report for 1976 .
It is with our most sincerest feelings that we submit
this quotation to you as being the only viable alternative
of furnishing the most cost effective system available
and still maintaining maximum performance .
Very truly yours ,
Marshall L. 2.1a.1lak
Marketing Manager
t,iLM/t j b
Enc.
r �
"E-14" AGENDA ITEM #4(s) (5) "E-14"
PLNBERTI-IY -�, OL AJLLE
r Willer & Wade Wnt1•r Systerns Division
Houdarlle Industriwi. Inc.
219 East Fourth Stir-et
Cedar Falls. Iowa 50613
(319)277-4220
�..r�
auzu-
��
PROJECT: ENGINEER:
COUNTY SANITATION- DISTRICTS OF ORANGE . JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - DIVISION 1 - GREELEY .& NA";SON
OXYGEN GENERATIO`! & STORAGE FACILITY
DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITY
FOR 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT
# 2 - JOB NO. P2-23-2
••.:: "wa^*w•rar.`TN•.Y.«,wsr.,+3.r•.a1�l...t..ti....�rs*+ni�r , .w��r4!I+!..►..r�.nwy�.'•1j•.r?.awe'�►�'f-e.'�-?u`!+!�_�i!`w'!M='ftyw�i"���r�.�'�'��%
I •t
i.'
•- .. • •:. - :',�-1st i:• '�.._I
- :'1 .�
.. � . •t• . .yam-.•. •J' ••J••• -.N —S^�• _ '.j^+- •
• .. .. •- - -r _ may;•.
�• ..s 'wt --
t. s .. •. - ',.�-.�_' .<i.'�' .•�t� ..�. +.;=, :ice i
. '.-f ..•);1'+..�._ i�,•r\� it
♦ -
_ fit:•' .e..r �:. r�f• �•%: `'it:.::�.�_.. .�=i. _ sa',' a: •a•.�• .Y. _•�.r..:
\'S. .t .r.•- .\,i ••i:^ •� :1r:.1' ji.• •�� !\,ram •4:.�y/••ter.
►' ...t: ::�. tit :�.� .��•'. :•.•.::.:;;� si ••' ,'.��`;•+,��
t• �� ••.tr.� ••,�' �ri.t. .•1♦ _ •s:.-� :••,-/,• 'i�V+�. .,.t _ `:~.I::rj:�� ..i-\• �• +•9•' t-•.!
Y`•: •,Y��.-.—.i f:. � :i• .\«. ,fir=,•:' M .t��♦ •r: ••'f:. i�•. �1•1
41
.. 'T'.S1•• 'i: !.J• :f «�1�-�;i; f••( •C'•�:�:.:v• •�Y,«• '(•')y:n «tr•,ci• ••.�i
-.r••••V• •.fnM•••YJ.•MI.w.•• Ww• •-_fir • •• • _ • ••• '• ' - •�f•l.f..•, •11^rI. ...w.I•w..—I�w.r.•.�...•M.•�ar.tT•1••4:••... .M•r.fti..••
"E-15l' AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5)�~
1 lT
PENTECH j��OUDAL_.,:;: Pentech Division, liou(jaille Industries. Inc.
219 East Fourth Street,Cudar Falls. Iowa 50613 U.S.A.
Telephone (319)277-4220 Telex 465632
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to propose the following PENTOX system as the functional
equivalent in a] I respects to the equipment and systems outlined in the
Special Provisions and Detailed Specifications for 'Division 1 - Oxygen
Generation and Storage _Facilities, and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant '+"•2, 'Job No. P2-23-2.
Pentech. Division of Houdaille Industries, Incorporated warrants that it
has reviewed the plans and Special Provisions 'and Detailed Specifications
for'Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities, and Division 2-
Oxygen Dissolution Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant r2,
Job No. P2=23-2, and that its proposal is for the combined equivalent of
"Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities" and "Oxygen Dissolution Facil-
ities" contained within the detailed specifications.
Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries, Incorporated, further warrants
• that it has made detailed calculations of the treatment capabilities of
the PENTOX system applied to the proposed tankage outlined in the plans
and detailed specifications based on published literature values and its
own experience, and that the treatment capabilities of the PLNTOX syste:R
are equivalent to those required in the plans and detailed specification.
Pentech warrants that it has plants in operation which exceed the MLSS
levels and organic loading rates as those specified within the specifi-
cation.
Pentech warrants that its detailed calculations and its best judgment
predict that an effluent quality of 25 mg/1 or less should be obtained
when the plant is loaded with a monthly riaximum flow of 76.15 1.1GD, con-
taining 312 mg/l at 860F. These calculations and supporting documents
are available upon request to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County, California, and its engineers.
Equipment and services proposed under this proposal will be furnished
as per the following description. In the event of any differences in
requirements of the specifications and items quoted below, the following
quoted items will take precedence. Any_i_tems not included in this pro-
Rosal which are not required for the PONTOX process tour are required
under the scope of the ct�etailed s1?ecifications will not 5-(,fiirnis_7iid. .
A general ayout draw g is attached as to-1io`w tile-"c:qulpt:tcri -i iT7�e ar- t j
ranged.
Page of 6
"E-16" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) "E-16"
-n-;
The PENTOX can!; :sts of an optimiz.ed atmospheric oxygen and high
purity oxygen system. A high efficiency jet pas-liquid contacting sys-
tem is utilized to contact atmospheric oxygen directly with mixed liquor
for direct diFsol-+-ton of atmospheric oxygen.
The system is augmented with additional jet gas-liquid contactors titil-
izing high purity. oxygen for dissolved oxygen control. Due to high ef-
ficiency and high specific oxygenation rates obtainable with the jet
gas-liquid contactors, high metabolic respiration rates are possible.
The PENTOX process is essentially a high rate system which provides func-
tionally the same performance specified in Division I and 2 of the de-
tailed specifications for Job No. P2-23-2. The system uses optimum
amounts of air and high purity oxygen for supporting metabolic activity .
of the activated sludge process and maintaining a high DO on the order -
of 6 mg/1 or greater in the effletmt of the last stage of the system.
The system is designed around the specifications to' offer a substantial
savings in the total cost of the treatment plant.
The last stage of the 8 tank system or the last two stages of the four
tank, 8 stage system will be equipped with variable frequency drives to
provide the flexibility of variable pumping and mixing rates and bulk
energy dissipation rates for floc growth and conditioning prior to sedi-
mentation. Either compressed atmospheric oxygen or high purity oxygen
can be used in these stages to provide the optimum degree of dissolved
oxygen and mixing control.
Due to the lack of spray and mechanical gear drives and mechanical
undercarriage in the gas space above the mixed liquor, the PE'JTOX system
does not require the tank freeboard shown on the plans and specifications.
Therefore it is possible to operate the PENTOX system with substantially
• less freeboard, increasing the mixed liquor operating depth and retention
time. Though this does not change the capital requirements of the PENTOX
systems, 'it does reduce the energy requirement of the treatment plant, and
will provide some improvement in effluent quality. This proposal is in
no way contengent upon increased operating levels within the tanks and
is based upon the levels specified. However, an alternate showing the
potential reduction in power *by increasing the operating depth is off-ered
at no additional cost and is detailed in the power guarantee section of
this proposal.
DIVISION 1 - OXYGEN GENERATION AND STORAGE FACILITIES EQUIVALENT
ITEM #1 AIR COMPRESSORS
Three (3) air compressors will be supplied for delivering variable at-
mospheric oxygen flow rates up to 1,490,000 pounds of oxygen per day
complete with all transfer piping required to transport the oxygen to
the dissolution facility. In addition, two (2) 6000 gallon capacity
liquid oxygen storage tanks will be provided along with two (2) vaporizer
units. The liquid oxygen tanks will be horizontal and shall be mounted
with a vaporizer unit. The vaporizer will be •dcsigned to vaporize liquid
oxygen by exposure to atmospheric air. The system will be capable of pro-
viding tap to 10 tons per day of high purity oxygen to the dissolution
facility. In addition a standby air compressor will be supplied, fully
installed and ready for operation.
"E-17" AGENDAPIft f #J(B) (5) "E-17"
Yx+tiun
• Compressors will be centrifugal tyre with all standard :accessories
including an ODi' motor with 1.15 ::crvicc factor, inlet silencer, inlet
filter, discharge silencer, inlet :Ind discharge butterfly valves, dis-
charge check valve, rubber expansion sleeves, and isolation pads. Blower
will be painted as Per the manufacturers standard.
Each compressor shall be supplied with a vibration sensing device, a
temperature sensing device, and s surge protection device.
The compressors will be designed to compress air from the atmosphere
to the pressure requirement- of the PENTOX system. The inlet condition
will be sea level and a miximum temperature of 1000F. No after-cooler
or forced lubrication system is necessary.
ITEMS 112 OUTSIDE AIR iWNIFOLD
An air manifold to carry air from the compressor discharges up to the top
of the aeration tanks will be supplied. The air manifold will be manufac-
tured of galvanized spiral weld carbon steel pipe. The pipe will be sup-
ported by concrete blocks at suitable intervals.
ITEM > 3 OXYGEN GAS *LINE
The oxygen gas line from the vaporizer to the last stage of the tanks will
be provided. The piping will be provided with all necessary valves and
.fittings required for safe operation. The piping will be of material
compatible to the service desired.
DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITIES
ITEM #4 EDDY MIX JET GAS/LIQUID CONTRACTORS
A total of one hundred and twelve (112) Eddy Mix Jet Gas/Liquid Contactors
will be supplied. The jet gas/liquid cluster shall consist of jet nozzles
mounted on a common central distribution manifold. The nozzles shall be
arranged to discharge in a radial pattern. The central manifold shall
consist of separate gas and liquid sections. The liquid portion of the
manifold shall provide uniform distribution of mixed liquor from the in-
let to each of the jet nozzles. The gas portions of the manifold shall
provide uniform distribution of gas to the mixing nozzle.
ITEM #5 PUMPS
r
Sixty-four (64) mixed liquor recycle pumps will be supplied for the system.-
In addition, two of these pumps will be supplied for standby. The pw-,,Ps
will be suitable for 480 v, 60 cycle, 3 Phase electric operation. The
pumps will be designed to provide necessary mixed liquor flow to the jet
gas/liquid contactors. The pumps will be supplied complete with motor.
The pump will be painted per manufacturing standards.
ITEM 96 IN-BASIN AIR A1ND LIQUID PIPING
In-basin air and liquid piping required for the PENTOX system will be
furnished complete. The liquid piping; will connect pump and aerator and
air piping will connect outside air manifold to the aerator. All in-basin
piping; will be manufactured of FRIG ;is leer 'PS-15=69 specifications. The
piping will be siepport:ed at appropriate spacing by carbon steel supports.
" _ Page 3 of 6Xl�\5 �,
E 18" AGENDA ITEM #4(a) (5) "E-18"
ITEM N7 VARIABLE -FREQUENCY DR1177 FOR 'T11E "LAST STAGE PM IPS
All pumps in each last stage of the 8 tank system or the last two stages
of the 4 tank system will be 'equipped with variable frequency drive en-
abling the £low and mixing rates. -
ITEM 98 CONTROLS
The controls necessary for the continuous operation of the compressors,
liquid oxygen tanks, and aerators will he furnished. Necessary controls
for the compressors and liquid storage tanks will be furnished for control
room and for local mounting.
ITEM #9 ENGINEERING hMIUALS
Operating and Maintenance Manuals will be supplied for all major equip-
ment as per specifications.
ITEM 910 - START UP AND TRAINING SERVICE
Pentech will provide a qualified representative to supervise the erection
crews. A qualified representative will provide start up service for a
period of two (2) weeks. A training session of at least 3 weeks will be
held for the plant operators and districts' supervisory personnel per the
specifications.
ITEM R11 PERFOR1MANCE GUARANTEE
Pentech guarantees that the oxygen supply and dissolution facilities, when
started up and operated in accordance with Pentech operating instructions,
and when the waste water characteristics are as set forth in the detailed
specifications (Job No. P2-23-2) section headed "Oxygen Dissolution facil-
ities", and when operating in aeration tanks constructed as described in
the detailed specifications and with clarifier constructed as described
and when design operating conditions as described in section 54-6 (a) are
attained and tested in accordance with the procedure described in the
next item of this proposal, will:
a) Maintain an average dissolved oxygen content in the effluent from the
last stage of each of the 8 tanks of not less than 6.O mg/1 at design flow
and BOD loading conditions and at a temperature of 78oF and not less than
2.0 mg/1 at ma ximmn monthly flow and BOD Loading conditions and a temp-
erature of 860F.
b) Dissolve in the waste water not less than 200,000 pounds per day of
gaseous oxygen at design flow and BOD loadiney conditions and at a waste
water temperature of 78oF or provide all the necessary process oxyr�en in
solution demanded by or required by the wastewater at design floss and BOD
loading and temperature for treatm^nt of the wastewater.
c) Dissolve in the wastewater not less than 263,000 pounds per day of
gaseous oxygen at maximum monthly flow and 1101) loading, conditions and
At n wastewater tci;iperzture of FX,01' or provide all the necessary process
oxygen in solution desaanded by or required by thO s,:ist.ewater at maxirn:s
monthly flow and BOD loading and tr;1.1pc;r;1Wrc for treatment of the waste-
water.
Page 4 of 6
E-19 AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5)
d) Power requi.r d *n -rn),i 0o n4equate treatment under design and max-
imum monthly flow and luad conditions will not exceed. the following
values:
_ .. : :,:• �;' �: • Design Max. Monthly
Operating Level
16.5 ft. 2770 K1V 3404 K1
19.5 ft. 2500 KW 2981 0
The above power figures include both the pumping (mixing) power and the
oxygen supply ( air compressor power) . The equivalent power of the de-
sign high purity oxygen oxygen flow of 2 tons/day is approximately 31 KIV.
ITEM #12 PRICE
The price of the PENTOX system completely. installed', as .-described herein
is $6,498,000. The price includes freight and applicable taxes.
ITEM n 13 SI-IIP,,fENT
A complete schedule of shipment will be submitted within 30 days from the
aware of contract.
ITEM 014 BILLING PERIOD
Partial billing against partial shipment shall be allowed per the speci-
fications.
ITEM r 15 PERFOILLLANCE TESTS
a) Aerators: Aerators of each type will be tested in Pentech test tank
(55' diameter) at the operating water depth of 16.5' or 19.S1 . The test
procedure will be as recommended by PEMA for diffused aeration system.
The model used to calculate Cs will be the dynamic saturation mothod by
long term aeration corrected for obsorption efficiency.
b) Pumps: One pump of each kind will be factory tested for its head
GPM power drawn characteristics.
c) Compressors: The compressors will be factory tested for their SCF,i-
psig power characteristics.
d) Motors : Every motor will be given routine factory tests consisting
of current, resistance, high potential, and bearing inspection.
e) Noise Tests: A standard noise level test will be done for one of the
compressors at the factory testing lab as per factory's methods.
ITEM #16 PE.RFORMANCE TESTS AFTER INSTALLNTIO\
The test shall be conducted by Pentech per section 52-11 of Job No.
I'2-23-2 with the following r..odi ficit:ions.
Palle 5 of 6
"E-20" AGENDA ITEf I A(B) (5) "E-20"
'&wk; -
1) Items, f,r,g, on paste D42-12 will not be followed. Instead, air
flow to each stage shall be measured by a manometer. The oxygen feed
rate to last stage in cu. ft./day shall be monitored. Tlie oxygen up-
take rate measurement in each stage shall thn be conducted according
�d to the method followed by the Iowa State University.
Measurements and analytical determinations for each 7-day test shall
be corrected if necessary to conform to the design parameters and op-
erating conditions set forth in the detailed specifications 'sections
headed "Oxygen Dissolution Facilities", then averaged. In addition,
the Engineer will calculate material balances on oxygen requirements
to confirm that the system is operating properly. The method of mak-
ing such corrections and averages shall be mutually agreed upon by the
Engineer and Pentech. The resulting averages will be used in confirming
• whether or not the oxygen dissolution facilities have met the performance
guarantees set forth above.
In the event the results -of any test indicate a deficiency in the oxygen
dissolution in the subsection hereinabove headed "Performance Guarantees",
Pentech will have the right to take additional data, make adjustment to
the oxygen dissolution facilities, check and revise the District's oper-
ating procedures, inspect the total plant for operation in accordance with
specified design, determine if the influent settled sewage is biologically
treatable by conducting bench seal or Warburg treatability studies, deter-
. mine if the influent settled sewage contains toxic materials which may in-
hibit the growth of the biomass, determine values of Alpha and Beta of the
influent settled sewage, and Pentech shall then conduct a second perfor-
mance test. .
ITEM 917 ITEMS NOT INCLUDED _
Any items not specifically covered in this proposal.
�.d
Paste 6 of 6
"E-21" AGENDA ITEM 44 0) (5) "E-21"
. I
i..
• mroirr oN :i'1ATUS OF HILA):l05 CA1.11•01L41A CU:r'1.1uw,ruw n ).LC1::7:i£
Name 6, Address l.iccn::u Class .
• of lliddor Numbor Status Remarks
Pentech Division A-134877 - No License on Proposal
iroudaille Ind. , Inc. Registered Registered to Weardco
219 E. Fourth St. License a Listed Subcontractor
Cedar Falls, Iowa
-Catalytic Inc., A 209415 A,B-1,C Current
Subsidiary of Air
Products 6 Chem.Inc.
1500 Market St.
Phila., Pa.19102
H. C. Smith Cosst. Co.. 113101 A,B-1 Current
P. O. Box 2330
Newport Beach,Ca.92663 -
Granite Constr. Co. 89 A,B-1,C Current
P. O. Box 900
Watsonville, Ca.95076
University Mechanical 88552 A,B-1,C Current
6 Eng'ring Contrs. ,Inc.
301 West Dyer Road
Santa Anna,Ca.92707
Kenneth Fraser Co.,Inc. 88344 A Current
707 S. Arroyo Parkway
Pasadena, Ca.91105
11aecon, Inc. 237543 A,B-1,C Current
13546 E. Imperial Hwy.
Santa Fe -Springs,
Ca. 90670 j
Burke Mechanical Contrs. -327556 A,B-1,C Current oe [
(A Div. of Natkin & '
Company) I
1150 West Trenton i
Orange, Ca. 92667
Gentry-Rados A-281423 A,C See Legal Action Pending on
(A Joint Venture). Remarks License Registration.
180 North Sherman Ave. (Cases No. 22765 and
Corona, Ca. 91720 22687.)
Brinderson Corp. 265974 A,B-1,C Current
100 East Baker St.
Costa Mesa, Ca.92626
F. B. Gardner Co.,Inc. 94110 A,B-I,C Current
3311 San Fernando Rd.
Los Angeles,Ca.90065 -
` Alaska Constr.,Inc. 320177 A,B-1,C Current
3260 Telegraph Rd.
Ventura, Cal.93003
Peter Riewit Sons'CO. 77148 A,B-1 Current
301 East Santa Clara
Arcadia, Ca.91006
Pascal and Ludwig,Inc_ 291245 A Current
1500 1-lest Ninth St.
Upland, Ca.91786
*License Classificrltions as Listed in "California's License Law"
Class A - General Enelineoring Contractors
Class 11-1 - General Poilding Contractors
Clan. C - Specialty Contractors
' EXHIBIT IV'
T-22" AGLNDA 'ITEM .#4(B) (5) "E-22"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
`..� on Page D50-10 of the Kidding Documents
1. Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Weardco Constr. Co. 10910 So. Shoemaker Installation
Santa Fe Springs , Ca.
2. Catalytic, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business - (Type of Work)
Air Products & Chemicals, Trexlertown, Pa. Div. 1 & Div. 2
Inc. Equipment and
Technical Services
H. C. Smith Construction Newport Beach, Ca. Mechanical , Civil
Co. and other Construc-
tion
Johnson-Peltier Elec- Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical Con-
trical Contractors struction
H. C. Smith Construction Company
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Johnson-Peltier Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
4. Granite Construction Company
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
H. B. Foley Los -Angeles , Ca. Electrical
Oreile-Keefe Oakland, Ca• Painting
Lotepro CB N.Y. , N.Y. Div. 1 - Equipment
Supplier-Oxygen
Facility
Union Carbide N.Y. , N.Y. Div. II - Equipment
Supplier-Oxygen
Facility
Page 1 of 4
"E-23," ; AGENDA ITEM #f4(B) (5) „E_231,
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page DSO-10 of the isiddIng Documents
5. University Mechanical and Engineering Contractors , Inc .
Portion
Name Location of Business (Tyne of 11ork)
Union Carbide Corp. Tonawanda, N.Y. Oxygen Generation
& Storage
Union Carbide Corp. Tonawanda, N.Y. Oxygen Dissolution
FQley Eleptrs.c Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
6. Kenneth Fraser Company, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Murphy Industrial Coating Los Angeles, Ca. Painting
Western Rigging & Erec- Santa Fe Springs, Ca. Riggins
tors
Instrument Systems Glendale, Ca. Instrumentation
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
Lotepro N. Y. , N. Y. Div. 1 - Oxygen
Generation
Union Carbide N.Y., N. Y. Div. 2 - Oxygen
Dissolution
Lotepro/Union Carbide N.Y. , N.' Y. Div. 1 and 2
Combined
7. Maecon, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of 19ork)
Union Carbide Corpora- Tonawanda, N. Y. Oxygen generation
tion and dissolution
facilities
Fishback & Moore Los 7uigeles, Ca. Electrical
Page 2 of 4
"E-24 AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) "E-24"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page D50-10 of the Bidding Documents
�.d
8. Burke Mechanical Contractors
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Air Products Allentown, Pa. Oxygen Generation
and Storage Equip-
ment
Air Products Allentown, Pa. Oxygen Dissolution
Equipment
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles , Ca. Electrical
C. H. Leavell Huntington Beach, Ca. General Construction
Instrument Systems Glendale, Ca. Instrumentation
Boagg Long Beach, Ca. Equipment Erection
9 . Gentry-Rados (A Joint Venture)
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of work)
Union Carbine Tonawanda, N.Y. Major Equip.
Olgen Electric Corona, Ca. Elect/Inst.
Belmont Eng. Santa Fe Springs ,Ca. Misc. Metal
10. Brinderson Corporation
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
R. A. Kunz Construction Signal Hill, Ca. General Construction
11. F. B. Gardner Co_ , Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Tee Pee Engr. Riverside, Calif. Concrete, Rebar
Belmont Engr. Los Angeles , Cal. Misc. Metal
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles , Cal. Electrical
Page 3 of 4
"E-25" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) ,E-25"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page D50-10 of the Riddinc Documents
12. Alaska Constructors , Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Union Carbide Corp. Tonawanda, N.Y. Process Equipment
13. Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
McMullen Co. Escondido, Ca. Painting
Union Carbide Tonawanda, N.Y. Major Equipment
Supplier(Per Add. r1)
14 . Pascal and Ludwig, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Union Carbide Tonawanda, N.Y. Major Equipment
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles , Ca. Electrical
Belmont 'Los Angeles, Ca. Miscellaneous Metal
Page 4 of 4
E-26.. AGENDA ITElr1 #4(B) (5) '
"E-26"
m EXHIBI( =—I
r
V COI,"7TY S4`:1TATICN DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIfOR'IlA
CISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Af:0 11
751' 7 WPR14ED TKAPJENT AT PLANT NO.2 PenteCh Division Catniytic,lnc. ulisid+ary mitl+ CcnstructmCo-.
BIOS RECEIVED* 1ULY 26, 1977 11:00 A.M. LOCAL CIVIL TINE NUMBER Ho+"dnille Industries, Inc. of Air ProductsbChem.,Inc P. 0. Box 2330 1
219 E. Fourth Street 1500 Market Street Newport Beach, CA 92663
DIVISION UNIT OF Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 Phllaelell:iia PA 19102
NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UN1TPRiC TOTAL UNITPRICE TOTAL
L�
1 for_the Oy£efl_5Cfleratl00 and Stoma
F4 ijLtleS as sheen on The Contract Plans
_ rpll_SGeGlf.i_e[1_jrLthe Spetiiffcatjons LS (I) ~
�,55fi.000 9.662,OJOL_
2 Ifor the Cxygen_gissolution Facilities_ _ I_
co•,}title wit) the covered ei_fi?_t 4-sta e
�,_..
y cu-current Qas^1i,uid Aeration Tanks shown
m p r ins and s.ec
rr-1 �Ih,�CCat.act PI,..��__.if ied in the + -
SRecLficaticns, or four 8-stage age co-current
las_Ii4ui3 Aeption Tanks _ LS
—� _ _ — 44i OC 8 739 900•• —�
m 4u1c�muW_mJe__f!)LLisions 1 and 2 8 0 —�
Lu ri to be decl'ucted from the sum totnl of the
tiid ter the hjp�jjpp_Qj_QjtWod,5��11r1� ___(t� I68 000 113,500�
- —1
�^ Total CG.cuied nt.lcetQr D'v 5 ons 1 and 2 with lump
s!+^+_deduction for combination of both Divisions _ 6,498,000 8,273.000 8 5R6 400`•
Bid Security f _ 10': 3 10 BUID 10'> t ID BOND tt7 610 BCUD ;
IIl,U[at1 g•C, ran of FederaG Insl+rance Comp ny The Travelers 1nde-nily
iorthA.icr( + 10-0 WI liam Street Cu;.pany_� s
737_Delhwarc Avenue New Yotk N Y, 3600 1 MIshire_Blvd.
o E3uffa.i. -N. Los Anreles C-o 90010�
(1) Bidler rid not ent r �r
— sep)ratc prices fo --j
th is _snrn t '
m
r\:
v
W�It; !!.. Ui.)i:a t,,!: ;;r U1.419C ULUNI I, UAL ItUM IA
CISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 A;;D 11 EXHIBIT I-2
m 75 .,50 l%'PFr.VEG TREAPtENT AT PLANT NO.2 Granite Construction Uo. University Mechanical and Kermet.1i Fraser Co., Inc.
t P, 0, Box 900 EnF.ineerinR Contrs., Inc, 707 S. Arroyo Parkway
o; 61CS Ri CEIYED: DULY 26, 1971 11:00 A.M. LOCAL CIVIL TIME NUMBER Watsonville, CA 95076 301 W. Dyer Road Pasadena, CA S1105
Clti ISIuV -UNIT oo OF Santa Anna CA 927C7
h0. DESCRIPTION UP�ITS J 1TPR;CE TOTc;L iJi i'i;Fi;! —TO I AL L7-1T f'R;C� TCTA
1 For the xy3gP 0enerjt19Q and Storage _ _ _ ------ —
Facilities as sh:,an on The Contract Plans
'!10_5D°dlierl jll�ie Sne�jficatlons LS 5.05 0 000_ 5,380LOC_� — 5,180 UOOI
2 Fcr th C'_�y en Dissol:ition Faei_Ii.ti=s
cap�til;_Ie with the covered ei h t 4-stage
co-current Fas-liquid Aeration Tanks shown
en TnS tLYjtPL•mns and supified in the
Specific3tic_,s� or four 8_sta>?e co-current
gos_i ion Tanks LS — 5,000,000 v _i 4,440,00(�_ _ 4.620,000
TQiIlI��G;Ltg4L JJILe f9r Divisions I and 2 10,050,000 9L820,OC 9,800,000i�
Lug sun to be deducted from the sum total of the
l:iLfor she crrLi ion of j11y151411,5_l �kd SC6,000 _440 OOt� �— 320 000!
—� _. _ - i '-- .
73
' L&C-_p1t.°d ce Qr Divisions 1 and 2 with lump
T stm deduction for combination of both Divisions 9,144,000 � 9,380 00 _ 1 9Lo0,f100._
X_ - - -
a Bid Security HO" ID BOND _ 10'o ID BOND I 10 BID 6lx;D�
-I - ' ---I ---
Paclii�c Ir_lemnity_Can any- Insq(,) I:AS�qjLny of — Seaboard S;Irety-Co^L.r�
�-' 555 California Street North kreri6 3810 Wilshire Blvd I
San_f and co, CA^94j04 3500 Fifth Benue _ Los A_ngele CA_90910_—
San 0iggo,_ A� 92103 _ — __.._T_-
I
1
m •
i
N
CCL*M SA141TA ^u DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ClJP.IZTS 1, . 5. 6, 1 AND II EY.HIB -3
m 75 :�;, IVPPCVED TREA]VENT AT PL444T N0.2 Maecon, Inc. Burke Me0anical Contrs, Gentry-Ra,:os on;X.ersc,
1 EI:S P..E:EIVEO• JULY 26. 1977 11:00 A.Y. LOCAL CIVIL TIME NUfdBER 13546 E. Imperial Hwy. (A Div.of Natkin&Co•;:pany) (A Joint-Venture) IOC E?sr B:ser Str::t
N UNIT OF Santa Fe,SprinRs, CA 90670 1150 ff. Trenton 180 N. Shemin Ave, Costa Vesa. CA 92326.
LC CI.lsm UNITS __ Orange, California 92667_ Corona, CA_91720
N0. DESCRIPTION UNiT PRIC TOTAL UNiT PR1Cc TOTAL — JNIT PRICE TOTAL U°:IT FR:CTTCTAi.
1 For he Qx„etLlr^.reritiDn and Storage _—
In,iltlie.5 as shc n on The-Cog tfuct Plans
InLs — ,4000- - I 5,54 ,OM 0,cco.S _ s ,
2 Fet,1he Qxygen Dissolution Facilities
c,r atil;le with the ccv_ered I L 4-stage
cp-cCurrent pas-I'ienid Aeration Tanks shown
�T11e C:�If�cLL�us�ltd_speci-f ied_i�t —
kgciftgjj ns,sr four 8 s!anie co-current �. �— — �.r.. _.....
a4_Ij7Li0 Aeration Tanks _ LS — 4,328.617. _ _ _ 4,600,000� _ d,68T,OD0� 4,600,i^0,_
Y _
—_— Q�z.=eL floJ.Qi DLvvlsions 1 and 2 9�873,144 0 0—00J000_91- - -- 0,225,000 _ I _- 110,630,C D _
rn
C lZ_9 swn to he decucted from the sum total of the _ �—
y ILid for the eaT_r,j�ion of DIV13igns 1 an _340 0001 _—__ _ 90,000` 420,000 ' 2:",:_
muted ori_ce for Duslons I and 2 with 1
sucdedpctian for combination of both Divisions 9,533,144 —_ 9,700,000 9,8C5,000q,o-17,C^0_—
r Bid Security _— 10 BID BOND - 1(14 ID BPAT �t0''--11ID Su�.� I � 101 E:3 _"C_—
^ ThfG.T! Yel? Jn DJ Federal In_ ranee Comppr SafecQ;ldsu 3nce Cor�an� The Ae; 3 C�,u,Ity a;+•__-
Campan 3200 tYilshi a Blvd of knerica ' Surety
3600 YJ Ishi'e Blvd Los_'e7e- CA 9001 _ 8250 woortnal Avenue ' 2d0a Aij:hire Blvd. __
Los A.i Blom CA 9001YL-CA Los Anj:les4. CA 90054;_
m
1
(V '
to
i'.'.TY .t,'.1'A•IOq CISTRICIS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORIIA ];XHIBIT I-4
TT �'1:'S 1. 2. : 5. 6. 7 A.1.0 I I
1 P7- jD iPjAlvllif AT PLRIT 101 .2 E.B. Gardner Co., Inc. Alaska Constructors. Inc. Peter Kier.il Sons Co, Pascil aimt.u::•+t, 1::
011 c r 3311 Snn Fernando Road 31GO Telegraph Road e
� I:"S �_L.f�iD' 1JLY 26, 1977 11:00 A.M. LOCAL CIVIL TINE NUMBER 30I E. Santa C13ra l5co Aest %vit'+ S. -et
t.., UNIT OF Los Angeles, CA Ventura, CA 93003 Arcadia, CA 91006 L';:fand, CA S17_S
i- ,•J. I DESCRIPTIONUNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNITPRI TOTAL LINITPR-� rOTAL UNIT PF;IC.. 'I^T,-L �
r 1
+
1 FcrjLh _OxWn G?�pratioo and StoroAe - - --_ _ _ -• -_..
I
_ F3=ilLtle3_?3=h:pn_gn The_Contract Plons
• -___ Icif ieo_Injhe.Speelfirations LS -_ _ 5,589,300 - _ 1085,0.. - —�__ 6,111,000;._ - �- 6,24,734.
_2 F:r t~e Qxysen.Dissolition Facilities_ _ _ t
cr j!Wle *it:+ the crv^retl el h 4_sta e::�lrr�nwas_liquid Aeraticn_T.inks sheMn t
-- 1I31sS:Olf3;l.Plms_antl specified jn the
-- Sre:�fi.tatlens, or four 8-st;ge co-current
-_• gas li•;ci;l Aeration_Tanks LS -_ 4,659,400 _•_ 4.115,0001—
m - T4tJ.11GCClItEd1Sg islons 1 and 2 0 248 700 10 500 000 1 O54 Ooo, I 10.7e5,?,1
� ---- r t r Div . ..., .,.--'-•-- - -- - � . ,
Lug s�n to be deductei iron the sum total of the �-
_. Cid_Is�h�s�J:inati�u�LDlxlslcr151 anq 2300,000 420,OOa 730,000___
rn - -- -- - -- - --- - -- -- - - 1
'o,;LrxztelCt14E._IOLQUsW s i and 2 with iu.. _..- __ _-• _ -t--
_ s:- de::•.tcti•on,for corrmn3tion of both Divisions 9,948,100 101W.p0
Bid Security ' ___ 10^1 ID BW 10's Bloom _ 10'1 BI0 i5io I _ +10' 13 B0r:n.
Natlonpl SI rety_�orp - Hfghlaq s..t surance.•C+psn The Wen a sualty ar� Sateco Inc;lsi,:e Ct-:~^y
YiL6th Street Hiphladds l! rlerrritersl SuretyLCe_nl&y I of A erica _-
Lgs_An,ele CA Insuranc_e_C •npagx— 2404_riiIshire_81vd l - 8250 „oc.-.i! Av^•+•:e
Houst Te as _ Los An',eles��CA 90054 ._ Panorara C-ty. CA _ I
—. - -
M
1 -
VJ
O
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DI`�"SION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O:BOX 100 & SACRAMENTO 95801
(916) 445-7971
In Reply Refer
to: 555: BGS
AUG 3 1 1917
Mr. Fred A. Harper
General Manager
County Sanitation Districts
of Orane County
P.O. Box 9127
Fountain Valley, CA 9270$
C-o6-1073-130, APPROVAL TO AWARD (ATA)
We have reviewed the ATA, .dated August 3, 1977, together with
supporting material for the subject project. The California
State Water Resources Control Board hereby approves said ATA,
as noted below, and authorizes you to award the contract(s) as
follows:
CONTRACTOR JOB AMOUNT BID AMOUND ELIGIBLE
1. Catalytic, Inc. Oxygen Generation, $8, 273,000 $$, 25$, 000
Storage and
Dissolution
Facilities
The estimated eligible project costs for grant participation are as
follows:
A. Construction $$, 25$9000
B. Administrative and Legal Expenses 74,000 r
C. Land, Structures, Right of Way -0-
D. Architectural/Engineering Basic Fees -0-
E. Other Architectural/Engineering Fees 2502000
F. Equipment -0-
G. Contingency 413,000
H. Relocation Payments -0-
I. Indirect Costs -0-
J. SUB-TOTAL (A through I) 2995, 000
K. Grant Processing Fee 44, 975
L. TOTAL $9,039,975
r
"G-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (7) "G-1"
Mr. Fred A. Harper -2-
As you proceed with the award of the construction contract(s) listed
in the first paragraph of this letter, please be reminded of and/or
follow through on the following:
1. Any special condition in either your State Grant Contract
or Federal Grant Agreement which required action prior to
grant payments must be satisfied.
2. The enclosed "Notification to Labor Unions or Other
Organizations of Workers" must be reproduced in the
quantity desired, completed by the contractor, and
distributed to all unions and organizations that
might work on the job.
3. Mail to the Division of Water Quality the documents
checked on the enclosure entitled "Necessary Documents"
just as soon as each document becomes available.
4. The enclosed "Request for Clean Water Grant Payment"
(Form 258) has been revised to reflect the eligible
costs. Refer to the "Instructions for Completing
Form 25$" and the "Fiscal Record Instructions" for
directions.
�.J
No further approval of the ATA or authorization to award the
construction contract(s) will be necessary or forthcoming.
Upon start of construction, please notify Dave Nichols at
(916) 322-3442 who has been assigned to evaluate change orders
(see enclosed guidelines) and construction inspection procedures
for this project. This should be done immediately in order to
schedule a preconstruction conference.
eSe
arold B. German
niorr WRC Engineer
Enclosures: Notice to Labor Unions or Other Organizations of
Workers
List of Necessary Documents with attachments
Request for Clean Water Grant Payment Forms
Contract Change Order Guidelines
Clean Water Grant Bulletin No. 44a
cc: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
".G-2" AGENDA ITEM 94(B) (7) "G-2"
TELCPHONCS:
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS o�f I(!�`t AREA CODE 714
910
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � ,� 962962-22 411
�� ,� -
• cam'
P. O. BOX.8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9270E
1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
September 8, 1977
Subject: Oxygen Generation Storage Facilities and Oxygen Dissolution Equipment
for 75410 Improved Treatment-.at the Sanitation Districts' Treatment
Plant No. 2 in Huntington -Beach"' . . . . . . ' .
There has been some confusion regarding the above-mentioned project because of
a letter and report transmitted to your office from Pentech Houdaille of
Cedar Falls, Iowa. Although the Sanitation Districts have not received a
direct submittal of the subject letter and report, copies, along with several
inquiries, have been directed to this office. To clarify this situation, the
following is being forwarded to you for information purposes only:
In April, 1976, the State Water Resources Control Board, acting
for itself under the provisions of the State's Clean Water Bond
Act of 1970 and as agents for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, as amended, offered a Step II Grant
(preparation of plans and specifications) to the Sanitation
Districts for the purpose of designing 75-NIGD of secondary
treatment facilities to improve the quality of the wastewaters
being discharged to the Pacific Ocean. As a condition of this
Grant, a concept approval letter was forwarded which stipulated
that the system to be designed shou16 be a pure oxygen activated
sludge system. A copy of the first page of this concept
approval letter is enclosed for your information.
The construction cost for these new facilities is estimated to be approximately
$60 million. This total program has been separated into five individual
construction contracts, three of which have been awarded and the contractors
are working at the Plant No. 2 site.
On July 26, 1977, bids were received for the subject contract and on October llth,
bids will be received for the final project for this total effort.
The bids received on July 26th for the Oxygen Generation and Dissolution Equipment
ranged from a low of $6.5 million to a high of $10.4 million. The lowest bid
of $6.5 million has submitted by Pentech Foudaille of Cedar Falls, Iola. All _
bids have been carefully reviewed by the Districts' staff, the Districts'
"H-1 AGENDA ITEM P.W. 0 "H-1"
September 8, 1977
Page Two
consulting engineer, as well as the State Water Resources Control Board's
staff and it has been determined that the bid of Pentech Houdaille is a
non-responsive bid inasmuch as the proposal does not address itself to the
requirements of the plans and specifications but offers an unapproved alter-
nate. After careful review, the State Water Resources Control Board has
transmitted to the Districts an Authority to Award (ATA) dated August 31,
1977, which approved the award to Catalytic'. Inc. of Philadelphia as the
lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The bid received from Catalytic, Inc.
is in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in the amount of
$8.2 million.
The Boards of Directors of the Sanitation Districts will consider the
recommendation of the staff, Districts' consulting engineers and the ATA
letter from the State at their regular meeting of September 14, 1977. •It
is interesting to note that if the Board awards the contract to Catalytic, Inc.
in accordance with the staff's recommendation, the total contracts awarded to
date (four contracts) will be approximately $7 million under the Engineer's
Estimates. The Major Facilities, which are scheduled to be bid on October 11,
are estimated at $44.6 million.
I hope that this letter will clarify the situation and if you have any questions
regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Ray Lewis
Chief En '
REL:hje
cc: Thomas L. 'Woodruff
"H-2" AGENDA ITEM MOM "N-2"
WAY Of C 1110RNIA-111( RISOURCIS AGINCY [DMUND G. BROWN )R., Go-Of.
STAII WAM HSOURCIS CON1ROl BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY '
P. 0. Box 100 ,,'�'?'
Sacramento, CA 95801
k,.,�6) 445--7971
APR 6 1976 In Reply Refer
to: 510:RAG
Mr. Fred Harper
General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
P. 0. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY PROJECT NO. 1073, 75 MGD
SECONDARY TREATMENT, CONCEPT APPROVAL
This office has reviewed the Project Report and the supplemental information
for the subject project. The Division of Water Quality with the concurrence
of the Environmental Protection Agency hereby approves the concept of
constructing the 75 MGD of pure oxygen improved treatment presented as
alternative 104 in the supplement to Project Report and as described in
this letter.
ELIGIBLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
"ten✓ The following items will be eligible for grant participation:
A. Construction of secondary lift station with an eligible peak
flow of 150 MGD.
B. Oxygen Generation and Storage - The eligible average daily flow
is 75 MGD with a diurnal peaking factor of 1.3 and a peak wet
weather flow of 150 MGD. The average BOD of the primary effluent
has been determined to be 225 mg/1 with a diurnal, weekly and
monthly total peaking faction of 1.8. These numbers are to be ,
analyzed and confirmed during the design work.
C. Oxygenation Tanks, Secondary Clarifiers and Waste Activated- Sludge
Flotation Thickener - The design of these is to be based upon an
average daily flow of 75 MGD and a peak wet weather flow of 150 MGD.
D. Necessary in-plant piping and appurtenances.
E. Flood Protection Facilities to include a levee from the Santa Ana
River flood control levee on the north end of Plant 2 to Brookhurst
Avenue and along Brookhurst to the flood control channel.
The eligible project cost for the above facilities is estimated at $73,800,000.
"H-3" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (8) "H-311
TROY & MALI N
RONALD H.MALIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
E UROPEAN OFFICE
JOSEPH F. 1801 CENTURY PARK CAST,16t.- FLOOR 44, E
AVENUE DES CHAMPS•ELYSES
M AVNARD J..KLEINK E
RO NAL MR 75008 PA RIS,fRANCE
RO NALO W.RNER NCR LOS ANGELES r CALIFORNIA 90067
BOYNTON M.RAWLINGS _- TELEPHONE:256.44.00
NC
I L B.FISCHER TELEPHONE:(213 4
HEBERT E.SCHWARTZ )5S3.441 TELEx:280023
LUIS CARLOS DeCASTRO TELEX:69-1737 '
LEE M.POLSTER
SANFORD J.HILLSBERG CABLE:TROMALAW
PETER H.ALPERT
CLIFTON B•CATCS.III
PAUL B.HERBERT
JEFFREY W. KRAMER September 14 , 1977
PHILIP N.LEE
SHCLDON P. BERGER
Sanitation Districts of Orange County California
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley , California 92703
Attn:. Ray E. Lewis , Chief Engineer
Re: Bid Protest : Pentech Division , Houdaille
Industries, Inc. Job No. P2-23-24 75 MGD
Dear Mr . Lewis:
Pursuant to Environmental Protection Agency regulations
set forth at 40 FR 58602 through 58614 , a copy of which is
attached , we protest the Sanitation District refusal to
award the contract for the above reference job to Pentech
Division , Hondaille Industries , Inc . for the following
reasons:
1 . Pentech 's bid is $1 .7 million lower than the bid by
Catalytic, Inc. to which you propose to let the contract;
2 . Pentech 's bid is responsive in that it meets the
technical results set forth by the approved plan and speci-
fications and it provides the requisite treatment within
the tankage and process scheme provided with less use of
power;
3 . The Districts have violated the procurement require-
ments set forth by the EPA, in that they,
( i ) Ignore the EPA's intent and State policies to
encourage the promotion of open competition by not re-
stricting materials and systems for projects to one brand or
type where others will meet all reasonable design require-
ments;
( ii ) wrote the specification for bids in such a
manner that they contain proprietary , exclusionary , and
discriminatory requirements other than those based upon
performance and without providing substantiation for such
restrictions.
"I-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (9) "I-1"
TROY & M A L I N
PRoPCSSIONAL CORPORATION
Ray E. Lewis
September 13 , 1977
gad Page Two
Thus, Pentech requests that in conformance with EPA
regulations, 40 FR 58602 , 58612 , it be provided the op-
portunity to set forth additional information, plans,
specifications , reports and opinions which will show
Pentech 's system is responsive. It will also show that the
system is the most inexpensive for both initial capital cost
and operating costs.
Your letter of September 8, 1977, was the first indi-
cation Pentech received of the District 's staff and Con-
sulting Engineer ' s opinion that Pentech 's bid proposal
was non-responsiveness . In fact, Pentech specifically
inquired during the course of an earlier meeting as to
whether there were any questions whatsoever concerning their
proposal and offered to make a full scale presentation of
the PENTOX (TM) System, but were advised by the consultants
to the Districts that they were satisfied -with the descrip-
tion as offered in Pentech 's quotation to the Districts and
had no additional questions. This response, presumably,
substantiated the responsiveness of Pentech 's bid.
Thus we reauest that the Board postpones consideration
-of this project until we have the opportunity to make our
presentation. However, if the Board accepts our appeal and
desires that we make a presentation at their meeting to be
held September 14 , 1977 , please advise me immediately by
phone, in order that I can make the necessary arrangements.
Further , should the Board desire any additional material in
order to evaluate our system let me know.
If this request is rejected, then we request that the
Board abstain from awarding any contracts relating to the
above-referenced project until Pentech has had an oppor-
tunity to protest. the proposed award to all appropriate
Federal and State Agencies.
Your reply to this protest should be sent to me and a
copy directed to Mr . Marshall Mallak , Penteck Division,
Houdaille Industries , Inc. , 212 East 4th Street, Cedar
Falls, Iowa,, 51603 .
{
Since el ,
phi ip . . L e t/ }
U i
`_ftw' cc: Donald J. Saltarelli
Thomas Woodruff
"I-27 AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (9)
f
Woodruff
Oof,rrlc[R O
Rourhe & oodrufir
SUITE 0020 ARC., CODC 7-4
:A••CS G.ROVRKC
TN OMA.i 4.r.COCR UiF CALIfOR HfA CI,iRT AANn 4VILDIN0 836•611:
^LAN P WAT-i %0513 I.ORTn +•+AI►, tTRCCT O,COuy6911
ALAN R.SWANG SANIA ANA•CALIFORNIA fl2701 4CkhARD R 5-ART'✓R.
September 15, 1977
Troy & Malin
1801 Century Park Fast
Los Angeles, Ca. 90067
Attention: Philip N. Lee, Esq.
Res Your Client--Pentech Division, houdaille
Industries, Inc./County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California. a*+Job °o. P2-23-2
Dear Mr. Lee:
As General Leval Counsel for the Co=ty Sanitation
Districts of Orange County, California, I i•.ish to ack-
nowledge receipt of the bid protest filed by Pentech
Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc. , through your of-
fices on a letter bearing your fire nave dated September
14, 1977. Said letter was received by this office and
the Sanitation Districts on the sal::e date.
As you are aware, the County Sanitation Districts
had previously scheduled the. award of contract on the
above-referenced job at its regular Board of Directors
meeting of September 14, 1977, but I wish to advise ;you
that no action was taken at that time in recognition of the
protest filed by you on behalf of }►our client.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 35, Section 1.5.939, we wish to
advise you that the County Sanitation Districts have scheduled
a protest hearing on September 22, 19717 at 5: 30 p.m. at the
District offices, 108,14 Ellis Avenue, Founttain Valley, Ca.
92708. The purpose of said protest herring will be to afford
you the opportunity to present argu--ments and other evidence
in support of your view pertaining to the protest of a proposed
award to the second low bidder and a rejection of the bid
submitted by you- Client.
AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (10) "J-1"
Mr. Philip Lee
Page Two
September 15, 1977
`.d
As you and your client are aware, this job is largely
grant funded p4rsuan* to the provisions of Public Law 92--500
by the United :hates Environmental Protection Agency, and
the State of California, State Water Resources Control
Board. As such, the protest which you filed pursuant to
44 Cr R, Part 35, is in accordance with the grunt provisions
Of this contract and the procedures for resolution of said
protest are in accordance with the following itens as
determined by the District:
1. AL the time of the protest hearing, the
Directors will receive a written and verbal report from the
General legal Counsel setting forth the legal -requirements
and an opinion pertaining to the bids submitted by Pent.ech
and all other bidders as to conp'iance with the plans and
specifications.
2. . At the tire of the protest hearing , the
Board of Directors will also receive far their consideration
in resolving the protest the consulting enQi.n.eer 's bid
tabulation and analysis; correspordence and reports including
analysis if any fron t ,e State Water Resources Control Board;
correspondence and notices on behalf of your client wiled
either directly by P entLch or by your firm; an enciner- ring
report to be prepared and submitted prior to or at the
time of the hear.inq and will receive any ot1:e~ eerxespondeyce
or. written -matter s'4+mitted by any inte-rested p G»son.
3. The Directors will allow any call for verbal
presentation on behalf of the prate,tinq party Cr 3is xepre-
sentat-ive with a time linit of 20 minutes . !iu`c2 t lon,all y , they
will allow and call for verbal rcmark,-, if :any, frcni zany
other person sub-nUt-ing a bid cons.1.6 rc3rlon off ::si axd with a
time limit not to exceed 10 minutes. f
4. If Per_tech desires the Beard of Di.-eators to
consider any writ-ten material of any natare whatsoever at the
tine of the protest hearing, it rust be on file at the
District offices no later than 12: 00 p.m. , "aesday, Sep"E—ember
20, 1977. sAny written matter received after that date may
in the soli discretion of the Board of Direc-ors, be excli-1ded
from consideration on the basis of an inab: city to taaje adequate
time for evaluation and deterr:.ination of accuracy,
"J--2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (10) "J-Z'
Mr. Philip Lee
Page Three
September 15, 1977
5. The hearing as conducted by the Board of
Directors will not be governed by strict rules of judicial
evidence, either as prescribed by Federal or State law.
6. The protest hearing will not be governed by
the provisions of the California Administrative Procedure
Act, as that Act has not been adopted by the Board of
Directors as required by State law.
7. The Directors will reserve the right to
examine any witness or any person presenting evidence for
their consideration including the right to place the
witness under oath prior to considering the testimony.
. S. Upon receipt of all verbal and written
testimony, the Directors will hold the hearing and will
make a determination either at that tire or after the
matter is taken under submission as determined by vote of
the Directors.
9. Prior to the protest hearing on September 22,
the District. must be in receipt of a written extension of
the Period for acceptance of the bid and bonds of Pc-ntech-
Houdaille from a final award date of October 26, 1977 , to
December 1, 1977, in the event that either investigation or other
procedures preclude the award within the 90-day limitation as
prescribed by the plans and specifications. The rurpose of
the extension is that in the event the award is nade to Pentech-
Houdaille, that it be made within the time extension. P,c
wish to advise you that if Pentech-Houdaiile fails to either
intentionally or otherwise provide the extension. of the
period that the District will consider the exercise o;: its
rignts_set forth in 40 CFRL Section_ 1c . 939 (6l i2) fzit,)_ to
surmnarily disniss the protest.---- - - - -
Very truly yours, i
R E & W ODRUFF
Thomas L. Woodruff
T LIN =pj General Counsel
cc: Board of Directors, County Sanitation Districts
EPA, Region IX Headquarters, Grant Division
EPA, Region IX Headquarters , Legal Division
State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water
Grant Program Section
Statc Water Resources Control Board, Legal Division
Catalytic, Inc. , ?;o. 2 Bidder
All other bidders
John CarollO Engineers/Greeley and Handen
010-3" AGENDA ITT #4(B) (10) „J_3„
JOHN GREELEY
CAROLLO ANO
ENGINEERS HANSEN
A JOINT VENTURE
18437 MI.Langley SI..Suite N.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708 Area Code(714)963.9851
PLf A':L ADDHCSS E+i t't v TO
GNIlI' AND HAP.- .t
September 19 , 1977 CHICAGO. K 1.11101s
Mr. Fred A. Harper
General Manager
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County
P. 0. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Subject: 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2
Job P2-23-2 Oxygen Generation and Storage
Facilities and Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
Attention:Mr. Ray E. Lewis
Chief Engineer
Dear Mr. Harper:
We are enclosing herewith one copy of the "Memorandum
Report on Alternative Activated Sludge Arrangements" , com-
piled at Mr. Lewis ' request. The purpose of the Report is
to chronologically summarize the events that led to the
decision to specify the pure oxygen aeration system spe-
cified in the Job P2-23-2 Contract Documents. The Report
also briefly discusses the PENTOX System submitted by
Pentech Houdaille in their proposal as an alternative
to the system specified.
Yours very truly,
JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS/
GREELEY AND HANSEN
Elmer F. Ballotti
EFB:mfb
Encl.
CC: Walter Howard
"K-1" AGENDA ITEM §4(B) (11) "K-1"
. hard
MEMORANDUM REPORT
ON
ALTERNATIVE ACTIVATED SLUDGE ARRANGEMENTS
75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT
AT PLANT NO. 1
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS — GREELEY AND HANSEN
SEPTEMBER 19 , 1977
"K-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) "K-1"
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
\ftp" 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATDIENT
AT PLANT NO. 2
Memorandum
on
Alternative Activated Sludge Arrangements
Joint Venture
John Carollo Engineers
Greeley and Hansen
September 19 , 1977
1. Introduction
The "Project Report for Improved Treatment at Plant
. No. 2" dated March, 1974 and the "Supplement to Project
Report for Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2" dated
January ,1976 as prepared by John Carollo Engineers con-
. �.r✓
sidered a number of alternatives available to provide the
required degree of treatment for the 75 mgd improved treat-
ment module planned for Plant No. 2 . Based on these studies ,
the oxygen activated sludge process was determined to be
the most cost effective alternative. In accordance with
established procedures, the California State dater Resources
Control Board issued a concept approval letter dated
April 6 , 1976 stipulating that the Sanitation Districts
proceed with the design of the 75 mgd plant based on the
oxygen activated sludge process.
"K-3" AGENDA 1TEm -tr'4(B) (11) "K_3"
2 .
According3: , a scope of engineering services was deter-
mined and the engineering work required to prepare final
plans and specifications was authorized to proceed on
April 16 , 1976 . The scheduled completion was established
as approximately 16 months after authorization to proceed.
This memorandum summarizes the design procedures followe4 ,
• tabulates the design studies made, outlines the design con-
siderations related to the oxygen activated sludge system
and presents a brief discussion of PENTOX Modified Pure
Oxygen System proposed by the Pentech Division of Houdaille
Industries, Inc.
2 . Design Procedures
The method of approach utilized to insure that the
treatment plant operations staff of the Sanitation Districts
were fully apprised of the design considerations being in-
corporated into the project emphasized frequent and detailed
discussions between operations and design staffs . These
discussions developed an intimate familiarity with the
currently operating oxygen activated sludge systems . The
studies and discussions included a review of full scale
systems that were in operation and a detailed study of
significant data received from pilot operations using the
oxygen activated sludge system under consideration.
"K-4" AGENDA 1TBI #4(s) (11) "K-4"
3.
Based on these data and the wastewater character-
istics of Plant No. 2, a detailed bases of design was deter-
mined for the plant. The bases of design established the
design criteria for all subsystems included in the overall
process. Oxygen transfer requirements, reactor mixing re-
quirements, return sludge rates, and design parameters for.
other support systems and subsystems were studied, reviewed
with operations and modified as required. Following this
rigorous process, final design details incorporating these
design studies were developed.
3. Design Studies
In accordance with the procedures outlined above, .the
design studies made were summarized in 'a series of Design
Memoranda as follows:
No. Description Date
1. Project Development for Design Studies 6/76
2. Master Planning 7/76
3. Bases of Design 7/76
4. Construction Schedule and Organization
of Contracts 6/76
5. Plant Hydraulics and Primary
Effluent Pump Station 6/76
5A. Influent Plant Hydraulics 9/76
"K-5" AGENDA ITEM #r4(B) (11) "K-5"
4 .
No. Description Date
6 .- Aeration 'Tanks and Oxygen Dissolution
Equipment Design 9/76
6A. as (6) above using FMC Rotating Active
Diffusers 11/76
7 . Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities 9/76
7A. Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities
with Constant 75 MGD Flow 10/76
7B. Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities
with Minimum 75 MGD Flow 10/76
8. Secondary Clarifier Basins 6/76
8A. Secondary Clarifiers - Alternate
Sludge Collector Equipment 2/77
9A. Secondary Sludge System 2/77
10. Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 9/76
10A. Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 5/77
11. Operations Center 6/77
12. Digester Gas Production and
Consumption Evaluation 10/76
13A. Electrical Master Planning Medium
Voltage 6/76
15. Yard, Utilities and Support Systems 6/76
15A. Plant Air System Compressor Selection 3/77
Misc. Prepare Standby Installation 4/77
In addition to the above Design Memoranda and as outlined
under Paragraph 2 - Design Procedures , each of the above
Design Memoranda were reviewed in meetings with the Sanita-
tion Districts' staff including the joint venture firms and
"K-6" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11)
5.
others. Numerous conferences were arranged with the
discussions summarized in Conference Memoranda including
the following:
Memo on
Conf. No. Description
15 Meetings Between Joint Venture Firms and
other Agencies or Special •Consultants
. 20 Meetings Between Joint Venture Firms
22 Meetings Between Districts' Staff and
Joint Venture Firms
25 Meetings Between Districts' Staff and
Joint Venture Firms
Further in accordance with the requirements of the
�..,✓ California State Water Resources Control Board, a value
engineering study was prepared by an independent engineer.
The VE study was conducted in accordance with state guide-
lines and comprised a review of the Design Memoranda pre-
pared,with special emphasis on exploring other possible,
more cost effective alternative oxygen activated sludge
arrangements.
After the completion of the VE studies, those suggested
modifications that were truly more cost effective were in-
corporated into the final design.
"K-7" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) "K-711
6.
4 . Design Considerations
The studies made, discussions with the Sanitation
Districts ' staff and experiences with similar projects in
other locations identified a number of significant con-
siderations that should be incorporated in the project
including the following: .
• a. Recognition of the multiple wastewater sources
and broad variation in characteristics of the
raw waste.
b. Environmental impact of additional wastewater
treatment facilities on the surrounding area
with particular attention to noise and odors.
c. Possible additional 100 mgd expansion of
sceondary treatment facilities on the north
side of the site, including expansion of the
digital system, installation of additional �,rJ
air compressor equipment in compressor room
and installation of additional oxygen genera-
tion and storage facilities adjacent to the new
proposed facilities to be used for expanded
treatment on the north side.
d. Possible construction of additional primary tanks,
sludge thickening tanks, sludge digestion facilities .
and sludge dewatering facilities on the Plant
No. 2 site.
e. Effects on electrical power distribution system
to accomodate full 175 mgd Plant No. 2 development.
f. Mineral rights on the plant site held by others.
g. Possible U.S. Army Corps of Engineers channel
modifications adjacent to the Plant No. 2 site.
h. The need for minimizing installation of out-of-
doors machinery because of the corrosive atmosphere
of the seashore.
11K-$„ AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) „K-g„
7.
i. The need for heavy-duty and proven machinery
and sub-systems to recognize continuous
service and minimize future plant modifications.
j . The need for flexibility to insure that
operations will be able to cope with changes
• in wastewater characteristics.
S. Discussion of PENTOX Modified Pure Oxygen System
Because of the limited data available, lack of pilot
work and operational experience, a detailed discussion
of the proposed alternative process is limited to a
cursory review. The following general considerations have
been identified:
a. No oxygen generation equipment i"s included in the
, PENTOX proposal. This tends to reduce the capital
but increase the annual cost and distort capital
cost comparisons.
b. The absence of oxygen generation equipment increases
dependence on purchased sources of oxygen.
e. The consideration of purchasing all oxygen
will require detailed analysis of oxygen storage
requirements to insure adequate reserves .
d. The required blower facilities were not adequately
described in the PENTOX proposal. It is, there-
fore, not possible to determine standby requirements.
e. Possible increased size of the Compressor Room
in Pump-Compressor facility to house required
blower units.
f. Possible increased size of the Electrical Distri-
bution Center "B" to house the increased number
of blower motors. '
g. Additional Motor Control Center space for recycle
pumps and motors may need to be added.
"K-9" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) "K-9"
8.
h. Mixing criteria for jet diffusers not presented.
i. Oxygen transfer criteria for jet diffusers not
presented.
j . Control parameters for air system not detailed.
k. Control parameters for oxygen system not
detailed.
1. Ability of PENTOX system to meet specified
D.O. levels was not demonstrated.
m. Return sludge rates required for the system are
not identified.
n. Expected solids .concentrations of R.S. are
not identified.
Because of the complexity of the system designed and
specified and the lack of detailed design data for the
proposed• PENTOX system, it is not possible to determine l�.J
whether the cost proposed by the Pentech- Division of
Houdaille Industries will truly provide equipment that
will meet the level of standard specified for the designed
system. Significant additional design data and specifi-
cations will be required to determine whether the equipment
proposed provides the desired level of workmanship and
materials of construction. In the event that it is deter-
mined that the equipment is not equal, in terms of work-
manship, materials, and flexibility, additional expendi-
tures may be necessary. '
"K-10". AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) N-10"
9.
\WNd
In addition to the cost relationships of the equipment
aspects of the proposed system, the process equivalency
of the proposed system and the designed system must be
investigated. Because of the lack of actual operating
experience with the proposed system, extensive pilot data
will be necessary before the performance of the proposed
system and the designed system could be properly compared.
In the event that these additional studies. were to
demonstrate that the two systems might be sufficiently
similar operationally to warrant further cost studies ,
and the equipment comparisons indicated a. need to• upgrade
the equipment proposed, it might be necessary to prepare a
second set of contract documents and receive bids on the two
systems. The second set of contract documents would incor-
porate required building changes, electrical changes , system
changes, digital system modifications , roads and walkways
changes, outside piping, ventilation and other subsystems
modifications. The nature and extent of such modifications
to maintain the integrity of the existing design will require
comprehensive and detailed study.
The engineering studies made for the oxygen activated
sludge system specified included significant analytical and
. process work. The bases of design represents the aggregate
"K-ll" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) "K-11"
10.
experience and judgement of the combined staffs. The
approach in developing the system was based on detailed
study, sound judgement and past experience. The con-
siderations of other alternative systems will require
similar work and study. It is not possible to determine
whether the proposed system is equivalent without additional
engineering work and possibly, the preparation of com-
parable contract documents in sufficient detail to receive
competitive bids.
"K-12" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (11) "K-12"
PENTECH ru IOUDRI LLE Pentech Division. Houdaille Industries. Inc'
219 East Fourth Street. Cedar Falls, Iowa 5061;+ U S
Telephone (319)277-4220 Telex 4G5632
Confirmation of telegram sent
September 16 , 1977
September 16 , 1977
County Sanitation District #1
10844� Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley , CA 92708
Re : Division #1 - Oxygenation and Storage Facilities
Division #2 Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
For 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant #2
Job P2-23-2
Gentlemen :
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the letter of September 15 , 1977
from Rourke and Woodruff, your counsel , Pentech/Houdaille
hereby extends the period for the acceptance of . bid and
bonds from October 26 , 1977 to December 1 , 1977 .
Very truly yours ,
1
Marshall L. Mallak
Marketing Manager
PENTEC11/I1OUDAI LLE
MLNI/tjb
cc : Rourke $ I.loodruff
Lou Giordano
George Pankev
Troy & Mah1in
"L" AGENDA ITEM #4(s) (12) (A) "L.r
T R O Y & M A L I N
RONALD H.MALIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EUROPEAN OFFICE
OSEPH F.
MAYNARD J..KLEINKE 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, 16•r FLOOR 44,AVENUE DES CHAMPS-ELYSEES
RONALD M.RESCH LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90067
S 75008 PARIS,FRANCE
ONALO WARNER TELEPHONE:256.14.00
OYNTON M.RAW LINGS
NEIL B.FISCHER TELEPHONE:(213)553-4441 TELEX:280023
HERBERT E.SCHWARTZ
LUIS CARLOS DC CASTRO TELEX:69-1737
LEE M.POLSTER
SANFORD J.HILLSBERG CABLE:TROMALAW
PETER H.ALPERT
CLIFTPAUL N 8.ERBERT September 20, 1977
PAUL B.HERBERT
JEFFREY W. KRAMER
PHILIP N.LEE
SHELDON P. BERGER
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Re: Bid Protest - Pentech Division,
Houdaille Industries, Inc.
Dear Directors:
SUMMARY
1 . Pentech ' s rights to procedural due process are
violated by the following County Sanitation Districts
rulings:
(a) The requirement that Pentech supply no later
than 12 : 00 P.M. , Tuesday, September 20 , 1977,
any written material of any nature whatsoever
it desires the Board of Directors to consider
regarding its appeal;
( b) The Bid Protest Hearing being scheduled for
September 22, 1977 at 5: 30 P.M . , and
(c) The Districts allowing Pentech only twenty
minutes to make its presentation.
2 . Pentech ' s bid is responsive in that its PENTOX
SYSTEM is the functional equivalent in all respects to the
equipment and systems outlined in the Special Provisions and
Detailed Specifications for Division 1 - Oxygen Generation
and Storage Facilities , and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. .2, Job
No. P2--23-2.
3 . Pentech ' s bid is 1 . 7 million dollars lower than -
the bid by Catalytic, Inc. to which you propose to let the
contract.
4 . The PENTOX SYSTEM would provide the Sanitation
Districts with power cost savings estimated to be in excess
of $150 , 000 per year .
1IM-1" AGENDA ITEM #t4(B) (12) (B) "M-1"
T R O Y & M A L I N
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 20, 1977
Page Two
5. A State of California Contractor 's License is not
required to bid on the above-referenced project. Pentech is
not an inexperienced company, having been in business for
over ninety years and being a Fortune 500 company.
DISCUSSION
Violation of Due Process
Pentech 's procedural rights - are violated by the time
period set forth by the District to the extent that they do
.not allow Pentech adequate time to prepare and present a
full, complete, and reasonable discussion of its product.
The time periods provided do not allow Pentech time for
anything other than to explain its system. The time period
provided should also allow Pentech time to explain the
nonessential variances from the plans and specifications set
forth by the Board . Further , it should be noted that
Pentech desires to have an independent third party make a
presentation regarding the PENTOX SYSTEM, but was unable to
obtain anyone at such short notice . While Pentech is
prepared to proceed on September 22, 1977 , with its oral
presentation , we nevertheless object to the procedural
restraints as a violation of our rights.
Pentech' s Bid is Responsive
The PENTOX SYSTEM as offered in our quotation is equal
in all respects to the system covered in the Districts ' .
specifications . Pentech warrants that it has reviewed the
plans and special provisions and detailed specifications for
Division 1 and Division 2 of Job No. P2-23-3, and that its
proposal is for a combined equivalent of the "Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities" and "Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities" contained within the detailed specifications.
Our detailed calculations of the treatment capa-
bilities of the PENTOX SYSTEM as applied to the proposed
tankaged outlined in the plans and detailed specifications,
show that the treatment capabilities of the PENTOX SYSTEM
are equivalent to those required in the plans and detailed
specifications.
M-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (12) (B) "M-2"
TROY & M A L I N
PROFCSSIONAL CORPORATION
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Three
The PENTOX SYSTEM is essentially a high rate system
which provides functionally the same performance specified
in Division 1 and 2 of the detailed specifications. The
system uses optimum amounts of air and high purity oxygen
for supporting metabolic activity of the activated sludge
process and maintaining a high DO on the order of 6mg/1 or
greater in the effluent of the last stage of the system.
Capital , Operational and Maintenance Cost Savings
The system is designed around the specifications to
offer a substantial saving in the total cost of the treat-
ment plant . This is why our bid is 1 . 7 million dollars
lower than the next lowest bid. It is important to note
that none of the innovations in the treatment system create
a limiting factor effecting the desired treatment. Further-
more, the use of compressed atmospheric oxygen in the first
three stages of each four stage train in combination with
the use of a liquid oxygen in the fourth stage offers
several marked advantages because the need for cryogenic
plants has been eliminated . These advantages include a
higher degree of operational safety, a substantial decrease
in operation and maintenance requirements, and reduced
chance of component breakdown. .
Because of these modifications , not only can the
District expect . to save in excess of $150 ,000 per year in
power cost expenses, it is also estimated that the District
can expect to save nearly one-half of one million dollars
annually on reduced operation and maintenance cost. While
it may not be significant to the District 's budget, being
only 12-1/2% of a total expenditure on this project, that
our bid is 1.7 million dollars lower than the next lowest
bid, it should be noted that the savings in power , opera-
tions and maintenance cost are direct expense saving for the
Districts.
Thus, our system not only provides increased simplicity
and reliability, but it also means that the District can
have greater assurance of and confidence in continuous
"M-3" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (12) (B) "M-3"
TROY & M A L I N
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Distsricts of Orange County
September 20, 1977
Page Four
operation of a plant in achieving treatment requirements.
Pentech' s Experience
Pentech has over thirty years experience in the waste
treatment area. While much of this experience has been with
-industrial high-strength wastes, which are less predictable
than the sewage waste we are concerned with here , such
experience should show that Pentech is a reliable corpora-
tion . It should be noted that Pentech has in operation
working installations which require higher oxygen input than
the Sanitation District ' s project.'
It is important to note that Pentech's deviation from
the letter of specifications is only in its device to put
the oxygen into the reactor . The PENTOX SYSTEM is a new
development in technology based on previous field experience
and testing . While we agree that 40 Federal Register , 35 ,
Sub-Section 937-3 notes the importance of past record of
performance in evaluating the qualifications of a bidder , it
should also be noted that Sub-Section 936-13 of that same
part, notes that;
The general use of experience clauses re-
quiring equipment manufacturers to have a
record of satisfactory operation for a
specific period of time. . . is restricted to
special cases where the grantee ' s engineer
adequately justifies any such requirement in
writing.
No such written justification has been provided in this
situation.
Regarding the necessities for a California Contrac-
tor ' s License, it should be noted that no such license is
required in order to make a bid . If a bidder is successful ,
then at that time procedural steps can be taken to get the
necessary Contractor ' s License. In this situation , it
should be noted that the people who will be doing the
installation and construction are already California
Contractors . It should also be noted that 40 Federal
Register 35. 936-2, Sub-Section B notes that,
"M-4" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (12) (B) 11M-4"
TROY & MAJIN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Five
State or local laws, ordinances , regulations
or procedures which are designed to or
operate to give local or in-state bidders or
proposers preference over other bidders or
proposers shall not be employed in evaluating
bids or proposals for sub-agreements under a
grant.
Your insistance that Pentech have such license prior to
its bidding for the above-referenced jobs is clearly a
violation of this regulation.
CONCLUSION
Paragraph 35. 936-3 of the EPA' s regulations note that
"it is the policy of the Eviornmental Protection Agency to
encourage free and open competition appropriate to the type
of project work to be performed. In that regard Pentech ' si
bid is responsive in that it meets the technical results set
forth by the approved plan and specifications , and it
provides requist treatment within the tankage and processing
standard provided with less use of power .
Clearly the drawing of the specifications in such a way
that only certain systems can be supplied in spite of the
fact that other systems can produce the same treatment
results is a proprietary, exclusionary, and discrimatory
requirement other than one based upon performance . Such
action is a violation of 40 Federal Register , Part 35 .
936-13 .
Thus, it is our opinion that the PENTOX SYSTEM pro-
posed by Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc. is
responsive to the bid specifications and plans set forth by
the Sanitation Districts of Orange County California. There
is no justification for rejecting such bid and awarding the
contract to Catalytic, Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to 40 Federal Register , Part 35. 939 (d) ( 2 )
( iv) , your determination of this protest should be promptly
delivered to us in writing and should set forth a legal
"M-5" AGENDA ITEM #r4(B) (12) (B) 1IM-5"
TROD & MALIN
PROFCSSIONAL CORPORATION
�.d Board of Directors
County Board of Sanitation of Orange County
September 20 , 1977
Page Six
opinion addressing issues arising under state, territorial ,
or local law, if any, and since Step 3 Construction is
involved an Engineering Report is also appropriate .
Sincer ly,
`/
Philip N.' Lee
Troy & M�lin
AttoVneys for - Protestor
dd
11M-V" AGENDA ITEM #f4(B) (12) (B) "M-6"
LAW OFFICES OF
R01111he & A%TC)4C11•11rr
JAMCS G.nOURKC SUITE 1020 ARCH COOT 714
THOMAS L.WOODRUrr CALIFORNIA rIRST DANK 1.1UILDING 035.0 12
ALAN R WATTS 1055 NORTH MAIN STREET Of COUNSEL
ALAN R.OURNS SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 KCHNARD R. SMAni.in.
September 22, 1977
Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County
P. 0. $ox 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Re: Protest - Job No. P2-23-2
Gentlemen:
The protest filed by Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries,
Inc. (hereafter 11Pentech") , has been submitted to the Districts in
the form of two letters from their attorneys dated September 14th
and September 20th respectively. In response to the initial pro-
test letter, the Directors took no action at their regular meeting
of September 14th and set the protest hearing for September 22nd
at 5: 30 P.M. , all in accordance with protest regulations contained
in 40 CFR 35. 939 , et seq.
To assist the Directors in making the determination of the
protest, all applicable correspondence from the protesting party,
the Districts ' design engineers, State Water Resources Control
Board and prior actions of the Districts have been presented. The
Federal regulations require that the final determination and reso-
lution must be accompanied by a legal opinion addressed to the
issues raised in the protest or otherwise arising under State and
local law.
In summary, it is my opinion that the protest filed by
Pentech should be rejected and the request to award the bid to
Pentech be denied for the reasons set forth in the engineering
reports of August 3rd and August 19th respectively, together with
the discussion in support of this opinion set forth below.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. Violation of Procedural Due Process .
Protesting party claims its rights of due process have
been violated because of the time schedules established by the
Districts for the resolution of the protest. The provisions of
the Federal regulations expressly provide that the Districts should
seek to resolve any protests as promptly as possible and generally
"N-1" AGENDA HEM #4(B) (13) "N-1"
Boards of Directors
September 22 , 1977
Page Two
within three weeks after receipt. By the initial protest letter
dated September 14th, Pentech indicated their desire to make a
presentation at the Board Meeting of September 14th. For Pentech
to now assert inadequate time to present its case on September 22nd,
is both contradictory and without any evidence in support.
2. Claim of Exclusionary Specifications.
Pentech has asserted that the design specifications
violate the intent to promote open competition and to prevent
proprietary exclusion or discriminatory requirements. A review
of the design specifications leads me to the opinion that they are
not exclusionary or discriminatory in that more than one plan or
type of system is able to be utilized in the design. • Additionally,
the system was approved for final design only after completion of
preliminary studies to develop the most cost effective system. The
system now proposed by Pentox has not been installed and made oper-
ational in any known facility and, therefore, its performance
abilities are unknown and not able to be ascertained.
3. Non-responsive Bid of Pentox
The plans and specifications as approved by the Boards
and the State Water Resources Control Board, call for a pure
oxygen system, including on-site oxygen generation facilities, as
well as oxygen dissolution facilities. The Pentox system is of
a completely different design and scope in that it provides for an
air or air enriched system. Additionally, the Pentox proposal
fails to include any on-site oxygen generation facilities. It is ,
therefore, my opinion that the design and scope of the Pentox system
is so completely different from the pure oxygen design system as to
be deemed non-responsive as a matter of law.
It should be pointed out that the Federal procurement
regulations provide for a protest procedure to review plans and
specifications if they are alleged to be exclusionary or discrimin-
atory. These procedures contemplate the protest hearing in this
regard to be held and determined prior to the opening of bids. In
point of fact, Pentox acquired the plans and specifications on
May 27, 1977 and can be determined to know on that date that their
air system was contrary to the pure oxygen system in the design.
It is, therefore, my opinion that Pentox failed to comply with the
regulations requiring protest to be made as early as possible during
the procurement process and specifically within one week after the
basis of the protest is known or should be known (40 CFR 35. 939-b) .
The failure to pursue the protest by Pentox prior to bid opening
prejudices the Districts and all other interested parties in that
a valid assumption was made that no person objected to the choice
of a pure oxygen system design.
"N-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (13) "N-2"
Boards of Directors
September 22, 1977
Page Three
The fact that Pentox alleges a system of equal functional
capability is irrelevant to the procedures before you.
4. Pentech Experience:
In support of their claim that the Districts' engineers '
reasoning in support of a recommendation to disapprove Pentech is
based on lack of experience, they cite 49 CFR 35. 936-13. That
subsection does require grantees to avoid prescribing a specific
amount of experience.
A reference to the specifications of this job (51-8 and
52-8 of the General Provisions) clearly establishes that the
experience requirement was not based on a specific time. frame, but
rather:
"shall be the product of °a manufacturer with
a successful record of performance in the
design and construction of facilities of
comparable type and size" .
It is my opinion that the Pentech proposal fails to meet the
specifications set forth in 51-8 and 52-8 and is basis for rejection
of the bid.
Very truly yours,
RO E & WOODRUFF
Thomas L. Woodruff
General Counsel
TLW:hje
f�rr-3" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (13) "N-3"
TLW:pj
05/08/77
09/20/77
09/22/77
RESOLUTION NO. 77-122
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR JOB NO. P2-23-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND
11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2 -
DIVISION 1, OXYGEN, GENERATION AND STORAGE
FACILITIES; DIVISION 2 , OXYGEN DISSOLUTION
FACILITIES, JOB NO. P2-23-2, TO THE SECOND LOW
BIDDER AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF PROTEST
WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors have approved plans and
specifications and issued a Notice Inviting Bids for the con-
struction of the oxygen, generation and storage facilities and
oxygen dissolution facilities for 75 MGD improved treatment
at Plant No. 2 , otherwise described as Job No. P2-23-2; and ,
WHEREAS, the Notice Inviting Bids called .for a bid
opening at 11: 00 a.m. , July 26, 1977; and,
WHEREAS, at the time of the bid opening, the District re-
ceived 14 bids, each of which was accompanied by the required
bid security, with the apparent low bidder being Pentech
Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc. , Cedar Falls, Iowa, and
the apparent second low bidder being Catalytic, Inc. , a sub-
sidiary of Air Products & Chemical, Inc. , Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the submittal of bids to the Board of
Directors for award, the District' s Staff and the District' s
Engineers have reviewed all bids to determine compliance with
"0-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(D) "0-1"
the Notice Inviting Bids and all legal requirements attendant
thereto; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the commencement of final design, the
State Water Resources Control Board issued a concept approval
letter approving the concept of constructing a 75-MGD pure
oxygen improved treatment system; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the Notice Inviting Bids, the State
Water Resources Control Board issued a plans and specifications
approval letter dated March 16, 1977, setting forth authority
to advertise for and open bids on the project; and
WHEREAS , on September 16 , 1976�, the District. retained the
services of Consoer, Townsend and Associates to prepare a
Value Engineering Study of the pure oxygen system designed for
the Secondary Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board, by letter
dated March 21, 1977, approved the Phase I Value Engineering
Study submitted by Consoer, Townsend & Associates through the
District; and
WHEREAS, the District' s Engineers have submitted a written
analysis and recommendation to the Board of Directors, which is
concurred in by the District ' s Chief Engineer, that the bid
documents and proposals submitted by Pentech is not the lowest,
responsive, responsible bidder, in that it . fails to comply with
the requirements for being licensed in the State of California,
as stated in Section 50, Article 50-2, Page D50-3 of the
special provisions and that it fails to comply with the require-
ment for being qualified to perform the work as a prime con-
tractor and fails to comply with the requirements for guarantees ,
"0-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(D) 110-2"
and fails to comply with the general requirement to furnish
equipment in accordance with the plans and specifications; and,
WHEREAS, the protesting party, Pentech-Houdaille was made
aware on May 27, 1977, by the receipt of a complete set of
approved plans and specifications by its agent Flo-Systems, Inc. ,
that the proposed "PENTOX" system was not such as to comply with
the pure oxygen system designed by the District's Engineers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to 40 CFR 35. 939 (b) , a protest to the
procurement process is required to be made at the earliest time
possible and within one week after the basis for the protest
is known or should have been known; which is earlier; and,
WHEREAS, the failure of the protesting party, Pentech-
Houdaille to file a timely protest regarding the design re-
quirements of the District has resulted in prejudice being suf-
fered by the District and all other interested parties; and,
WHEREAS, the District' s General Counsel has submitted a
legal opinion which has been reviewed and considered in snaking
the determination and decision respecting the protest; and,
WHEREAS, the protesting party was served with notice of
the protest hearing including the procedures to be followed
in the conduct thereof on September 15 , 1977; and,
WHEREAS, all bidders on the award of contract P2-23-2
were served with notice of the time, place and procedures
relating to the protest hearing on September 15, 1977; and,
WHEREAS, the protesting party and all interested parties
have been afforded the opportunity to present arguments in
support of or in opposition to the protest, both in writing
and verbally; and,
"0-j" MENDA ITEM #lob) "0-3"
WHEREAS, the protesting party, Pentech-Houdaille, failed
to comply with the provisions of CFR 35. 939 (c) (2) in that the
Bid Protest was not served upon the other bidding parties for
the award of this contract, each of which has a direct financial
interest in the determination of the protest.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos. 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County,
California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct
and this Board of Directors so find and determine; and,
Section 2: That the bid proposal submitted by Pentech-
Houdaille fails in a material way to comply with the Notice
Inviting Bids and is generally deemed nonresponsive in that: �
A. The bidder has not complied with the requirement for
being licensed in the State of California, as stated in Section
50, Article 50-2, Page D50-3 of the Special Provisions.
B. The bidder has not complied with the requirement for
being qualified to perform the work as a prime contractor as
stated in Section 50, Article 50-2 , Page D50-3 of the Special
Provisions.
C. The bidder has failed to comply with the requirements
for guarantees as listed on Pages D50-6 and D50-7 of the
Proposal.
D. The bidder has failed to comply with the general
requirement to furnish equipment in accordance with the plans
and specifications.
�.d
110-411 AGENDA ITEM #4(D) "0-4"
E. The bidder has failed to comply with following the
decisions of the Engineers regarding tests as authorized by
the contract document.
F. The bidder has failed to comply with submitting a list
of comparable facility installations indicative of a successful
record of performance as required by Item No. 4 , Page 205 of
Addendum No. 1.
G. The bidder has failed to comply with the contract
document requirements in accordance with the above references
and to the concept approval letter issued by the State Water
Resources Control Board; and,
'Section 3 : The apparent low- bid submitted by Pentech-
Houdaille is legally defective and insufficient and is hereby
rejected in its entirety; and,
Section 4 : That the engineering report dated August 3,
1977 and supplement report dated September 19 , 1977 submitted
by John Carollo Engineers/Greeley and Hansen are hereby approved;
and,
Section 5 : That the written recommendation submitted to
the. Board of Directors by John Carollo Engineers/Greeley and
Hansen, District' s Engineers , and concurred in by the District' s
Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made to Catalytic, Inc.
for Division 1, Oxygen, Generation and Storage Facilities and
Division 2 , Oxygen Dissolution Facilities for 75-MGD Improved
Treatment at Plant No. 2 , Job No. P2-23-2, and the tabulation
of bids and the proposal for said work are hereby received and
ordered filed; and,
110-5" AGENDA ITEM #4(D) "0-5"
Section 6. The bid protest of Pentech is hereby rejected and
denied in that: lam}
(A) There is no substantial evidence to establish that
the designed system is exclusionary or discriminatory;
(B) There is substantial evidence to establish that the bid
of Pentech fails in a material way to comply with the
bid procedures and requirements;
(C) There is substantial evidence to establish that Pentech
failed to file a protest in a timely manner after having
knowledge that the proposed PENTOX system would not comply
with the design criteria and standards of the Districts'
plans;
(D) There is no substantial evidence to establish that Pentech
has been deprived of procedural due process in the
resolution of the protest.
Section 7. That award of contract is hereby approved to
Catalytic, Inc. , a subsidiary of lair Products & Chemicals , Inc. ,
in the total amount of $8,273, 000. 00, in accordance with the
terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, subject to
deferral of execution of said contract and notice to proceed
for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of written notice
of the District' s determination of this protest by the partici-
pating parties.
Section 8. That all other bids received for said work are
hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be returned to the
unsuccessful bidders; and,
Section 9 . That the Chairman and Secretary of District
No. 1, acting for itself and as agent for Districts Nos. 2 , 3 ,
110-6" AGENDA ITEM #4(D) "0-6"
5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into
and sign an agreement with said contractor for said work pursuant
to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents
therefor, in a form approved by the General Counsel; and,
Section 10. The Secretary of the Districts is hereby di-
rected to forthwith cause a copy of this Resolution, together
with a copy of the Engineer's report dated August 3, 1977 and
supplement dated September 19 , 1977, and the legal opinion of
the General Counsel to be mailed by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the protesting party--namely, Pentech-
Houdaille, to the EPA Regional Administrator and to all other
interested participating parties.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held this
day of , 1977.
"0-7" AGENDA ITEM #4(D) 110-7"
u y L y M u V J.J Z% 1 J. V 1V J n L' L' 1 July 26, 1977
-v
' CONTRACT NO. P2-23-2 11 : 00 A.M.
t
~= PROJECT TITLE DIVISION 1 - OXYGEN GENERATION AND STORAGE FACILITIES , DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN
DISSOLUTION FACILITIES FOR 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENGINEER' S ESTIMATE $ 11, 550, 000 . 00 - BUDGET AMOUNT $
REMARKS
COMBINATION DIV. 1 & 2
CONTRACTOR DIVISION 1 DIVISION 2 LUMP SUM TO BE DEDUCTED
1. Penntech Houdaille Total Bid
Cedar Falls , Iowa No Bid No Bid $6 , 498 , 000 . 00*
*Exception taken
2 . Catalytic, Inc.
m Philadelphia, PA 4, 556 , 000 3 , 885 , 000 168 , 000
3 . H. C. Smith Construction Co.
Newport Beach, CA 4, 662 , 000 4 , 077 , 900 173 ,500
a Granite Construction Co.
Watsonville, CA 5 ,050 ,000 5, 000 , 000 906 ,000
5. University Mechanical &
Engineering Contractors, Inc. 51380 , 000 4 , 440 , 000 440 ,000
Santa Ana, CA
6 . Kenneth Fraser Co. , Inc.
Pasadena, CA 51180 , 000 41620 , 000 320 ,000
Maecon, Inc.
� ' Santa Fe Springs , CA 5 ,544 ,527 4 , 328 , 617 340 ,000
i
IL
Burke Mechanical Contractors
8 ' of Natkin 5 ,400, 000 4 , 600, 000 300 , E
I
Kurn- ge, CA
_____— ......r,. � NU. YL—l3—Z BID DATE: July lb, ly / / _ 11: UU .A.M
Continued. . . .
-v COMBINATION DIV. 1 & 2
N CONTRACTOR DIVISION 1 DIVISION 2 LUMP SUM TO BE DEDUCTE'A•
Gentry-Rados , J.V.
9 • Corona, CA 5,543 ,000 4 , 682,000 420 ,000
10 . Brinderson Corporation
Costa Mesa, CA 5,290 ,000 4 , 800 ,000 250 ,000
11. F. B. Gardner Co. , Inc.
Los Angeles, CA 51589 ,300 4 , 659 ,400 300, 000
Alaska Constructors, Inc.
� 12 • Ventura, CA 6 , 085, 000 4 ,415,000 420,000
.Y
m13. Peter Kiewitt Sons Co.
Arcadia, CA 6,111,000 4 ,943 ,000 730,000
Pascal & Ludwig
Upland, CA 6 ,246 ,734 4 , 498,567 345 ,000
i
15 .
16 .
i
17.
18
i N
3 � -
19 .
/1GE?FDA ITEM t`4(B) (12) (c)
"A TECHNICAL REPORT 0l! THE PENTOXTH MODIFIED PURE OXYGEN SYSTEM"
BY
JAMES H. CLARK,- E. I.T.
AND
MIKKEL G. 14ANDT, P.E.
JULY 18, 1977 '
T
INTRODUCTION
Cost effective systems for the treatment of municipal and industrial
waste water have been developed over the years. In recent years many
systems have been introduced to the market. Every so often a truly
extraordinary system is created that matches newly developed technology
with cost effectiveness and evolves into a workable system. Such a
system is the PENTOXTM system by Pentech/Noudaille.
The following pages will describe in detail the intricacies of this
system, including operation, performance, and cost effectiveness.
Examples of existing installations utilizing Pentech jet gas/liquid
contactors are given, which are indicative of the highly efficient
system offered in PENTOX TM.
DESCRIPTION• OF PENTOXTM SYSTEM
�- PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
The PENTOXTM process consists of a number of completely mixed tanks
in series. Aeration basin mixed liquor is recirculated through jet
gas/liquid contactors by pumps, which provide the major portion of the
mixing intensity. Compressed atmospheric oxygen (AOX) is introduced to
all but the final stage of the jet gas/liquid contactors, where the
higher pressure mixed liquor entrains the oxygen and discharges the
mixture through the jet nozzles. The result is extremely efficient
oxygen transfer due to the very small bubble size and longer bubble
detention time in the basin. The amount of oxygen supplied to the basin
can be monitored and controlled for optimum power usage. More specific
details of jet aeration technology are reported elsewhere .
The remaining jet gas/liquid contactors, located in the final stage
r
of each train, are supplied with vaporized liquid oxygen (LOX) in lieu of
atmospheric oxygen. The amount of LOX introduced to the basin can also
be monitored and controlled to maintain optimum dissolved oxygen levels.
The mixing intensity in the final tank is controlled by the use of
variable speed pumps. This control is designed to achieve optimum floc
growth for settling in the final clarifier.
EQUIPMENT
There are four major components to the PENTOXTM system. One is the
jet gas/liquid contactors, each of which is circular in shape and contains
twelve (12) radially directed, equally spaced jets. The position and
direction of the jets is such that no net thrust force is imparted to
the jet gas/liquid contactor. The jet gas/liquid contactor contains an
; . inner chamber to which the motive fluid (in this case mixed liquor) is
. applied under pressure from the pump. The motive fluid exits the inner
j 1 l
chamber through an inner nozzle, and entrains the secondary fluid (in
this case AOX or LOX) located in the outer chamber. This mixture is then
released, under pressure, to the aeration basin through an outer nozzle.
This double nozzle arrangement gives very small bubbles and creates an
"eddy-mix" effect by turbulently rolling the mixed liquor in the aeration
basin. Several jet gas/liquid contactors may be placed in a basin to
assure adequate oxygen transfer and mixing.
The second major components are the centrifugal pumps, which deliver
the motive fluid to the jet gas/liquid contactors. Either dry pit or
submersible pumps may be used, with the submersible pumps being completely
retrievable for ease of maintenance. Variable speed pumps may be used
to control mixing intensity and bubble size (and, ultimately, oxygen
transfer). The pumps are selected to intricately match the jet gas/liquid
contactors for optimum pressure and discharge.
Thirdly, compressors are required to deliver the AOX to the jet
gas/liquid contactors at the correct flow rate and pressure. :Either
positive displacement or centrifugal blowers may be used, the latter
being used for higher AOX requirements. The blowers are selected to
allow for throttling capabilities, which will decrease power consumption
during periods when the oxygen demand is reduced.
The final component is the LOX injection system, which consists of
one or several liquid oxygen storage tanks, a vaporizer unit, and a
larger jet gas/liquid contactor.
The minor components of the PENTOX174 system include AOX, LOX, and
liquid piping; piping supports; blower and pump accessories; dissolved
oxygen probes; and controls.
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
Oxygen Transfer
Data obtained from numerous industrial and municipal installations,
independent testing organizations, as well as data from Pentech's testing
facilities in Prophetstown, Illinois are used to determine the expected
optimum amount of standard oxygen absorbed per unit of power required.
Basin water depth, tank geometry, and pump and blower efficiencies are
among the factors taken into account in determining jet gas/liquid
contactor performance and component selection. Several reports are
included in the appendix as examples of the type of testing undertaken7".
Atmospheric oxygen absorption efficiencies in the range of 20 to 25
percent are not uncommon for medium depth basins using Pentech jet
gas/liquid contactors, with oxygenation capacities of greater than 3 lbs
02/BHp-hr. Actual operating performance is discussed later.
Numerous tests were conducted on high purity oxygen using Pentech
jet gas/liquid contactors in 1973 at the testing facilities in Prophetstown.
These tests indicated that greater than 90% absorption efficiencies can
be achieved in tap water at standard conditions. The absorption efficiency
will vary with water depth and LOX feed rate, as shown in Figure 1 .
By utilizing the oxygen transfer models in conjunction with specific
waste water parameters such as the oxygen transfer coefficient (a) ,
oxygen saturation coefficient (S), and waste water temperature; site
conditions such as elevation; and process conditions such as the amount
of oxygen required for cell synthesis and endogenous respiration, organic
loading rate, and residual dissolved oxygen required, the standard
oxygen requirement can be calculated. A biological growth kinetic
analysis can then be performed to determine if the system might be
either growth or oxygen limited, which could possibly give an undesirable
removal efficiency.
100
90 --
80
JET SUDIAERC�� icF-
70 ,
� 24'
V 60
W(i - 20'
� 50
W
Z 40
0
►= g'
o 30
d 20
0
10
E:1
30 60 90 I20 150 160 210 240 270
GA5E5 OX`f6- F-N FLOW/ LIQUI D STREAM FLOW
(LB5. 0XVCEt4/MtLU0M L65. LIQUID FLOW)
F16- 1 ABSORPTIou F-VVICIDACY VS FLOW RATIO AT VARIOUS JEr SUBM1<P GENIC E 5
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SCALE PENBERTHY[J� OUDAILLE TITLE
DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
Machined Surfaces 1 DRW PROPHETSTOWN, ILL., USA 61277
Tolerances CKD FED MFG CODE 89117
.X :t.06 Fractions t APVD This drawing covers a proprietary itern and is the NOT REV
.XX t.03 property of Penberthy Houdaille. not to be copied or
.XXX ±.015 Angles t FiEL. CIO. u�;c(I willrrul the .approval of FIt'•nt.r�rthy. SCALE
Kinetic Models
A prediction of the oxygen uptake rate can be calculated from kinetic
coefficients determined for the waste water to be treated. The following
w
model development is based on the work of Eckenfelder and O'Connor .
Oxygen required for cell synthesis:
Substrate + b 02 + Cells + CO2 + H20) (1)
where b = 0.45 lbs 02 required
lbs BOD5 removed
Oxygen required for endogenous respiration:
Cells + a 02 ; CO2 + H2O + oxidized form (2)
where a = 1 .42 lbs 02 required
lbs VSS oxidized
Define the oxygen uptake rate, U, as the amount of oxygen required
by the cells in mg/1-day.
Then:
UV = lbs 02 uptake = b [Substrate removed] + a [cells oxidized]
day
Where V = basin volume
and: UV bQ(So-Si) + a kdXV (3)
where: Q = waste water flow rate
So= influent- substrate concentration
Si= effluent substrate concentration
k d= endogenous respiration coefficient
X = concentration of volatile suspended
solids (VSS) in the basin.
Simplifying:
U = b 4 (So-Si) + a kdX
b (So-S1) 6 + a kdX (4)
i
Where 6 = hydraulic retention time (-Q)
_ The substrate removal rate, q, can be shown to equal So-S1 .
(� Xe
Substituting, equation (4) becomes:
U = b(So-S1) 6 + a kd (So-S1) ` 6 (5)
Simplifying:
U = 9 (So-S1) [b + G a kd] (6)
5
By utilizing the Monod growth equation, which can be expressed as:
max S
q _ Y Ks+S1 (7)
where: u max = the maximum specific growth rate of the cells
Y = the yield coefficient
Ks = the Monod half-velocity coefficient
equation (6) becomes
Y(So-S1)(K +S1) b u max S
� W s Ca k + � (a)
e u Y max S1 d Ks+ S1
Equation (8) can be used to calculate the expected oxygen
uptake rate for a given substrate removal efficiency.
A second kinetic model can be developed to predict substrate removal
efficiency as a function of biological growth rate in the system. Accordingly,
the system can be shown to be not limited by cell growth for a required
effluent quality. This model is based on an often used equation relating
growth to the mean cell residence time, 6d:
e = u - kd = Yq-kd (9)
c
Where: u = the specific growth rate
and other parameters as previously defined.
and l = QXe (10)
ec XV
Where Xe = effluent solids from secondary clarifier
Accordingly,
QXe = XV (Yq-kd) (11 )
However,
X = Q(So-S1} (12)
Vq
Substituting equation (12) and equation (7) into equation (11 ) and
simplifying the following is formed:
QXe = YQ(So-S1) _ Q(So-S1) Y (Ks + S1)kd (13)
u max S1 .
By taking the partial differential of the mass of solids exiting
the system with respect to the effluent substrate concentration,
setting this partial derivative equal to zero, and solving for the
effluent concentration, the following expression is obtained:
kd So ks
S1 ` 11 max-kd (14)
which is either a maxima or minima of the function described by
equation (13) .
To prove that this value is a maxima, the second partial derivative
is taken, which gives:
2
a (QX ) Y k Q So k
�--e— = -2 d s (15) -
a Si max S13
which is less than zero, so equation (14) describes a maxima value.
Historic Comparisons of AOX Processes with High Purity Oxygen
Treatability studies examining the claimed advantages of using high
purity oxygen for domestic waste water treatment have been published in
the literature over the past several years. Some of these claimed
advantages include better liquid-solid separation in the final clarifier,
reduced sludge production, and higher substrate removal rates. These
advantages are said to arise from the elevated dissolved oxygen (D.O. )
levels, typically greater than 4 mg/l , surrounding the floc.
6
Kalinske did a substantial review of available technical literature
relating to physical and biochemical aspects of air and oxygen activated
sludge systems. He concludes that parameters such as solids settleability,
• thickening and dewatering, treatment capacity and effluent quality, and
waste sludge capacity are generally comparable with the two systems.
He also states, "The maintenance of an elevated D.O. level , above 2
mg/l , has no influence on these parameters."
7
Benefield, et al , ran a side-by-side pilot study using compressed
air and high purity oxygen. They conclude that ". . .for the same systems,
there is no apparent difference between the substrate utilization rates
of activated sludge produced under oxygenation or under conventional
aeration." They also state that for a specific substrate utilization
rate, the total biomass was the same for each unit.
e
Ball and Humenick reported on a series of laboratory studies to
determine if any differences exist in several treatment parameters under
pure oxygen conditions as compared to conventional aeration. They
concluded that ".. .no significant difference is apparent in substrate
removal kinetics, cell production and decay rates, and sludge settleability
�; under pure oxygen as compared with conventional aeration."
Englande and Eckenfelder9 reported on a study using bench scale
models, utilizing phenol , powdered milk and organic chemicals as substrates,
to establish a relationship between oxygen concentration, turbulence
intensity, and pertinent process parameters for both pilot plant and
bench scale activated sludge design. They concluded that: (1 ) A critical
D.O. level , below which substrate removal substantially decreased, was
determined for the phenol sludge to be 0.5 mg/l . (2) Neither oxygen
concentration nor turbulence intensity had any important effect on
system performance or scale-up considerations for the ranges studied.
Parameters included substrate removal rate, excess solids accumulation,
sludge settleability, and oxygen utilization. (3) Floc size was found to
be a function of the nature of the substrate, the F/M loading, the
mixing intensity, and the nature of the turbulence. (4) The floc sizes
were sufficiently small so that oxygen diffusion could not be limiting,
provided complete mixed conditions prevailed and a minimum mixed liquid
C� D.O. concentration of 1 .0 mg/l persisted. (5) Under conventional organic
loading ranges and plant operation, the diffusion of D.O. into activated
sludge floc does not appear to be a critical factor.
However, to achieve the proper mixing intensity and adequate oxygen
transfer, an efficient gas/liquid contactor and mixing system must be
utilized. Dissolved oxygen homogeneity is imperative. The mixing
intensity must be reduced near the end of the treatment train to allow
better floc growth for settling while keeping the basin properly mixed
so the floc remains in suspension and adequate DO and DO homogeneity
are maintained. This requires a high specific oxygenation capability
which is available with the PENTOXTM system.
TM
By virtue of the fact that the PENTOX system uses .jet gas/liquid
. � contactors, which impart the mixing energy in a horizontal direction at
the bottom level of the basin with fine gas bubble rise throughout the
basin, rapid turnover of the mixed liquor and DO homogeneity are assured.
�. Also, surface spray and mist are virtually eliminated. These characteristics
combined with the high mixing and absorption efficiencies available plus
the elimination of the need for cryogenic plants point to but one conclusion.
Namely, the PENTOXTM modified pure oxygen system can achieve the same
results as other available high purity oxygen systems with a lower
capital cost, while utilizing substantially less power and decreasing
maintenance requirements.
` PENTOXTM SYSTEM FOR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED -EQUIPMENT
The system will operate with eight (3) flow trains, each train
consisting of four completely mixed tanks in series. Each of the first
three tanks in each train will contain four jet gas/liquid contactors
spaced equally on the floor of the basin. The contactors will utilize
mixed liquor, supplied by recirculation pumps, as the motive fluid and
AOX, supplied by centrifugal compressors, as the secondary fluid. The
liquid and AOX flow rates through the contactors are optimally designed
to transfer 500 pounds of standard oxygen per hour to each stage (2000
standard pounds per hour per 4-stage tank) at an absorption efficiency
exceeding 20%, which is adequate to treat the maximum monthly conditions.
The AOX flow rate can be adjusted to supply a reduced amount of oxygen
during lower demand periods, which can be monitored by measuring the
residual D.O. in each basin. The reduced AOX flow rate will decrease
power consumption and increase absorption efficiency.
The last tank of each train will contain one jet gas/liquid contactor
as previously described, plus one LOX jet contactor which is larger than
the AOX contactors and operates somewhat differently. Vaporized LOX is
injected into the liquid line and a variable speed pump is used to
control the mixing intensity. The absorption efficiency will be greater
than 90%, with one to two tons of LOX per day being applied, bringing
the D.O. concentration to 6 mg/1 during design flow conditions.
3
The report by Fehr, Graham, and Associates included in the appendix
shows that the Pentech jet gas/liquid contactor system treated a municipal
waste water to an average effluent BODS concentration of 26 mg/I while
loaded at an organic loading rate of around 125 lbs/day-1000 cu.ft. , and an
average hydraulic detention time of 1 .79 hours. This loading rate and
detention time is quite similar to that proposed at Orange County, California,
which are 140 lbs/day-1000 cu.ft. and 2.66 hours, respectively.
The power required by the PENTOXTM system, including compressors
and pumps, will not exceed 2770 kw at design conditions or 3404 kw at
maximum monthly conditions. These values are for a basin water depth
of 16.5 feet. Since the additional freeboard required by high purity
oxygen systems is not necessary with the PENTOXTM system, the basin '
water depth could be increased to 19.5 ft. , in which case the power
required for the same amount of oxygen transfer would not exceed 2500
kw at design conditions or 2981 kw at maximum monthly conditions.
Accordingly, the power savings effected by the PENTOXTM system over
a comparable pure oxygen system at design conditions is 603 kw (allowing
a 31 kw power equivalent for the purchase of LOX) . The present worth
of this power savings over a 20 year period, using an interest rate of
6 7/8q and power cost of 3t/kw-hr, is $1 .7 million. By allowing the water
depth to increase to 19.5 feet, the savings at design conditions is
873 kw, the present worth of which is $2.45 million.
KINETICS
At maximum monthly flow and BOD5 concentration conditions, the
( hydraulic detention time in each tank will be 0.665 hours. By assuming
other necessary kinetic coefficients for each tank and using these
values to solve equation (8), the oxygen uptake rate can be estimated.
This value can be compared to the amount of oxygen supplied to indicate
whether the system may be oxygen limited. The assumed kinetic coefficients
(typical values reported for domestic waste water) are:
u max = 8day1
Ks = 100 mg/l
Y = 0.8
50% BOD5 removal in tanks 1 , 2, and 3
36% BOD5 removal in tank 4
The endogenous respiration rate, kd, is varied for each tank since
self consumption will increase as detention time in the system increases.
For the first tank, kd is assumed to be zero. This gives a substrate
utilization rate of 1 .2 day-1 . Solving equation (3) yields an oxygen
uptake rate of 230 lbs 02/hour. Similarly, by using kd values of 0.02
day 1, 0.03 day 1 , and 0.05 day-1 for the second, third, and fourth
basins, respectively, the specific growth rates and oxygen uptake rates
are calculated to be: 0.76 day 1 and 118 lbs 02/hr for the second tank,
and 0.38 day 1 and 60 lbs 02/hr for the third tank, and 0.14 day-1 and
22 lbs 02/hr for the final tank. Since in excess of 320 lbs 02/hr of
actual oxygen are supplied to each tank, the system will not be oxygen
limited.
By taking a macroscopic view of the entire four-stage train, using
some of the most conservative values of kinetic coefficients reported
..r in the literature (i.e. ; p max = 8 day-1 9 ks= 500 mg/l , Y = 0.8, and
kd = 0.03 day 1) and an influent BOD5 concentration of 314 mg/l ,.
equation (14) predicts an effluent BOD5 concentration of 25 mg/l . The
actual concentration that will be achieved will depend on actual growth
rates and the efficiency of the final clarifier.
Bearing in mind that equation (14) is based on the efficiency of a
single completely mixed tank, and that a four tank-in-series arrangement
as designed for Orange County, California is a much more efficient
io
process , then the preceeding analysis -clearly shows that the proposed
PENTOXTM system will be neither oxygen or growth limited.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PENTOXTM SYSTEM WILL ACHIEVE THE SAME DEGREE OF
TREATMENT AS THE HIGH PURITY OXYGEN SYSTEM AS SPECIFIED.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The PENTOXTM system by Pentech/Houdaiile utilizes about 98% AOX and
2% LOX as oxygen sources to give several marked advantages in the treatment
of waste water. Many studies have indicated that there appears to be no
advantage in using high purity oxygen instead of compressed atmospheric
oxygen in activated sludge processes. By using AOX, cryogenic plants,
with their operational and maintenance requirements, are eliminated. The
use of LOX in the final tank, with its high absorption efficiency,
allows for a lower energy density and, accordingly, a better settling
floc and higher effluent D.Q.
Pentech jet gas/liquid contactors have been proven to be one of the
most efficient oxygen transfer devices currently available, both in
terms of transfer efficiency as well as power consumption. Accordingly,
a lower operational cost is effected.
PENTOXTM is also cost effective in terms of capital cost. In
Orange County, California, the PENTOXTM system was the lowest cost
system bid by 1 .775 million dollars, or over 27 percent more than the
PENTOXTM system.
Pentech is a division of Houdaille Industries, Inc. , which is a
Fortune 500 company with assets over $200 million and net sales well
over $300 million in 1976. Pentech has the financial backing, technical
expertise, and an efficient product to offer one of the most cost effective
TM
and workable systems available. This system is PENTOX .
I"
TABLE 1 : ECONOMIC COMPARISON
PENTOX17' SECOND LOW BIDDER SAVINGS
Installed system
bid amount $ 6,498,000 $ 8,273,000 $ 1 ,775,000
Capitalized power
cost at design
conditions (20 years
@ 6 7/8 % interest and
3t per kw-hr) $ 7,880,000 $ 9,580,000 $ 1 ,700,000
TOTALS $14,378,000 $17,853,000 $ 3,475,000
Operation and
maintenance savings* $ 3,200,000
TOTAL CAPITALIZED SAVINGS $ 6,675,000
Annual power and 0 & M
savings to District $ 458,000
*Note: This value is based on a 5300,000 per year savfpgs in 0 & M because
of the elimination of cryogenic plants with the PENTOX - system. This value
should be confirmed by Orange County or its engineers.
REFERENCES
1 . Huang, J.Y.C. , and M.G. Mandt, "Jet Aeration Theory & Applications"
Presented at the 28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1973.
2. Shell , G.L. , AWARE report, Sept. , 1975.
3. Fehr, Graham, & Associates, "Comparison Study of Diffused Aeration
vs Jet Aeration", unpublished.
4. Eckenfelder, W.W. , Jr. , and D.J. O'Connor, Biological Waste Treatment,
Pergamon, New York, 1961 .
5. Monod, J. , "The Growth of Bacterial Cultures", Annual Review of
Microbiology, 3, 371 , 1949.
r-
6. Kalinske, A.A. , "Comparison of Air and Oxygen Activated Sludge
Systems", JWPCF, 48, 2472, 1976.
7. Benefield, L.D. , et al , "The• Effect of High Purity Oxygen on the Activated
Sludge Process", JWPCF, 49, 269, 1977.
8. Ball, J.E. , and M.J. Humenick, "Comparison of Air and Oxygen Activated
Sludge Kinetics and Settleability", Water Resources Symposium No. 6,
Center for Research in plater Resources, University of Texas at
Austin, 1973.
9. Englande, A.J. Jr., and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr. , "Oxygen Concentrations
and Turbulence as Parameters of Activated Sludge Scale-Up", Water
Resources Symposium No. 6, Center for Research in Water Resources,
University of Texas at Austin, 1973.
10. Levenspiel , 0. , Chemical Reaction Engineering,
r� Wiley, New York, 1967.
APPENDIX
. .. •. aaware-9 inc.
ass0ciu(�'c!
�J tiaicr cC air -- ,
W.tC trlrr F.cftnJrlJrr,Jr E.
resources Qo.rd chjfrmsw
engineers, inc. Carl&Adam r.Jr.,!'h ll..!'X.
Yrr,:Jtwr
September 26, 1975 eeA Vice 1res;Jesit
P.E.
Penberthy Division
Noudaille Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 112
Prophetstown, :l1inots 61277
Attention: Mr. Mikkel Mandt
Dear Mr. Mandt:
AWARE Fas completed its analysis of the Penberthy Jet Aerator. In
summary, our analysis indicates that the jet -aerator is a highly
efficient approach to aeration. Some of the advantages envisaged
f for this aeration approach are as follows:
I 1'. Efficient deep basin operation
. 2. Nigh oxygen transfer rate
3. 100 percent oxygen turn dorm capability without pumping loss
4. Low maintenance
S. No splashing problem
6. No noise problem
7. No freezing problem
The Most appealing advantage is the high oxygen transfer rate. It
appears from the data analysis that the jet aerator may equal or exceed
the oxygen transfer rate of the low speed surface aerator.
Our analysis involved review of raw data taken at three test sites.
Two. sites were plant scale treatment facilities at Lee, Massachusetts
and New Martinsville, 1•:est Virginia. The other site was the Penberthy
development tank at Prophetstown, Illinois.
ProFhetstown, Illinois Tests
• The Penberthy test basin is 55 ft in diameter. The tank volume was
reduced for the tests reviewed here by installing a 30.8 ft diameter
baffle inside the basin. An Eddy Mix cluster unit was tested in this
Inner basin. The tank was filled to the specified level with tap
!rater and deoxygenated with nitrogen to eliminate any T.D.S. interference.
sw i
�l�n�r�«ll�:�rla rlt" ..rf��, �il��rli•i �r�rtl �i<«.sly .,j«r»rrJr•»r��rj
Executive and rngi.)rCring 4rtices: ''• , Laboratories:
P.O. Box 4020.1. Nosl,vrllo, Tenn. 37204 2507 121h Avo. S., Nashville, Tenn. 37204
- 2 -
When residual dissolved oxygen was less than 1 .0 mg/l , the test
Was begun. Timed samples were collected and analyzed for dissolved
oxygen according to the Winkler method.
The attached analyses were developed using the mid-depth saturation.
corrected for the concentration of oxygen in the off gas. The
oxygen transfer coefficient. K a, was obtained by linear regression
analysis of the (C C ) and �ime values. The corresponding plots
are included to MustrIte the straight-line fit of the data points.
Results of three Eddy IMix cluster tests are shown in. Table 1 .
TABLE 1
LiquidK a '
Test Date Air Flow Jet Sub. Cs Temp L 20 �o Ro Eo
# SCFM ft mg/l oC _hr-1 lb 02/hr lb 02/hr N
1 8/1 478 20.0 11 .03 18.0 13.43' 154 ---- 31
2 8/26 471 18.7 11 .21 16.6 . 11 .58 132 •i--- 27
3 8/27 248- 18.6 10.60 17.8 7.97 88.6 ---- 34
These results indicate that the jet is sensitive to both submergence
and air flow rate. Oxygen absorption efficiency, E , increases with
� submergence and decreases with air flow increments.0 Comparison of the
8/26 and 8/27 tests at equal submergences shows a relatively small
increase in oxygen transfer rate, Q for a large increase in air flow
and applied horsepower. Thus, the 5t aerator can be "tuned" to maxiarize
-the lb 02/hp-hr.
The Eo range observed (27N to 34%) is quite high, equalinq or
exceeding the most efficient submerged turbine aeration devices.
Simple diffused aeration devices no ,,ally achieve no more than 15
percent 02 transfer under comparable test conditions.
Lee, Massachusetts Tests
This full-scale clean water aeration test series was performed at the
Kimberly-Clark aeration ditch installation in Lee, Massachusetts. The
ditch is circular, concentric with a central clarifier. The aerators
are seven radially mounted jet headers with eight jets each, utilizing
submerged pumps to move the liquid. For these tests the 2.2 million
gallon ditch was filled with tap water. Ceoxygenation was achieved by
sulfite scavenging, catalyzed by cobaltous ion at a concentration of
.0.5 mg/l . Results of four tests in the Kimberly-Clark basin are shown
in Table 2, as developed by the model mentioned before.
- Clr:- W1KKC1 nanac zepLemoer co, IylS
: = 3 -
TABLE II
-- C Liquid KLa20 Q N E
Test Air Flow Jet Sub. s Temp -1 a o ** o
# SUM ft mg/l oC hr .1b 02/hr lb 02/hp-hr %
1 2000 17.5 10.20 22.0 2.68 529 2.59 26
2 1000 17.5 9.37 22.0 2.36 428 3.18 41
3 2950 17.5 10.20 23.0 3.45 693 2.49 23
..4 •650 17.5 9.13 23.0 1 .75 315 2.65 47
These results confirm the sensitivity of jet aerator to air flow rate
as observed in the Penberthy tests. It is further observed that
air flow-liquid flow can be optimized to achieve maximum lb 02/hn-hr
as shown in runs 512 and =4. The aerator proves to be sensitive to
the air-water proportioning in these tests , as an increase of 15.7 hp
- (350 SUM at blower) yielded an increase of 113 lb 02/hr transferred.
This "tuning" of the air-water mixture resulted in maximizing
lb 02/hp-hr, up from. 2.65 to 3.13 at the higher air floc. This repre-
sents 7.2 15 02/hr for each added horsepower.
�I * The transfer efficiencies shown are based on input or total wire
horsepower to both the pump and- blo:rer motor. Overall pump efficiency was
51.2 and overall blower efficiency ranged from 34.6 to 41 .6.
New Martinsville, Vest Virainia Test
The Eddy Mix system was applied to a difficult to treat industrial
wastewater at Mobay Chemicals. Uine 12-jet clusters were installed
in two aeration basins treating a flow of 5 11,1GO. The aeration testing
was completed in one of the aeration basins. Oxygen was depleted using
nitrogen stripping. The results of one of these tests are shown in
Table III.
TABLE III
Liquid KLa20 Q N E
s Temp
Test Air Flow Jet Sub. -1
o 0 0
# SCFM ft mg/1 oC hr lb 02/hr lb 02/hp-hr A
1 1800 13.8 8.60 26.0 8.9 708 3.21 38
Mr. Kikkel Mandt September 26, 1975
- 4 �
Again, the Penberthy Jet Aerator shored high oxygen transfer rate
and efficiency. The Eo values of 38 percent is consistent with
It results observed in the other tests.
It is the opinion of A►•;ARE that based on the results reviewed
and the tests observed, that the PenVerthy Jet Aeration system
is a very efficient and effective aeration and mixing method.
Sincerely,
AWARE,
Gerald L. Shell
i Vice President
i
ii CLSJcy
I
i,
1
E
i
i
,
I •
1
l
_i.,.l.. • .i{.:� �T
r''jj li 'I �—�' %- �i»•��.......»._. .._.....«_...{�
_. .. ; --' ..� ,'.•.••_ .••:I.': , ( + • • t '-� i 1:�:1,�{� t .'i... :/:�.•I: .... .,.:i' .,I:..:�.�i' •:' ' ... ..! ••..--.__.l.._..._._ti..•..---•.__.'
'—_ - � 1; •rr? • 1 r• --t- '� :I:: :• 1 ;:: :: ;s._'r ° ::-1 F; " .1 ,__.,_.^_.— a•�......_.::.. ......_�--
v d f� _.. �....;.. ''' '1• `III(i I �.� { _.I:�. ;.il . ..L --
• .,._
1;7c
�- ... .Z....:-. _s+[.l r.l ;. 11:1, l i j I ! I , ..,...::..•.;1. _. `J
11 ii I t.,...I.... tO
I LLLIJ.4+-S.9
Try
_. '' •- i __
;.r. _.l t t�JIF.. 'y - - -L.._.I...: � � ..1. .... :�; .r .y.>��� t_�_, �.._
t- (111fr1 {11{ 1 1r ..I 1 ;•�" :.. ..:. .^ •-:=r-•-� :.I •1, •.i ....1.. ....:_.- 1 ._....,.._ .:—_.....__ ``
r.......��.•....•� :• ..{•t!+f tt :•' �.1. •t. i 11. 1 I_�•I^ • ..'. 1•:�:1:. .••�-,t, l•:.;Ii•t• ••:{•• ' .it.�.•.•_ •.i. _irr�.. r .r.�....«_.__ V�
...... ....... . .... 1 . :1... ..i!'
�._..y.`...'i;'tr _' %' r' I..: �._ .I 1 Li;;.(� : ., ;;..' ;_,. :
._.. ..r.._... ..:V. .:r. '' 1:�: i•I�r :. 1.{ _ II 1��,( - - t�•::. '.,:}.,:�:. .�. il:l :�i��:':. li•! -- L . -.-�� -: `-•• .mot, "'�^
.. j -Irl � I-I�- ��1 Ei1.1 � 111 •s !!, � i .
•� ........ ......�..• ...�• .I�. .:+��:�.y.• :. .,. _ "':��i.. 11.'�!r;i. _�•. .t- - .�_ _!d ..+.....:,',i.. ..11:�. .1;Ii1i. ., ..iCii_i •� ,yL". 11�.•.w•.-..-. ��+..�..._.__
�' .�»_......_..............`�..�... +': :, � i ��•� _�•t•I• ICI r:�•_) �. I-I_ 1 _ '':Ili' ...1:`:'a.�.i. ,•.�1 !ih�� '�(�Lt' �.�•t Y�, 11 ��_1.—_
^� ........ /�v..W _.. ':.t .�!!• ► L _ 1 1 ,i i t1 d�..�'...�I'.t:�... :i:::. :,t.'•...'V.'t' i i ' .(`�mot: ..r...• �....._ �'•- +—..r
l• .+/.. .N� .r.._�! .ri ' ;. ! �; ., , _r. .)..f....' ,�:��• ''�., ,... i:.. :�;TT� 4. .I-..-.L.l_...�r_ .-••«r+...__ i
V 1. .-•l.l _ I.� 1,., C^.i.....
S .....CJ�.._:..�r_�= ' � .i:_.i T j ' ?'(:�.+'—�..'y 1�1 "t_ • .c.� I::�:�:: :.cn. `'�'r.. ' ._ , n�
��. ..�...... ..... ' ..•... .f �.f ' � ' '31 _.�: i �' _�. «��'. ..I.,,. ` r..l i i:: :�.5. �ter_ ..L._�.�y...�..:.. �_...._.,...._:._--•
U .... _.. ..... .... i
• Nr-._ ..:L:: 1 .: : i. l.� ..1. :�...;..y'.,t.::. .t.: . i Q ., •«• .i......_ l_.�,._ .__ N.�..�_-•-----1
._._.:..__..i. ...... �.�.. �• �..'- 1•�.. �.•�' _ •I:.'.. •`.• • I j.• .a+�-L _•T__��
_._..». !"_..mot. ..
a.� =-::f _= .i-`: t. - ;ti.. i•:: :: I,n.... f.:,+ .;•�.(.�_.* .r�L=�_' - _.�;_.___. __•_•_,
TO _. ._.._..
__...._-•_ __.... _.. .:; .:. •i :� ' jT! i ; ��( •t- _ -'' .•� .mil:::-,-. ^..: .o f� :.L._.'�..1._.._ ' __._.-;..._.__.___.._�
�:. : ' I.1.: ' ::n: .{: -- ::� ,.i. ,.tom
I ( m 1. �3 ..it ` = •�_:_;. �__�_-_ .r-i
_ 7 ..
'._....».�.._.............. ...... ;.... '.:i1..11 I'I �_ ;�- ?lli� ..n 'i...: .:t:.:.:i�.i. .1..,... •.i..l... .�. l�.•�,_._:.._:...�_�.._..�- __..._.. �
.•._••.N_�..•r.v.;.rw.•. ..•n••••j •{•..._•.•1.t.�. •..i .r l..�. . �1 ••rl►�7 •I .t �•'.: .;li.i ,' ��..Q"' .�.ii;.rj"t• ;,�1� ►.._A _� _»_... .._.....,.•__r.
..w.•..n up,.u1gpp,,. u1N.•,. .•++.•., ., • 1 '1. .� V 1I i _..• ��_ �{ ...'. .•�a .'� I••. v 1�y .•.••.. � •• _.r_•rww•+�
' i ' It i • •i �..wr•.. �.l• •ty 1 ,�n.::j:�jl���,. A•• ;I1.� .i�• •� •t"..� '1_� •__ t
.�.•..a.�••r..•.•••rpp�Y•1•. 1•U/ •N► ,L 1 . I I r i•� V 1 , •._u..ri..r.._�+••-__
1, • •t 1� ' � ..,.•...,..I•,.• . N.. •,•. i)•j •�,• •I..?
i..�_. •.Y•r•• w.•�-..w tr...ww+r
_.._..,.•..•�.._••../_.....• .. ..... .••.�M•. :�: ••.�• •. • ( .`... �.t 1 . �. . ., 1._ ,.•, 1�..'.•.. ''•,1.:,•.: •,,• !,:♦ . �I •''' ' ••`�'' .�..r�:.-+,_._.,• •_•._�.•i:�_.-_. +_•
�.»« .r._.•....:.... .••.•• •• •.►«• .• •. , '.� '•'1..111 .....N..I:d..i..i,l•. �• :..' ••.:r •Lt •.•.•�
..•...«. _. . . . ••• •_ •; • •_• � � � i�:! 1 1 _,. ...:,.. 1. 11• I. t•• '•.i TI!t. 1,�,• t '�• �'_._ __._�r_r-•,
t".r ..,N'i....,.... •,.:. '�• �( • i-:.1. :.1.) 1 1�'�1{I{ ,•• i I .._ •'I.,..I:.I.I.....Q ,�I;I•••�•!, i j t.1 ---• T�«�►'^_.�`_..r _.—_._+..J
..•N.••_�.w l•••. •.+•l..w• .,p.(� •1.• '• I�• •�-r.�-•� M�', f'�jI - 1 ,...I.�•.Ilrl' .,,.•� �•r .�•t tt. ..;1 ��.i..
.__. .._.,.... 1 • -�-�• ;�1 s VY yi .;...:...�/t..�t '111.�•t I.1•,r ••. O •�. .1.•.w..t.�wM._iir.�«.r.��r�...-+...o.
....... ............... •t ••�'I�. 1 ' 1 ' { tl.... .�:.f�•:•.;ili:l� '!•j i:'. .:�.'..a' t 1 1'�i b•'_! i 1 1 .' ,,,, ' r..._�..• .
__,. .......,._:.�....�•� �. • 1 .j ,... I .r�. .,��..:.: :'.•''•''i:l:• • : JIi1l,,,, .:;, TI �. .rr.L _.r.y_.•.._r_+.....1
•,• N.:.,.r�«. +.••_. ••• .•.:• i.. i 1 •I r1 _ r•M ...�'•'•t,. II't:. i,tl 'I.11 -"1 :t�'l�1i r1:1 �• 1 . �• •'
G •A .
442NI bad•6N01SIA10 01 X 6310A2 r j
• � ._._ ...H,W•J1IYV11R-t.Iwst3 -
' I I.I --::.:t: :;::I i -� +i � (.�r. .'... ii J, '.�. .�.' -�- - -�- :1�•T',': -!' .`.: :; ; ; ; .�:;i� ji�:;,.i.... .Y. . T�::��..-:::::::.:'::':::"�::.�i
`•_— 15
�. .... .;_.._,_.-a... r ... •1- 11 f i r i ~:� •!- ..1:..... 1..}. ,.;,;r;.; ._.•:! :'�;I...•t •I.�.� r _... ...• _ _......
17 ".j: � 11 , , .;j:.•. �.: ��; �I' •I '��.11.= :��: •.lil: •+::' .«. .',.i:�'._...:?: _._. ...._
� :::::" :: ''"':ij! t �.�:l rl 1 �j':�I. [[� 1 ( _. .: .l:j ._, .;. i.
... .......... ......
.::l:.: �; .I� ! I:I '- f if i�r�t; l � l..i�.' :.:� . ;. :• . . :� `.:� :;'I .I_:i'' ; . .: : ;._..._''......_:t.�. . _ ____.
t' it t'; 1 � I 1 ::�. :: ::'.•,- � �:1 .1.• .i .w�, :1. .• . .. : :...... ._.....�i_•...-- _.�
a. .'f . ...:t.,' !r _ 1. i.l �. I I � , 1. :.�: 1::1:::: :•..li.;: �r..:• .T ,:_. ..._�::_...:• ;
�� .-r- =i .t• 1 i_� � i r�t t t �,t .t.� _t �- :1.�
. .. �.:. ._.._ .�. .... _; _1_.�'i .L_;.,i. :t ,--!'I. :'1.11 :' -;, -l--i-i i-1_ :i' _.i.:'' I:.:_ .i...� :...; -. -- — .� • r- '
'• ::1.•: . ' t. rr ." 111El" -I.1_ ... 'I' s....1... ....1{...-i ...,! ...
�I.:. i. • .• ....� _._ry ...+ ,
V • ...�...•._- ~..•.• .:_•t ;r= •�: S.r: _ ri. !i 11. ;1 , ..�. I '_ -I.. • . .......�...�t=• �;.:f...—�I'.11 .'. ;::i t=.,.t 1•. .i.:_._t.r_...._T_ =.....••_t ..__�
:!• .=.1 :=:v� :::: 1�:. '' : •'' '� 1_-»•��__. ...__..-._. '
v ,` ......_....
I. ' :: t..'._� —-f �. :,i..... ..;;i'' i.; '; , :.►,.. _: ---
•.I.. . �» '� .1 1��I i 1' ' -!• . -�.�'�, .,..... „ ..lii...I',1... 1'r '.�.' '�.•-�. _ _..__,_... .__. . -_—�
UV ._.. . •r ».. �JI. .. r.. :_:. .-"-ll� __ _ • 'i _i,{{{:�. ............:' ::i I'�i::: :. I:�:�i`! ..s-.:. x ---i
F.
-`�' �.......�....... .�.. '..1.'� to, G'Q.:�! 1:1
W .."I' ... .. ,I i ...... �I.
'� .. _.._'_..._ • :ar ..:�:_ i. 1 _I�1 I• as �..s iti• � 1I t '� I , , •',.I:::.: .�. '.:,. t,,�j .. 'r :: ..' .,_.._.. • r. I r...._ .__•_._—_ -•r
' ... '.:.�..:....i' :.i....• �..,......•. �• ...._ r •.;i.: !.1 r ; I ,. .' ,;;j f.l. .r , , i I �•� i = ..�.. I ;.,.. 1..1:-.T•" ::�'' •.•I �•...i.. `_ • ' ' « «.+_...w_ •_•r-.r�.._.. •
.:�. :.� ..1.• ;., _,- t 1 �, r.., , j. .,.. i..l..•....1 1 :� �i_`.-.I. -- ...
r__....�. .. i— i��Ji .y' " .:�._ 1 ',.I. t. r'----•-1..: ..1. :1 _ ; .t.. " —`r �...—:..'—
;_._--__. � _..::i='�:�::..... ,...j:.i;., -• , I. ! .i." ;i i;. i� ;� N ��,... :..i:..t. �:+�' 'r
�.._... _« , - _,. .�-'.:�«1. ���••. 1' ;:.._ _',• .1 1. ., •-ti - �•. ::{I•::.nf �(�''i! '�' .h.�: •�._ :� .r..rr���._.._I_._._._.-.._.� •_� E
17
..i:.. ` . t. ' : �� -I ;_ t i!•,r=1t 1 i : 1 I ; _f :..,.. ,.... ;:
J �.�-.'.�r"::_.•_••:�.:::i:"....•.{: .:l..: .�� :• �.�`i l: ..1 i s j !:1 i � : ' (•� . .:I:,'•I..: -
t" ' - .. . .. :r . 'i I 1.1 yJ]1 1't f I':1 r--.: �..... ::::' ..�. ' -------
'S _ ... ::�:............_.. .. . � .:,: , i-i 'I I :��1-� :. f.. ;� :� ,.;.i.:' (:... .�: •f�...r.. �•.. + � '_"tom•--_+._���
---.•.�_---:.i..'_'a `..:. .;.; .0 _�;.. ..F;, .lV�..�•. •.y�: '�'.'F::i -�• '1' a;..� n! ._.�_...__i.. ........._ _.�.__ —_;
;:•
It
r.•.•.._.. ..r_..• .r.r r. •_•1•.•••.•'•••w. ..t.1: :Z 4• ' � Ij 1� �., ..l i!„ ,.. I •r w' •�'� �. t•. _
.1 1 :- •. i j �t ' N..l i •'rr ..J. ..."�. ,r n�..:.�1'.♦(::�� .v, N !� . .+.-M+•.L .r _w�r.r1_..•.__.
L_•.1•..• •r ..•... a.••au ••.•,.•..) .�••... ..�•I{•.La 1 Iji 1.1• ��' 1 :r t. � •'1•. /'� t 1 , 1 _ . .
14
' •;_«...�—;t...•• •_f_.... • .i•,'1,.� �- -,-• � �i'i-I•;�:� f'I \ f,�.. ...r.•In�l�' '.'li::.1.•;li..��..•�...•1 i ;MT.l:�w/.'. , •rir.:r.�.� .-•.».•_�.ri__..._r�.•.• .
..w�_...o;....•.,«..•.••. •.• ••.•.;•• '�� •1 1 111 .� �� •1 al' ••. 1 �: !1•t , t 1 . 1 1 • • 1 1 .• .+_ / .
}}1I•+ - _• _• 1 1• t-I '�• Il� 1• 1 r t 11� `.�``�' . �.•• •...f::... .!!:•: /1.�::;. ..I•.t• :.r .rr �f�t. .,•....p• r.•w....._...._:. •r•_r+r..r_w___.r..;
'' ..�::.. :� I .1.; •• i I�1 I•»n .� � I.1.. .:�:. 11�.:;� :. 11. 1. .i.. ! •.'_ •7 T
To
:::':�_..... r ' I._ 1 ( f .I: �- II i( • �' N �,
....... ... . .4• t•.i . � I I! _
1 . , •, 1- -1 �'-t' ,•�!ll :1 ,'t' , I�I......' I� if ._.,. .7• 1' =' t(
•..'r..... ..._.�: .:�. .�tf.:..: illr.
' j' tt :f iN.:� C...I :.d.1
�_.... ., ...::%:.. .._ .. :.,:lam..i ' i ►- _I�_ �i'��1� 1 � i�"�� �-i�: ' ::,I:..�•:..1 vim.. . . 10.41
t_.. .. ... .. r.=.• .•.! _ '`...I'�''� 1.1.�:. 1 rll f'i I i'r •r•//��• , ir. , ' :, .,. ' : !•. '1 ��/y ..•._rr:._--+_•_. .�•_•r.ram
�_.. _!:._.. .::I__.. :l:.. �s. :!. .�_ iii 1 , ' r-•_L t; y,�� -!l �:::: 't'� :.ja}'' _.�» `t' ��f•_
_._.._.._..«. •''J...►�•___•.__i—. •••- . ! � , •_ 1 � ,.;,. _ �/��I'»1 ...,w•I....;il., "':I.ii; ,,f�.: .f1. .i:. .:�:I....• .1••��.r_...�......I.«...__.•.._�_..+��—.J
• _I• •._� �••�_ � �. .f I :.Y• ii:w• :1 , il;a.'� .i:• .'r .11 •r'1 4 w._ _..•..__..� j._ „:~. ... .•��..=.��. • .�..r.�..i:. +i '1 1 L .� .,1.j..».,. ..:'«:•1:::�1 '_' "' 1'!a •. I r1'•.. , . . • . . '
!ITF.,•".+ M :.. «� j• • !J. 1 ( 1 r �..J'..�'I....�»•9:' '.I�'!•!::.• •j,: �lfl •t!t ,_!{r 'Tr1t i 1 1 f • i ._�
.� «i_.••..••t ' �..r_,.= :1: �" 1 1 ��:i:ll.r r.i�.,.,i•:1'1: �� 11.• f•Oil
1,
�" _ 1 Ko,�n aae t:nsolsiwto of x 531ZAG s
..... .: . I (:i ,.I,.i. _ , . jt .: :,:::� .:, :;.�1 : :�:.;: :i.'�; .i:.i.1«.. t.� •._ .—t•__.11t .._.._. - —�
.{...r� 1'1 ..! 'i(1 r f 1 I .1..� . �. .I.. .. �':.I.. .,.. . �. !! .1 i :r. .1 .S.S ..Z.+.. .�_.�_..*_:_�•{ ..��._.._.
�:'�.:::p•:.... :I:':: ::- ..1::. :1:
. 1
• , _
:. ( ,;1 .•.. .*r. _
_._ ... 1. ......:.... .... .1. �_ ..L.. _ r ` r.l :.1.•IY...:.�;.'li�:: .I..�i .1..1 �'L1�._ _ 1
.�•.i'.f ;! ; 411.f :i ;:� I:�:"s :.1. :j::.S'J.l.,: ;i::l:;:: ::: '• .s:.._ T--• =•-:--•—T—
TrJi-
j4t
0.
l:f. :; !i{ f.�i :1_ _ ;1�1..:: D .l..:� _ ' i. .---- -•--- N
... ..;..._..:.. ...;._.. ��: , , �- :i I�! :-1 r � •r 1.,. !.;. :;,. ..I.:. . �::•.�:i.`.1'..�11:'..?. : .'� ..._ ice.._... _ .;_^._
� ...�.I._...:..-•.... :.:. ;l..l i i.) .:_. 1111�.(�: II.�,- ' 1. .,, _� !�; ..�.. .4n... :::1:...
'..�. •_ "—' .. ..3: .�._ :.1.__=.1.+ ``1.f_ ,_j L;t1 i� '`t1� _•_�. _I_ '!»......i.. ..; :i .�J. :`�:I :.�.�_ _ —'." j M
..r.._..,_ _...�_..�� 'Q--�?. �.=.aT' 1 , := i';!� _r' , 1 ., 1 I�...fi.... ! � •� MCV -- �T ,•� _.» --__r
. .._...,.._....:._.... »..��:.. -� __,._. ._ : I y :�, = ti�. ^�J� 1 ,� 1 •' ::j�.� ` -:1 .:r :•• _ _�. _}--_"-_-- .. _.-...__-_•may
':-ii•--:'!:•-'�-j-:' '�'::�:::: _ti.;�'rt .��.C•I.�.1 � i �N;; 1 i �' 1...�.1 ,,,� , �:!; :::1.... :��.;.; .:1•,; ' .,--- :�J..:�_�.�.... :-�i----'••-- _.._...._...�.:_ '
.. . ..,. ._1:. :•,..l;:.i; .•. �; • s G,.,. 1 . ., �y L ! 1.• .: � ���. •I;:y:. ..s..r...
tL..i.l.._ VD..t. .i..,. .s• _i' _ )" :1(',f -----
_ _ 1 •r'. . 1 I .1: ! �I=1t.�j. '1I.'N:'f 1., ..i..�+... ...=G» �'� j!� oj •:_.::_J..-T _1
«. •''.....1».• ......'J' '! _. .,.�1..�' �.�J1 `J.1. 1 /,1, �i. .i�.� ;.; :.e,..' ..i.....�}�. '::,ti1 V.:. .•..•_ _I.:.• »� �_�3.�-�~ •.��...._._�.__.Z
..I.._... i_ .... :��.:l:.. --»•j i: i��_ �: \;�/-i i eJ t . •1" i l' _ - ..�.... ..,.7:.�;...,,:.':1:. .. . c�.. .:5.1.. .._ -•"1
1 � !•1 1 , ' = 1�' 1 : 1.='I I.!I ' �. .�.�!I ('• �! .1 ' �,.:.I::e: �I::•: :: :,�»: .::i •1 . �_.. _, __.I:'�"-..r._......._.._.��
.. .. .....:�= —'I' .. • :!»i..:•;s ;1 y•I.:;-.�_:• : 1•,•..i •F "..: :.. �.. i �I '!'
...0 ....... _...: '�.:._ _.�..�. . t.l_.... .i�'1' i i i I=• !-'' 3"1�..�. . 1 r•J..�..:+'...i...l� :i'.:: �..i ..r� ••1'�'
.»._::...' '':_'i.:.1 1_' 'tf1 '_a'II1. ,.:i::::::i:.• •.I r =�, •�••,;, , •1f•�:, �T'�.:�. ._...�-t-- i
•�'• • . • 1 1•! ( + �11 1 1 1 ..b16: ..�L.0 p... .. •_! .•...w1. ._.• t. +�+• •+_+.•q
Co
...'
• .•*.r '1 1 r• 1 ,, it 1'j''li::i.. �,. �... , _� • ' , I • • 1 • ' V MIT
1 0 A' tD IA •tt pl •N. « p /_b N '0 W ft A W •
ltONi bad 6N016,/110 Of, x G310A0 t ! ._...._.. '
'_::: :::::+......
1.: : I :::�::':' '::ail : .r.I (;; ri;i : I ' ;.� i :.';..` j °Fve:!y
1.
7.L
TTLT T
~---..._.._S.....:.�: ..i..�._..�.i •: s_� Jam.: .N 1.t I� 1 i I j !t Jr
I._ 1...... ly I..�...1.. ..�- ..a_—. •_----_ —-----'--�
x.
r-_.__....._....::_.«_.,. .Mom__ _ ;�...•.;T. i_:`�.��_� ::.���•t .!�!:_:LI
►_....__....._. :�'I. . : .� ....� �.i.lf] 1.. 1_ :1l�.I, 1,. {. .1.��_i r_I._.1...1:: -.�. a,.... :I,1. �» .j;.-� __�
- �•�• 1 i !':� : r 11 1 1 t } j ..;.... ,: .. r. r. fir-• ,..__.:
a_..�._. -.;. �. _ ::L. .:•._. .rl ,i,.� 1_I.. I:.:I::..:..1..1..''ll.. .t;:. .11! �:._I•t•: F- i-. ..�+ __r.»� _ •..__ —t
rl i +.i'�1 1 1-I :• �`-F,_.: 1••:1•:c./• :;�; -f;;:-1 -t l .
}.. _....._........ �.� :.:. �.i s !' t_" � .:' }' t I '1 V1'`j.,i.:; �...
'v�: ? I.11�s.: i , •.r• '��-•...�.. � c;;'•._. '.,.,t _....�_.• --•----�
' ..r•••-.•....•...w• •'� . ••�.... .�. .1 1 r 1 f .. :.�,1 ! .. ' .r • '�•'1.i:I.. 1.. ••11�• � • J ,:••LI / ��•••--_—r y ,.-
((.+�._�._....—. •• rJ,ti I = •• ':,_',iii: '�•�! .r .11%
-----._......_.;..._ r .�.,i. : .iiL:I_j i •t �_ r.l.;:: �..: .,�i.a.af.!I7. ..•1• -
4 _ .».......... ... I.. ..,:. .: "••i'i l'i ,1 ,I 1 . _.L;,. ..��f.; .. la.r.:.�`.I1s..,
1 .._._._.._ '�,�, .. s�' _�.�:.i.:.t:: , �.-��,' 1 I'1! ''I"i_ �t r. _ 1 .'r:: ' .._..;,::•. , ,�.. .�....:f-�.•�'• J�
,'• ''1 .11 T::i •�� �. i. _ _ ;
_ "1 I'. '_' 'd;:;i i �-- �.- _�. I �-. -r" -•!•:' . :iT�;: r "i' �il'�'ii� I i..� ----- -__ '
.... '1 �' j: '
_.—.... .... .t .:f: :::ice : i. ,,r�.r:_r_ 1-•' I 4 .,..... :1' .1 ; ;� ..____1..__
F__�......,•,�-- ..T._., t•`i �•-. ...Q ,.� 1� •1 '�1'= �1 1 �_ ..1:'.1.�.�. •�:�:'...'• .i:= �h.',1.' '' ..!_ __.._. ..
t—--. .... ..:...I. I .- ': ....' _I. t� .I. 1 ..1. } :.�•''• '1� 1 1 =•,.,.. '': :; 'r ......1___...._��►......'iii --1
t. ._... ..... � ^' ... ... .1 . t 1 1 ,.i_L r � •I'i 1 1'i I" •,. ,.y.,.... ;:''::• ' t �;i-:�:�•: .�i--•� -•-T—. ram•-` _'-.'
L___._ �j v ._; .•/1�i : '.i i �-I•�^'/ •� I }. - .�.:•�:1' 'i..:�, .:,I.I�I:�1' t!�' 411'�'�t, ii I-!.fir,• _r _
_--:•-t-•••• ._r•...
,..»...- irt) ..I ,. i , l 1 = i1(' Q. I : j...rl. ;I"'I.•:..'i!1•, .j: ;!'! j i:: ' l ' '�' . r. �I ' --•—--
r-...w .. •••• ... .•••.•• •.�•/�S ' .i.l I 1 , : ,,�� - - ::'I.::I.1:.��«...,'I...: .i li,l • • tr• 1''• '' 1. 1' 1 .�_o.•
`.:.... �.» :... 1....1. :l�.,• . !:I {:•. ^ l- :n�. Y I 1 1 :.r�r; I,.t:....I l:::i' '1!: ilii ;Li ., Tj-
�.�� �,.« . :. • 'r <: •.•..1+.1 1- �+ •. •�, 1 '. ..1. .I'1•• :•tl :11. •ill :r: .• (y«L.r *1 r•
t...•.�...�... �J:• ... •I.•.•1._• ..:•r�. ..'.t. •�.i. ;. 1. 1 1 ..�. :.,:p.. .,I::....:11•.,'r..,' ,••� '}Ltr.•1 ._►� ..rw... �•..r_.rr••• ... _ __ •+
11rrl1lllll .•. •11•.• •. • .. . •. .L.. ..I. ..1:•i.. il:l ,,_�I.�.i: .....«iL;►� 1 1 , �'.
_Iw ! 'L
•a....»•___ 11•'«.•. ..• .I. •.�.�- •Y �i •1 .1. .E •t ��� '._�-t. + 1:.'•,1!�it:'..''.j:. .!1.�1!•• '•fit •it •►. ..«�+ _•«�'_' �..._. __�..... • �+
u�: ..... :del: I: - - :� ..l• :l;:c:�c. .:0 �'''!1:! 7 :;i��jil: �i;:i, �� _T ' _• —_.._._.-• t
- _ ._-Q �' ' `- '.!__ _ �`'�;-f- '1�'t•,1 1 '1' � a .:..I;....,iir,r,';�I `�' :' ;�';t �:ry'M
.r.l:_._._ «.r....•.��1�.—' .mot , a�i'r' ','i''.'.yll;,:,.••1.i:� i.i.1�1 ,i.L:t , 1 •. 1
•''' : ' , l • . ei1'''ri�•�~•I:!lt�l tll''I! III ill �T 1 2 i 1 1 i
-� Y NJNI b?d tN0161At0 G/ X 9314A4 9 ,
• 41wNslav�41•Iw76
o
• i
MEETING DATE September 22 , 1977 TID1E 5 :30 P.M. DISTRICTS 1,2;3,5,6,7&11
DISTRICT I r�14�"i�
puill
�..d LL I).---•• SHARP•�•••••• - '
....ANTHONY NY•••••�••••
..........ANTHONY DOSTAL)... .BARRETT.SALTAIRILEY •.
GARTHE • ,••••,•,• EVANS• RILEY ........CLARK
BRIGGS RI MA.. GAEDE .........COOPER ......
—
,.,..... PERRY) .........
CULVER ..... .
WILLIA S.).......DOSTAL......
—
GROO
GARTH
T ....•,,•WEDAA ..EVANS........HOYT � .......ILEYE SMITH GAEDE FOX:......... —
RILEY ,,,,.... t� PRIEST) . .....FRESE........ —
GAEDE ...........FOX••••••••• ✓ EVANS) ..........GARTHE.......
EVANS)............GARTHE.. WARREN)........GLOCKNER...
DE JESUS,).••..•..........HOLT•••. L A CKMA
ARRELLN).,......GRAY.
CULVER) PERRY...... GRIFF I
STEV€NS)....,•, ROGET DE JESUS) ...... HOLT. .N............
THOM . ROTH........ LACAYO) ........HUDSON ......
ISTANTOO* . SCOTT...... WEISHAUPT)......MARSHOTT...
TIPTON) ,,,.,. WINN.......•--7-
DOSTAL) ...MC INNIS...
WI NTERSl WOOD....... FINLAYSON . .
...OLSON .......
GIBBS) ....... PATTINSON..
CULVER) • ......PERRY..
7BLACKM4N)
•••••••••SVALSTAD.I�..' 'I ANTHONY)....... RILEY.......
• -•-•••••HUDSON••••• ✓ BRIGGS) ........RIMA ......
• --•-.-•. COOPER •••• ✓ STEVENS).......ROGET... .....
. Cyr{-{Z .... THOM) .•,,...ROTH. .... ..... • GARTHE.••.• • ✓ DOSTA •) ........RYCKOFF ....) ........ GRAY ••••,•• SHARP:.. ......SALTARELLI..
..........FRESE .. ✓ RILEY ......SCHMIT............GR I FF I N ... ✓ STANTON). ..SCOTT. ......
WEISHAUP7 .......MARSHOTT... SALTARELL•�....SHARP........
FINLAYSON� �.......OLSON ...... ✓ PATTINSON�.....SHENKMAN....
THOM) .ROTH HOYT) ........SMITH .......
�...� RILEY ...,.....',.SCHMIT* YOUNG). ......STEVENS. ....
YOUNG•...........STEVENS ... ✓ STANT N)....:..SVALSTAD...
BROWN). ......SYLVIA ✓ BROWN ...........SYLVIA .. ...
PATTINSON),,,,,,.WIEDER "R.' 7 GAIDO ..........VARDOUI_IS..
WOOD) .............WINTERS ... ✓ PATTINSON .....WIEDER......
TIPTON). ........WINN.........
DOSTAL ..........MC I NN
• ✓ WOOD) WINTERS .....
WINTER ... .WOOD........ANTHONY)• ••••••••RILEY ..
WILLIAMS)........DOSTAL�a
_
OTHERS
S V 4'l�'eri HARPER..
BRIGGS ,,,..,....RIMA.. rw Lee SYLVESTER.. ✓
DOSTA�............RYCKOFF ....-T TA cl-,,L LEWIS.... —
RILEY ,..........ANTHONY ....T �"°`►e �'���� CLARKE
DISTRICT 7 p �1 ,� G;; "
DOSTA .....•••BARRETT ..•• ✓ �O� 4O.V.4.0c)GAIDO ,,,.,.VARDOU � J
RILEY -•.-.. � .. WOODRUFF.....NE u
WARREN ...........GLOCKRDa&. - ' HOWARD...... ✓
✓
SHAR )..........,,SALTAR&MI � �. HUNT .........
IHOYT�......•......SMITH. . .. KEITH........
DISTRICT 11 LYNCH.EY...... -
LYNCH..
GIBBS PATTI NSON ✓ MADDOX....... —
PATTINNsb7 ),,,,,,•SHENKMAN •� MARTINSON ...
RILEY J,,,,,,,,,,,,SCHMITQ, 7 PIERSALL ....
STEVENS. .....
DISTRICT 8 TRAVERS. ..... _
LAWRENCE .•••••••EDWARDS ,..• —
BRAND .,.
(CLARK)............RILEY••,•„ —
w� vulo o,.., A v';! vj l C./l L/,4-e
Rii n/77 - - --
MEETING DATE September 22 , 1977 TIME � :30 LL DISTRICTS 1,2;3,5,6,7&11
DSATRAREL I)...... sH P•.... ���'� r�w JOINT BOARDS
L ).. L. AR .. - }° RILEY ......• ANTHONY•••••
R 1 LEY) •.......•. ANTHONY• DOSTAL)........ BARRETT.
Ld GARTHE�.....••••.• EVANS....... a RILEY) .........CLARK ......• —
BRIGGS ........... RIMA....... - -►- GAEDE) .........COOPER ......
PERRY) .........CULVER ......
WILLIAMS)......DOSTAL....... —
tRILTEY)
ROOT ...•••.•.•.WEDAA ••••• - _ GARTH€)........EVANS.. —
OY ) .......... SMITH ..... a GAEDE 1. ........FOX: .......
............ EHhfW ..... - PRIEST) . .....FRESE........
GAEDE)�••......... FOX......... - EVANS) ........GARTHE.......
EVANS ............GARTHE...... - WARREN}.. ......GLOCKNER.... _
DE JES Sl..••.•••HOLT........ LACKMAN)......GRAY. ....
. P ..... + JARRELL) ..... GRIFFIN ....
STE N ...... ...... - DE JESUS)......HOLT.... .....
—
.ROTH.. LACAYO) .....HUDSON ..... — —
STANTO )................ SCOTT...... - + WE I SHAUPT)......MARSHOTT... _
TIPTON� ..........WINN........- +- DOSTAL) . ....MC INNIS... —
WINTERSl.,.......WOOD....... - 1 FINLAYSON).....OLSON ......
GIBBS) ....... PATTINSON..
FLA
CULVER) ...... PERRY....... —
N ...••.•••SVALSTAD••• ANTHONY)....... RILEY........
—
1•...•.•••••HUDSON••••• - + BRIGGS) ......RIMA .......
COOPER ••• - STEV NS).......ROGET........
B ... THOM ...... ROTH. ...... — —
• GARTHE.• DOSTA �) ........RYCKOFF ....
N) ........ GRAY •••••• SHARP .........SALTARELLI..I ......... FRESE .. 4 RILEY)))) ......SCHMIT......•. ... GRIFFIN .. STANTON). ..SCOTT.......PT .......MARSHOTT... - �- SALTARELL•Y... SHARP........ON�.......OLSON ...... 77 PATTINSON�.....SHENKMAN....
THOM ........ qR HOYT) ..... ....SMITH ....
�.d RILEY ......... E .. - .} YOUNG). ......STEVENS ....
YOUNG ............
........., PNS ., - + STANTON).......SVALSTAD...
BROWN ......SYLVIA .... - BROWN ...........SYLVIA .....
2P00D)
ATTINSON).......WIEDER .... .� GAIDO ..........VARDOULIS...............WINTERS ...... GROOT ....WEDAA........
PATTINSON�.....WIEDER....... —
TIPTON),........WINN. .... —
INNIS. - WOOD). ......WINTERS ....
ANTHO .........RILEY WINTERS)...... .WOOD.........
_
AMSI........DOSTAL•••••• 4-
DISTRICT
HARPER......
BRIGGSJ ..........RIMA.. .. SYLVESTER.. —
DOSTA ...........RYCKOFF ... _ LEWIS.. _
RILEY�............ANTHONY ... CLARKE.......
—
DISTRICT 7 BROWN....... —
DOSTA •••.••....BARRETT •.• -
GAIDO�.,.,........VARDOULIS.. .�
RILEY)))) ..0......CL,i4&JL ..... - 0. WOODRUFF.... —
GARTHE ..........EVANS.... - HOHENER ....
WARREN...........GLOCKNER. - HOWARD.......
SHARPP)............SALTARELLI. - ,, HUNT ........ _
HOYTz.............SMITH....... Q KEITH........
—
KENNEY......
DISTRICT 11 LYNCH........— —
GIBBS PATTINSON - + MADDOX.. .....— —
PATTINSO010.�•••"S N ..... 4- MARTINSON ..
RILEY) -' -t- PIERSALL ... _
........ STEVENS. ....
DISTRICT 8 TRAVERS......
. —
LAWRENCE ......••EDWARDS .••• —
BRAND .... —
(CLARK),,,..,,,,•„RILEY,,,,,, —
8110177
Zr 3 - 348"-77�L - - ---- --- _
�_
_ �_ _
... ....:_�, .... ... ... : •r.i T' ` ir , I1T 1II {E -T :I.. : '' .. ..•f.: .1._�• ._._._-.....- ...___...._.-..._.___.._.._
r_._ ....- .,...•' •:.:•.::...�r .L �I.l..�.1 .!(' ' 11r{� !� � I."• I{ 1-1 «,. 1...�.....:'.. L:. , 1 • -t.
_—_« �...r•-' , •� 1 , i-• 1• � I.I.' � `� '� .li.: .: 1. r_ _f_• �:y � - __ --_ ___
_.... I►: _" —' -----�:._J_..i ,;..a_._ ,;.._«!_,. C i-� — •...'-. ...l....l....
i:: ..._.�:
._...... � .•,,:-. "':... :�: ��-I``.:t:'t•I1 _ '•;. .� 1 rl!��i.i. :! (.. .!_� 1 .,,I: .r ,.:. ;1: �ra: f, i.;ll�:l�r-f.i Z_'i..r.:' -'—�-' , C
... _•..�•..._ _.•-' • •._..�•_!.r 1 �.. ,.� 1 f(•�,i.i. �.I .I. 1 .•;.«....1..��.•:•,..•..... 1i!•�•i .;:I iTr• ��_ .J.+_. - .►•.+ �•rw_ _.•�.-.•i.
tc ....•'�_:.—•j• -- --�t_ ..::_, !' i j• ': t j I;i'f'f;! �•;F t' +.!_' ' , :..: 1 �i. ....I, ......d..I �.,s. ..' •'• ....T.:_ ;_....__�_— !
rrTI
" 1. ;1 �.
e�
; _ 1. }:.
Q„ 1 .N.. �: — . j'` . �u'lrli �'�" Illi('It 1 • ! �.r... F. ':' :�: :I'"..• ..1..T. .! _`______.. �—
� ���— J_:._!--_.� .111 I i• i!'_ tI� !�1 f "'� :.`,�. ,.... . .�_I[ 1 .:: .,.-I --�
Ij
-'r ! ' ' ,. _ .! 1�1':;.i 1. T t 1 � �{ 'I�:'!: 1:: : :I.-,..i:•L~-•' .:-;— •+-'- --• ISi
•_I ... I .•.:..I:1:. 1 �:.��...:- .t•1 ! •r---_ —i_•—
� �( - ». -(`..�(.._�r f _.�.�..n7._r.�•�,��.r i- �isi.��T.,_.�- �_� �•!.«;_' _I_:.f...�. i�,�:, f.,..€: ,�'�;y��.:-1�-+ • - � _
Nj
............. f'
..•-:. . i� ;.1 •1. :::'� I•�•i• :...�.�. ' !r -------1
1 ..._»._:._....�.. . •1• . .. ' _•....... . (' i t'�:� O., .1 l.... r;s..:.l;: ,• . .. .n .1. L •--Y _._._- .
10
• .fir. . .i.:.. : -r.. :p•�.� . : 1" !_ : !. ! . ;. T?=: :,.,.:.��•..;;�.. ..;�_� 'rW. :;:;•:._. . _ _ :r_.___.;.:_�:�__:—...
r-:• •.. .w..... .i• : �'•..• `- i.r ` -i I I {•.(. «.1..... 1...:�i.. ' . L. 'I ' • •
• V M .. ..1 •.6+r....•...«.•• .•.r+.•-w_....__.�....
•....... ,....,1. ...,......I. :... ..... • :' ,.. ,••/-� '�. .i � ,.�. ,�'1... •..1 ,i.'''11� •/ . •�•;i. 1 -- -
..i�_ ._.i:_ .�.: j. i,� � •I � i'•-•�_, �1�:�.�::1t �' :i•• _..ICI..; ;----.. :CJr �::..:' _ r
. . • wwo•',. .•.�.j••••••.I. •�•..• •r••�. .++:. I J �1���, , _.j ..'Y. •.p. :r:, •1.' ' V •(•.1►J. �`-•Tt�... w«r—«•. •._•.ww
...-•-•w wr .. w•...1.••.i••.. • •. •• 1 V�-� r�I : r1�T.t,i I . .!_I�r(•. .`.. ..1.:... :.. f' ,..•. .1,.•!.. _ w_ .._.. »«__.�•r• _+._.-_....-.
I,...r.. ..•.. ...•.. .b.•rr�.•«/•••. ,q.•�.• • r. !.� ! •1 r!!ii'I,'"� .•i J �O I'1 �. ..,...... ...!!} .,Ii.�. .�:••.f::•: ••..;:'ir .r'.I• _•-..J« ..!• Ix
If
'' •i.:•• _ • •_-_+ _ 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 t I ( J - ......�.;::.••. ,...�.�.{ .•. �, .,..,,••.....
rr
• -^•+ `��Y•_,•••._..-.-,_ r
,,.__ .. .« _....«'�' _:1' .:.c.:l•� 11 , '�y:�..;.1.•:�....i..11:q.. .rr. r ;;�� !_ _.. �•}r .�-_:y,.T.••- r—
io s c n a v h a — al o d a v n
1 N3Ai1 117d 6NOIS1Al0 01 X 591=2 Z
_ .... _.• . . _. .. ._ _.. ._.....__.._ __._.... . .. ........ _ !11wo1LIHVAAI•iW]6 .. ..
T..71-
IJ j ::� �. ic,: j !, ' j ' I :�:::
C4
.... .........
LL
H
........ .
.. ......... t I .
CX*). Z-1 ;-;L -
rp=
m. ........ .... . ......
1.77
L.L.
LI
'-. .... J.........
tj
Lz-,-
7
.............. ..... -7'
IT
=Zj
7L.
... ......- .... ....
W
-07
:4
......... .......
.. .... .....
7
7j. 4" 1
A
L—j-. I.
............. . ..........
I , . . . I f-
....... An
17.
Fw ........... ...
.
—7 r 7 7�9*
oil
:cr
Lli ! V
rl
In
... ........ ... ....
TH I i T
i
ELM
-I
-rTI
OR
TM
b o. to q ell
•
A-6
di x 631W4 19
*A Sao
.I.. • 1
,• `»I- ,r__ r� \I•
i_r:;. ..,.. :1' .._: -i- -;�+.. r..l . .�....«:. . . . . ..:_:
_::..:....•' .....::::.:: :.:::.:: : :_:..:: �'.� _ ; ! : J l : ;;�1,��; I � I ; � , � �•. :J: ..: . � ' ..
• ; 1 i 1:1"l S I , • • 1 ! , l •' •'V •....;• .1..11l '1 r '1 '.. .• ..... _...__./••_••..r •- __,
._.__.. ....«._.}........I. ... .C: ,• •• IF 1;' • -� ifi! li � ! !1__'I�li :' +':i!-_':a.�."l..l. •i.'.1.: �:1.• r:A•�i..i I
'�r'rt— ►'!'ii- iY• -� •_ - �7 •i-" a• - i; 1, •.•1• .,.1"i 1 1 _ .._._.._{ _. •
i1 r -"�. • ._ :, I.. .; 1 ^ .1. 1I _t .r�. - .1...... .5......�i:.. ..I... (...•I;,. . � ...+_• Y�T____' —..__.. —_
�•:�::: .�:_:I:.••• ..t: :.. :.j ;.: -'.. . I�Cf •.�. i 1 i!•tl•;:� c - .1- .t. ' :: : :�. i;.j•. •••L �:,�;:: ;�� ' _ ,�T_.i r• � y ------ -'-' _ .
...........
I.. q llo
'•• ' -_•
ea
•— ..._. .._. .. .!_. �i ••f-�'�- isi S 11 - L ;L1 ...L... ,..i:._J! i:i-; 1.1. f• w O
00
--.._._....._.!.»..... ._. t 1 • .I _ '..i.... tll:.I.. .;.1.� 1.3 Ll., .:i L': —•-T-r +_
1
. t_ _ _ • �,,.• ( t �- :��.j I : 1_L _I».. •1/.2,•1 1::., 1 :�1�1..,. — .— --
_. ---.,_..... f. 1 •I- '� .=,_ __ ,j- Nei-"; .r , '�._:.�;. : _;. .':! : : .c:' ! ' .._.�
••••!-• , :tt' �: 1 �•��: i ;(_ .I r i 1 .,_ :�.. ..V.....:.. :�•ram." : 1' �' .�. ..... ___ .t_.�......
_.._.._................_.,. .... 1 ... .. �., 1 ; .!-i :,1: •i.ij'�. :i�_I:f. :_._l.�: l.�r:�l.i: 1':��':' �i'�' ~''�r1� ��'•W LET=;. r�� ;. '�',._ -_ --
.. ' �-.._ :w/. �• :�.'''.':,'«- •1; ••,•�'.- 'till'� "'-�'i •' t: s �� �;
-_—__-_. _. .�. •�_ ..:t::.: �_ r� .- •r I i _ •'..;':„...l.. :11� 1• i 1.1;1• __. � ------..
..�.1.::..'•'i' ..� ....,": ..•�I.• I- _.� l_ `] .``/�'r� ! 1,... 1 r� •" .• .I�i•.. ;1 l:i'� •. .: _. _•_____._.
__.._»..._ ...•. 1' .O •�l �. 1 I.! Y I �I i.LI.•• !— 1.':..A.. I:�:.l ili....:. 1,. .. Wit..p... .. «+ ...._ _ - -
»M .. �. , __:. _: ' LLT .L,-.1_ ::I !'. _� 1.. -:.�.:.:1 'i _ .i: �..._L. ��_•._�
-:.;i�"- : ...11_v :.�..ti;T' :_�.l f _l. _ .:1: !.;::;::.:1:�:.I:I:it.l;; 1. •
i.
,_� •��• �(� ! , . 1 ,L�. :, �' ( �l ( _ _ 1 �''b 1:' jc :1�• Si:IIT..
:.,:'.l' ,.I,. •� !. :i: .4
_• •-__.«..�t..'.^_�_� �r' - � l.1• '` �� �;� ���.;.1• -i_ ..1._..I'1...�•I..�I;I. .•I'I��C: i:;; I:.. :.1;! :I� 3._. '_f_"-'!_'__ ._ —..-____ j
P.
l-•,. fl � � J i' '!�; ' ! -1 1 ""�• 1.: .1:,!••�: i i� 11.�� .`i :' :...far 1 ��.. _.._._�-- -----_�
_..._.. 0 r.�.�-. .:..�. .�. : , i•:l t } �• •! I' '0..1 _ - ;j•.1�..:i..!'!. II .;� I,� i�i,CS.• i.j! 'i .I." '� ' t-l-!_:._.� .r_.. ._r•_ .
la
• •..•.- � �•.a•'lU 1'" -1•H/,1♦•• ••+i�•♦•• •• I ;..'.,.ram• .^ ' � .{ _' .L. ♦..1` 1.�:...li.n.a•1.' ,,. ..;••. • ,,•II •. •� - •.•�;�._�•__�� _•�-�...•...�.-.� i
_........ _�» ••.•y•••• •.:. •• iSSi ( � ,� n•f 1 1 /. ,. i• .'inl:j..•:..�;Ip:•i! ' .�1: ,�li i.4i '•+i ���`�• .,'l'« .�.�•-r i.w�_��A._r..r-.r. •"� i
� �r t. :.i-.«_ .`�. I ...r t� 'lJ. ti .I.. Ili =
.. �� \./ •. .�. •ry .••r ••�. .• .. 1•�� 'i +} :i -, � •.1. :'1'S. . i IIlI II1 •1
w. ' I . r7_. w-.•_ ..• �_
... �r 4rI err ••• u.' ' �• �' 'f! t• •�• •.1'...,.....,_.... q ,tl. il•• .II� 1:!1 '.,• ♦ ,1�. ..., ,._..1,.•. '� •.•r•_�.••__r_w._��_�.__-..
v •� fit. .. 11 � .I .�
N..... . •••1.••. • _ . l 1 ! 1•• it1t.11 tL
• , .1. .• ..i : � : : �.� ' �.1.! ;. � 1. _ _!.. .r..t;..':.i.:�.:•. .;',l:f•:�i';l�• :;.�:�.i �:i l,. :_•/ �:. .:� ..�..'_._.�'�-_._.._.��: �-, .
:... .. . f' 1 •.•I-f Ir"! 1 1 .p... '11 • , S1:•l:l./ Ifl•t• 1'•._f.._«_I - .....—_. ,
....._ ....•.�• ' N1.1:.�••.• : :•!•J •:-►fir !..-! • .•. • •L»:».�: ry•.:,,•�!:•. •li. ,. 1••! •.. • _Lj•« w!._ _.r_.r•.-�++.�
..._-.—w...�_._ ' `r•J•'.....�� �...S.w' 1 ,... i •• T".Y j LJ�'}}� • 1 ... .. .r. .il.: M:!:�• 1.;.._• •:.�r►•. ai.�..,-t. -..._��-----�---- �
'• "• -t.� ✓ .1 �.J• .l I :' ' ,..:'t :: ' . .1 11• i• f!;! ':_• .1_ .•►.:,�. ..��5..'..:�=-•_r..+ w�'-•�1 ,'•
..i....._ ...... _� •: :,_ I 11 •1.. I...i�,:.. !,' ills i�:11!"��=l� = I!i I 1 1 . ��...•�� ._._�_._
—_r_._..r...r I ..I. -.�.�..'• =.1•�i'1 1 1 -J.� '..»w.i!•:I'..•.:1.1. I: " , 'S'' 1.1 l S i i !•i• •...*+. .;1 , 1 1 •+•.•..•r.� •"'•"'-r'�
!.«..r..•...•_rLL.•N•w' :wir:. ►•-.. _i.' � '.y�'�1 1. •:;•1;1 ::li (I!1 1 • 1111 11 y1='1 i 1 1 1 ' � r� _.�.rw...r••�� `
—...._... .r rr•• • :.y.__.'�''�.� ', � t- � � �{'''f'7I�1 1�11"'i!I•:III '1•• 1� ��Ifl ,! 1'r: �' , • . r / 9.
Hamm Wd 6NOIC1/1t0 OI X 0212AZ X
' - - -.. .. __.- ._ __._.._..._ .'...._..-_-�._....--- -----------_�._----- _.� �tWFltli•JV/701•IW7S '
}.It:'. 'i� -� �; } _}..�__ j i }T:i. :;1 ' T�:�.
._ !:♦ L , 1 1 ,•� III ' i i 1 1— ; i •' �.."
1— i
IL
• ...__. �. 1 '... 1 ... �� .: ��.: 1, � .�.�.}. r.-}- �i.;.,t-1 r ,.; ( ' I.l 1.1 :' ..:I... ..i=.. :�.'. ...,_....}I.-�•:..ti�«..�_.�_:.i.-...:.....�..«.�...
so
s __..�.._.. ! ... ...: .. N.... . I.�. .IA J. 'I r .1 l.{ i i.i I_.I. :� .. ..1... r:l.; .i.. ;,i. .} . .i;.:, ..i i.i.j�«�. --, — - --•� �--
60
e . 1 _.. »i.t: -I_ :f.11 ... .i.' _ •' .:t.� ..........
....: ......
...1. .... ..........'.� '�' .�': 1__.!_ _.a... :.�... ':�;�:: .i..11:;:
_.�... '..a.....::::::.. ..... ' ....._.. :.::.;:. �l +....I �:i' j:t l ! ' ,._1.1.1 }_ � ;.II:.. ..._.r_--
• l •. .... ........ .. .. .......'�'.j•t» _I�'/ ' S .�_ 1 -�., - ..F .•'' ,•'' �., ..I •y_{..•.• - _•i_•.__w_..__ .r-•r_—r_r•
\> .... .I• , , • � •i'I-�-1 1•t 1 .I I"r y. ..I.I '•_•I•'•: • • _r:�«_� •' �_ 1
_.. Ilw_. :.. ii'r .��:,1.;.I ..: �! -.�.. I; t1 :.: :s''�` f':I:' 'o.�.;. _. . ' ----- - -•�—: _.-._ ._
-- �.... _ . .. �i:i .t_. _' �. ' - r # � :.i;... L*1
.. j• I 1 ' i 1 t.. t . ; ;�.. ,.. : �,/)_ ;;• , s-!—:-ii'' 1
T —•�3.' �..i..l.'�
. !� �j' ••: ':�# :3 �_'li I h� 1J_''j_�.r..l_ 'J L� ! '�. J :_' .::. (`r,_...ry�. .ili: .O. (}.»:a. . . - -
`'� ' �:_. :�,.: i•j i�. r•!:f:l•i.{ rr:I^�_ I-�_+_j.�... .Y;,:.. 1 .�.•• .:Y,II�.(.�./._.I�.F.;_• �.......�_'
w.� [':..... •:.�•�)�+•. � _ ':�.;._/,. .!. .I�� i;;} i .1.. i- 1�� T'}.I:..:r....�^ }''': i. il.. .I...: Ilt•: ..1� `L� •
�. ' �........�. . .....I..�._ . .1._i.:i0 J• -}- is !. i } 1 _ -,... ..,..il�.. ;I:' l :..:�� / / _�.j.__,..
'/� .I j... 'y•21� '.a. _�. •I..' ..�. .� 1 • ;�'• , .1 'I.•r�i_: �• . +•r•r•wa—__ _
cj. ...s.•_...s—• ;r; '� r' �l : ..Li J a �Ii.. :::�;: ':`-^si. ' .. v.. . _ _......__.—_._�_
I 'j'#•i; i _ I �II�J� ii #.i .I. _t �:::�' j. ;,••,• ��•'� .:}.
�_r.. ' .•''�`••• .• .• •' �• `' 'I ,I• #' 17
I -I- ..�.. �.''II,1 .� '�••1 1'.•'�' •�� 1 . I , I 1 _ .•r..«
.` ... ..�._........•.. .I. .i• •.;... •1• ( I .� ��'1:I 1 �•� I 1 • .;. .# I '�I '�•ii: •I 11 .1•..✓�. ..•:.-• ..r:-...�_+_�..._ -- --
_.'
•� W .. ....�._.....�. .... :�....I. :j.;t,; .. .I.�. 1 f I l! •#;( 1 t -- 't t..: :`.�...t.l.;;�:il!:i'� ;: �I • `o. . 1 1 i, •" t__t
__.... ' _..,._.«_.!. ... .f.. .#. :,: '. ..�.;.I. .1 '��i.:v.. ;.I.:/,. ,.j.. "�'':��: :ii� li: •• ;: .� ,..::L.. : ...I. ._j.r.__.... �--
ri-. r• _ ' ......I.....•. •••,:_: .��i:1• ; , HIP
' 'y1'�-�� .t ��—I. ..;,.. .:i;.!1 1.. .�i.i,r •:, (•�M �.r �...___._-�.•..r.._....�••�•.___.
i. .•) ...:... •. I}, I I 1 .✓ 1 111 T _ J.V.. i:t. •..., i�' i.I = �Y!i:«�a .:y.�� . _•.
............. : _ �'i•�.1: ! � �t I: �� _�. I }; I d. .1:.:,..1 �] ... •:•i.•:i •.•1.• • r ... 1.r _•r•.._r.•«____r__r
NJ
i j•" ' ' ' •I-- ..y. .. � /� ::::.://::: �j.. .. ..If f-- =#..r1�.T�;.�. .«—.: ._i...�—.r_�
•r ... .�.• ... .... .�__ :a...:'i'_i.:c ...j..:.l•I t.��•III:i.11l.:.: ' 'I '1. ..irk. '7:;,.:5:.. ' '' '� •�I..:.�.0..} .. t.....:.i_.�_—_t•.•—_.— ___
ZZ
7-11
...._ �.._,.,-'" � •,•� 1 ��. •I ..�. ..,«..11l11j..}il..:i i 2.1. '. , 'rj'r�� :..�.:�.."'
• .-• •..•t.'_1•_•.t.iTl. 1 1 I �,I I _.«. .':.. 1;1�:=:}.•'�,:::i:•:, w. ;. .i::i•:,.� _.rr. .'w�. ' ..r� �.
- . a t• p r A q
G�ID161A16 01 It G312A0 i
'v •. •� 1•. ao�•. "JINN11bVD01•IA�i
........r.s n•.ew_._.. -_ --.... ..•r ...u_••..1/n1111A nl_.•_1_w Iw.....__. ....... ..._. ..-....-...__._....
COMPARISON STUDY
OF
DIFFUSED AERATION
VS
JET AERATION
FOR
PENBERTHY HOUDAILLE
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
BY
Fehr, Graham and Associates
Consulting Engineers
660 West Stephenson Street
Freeport, Illinois 61032
INTRODUCTION
In the Fall of 1972, Penberthy Company contracted with the Freeport
Water and Sewer Commission to utilize the facilities of the Freeport
Wastewater Treatment Plant to conduct a side-by-side comparison study
of jet aeration versus the existing nylon sock diffused aeration system
in the Freeport plant. This plant was chosen because it was originally
constructed to be adaptable to parallel comparison research studies.
A federally sponsored side-by-side comparison of complete mix versus
plug flow activated sludge was completed at this facility in 1972•.
-A schematic diagram of the activated sludge system is shown in
Figure 1. The plant was constructed so that it could be operated as
two entirely separate systems using different flow patterns , mixing
regiemes, air rates, and return sludge and wasting rates.
1 1'—•-_.-----__ T ®—Porsnan Flume
11
—Prapar Cff Sam~
nl
PST 1 PST 3 —— my Ptii�n Eflkrtn!
1 i -Idea Sludge
••-••—FinW EMk,eM
� �--� ' � _
( AT 1 AT 3 To C12 Comoal
_ e
AT 2• AT4
1 r'
jI 1
1 rxosn .
�) PST 2 PST
Frain Primary Tanks
FIGURE I.—Freeport activated sludge treatment plant.
The activated sludge system consists of a blower building, 4
rectangular aeration tanks, and 4 circular final settling tanks. Each
aeration tank has dimensions of 57.. 5 ' x 25' x 13' water depth. The
tank volume excluding the effluent channel for each tank is 132,000
gallons. There are 5 inlet chambers for primary effluent and 4 inlets
for return sludge on one side of each tank. Mixed liquor leaves the
tanks over a longitudinal weir extending the full length of the tanks
on the side opposite the inlet chambers .
The final settling tanks are peripheral inlet/peripheral outlet
circular tanks with a diameter of 57' and a water depth of 14 ' . Tank
volume excluding effluent and influent channels is 270,000 gallons.
Sludge withdrawal is by means of suction through a moving header at
the bottom of the tank.
-Air to the existing diffused air system is supplied by a centri-
fugal blower with a maximum capacity of 6000 cfm. Two identical
standby blowers were included in the design. Air is measured separately
to each system through differential pressure flow tubes. A separate
meter is also provided for measuring •the air to aeration tank #4 . A
diagram of the air piping system is shown in Figure 2.
sn,ea..
AT t AT 3
I
M
AV rwaftXXI
Cerwtug0l v��
�.•{
AT 2 AT •
. FIGURE 2—Activated sludge air system.
The return sludge system is shown schematically in Figure 3. The
valving is such that return sludge from each pair of final tanks may
be kept separate. Each waste sludge pump may be valved to pump only
from one system. All waste sludge is cycled back to the primary :
settling tanks. From there it is pumped to the anaerobic digestion
system. Waste and return sludge flows are measured by magnetic flow
'meters.
' _- M MOgnQIK ftOr MfIN�
FST I FST 3
• AT 1 AT 3
3_1
U AT 4Z
FST 4
M
To Wnt*
FIGURE 3.—Return sludge system.
For the purposes of this study, temporary proportional samplers
were placed in the effluent stream of final settling tanks n3 and r4
(see Figure 1) . A permanent automatic proportional sampler monitored
the influent flow to the aeration tank • system.
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
Penberthy► Jet Aerators
The "Eddy-Mix" diffusers consist of jets mounted in a radial
pattern or cluster. The cluster uniformly distributes air and liquid
to each jet. Mixed liquor is the motive fluid and is supplied to the
cluster by a pump. Air is provided to the cluster by a compressed
air line.
. ...Piping Arrangement
Figure 4 shows a schematic drawing of the experimental piping
arrangement for aeration tank #4 which contained the Penberthy eauip-
went. The air line supplying the jet aerators was connected to three
of the existing diffused air pipes. Valves controlling the rest of
the diffused air laterals were closed and all flow was directed through
the last three pipes on the air line into the Penberthy system. A
PlyPh IDRiY �
0�7ti�wlOaii F�erss. mom ric w �
Oow.+aia�1►te+eo A.x Lacs 4 .
D
Tama' tuaa Vows
D11r,MAf1t7METCR UPS"'hCRflIS Aat RZtSS.C�+�)•
• (DPA) 1cr ltdpzcRPktz.(P-40
ID,FF.M&m0mxmlt, upsriteAMAix rkm%.(VAO)
Ywft&,"►.►u0 VAWM P ��PFCRttIJ(1Al .JSS•r WAStOt rRC.0.Cftw-)
RxnP ,
�4011.P. CIRC04 Amors
r
Rrn� 1
TNQ1 M eML'�1�
� Ls?STR"LAM AKC
Tato(OF)(TAU) op titcd Y—L.ATcs—"Z-�' .
i
r
Jes CLx►s�a�s•7�� .
/ 000n o0 0 00
FIGURE 4 -- PENBERTHY JET AERATION SYSTEM
.4C HP centrifugal pump was placed on the end of the tank and was
interconnected with a suction line coming directly from a point near
the bottom of the tank. Valving was such that the pump suction could
also' be connected to the return sludge line feeding the return sludge
inlets to the tank. This allowed for flexibility of drawing mixed
liquor directly from the tank and transferring it through the jet
aerators as the motive fluid or using return sludge from the final
settling tank and circulating this through the jets. The normal mode
of operation was to circulate directly out of the tank back into .the
jets.
Air Flow Measurement
Two means were available for determining air flow rate to the jets .
First, orifice plates were installed in the vertical pipes running from
the air line to the top of the jets. A liquid manometer was connected
across each air orifice plate and the differential pressure could be
Bread directly. Second, the total flow to the system could be measured
by the flow tube and inclined manometer already installed in the line
to aeration tank 94 . Gauges were installed to measure air pressure
upstream of each orifice plate.
Liquid Pressure Measurements
Figure n4 shows the location of gauges to measure the water pressure
on the discharge of the pump, upstream and downstream of the throttling
valve and at each of the jet clusters.
OXYGEN TRANSFER EFFICIENCY EVALUATIONS
Experimental Procedures
Throughout the course of the testing, the influent and effluent
BOD and total suspended solids from aeration tank 11r4 (containing the
Penberthy equipment) and aeration -tank #3 (the diffused air tank) and
their'adjacent final settling tanks was monitored using automatic
• composite samplers. Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids were
measured three times per day in each of the tanks and dissolved oxygen
measurements were made six times per day. In this manner it was
possible to obtain an accurate record of the treatment performance of
each of the two side-by-side systems.
The approach to determining the oxygen transfer efficiency in the
operating systems consisted of measuring air flow input and oxygen
uptake rate in each tank. The systems were operated in an attempt to
maintain a constant dissolved oxygen level in the tanks. When this
can be achieved, it can be stated that the oxygen transfer rate is
equal to the oxygen uptake rate. It should be pointed out that during
the course of the testing there were considerable variations in the
dissolved oxygen levels in the tanks.. Analysis was applied to data
only at times when the aeration tanks• exhibited stable D.O. levels for
r 2 - 4 hours. Only data obtained at the midpoint of such periods was
l used for all transfer efficiency determinations.
Oxygen Uptake Rate Determination
Since it is very difficult to measure actual uptake rate in an
aeration tank directly, a procedure was used that follows the outline
in the Appendix of the federally-sponsored research project conducted
at the Freeport facility prior to this study. . This procedure is
documented in the Appendix of the report entitled "Full Scale Parallel
'Activated Sludge Process Evaluation" published by the Office of
Research and Monitoring, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Project- a17050 ENM (January 1973) . It involves taking a sample of
mixed .liquor, enclosing it in a sealed vessel, and monitoring the change
in uptake rate over several hours time by measuring the change in
dissolved gxygen, reaerating and measuring the change in dissolved
oxygen again, and then repeating the procedure for up to two hours.
'It is then possible to exfrnpola-f'e both the endogenous and synthesis
rates back to time zero. (The time when the sample was removed from
the aeration tank. ) The sum of the synthesis and endogenous rates at
time zero is then equal to the actual uptake rate in the tank.
Also during certain periods when it was not possible to make these
detailed laboratory determinations the following formula was used to
calculate the uptake rate in the tank. The values for constants for
this formula were determined also during the full scale parallel
activated sludge process evaluation study conducted at the Freeport
plant prior to this current study.
do = KSF + KeMa where do = oxygen uptake rate mg
dt dt (1)%hr)
KS = synthesis rate (2. 6 hr-1)
F = soluble,* ultimate, final effluent BOD (mg/1)
Ke = endogenous rate ( . 037 hr-1)
Ma = active mass (mg/1)
and F = (. 56) (1. 46)BOD5 where BOD5 = final effluent 5-day BOD
Soluble BOD5 _ . 56xtotal BOD5
Ultimate BOD = 1. 46xBOD5
and Ma = .26xMLVSS where MLVSS = mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
(mg/1)
therefore do = (2. 126) (BOD5) + (. 00962) (MLVSS)
dt
_Measurement of Air to Aeration Tank r3
Aeration tank 13 was the control tank containing the nylon sock
diffused air system. This tank contained approximately 255 sock
diffusers spaced equally over the bottom of the tank. Water depth was
13' . Two methods were used to attempt to determine the air flow rate _
to this tank. It should be pointed out that a separate air meter on
-the line to the tank was not used. First, the flow tube air meter to
' tanks #l ' and #3 was read three times per day and it was attempted to
operate this air line so that the flow was split equally between tanks
#1 and 13. This was done by attempting to maintain the same dissolved
oxygen level in both tanks. Assuming that this was successful the air
flow would be approximately 1/2 of the meter reading.
Secondly, the calibration curve for the blower which related blower
discharge in standard cubic feet per minute to horsepower was used. An
ammeter on the blower was read periodically and this current consumption
was converted to blower horsepower and thereby related to the blower
output. The flow tube connected to an inclined manometer on the air
line to aeration tank #4 was read .and this was subtracted from the
calculated total blower output. It was then asuumed that flow was split
equally between tanks #1, #2, and 43 so that the "flow to tank #3 was
• assumed to be 1/3 of the difference between the total flow and the flow
to aeration tank #4 as measured by the separate meter to that tank.
Considerable differences in the two methods did result. It is
believed that the flow measurements obtained at the main air meter were
low because the blower was running at the lower end of its output range
and the meter was in the lower 10% of its readout range. For calcula-
tion purposes the latter method described above was used.
Measurement of Air Flow to Jet Aeration System .
Again, two means were available for measuring the air flow to the
-jet. aerators. First, orifice plates were positioned in the vertical
pipes feeding the jets. A manometer was connected across these plates
and air- pressure and temperature were monitored upstream of the plates.
It was then possible to use a formula for the specific orifice plate
to calculate the air flow. For the majority of the experiments only
f two clusters were mounted in the tank at locations B and D as shown in
Figure M The air flow total between these two could then be compared
' .against the air flow measured at the flow tube in the permanent air
line feeding aeration tank f4 . Again there was a discrepancy between
the two types of measurement. In most cases the air flows measured
with the orifice plates in the vertical line read higher than the total
air flow as measured through the permanent feeder air line. This
permanent air meter was used for all air flow calculations.
Formulae for Evaluation of Data
Below is a summary of the formulae which were developed to
assimilate the raw data and determine transfer efficiencies for each
of the exper;m ental systems .
The following are the formulae used to evaluate oxygen transfer
efficiency for each system.
Aeration Tank f3 - Diffused Air
I. Blower Brake Horsepower
BHP = (4440) (CI) (1.732) (PF) (NM)
746
where: BHP = Brake horsepower
CI = ammeter reading
PF = power factor (0. 85)
NM = motor efficiency (. 94)
2. Air Flow to Aeration Tanks
QAT = BHP-44 (Formula developed from'. blower performance curve)
. 0403
where- QAT = total blower output, SCFM
then:
. QA3 = QAT-QAM
3
where:- QA3 = air flow to AT3 , SUM
QAM = AN inclined manometer-flow tube air meter
reading, air flow to AT4 , SCFM
' - 3. ' Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
OR '= . 132 14G x 8. 33 lb x 02 U
gal
where:- OR = oxygen uptake rate, lb 02/hr
02 U - oxygen uptake rate, mg/l
hr
KLAWT = OR
CS-DO
where: • KLAWT = mass transfer coefficient
DO = mixed liquor D.O. in AT
CS = saturation D.O. concentration at temperature TIML
Tr1L = mixed liquor temperature (°C)
then: KLAWS = (KLAWT) (1. 024) (20-TML)
where: FLAWS = mass transfer coefficient at standard conditions
of 20°C and 1 atmosphere.
then: ORS = (KLAWS) (9. 0 2)
where: ORS = oxygen transfer rate at standard conditions, lb/
(� 9. 02 = saturation concentration of D.O. at 20°C and
1 atmosphere
EAS = ORS (100%)
(QA3) (1. 044)
where: EAS = standard transfer efficiency
1. 044 = lb 02/hr
SCFM
4. Standard Oxygen Capacity
OCS3 = ORS3
POA3
where: OCS3 = lb 02/HPxHr in AT3
POA3 = BHP-POA4 = air HP to AT3
3 ,
' POA4 = OAM (BIiP) = air HP directed to AT4
QAT
and '
OCS4 = ORS4 = lb 02/Hp-Hr in AN
POAJ+BHPW4
• where: POAJ = POA4 PA4 '= air HP to jet system
PA3
PA4 = total air pressure required to AT4 (excluding
- control valve friction loss necessary to balance
_ air flows between tanks)
PA4 = static water level plus system friction
loss (10/2 . 31 + 1 = 4 . 33 + 1 = 5. 33 psi)
PA3 total air pressure required to AT3 = static
water level plus system friction loss
(13/2. 31 + 1 = 6. 63 psi)
. PA4/PA3 = 5. 33 = 0. 80
6. 63
BHPW4 = (QWT) (. 1167) = water HP to AT4
H = 2. 307 x pump discharge pressure gauge reading
downstream of throttling valve
QWT = liquid flow rate (cfs)
Experimental Results
. . The test dates and times selected on which to apply the above
formulae were chosen on the basis of overall stable plant performance
and relatively constant D.O. levels in both aeration tanks #3 and 44.
The test dates were taken from daily data obtained during
October, 1973.
Table 1 summarizes the calculations to arrive at oxygen transfer
efficiencies (EAS) .
Table 2 shows the comparison of transfer efficiency between the
diffused air and jet aeration systems. Approximately 2.T f-. w+es
_.efficiency was obtained with the jet aeration system.
OXYGEN TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS N „�
int r I ---•
14Cr ow
y 3
8a
s, o i.
i
Date Time AT Cl BHP OAT QAM QA3 02U OR EA CS KLAWS ORS EAS
1973 Amp (H.P. ) (SCFM) SCFM} SCFM (mg/l-hr (lb hr) ($) (mg 1) lb/hr) M
Oct 22 1430 3 23 187. 7 '3566 1095 66. 4 73. 01 6. 4 9. 31 9.29 83. 80 7. 3
22 1330 4 •280 73. 8 81. 15 27. 8 9. 31 9.44 85. 15 29. 1
23 1430 3 23 187. 7 3566 1062 66. 9 73. 56 6. 6 9 . 31 9. 76 88. 04 7. 9
23 1700 4 380 63. 7 70. 04 17. 6 9. 50 8. 26 74 . 51 18. 8
24 1515 3 20.5 167. 3 3060 890 62. 7 68. 94 7. 4 9. 20 9. 17 82. 71 8. 9 •
24 1415 4 390 72. 7 79. 94 19. 6 9. 31 10. 34 93. 27 22. 9
24 1910 3 20. 5 167. 3 3060 900 61. 9 68. 06 7. 2 9. 25 10. 86 97. 96 10. 4
24 1815 4 360 46. 0 50. 58 13. 5 9. 25 7. 08 63. 86 17. 0
25 1435 3 20 163. 2 2958 854 62..5 68. 72 7. 7 9. 27 9. 00 81. 18 9. 1
25 1335 4 395 54 . 4 59. 82 14 . 5 9. 27 7. 55 68. 10 16. 5
25 0900 3 16 . 130. 6 2149 623 57. 7 63. 44 9. 8 9. 40 7. 83 70. 63 10. 9
25 1010 4 280 68. 7 75. 54 25. 8 9. 36 •9. 32 84 . 07 28. 8
25 1905 3 19. 8 162. 3 2935 860 48.-8 53. 66 6. 1 9 . 31 9 . 25 83. 44 9. 4
25 1810 4 3.85 64 . 3 70. 70 17. 6 9. 31 8. 92 80. 46 20. 0
26 1020 3 17 138. 8 2352 704 58. 0 63. 77 18. 7 9. 44 8. 06 72. 70 9. 9
26 0810 4 240 43. 8 48. 16 19. 2 9. 50 7. 86 70. 90 28. 3
26 1830 3 20. 5 168. 8 3097 904 61. 0 67. 07 7. 1 9. 40 8. 28 74 . 69 7. 9
26 1545 4 385 59. 7 65. 64 16. 6 9 . 40 8. 61 77. 66 19. 3
27 1310 13 18 146. 9 2553 776 62. 2 68. 39 8. 4 9. 50 8. 74 78. 83 9. 7
27 1525 4 1 225 62. 8 69. 05 . 29. 4 9. 50 8. 52 76. 85 32. 7
28 1020 3 17 141. 2 2412 730 64 . 6 71. 03 9. 3 9. 61 8. 86 79. 92 10. 5
28 1115 4 222 41. 4 45. 52 19. 6 9. 61 5. 88 53. 04 22. 9
Avg. 3 160. 2 2883 853 61. 2 67. 13 7. 7 9. 3
Avg. 4 322 59. 2 65. 10 20. 1 23. 3
•raoie t
COMPARISON OF OXYGEN TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
Date (1973) Diffused Air % Jet Aeration- %
Oct. 22 7. 3 29.1
23 7. 9 18. 8
24 8. 9 22. 9
24 10. 4 17. 0
25 9. 1 16.5
25 10. 9 28. 8
25 9.4 20. 0
26 9. 9 . 28. 3
26 7.9 19. 3
27 9. 7 32. 7
28 10. 5 22. 9
Total 101.9 256.3
Avg. 9. 3 23.3
Max. 10.9 32. 7
Min. 7.3 16. 5
It should be pointed out that throughout the testing, daily
BOD and suspended solids analyses were performed on the effluents
of each system, and the results of these analyses indicated no
significant difference in removal efficiency between the two.
Table 3 outlines the standard oxygen capacity calculations for
the diffused air system (AT#3) and Table 4 for the jet aeration
system (ATA4) .
.. u craaa.ntu VA Y l C.1V CAPACITY, DIFFUSED AIR SYSTEM (AT#3)
A '
J
' Q Q
Z 0
Q a
k 0 0.
It K �-
POA4 POA3 OCS3
Date (H.P. ) (H.P. ) --(lb 02/HP-Hr) -
Oct. 22 14. 74 57. 65 1.45
23 20. 00 55.90 . 1.57
24 21. 32 48. 66 1.70
24 19. 68 49.21 1. 99
25 21. 7-9 47.14 1.72
25 17. 02 37. 86 1. 87
25 21. 29 47. 00 1.78
- . 26 14 .16 . 41. 55 1.75
26 20. 98 49.27 1.52
` •� 27 12. 95 44. 65 1.77
28 13. 00 42. 73 1-. 87
Total 18. 99
Avg. 1.73
Max. 1. 99
Min. 1. 45
14.
TABLE 4 - STANDARD OXYGEN CAPACITY JET AERATION SYSTEM (A.T. NO. 4)
3
a
x
to
v • � 4
i
i u
ORS4 POAJ BHPW4 TBHP OCS4
Date (1973) (lb O Hr) (Air HP) (Water HP) (Total HP) (lb O -HP-Hr.)
Oct. 22 85. 15 11. 79 11.16 22. 95 3. 71
23 ' 74.51 16. 00 7. 25 23. 25 3. 20
24 93.27 17. 06 8. 21 25. 27 3. 69
i
24 63.86 15.74 8.32 24. 06 2. 65
25 68. 10 17. 43 8. 26 25. 69 2. 65
25 84. 07 13. 62 8. 36 21. 98 3. 82
25 80. 46 17. 03 8. 32 25.35 3. 17
26 70.90 11. 33 8.28 19. 61 3. 62
265. 77. 66 16. 78 8. 06 24. 84 3. 13
27 76. 85 10. 36 - - -
28 53. 04 10. 40 8.14 18. 54 2. 86
Total 32. 50
Avg. 3.25
Max. 3.71
Min. 2. 65
SUMMARY
Experimental Calculations
Table 5 shows that the jet aeration system exhibited z.s t;.Mes groofe
transfer efficiency and ).'? f;rnes gwoipr transfer rate in pounds of oxygen
per horsepower-hour. With equal removal efficiencies from both systems ,
this indicates that a power savings can be obtained by using the jet
aeration system.
1 S.
TABLE 5 - SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Trans. Eff. (g) Trans. Rate (lb 0 liP-fir)
Diffused Air 9_3 1. 73
Jet Aeration 23. 3 3. 25
Operational Considerations
The diffused air system lends itself well to close control of
applied air rate, since there is only one variable which can be easily
controlled by adjusting a valve on the blower air line.
The jet aeration system has two variables - pump output and' air
flow rate which must be adjusted and kept in balance to match the tank
oxygen requirements and maintain efficient operation. However if the
required oxygen transfer rate does not vary excessively it can be
I
matched with the jet system by only adjusting one of the variables
i •
and still maintain efficient operation.
The nylon sock type diffusers do eventually tend to clog and
require cleaning on at least an annual basis. This necessitates
I
manually removing each diffuser from the tank and washing it. The
jet system eliminates this clogging problem.
During the testing at Freeport considerable difficulty was
experienced with the retrieval mechanism for the jet cluster. However
i •
{ the design has since been modified by replacing the steel cable
retrieval guides with stainless steel rigid pipe guides which eliminate
.•the twisting which occurred with the cables. This revised mechanisms
allows for removal of individual jet clusters from the tank with the
use of a winch without having to drain the tank.
The testing indicates that the jet system represents a workable
alternative to diffused aeration in most design applications with a
definite reduction in operational power requirements.
1 F.
PEN BERTHY [U,�OUDAILLE
Water & Waste Water Systems Division
Houdaille Industries, Inc.
219 East Fourth Street
Cedar Falls. Iowa 50613
(319) 277-4220
NMater and NMaste.NMUmter Systems Proposal
PROJECT: ENGINEER:
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - DIVISION 1 - GREELEY & HANSEN '
OXYGEN GENERATION & STORAGE FACILITY
DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITY
FOR 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT
#2 - JOB NO. P2-23-2
+ i
Ss-
R
is �r "T•�: o .1�-�''�.
1
�y
tif""'�"',,'p'i'
�.��:e t '` .iy l'a; ( '",;1`5�:`"i'�^Cs` �`x`f�.,bX `Z' "i' tr ,i,''..'[,�'i �r.+•a.`F1�� ��^F.',,' _ -
e.fit r.a'=r-`�-' H c^ ..'�.y"�•. . � -�rx '„�'ap -vfr"=€.ti �.. �` s� j3
t 1 y
1�
PENTECH [UffJOUDAILLE Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
219 East Fourth Street,Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 U.S.A.
Telephone(319)277-4220 Telex 465632
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to propose the following PENTOX system as the functional
equivalent in all respects to the equipment and systems outlined in the
Special Provisions and Detailed Specifications for Division 1 - Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities, and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant #2, Job No. P2-23-2.
Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries, Incorporated warrants that it
has reviewed the plans and Special Provisions 'and Detailed Specifications
fcr Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities, and Division 2-
Oxygen Dissolution Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant 7"r2,
Job No. P2-23-2, and that its proposal is for the combined equivalent of
"Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities" and "Oxygen Dissolution Facil-
ities" contained within the detailed specifications.
Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries, Incorporated, further warrants
that it has made detailed calculations of the treatment capabilities of
the PENTOX system applied to the proposed tankage outlined in the plans
and detailed specifications based on published literature values and its
own experience, and that the treatment capabilities of the PENTOX system
are equivalent to those required in the plans. and detailed specification.
Pentech warrants that it has plants in operation which exceed the MLSS
levels and organic loading rates as those specified within the specifi-
cation.
Pentech warrants that its detailed calculations and its best judgment
predict that an effluent quality of 25 mg/l or less should be obtained
when the plant is loaded with a monthly maximum flow of 76.15 MGD, con-
taining 312 mg/l at 860F. These calculations and supporting documents
are available upon request to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County, California, and its engineers.
Equipment and services proposed under this proposal will be furnished
as per the following description. In the event of any differences in
requirements of the specifications and items quoted below, the following
quoted items will take precedence. Any items not included in this pro-
posal which are not required for the PENTOX process but are required
under the scope of the detailed specifications will not be furnished.
A general layout drawing is attached as to how the equipment will be ar-
ranged.
- Page 1 of 6
The PENTOX system consists of an optimized atmospheric oxygen and high
purity oxygen system. A high efficiency jet gas-liquid contacting sys-
tem is utilized to contact atmospheric oxygen directly with mixed liquor
`�►' for direct dissolution of atmospheric oxygen.
The system is augmented with additional jet gas-liquid contactors util-
izing high purity oxygen for dissolved oxygen control. Due to high ef-
ficiency and high specific oxygenation rates obtainable with the jet
gas-liquid contactors, high metabolic respiration rates are possible.
The PENTOX process is essentially a high rate system which provides func-
tionally the same performance specified in Division 1 and 2 of the de-
tailed specifications for Job No. P2-23-2. The system uses optimum
amounts of air and high purity oxygen for supporting metabolic activity
of the activated sludge process and maintaining a high DO on the order
of 6 mg/l or greater in the effleent of the last stage of the system.
The system is designed around the specifications to offer a substantial
savings in the total cost of the treatment plant.
The last stage of the 8 tank system or-the last two stages of the four
tank, 8 stage system will be equipped with variable frequency- drives to
provide the flexibility of variable pumping and mixing rates and bull:
energy dissipation rates for floc growth and conditioning prior to sedi-
mentation. Either compressed atmospheric oxygen or high purity oxygen
can be used in these stages to provide the optimum degree of dissolved
oxygen and mixing control.
Due to the lack of spray and mechanical gear drives and mechanical
undercarriage in the gas space above the mixed liquor, the PENTOX system
does not require the tank freeboard shok� on the plans and specifications .
Therefore it is possible to operate the PENTOX system with substantially
less freeboard, increasing the mixed liquor operating depth and retention
time. Trough this does not charge the capital requirements of the PENTOX
systems, it does reduce the energy requirement of the treatment plant, and
will provide some improvement in effluent quality. This proposal is in
no way contengent upon increased operating levels- within the tanks and
is based upon the levels specified. However, an alternate showing the
potential reduction in power by increasing the operating depth is offered
at no additional cost and is detailed in the power guarantee section of
this proposal.
DIVISION 1 - OXYGEN GENERATION AND STORAGE FACILITIES EQUIVALENT
CTEM .#1 AIR COMPRESSORS
-Three (3) air compressors will be supplied for delivering variable at-
mospheric oxygen flow rates up to 1,490,000 pounds of oxygen per day
{ complete with all transfer piping required to transport the oxygen to
the dissolution facility. In addition, two (2) 6000 gallon capacity
-liquid oxygen storage tanks will be provided along with two (2) vaporizer
units. The liquid oxygen tanks will be horizontal and shall be mounted
with a vaporizer unit. The vaporizer will be designed to vaporize liquid
oxygen by exposure to atmospheric air. The system will be capable of pro-
viding up to 10 tons per day of high purity oxygen to the dissolution
��..� facility. In addition a standby air compressor will be supplied, fully
installed and ready for operation.
Page 2 of 6
Compressors will be centrifugal type with all standard accessories
including an ODP motor with 1.15 service factor, inlet silencer, inlet
filter, discharge silencer, inlet and discharge butterfly valves, dis-
charge check valve, rubber expansion sleeves, and isolation pads. Blower
will be painted as per the manufacturers standard.
Each compressor shall be supplied with a vibration sensing device, a
temperature sensing device, and s surge protection device.
The compressors will be designed to compress air from the atmosphere
to the pressure requirement of the PENTOX system. The inlet condition
will be sea level and a miximum temperature of 1000F. No after-cooler
or forced lubrication system is necessary.
ITEM #2 OUTSIDE AIR MANIFOLD ,
An air manifold to carry air from the compressor discharges up to the top
of the aeration tanks will be supplied. The air manifold will be manufac-
tured of galvanized spiral weld carbon steel pipe. The pipe will he sup-
ported by concrete blocks at suitable intervals.
ITEM #3 OXYGEN GAS LINE
The oxygen gas line from the vaporizer to the last stage of the tanks will
be provided. The piping will be provided with all necessary valves and
fittings required for safe operation. The piping will be of material
compatible to the service desired.
r
DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITIES
ITEM #4 EDDY MTX JET GAS/LIQUID CONTRACTORS
A total of one hundred and twelve (112) Eddy Mix Jet Gas/Liquid Contactors
will be supplied. The jet gas/liquid cluster shall consist of jet nozzles
mounted on a common central distribution manifold. The nozzles shall be
arranged to discharge in a radial pattern.. The central manifold shall
consist of separate gas and liquid sections. The liquid portion of the
manifold shall provide uniform distribution of mixed liquor from the in-
let to each of the jet nozzles. The gas portions of the manifold shall
provide uniform distribution of gas to the mixing nozzle.
ITEM #5 PUMPS
Sixty-four (64) mixed liquor recycle pumps will be supplied for the system.
In addition, two of these pumps will be supplied for standby. The pumps
will be suitable for 480 v, 60 cycle, 3 phase electric operation. The
+ pumps will be designed to provide necessary mixed liquor flow to the jet
gas/liquid contactors. The pumps will be supplied complete with motor.
The pump will be painted per manufacturing standards.
ITEM #6 IN-BASIN• AIR AND LIQUID PIPING
In-basin air and liquid piping required for the PENTOX system will be
furnished complete. The liquid piping will connect pump and aerator and
air piping will connect outside air manifold to the aerator. All in-basin
piping will be manufactured of FRP as per PS-15-69 specifications. The
piping will be supported at appropriate spacing by carbon steel supports.
' Page 3 of 6
ITEM #7 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE FOR THE LAST STAGE PUMPS - - . - - _ -- --
All pumps in each last stage of the 8 tank system or the last two stages
of the 4 tank system will be equipped with variable frequency drive en-
abling the supply of various flow and mixing rates.
ITEM #8 CONTROLS The controls necessary for the continuous operation of the compressors,
liquid oxygen tanks, and aerators will be furnished. Necessary controls
for the compressors and liquid storage tanks will be furnished for control
room and for local mounting.
ITEM #9 ENGINEERING NLUIUALS
Operating and Maintenance-Manuals will be supplied for all major equip-
ment as per specifications.
ITEM 910 START UP AND TRAINING SERVICE
Pentech will provide a qualified representative to supervise the erection
crews. A qualified representative will provide start up service for a
period of two (2) weeks. A training session of at least 3 creeks will be
held for the plant operators and districts ' _supervisory personnel per the
specifications.
ITEM.. #11 PERFORMAINCE GUARANTEE
Pentech guarantees that the oxygen supply and dissolution facilities, when
started up and operated in accordance with Pentech operating instructions,
and when the waste water characteristics are as set forth in the detailed
specifications (Job No. P2-23-2) section headed "Oxygen Dissolution fac�l-
ities", and when operating in aeration tanks constructed as described in
the detailed specifications and with clarifier constructed as described
and when design operating conditions as described in section 54-6 (a) are
attained and tested in accordance with -the procedure described in the
next item of this proposal, will:
a) Maintain an average dissolved oxygen content in the effluent from the
last stage of each of the 8 tanks of not less than 6.0 mg/l at design flow
and BOD loading conditions and at a temperature of 780F and not less than
2.0 mg/1 at maximum monthly flow and BOD Loading conditions and a temp-
erature of 860F.
b) Dissolve in the waste water not less than 200,000 pounds per day of
gaseous oxygen at design flow and BOD -loading conditions and at a waste
water temperature of 78oF or provide all the necessary process oxygen in
solution demanded by or required by the- wastewater at design flow and BOD
loading and temperature for treatment of the wastewater.
c) Dissolve in the wastewater not less than 268,000 pounds per day of
gaseous oxygen at maximum monthly flow and BOD loading conditions and
at a wastewater temperature of 860F or provide all the necessary process
oxygen in solution demanded by or required by the wastewater at maximum
monthly flow and BOD loading and temperature for treatment of the waste-
water.
Page 4 of 6
d) Power requirad to provide adequate treatment under design and max-
imum monthly flow and load conditions will not exceed the following
values:
Mixed Liquor Design Max. Monthly
Operating Level
16.S ft. 2770 KW 3404 KW
19.5 ft. 2500 KW 2981 KIV
The above power figures include both the pumping (mixing) power and the
oxygen supply ( air compressor power) . The equivalent power of the de-
sign high purity oxygen oxygen flow of 2 tons/day is approximately 31 KIV.
ITEM #12 PRICE
The price of the PENPDX system completely installed, as described herein
is $6,498,000. The price includes freight and applicable taxes.
ITEM #13 SHIPNIEN-7
A complete schedule of shipment will be submitted within 30 days from the
aware of contract.
ITEM #14 BILLING PERIOD
Partial billing against partial shipment shall be allowed per the speci-
fications.
ITEM #1S PERFORNLAUNCE TESTS
a) Aerators: Aerators of each type will be tested in Pentech test tank
(55' diameter) at the operating water depth of 16.5 ' or 19.51 . The test
procedure will be as recommended by PEIRA for diffused aeration system.
The model used to calculate Cs will be the dynamic saturation mothod by
long term aeration corrected for obsorption efficiency.
b) Pumps: One pump of each kind will be factory tested for its head
GPM power drawn characteristics.
c) Compressors: The compressors will be factory tested for their SCFbI-
psig power characteristics.
d) Motors: Every motor will be given routine factory tests consisting
of current, resistance, high potential, and bearing inspection.
r
e) Noise Tests: A standard noise level test will be done for one of the
compressors at the factory testing lab as per factory's methods.
ITEM #16 PERFOZIANCE TESTS AFTER INSTALLATION
The test shall be conducted by Pentech per section S2-11 of Job No.
P2-23-2 with the following modifications.
l Page 5of6
I) Items, f,r,g, on page D42-12 will not be followed. Instead, air
flow to each stage shall be measured by a manometer. The oxygen feed
rate to last stage in cu. ft./day shall be monitored. The oxygen up-
take rate measurement in each stage shall thn be conducted according
to the method followed by the Iowa State University.
Measurements and analytical determinations for each 7-day test shall
be corrected if necessary to conform to the design parameters and op-
erating conditions set forth in the detailed specifications sections
headed "Oxygen Dissolution Facilities", then averaged. In addition,
the Engineer will calculate material balances on oxygen requirements
to confirm that the system is'operating properly. The method of mak-
ing such corrections and averages shall be mutually agreed upon by the
Engineer and Pentech. The resulting averages will be used in confirming
whether or not the oxygen dissolution facilities have met the performance
guarantees set forth above.
In the event the results of any test indicate a deficiency in the oxygen
dissolution in the subsection hereinabove headed "Performance Guarantees",
Pentech will have the right to take additional data, make adjustment to
the oxygen dissolution facilities, check and revise the District's oper-
ating procedures, inspect the total plant for operation in accordance with
specified design, determine if the influent settled sewage is biological!,.
treatable by conducting bench seal or Warburg treatability studies , deter-
mine if the influent settle& sewage contains toxic materials which may in-
hibit the growth of the biomass, determine values of Alpha and Beta of the
influent settled sewage., and Pentech shall then conduct a second per-or-
�, mance test.
ITEM #17 ITEi1S NOT INCLUDED
-Any items not specifically covered in this proposal.
Page 6 of 6
PENBERTHY
TERMS OF SALE S. SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY:
The conditions stated below shalt constitute a part of the All deliveries quoted are estimates based on Penberthy'!
agreement resulting from the acceptance of an order for the best judgment at the time of this proposal, but shipment cr
whole or any part of the equipment covered by this these dates is not guaranteed. Deliveries are figured fro.,-
)tation, unless expressly excepted therein: date of receipt in Cedar Falls. Iowa of approved order ar;
technical data. Penberthy will not accept any ciairn
,,y CCEPTANCE: caused by delay in shipment or delivery. it is further un
derstood that storage charges of 1 percent per month
All orders shall be made out to Penberthy Division, apply commencing 30 days from date of equipment ccr.n
Houdaille industries, 219 East Fourth Street. Cedar Falls. lowa plelion if purchaser asks that delivery be delayed afirer
50613, and shall be subject to acceptance by Penberthy. production is started. Billing will be made at time
Orders may not be cancelled without Penberthy's written completion of equipment and paid per standard terms.
consent, and then only on terms indemnifying Penberthy
against loss. Penberthy reserves the right to correct any 6. TERMS OF PAYMENT:
typographical or clerical errors in the proposal, pricing, or
specification. Terms of payment require net cash payment within 30 days
from date of invoice, unless specifically excepted on the
Acceptance of any contract by Penberthy shall be con- face of this quotation. Accounts not paid on net cash due
tingent upon credit approval. Performance shall be subject date bear interest at the rate of 1 and per month from
to- strikes, fires, accidents, or curtailmants in manufac• said date.
turing or due to delays unavoicable or beyond the control of
Penberthy. No indirect or liquidated damages or penalties , 5� A(ltkA +!xypl '��RxxxyxX
t.ti , /.... t , r,
shall be accepted. Receipt of the orJ Ina! cop of this A t �j s). ,)al,.:igt .$.?Oil �lt j.),1Q/lyu:);flit>.1,1i1...tAl�:,
signed b .he purchaser, shall constitute a Ur- :i' V' '` T
proposal, 9 y P P „ '4tiV.ielljrtli :1�
chase order. ,, �„,t:;}i^:=„s<�s4t,• ��<,�t�..;,,;. �. r��,::,.:.,...;. :.,,;,.t.v:,l
.1�. \\11.\,t,.rtu .Nrl r �• , •t I..MI<,aut. .\1 , , Y
4j Ix1`
- The drawings and bulletin illustrations submitted with this c•tt 's,t',att ^?�:.• Wt '> �� µ.. �`- aa. •? "�^��' " . ,,, tt,
���'1 y,��.u,a.,.�r.i.. t.t
proposal show genera! type, arrangement and approximate t;,^v:�:�:..q,S,:<;.a:�'rt�t;�_, zut,,�a:5...��i: :Sr,�\r�;�.ii>:•_�C. .
dimensions of the equipment Y to be furnished. Penberthy r: ,ti6�. ��'�'�"�'��"t'�"'"••)�=`""'
ii 't�T�TtT�r'ref'''ntY.)Il:i'ttir(is�h'.\..�1(�<,'�r.r...i'.,:l,:.t:�t,,...._
reserves the right to alter such details in design or 'y n p\�aA T i s r` s a =f4 µ=�
arrangement of its equipment:vhich in its judgement would ^'t h����' '` ^•` A111M k,t�n .,1C.\` <<1�X k����,�X�n:,
constitute an improvement in construction, application or 8. WARRANTY:
operation. All necessary engineering information for in-
stallation of its equipment shall be promptly forwarded by Penberthy warrants the equipment proposed and described
Penberthy to the purchaser upon receipt of this accepted herein against defects in material and workmanship under
proposal. Any chances in equipment; arrangement of normal service for a period of one year after date of s-artuc.
;-.. =ipment; or application of equipment requested by not to exceed eighteen months from date of shipmen•. ?art;
I( user after acceptance of proposal will be made at or products manufactured by others and provided b•.
`-p haser's expense. Penberthy are warranted only to the extent of the eri^irai
manufacturers warranty. Thi; warranty is vaiid cr*ovicea
2. TAXES: that the installation, operation and maintenance or tre
• - equipment is made in accordance with Pencermy's in-
structions. The purchaser must promptly give written
The prices quoted are subject to any addition which may be notice of any equipment defects to Penberthy. Unae► •h:s
necessary to cover any tax charge now existing or hereafter warranty, Penberthy will provide, without cost to the
imposed by Federal, State, or Municipal authorities upon purchaser, such replacement parts as may be required to
equipment or services herein described or the production, repair or replace the defective equipment. All labor as may
sale,distribution or delivery thereof,or upon any feature of be required to make such replacements must be made b�:
this transition. purchaser uhless stated otherwise on this proposal. Alt
startup service must be performed by qualified Pencerthy
X BINDING RESPONSIBILITIES: personnel or its agents,or this warranty is void. Penberthy
will not warrant nor replace any material involved when
Sales_ representatives are not authorized to bind us. repairs are made without prior authorization from Pen-
Typographical errors are not binding. berthy.
9. PATENTS:
4.. CANCELLATiON:
The equipment provided by Penberthy may be covered by
Afler acceptance, an order shall not be subject to can- Patents pending or issued. Penberthy grants the right to use
cellation unless cancellation charges are borne by the this equipment without further charges. Penberthy does no-
Purchaser for work done by the Seller up to the time of grant rights to use, royalties, or protection against patent
receipt of cancellation notice: nor shall such orders be litigation arising from use of this equipment in patented
subject to change unless price increases are borne by the Processes controlled by. others unless otherwise listed
Purchaser. above.
_ SUBMITTED.- ACCEPTED
PENBERT / HOUDAILLE INC41arshall L. Mallak (Sign & Title)
(Company Name)
DATED July 22, 1977 DATED
WWS-3
RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
SEPTEMBER 22, 1977 - 5:30 P.M.
0
i
JC11-IN GRE�LEY
C AtIULI_0 ANO
1=N011*%1;=zgS MANSEN
A JOINT VENTURE
18437 MI.Landry SI,S;nlie N.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92103 Arearode(714)963-9a51
P1EASE I-L)DI9_�S P PLY TO
GHFF.LEY ANU F-- ,SEN
222 SOV I I1 1+tv_=,.;;E PL::A
CHICAGO.ILL:'.C:zi i i^emu
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County, California
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California . 94708
Re : County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2
Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities
Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
Orange County, California (Job No. P2-23-2)
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your instructions , we have revie:•:ed and
tabulated the Proposals for Division 1 - Oxygen Generation
ann Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2,
investigated the: qualifications of the three low bidders
and present our findings herewith.
1. General
Proposals were received , opened and read aloud at 1 1: 00 A.M.
Local Civil `1'ime on July 2,67 , 1977 , in accordance with an ad-
vertisement fo_ bids published in the EngineeYin:I _News Ra cord.
as required on Ilay 3.6 , 1977. — —!�'-
Proposals, were :invited for the construction of Division 1 -
O>.ygeri Gen--ration and Storage Facilities and Division 2 -
Oxygen Dissolution Facilities for i5 ;•)GO Improved
at Plant ido. 2 located within -he city limits of liu-iii.1r',-1-nn
Beach, just west of the Santa Ana River and approximately
1 , 800 fact north of Coast Highway State 1'route 1, Orang:: CoL:::_; ,
Cali.fo ni.a.
2 . Pro;.->osa1-, I: ceived
Fourtcan (14) proposals :acre received, ec:ch of which %•:as. .liccc:;;-
paniud by the 1<eC;uiroC, :,i d s cctlrity.
The fourtuLn (11) pro-)osals have lwt !n ta.hulatod ancl. CQ:i;;Jai:{.'t: as
sho-w-a on the aL%'*a61C`,l I. . ThC_` Iwi0,Ir-rs , th'!
�iC!C.:l1ri.C'll CiCC::).111.111j�ill�{ C:.'i::l 1�.:C: ;ind
dt-tC!I'min(--d by thi` Ciro a--; f:C)•�.i�_'.v.i :
"A-1" AGENDA ITEM #40) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-1"
lluard of Uirectorn
county Sanitation Diu tricts of Orange County, California
Deduction
Name 6 Address Bid Division Division for Total
Of Iliclder Security 1 2 Combination
Engineer's Estimate - $5,500,000 $5,500,000 - $11,000,000
Pentech Division
i
Houdaille Ind., Inc. 10%
219 E. Fourth St. Bid No No No
Cedar Falls, Iowa Bond Bid Bid Bid $ 6,498,000
Catalytic Inc.', A
Subsidary of Air
Products 6 Chem.Inc. 10%
1500 Market St. Bid
Phila.,'Pa.19102 Bond $4,556,000 $3,885,000 $168,000 $ 8,273,000
H. C. Smith Contt. Co. 10%
P. O. Box 2330 Bid
Newport Beach,Ca.92663 Bond $4,662,OD0 $4,077,900 $173,500 $ .$,566,400
Granite Constr. Co. 10%
P. O. Box 900 Bid
liatsonville,Ca.95076 Bond $5,050,000 $5,000,000 $906,000 $ 9,144,000
University Mechanical
6 Eng'ring Contrs.,Inc.10%
301 West Dyer Road Bid
Santa Anna,Ca.92707 Bond $5,380,000 $4,440,000 $440,000 $ 9,380,000
Kenneth Fraser Co. ,Inc.10%
707 S. Arroyo Parkway Bid
Pasadena, Ca.91105 Bond $5,180,000 $4,620,000 $320,000 $ 9,480,000
Maecon, Inc.
13546 E. Imperial lhdy. 10%'
Santa Fe Springs, Bid
Ca. 90670 Bond $5,544,527 $4;328,617 $340,000 $ 9,533,144
Burke Mechanical Contts.
(A Div.of Natkin 6
Company) 10%
1150 West Trenton Bid
Orange, Ca. 92667 Bond $5,400,000 $4,600,000 $300,000 $ 9,700,000
Gentry-Rados
(A Joint venture) 10%
180 North Sherman Ave. Bid
Corona, Ca. 91720 Bond $5,543,000 $4,682,000 $420,000 $ 9,805,000
Brinderson Corp. 103
100 East Baker St. Bid
Costa Mesa, Ca.92626 Bond $5,290,000 $4,800;GJ0 $250,000 $ 9,840,000
F. B. Gardner Co.,Inc. lot
3311 San t•crnancso Rd. Bid
Las Angelr.s,Ca.90065 Bond $5,589,300 $4,659,400 $300,000 $ 9,948,700
Alaska Constr. , Inc. 10%
3160 Telegraph Rd. Hid
ventuLu, Ca1.93003 Bond $6,005,000 $4,415,000 $420,000 $10,080,000
P'L-ter Riewit Son!:'Co. 10%
301 Past Latta Clara Hid
Arcadia, Ca.91006 Pond $6,111,000 $4,943,000 $730,000 $10,324,000
Vanca1 and Ludwirl,Inc. 10'�
1!#110 67c•::f Nin:11 St. Bid
11P.lalid, C.1.71.786 llund $6,246,734 $4,49B,567 $345,000 $10,40U,301
'Total floduction for combininil Divi::icinn 1 :ind 2. ,
"A-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-211
-3-
�...1 Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
3. Irregularities
The following irregularities were noted:
a. Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
(1) Bidder entered the following statement in
lieu of lump sum prices in the spaces pro-
vided for prices for Divisions 1 and 2 on
Pages D50-6 and D50-7 :
"See Combined Price, page D50-9"
(2) Bidder revised the wording on page D50-6 of
the proposal as follows:
Original: "The following performance guarantees
are included in the proposal: " .(This
statement is followed by Paragraphs
a and b which stipulate the specific
`'' guarantee requirements . )
Revised "The performance guarantees are
included in Pentech/Foudaille
Proposal ODD-94-0013, dated duly 22.,
1977, annexed hereto. and supercedes
paragraphs a) and b) below. "
(3) Bidder revised the wording on page D50-7 of the
proposal as follows :
Original: "The following guarantees are
included in this proposal: " (This
statement is followed by Paragraphs
a, b and c which stipulate the speci-
fic guarantee requirements . )
Revised "The performance guarantees are
included in ner_tech/ oi:daille Q_io-ta-
tion r.4-94-0013, datcc: July 22 , 1977 ,
annexed hereto and supe rccdes para-
graphs a) , b- ) and c) below. "
"A-3" AGENDA ITEM #L10) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-3"
-4-
Board of Directors ✓
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(4) Bidder revised the wording on page D50-9 of
the proposal as follows:
Original: "Combination of Divisions 1 and 2
Lump Sum to be deducted from the
Sum Total of the Bid. " (This
statement is followed by space to
enter words and figures for the
Bidder 's deduction, if any.)
Revised "Combination of Divisions 1 and 2
Lump Sum for the Sum Total of the
Bid. For the combined equivalent
of Division 1 & 2. Six million,
four hundred ninety-eight thousand
DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($6,498,000 .00) . "
(5) Bidder entered the following statement on page
D50-9 in the space to be used for entering any
statements contingent upon award:
"Does not apply - see Pentech/Houdaille
Quotation �i-94-0013, dated July 22, 1977. "
(6) Bidder proposal was signed by Marshall L. Mallak,
Marketing Manager. Mr. Mallak' s name does
appear as a principal on the list of persons and
parties interested in the proposal as shown on
page D50-12 .
(7) Bidder attached the following documents to his
proposal: .
(a) Pentech ' s letter to the Board of Directors
of ,.County Sanitation District 1 dated
July 22, 1977. (Exhibit II)
(b) Pen-tech' s proposal. (Exhibit III)
(a) Bi ddar ' s letter contains -the following statement:
"Our quotation is Lased upon an "'installed
basis" for which installation will ue provided
by a California licensed contractor as shown
in the proposal and bond forms. "
"A 4" AGENDA ITEM #40) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-4"
-5-
V Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(9) Bidder entered the Contractor 's License No. of
Weardco Construction Co. , 10910 S . Shoemaker,
Santa Fe Springs, California on page D50-11 of
the Proposal instead of the Bidder's license
number. (Exhibit IV) (It should be noted that
the Contract Documents require the Bidder to
be licensed in the State of California and
qualified to perform the work described in the
Contract. )
(10) Bidder included the following statements in
his proposal:
(a) Page 1, last paragraph:
"Equipment and services proposed under this
proposal' will be furnished as per the follow-
ing description. In the event of any differ-
ences in requirements of the specifications
and items quoted below, the following quoted
items will take precedence. Any items not
included in this proposal which are not
required for the PENTOX process but are
required under the scope of the detailed
specifications will not be furnished. A
general layout drawing is attached as to
how the equipment will be arranged. "
(b) Page 5, last paragraph and page 6 , first
paragraph:
"ITEM 7#16 PERFORINLAINCE TESTS AFTER INSTet,LLATION
The test shall be conducted by
Pentech per section 52-11 of Job
No. P2-23-2 with the following
modifications .
1) Items , f, r, g, on page D42-12
will not be followed. Instead, air
flow to each stage shall oe measurad
by a manometer. The oxygen feed rate
to last stage in cu. ft./day shall be
monitored. The o:;ygen uptake rate
measurement in each stage shall then
be conducted according to the method
followed by the Iowa State University. "
(T t: should loci noted that the npeci f ica tions do::s
not contain a page "D42-1211 and pack; D52-12 of
the spucificaL-ions does not contain an itt rn "r" . )
rin_�u ACrkmn TTCM OlifD (11 - Ali nTCTDTrTC "A-Ca
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(c) Page 6 , second paragraph:
"The method of making such corrections
and averages shall be mutually agreed
upon by the Engineer and Pentech. "
(It should be noted that this statement
• in the Bidder 's Proposal conflicts with
the intent of the Contract Documents
with regard to the responsibilities of
the Engineer. )
(11) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not affixed
to the Bidder's Proposal or to the Bidder's Bond.
(12) The corporate seal of the surety was not affixed
to the Bidder 's Bond.
(13) The Bidder 's Bond was signed by Richard W. Greene,
Assistant Treasurer. Mr. Greene 's name does not
appear as a principal on the list of persons or
parties interested in the proposal as shown on
page D50-12 . Mr. Greene did not sign the Pro-
posal. Mr. Mallak did not sign the Bidder 's Bond.
(14) Bidder listed Weardco Construction Co. as the
only entry on their list of subcontractors and
indicated Weardco 's Portion (Type of t;or.'c) as
"installation" . Bidder did not specify Civil,
Mechanical , Electrical or other construction
as to the type of work Weardco would perform.
b. Catalytic, Inc. :
(1) Bidder :entered the following on page D50-9 in
the space to be used for entering any statements
contingent upon award:
"W. J. O' Connor, Senior_ Vice President
Catalytic, Inc. , a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc. "
(2) The corporate seal of the Kidder was not affixed
to the Bidder ' s Proposal or to the Bidder 's Bond.
"A-6" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - 'ALL DISTRICTS "A-6"
_7- ;
Board of Directors •
�.d .County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
(3) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
c. H. C. Smith Construction Co. i
(1) Bidder did not enter the name of the major
equipment supplier for oxygen generation
and storage facilities under the list of
subcontractors on page D50-10 of the Proposal.
(2) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(3) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
d. Granite Construction Company:
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder's . Bond.
e. University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors , Inc.
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to' the Bidder 's Bond.
(3) The Bidder 's proposal was signed by Fred C.
Kirschner, Senior Vice President. The Bidder 's
Bond was signed by a different individual,
signature undecipherable.
f. Kenneth Fraser Co. , Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Kidder 's Bond.
"A-7" AGENDA ITEM #4 3) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-7"
-8-
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
g. Maecon, Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
h. Burke Mechanical Contractors :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder' s Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
i. Gentry-Rados (A Joint Venture) :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not l.s/
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
j . Brinderson Corp. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder ' s Proposal or to the
Bidder ' s Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the suret-y was not
affixed to the Bidder ' s Bond.
(3) The Bidder 's Proposal was signed by N. Hyde.
The Bidder ' s Bond was signed by Gary
Brinderson, President.
k. F. B. Gardner Co. , Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Didder ' s Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
"A-8" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-8"
-9_
Board of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
1. Alaska Constructors , Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond.
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
(3) Bidder submitted his Bidder's Bond on his surety
Company 's form in lieu of the Bidder's Bond form
in the bidding documents.
m. Peter Kiewet Sons ' Company:
(1) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
n. Pascal and Ludwig, Inc. :
(1) The corporate seal of the Bidder was not
affixed to the Bidder' s Proposal or to the
Bidder 's Bond:
(2) The corporate seal of the surety was not
affixed to the Bidder 's Bond.
4. List of Subcontractors
A Schedule of the List of Subcontractors as indicated by the* .
Bidders on Page D50-10 of their Proposals , is attached here-
with as Exhibit V.
5. Contingent Conditions
a. Granite Construction Company:
(1) Bidder entered the following statement on page
D50-9 :
"Granite Construction Company will not
accept Award of Division 2 alone. "
"A-9" AGENDA ITEM #40) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-9"
Board of Directors -
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
6. Combination of Bids
The two combinations of the separate bids for Divisions 1 and
2 submitted by the second and third low bidders does not re-
sult in a price that is lower than the combined price for
both Divisions submitted by the low and second low bidders .
The low and second low combined bids are lower than any com-
bination of individual bids for Divisions 1 and 2.
The low bidder did not submit separate prices for each
Division, thus they are not available for combination with
separate prices submitted by other Bidders .
7. Reference Requirements
a. In a letter from the State of California State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to the County Sanitation
Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) dated April 6 , 1976
(Ref. 510 : RAG) , which approved the design concept, the
following statement appears :
"The Division of Water Quality with the �
concurrence of the EnvirorLmental Protec-
tion Agency hereby approves the concept
of constructing the 75 MGD of pure oxygen
improved treatment presented as alternative
104 in the supplement to Project Report and
as described in this letter.
b. The above letter lists the following items as eligible
for grant participation:
(1) Oxygen Generation and Storage - The eligible
average daily flow is 75 :•IGD with a diu-nal
peaking factor of 1. 3 and a peak wet weather
flow of 150 MGD. The average BOD of the pri-
mary effluent has been determined to be 225
mg/1 with a diurnal, weekly and monthly total
peaking faction of 1. 8. These numbers are to
be analyzed and confirmed during the design work_
(2) Oxygenation Tanks , Secondary Clarifiers and Waste _
Actival:t2d Sludge Flotation Thickener - The design
of these is to .be based upon an average daily
flow of 75 MGD and a peak wet-weather flow of
150 MGD.
"A-10" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-10"
. -11-
Board of Directors -
�, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
C. A letter from the StIRCB to the CSDOC dated February
17, 1977, included a request as to the methods that
would be used to insure compliance with two specific
contractural conditions . The two conditions (C) and
the subsequent methods (M) to insure compliance are
listed in the Engineer 's letter dated March 2, 1977,
to the- CSDOC as follows :
(1) (C) Award of the contract must be to the
"lowest responsive responsible bidder. "
(M) Detailed specifications include this
statement on page D50-28.
(2) (C) There should be a means of guaranteeing
that sufficient oxygen will be transferred
to the mixed liquor to remove the required
amount of BOD.
(M) The specifications do provide a guarantee
for oxygen transfer. Refer to page D50-12.
We question whether we can get a contractor
to bid based on a guarantee to remove BOD,
particularly since there was no pilot work
done.
8. Recommendation
The low bidder, Pentech-Houdaille, is not the lowest respon-
sive responsible bidder. This statement is based upon the
following:
a. Non-compliance with the requirement for being
licensed in the State of California as stated
in Section 50,' Article 50-2, page D50-3 of the
Special Provisions .
b. Non-compliance with the requirement for being
qualified to perform the work as a Prime Contrac-
tor as stated in Section 50, Article 50-2, page
D50-3 of the Special Provisions. Pentech-Houdaille
has not performed as a Prime Contractor on a pro-
ject of this magnitude.
c. Non-compliance with the requirements for guarantees
as listed on pages D50-6 and 50-7 of the Proposal.
"A-11" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS
f •
-12-
Board of Directors
County Sznitat.3..aA.Jli.stricts of Orange County, California
d. Non-compliance with the general requirement to
furnish equipment in accordance with the plans
and specifications.
e. Non-compliance with following the decisions of
the Engineer regarding tests as authorized by.
the Contract Documents.
f. Non-compliance with submitting a list of com-
parable facility installations indicative of
a successful record of performance as required
by Item No. 4 , Page 2 of 5 of Addendum No. 1.
g. Non-compliance with the Contract Documents in
accordance with the above references to the
concept approval letter.
The second low bidder has been investigated and found to be
qualified.
Subject to the opinion of your attorney that the proposal
of the second low bidder, Catalytic, Inc. is a legal and
binding proposal complying with the requirements of the
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California,
we recommend that a Contract for Divisions 1 and 2 be
awarded to Catalytic, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of
Air Products & Chemicals , Inc. , 1500 Market Street, Centre
Square West, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the amount of
$8,273,000. 00.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS/
GREELEY 7UND HANSEN
EFB:mk, Elmer F. Ballotti
"A-12" AGENDA ITEM #40) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-12"
PENTECH OUDAILLE Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries. Inc.
�J 219 East Fourth Streel. Cedar Falls. Iowa 50613 U.S A.
Telephone (319)277-4220 Telex 465632
July 22 , 1977
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District #1
Orange County, State of California
' Re : Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities
Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
For 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant #2
Job #P2-23-2
Bids Due 11 : 00 a.m. , July 26, 1977
Gentlemen :
In accordance with your advertisement for bid for subject
project , Pentech Division , Houdaille Industries , Inc. is
�.d pleased to submit herewith its formal proposal #M-94-0013,
dated July 22 , 1977.
Your proposal and bond form has been fully executed and
is accompanied with our bid bond covering 10% of our
bid price .
The "PENTOX" system as offered in our quotation is equal
in all respects to the system covered in your speci.-ications
and offers substantial savings to the Orange County
Sanitation Districts in initial capital costs and operating
costs . The combined savings offer you the opportunity to
consider the Pentech/Houdaille "PENTOX" system as a viable
alternative in a system that will offer the same performance
treatment efficiencies to that specified.
r
The equipment covered in our proposal is substantiated with
a performance guarantee covering the "PENTOX" system and in
accordance with the bid requirements will be fully supported
with the necessary performance bonds to the satisfaction of
the Orange County Sanitation Districts . All equipment which
we propose herewith will be installed in the structures as
provided for in the engineers plans .
"A-13" AGENDA ITEM #11(B) (1) - - ALL DISTRICTS "A-13"
Orange County Page 2 July 22 , 1977
Our quotation is' based on an "installed basis" for which
installation will be provided by a California licensed
contractor as shown in the proposal and bond forms .
Your review and study of this offering will find the
"PENTOX" system as being most cost effective meeting
the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is our sincere desire to reassure you that Pentech/
Houdaille, backed with 90 years of experience in
American industry , meets the full intent in being a
responsive bidder. Included herewith is a copy of
Houdaille Industries , Inc. annual report for 1976.
� I•t is with our most sincerest feelings that we submit
this quotation to you as being the only viable alternative
of furnishing the most cost effective system available
and still maintaining maximum performance.
Very truly yours ,
r
Marshall L. M allak
Marketing Manager
14LM/t j b
Enc.
• r
`ate
"A-14" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-14"
*PLNBERT!-lYli1?JOL,( AILLE '
W. Ezr & Waste Wn11'r Systems Division
Houdaille Induslnl•s. InC.
219 East FOuflh :i1f1•Cl
Cedar Falls. low;! 50613
(319) 277-4220
Vla,lvC T CM It
PROJECT: ENGINEER:
COUNTY SANITATION- DISTRICTS OF ORANGE • JOHN CAROLLO E"IGINEERS
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA — DIVISION 1 — GREELEY & HA'N'SON
OXYGEN GENERATION! & STORAGE FACILITY
DIVISION 2 — OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITY ,.
FOR 75 MGD 114PROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT
0 2 — JOB NO. P2-23-2
+y.4•`*..^`ec-•'+t�..r..+rr.-!1f�r.:-ory. -�•..�-+••rrn,.� wr rw.+r4rt...•.. •.«..�:�;.•_-..w:.!.rrf•�.,�-�+v��r.:�c•t+a..+•!,'. r^I:'�-'•-'•�'�:��i
or
7.
;,,' ..;.• ''i: :�h>�••.' :�." :tom. ,,% `'�4 iy`y"='__ �i�
- .{ _ _ .i` :.�.; _ -tip• -
"A-15" AGENDA I TEfVi #4* Bi b - ALL DI STRI M r
• S
PENTECH [AOUDAL..I.A_ Pentech Division. Houdaille Indu:;ines. Inc.
219 Cast Fourth Street,Cedar Fills. lo:va 50613 U.S.A.
Telephone (319)277-4220 Telex 465632
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to propose the following; PENTOX system as the functional
equivalent in a.11 respects to the equipment and systems outlined in the .
Special Provisions and Detailed Specifications £or "Division 1 - Oxygen
CM
Generation and Storage Facilities, and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution
Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant 1"2, Job No. P2-23-2.
Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries, Incorporated warrants that it
has reviewed the plans and Special Provisions 'and Detailed Specifications
for Division 1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities, and Division 2-
Oxygen Dissolution Facilities for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant r2,
Job No. P2-23-2, and that its proposal is for the combined equivalent of
"Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities" and "Oxygen Dissolution Facil-
ities" contained within the detailed specifications.
Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries, Incorporated, further warrants
that it has made detailed calculations of the treatment capabilities of
the PENTOX system applied to the proposed tankage outlined in the plans
and detailed specifications based on published literature values and its
own experience, and that the treatment capabilities of the P�NTOX system
are equivalent to those required in the plans and detailed specification.
Pentech warrants that it has plants in operation which exceed the ML,SS
levels and organic loading rates as those specified within the specifi-
cation.
Pentech warrants that its detailed calculations and its best judgment
predict that an effluent quality of 25 mg/l or less should be obtained
when the plant is loaded with a monthly maximum flow of 76.15 MGD, con-
taining 312 mg/l at 860F. These calculations and supporting documents
are available upon request to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County, California, and its engineers.
Equipment and services proposed under this proposal will be furnished
as per the following description. In the event of any differences in
requirements of the specifications and items quoted below, the following
quoted items will take precedence. Any items not included in this pro-
joszl w q which are not required for the 1'la'1:OX jrocess�tiut'are required
under_ the scope of the (retailed specifications w)' 11 11ot lice iiirnis�f�cd. .
A g;cneral ;yotit`(lraw g is nttacliccl cr t�iowiliu�qulili:lt�ri� will �e ar-
rang;ed.
Page I of 6
"A-16" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-1611
Ilie PENTOX con:: ':,ts of an optimized atmospheric oxygen and high
purity oxygen system. A high efficiency jet pas-liquid contacting sys-
tem is utilized to contact atmospheric oxygen directly with mixed liquor
for direct diF-Foi vinn of atmospheric oxygen.
The system is augmented with additional .jet gas-liquid contactors util-
izing high purity oxygen for dissolved oxygen control. Due to high ef-
ficiency and high specific oxygenation rates obtainable with the jet
gas-liquid contactors, high metabolic respiration rates are possible.
The PENTOX process is essentially a high rate system which provides func-
tionally the same performance specified in Division I and 2 of the de-
tailed specifications for Job No. P2-23-2. The system uses optimum
amounts of air and high purity oxygen for supporting metabolic activity .
of the activated sludge process and maintaining a high DO on the order -
of 6 mg/1 or greater in the effluunt of the last stage of the system.
The system is designed around the specifications to offer a substantial
savings in the total cost of the treatment plant.
The last stage of the 8 tank system or the last two stages of the four
tank, 8 stage system will be equipped with variable frequency drives to
provide the flexibility of variable pumping and mixing rates and bulk
energy dissipation rates for floc growth and conditioning prior to sedi-
mentation. Either compressed atmospheric oxygen or high purity oxygen
can be used in these stages to provide the optimum degree of dissolved
oxygen and mixing control.
Due to the lack of spray and mechanical gear drives and mechanical
-dndercarriage in the gas space above the mixed liquor, the PE?ITOX system
does not require the tank freeboard shown on the plans and specifications.
Therefore it is possible to operate the PENTOX system with substantially
less freeboard, increasing the mixed liquor operating depth and retention
time. Though this does not change the capital requirements of the PENTOX
systems, it does reduce the energy requirement of the treatment plant, and
will provide some improvement in effluent quality. This proposal is in
no way contengent upon increased operating levels within the tanks and
is based upon the levels specified.' However, an alternate showing the
potential reduction in power •by increasing, the operating depth is offered
at no additional cost and is detailed in the power guarantee section of
this proposal.
DIVISION 1 - OXYGEN GENE11kTI0\ AND STORAGE FACILITIES EQUIVALENT
ITEM #1 AIR COMPRESSORS
Three (3) air compressors will be supplied for delivering variable at-
mospheric oxygen: flow rates up to 1,490,000 pounds of oxygen per day
complete with all transfer piping required to transport the oxygen to
the dissolution facility. In addition, two (2) 6000 gallon capacity
liquid oxygen storage tanks will be provided along with two (2) vaporizer
units. The liquid oxygen tanks will be horizontal and shall be mounted
with a vaporizer unit. The vaporizer will be designed to vaporize liquid
oxygen by exposure to atmospheric air. The system will be capable of pro-
viding up to 10 tons per clay of high purity oxygen to the dissolution
facility. In addition a standby air col,pressor will be supplied, fully
installed and ready for operation.
Page 2 of 6
"A-17" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS 14T�71
Compressors will be centrifugal type with all stancard :accessories
including an OD1' motor with 1.15 service factor; inlet silencer, inlet
filter, discharge silencer, inlet and discharge butterfly valves, dis-'
charge check valve, rubber expansion sleeves, and isolation pads. Blower
will be painted as per the manufacturers standard.
Each compressor shall be supplied with a vibration sensing device, a
temperature sensing device, and s surge protection device.
The compressors will be designed to compress air from the atmosphere
to the pressure requirement- of the PENTOX system. The inlet condition
will be sea level and a miximum temperature of 1000F. No after-cooler
or forced lubrication system is necessary.
ITEM 02 OUTSIDE AIR MANIFOLD
An air manifold to carry air from the compressor discharges up to the top
of the aeration tanks will be supplied. The air manifold will be manufac-
tured of galvanized spiral weld carbon steel pipe. The pipe will be sup-
ported by concrete blocks at suitable intervals.
ITEM #3 OXYGEN GAS 'LINE
The oxygen gas line from the vaporizer to the last stage of the tanks will
be provided. The piping will be provided with all necessary valves and
fittings required for safe operation. The piping will be of material
compatible to the service desired.
DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN DISSOLUTION FACILITIES
ITEM #4 EDDY MIX JET GAS/LIQUID CONTRACTORS
A total of one hundred and twelve (112) Eddy Mix Jet Gas/Liquid Contactors
will be supplied. The jet gas/liquid cluster shall consist of jet- nozzles
.mounted on a common central distribution manifold. The nozzles shall be
arranged to discharge in a radial pattern. The central manifold shall
consist of separate gas and liquid sections. The liquid portion of the
manifold shall provide uniform distribution of mixed liquor from the in-
let to each of the jet nozzles. The gas portions of the manifold shall
provide uniform distribution of gas to the mixing nozzle.
ITEM #S PMfPS
Sixty-four (64) mixed liquor recycle pumps will be supplied for the system.
In addition, two of these pumps will be supplied for standby. The purips
will be suitable for 480 v, 60 cycle, i phase electric operation. The
pumps will be designed to provide necessary mixed liquor flow to the jet
gas/liquid contactors. The pumps will be supplied complete with motor.
The pump will be painted per manufacturing standards.
ITEM #6 IN-BASIN AIR AND T.IQUTD PIPING
In-basin air and liquid piping required for the PF.NTOX system will be
furnished ed complete. The l iqu.id piping; will connect pump and ,aerator and
air piping will connect outside air mranifold to the aerator. All in-basin
piping; will be: maraufractured of Ff:P as her PS-15-69 spoci.ficari ons . The
piping will be supported at appropriate spacing by carbon steed supports.
Page 3 of 6 ,Xli\Y��
"A-18" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS. "A-18"
ITEM P7 VARIABLE FREQUENCY D1%ZJ `T: FOR 'Tilt: LAST STAGE PI1NIPS
All punps in each last stage of the 8 tank system or the last two stages
of the 4 tank system will be 'equipped with variable frequency drive en-
abling the :1L:j.i,i'; :, arious flow and mixing rates.
ITEM #8 CONTROLS
The controls necessary for the continuous operation of the compressors,
liquid oxygen tanks, and aerators will he furnished. Necessary controls
for the compressors and liquid storage tanks will. be furnished for control
room and for local mounting.
ITEM #9 ENGINEERING MATUALS
Operating and Maintenance Manuals will be supplied for all major equip-
ment as per specifications.
ITEM 010 START UP AND TRAINING SERVICE
Pentech will provide a qualified representative to supervise the erection
crews. A qualified representative will provide start up service for a
period of two (2) weeks. A training session of at least 3 weeks will be
held for the plant operators and districts' supervisory personnel per the
specifications.
ITEM 411 PERFORMANCE GUARA rEE
Pentech guarantees that the oxygen supply and dissolution facilities, when
lftd started up and operated in accordance with Pentech operating instructions,
and when the waste water characteristics are as set forth in the detailed
specifications (Job No. P2-23-2) section headed "Oxygen Dissolution facil-
ities".. and when operating in aeration tanks constructed as described in
the detailed specifications and with clarifier constructed as described
and when design operating conditions as described in section 54-6 (a) are
attained and tested in accordance with the procedure described in the
next item of this proposal, will:
a) Maintain an average dissolved oxygen content in the effluent from the
last stage of each of the 8 tanks of not less than 6.0 mg/l at design flow
and BOD loading conditions and at a temperature of 780F and not less than
2.0 mg/l at maximinn monthly flow and BOD Loading conditions and a temp-
erature of 860F.
b) Dissolve in the waste water not less than 200,000 pounds per day of
gaseous oxygen at design flow and BOD loading conditions and at a waste
water temperature of 78oF or provide all the necessary process oxygen it
solution demanded by or required by the wastewater at design flow and 130D
loading and temperature for treatment of the wastewater.
c) Dissolve in the wastewater not less than 268,000 bounds per day of
gaseous oxygen at maximwn monthly flow anal 1101) loading; conditions and
at a wastewater temperature of ffol' or provido all the necessary process
�•eid oxygen in solution dcmanded by or requirod by the wastewater nt maximum
uOnthly flow and BOD loading and tomperat.urce for treati;icnt of the waste-
water.
Page 4 01. 6
"A-19" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS w"A-19y'
d) Power required ?-n .nrmriilo nrl.-quate treatment under design and max- `
imum monthly flow and luad conditions will not exceed. the following
values:
Design Max. Monthly
Operating Level
16.5 ft. 2770 K19 3404 K14
19.5 ft. 2S00 h19 2981 1.'W
The above power figures include both the pumping (mixing) power and the
oxygen supply ( air compressor power) . The equivalent power of the de-
sign high purity oxygen oxygen flow of 2 tons/day is approximately 31 KIV.
ITEM n12 PRICE .
The price of the PENTOX system completely. installed', as described herein
is $6,498,000. The price includes freight and applicable taxes.
ITEM #13 SHIPMENT
A complete schedule of shipment will be submitted within 30 days from the
aware of contract.
ITEM n14 BILLING PERIOD
Partial billing against partial shipment shall be allowed per the speci-
fications..
ITEM 415 PERFORNt��?CE TESTS �
a) Aerators: Aerators of each type will be tested in Pentech test tank
(55' diameter) at the operating water depth of 16.5' or 19.51 . The test
procedure will be as recommended by PEDIA for diffused aeration system.
The model used to calculate Cs will be the dynamic saturation mothod by
long term aeration corrected for obsorption efficiency.
b) Pumps: One pump of each kind will be factory tested for its head
GPM power drawn characteristics.
c) Compressors: The compressors will be factory tested for their SCFM-
psig power characteristics.
d) Motors: Every motor will be given routine factory tests consisting
of current, resistance, high potential, and bearing inspection.
e) Noise Tests: A standard noise level test will be done for one of the
compressors at the factory testing lab as per factory's methods.
ITEM n16 PERFORNIUANCE TESTS AFTER INSTALIATION
The test shall be conducted by Pentech per. section 52•-11 of Job No.
112-23-2 with the following mociific.-it:ions.
Page S of 6
"A-20" AGENDA ITEM #LI(B) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-20"
1) Items, f,r,g, on pane U42-12 will not be followed. Instead, air
flow to each stage shall be measured by a manometer. The oxygen feed
rate to last stalre in cu. ft./day shall be monitored. The oxygen up-
take rate measurement in each stage shall thn be conducted according
to the method followed by the Iowa State University.
Measurements and analytical determinations for each 7-day test shall
be corrected if necessary to conform to the design parameters and op-
erating conditions set forth in the detailed specifications sections
headed "Oxygen Dissolution Facilities", then averaged. In addition,
the Engineer will calculate material balances on oxygen requirements
to confirm that the system is operating properly. The method of mak-
ing such corrections and averages shall be mutually agreed upon by the
Engineer and Pentech. The resulting averages will be used in confirming
whether or not the oxygen dissolution facilities have met the performance
guarantees set forth above.
In the event the results -of any test indicate a deficiency in the oxygen
dissolution in the subsection hereinabove headed "Performance Guarantees",
Pentech will have the right to take additional data, make adjustment to
the oxygen dissolution facilities, check and revise the District's oper-
ating procedures, inspect the total plant for operation in accordance with
specified design, determine if the influent settled sewage is biologically
treatable by conducting bench seal or Warburg treatability studies, de;.er-
mine if the influent settled sewage contains toxic materials which may in-
hibit the growth of the biomass, determine values of Alpha and Beta of the
influent settled sewage, and Pentech shall then conduct a second perfor-
mance test.
ITEM #17 ITEMS NOT INCLUDED
Any items not specifically covered in this proposal.
r '
Page 6 of 6
"A-21" AGENDA ITEM #4 0 (1) ALL DISTRICTS "A-21"
•t.:
JUXORT ON 1.i'1A US OF IILLUL•105 CA1,11••UILNIA CO:I. U-NCTolt'S 1.iC1:NL;E
ame 6 Address Licon::e Class
• of Aiddor Numh.•r (') Status Remarks
Pentech Division A-134877 - No License on Proposal
noudaille Ind., Inc. Registered Registered to Wr.ardco
219 E. fourth St. License a Listed Subcontractor
Cedar Falls, Iowa
Catalytic Inc., A 209415 A,B-1,C Current
Subsidiary of Air
Products & Chem.Inc.
1500 Market St.
Phila., Pa.19102
H. C. Smith Const. Co. 113101 A,B-1 Current
P. O. Box 2330
Newport Beach,Ca.92663
Granite Constr. Co. 89 A,B-1,C Current
P. O. Box 900
Watsonville, Ca.95076 .
University Mechanical 88552 A,B-1,C Current
& Eng'ring Contrs. ,Inc.
301 blest Dyer Road
Santa Anna,Ca.92707
Renneth Fraser Co.,Inc. 88344 A Current
707 S. Arroyo Parkway
Pasadena, Ca.91105 j
flaecon, Inc. 237543 AB-1,C Current
13546 E. Imperial Hwy. i
Santa Fe .Springs, '
Ca. 90670 ,
Burke Mechanical Contrs. •327556 A,B-1,C Current
(A Div. of Natkin &
Company)
1150 West Trenton
Orange, Ca. 92667
Gentry-Rados A-281423 A,C See Legal Action Pending on
(A Joint Venture)• Remarks License Registration.
180 .forth Sherman Ave. (Cases No. 22765 and
Corona, Ca. 91720 22687.)
Brinderson Corp. 265974 A,B-1,C Current '
100 East Baker St.
Costa 14esa, Ca.92626
F. B. Gardner Co. ,Inc. 94110 A,B-1,C Current
3311 San Fernando Rd.
Los Angeles,Ca.90065
Alaska Constr. ,Inc. 320177 A,B-1,C Current
3160 Telegraph Rd.
Ventura, Cal.93003
Peter Kiewit Sons'Co. 77148 A,B-1 Current
• 301 East Santa Clara
Arcadia, Ca.91006
Pascal and Ludwig,Inc. 291245 A Current
1500 blest Ninth St.
Upland, Ca.91786
•License Classifications as Listed in "California's License Law"
Cla:a: A - General Pi%gincn!riny Contractors
Claus 11-1 - General l.uilding Contractors
Clary: C - Specialty Contractors )3XIII11IT IV'
"A-22" AGENDA ITEM #40) (1) ,- ALL DISTRICTS "A-22"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page D50-10 of the Bidding Documents
1. Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Weardco Constr. Co. 10910 So. Shoemaker Installation
Santa Fe Springs , Ca.
2. Catalytic, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Stork)
Air Products & Chemicals, Trexlertown, Pa. Div. 1 & Div. 2
Inc. Equipment and
Technical Services
H. C. Smith Construction Newport Beach, Ca. Mechanical, Civil
Co. and other Construc-
tion
Johnson-Peltier Elec- Los Angeles , Ca. Electrical Con-
trical Contractors struction
�3. H. C. Smith Construction Company
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Johnson-Peltier Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
4. Granite Construction Company
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
H. B. Foley Los -Angeles, Ca. Electrical
Oreile-Keefe Oakland, Ca. Painting
r
Lotepro CB N.Y. , N.Y. Div. 1 - Equipment
Supplier-oxygen
Facility
Union Carbide N.Y. , N.Y. Div. II - Ecuipment
Supplier-Oxygen
Facility
Page 1 of 4
"A-23" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-23"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page ))SO-10 of the Bidding Documents
5. University Mechanical -and Engineering Contractors , Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Tyne of work)
Union Carbide Corp. Tonawanda, N.Y. Oxygen Generation
& Storage
Union Carbide Corp. Tonawanda, N.Y. Oxygen Dissolution
FQley Eleptr4c Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
6. Kenneth Fraser Company, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Murphy Industrial Coating Los Angeles, Ca. Painting
Western Rigging & Erec- Santa Fe Springs, Ca. Riggins
tors
Instrument Systems Glendale, Ca. Instrumentation
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
Lotepro N. Y. , N. Y. Div. 1 - Oxygen
Generation
Union Carbide N.Y., N. Y. Div. 2 - Oxygen
Dissolution
Lotepro/Union Carbide N.Y. , N.' Y. Div. 1 and 2
Combined
7. Maecon, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Union Carbide Corpora- Tonawanda, N. Y. Oxygen generation
tion and dissolution
facilities
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
Page 2 of 4
' "A-24" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-24"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page D50-10 of the •Bidding Documents
8. Burke Mechanical Contractors
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Air Products Allentown, Pa. Oxygen Generation
and Storage Equip-
ment
Air Products Allentown, Pa. Oxygen Dissolution
Equipment
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles , Ca. Electrical
C. H. Leavell Huntington Beach, Ca. General Construction
Instrument Systems Glendale, Ca. Instrumentation
Boagg Long Beach, Ca. Equipment Erection
9 . Gentry-Rados (A Joint Venture)
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Union Carbine Tonawanda, N.Y. Major Equip.
Olgen Electric Corona, Ca. Elect/Inst.
Belmont Eng. Santa Fe Springs ,Ca. Misc. Metal
10. Brinderson Corporation
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
R. A. Kunz Construction Signal Hill, Ca. General Construction
11. F. B. Gardner Co. , Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of work)
Tee Pee Engr. Riverside, Calif. Concrete, Rebar
Belmont Engr. Los Angeles , Cal. Misc. Metal
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles , Cal. Electrical
Page 3 of 4
"A-25" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-25"
EXHIBIT V
Schedule of Subcontractors as Listed by Bidders
on Page D50-10 of the Bidding Documents
12. Alaska Constructors , Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of work)
Union Carbide Corp. Tonawanda, N.Y. Process Equipment
13. Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles, Ca. Electrical
McMullen Co. Escondido, Ca. Painting
Union Carbide Tonawanda, N.Y. Major Equipment
Supplier(Per Add. nl)
14. Pascal and Ludwig, Inc.
Portion
Name Location of Business (Type of Work)
Union Carbide Tonawanda, N.Y. Major Equipment
Fishback & Moore Los Angeles , Ca. Electrical
Belmont 'Los Angeles, Ca. Miscellaneous Metal
Page 4 of 4
"A-26" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "A-26"
NEXHIA' I-1
�14 COIS,ITY SkNITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFOR 1A
` CISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11
75 VGO 11'PROVED TREAWENT AT PLANT NO.2 PenteCh Division Catalytic,lnc.A Sulisidiary H.C. kim cnstructicn o�
BIDS RECEIVED* 1ULY 26, 1977 11:00 A.M. LOCAL CIVIL TIME NUMBER Houdaille Industries, Inc, of Air ProductsBChem„Inc P. 0. Box 2330
219 E. Fourth Street 1500 Market Street Newport Beach, CA 92663
DIVISION UNIT OF Cedar Falls, Iowa 5G613 Phi Iauel.l1iii PA 19102
NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNTPRICO TOTAL UNITPRICE TOTAL
I For the Q��p_ et�tJgrl and Storage _
n _FacilJ11e� as sho,An on The Contract Plans
_ ,'n(1_SCeCit.i.eet_LrLthe SpeQlfi.e�tjons LS 4.662,000;
1771
d �-c-q*r--j-tit:—Ie
or tOxygen_Dissolution Facilities Mith the covered eight. 4-sta e ~
co-current a uid Aeration Tanks shown
3 a—Gte—CQat!AU21,'ns and specified in the -
SjeQficaticns, or four 8-stage co-current
pas li uld Aeration Tanks LS (1) 3 885 000� 4.077,9C� j
QtaJ-;Q Cu1e0-tr.LQ_e-19LL1J.ons 1 and 2 8,441,000 8,739,900;
sum to be deducted from the sum total of the _ I _
bLid fnr the-mthulion of Olywaaaj J168 C00 ( 113,500
- -- --
r Total cq;;,p�1j0_prlce L r 0 v sions 1 and 2 with _ — --
!0, deduction for combination of both Divisions 6,498,000 8,273,000 —1 8,5F5�4COt —
Bid Security + IV, 1D BOND 10, ID BOfID ! 10 61D EU� ;
Ia;u(11 g_C 7nan of I Federal! Ins irance Comp ny The Travelers inde-nity
lorth-A icr.i i 100 W11++1iom Street Co„^any_ t
Uj 13j_Oe.l w_or Avenue New Yot'k N Y. 3600 Wilshire Blvd
Buffalo N. .— Los Angeles 6 90010
(1) Bidier r2—not—en t r
sep rate prices to I
thp-LLeas-sn noted
I
I
N
V
I �, ��•• v� r nr.n. wr rn•rrry w. y'••rwc v ., v..ru vr�.,n
-m- CISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 EXHIBIT I-2
N 75 YGD 111i•RCVED TREAPAENT AT PLANT N0,2 Granite Construction o. University -Mechanical and Kennew rraser Co., Inc.
CO RECEIVED* 1ULY 26, 1911 11:00 A.M. LOCAL CIVIL TIME NUMBER P. 0. Box 900 EnRineerinR Contrs„ inc, 707 S. Arroyo Parkway
61DS C BIOS -NAEUNIT OF Watsonville, CA 95076 301 W. Dyer Road Pasadena, CA 91105
UNITS Santa Anna CA, 927C7
NO. DESCRIPTION JNITPRICE TOTAL UNI T PRIC- TOTAL. UINIT PR,'%"E TOTAL
_ I
1 For he Gerifjgrl and Storage
.Faclltlles as sho_hn on The Contract P an
'tuLsG,cijled in the Snurjfjcatjons LS 5 050 000 5,380,(j0 5i180 OQO
2 For the QxyZen Dissolution Facilities _
p ccpotil le Kith the covered eipltt 4-sta e
co-current e3s-liqu!;1 Aeration Tanks shown
m en The ;�Qiins aid specified int e
� Snecificaticis�or four 8-stape co-current �_ _ __ ___ _ _
g�s_Ij�uid Aeration Tanks LS S,000,OQO ^- 4,440,00 ,� 4.620'000
-- — — -- - - - . ._T.
m� 0?;B1.&7zLt€LGLLuJgr Diyi.slo s 1 and 2 10,050,000 9,820,OCd 9,800,COO;
�
Lu-m sum to be deducted from the sum total of the i _-_ __j
.-. 6,000 440,OOd _320,000!
a hi>i-tnr tn� of *visions 1 �j 90
.
I co-- uted price for Divisions 1 and 2 with lum _ _•___
�-' sum deduction for combination of both Divisions 9 144 000 9.380 000
Bid Security !1W"r BID BOND 10'b 310 BOND -� 10 BID io—no-T--
17—
Pacific In eity_Ca^! any lnsura ce_C .: an of Seaboard S;Iret}LCo^g,r�
7-
555 Califo nio Street North kmeriba 3810 Wilshire_ Blvd I
d San Ft�anci co CA`94 C4 3500 Fifth .venue Los Ao ele CA 9DQ10
- San Ojggo—LA 92103
cn _�
' � I
t
N '
00
CCL':TY S:.tiITAT fN OlSTRICTS OF QRA11GE CO NTY, CALIfQRNIA
C11TH:TS 1, 5. 6, 7 Af.0 II EXHIB T-3
N 7' :' 3 lynvZ TREAPIENT AT PLANT N0.2 Maecon, Inc. Burke Mechanical Contrs. Scntry-R.!os
ts7 8! S r�LElYEO JULY 26, 1971 11:Q0 A.M. LOCAL CIVIL TIME NUMBER 13546 E. Imperial Hwy. (A Diy.of Natkin&Co;�any) (A taint-'Venture) Ioc East 8:kcr S:r•::t
Santa Fe,SprinQs, CA 90670 1150 W, Trenton 180 N, Sl;emn Ave: C3st3 1'zsa. C» 9?_
UNIT UN i'S —__ __ Orange, California_92657 Ccrona,_CA 91720 _
(r'0. DESCRIPTION UNIT I'RIC TOTAL UHT PRICEI TOTAL 'j,41T FRICEI TOTAL Uti1T PI:'_Ej TC A—t-
___1 Fcr he diteratiC a0 nd Stpra e
anlLsi:ciliefLln e_Spesiilt�tiw> LS 5,544,527_-- --•_ — 5,400�000: _— 1 �5,543,Cr<J'
2 Fcr.th�0gen Dissolution facilltios __ _—_ — — ' __ I T -- --`—
:rr,_t-jblewwi th the covered ei ht 4.:gi a
_!' _--
cc-t,,rrent as-licntd Aeration Tanks shown —� — — — — -
a-JmSea1G1%LLPL'ns and pci f led_12 the
t� �,gcific�ticns`or four 8•stage co-current __ �— __T__ - _ • ___ _ ; I
as It_L�i� Aerati_n Tanks — lS —_ — 4�328,611`. _ _ _ 4,600,000;— -- i4,682,0001
- - - : T.—
rn_ --- 2Id1rcr:u-u GflS�f4LLigons I and 2 9L813,144' —�O�OQO�C00— -- -_J0.225.000,—
— Lug s�T-T to bz decucted from the sum total of the
-}—
hio fnr the cart,[natien of Oiylms I an -- _ 3!10,00 —•_ -3Qo,000 — — »20,OJ0� — I 2_-,::-
f— — i ---•
aL,.o=-ji€TLs1cs--b QDLvisians 1 and-2 ith lumn
v ss^�dzCuction for com m3tion of both Divisions 9,533,144 _ 9,100,000— _-- 98.05�000
I Bid Security 10:. BID BOND 10.', ID BM _ �10'. 10 97:3 1a1 ---.2
:j
The_TJ yele _LDdernj federal In rance_CcmpqnL Sateco;ITsui:�nce Ca.rajy— The-Azts3
17-- 3200 Oilshi a Blvd of Aigica I Surety C37:•Yf-_--
3600 W Isht a Blvd _ Los An ele CA 90010 _ 8250 W d i Avenue J 2404 h1�:l,i? 51►c _
Los A�>eles CA 9001� Panoraa Ci yi CA Los Ani:les C4_5 :
— - — i— -�— -----
I
IV .
tD '
D ,rr ;r;.l'A'ICP.CIST?ICTS OF OAA'IGE COTITY, CALIFORIIA EXHIBIT I-4
W •:I:'3 1. 2. 3, 5. 6. 7 Ati0 11
lliAIYU41 AT PUNT 1.0,2 F.B. Gardner Co„ Inc. Alaska Constructors. Inc. Peter Kie+it Scns Co. Pascal ana LL::.r
:S a:�_I'.i0 1 ilY 26, 1917 11:00 A.V. LOCAL CIVIL TIME NUMBER 3311 San Fernando Road 31GO Tele6raph Road 301 E. Santa Clara IUD*Aest '.1�111 S;rret
UNIT OF Los Angeles, CA Ventura, CA 93003 Arcadia, CA 91006 %;land, CA S17 5
I __ _
..J. i OESC^IP710!J UNITS UNITPRICE TOTAL UNIT IC TOTAL Lw—ja URIC TOTAL UNIT 'iQTC�
I Fcr-tr:e-^ryt'p Ge.rjeratioo and Stor�pe -
Fa:i1 L:l"3_;Ls,h:"non jhe_Cenlract Plans
s�^cified_i.1jhe_Spe6)fications LS —_ 5,589,300 6 085,00 _ _ 6,111,OOO;a —. _�— 6,2=5,734..
F:r t'._C.g n Dissol.ition F ciliti s_ _— _ _ I _ ___ — _ _ _,_•
-- c�-;.iw:le eith the mved el;ht 4_sta e_ — -- _ — — --- _ •- -----1 - ___.. :_
4—•. _^_;;,rr�ntci; liquid Aeraticn Tanks shcrn
^ .Ins.Cmtr LPI'TA.anrf specif1e4.jn the
L i S;.?:tfic3tli;, or.feur 8•st3ge co•currEnt__ —
f Aeration Tanks LS _ 4,659,4001 •_ 4.115,0001M 4,943.000j ~+— 4,499,5E7
bvd �. _.�.__ lotat_coT cdLed�fltS_fcf Divlslo0s I and 2 _ _ 0 248 700 — 10 500 000 _ _ 1 054 000, _ — 10,745.331
_J.._1... _ J _.r. _
_�• 4- �i to he deducted from the sum total of the
l _._ t:iLl�r rhP ^:1:inatiyn�LDltiisicnS Lrn 300,000— _ 420,000! _ 730,000�
I,.r; S ald 2 with lu., -'-
r" s: 4etiction-for co lmnation of both Divisions 9 948 700 _ 10 080 00 0 324 000' _ �10,4CO,:CI
Cn _ —�_ 9id Security _ I 310 BOND 10. 810 BOND —! 0'. 810 BQrD _ �10' E'IJ 80•:J _
Natiork+I Srrety_ orp _ fthlar�ds.,l surance Compan The Aetna Casualty ar� Safeco I is;r:inc: Cc-:^':y
3223 L6t1i Street Hiphlai.ds U derrriters' Surety.Cormny. - I of A arica!
An,oles,.CA _ insurance C-ipany _ 2404 Milshi're 'Blvd ! _ 8250 rocs-.i cr ?_ _ J
as Los An+elesl�CA_ 90054 -_ Panornra Coty, CA _
O
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R.. Goeernor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
r'VISION OF WATER QUALITY
. BOX too • SACRAMENTO 95801
1916) 44S-7971
In Reply Refer
to: 555:BGS
AUG 3 i 1917
Mr. Fred A. Harper
General Manager
County Sanitation Districts
of Orangge County
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 927.08
C-06-1073-130, APPROVAL TO AWARD (ATA)
We have reviewed the ATA, .dated August 3, 1977, together with
supporting material for the subject project. The California
State Water Resources Control Board hereby .app roves said ATA,
as noted below, and authorizes you to award the contract(s) as
follows:
CONTRACTOR JOB AMOUNT BID AMOUND ELIGIBLE
1. Catalytic, Inc. Oxygen Generation, $8, 273, 000 $$, 25$,000
Storage and
Dissolution
Facilities
The estimated eligible project costs for grant participation are as
follows:
A. Construction $$, 25$,000
B. Administrative and Legal Expenses 74,000 i
C. Land, Structures, Right of Way -0-
D. Architectural/Engineering Basic Fees -0-
E. Other Architectural/Engineering Fees 250,000
F. Equipment . -0-
G. Contingency 413,000
H. Relocation Payments -0-
I. Indirect Costs -0-
J. SUB-TOTAL (A through I) $ ,995,000
K. Grant Processing Fee 44,975
L. TOTAL $9,039,975
"C-1" AGENDA ITEM #4O O) - ALL DISTRICTS "C-1"
Mr. Fred A. Harper —2—
As you proceed with the award of the construction contract(s) listed
in the first paragraph of this letter, please be reminded of and/or
follow through on the following:
1. Any special condition in either your State Grant Contract
or Federal Grant Agreement which required action prior to
grant payments must be satisfied.
2. The enclosed "Notification to Labor Unions or Other
Organizations of Workers" must be reproduced in the
quantity desired, completed by the contractor, and
distributed to all unions and organizations that
might work on the job.
3. Mail to the Division of Water Quality the documents
checked on the enclosure entitled "Necessary Documents"
just as soon as each document becomes available.
4. The enclosed "Request for Clean Water Grant Payment"
(Form 258) has been revised to reflect the eligible
costs. Refer to the "Instructions for Completing
Form 25$" and the "Fiscal Record Instructions" for
directions.
�d
No further approval of -the ATA or authorization to award the
construction contract(s) will be necessary or forthcoming.
Upon start of construction, please notify Dave Nichols at
916) 322-3442 who has been assigned to evaluate change orders
see enclosed guidelines) and construction inspection procedures
for this project. This should be done immediately in order to
schedule a preconstruction conference.
i
Harold B. German
Senior WRC Engineer
Enclosures: Notice to Labor Unions or Other Organizations of
Workers
List of Necessary Documents with attachments
Request for Clean Water Grant Payment Forms
Contract Change Order Guidelines
Clean Water Grant Bulletin No. 44a
cc: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
"C-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (3)-ALL DISTRICTS 11C-2"
MA 1. 1
!.( r.4; N V.. :t. •'1•(1rl' •,C•h 4. (Cl r:1•(.1.41,(lh 11•
._.,wRn •lC1O 1&01 CCN'URN i•Eur LAST, 16l^ rLOOQ •a,w:C tr VC CC]. Ct•w r.•t}-(.•: r .
."R L E C t• .
F,'.t.•;!• ,•.4FhCR LOS ANGELES, CALIrORNIA 90067 C:h FAR1„i,:w r;CL
P C'/•.•�•. a• Fr.:,ern GS - 'LLEP.ONr:2 C.E.14.OC
•.C.' f ri•:cCR
••[� TCL£!'r•10NC:(?r3) E53.4441 �[Lr.A•:b0023
CS (•r C4STRO TCLEx. 69.1737
.EC • LS•rR
•••rCt:� .... .tSeCRG CABLC:TROMALAW
c[ACC ...w.rCRY
L a1s'�h P•CAIES.M
o4:L r- NEa@E RT
•rrrcC• %%. PA-AER September 14 , 1977
a� ,.r •,. LEE
r. BCRGER
Sanitation Districts of Orange County California
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley , California 92703
Attn: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
Re: Bid Protest : Per. tech Division , Houdaille
Industries, Inc. Job No. P2-23-24 75 MGD
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Pursuant to Environmental Protection Agency regulations
set forth at 40 FR 58602 through 58614 , a copy of which is
attached , we protest the Sanitation District refusal to
award the contract for the above reference job to Fentech
Division , Hondaille Industries , Inc . for the following
"Up" reasons:
1 . Pentech ' s bid is $1 . 7 milli.on lower than the bid by
Catalytic, Inc., to which you propose to let the contract;
2 . Pentech 's bid is responsive in that it meets the
technical results set forth by the approved plan and speci-
fications and it provides the reouisite treatment Within
the tankage and process scheme provided with less use of
power;
3. The Districts have violated the procurement rec•uire-
ments set forth by the EPA, in that they,
( i ) Ignore the EPA' s intent and State policies to
encourage the promotion of open competition by not re-
stricting materials and systems for projects to one brand or
type .:here others will meet all reasonable design require-
,:.:nts;
( ii ) -,mote the specification for bibs in such a
manner that they contain proprietary , exclusionary , and
diScriminatory requirements other than those based uDon
l:erforr•.4nce and without providing substantiation for such
restrictions.
"D-1" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (4) - ALL DISTRICTS "D-1"
T 1t Q Y !w M A 1. l T
PROrCSS10NAL CORPORATION
Ray E. Lewis
September 13 , 1977
Page Two
Thus , Pentech requests that in conformance with EPA
regulations , 40 FR 58602 , 58612 , it be provided the op-
portunity to set forth additional information , plans ,
specifications , reports and opinions which will show
Pentech 's system is responsive. It will also show that the
system is the most inexpensive for both initial capital cost
and operating costs.
Your letter of September 8, 1977 , was the first indi-
cation Pentech received of the District ' s staff and Con-
sulting Engineer ' s opinion that Pentech ' s bid proposal
was non-responsiveness . In fact, Pentech specifically
inquired during the course of an earlier meeting as to
whether there were any questions whatsoever concerning their
proposal and offered to make a full scale presentation of
the PENTOX (TM ) System, but were advised by the consultants
to the Districts that they were satisfied with the descrip-
tion as offered in Pentech 's quotation to the Districts and
had no additional questions. This response, presumably,
substantiated the responsiveness of Pentech 's bid.
Thus we rea_uest that the Board postpones consideration
of this project until we have the opportunity to make our
presentation. However , if the Board accepts our appeal and
desires that we make a presentation at their meeting to be
held September 14 , 1977 , please advise me immediately by
phone, in order that I can make the necessary arrangements.
Further , should the Board desire any additional material in
order to evaluate our system let me know.
If this request is rejected , then we request that the
Board abstain from awarding any contracts relating to the
above-referenced project until Pentech has had an oppor-
tunity to protest the proposed award to all appropriate
Federal and State Agencies.
Your reply to this protest should be sent to me and a
copy directed to Mr . Marshall 1-11allak , Penteck Division ,
Houdaille Industries , Inc . , 212 East 4th Street , Cedar
Falls, Iowa, 51603 .
Since ely,
phigip N; Lee --
cc: Donald J . Saltarelli
Thomas Woodruff
"D-2" AGENrA ITEM P O O) - ALL DISTRICTS "D-2"
LAw orrlccs or
I? ourLc & Woodruff
IAv CS G.A0vPRKC SU1TC 10?O
AR[A COGC 7•4
OMA5 4 wzv:�Qurr c^,oroRi•IIA rinBT QA1+11 4VIL04140 G?L-GZ'r
"�A% R WATTS lass NQO.Tr+ "Asia $TRCET Or cc,-Oct
A.Ati r.BvllAs• SANTA 009 A,CA41FOR11,11A QZ10f tCNNAaG R SvAAT.JA
September IS, 1977
Troy & Malin
1801 Century Park East
Los Angeles, Ca. 90067
Attention: Philip N. Lee, Esq.
Re: Your Client--°Pertech Division, Houdaille
Industries, Inc./County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California. Job :;o. P2-23-2
Dear Mr. Lee:
As General Legal Counsel for the Co=ty Sanitation
Districts of Orange County, California, I Nish to ack-
nowl e6ge receipt of --he bid protest. filed by Pentech
Division, T?oudaille Industries, Inc. , through yoar of-
fices on a letter bea}i na your firs► name dated September
w4 , 197', . Said ;:otter was roceived by this o::fice and
the Sanitation Districts on the size date,
As you are aware, the County Sanitation Districts
had previously scheduled the award of contract on the
above-referenced joy, at. its regular Board of Directors
neating of September 14 , 1977 , but I wish to advise you
that no action was taken at that tirne in recognition of the
protest filed by you on behalf of your client.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 35, Section 35. 939, we wish to i
advise you that the County Sanitation Districts have seheduie3
a protest hearing bn September 22, 1977 at 5: 30 p.rn. at the
District offices, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fou-taint Valley, Ca.
92708. The purpose of said protest herring will bo to afford
you the opportunity to present argi -,ents and other evidence
in support of your view pertaining to the protest of a proposed
award to the second low bidder and a rejection of the bid
submitted by your cliont.
1.1.E
"E-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) - ALL DISTRICTS "E-1"
Mr. Philip Lee
Page Two '
September 15, 1977
As you and your client are aware, this job is largely
grant funded pursuant to the provis-ions of Public Lzaw 92-500
by the United States L'nviron.^:ental Protection Agency, and
the State of California, State Water Resources Control
Board. As such, the protest which you Filed pursuant to
40 CrR, Part 35, is in accordance with the grunt provisions
Of this contract and the procedures for resolution of said
protest are in accordance with the following ita_^ z as
determined by the Distxict:
1. At the time of the protest hearinu, the
Directors will receive a written and verbal report from the
General I--gal Counsel setting forth the legal requirements
and an opinion pertaining to the bids suh—ratted by P`ntech
and all other bidders as to compliance with the plans and
specifications.
2. . At the tire of the protest hearing, , the
Board of Directors will also receive for their considsration
in resolving the protest the consult-Ing engineer ' s bi.d
tabulation and analysis; correspondence anc reports including
analysis if any fron the State Water Resources Control Board;
correspondence and noticed on behalf of your client filed
either directly by i ente^h or by your `'-rrri an encincering 1as�
report to be prepared and submitted prior to or at the
time of the hearing and will receive any outer correspondence
or written matter submitted by any interested person.
3. The Directors will allow i:rd call for verbal
presentation on behalf of the protesting party or :is repre-
senta -ive ulith a time li it of 20 minu te_'s . ;id'11 4ionally , they
will allow and call ror verbal rena.-k , if zny, from any
other person submitting a bid consideration of award :+ith a
time limit not to exceed 14 minutes. �
4 . If Pentech desires the Bcard of Directors to
consider any wri-tten iBate:ial of any nature whatsoever at the
tine of the protest hearing, it must be on ride at the
District ofiice.z no latez than 12: 00 p.m. , itiuESdav, Septar er
20, 1977. 7-iY written natter receivr. d after that date may
in the soli d1scretion of the Board of Directors, be excluded
from consi.ccrati,on on the batis of an nab lity to have adegoate
time for evaluation and deterrJ nation of accuracNy.
"E-2" AGENDA ITEM #4 0) (5) - ALL L I STR I CTS "E-2"
Mr. Philip Lee
Page Three
Septembber 15, 1977
5. The hearing as conducted by the Board of
Directors will not be governed by strict rules of judicial
evidence, either as prescribed by Federal or State law.
6. The protest hearing will not be governed by
the provisions of the California AdTainis-rative Procedure
Act, as that Act has not been adopted by the Board of
Directors as required by State law.
7. The Directors will reserve the right to
examine any witness or any person presenting evidence for
their consideration including the right to place the
witness under oath prior to considering the testimony.
8. Upon receipt of all verbal and written
testimony, the Directors will hold the hearing and will
make a determination either at that time or after the
matter is taken under submission as determined by vote of
the Directors.
9. Prior to the protest hearing on September 22,
the Districw must be in receipt of a written extension of
the period for acceptance of the bid and bonds of Pentech-
Houdaille from a final award date of October 26, 1977 , to
December 1, 1977, _in the event that either investioation or other
procedures preclude the award within the 90--dav li;nitation as
prescribed by the Flans and specifications. The purpose of
the extension is that in the event the award is made to Ventech-
Houdaille, that it be made within the time extension. We
wish to advise you that if Pentech-Houdaille :ails to either
intentionally or otherwise provide the extensi-n of the
period that the District will consider the exercise of its
rignts_set forth in .40 CPR, Section 35. 939 (d)._(2) (i.J,0_. to-
sumina.rily disru ss 1:he protest. - -
[eery truly yours , f
Z;£ S WOODRUFF RF
110�ef'nazl
Thomas L. woodruff
TMe,':pj General Couxisel
cc: Board of Directors, County Sanitation Districts
EPA, Region IX Headquarters, Grant Division
EPA, Region IX Headquarters, Legal Division
State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water
Grant Program Section
State Water Resources Control Board, Legal Division
Catalytic, Inc. , 1;o. 2 Bidder
All other bidders
John Carollo Engineers/Greeley and Hansen
"E-3" AGENDA ITEM #4(B) (5) - ALL DISTRICTS "E-3"
July db, lv /
CONTRACT NO. P2-23-2 11: 00 A.M.
-n
i
PROJECT TITLE DIVISION 1 - OXYGEN GENERATION AND STORAGE FACILITIES, DIVISION 2 - OXYGEN
DISSOLUTION FACILITIES FOR 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENGINEER' S ESTIMATE $ 11, 550, 000 . 00 - BUDGET AMOUNT $
REMARKS
� ter-•
rn
COMBINATION DIV. 1 & 2
d CONTRACTOR DIVISION 1 DIVISION 2 LUMP SUM TO BE DEDUCTED
n 1. Penntech Houdaille Total Bid
3 Cedar Falls, Iowa No Bid No Bid $6 , 498 , 000. 00*
*Exception taken
Catalytic, Inc.
i
2 . Philadelphia, PA 41556 , 000 3,885 ,000 168 , 000
3 . H. C. Smith Construction Co.
c� Newport Beach, CA 41662 ,000 4 ,077,900 173,500
cn
Granite Construction Co.
4 ' Watsonville, CA 5 ,050,000 5, 000 ,000 906 ,000
;I
5. University Mechanical &
Engineering Contractors, Inc. 5 ,380 ,000 4 ,440 ,000 440 ,000
Santa Ana, CA
l 6 .
Kenneth Fraser Co. , Inc.
Pasadena, CA 5,180 ,000 4 , 620 ,000 320, 000
I
f .
7 .
Maecon, Inc.
-n Santa Fe Springs, CA 5,544 ,527 4 ,328 , 617 340,000
a
8 . Burke Mechanical Contractors
v. of Natkin 5 ,400,000 4 ,600, 000 300 ,� 1 ,
Inge, CA
BID TABULATION SHEET for: CONTRACT NO. P2-�23-2 BID DATE: July 26 , 197 _ 11 :'UQ A.r
Cpnt ' �.ed. . . . ! �-`
COMBINATION DIV. 1 &•'.2
►�? CONTRACTOR DIVISION 1 DIVISION 2 LUMP SUM TO BE DEDUCTED*
Gentry-Rados, J.V.
9 , Corona, CA 5, 543 ,000 4 , 682, 000 420 ,000
10 . Brinderson Corporation
Costa Mesa, CA 5 ,290 ,000 4 , 800, 000 250 ,000
D
11. F. B. Gardner Co. , Inc.
t= Los Angeles, CA 5, 589 , 300 4 , 659 ,400 300 ,000
n
m 12. Alaska Constructors, Inc.
Ventura, CA 6 ,085 ,000 4 ,415 ,000 420 , 000
Utz
r=1
13. Peter Kiewitt Sons Co.
Arcadia, CA 61111, 000 4 ,943 ,000 730,000
a
r
F—
c� 14 . Pascal & Ludwig
n Upland, CA 61246 , 734 4 , 498 , 567 345 ,000
i
� cn
15 .
16 .
. 17 .
i
18
i
' N
19 .
r d ,
TLW:pj
09/08/77
f,"20/77
RESOLUTION N0. 77-122
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR JOB NO. P2-23-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND
11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR 75 MGD IMPROVED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2 -
DIVISION It OXYGEN, GENERATION AND STORAGE
FACILITIES; DIVISION 21 OXYGEN DISSOLUTION
FACILITIES, JOB N0: P2-23-2, TO THE SECOND IOW
BITIDER
WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors have approved plans and
specifications and issued a Notice Inviting Bids for the con-
struction of the oxygen, generation and storage facilities and
oxygen dissolution facilities for 75 MGD improved treatment
at Plant No. 2, otherwise described as Job No. P2-23-2; and# �
i�`HEREAS, the Notice Inviting Bids called for a bid
opening at 11:00 a.m. , July. 26, 1977; and,
WHEREAS, at the time of the bid opening, the District re-
ceived 14 bids, each of which was accompanied by the required
bid security, with the apparent low bidder being Pentech
Division, Houdaiile Industries, Inc. , Cedar Falls, Iowa, and
the apparent second low bidder being Catalytic, Inc. , a sub-
sidiary of Air Products & Chemical, Inc. , Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the submittal of bids to the Board of
Directors for award, the District's Staff and the District's
�.d Engineers have reviewed all bids to determine compliance with
the Notice Inviting Bids ,and all legal requirements attendant
thereto; and,.
WHEREAS, prior to the Notice inviting Bids, the State
Water Resources.Control Board issued a concept approval letter
pertaining to the plans and specifications prepared by the
Dia triet's Engineers; and,
WHEREAS, the District's Engineers have submitted a written
analysis and recommendation to the Board of Directors, which is
concurred in by the District's Chief Engineer, that the bid
documents and proposals submitted by Pentech is not the lowest,
responsive, responsible bidder, in that it fails to comply with
the requirements for being licensed in the State of California,
as stated in Section 50, Article 50-x, Page D50-3 of . the
special provisions and that it fails to comply with the require-
ment for being qualified to perform the work as a prime con-
tractor and -fails; to comply with the requirements for guarantees,
and fails. to comply with the general requirement to furnish
equipment in accordance with the plans and specifications; and,
WHEREAS, the protesting party, Pentech-Houdaille was
made aware on , 1977, by the receipt of a complete
se: of approved plans and specifications, that the proposed
"PENTOX" system was not such as to comply with the system
designed by .the District's Engineers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant io 40 CPR 35.939 (b) , a protest to the
procurement process is required *to be made at the earliest time
possible and within one week after the basis for the protest
is .known or should have been known, which is earlier; and,
t
�..✓ AREAS, the failure of the protesting party, Pentech-
Houdaille to file a timely protest regarding the design re-
quirements of the District has resulted in prejudice being suf-
fered by the District and all other interested partiesl and,
WHEREAS, the District's General Counsel has submitted
a legal opinion which has been reviewed and considered in
making the determination and decision respecting the protest;
and
WHEREAS, the protesting party was served with notice of
i
the protest hearing including the procedures to be followed
in the conduct thereof on September 15, 1977; and,
WHEREAS, all bidders on the award of contract P2-23-2
were served with notice of the time, place and procedures
relating to the protest hearing on September 15, 1977, and
WHEREAS, the protesting party and all interested parties
have been afforded the opportunity to present arguments 'in
support of or in opposition . to the protest, both in writing
and verbally, and,
WHEREAS, the protesting party, Pentech-Houdaille, failed
to comply with the provisions of CPR 35.939 (c) (2) in that
the Bid Protest was not served upon the other bidding parties
for the award of this contract, each of which has a direct
financial interest in the determination of the protest.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County,
California,
bd
-3-
- c
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETEP34INE AND ORDER:
Section 1 : The foregoing recitals are true and correct
and this Board of Directors so find and determi.nel and, ,
Section 2: That the bid proposal submitted by Pentech-
Houdaille fails in a material way to comply with the Notice
Inviting Bids and is generally deemed nonresponsive in that:
A. The bidder has not complied with the requirement for
being licensed in the State of California, as stated in Section
50, Article 50-2, Page D50-3 of the Special Provisions.
B. The bidder has not complied. with the requirement for
being qualified to perform the work as a prime contractor as
stated in Section 50, Article 50--2, Page D50-3 of the Special
Provisions.
C. The bidder has failed to comply with- the requirements
for guarantees as listed on Pages D50-6 and D50-7 of the
Proposal. i
D. The bidder has failed to comply with the general
requirement to furnish equipment in accordance with the plans
and specifications.
E. The bidder has failed to comply with following the
decisions of the Engineers regarding tests as authorized by
the contract document.
F. The bidder has failed to comply with submitting a list
of comparable facility installations indicative of a successful
record of performance as required by Item No. . 4, Page 205 of
Addendum No. 1.
�.d
-4-
G. The bidder has failed to comply with the contract
document requirements in accordance with the above references
to the concept approval letter issued by the State Water
Resources Control Boards and,
Section 3s The apparent low bid submitted by Pentech-
Houdaille is legally defective and insufficient and is hereby
rejected in its entirety; and,
Section 4: That the written recommendation of this date
submitted to' the Board of. Directors by John Carollo. Engineers/
Greeley and -Hansen, District's Engineers, ,and concurred in by
the District's Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made
to Catalytic, Inc. for Division 1, Oxygen, Generation and
Storage Facilities and Division 1, Oxygen Dissolution
' Facilities for 78 14GD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 21
. .Job No. P2-23»2,` and the: tabulation of bids and the proposal
for said work .'are hereby received and ordered filed; ands
section S: That award of contract is hereby made to
Catalytic, Inc. , a subsidiary of Air Products Chemicals,
Inc. , in the total amount of $8,273,400.00, in accordance with.
the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein,
subject to receipt of written grant approval from the State
Water Resources Control Board; and,
Section. 6: That. all. other bids. received for.. said..work .?.re-.
hereby rejected, and that--all bid bonds be returned to -the
unsuccessful biddersl and,
� -5-
Section 7: That the Chairman and Secretary of District
No. 1, acting for itself and as agent for Districts Nos. Z,
3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into and sign an agreement with said contractor for said work
pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract
documents therefor, in a form approved by the General Counsels
and,
Section 8: The Secretary of the Districts is hereby di
rested to forthwith cause a copy of this Resolution, together
with a copy of the Engineer's report and the legal opinion of
the General Counsel to be mailed by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the protesting party---namely, Pentech-
Houdail.le, to the EPA Regional Administrator and to all other
interested participating pai rties.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held this
day of , 1977.
- 6 -
PHONES: (714)
®� -21
J. WAYNE;SYLVESTER 962 962-2411
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND
SECRETARY TO THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
P.O.BOX 8127-10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708
Or
11164
/,�4, - - -77
DRAFT
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - 9/22/77
Pentech/Houdaille Bid Protest
r..
Saltarelli The meeting today is for hearing and consideration of bid protest by Pentech/
Houdaille Industries, Inc. re proposed award of contract for Division 1 Oxygen
Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen Dissolution Facilities
for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-2 to Catalytic,
Inc. the second low bidder, in the amount of $8,273,000.00, and rejection
of the low bid of Pentech Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc. as nonresponsive.
I want to also state that there have been some questions as to what our actions
would be and whether they are final; however, in the event there is—the company
protesting , Pentech, desires to further protest in case thetR bid is not
accepted this evening the protest can be heard and would be heard if they
so desire by EPA, which has the authority to reject or modify a decision made
here in regard to the responsiveness of that contract. Are there any questions
I-aw' in regard to that? Okay then I will call for the verbal report of the General
Counsel.
Woodruff Mr. Chairman and members of the Board I would like to just briefly summarize
the procedural aspects that have occured to date and which will be applicable
to the hearing this evening. If you have taken a detailed look at the agenda
you will see that it has been stretched out considerably; not that it entails
any additional work but that it has encompassed a lot of documents and they
are set forth in chronological order and they refer to documents that have
been either received by the State {Pater Resources Control Board, the protesting
parties, your consulting engineers, which is John Carollo/Greeley $ Hansen, a
joint venture, from my office and from the staff. The compilation of all those
written documents should be received and filed into the record and made a part
of the hearing. The matter was scheduled for award, as you all recall, at the
last regular Board Meeting, Wednesday, September 14th -- we received the
letter of protest from Pentech/Houdaille, en that date and in view of the
Page 2
requirements of the Federal regulations governing this grant funded project
the Board took no action at the meeting last Wednesday night, other than to
continue and set this for protest hearing at this time to date. The next
day, on Thursday the 15th, we forwarded a notice to the protesting party
and to all other bidders detailing the action of this Board the previous
night wherein no actions were taken and announcing the protest hearing. At
that time the procedures that would govern this meeting were set forth and
they included, in part, that if any written materials were to be added by
any interested 'parties and were to be submitted for consideration by the
Directors, they had to be received in the District offices by noon on Tuesday
the 20th. We also indicated that they would receive an opportunity to
make a verbal report with the protesting party and any other interested
parties, as well , with an opportunity to respond. We, likewise,had prepared
a supplemental engineering report by John Carollo and Greeley & Hansen --
that's been included in your package and was forwarded to you with the
two of the agenda materials. The last item, the only item that is in addition
to , other than for the record of past correspondence from the Water Board,is
the regulations require your General Legal Counsel to provide an opinion
relative to the protest and taking into consideration such factors as the
plans and specifications and each of the itemized grounds of protest. That
legal opinion is not required to be submitted until after the hearing but I
did file one this afternoon which I analyzed - considered to be the four points
of protest of Pentech/Houdaille. The notice of the protest hearing was, in
fact, received by representatives of Pentech, of Catalytic and Pentech's
attorney on Thursday, the 15th; we forwarded copies to them by telecopier
and they were received in their hands on that date. There's been a lot of
action within the last week. Although as far as written materials, Pentech/
Houdaillt through their attorney, Troy & Malin, and on Troy 4d Malin letter-
head, have submitted their documentation. There has, at the time of convening
Page 3
this meeting there has been not additional written material submitted by
any other interested party. I would suggest that at this time, that if the
Directors have any questions on the procedure I could perhaps address them.
I think in terms of sequence we have on the agenda the consideration to receive
and file the following documents which includes No. 13, which is the legal
opinion from my office. In item C , on the hearing -- at the time of opening
of the hearing -- the consulting engineers are prepared to provide an over-
view and summary report, as well as respond to questions and at that time I
would also plan to give a very brief summary of the legal opinion that I
filed with the Directors today pertaining to the four points of objection
file on behalf of Pentech.
Saltarelli: Are there any procedural questions? I would just have one. When were the bid
specs picked up by the contractor, particularly in Pentech's case?
Wo- uff Plans and specifications were receipted for on May 27, 1977 by Flow Systems, Inc.
the representive agents for Pentech/Houdaille. Plans and Specs. were approved
on May 11, 1977 by this Board with authority given to the General Manager to
set the award date based on approval from the State. The actual prints,
multiple prints available for distribution on plans and specifications were
made available on May 18th and the contractors commenced picking them up at
that time -- Pentech's was May 27th.
Saltarelli: All right - thank you. Any other questions for General Counsel? Seeing none, I
would consider a motion to receive and fiJ1k the documents 1 through 14. Motioned
and seconded. Is there any discussion? Motion carried unanimously.
Dick Olson: I received the supplemental agenda this afternoon,and I think there are a few
others here who have received it too, and although the material is very
comprehensive - perhaps some of us have had an opportunity to review it in some
detail and some of us have not. The second thing I would like to comment on is
that I also had a chance to check out both of the bids -- both companies seem
Page 4
to be reliable and I feel I haven't had the chance to study all the material
here. I don't really understand everything the staff is saying, as such, and
I would like to move that the meeting be adjourned after we heIR the testimony
of the hearing for a decision to be made.
Saltarelli: You're making a motion to have a hearing and then continue it?
Olson: Yes
Under discussion)
Saltarelli: Is there a second to that motion? Motion seconded. 1T wou only only seem to me
that it would be more appropriate at the end of that time that rather if there
are a number of Directors here who are undecided as to what to do that the
testimor presented by all parties involved may clear that up and if you
predetermine that you would not make a decision, there may be people who wish
to make a decision at that time. But,Harriett.
Wi- ler: Is there a time factor?
Saltarelli: I ' ll turn that over to legal counsel -- lots of time factors involved.
Woodruff: Mr. Chairman, Director Wieder and other Directors - the answer is kind of - has
to be - equivocal. There is no precise date and numbers in the regulation. The
regulations do provide that the protest "should be resolved as quickly as possible
and within three weeks, if possible." A bit more specific, we are faced with
certain time coritraints in that the bids call for an award within 90 days. We
are faced now with an October 26th award date - The bids were open July 26th.
If the matter is continued, we -- let me interject briefly -- parenthetically,
I denote I made demands on behalf of the Districts to Pentech/Houdaille and
J
we have received, as of a couple of days ago, theVJK consent to an extension of
the bid time to a date - in fact I picked December 1st -- in the event the
award was made to Pentech/Houdaille -- because that would necessitate some
difficulties in time and if they had refused to do so, the precedings could
dismissed;
be summarily but they have consented. We have not made a demand on
the second bidder, or any other bidder, to be given an extension of time.
Page 5
M
were
If the matterAcontinued three weeks, we will be talking generally about the
second week in October and we'd be running into some time contraints and we'd
have to try and negotiate some extensions.
Saltarelli: And in the event that occurred, what would happen if there was another protest
in EPA ?
Woodruff: Well, typically, EPA would grant an extension of that in time. I'm not
concerned, and I would suggest to the Directors that we're not facing a
time constraint from the EPA or the State Water Resources Control Board, in
that they will yank our grant if we don't make the time -- they will gladly
give us an extension. The problem is whether the other bidders will give us
an extension. Catalytic has bid on the basis that the award will be made 90
days after opening. They're not bound to extend it. They can take their
chances -- if they don't extend it and see what happens, the bids are rejected
or what have you, but the concern is with the other bidders and not with EPA.
Saltarelli: Are there any other questions? Ron
S,.^__ta or What about the project itself. Are there time contraints on the project -- do
Shenkman (?)
we need to do certain things by a certain time affect the project aside from a
legal technicality?
Saltarelli Well to the extent that we have another project that will be coming to bid
October llth - we had a normal sequeriiial event established but that doesn't
mean that the world would come to an end if there was some interruption of that
provided that there was sufficient concern to do so. It would cause some
inconvenience but it's something that could be handled. Are there any other
questions ? Dick
agreed
O. a: Are you willing to amend to other /Mime - say two weeks or ten days - we're
talking here, not about $20,000, but over $1 million which definitely will
affect each individual taxpayer and every representative here and I think
Page 6
that this is something we should consider very carefully.
Saltarelli: Okay, we don't have a time certain on the motion. The motion now will read that
after the vote that we take all the testimony at the hearing and then close it
and continue the meeting to another time to be set at that time. Bernie
Svalstad: I think the Chair made a stupid remark before -- I think this is pre-
judging something - I think this motion should be apropros at the end of
the meeting; but I think we should hear this and then all the Board members
can decide whether they want to or vote on it or do what
they want. I think prejudging and saying we don't have enough information
now is premature and I think this should -- I would move to .
Saltarelli: Call for the question - all those in favor of the motion, please say aye --
opposed -- motion is defeated. We will then continue on with the hearing
f
I will now open the hearing (5:50Yp.m. ) of protest of Pentech/Houdaille and
the first item . . . . . . .
Olson: Your Honor, can we have a roll call vote
Saltarelli: Certainly
Svalstad: I challenge the chair
Saltarelli& I ask the legal counsel if we are required to have a roll call vote.
Woodruff: In view of this action being wanted by the joint boards, it will require a
unanimous vote -- on the motion. I think under the circumstances , it would
be appropriate to have a roll call vote.
: (?) May I call for some information please. There is nothing to preclude the
possibility of the same motion being made after we've heard testimony.
Saltarelli: Motion fails. We will now have the verbal report of the engineers regarding
the basis of the findings that the bid documents and proposals submitted
by Pentech for Job P2-23-2 are nonresponsive.
-Page 7
B, -)ttij: My name is Elmer Ballotti and I'm a partner with Greeley & Hansen and in
1
accordance with the the Sanitation Districts request we prepared a bid
report for the following Divisions of work in connection with the Sanitation
Districts program for a 75 MGD Improved Treatment of Plant No. 2 - Division
1 - Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities and Division 2 - Oxygen
Dissolution Facilities. The bid report reviewed and tabulated the proposals
received for Divisions 1 and 2. The irregularities identified in each of
the proposals were noted in the report. The list of major subcontractors
that are required by the contract document were also tabulated in the report.
A further tabulation of the conti%ent condition as noted by one of the bidders
was also presented in the report. The bid report included a comment stating
that the bid of the low bidder was nonresponsive to the contract documents
and recommended that the award be made to the second low bidder. In addition,
`. and in accordance with the Sanitation Districts request, we prepared a
memorandum report on alternatives activated sludge arrangements. In this
memorandum we presented an outline of the design procedures followed to
prepare the contract documents. We tabulated the design studies made, we
described a number of significant design considerations and we included a
free discussion of the Pentech's modified pure oxygen system. Based on the
numerous studies made and summarized in a series of written reports dating
back to March 2, 1974, the original project report, it appears that a
significant effort was made toward identifying alternatives and making
comparative cost estimates and studies to determine the most cost-effective
alternative. These studies incorporated certain design considerations that
established the level of workmanship and materials required by the Sanitation
District. The level of treatment performance was established, the degree of
reliability and standby requirements were identified, as well as considerations
affecting future expansion and upgrading the treatment at 'Pliant t/o. 2. The
Page 8
design study and preliminary plans were further reviewed by an independent
consultant, who prepared a separate valued engineering report before
the contract documents were completed . As noted in the memorandum report,
additional data would be required to detemine whether the alternative
process arrangements proposed is truly equal to that specified in terms of
performance, equipment and costs. And as identified in the memorandum before,
this additional engineering work could consume a significant amount of time
and possibly leading to the necessity for retaking bids, redesigning the
system to be satisfied that the alternative process wastruly a competitive
and truly an equal process to the bids that were received on July 26th. I
have no additional comments at this time.
Saltarelli: Are there any questions?
S• 'stad: I have a question that may be relative when I asked the staff a question and
mayb`they both answered at the same time; but does your firm qualify or have
background in analyzing their system or past performance versus the system
that has been bid. . . . . .you talked about making bids equal but their process
. . . like we've got an 85 or 100 page document or something here that explains
their process. . . .are you familiar with this process or does your firm or you
handle that aspect of it or versus the other one's bid or is that an appropriate
question?
Ballotti: I don't know whether it's appropriate or not but I don't hesitate to answer
it. Well I believe that our firm is. . . . .just to give you a thirty second
commercial. . . . .Greeley & Hansen has been im involved in this kind of
work since 1914 and I'm obviously not that old but I've been working for them
for twenty-three years and practice of sanitary engineering and the studies
and designs required to identify the most economic and cost-effective
alternatives in regards to sewage treatment is our sole area of practice. We
Page 9
NOW have some 360 people who devote most of their energies in that direction,
we have no hesitation in making a comparison between the proposed project
and the project that was designed. We have done this kind of work many
times for the city of Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston and other
areas around the United States, so we have no hesitation in making the study.
Svalstad: The questions is, maybe, when we set up these bid specifications�or when you
did with our staff Iwas this concept considered or thought of at that time
in regards to bid specifications and thrown out or what would theoretically
disallow this to happen in the first place because we didn't think that process
of words specifying an alternative or it wasn't considered or -- in other
words, what$ the relationship of how this happened in the first place because
we didn't think maybe at that time that it should be considered or this other
system is conventional that we're bidding or not conventional or . . . . .
Ballotti: Well, to try to answer that question, the activated sludge process, which is
the generic description and basic process of system being used has many forms.
It can be an air system , it can be pure oxygen system, it can take other
forms. The decision was made early in the study process to go to a pure
oxygen system as opposed to an air system. The alternatives that were looked
at were concentrated in the area of oxygen systems - not air systems. Once
the initial decision was made to go to oxygen rather than to air. In this
specific case, in connection with Pentech's we did not consider Pentech's
as an alternative ; mostly because we were not aware of it - not mostly, entirely
because we were not aware of the Pentech's variation or modified system of
the air activated sludge program. And that is the only reason why we did not
consider Pentech's. We just were not aware of it until almost the time that
it showed up in the bid documents.
QEN i�1!
McInnis To the best of technical knowledge here has the Reu4eeh-Ls system Gs described
Page 10
in these docoments been rgduced to practice by a similar agency to ours as
sewage needed ?
Ballotti: My response to that is that to my knowledge no.
Saltarelli: It might also be along the lines of Bernie's question was that the Board of
Directors selected the pure oxygen system way back when and we prepared the
designs and specifications for this project on the pure oxygen systems. The
bids that we received (there were 14 bids) and we had thirteen of them
primarily bidding the type of system that we wish to construct -- having made
that decision, now we have a bid in from Pentech which is an air . . . . no, it's
an air system, but it's a modifications of an air system so it's not the same
but they're saying that the results of that process would be similar if not
equal to the results of the other systems. Does everybody understand that
clearly? Okay, then I guess our next item would be to have an oral presentation --
protest, . . .
Olson: Somewhere along the lines of the last few meetings, while we've been discussing
this item for the last few months, it seems to come to my recollection that
this system can be converted at a future date to this system. Is this correct?
Is that true?
Saltarelli: Well, I gue!j�anything can be done if you have enough money.
Olson: Is it a built-in factor that in the event that the present system is not
adequate that it could be converted into another system. Is that correct?
Ballotti Well, certainly the proposal that Pentech made was to fit their equipment into
the basic structure that was designed for the specified systems so to that
degree , of course, at any point in time the equipment installed in the
specified system could be removed and the Pentech equipment could be installed
at a future date.
as
Olson: What I'm saying is thatAthe structure you have designed could be changed at a
future date . . . . . .
Page 11
Ba,mrotti: I don't think it would be necessary to change the structure.
Olson: No, I'm talking about the initial plans .
Ballotti: Alright, I don't think there would be any difficulty in accomplishing that
at a future date .
Olson: But the system can be a#pted or interchanged.
Ballotti: Well, adopted is not a good selection of words. It would take a good deal
of additional expense in the way of piping and other equipment in order
PE IV TeX
to at some future time convert the specified design system to the P„m4eah System
but it would not require the destruction of the concrete tankage.
Sylvia: (?) What prompted that line of thinking - on-site oxygen entering (?)
Ballotti: The reason for going to on-site oxygen ventillation was because it was more
economical and more reliable to generate our own oxygen then it was to purchase
!r
to oxygen. This was based on studies that were made . Of course, Division 2
� of the system,0R Division 1 rather,was the oxygen generation division . If
we didn't purchase oxygen generation equipment Jthe bid would be significantly
less -- it would be half as much. But, of course, then we would have a high annual
cost to purchase oxygen so the studies that were made satisfied that the cost
of building the oxygen generation equipment over a period of time was a more
economical way of obtaining oxygen rather than to buy the oxygen That is
why the system includes oxygen generation facilities.
Sa&ee/l/; Okay , then I think it would be appopriate now for us to hear the presentation of. . .
Ballotti: I just want to make one more comment that Mr. Woodruff brought to my attention
is that the Pentech proposals did not include oxygen generation facilities;
they only included the oxygen dissolution for these facilities.
Saltarelli: It would now be appropriate to hear the oral protest and presentation of
information by Pentech.
Philip Lee: With me tonight is Mr. Mikkel Mandt, Vice President and General Manager of
(Attorney)
Pentech/Houdaille, Mr. Jim Clark who is the Sanitary Engineer with the same
Page 12
company, Mr. George Pankey, who is the Western Regional Manager, Mr. Lou
Giordano, who's with Flow Systems, the local representative of Pentech/Houdaille.
I just want to touch on a few points. If you look on page M-1 of your
resolutions and supporting documents, you find a letter in there from our
firm on behalf of Pentech/Houdaille. Basically, the summary outlines the
points we want to bring out tonight. The procedural objections we have --
we are prepared to move forth with. We feel that at this point in time we
can make a presentation that would conclusively show that our system is
responsive and show you at the same time it will save you money. Basically,
the issue involved,without getting off into side issues, is whether or not
Pentech/Houdaillessystem was responsive to the bid and that's an issue that
can be resolved tonight -- and if it's not resolved -- I don't really think
.r
it can be resolved and I think you should take time to think about it. We're
not here to merely obstruct your process; we are concerned that we have a
Lyees
system that can save your taxpe" almost $2 million in its initial capital
cost, $150,000 a year in power savings and about $500,000 a year in maintenance.
The technical people will be explaining all the reasons for this presently. The
other thing I would like to say is that it is important that you look at this
problem carefully because this system is a new system and we think -- we know --
it will work and our corporation, Pentech, is a very large corporation. It's
been in business for almost a 100 years and we do have experience in this area.
At this point I would like to turn it over to Mr. Mikkel Mandt, who will discuss
the financial responsibility of Pentech for a short time.
T4andt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, we're here to convince you that
..r the Pentech proposal offers the most reliable, safkst/cost-effective solution
to the Orange County Sanitation Districts treatment requirements; that we are
responsible and a responsive bidder in Plant No. 2 project.
Page 13
Sal,,. relli: Excuse me, may I ask one question. . .Phil, are you, in fact, waiving the
ground of protest based on the procedural due process issue ?
Phil Lee: No, I am not ; but we are prepared to go forth with our viewpoint with our
technical presentation.
Mandt: Houdaille Industries is a sound, highly ethical, well-managed company. In
1977, we will do approximately $350 million in business. In 1976 we did
approximately $61 million in construction contracts. Our industrial products
worth
group, of which Pentech is a part, did $119 million/iof bussiness in 1976.
We presently enjoy a current ratio in excess of four to one and we have
approximately $9 million in cash in the bank. We have already formulated
and assigned a project management team to handle the Orange County project.
This highly qualified team is prepared to immediately proceed and work with
the Districts staff and camxkxwikl its engineers in providing a quality system
NEW consisting of components which meet all the requirements of the Orange County
Sanitation Districts and to further provide a high degree of service to the
PEivro X
Districts and training to the operators for operation of the Ae"treh System.
we and affirming
I may further state that we have offered,andAare now offering our full
cooperation to the Districts and its engineer to maximize the total construction
plant savings. Redesign of the existing tankage and plant layouts will not be
required. Minimum piping changes are contemplated and were provided for in
our proposal. This means that there will be no additional costs associated
P61V Toy(
with utilizing the P.enZeeh System in the existing plant layout. Let me further
add that if your consulting engineers are desirous of doing a cost-effective
study, Pentech is prepared within reason to provide funds to conduct that
cost-effective study. The Houdaille has extensive contracting and contract
management experience -- we've arranged to have installation performed by
.w a local contractor who enjoys one of the finest reputations in Southern California
for constructing quality for water treatment plants. We
Page 14
should not forget the primary objective of the Sanitation Districts, State
Water Resources ontrol Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
is to have a pure reputation of sewage and that any informalities in bid
letting is subserving to this goal. To this end the Pentech proposal is the
most responsive of all bids. It will provide the required treatment and in
the most reliable and safest manner. In assessing treatability, we have not
lodged solely our own sanitary engineering judgements and calculations; but
have made inquiries and to known experts in the field of sanitary engineering.
And I have with me here tonight a letter from one such expert, who responsed
r)t_O TOY (?)
to our questions on,Pentech's process. This letter is from Mr. Jerry Shell
of Jerry Shell Environmental Engineers, who is presently consulting with the
Environmental Protection Agency under joint research project with the Sanitation
District of L. A. County and I quote from this letter "3n evaluating the
pENToX (T)
Pentech's process, it appears that you have eliminated the problems involved
with high-purity oxygen while gaining the process benefits. By utilizing pure
oxygen only in the last stage of aeration better settling, thickening and
dewatering can be achieved comparable to the pure oxygen process. In this way,
you have eliminated the high cost of pure oxygen while gaining the process
benefits. We congratulate you on a very effective way of achieving cost-
effectiveness with your process." And we have a number of these letters for
your view. We have no arguments with the Districts staff or its engineers
on the design of the present plant. We think the plant is very well designed.
In fact, we think that the design, studies and the pilot work conducted by the
staff and its engineers support our premise of treatability. We offer that
treatability at greatly reduced capital and operating costs. 0 and M costs
are drastically reduced. Savings and power costs will eventually exceed $1
million per year. We obviate completely the cryogenic plant - the oxygen
Page 15
generation facility with all its complexity, operating and maintenance costs.
Even if we were to supply a cryogenic : plant,the requirements for oxygen,
i�NT6/
because of the x efficiencies, are reduced to a small fraction of that
originally contemplated. This would, thus, greatly reduce the size of the
fanKs(F) of the cryogenic plant. Let me further point out that we
are supplying in our proposal the equivalent to that cryogenic plant in
standard sewage type aeration bubblers and typical bubblers and in lh� IiIIA V
system, a liquid oxygen system, which is essentially for the purpose of
providing the oxygen in the final stage. Mr. Jim Clark, the Sanitary Engineer,
j�CN'TOx
with our Den+e*'-s application group will present some of the technical aspects
of the Pente-c protest.
Holt: You had mentioned in reference to a letter that you have there -- what other
major coroporations other than a consultant can you speak to? Group corporations,
other manufacturing corporations, other cities . . . . that are involved in
EPA?
Mandt: I would think that you could talk to industrial owners as other than consultant
engineers -- people that, like yourselves, accept the industrial community
as opposed to municipal community who are owners and operators of sewage
treatment plants.
Holt: Can you name any of those people?
Mandt: Would you like them now or would you like me to provide you with a list of
people which you might contact?
Holt: No, you can provide it la*r, but these can be provided?
Mandt: Yes
Wedaa The system that you are proposing, did I understand you to say that that system
process has been installed at other Sanitation Districts?
PE N To%
Mandt: Aaa4Qx Process, no.
Wedad Okay, the answer to the question is no, then?
Page 16
,...jolt: Then the answer to my question is also no then.
Mandt: I didn't understand your question - I thought you asked if there were
people within the sanitary engineering community or otherwise that you could
pz /oToy
speak to other than consulting engineers on the merits of the Ree-tex- Process.
PEn��X
Holt: Well, is there any place else that the PentaK System is in existence today?
Mandt: Not in the configuration that has been proposed for the Orange County Sanitation
Districts, no.
Saltarelli: Are there any other questions? In other words the letter that you
read for us congratulating on the process was based upon the theory, not the
practice?
Mandt: Well let me further point out that the this will coaa come a little la*r
also but let me just say that the components we are suggesting here are not
new to the industry. We have supplied mass transfers of mixing oxygen dissolution
equipment for a period of thirty years, in fact, longer thanAtRe pure oxygen
people so we're not talking about a system that's completely out of
the blue -- it's based upon sound sanitary engineering principles, it's based
upon proven performance in terms of oxygen transfer capabilities , our transfer
efficiency system has been evaluated by outside people, they've been installed
in both municipal and industrial plants. The thing that is new here and is
somewhat in defensive of your engineers is that we combined the capabilities,
our capabilities,in the oxygen dissolution both with atmospheric oxygen and
liquid, vaporaized liquid oxygen to provide the benefits and cost-effectiveness
ptN"-�JC
in proposing the 204 System for this particular application.
Saltarelli: Okay, I understand, in the specific reference to the expert testimony that you
presented in the letter form, that that was based upon the theoretical merits
of the design that you contemplate in doing what we wanted to do.
Mandt: That's correct
Page 17
Wedaa: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more question? I guess we decided that (you decided)
that you really did not have an operating system in a Sanitation Plant operating
today now and the answer to that question was no. I'd like to
ask a further question -- do you have existing anywhere at present today, a pilot
plant, a completely operating pilot plant incorporating this particular system?
Can we get a yes or no?
Mandt: No, we of course, are contemplating placing in operation shortly pilot plants for
Qtn TOY
the x System. Obsiously, one of the things we have to do to convince you
pk/0TCX
people tonight is that it lieu of a 75MGD Eautax System operating on Orange
County Sewage in Orange County, we can prove without a reasonable shadow of a
doubt that the system will perform and need be credibility requirements and one
way to that, of course, would be with a pilot study, but as of the moment the
answer is no. Let me go back just one step further too, if I may. Mr. Shell
has done pilot studies and has evaulated both atmospheric oxygen and high purity
oxygen systems so when he's speaking as an expert, I don't think it's based upon
a text book he picked up somewhere-- it's based upon his experience to actual
treatment systems operating today within the field of Sanitary Engineering.
Saltarelli: Thank you, I think that one of the questions that the Directors are getting at
is also that whether the system is in or not the relevance of going in maybe
its first application, assuming it's a very good process, could it be applicable
to the 75 MGD Plant when, for instance, when we will try out an activated sludge
or excuse me the activated carbon treatment plant in order to test that we built
a pilot plant with a capacity of 1 MGD to see if it worked or not, so here we
would be having to make a decision without an intermediate size or test type
plant -- you understand the difficulty of that?
b_r,1t: Yes, I can understand but I would like to point out that in effect you have
�NTcX
piloted Process when you piloted the high purity oxygen system. We are
Page 18
talking about the same biological reactors, the same tank configurations, the
same stages and the fact that the oxygen is supplied from a combination of
atmospheric oxygen and high purity oxygen mixed makesAnoloifigrence to the
bacteria. They are going to perform in accordance with the design established
by your consulting engineers, So we feel the system has been piloted; otherwise
a
we wouldn't be riskingAcorporation of sizable size on a untried system. We
have to be more sure than you that this will work because we risk every bit as
much as you, if not more, it's our money -- your not elected officials - right.
Pattinson: Pilot programs don't scare me; however, theory versus the actual working plant
does bother me. What happens if on down the line the theory does not come out
like the working plant does and the working plant doesn't give us what we want?
Mandt: Okay, the premise here is that you have piloted a pure oxygen system. Now what
we're doing is taking that same pure oxygen system and putting the same amount of
oxygen into that pilot plant or into the full scale system that you piloted and
we're saying that that system is no better, no worse, than the system you piloted --
it's equivalent -- it is the system you piloted. The difference is in the cost
the mechanical complexity , the increased reliability and the increased safety.
There's no complex chemical separation from air association with this problem.
We obviate that waxh xa eliminatwd it completely and the basic premise here, and
Bill will show this, in technical terms -- not in technical terms, but in effect,
PkN 1 oXl
you have piloted the Psi System. .
Saltarelli: Okay, if there aren't any other questions, let's get into the technical arguments.
pgjrlb�
Jim Clark: The Powitex System is responsive to the specifications. As Mike mentioned we
put our equipment in the exact same tankage as called out in the detailed plans
i=&floI
and specifications. I have here an artist's conception of the Ptex System in
Page 19
place. It holds the same eight flow tanks, the same four tanks in each flow
tank. We will transfer the same amount of oxygen into this system. If I
could back up a little bit with what Mike mentioned -- oxygen is an element.
Twenty-three percent, by weight, of the atmosphere is in fact oxygen. The
micro organisms in the activated sludge process require oxygen to remove the
biochemical oxygen demand. The bugs don't care where the oxygen comes from --
whether it's in a high purity form applied at 90 to 95% pure oxygen or compressed
and applied at 23% by weight - as long as the amount of oxygen transferred is the
same .
? Would you restate those numbers please.
Clark: Yes, the atmosphere contains roughly 23%,by weight, of oxygen.
? Come forward to that., _
Clark: Okay as long as the total amount of oxygen is the same, the micro organisms will
Iftow grow and produce and remove BOD at mechanical rates. It's strickly a matter of
the oxygen amount applied -- not the form with which it's applied.
pl rh-ro X
We state,emphatically, that the ReR,4e� System will perform identically, as well
as any other system. In other words, as long as we transfer the same amount of
oxygen in the same amount of time, in the same tankage , the systems are identical.
Ne
Furthermore,4 have gone through detailed calculations which indicate that there is
no oxygen limitation in this system to produce a desired degree of treatment. Nor
will this system be limited by microbial growth. We have a number of literature
references, which are available for your inspection this evening or some other
time, which were referenced in the technical manual which were distributed some-
time earlier. Which substantiates these facts. By putting compressed atmospheric
oxygen in the first three stages and liquid oxygen, or high purity oxygen in the
forth stage there are several major advantages in the Pentox System. First of
all, in the fourth stage we have a higher absorption efficiency allowable, based
on tests run in 1973 at our test facilities in Illinois. So by increasing the
Page 20
absorption efficiency we can decrease the mixing intensity in the final stage
or the amount of power we have to put in there to keep the activated sludge in
suspension. Now by decreasing the mixing intensity, we can allow then the flock
to grow to a larger size while still in the aeration basin. Still keeping them
in suspension, still allowing them to remove the BOD,but by the same time allowing
them to grow bigger. Now this allows for a better separation in the secondary
clarifier . That means a better quality effluent, both in terms of solids as well
as total biochemical oxygen demand, which is the purpose of the secondary wastewater
Octi�oX
treatment system. There are many advantages and savings to the Be"+ex System.
?,c i?/TvX
First of all there is the capital savings. Now you've heard that thee�c
System will save over $1.7 million right now in capital savings, based on the
second low bidder. Now I would also like you to look at power savings -- this
draft shows the annual power savings in thousands of dollars. This is $100,000
per year savings of our system versus the second low bidder system. This is $1.4
million per year -- remember this is annual power savings -- and this is the
year 1978 all the way up to 1998. This draft was made from information which we
obtained from the San Diego Gas $ Electric, as well as Southern California Edison,
who is the supplier of power for Orange County, California. This red line repre-
sents a 50a increase every four years its an escalating curve that's
increasing at an increasing rate. This blue line indicates a 1.65 cent per
kilowatt hour increase every four years and has a linear line. We can say with
a very high degree of certainty and with conservativeness that the Orange County
cost for power will range somewhere in this green colorcast (?) area. Now
if we look at those numbers at a present day cost of 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour,
you can see that in 1978 there will be a savings in power cost alone of $170,000
s per year --just in power savings. And when we approach twenty years from today,
1998, you' ll see a power savings could easily be in excess of $1 million annually.
Pr"�i-To�
by using the PeR*&x System versus the second low bidder., Not only are power
Page 21
savings affected, but operation and maintenance savings. We have no cryogenic
plant. A cryogenic plant is essentially a complex chemical processing plant,
taking oxygen out of the air and making it in pure form -- generally 90 to 950
pure. We are taking that same atmospheric oxygen and putting it directly into
the system. Therefore, there's no need for a cryogenic plant and it's been
estimated that this can save an excess of $300,000 a year. So right now, in
1978, we are looking at an annual operation and maintenance savings of probably
half a million dollars a year and it will definitely go up as time goes on.
Don Fox: I have a question. ZI to understand you correctly when you are stating that
with your process there is no liquid oxygen involved?
Clark: Yes, there is liquid oxygen in the final stage.
Fox: Then what is the source of the liquid oxygen?
C' -k: The liquid oxygen would be purchased in compressed form -- in liquid form. Now
we have taken that number into account here in these power savings. We have
allowed a 31 kilowatt deficit from our actual savings to make up for the cost of
buying that liquid oxygen and the cost of that would increase then as time goes
on.
Fox: Now another point of clarification -- we are talking if we were to talk in terms
� �cjlethe,¢
of tons per day oxygen or cubic feet, we are talking wh or-A you use liquid or
whether you use the air or gas you're still talking about the same amount.
Clark: Right, the same weight of oxygen.
Fox: So you can put a little bit of liquid oxygen in here or you can put a lot of air
in and derive the same results?
Clark Correct.
Fox: And as I understand you, one of the things we would be dependent on would be outside
source for liquid oxygen.
Clark For a very small amount of liquid oxygen - correct.
Page 22
it
P It: Jim you might point out too that in our proposal/lincludes storage tanks which
provide like 20 or 25 days of liquid oxygen so the tanks would only have to be
filled once every 25 days from an outside source.
Fox: Well I think my major concern is the fact that I have no control over the cost
of that oxygen if I'm buying it from someone else. If I'm manufacturing it
myself then I do at least have partial control and I'm not really at the mercy
of anyone.
Clark: That's true, but if your saving a million dollars a year in power - you know --
you can afford to buy quite a bit of liquid oxygen, even if the price goes
sky-high. And again we have included in our proposal a 31 kilowatt decrease
in power savings because of the requirment for the purchase of liquid oxygen.
Fox: Yes, but I think . . . . . .
Clark: Twenty years from now it will be estimated that it will be in excess of a million
dollars a year.
Fox: But, nevertheless -- it really doesn't matter whether you discuss the fact today your talking .about the saving of the electrical power and and you've discussed
* o p e leab'a" (i")
the maintenance spector, but it should not go unnoticed that when
you purchase liquid oxygen or if you purchase a bag of apples or a gallon of
water, you are still paying for the maintenance and operation for whatever it
took to get it to the customer. The customer pays that bill.
Mandt: When we prepared our proposal we considered whether or not to include a cryogenic
plant in our proposal and I think even Greeley & Hansen would support these
following comments. The economics of a cryogenic plant become favorable when
the requirement for oxygen reaches a certain capacity per day. And we're talking
here of a difference between about two tons of oxygen per day versus a hundred and
forty tons of oxygen per day. And in our analysis, it appeared that a cryogenic
plant was not cost-effective. That the uncontrolled quantity of power was impacted -
heavier on your operating costs than variations in oxygen costs, so we did not
Page 23
include a cryo plant in our proposal but we included instead oxygen capacity
and I believe in our analysis, and I could have this checked, that the cost of
the mini cryogenic plant that we looked at was not too far different than the
large oxygen storage facility that we provided in the proposal and this could
be a point of discussion if if became a critical component in our proposal --
if the Districts felt they had to have a mini cryo plant, then we could certainly
consider that because I don't believe . . .well, by the bid documents, of
course, we couldn't change our proposal . . . but I don't think that would
impact infavorably upon our cost structure.
Saltarelli: Can I ask a question - the engineer said that the cost of the cryo plant is
darn near half of the bid -- is that correct -- somewhere in that range?
c'.lakK
? Yes
Sancarelli: Alright, then if you didn't have that plant to generate the oxygen in your bid,
, �`�� s�,� why isn't the bid about half of what it is?
1ML ` -ej Well, we had some other factors that were'nt -- to make an apples to apples
comparison -- we substituted for the cryo plant four large centrifical blowers
which were not in the scope of the original contemplated plan. There are other
factors in our proposal which affect our cost structure so that we had to bid, we felt,
to be cost effective -- we had to bid the combination of Divisions 1 and 2. We
could not bid one without the other.
1 9 :Mr. one more question -- what is the cost of oxygen per day?
Saltarelli: $35 per ton approximately today.
� Yy
We are vaporizing liquid oxygen at its form so. . . I'd
'P terms,
like to talk to you about how to make, in ordinary engineer 4 about how to calculate
the tons of oxygen put in Liquid oxygen is more dense.
Saltarelli: Well, we don't need to get into the engineering and scientific aspects of the
ionization of the oxygen. Let's go more into this.
Page 24
P�NT�1�
Grrk: Another savings or advantage to the w System is that it would be easier and
safer to maintain. One would not need or require a highly specialized or skilled
cryogenic maintenance team with our system. And also the maintenance would be
simpler and I say we feel very strongly that the Sanitation Districts of Orange
County California , the California State Water Resources Control Board and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency will have greater confidence in and
assurance of continued operation of the P. treatment plant to achieve
the desiratreatment and as note of summation itis irrespective of the method
of oxygen transfer or the purity of that oxygen as long as a transfer device is
used that allows dissolved oxygen homogeneity and adequate mixing. The end result
will be consistant. At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Lou Giourdano (? Sp.)
Saltarelli Approximately, how long will your presentation take, Lou?
Giourdano: Three minutes, four minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, as a local representative from
Pentech/Houdaille I was surprised by the method of procedure of bid evaluation
up until this point. We asked at the time of bid opening for an opportunity to
present the technical arguments in favor of the PENTOX System. As the low bidder
Reasc•ro�e
on the project that seemed to be a xesper a request. Instead, up to this
point, you've heard about contractors licenses , you've heard about corporate
seals, you've heard about filling in blanks on paper forms. We know, and you
know that these insignificant supposed few irregularities can be waived by you
if you so see fit to do so. You've also heard that Pentech is an outfit out
of Cedar Falls , Iowa, and no one's heard of Cedar Falls , Iowa, let along Pentech.
1 V
The fact is that Pentech, under the name of �� / �� has been in the
business of manufacturing oxygen dissolution equipment for biological waste
treatment systems for thirty years. I don't believe any of the other manufacturers
under consideration have been in the business for nearly that long. If what we
say is true, there's a savings of about 1 3/4 million dollars on this contract
we believe there may be an even more substantial savings on the construction
Page 24
contract. And the people of Orange County will realize a portion of that savings.
Even more important to the local people there's a power savings which you've
heard tonight, the savings and the cost of operating --- the operating personnel
in a cryogenic oxygen production facility and a savings in the maitenance cost
of that facility. All of these are paid for year after year, 100% by the
people of Orange County -- there's no grant funding for that. Important also
and from a cost point of view, is the safety -- the elimination of the safety
hazard associated with the cryogenic facility in sealed tank oxygen reactors --
particularly in the vicinity of anaerobic digesters. Pentech/Houdaille has
put its money on the line with performance guarantee. Federal procurement
regulations are very specific with severe penalties for failure to meet that
guarantee. As a taxpayer in Orange County, as well as a representative of
Pentech, I find myself surprised that nobody seemed concerned about whether or
not this system is going to work up until tonight. We are readAmaintain that
performance guarantee and go ahead with this contract and would like to see an
award of the contract as quickly as possible to Pentech. Thank you very much.
Saltarelli: Lou, I'd like to ask one question while your here in that when you first saw
the design of the system, the plans and specifications back on May 27th01was it,
you simply had to realize at that point that the PENTOX System was not within the
written specifications and purview of the design. My question is, why did you
wait four months when the bids were opened to want to make a technical analysis
of what you were bidding on and why did you not bring that up at that time? A
company of your size must be bidding on thousands of contracts.
Giourdano: Four months from 6"point to what point?
Saltarelli: From the time you picked up the bid specifications?
Gi iano: Until when?
Saltarelli Until now! A week ago we get an objection that you have something you want to
explain about your bid. Why didn't you, when you realized that the bid as
Page 25
presented -- that the bid specifications did not include what the PENTOX System
would do, why didn't you bring that up at that time?
Giourdano: Well, on the morning of the bid opening, as soon as the bids were read Mr. Pankey
and I approached this table and asked for the opportunity to a technical evaluation
of the PENTOX System. We were the low bidder and as I said I think its a very
reasonable thing to ask.
Saltarelli: Four months after your bidding a project that's not axi)cxNal in the specs
Giourdano: This was the morning of the bid opening
Saltarelli: Oh, that was July 26th. Okay, so then it's two months or so and after you picked
up the specs you had to realize you were preparing a bid not based upon the
specifications as directed by this Board. That's why I don't understand why
that time delay -- if you're accusing !us of being violating your due process and
all these other things being . . what was the other word you used. . exclusionary
why didn't you bring that up May 28th and say we have another process and maybe
if you change the bid specifications, we could be more responsive to the bid?
Giourdano: I'm sure you can appreciate that on a project of this magnitude by need
of Pentech/Houdaille, Flow Systems/ or any other company could pick up a set of
plans and say we have something that we are going to be able to bid on that. It took
quite a bit of expense in time to evaluate what the process was and to come to
the conclusion that we could supply equipment that would that process.
—r
Saltarelli: Are there any questions? Ron
Shenkman: Yes, Some of the terminology has been used frequently during the presentation of
insignificant irregularities being unimportant and I guess my question is what is
your criteria that, and how do you measure when irregularities are insignif;cant;
especially when you're dealing with a project of this magnitude.
L We have never received any specifications regarding this project --- only one
letter on September 8th which said we were not'04responsive. We haven't received
any other documents at all; but we heard rumors that there are other problems
Page 26
with our bid but we've never received anything on it and until we do so it's
hard for us to respond to that particular question. I'd like to receive that
so I could respond to it point by point.
Shenkman: I'd like a response to my question from the gentleman who just gave the testimony
and I would like an answer from the Chair.
Gioudano: To expand on what Mr. Lee is saying my comments on contractor's licenses and
that type of thing were never received officially. I attended the Board meeting
last week in which the protest was read and listened to Mr. Woodruff's comments
and that was the only word that we had on what irregularities we were supposed
to have had and we don't know that we have any irregularities - only that we
have been accused of having irregularities.
Woodruff: Mr. Shenkman and members of the Boards, in my opinion that's dated September 22nd,
I made some comment in there regarding nonresponsiveness and the issue relative
to the timeliness of the protest. The protest regulations, by which we are
governed since this is a grant funded project, provides that they shall, in fact,
file a protest. It's not at all untypical for a project , and I think this might
have been one of the exceptions, we didn't have any protests as we went on this
one -- but it's not at all untypical in contracts of this magnitude for a
manufacturer or a contractor to file a protest alleging that the plans and
specs are so narrowly drawn as to exclude his particular item. We have had it
in this one and I point out in that. . . . Mr. Saltarelli just asked a question
that either Elmer or I would think to inquire or comment on later and that being
o
that as the engineers have pointede to you, as Directors Iin your report# the basic
system, as proposed by Pentech, is so entirely different than the system that oAu_!/,
was designed and approved by the boards, namely being- pure oxygen; that it is
the opinion of the engineers, and it is my opinion as I say here that as a
matter of law it was nonresponsive and it seems to me they've missed a golden
opportunity of protest -- if they had reviewed the plans they could have . . .
Page 27
maybe they couldn't tell the first day, May 28th, but certainly at a very early
stage they knew that the design was for a pure oxygen system and they were
coming in with an air system. Besides not having a cryo plant, however, and as
such, they had their remedy. Their remedy is set forth in the code of federal
regulations and it says a file of protest with us and we make a determination
and if they don't accept our/your determination, they protest to the Environmental
Protection Agency. And the procurement regulations are rigid but they are also
rigid in favor of the party's claim that they have been excluded from bidding;
either a given item, size or dimension of a bolt or the whole new plant and for
whatever reasons chose not and took their chances. now, maybe they've
concurred from
rhaving from the comments here they concluded at that time they
felt that they, in fact, did meet the design standards set forth in the plans
and specifications for a pure oxygen system. From the information that has been
INV,
provided to me I base my legal opinion on nonresponsiveness on the fact that
the engineering data that was presented was -- are in fact -- different systems.
They may purport to accomplish the same net result, and maybe the engineers
could comment on that, but the system that's designed is not what was called for
in the bid. As a result, the Districts continued to proceed on til July 26th when
1/"a ln1*
the bids were opened assuming that nobody had any quar*e4-s, or suggestions or
comments regarding the design of Greeley and Hansen and all other bidders bid
and I find a bid of thirteen other bidders who use the UNOX or a variation of a
UNOX System or pure oxygen system, the bids were opened in May and they were the
only ones with a different type of system and, therefore, it seems to me that the
Districts prejudice. Now, that's not to say that you are not
required, in fact, to give a full examination of this protest here and make your
_ determination, but it seems to me that the bidder in this case has, in fact elected
but elected not to raise an issue at an earlier stage in
the bid procurement procedure and test the analytical pert&nz of the design.
Page 28
? :Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Woodruff's excellent argument there really rests
on exactly what those specs really did say. Could somebody let us know --
did those specs actually say that the system must be a pure oxygen and only
a pure oxygen system?
Saltaralli: Elmer, I guess you should answer that.
Ballotti: Well, one of the first comments that I made in the beginning was to state that. .
?: What did the specs actually say?
Ballottii: They say pure oxygen but I wanted to get back to the other question that's been
raised. . . . . .
? Would you answer my question first . . . .do they say specifically pure oxygen?
Ballotti: That's correct.
? Do they exclude other forms of oxygen?
Ballotti: They do not exclude, they just say that it shall be a pure oxygen system.
? " Well, I think we all realize here that the PENTOX System is , in part, a pure
oxygen system. They do finish up with pure oxygen.
Ballotti: That's correct.
?• I think the entire argument r1r. Woodruff has given us really dependson interpretting
what those specs would mean lefgally. Well, there's no doubt, biochemically, the
systems are the same.
Ballotti: I dont agree with that.
?• What I read indicates Iit looks like/they are.
Svalstad: Well, it seems to me that we can cut through some of this and get to where we're
supposed to be and either get on or off the program. I think that number one that
it could be proven legally)or any other way Jthat these people did not meet the
specs, whether anyone agrees with that or not -- that's one point. The other
point is that they presented sk to us now and spent most of the time in not proving
that they have a mis-technicality, at least to this point they'er trying to prove
their system. My question is, and I'm sure everybody here would like to save a
Page 29
million dollars or two million dollars, plus a million dollars down the line -- in
50 years or 20 years later fwhatever the system shows on savings for power Jso the
question is of the staff, after you have heard this preliminary information,
what length of time would a pilot study take and wkx$ would be required and number
is
twoAthe cost and time to rebid on a competitive basis. I feel that if we are
going to award to these people, it should be rebid no matter what on a competitive
basis in some nature because I don't think the people that bid against them -- I'm
not sure we have a competitive bid situation, number one. So the question is,
would the staff , and I'm putting them on the line, but would the staff feel,
from what they've heard that we should take the time to rebid this and to restudy
this and give them a better shot at this or not. That's the basis question
because I think that the staff is still opposed to what they heard on this system,
Ve have the legal rights to turn this thing down here and get down to our business
with the second low bidder.iAa:d I think that's the question. In other words .
Saltarelli: I think that's been fairly clearly established/ that there is no other system
that we can go and look at.
Svalstad: That's not the point I'm making, the point I'm making is does the staff want to
take the time -- do they feel from what they've heard -- because nobody in this
room, at least most of us aren't experts in whether that systemSgoing to have a
chance to work or not --the point is, does the staff feel from what they've heard
that we should take the time to analyze this further or should we press on and I'm
putting them on the line because you're supposed to tell us what you feel about
the system and we make our judgement whether we agree or not.
Saltarelli: Okay the staff's recommendation, to be very specific, is to reject this bid as
being nonresponsive.
t...,:lstad: Well, I'm talking about legal technicalities.
Saltarelli: No
Page 30
Svalstad: The answer is that they prefer a different system -- is that right? True or not,
`r I mean, you can technically reject this thing. . .
Saltarelli: No, it's not on a technical basis, its on the basis that the decision was made
way back -- some many months ago -- that the Districts would be best served by
pure oxygen system, which. . . . . .
Svalstad: This gentleman here said a half hour ago that when they did this profound
document of specifications, they weren't aware of this type of system. Now my
question is, if they weren't aware of it, and the staff wasn't aware of it too
much, has anything changed their minds in the last few months? Or three or four
hours?
Saltarelli: The answer is no. The system wasn't in existance at that time -- how could anyone
be aware of it.
Svalstad: Well, the point is they weren't then and they are now.
Sa" relli: The staff does not believe that it would be feasible , either financially or from
an engineering viewpoint, to hault the process and restudy the PENTOX System, then
go out to bid for a combination oxygen aeration system, which is what we really
have here really.
Svalstad: On that basis, I'd like to hear what the attorney has to say and I think we should
vote on it.
Are the presentations by Pentech's people complete now? Is the floor now open
for discussion?
Saltarelli: They are. Is that correct? All right, we're finished with the presentation by
Pentech and we're now open on the floor for discussion.
Wieder I'd like to address my remarks to one of the three protests of a summary page of
the Troy Malin correspondence. The protest of the respected time allowed 20
minutes to make a presentation If this system , as we're hearing about it today,
this evening, is all that --- it's projecting to be a tremendous savings, etc --
it's a new approach, etc. -- all these exciting , challenging, inovating, creative,
Page 30
etc. , program then I would say at first blush -- well, we would be kind of
foolish to turn our back on it. However, my question is to the Pentch's people --
when you made your presentation, and prior to that, were you not aware of the
Districts ruling and time limitations for that presentation for 20 minutes?
Mandt: From our understanding of the federal procurement requirements, we believe and
our counsel directs us, that we had an opportunity to protest. We had an opportunity
to protest at the time of the bid letting and we had a certain period of time to
protest within, from the date of that bid letting. We found, or we could tell
no improlrieties at the time of the bid letting -- we were satisfied with the bid
letting. And, in fact, there was a protest made by a competitor at the time of
that
bid letting and the District staff rightfully said4-- they alleged informalities
in our bid that was not responsive to the bid. The District rightfully responded
to that with acusations that the Districts have the right to waive any and all
informalities, obviously not in a position to comment on it at that time.
Wieder: You're not answering my question. Right here - 1 -- it says that Pentech's rights
to procedural due process are violated by the following County Sanitation District
ruling, C. - The Districts allowing Pentech only twenty minutes to make its
presentation. Did you know about that prior to the time you made the presentation?
Did you know about the limitation of 20 minutes?
Mandt: We were notified of this need roughly one week ago. May I make one quick state-
ment? That it's not Pentech's policy to take this type of approach at bid letting.
We're not comfortable being in a position in opposition with the Districts, its
engineers, its staff and one of the reasons Mr. Giourdano had trouble answering
the question on why didn't we bring forth this process earlier for consideration
prior to bid -- well, at the time that we got the plans and specifications we ran
a detailed engineering study and it took us right up until the bid date to complete
our entire study and get our proposal ready so we were not prepared to give a
detailed proposal. It was too late, time was inadequate for us to come talk to
Page 31
the engineers and other people to try and get the specification changed. When we
read the specification, there was nothing that barred us from thinking that we
were not specifically excluded and also under federal procurement guidelines if
you're not specifically excluded, you have the right to bid the project, which
we did and we bid it , not because there was a $20,000 or $50,000 savings but
because the savings were so dramatic, we felt from our own company's point of
view, and from the Districts point of view, that the overwhelming savings and
other advantages that we talked about tonight would supercede any objections
that the Districts might have on procedural matters.
Saltarelli: Okay, I think we should get down to the closing and Elmer wants to make one
final statement in regards to the aeration system.
Ballotti: The only comment I was going to make was that initially I said that the studies
included consideration of air systems and pure oxygen systems. Tonight we've
heard about atmospheric oxygen -- to me that's another word for air. In other
words the original studies looked at air studies and concluded that air systems,
or if you want to call them atmospheric oxygen systems, were not cost effective
as compared to pure oxygen. There are other people in addition to Pentech that
make air systems and so if you're going to revise the specifications to air
systems, then there are other people who could bid on an air system , as well.
And while Pentech may claim that their air system is more efficient and more
economic, therefore, in terms of power, I don't know and it would only require
a good deal of study and comparisons to determine whether or not, in fact, their
air system or atmospheric oxygen with some pure oxygen in the final stage, is,
in fact, a more cost effective alternative than the air systems that were looked
at.
Sp" 3relli: Alright, I consider the hearing closed If everyone has had enough time to ask
and answer questions, I would like to state for the record that we have given
the applicant as much time and I assume that they are agreeing to present their
Page 32
case so -- certainly more than three times the twenty minutes. Are we ready to
take some action? Mr. Schmit.
Schmit: Well, we've had some questions back here. We think you should hear them first.
Saltarelli: We're trying to give everyone a chance. Milan
Dostal: Yes, a comment was made and I'd just like to have the engineer respond to that.
Comment was made that the system that is proposed by the Pentech is equal and
will have the same product or end result as the pure oxygen system that we set
out to bid. Can our engineers say yes or no.
Saltarelli: It's already been told that the answer to that is speculative and theoretical.
It may be true and it may not be true. There is no other . . . . .
? Mr. Chairman would you let the expert answer please.
? I'm happy with the Chairman, we elected him so let him talk.
Baliotti: We do not have any sufficient amount of data from Pentech to either support that
position or refute that position. They make that claim but we do not have any
data .
Saltarelli: Mr. Pattinson
Pattinson: Some mention was made about a performance bond -- could they elaborate on the
performance bond as far as the end results. What happens . . . . like you say,
if it's all theory, and if it doesn't come out like that,.8oes this reflect back
to what's in the performance bond?
Woodruff: Well right off hand I would be certain that we would want to revise any
performance bonds conflict Basically, the performance bond
says that the surety will, in effect, gurantees that in the event the contractor
failed to complete the job, that they will step in and take over and have it
completed. But if you were to apply it to something that goes beyond; see, we wrote
the bonds, in effect, to address the plans and specifications -- if you could
r.W
write a performance bond, for form that we utilize, you'd say we'd probably be
able to award
Page 33
SaYtarelli: Dick
Olson: Mr. Chairman in July when you considered talking about pure oxygen, I don't
think that one Director here understood the system. And I might remind the
Joint Chairman and the staff that no explanation was given of the plus's or
minus's or advantages or disadvantages of the system - one way or the other.
And perhaps we didn't warrant questions at that time. Now, many of us do
have questions -- and what system is the better system. I might also remind
the Joint Chairman and the staff and Mr. Sylvester has probably commented here
in our meetings that the cost down the road of operating these facilities is
going to increase dramatically. Now I would like to add as part of the record
is this a true fact that our cost of operation will dramatically increase in the
next few years.
S• `arelli: You want me to answer that? If we are put to the test with all the EPA
requirements for secondary treatment as still in the law, which we have
i5
amendments now which we hope will pass, thereAno question that the operating
costs are going to rise substantially. That's one of the reasons why Fred has
been back`a forth this week again with the Senate and the House's version of
changing the definition of secondary treatment. IF that can be modified sub-
stantially, which we believe now will happen, the operating costs and the capital
costs will be greatly reduced from what we originally projected. But obviously
when we go from primary to secondary treatment the ongoing costs are going to go
up and they're going to go high.
'�$8►v You have no definite figures to dissertate what Mr. Wayne Sylvester originally
said.
Saltarelli Do you have the figures on that, Wayne.
Sy,,_,:.ster: The engineering projections are -- if we have to go to full secondary treatment
that is our total flow which is presently 185 MGD, then the annual operating cost
for treatment facilities would between double and triple.
Page 34
6waon: If we're still governed by the same steps and requirement that we are now.
Saltarelli: That's correct.
Olson: I think that before this goes on we should consider the merits of the cost of
this project.
Saltarelli: Mr. McInnis
McInnis: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to read t¢ the Directors a statement of the
Pentech/Houdaille -- let me just read it, it only takes a second ,but. . . .
"the equipment and services as proposed under this proposal will be furnished as
per the following description." (the Pentech/Houdille description) "In the event
of any differences in requirements of the specifications and items quoted below,
the following quoted items will take precedence." Here's the key sentence.
"Any items not included in this proposal which are not required for the PENTOX
process but are required under the scope of the detailed specifications will not
NEW be furnished." As far as I'm concerned, and I've done a lot of contracting, I've
never seen a statement like that before and I'm going to take that one home with
me. But I say at this point, it is my considered judgement that a performance
bond submitted with this proposal, with this paragraph, is totally useless.
Mr. Chairman,are you ready for a motion?
Saltarelli: I'm ready for anything.
Wedaa ?: I move that the Board support the -st-ap recommendations
Saltarelli: All right, that would be to approve the specific resolution which is Resolution
77-122. All right,Resolution No. 77-122 has been moved and seconded.
Any discussion? Hank.
Wedaa: I'd like to make a comment. You know, the -- I spent my life as a physicist
doing engineering work and I think that new technology is always great, from my
viewpoint and I enjoy listening to new technology,and I've heard a lot tonight
and what I've read in this literature that everyone's provided us — it's really
interesting, I like what I see, I like what I hear. But do I like it well enough
Page 35
.-.- to sink $8 million for a 75 MGD plant when a pilot system has not even been run.
And I've put a lot of components together in my life to make a new system and
you know sometimes it works great and as often as not it never works at all.
And this system may work and gee I hope it does. Some years from now when we're
building something else, we can use this system; but I think that until the
system has, in fact, been proven , we know what we're buying and after we've
spent $8 million,or whatever the number turns out to be, we have to have a
system that works and frankly, I haven't seen it tonight and I guess I would say
that -- now, if this system is as good as they say it is, and I'm not suggesting
that it's not, I think that it has to be proven)'and where do things like this
get proven? Well, I think the EPA is the obvious answer I would suggest, in
fact that they turn around to the EPA and tell them about all the power savings
that are involved here, tell Carter about all of this and get it funded on a
r.r
pilot system basis for 1 MGD system or something like that. But I think for the
Boards to consider sinking this much money into an unproven system, frankly, it's
just unwise. So I'm going to vote to support the staff.
Saltarelli: The questions called for with acception.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mr, Woodruff wants to make
a brief statement about the findings relative to this resolution before we vote.
Woodfurt: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to -- in your packages
on your table tonight there was included a draft on proposed Resolution No.
77-122, pages 0-1 thru 0-7 . It's a very lengthy resolution and it basically does
two things. In contains a variety of recitals based upon the evidence that you've
heard tonight, at least based upon the evidence of the written materials that have
been received up to the time of the meeting and it makes certain findings,
specifically, besides rejecting the bid, it make a determination of the protest
and that protest, in this resolution, is tonight, as set forth in Section VI, on
the basis that there's no substantial evidence to establish that the designed
system of pure oxygen system is exclusionary or substantial evidence to establish
Page 36
that the bid of Pentech fails in material way to comply with the bid procedures
and bid requirements,is evidence to establish that Pentech failed to file a
protest, and there's no substantial evidence to establish that they were
deprived or procedural due process. Are there any particular questions?
Saltarelli: Those findings will be part of the resolution as long as that is in favor of
maker and second of the motion.
Roll Call Vote Taken at this Time.
Saltarelli: All Districts vote in favor of the motion. The motion is carried Is there
any other business to come before the Districts.
Lee: May I ask one question -- (don't know exactly what he said but requested copies
of engineering report and maybe other agenda material)
Meeting adjourned.