HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07 FIL_D
_ IN THE OFFICE C.THE SECRETARY
ORANGE COUP."SAMITATION DISTRICT
DRAFT AUG 22 2001
MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING f 7�1/
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on
Wednesday,July 18, 2001 at 5 p.m., in the Districts Administrative Office.
(1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows:
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: OTHERS PRESENT:
Directors Present: Thomas Nixon, General Counsel
Norm Eckenrode, Chair Don Hughes
Peter Green, Vice Chair Ryal Wheeler
Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee
Steve Anderson, PDC Committee STAFF PRESENT:
Shirley McCracken, Chairman, FAHR Committee Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
David Ludwin, Director of Engineering
Gary Streed, Director of Finance
Directors Absent: Lisa Tomko, Director of Human Resources
Jim Silva, County Supervisor Lisa Lawson, Communications Manager
Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments by any member of the public.
(4) RECEIVE, FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the June 27, 2001 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted.
(5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Committee Chair Norm Eckenrode reported on the Directors Workshop held Saturday,July 14.
There were 11 directors and 3 alternates in attendance, as well as 55 others from the public. The
main topic of discussion was levels of treatment. At least four more workshops are planned in the
next 15 months.
Chair Eckenrode reminded the directors of the upcoming August 15-18 CASA Annual Conference in
San Diego.
A meeting has tentatively been scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday,August 22, with Huntington
Beach and County leadership and staff to discuss beach issues.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
1 Page 2
July 18, 2001
Director Peter Green complimented staff on the excellent session on July 14. His fellow
councilpersons found it very informative.
Director Pat McGuigan requested that staff give as much notification on upcoming meetings as
possible (three months if possible),even if it needs to be changed later. All committee members
agreed that Saturday morning meetings work best.
Director McGuigan also reported that she visited the Orange County Fair and complimented staff on
OCSD's booth.
(6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
Gary Streed, Director of Finance, represented the General Manager.
A. Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services, updated the members on Huntington
Beach activities. The fourth of six surveys begins tomorrow(Thursday, July 19)and
will end at noon on Saturday. Some near-shore work is being done by Scripps
Institute to check currents around the power plant. Staff is taking a second look at the
work done in 1999. The Source Control program has been diverted for the next
month to look at whether there may have been an on-shore source that was missed.
Lisa Lawson, Communication Services Manager, reported that the media has been
invited into the lab during this weekend's survey to see how the samples are
managed. The media will have been invited to every phase of the investigation
process at the end of this phase.
B. Ms. Lawson provided an overview of the recent public opinion survey. The results will
be presented to the Board next month.
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
General Counsel Tom Nixon discussed proposed changes to the public comment section of the
agenda for Board meetings. It was decided that the Board Chair would determine whether to limit the
comment period to 30 minutes based on the number of requests to speak that are submitted. Upon
vote of the Board, an additional comment period could be added toward the end of the meeting.
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B)
A. Groundwater Replenishment System Issues
David Ludwin conveyed the concerns of members of the Joint Coordinating
Committee and staff on two issues: 1) Disclosure of communications that staff and
JCC members have with prospective consultants;and 2) Procedures for the selection
of consultant services. The Directors agreed that staff should continue to meet with
consultants to allow open communication about the project and to help insure that the
best-qualified firm is ultimately selected. However, no firth shall be excluded for any
reason from meeting with staff. The Committee members also agreed that no
Directors should serve on the selection committee.
Director McGuigan, with support of the other Committee members, asked General
Counsel to prepare a draft policy for consideration at the next Steering Committee
meeting and by the PDC Committee and the Board in September that would prohibit
Minutes of the Steering Committee
'Page 3
July 18, 2001
the Directors from having any ex parts communication with prospective consultants on
any project for the District. Staff would be required to disclose all communications
with prospective consultants.
B. The Agenda Items scheduled to be considered by the Board's working committees in
August were reviewed.
(9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY
It was announced that Agenda Item 14.d. on the Board agenda would be pulled because the JCC
has not yet approved on this agreement.
(10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
There were none.
(11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
ACTION AND/OR STAFF REPORT
There were none.
(12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for August 22, 2001 at 5 p.m.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for August 22,2001 at 7 p.m.
(13) CLOSED SESSION
The Committee convened at 6:05 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Section 54957.6, to
discuss with District's Labor Negotiators salaries, benefits, terms and conditions of employment
for At-will Contracts with Executive Management, Division Managers and Confidential Group
members. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The minutes of
the Joint Board will report on the actions when they are approved.
At 6:18 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
bmitted by: ^
G -n,
J faTappan
S ring Committee Secretary
G"AWe enMl9 dV ComNW WnA]IWIn MnulftE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice
and the Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting held on Wednesday, July 18, 2001, was duly
posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the District's offices on Wednesday, July 11. 2001.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 181h day of July,2001.
Penny Kyle, S&ret4 of the Board of Directors of
Orange County Sarjjfation District
Posted: Julv11 , 2001, 3. 3C P.M.
By:
xydddVp V2 M%Pm W fm
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
NOTICE OF MEETING
P�: OF THE
0131 9 52-2:1-1 STEERING COMMITTEE
v:
I71419620356 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
rrr.ac.E.mm
eWfM Wes:
co ao.8127
"V.°e, w WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 - 5 P.M.
92728�8127
109e4 c6,s Avenue
° v."ry G1 DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
927W 70i9
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
w..me.r FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
n..n<,..
•
MI.
°nane.m A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of
Baann ae Orange County Sanitation District, will be held at the above location, date and
'W.a time.
wa„m" v 11'
Fullermn
eroe" w
r�n2ron Beech
trwne
Le laaem
Le lama
Los<,enu[ps
Mmp+.Beach
(kerge
Ptl eA4
°np BOARD SECRETARY (2)
Seal Beacn
mr.
Ale Perk
Yoroe 4nda
m..ry ee on.ve
�.eK+ry ni.cNm
Gam Mes.
MWweY Cry
W. , Died..
Inure Bercn
To ma,mmn wurldifau leedesh,p,n wastewater and water resource managemem
STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES
FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS
Wednesday, August 22, 2001
Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Wednesday, October 24, 2001
Wednesday, November28, 2001
Wednesday, December 19, 2001*
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
Wednesday, March 27, 2002
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Wednesday, June 27, 2002
Wednesday, July 17, 2002*
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
*Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday.
STEERING COMMITTEE
(1) Roll Call:
Meeting Date: July 18, 2001 Meeting Time: 5 p.m.
Meeting Adjourned:
Committee Members
Norm Eckenrode, Chair
Peter Green,Vice Chair
Steve Anderson, Chair, PDC Committee
Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee
Shirley McCracken, Chair, FAHR Committee
Jim Silva, Supervisor
Others
Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel
Don Hughes
Staff Present
Blake P. Anderson, General Manager.................................
Greg Mathews, Assistant to the General Manager.............
Jean Tappan, Secretary.......................................................
Bob Ghirelll, Director of Technical Services........................
Gary Streed, Director of Finance.........................................
Lisa Lawson, Communications Manager.............................
c: Lenora Crane
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2001 AT 5 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
In accordance with the requirements of Callfomia Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has
been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Office not less than 72 hours prior to the
meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda Rem are available for public
inspection in the office of the Board Secretary.
In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Steering Committee
for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b)as an emergency item
or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District
subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than
72 hours prior to the meeting date.
All current agendas and meeting minutes are also available via OCSD's
Internet site located at www.ocsd.com. Upon entering OCSD's web site,
please navigate to the Board of Directors section.
(1) ROLL CALL
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM. IF NECESSARY
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
All persons wishing to address the Steering Committee on specific agenda items or matters of
general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be
deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to three
minutes.
Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot
action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b).
-2- July 18, 2001 Agenda
(4) APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Approve draft minutes of the June 27, 2001 Steering Committee meeting.
(5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR
A. CASA Reservations—Due Thursday, July 19
B. Report on July 14 Directors Workshop
(6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER
A. Huntington Beach Status Report
B. Public Opinion Survey Status Report
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B)
A. Groundwater Replenishment System Issues
1. Board and Senior Staff Contacts with Prospective Consultants for the
GWRS
2. Evaluation and Selection Process for Consultant Services for the GW RS
B. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in August
(Information item only)
(9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS. IF
ANY
(10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
(11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA
FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT
(12) FUTURE MEETING DATES
The next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m.,Wednesday, August 22, 2001.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m., Wednesday,August 22, 2001.
-3- July 18, 2001 Agenda
(13) CLOSED SESSION
During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of
the Steering Committee, the Chair may convene the Committee in closed session to consider
matters of pending real estate negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters,
pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted.
Reports relating to (a)purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential
litigation; (c)employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are
exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the
Directors during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such
time as final actions are taken by the Board on any of these subjects,the minutes will reflect all
required disclosures of information.
A. Confer with Districts Labor Negotiators (Human Resources Representative and
General Manager) re salaries, benefits, terms and conditions of employment for
At-will Contracts with Executive Management, Division Managers and
Confidential Group members (Government Code Section 54957.6)
B. Reconvene in regular session
C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
jt
G:AWP.OTA%GENDAASTEERING COMMITTEM1WMM1 AGENDA.MEUINGMENDAR AND RGLL ML SHEET.DOc
Notice to Committee Members:
For any questions on the agenda or to place items on the agenda,Committee members should contact the
Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting.
Committee Chair: Norm Eckenrode (714)993-8261 (Placentia City Hall)
Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)593-7101
(714)962-0356(Fax)
E-mail: ItaDDam On.00Sd.COm
DRAFT
MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, June 27, 2001
s
A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was
held on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Of re.
(1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows:
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: OTHERS PRESENT:
Directors Present: Thomas L.Woodruff, General Counsel
Norm Eckenrode, Chair Don Hughes
Peter Green,Vice Chair
Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee STAFF PRESENT:
Steve Anderson, PDC Committee Blake Anderson, General Manager
Shirley McCracken, Chairman, FAHR Committee Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
Jim Silva, County Supervisor Bob Ooten, Director of Operations and
Alice Jempsa, Director, Guest of Chair Maintenance
Mike Moore, ECM Manager
Directors Absent: Lisa Lawson, Communications Manager
Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments by any member of the public.
(4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the May 23, 2001 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted.
(5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Committee Chair Norm Eckenrode reminded the members of the Legislators'Breakfast meeting
scheduled for Friday,June 29, 2001. There will also be a Directors Workshop on Saturday, July 14
between 8 and 11. The main topic for discussion will be levels of treatment. The CASA Annual
Conference is being held in San Diego August 15.18 in San Diego. The deadline for registering is
July 19.
This afternoon, Director Jim Silva hosted a meeting with Huntington Beach leaders and Orange
County Health Care Agency staff to discuss beach issues with District staff. Director Silva reported
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 2
June 27, 2001
that the meeting was very informative and thanked the staff for their efforts. The group decided that
they would meet monthly during the summer for updates on the beach monitoring and testing
program.
Chair Eckenrode announced that there isn't a need for a closed session. He also stated that he will
be on vacation for the next couple of weeks and Vice Chair Peter Green will be Chair pro tern in his
absence.
Director Alice Jempsa, Los Alamitos,was welcomed as the Chair's guest for this meeting.
(6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
A. Huntington Beach Status Report
General Manager Blake Anderson reported that the context of the testing at
Huntington Beach includes the application for the permit renewal. He said that the
choices the District has made up to today are because of considering air, land and
water impacts and balancing them to make the most environmental sense. Bob
Ghirelli said that the Board approved an interim budget of$2.9 million for the
testing/monitoring program and it now appears that the final number will be closer to
$5-5.1 million. Two of the six 46-hour surveys have been completed and he
described the preliminary results from the June 19 testing. What it shows so far is that
the beach is hot; the water is not.
B. Public Opinion Survey Status Report
Lisa Lawson stated that the survey is underway. The results will help staff evaluate
the public's understanding of issues of importance to the District and what will be
necessary to educate the public through our outreach program.
C. Biosolids Short-term Options Status Report
Mr. Ghirelli and Mike Moore updated the members on the impacts to the District's
biosolids disposal program now that Class B biosolids will be banned for land
application in 2003 in Kern County and now in Riverside County. In order to use the
biosolids on these land applications,they will have to meet Class A standards. A draft
report has been submitted that looked at many options and it recommends further
study on four technologies: composting; chemical stabilization; rail haul to Arizona;
and heat drying technologies. Staff is evaluating the draft report and will make a
recommendation to the OMTS Committee in August or September. Whichever option
is chosen, the costs for biosolids disposal will be about double what is now being
spent.
D. GWRS Operating Agreement
Mr.Anderson updated the members on the status of the operating agreement for the
GWRS project. Terms are still being negotiated, and Mr. Anderson explained some of
the issues that have not been resolved. He stated that he was confident agreement
will be reached.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 3
June 27, 2001
E. LEAD Program
Mr.Anderson reported that 70 supervisors, managers and department heads
completed the first leadership development program. Chapman University facilitated
this effort. The consensus after the training was that all employees would benefit from
this type of training. Mr. Anderson said that he is discussing a similar voluntary two-
day workshop for electeds in Orange County with the heads of other Orange County
agencies.
F. Space Utilization Study
The conceptual study for utilizing and improving workspace in the Administration
Building has been completed. Staff is reviewing the studys recommendations and a
formal report will be forthcoming.
G. Public Information/Outreach Effort for GWRS Project
Mr.Anderson provided a heads-up on the status of the public information/outreach
program. Additional funds will be requested at the Board meeting for interim services
until the four-year contract is awarded in September. The estimated annual level of
effort is$900,000 per year.
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
General Counsel Tom Woodruff updated the members on the history leading to the action on the
Board agenda on the proposed agreement with Southern California Edison that addresses
renewable energy pricing and payment issues.
(8) DISCUSSION ITEM
A. Committee Changes Authorized by PDC Committee
Mr.Anderson reviewed the changes to the agenda report process that the PDC
Committee approved at its last meeting. The reasons for the changes are to
streamline and simplify the agenda reports and to help run the meeting more
efficiently. The changes will be presented to the OMTS and FAHR Committees in
August and if they accept the changes, the new agenda report forth will be
implemented beginning in September.
(9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY
A. Director Green suggested that staff consider a sergeant-atarms for the Board
meetings. Arrangements will be made for security services.
B. Directors Pat McGuigan and Steve Anderson asked for clarification on two items on
the Board agenda.
(10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
There were none.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 4
June 27, 2001
(11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
ACTION AND/OR STAFF REPORT
There were none.
(12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for July 18, 2001 at 5 p.m.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for July 18, 2001 at 7 p.m.
(13) CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m.
S miffed by:
U�
JaqTappan
S e 'ng Committee Secretary
G:Wp.6a baergal9eervp ConmlKelOJVunYME JOt SLMSMe[.tKK'
STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date I To ad.of Dir.
7/18/01
AGENDA REPORT r N mr I Item Number
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager
SUBJECT: 1. Board and Senior Staff Contacts with Prospective Consultants for the
Groundwater Replenishment System
2. Evaluation and Selection Process for Consultant Services for the
Groundwater Replenishment System
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. Direct the General Manager to draft a policy for consideration by the Board of
Directors requiring that all ex parts communication between Sanitation District Board
Members, General Manager and Director of Engineering and prospective
consultants for the Groundwater Replenishment System be reported by both parties
in writing to the JCC before the award of any contract; and,
2. Direct the General Manager to draft a policy for consideration by the Board of
Directors that procurement of engineering, architectural, public information and other
professional consultant services for the Groundwater Replenishment System be
done in a two-step process consisting of: first, staff evaluation of candidate firms
and recommendation to the Joint Cooperative Committee; and second, by the JCC
making a final recommendation to the OCWD and OCSD Boards.
SUMMARY
At the JCC meeting of July 10, 2001, two closely related agenda items received
considerable discussion and consideration by the Committee. The issue was to what
degree of involvement should the elected members of the JCC have in communications
with and selection of the professional consultants we procure for the Groundwater
Replenishment System.
During the discussion, draft policies for reporting ex parts communication and for
procuring professional services were discussed. Opinions on these matters were split
during the discussion but in the end the JCC directed staff to finalize draft policies on
both of these matters and bring them back to the next JCC for its consideration.
OCWD Chairman Jerry King indicated that he had directed OCWD General Manager
Bill Mills to bring the issues forward to the next OCWD Board of Directors Meeting.
This matter is being brought forward to the OCSD Steering Committee for its early
consideration and to seek its direction to the General Manager. At the time of the
writing of this AR, there are no final drafts of these two closely related policies available.
If they become available between this writing and the Steering Committee, they will be
provided at the meeting.
As a matter of background, at the OCSD (with a few occasional minor exceptions) it has
been our practice that the reviews of proposals from all prospective consultants and all
interviews be the exclusive purview of staff. Outside staff from sister agencies or
disinterested third parties is occasionally used to add depth and balance to the review
team. Staff makes a recommendation to the Board of Directors, normally through one
of the three standing board committees. Staff provides a summary of the selection
process materials and describes the reasons for its recommendation. The committee
and the Board ask questions of staff to test the substance of the recommendation. The
Board of Directors makes the final selection of the successful firm.
Ex parte communications with members of the Sanitation District Board of Directors and
prospective consultants during an impending consultant selection process have ranged
from none to very rare in the past. As far as your General Manager knows, no undue
influence and no untoward action by members of the Board in making selections of
consultants has occurred. In short, we have a very fair and open competitive process
here that the public and the consultants can look to with confidence. This is due, in large
part, to the existing selection process and the prevailing governance practices of this
Board.
During the discussion at the JCC meeting, it was suggested that ex parte
communication reporting extend not only to elected members of the JCC and the two
boards, but to certain key members of staff as well. Your General Manager agrees. I
believe that it is appropriate that the OCSD General Manager and the Director of
Engineering also report ex parte communication with prospective consultants. I also
believe that the GW RS Project Manager and the OCW D General Manager and
Associate General Manager should also report ex parts communications. This would
extend from the time that an RFP is being seriously contemplated up to and including
the action of the JCC and the OCSD and OCWD Boards of Directors to formally select
and approve the successful consultant. I think this can only add to an open, honest and
impartial selection process in which highly qualified consultants can compete with
confidence.
The matter at hand deals with the timely adoption of these policies for GWRS
consultants, but these concepts could be easily adopted to OCSD's existing
professional services procurement policies as well. Timeliness for the GW RS policies is
an issue because two major consultant contracts (the public information contract and
the construction management services contract)will be decided within the next five
months. If the policies are to be adopted and to be meaningful, they must be acted
upon quickly.
GAnp,0la,endallewn Gom lteeVHVu110)I801 AR,e GWRSConsulWnls Go[
Ren. BR090 Page 2
Assuming the affirmative direction by the Steering Committee to do so, the OCSD
General Manager and General Counsel, working cooperatively with the OCW D General
Manager and General Counsel, will finalize policies for consideration at future meetings
of the JCC and our respective boards.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
BUDGETIMPACT
❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: )
❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
® Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
None provided
ALTERNATIVES
Take no action on this recommendation.
CEQA FINDINGS
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
Attached are existing procurement and ex parts communication policies of the OCW D,
OCSD, and the California Coastal Commission
a:wvcu,mo.igevsmennn cam+nn.w+uwimiw+u+mownscm.w�u.ax Page 3
Hewes:vmae
RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 99-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
AWARD OF PURCHASING ORDERS AND CONTRACTS;
AWARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT CONTRACTS;
AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS;
AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT
SAID POLICIES AND PROCEDURES; AND REPEALING
RESOLUTIONS NOS. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-
21, AND OCSD 9843
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE l: RECITAL OF FINDINGS
Section 1.01 Findings - Declaration of Intent.
ARTICLE It: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Section 2.01 Purpose and Scope.
Section 2.02 Authorizing General Manager to Establish Rules and
Guidelines.
Section 2.03 Procedure for Delegation of Authority.
ARTICLE III: PURCHASING SYSTEMS RE SUPPLIES. EQUIPMENT AND
SERVICES
Section 3.01 Purpose and Scope.
Section 3.02 Purchasing System Adoption.
Section 3.03 Purchasing Division Delegated Authority.
Section 3.04 Requisitions.
Section 3.05 Cooperative Procurement.
Section 3.06 Purchases: Bidding Requirements.
Section 3.07 Purchases: Emergency.
1
Section 3.08 Purchases: Standardized Prices and Specialized
Services.
Section 3.09 Purchase Orders.
Section 3.10 Purchases: Encumbrances of Funds.
Section 3.11 Blanket Purchase Orders.
Section 3.12 Bidding Procedure: Purchases Greater Than
$50,000.00.
Section 3.13 Purchases Between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00.
Section 3.14 Bidding Procedure: Purchases Less Than
$50,000.00.
Section 3.15 Bidding Procedure: Purchases Less Than $5,000.00.
Section 3.16 Inspection and Testing.
Section 3.17 Purchases: Negotiated Contracts.
Section 3.18 Surplus Supplies, Materials, and Equipment.
Section 3.19 Sale of Real Property.
Section 3.20 Recordkeeping.
ARTICLE IV: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
Section 4.01 Purpose and Scope.
Section 4.02 Retention of Professional Technical Consultants.
Section 4.03 Small Capital Project—Defined.
Section 4.04 Small Capital Project: Approval of Plans and
Specifications.
Section 4.05 Small Capital Project: Annual Budget Approval.
Section 4.06 Small Capital Project: Selection of Consultants—
Procedure.
2
Section 4.07 Major and Minor Capital Projects: Defined.
Section 4.08 Major Capital Project: Scope of Work.
Section 4.09 Major Capital Project: Selection of Consultants—
Procedure.
Section 4.10 Major Capital Project: Award of Professional Services
Agreements.
Section 4.11 Major Capital Project: Approval of Plans and
Specifications.
ARTICLE V: PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS
Section 5.01 Purpose and Scope.
Section 5.02 Public Works: Bidding Required.
Section 5.03 Bidding Procedure: Public Works Construction
Greater Than $35,000.00.
Section 5.04 Approval of Change Orders to Construction
Agreements.
ARTICLE Vl: MEETINGS (AND RELATED TRAVEL)AND TRAINING
(AND RELATED TRAVEL) EXPENDITURES
Section 6.01 Purpose and Scope.
Section 6.02 General.
Section 6.03 Policies and Procedures.
ARTICLE VII: MISCELLANEOUS
Section 7.01 Noncompliance.
Section 7.02 Severability.
Section 7.03 Effective Date.
Section 7.04 Repeal of Prior Resolutions.
ARTICLE I
RECITAL OF FINDINGS
3
C. This Section shall not apply to the letting of public works
construction contracts in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars. Said
contracts shall be governed by the provisions set forth in Article V of this Resolution.
Section 3.18: Surolus Supolies. Materials. and Equipment. All
Departments and/or Divisions shall submit to Purchasing, at such times and in such
form as Purchasing shall prescribe, reports showing all supplies, materials, and/or
equipment which are no longer used or which have become obsolete or wom out.
Purchasing shall have authority, as deemed appropriate by the Contracts/Purchasing
Manager, to sell, exchange for, or trade in on new supplies, materials, and equipment,
or dispose or, as deemed appropriate, all supplies, materials, and equipment which
cannot be used by any other Department or Division, or which have become unsuitable
for District's use.
Section 3.19: Sale of Real Property. No real property of the District may
be sold, or any negotiations leading to such sale may be made, without prior approval
of the Board of Directors.
Section 3.20: Recordkeeping: A record of all sales or surplus property and
by-products shall also be maintained by Purchasing upon or in which is maintained the
record of the bids received for the property or by-products sold, or if bids were not taken
or received, a full explanation thereof. Such records shall be maintained for two (2)
years after the sale.
ARTICLE IV
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS
Section 4.01: Purpose and Scope. The Orange County Sanitation District,
in the interest of uniformity, fairness and cost effectiveness desires to establish policies
and procedures for the selection and procurement of professional engineering,
architectural, environmental, land surveying and construction management services.
Section 4.02: Retention of Professional Technical Consultants. This
Resolution establishes a procedure to be followed in the selection and retention of
Professional Technical Consultants in the areas of engineering, architecture,
environmental, land surveying, construction management services and related services.
Professional Technical Consultants are those individuals or firms providing
engineering, architectural, environmental or land surveying services which are those
15
professional services associated with research, development, design and construction,
alteration, or repair of real property, as well as incidental services that members of
these professions and those in their employ may logically or justifiably perform,
including studies, investigations, surveys, evaluations, consultations, planning,
programming, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, cost estimates,
inspections, shop drawing reviews, sample recommendations, preparation of operation
and maintenance manuals, and other related services. Services for product testing are
excluded.
It is recognized that no two individuals or firths have equal skills, training, or
experience and that the qualities of such persons vary. Accordingly, Professional
Technical Consultants shall be selected based upon the District's discretion and opinion
as to which particular consultant is best qualified to perform the work (hereinafter
referred to as "projects") in question.
For purposes of this Resolution, 'firm" shall mean any individual, firm,
partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice
the profession of architecture, engineering, environmental services, land surveying, or
construction project management. Evaluation and selection of a consultant firm will
include but not be limited to the following:
A. The firm shall be of high ethical and professional standing, its
members being of good moral character, and it shall be prepared to submit references
from persons of known repute.
B. The principal and other responsible members of the firm must be
registered in the State of California, as required by law.
C. A principal member of the firm's staff must have at least ten years'
recent experience in responsible charge of work of the type involved in the project.
D. At least two additional members of the firm's staff must have at
least five years' experience in responsible charge in the field, or fields, required by the
project.
E. The firm shall be capable of performing the work within the
prescribed time limitations considering the current and planned work loads of the firm.
F. If all other factors are equal, preference shall be given to a local
based firm when more than one firm is being considered.
G. If the project is funded, either in whole or in part, by federal funds
that require, as a condition of establishing or maintaining eligibility for federal funds, that
firms working on the project maintain an affirmative action employment program, then
the firm selected for the project must certify to having such a program.
16
The District also recognizes that the scope of services and the qualifications of
consultants can differ significantly between major capital facilities projects and small
capital projects. The criteria set forth in Paragraphs C and D above may be waived by
District for small capital projects.
The procedures set forth in this Resolution shall govern the retention of such
professional consultants.
Section 4.03: Small Capital Project: Defined. 'Small capital project" is
defined as a miscellaneous capital improvement or facility modification, replacement, or
repair project, related to plant safety, reliability and efficiency enhancements where
professional consulting services are estimated to be in an amount not to exceed
$50,000.00 for each project.
Section 4.04: Small Capital Project: Approval of Plans and Specifications.
The Board of Directors delegates to the Director of Engineering, as Professional
Registered Engineer, the authority to approve the design, plans, and specifications for
construction of new or modified District facilities that is deemed a small capital project,
as defined in Section 4.03 above.
Section 4.05: Small Capital Project: Annual Budget Approval. Upon
approval by the Board of Directors of an annual budget, the District's Staff shall be
authorized to solicit contract proposals from professional engineering, architectural,
environmental, land surveying and construction management firms to perform the
required services for the approved small capital projects, as defined and prescribed
herein.
Section 4.06: Small Capital Project: Selection of Consultants—Procedure.
A. District's staff shall compile a master pre-approved list of 5-10 fines
having the required expertise to perform the required professional service for a small
project. The master list of firms will be selected based upon a solicitation, review of
qualifications, and Board approval. The original term of the agreement shall be for one
(1)year. Thereafter, the Department Director shall be authorized to recommend to the
General Manager, an extension of the professional consulting services agreement for
up to two (2) additional one (1)-year renewal periods, for a total of three (3)years, with
each of the parties designated on the approved master list. The professional consulting
services agreement for each party on the master list shall be forwarded to the
purchasing office. The Engineering Department Staff shall prepare the appropriate
requisition documentation to insure future payment to the consultant.
B. As a need for an individual speck project arises, the District will
implement the Agreement by issuing a task order identifying the specific project by
name and number and including the approved scope of work required of the consultant
for the project. The scope of work for any individual task order, shall not entail a cost in
17
excess of$50,000.00. There is a maximum annual limitation of$200,000.00 for each
individual consultant purchase order under the provisions of this Section 4.06.
C. The Department Director shall first obtain at least two (2) price
proposals from consultants before the task order is awarded to a consultant. This
requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Department Director where a
determination is made that the subject work is unique such that only one (1)consultant
is available to perform the work, or where significant time constraints or emergency
conditions dictate that one (1) consultant be solicited for a price proposal. The
Department Director, or his designee, shall review the proposals specifically addressing
cost and ability to meet District schedule requirements. Based on the evaluations, the
Department Director is authorized to award the task order.
D. Once the consultant is selected for the award of a small capital
project and the task order is executed by the District, the Department Director shall
issue the notice to proceed.
E. Addenda to a particular task order shall be approved by the
General Manager. However, the amount for each addendum may not exceed
$50,000.00, and the cumulative total for all addenda may not exceed $50,000.00. The
Department Director shall issue the task order addendum in letter form.
Section 4.07: Major and Minor Capital Projects: Defined. "Major capital
project" means the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of the District's
Capital Facilities, including treatment plants, trunk sewers, pump stations, ocean outfall,
administrative and support facilities, and other facilities related to District operations,
where the cost of professional technical consulting services are estimated to be in an
amount in excess of$50,000.00 for any project. These projects may require Selection
Committee or Board approvals.
Specialty-item capital projects are defined as projects other than Small Capital
Projects, as defined in Sections 4.03 through 4.06, inclusive, where the cost of
professional technical consulting services are estimated to be in an amount more than
$25,000.00, and less than or equal to $50,000.00 and require only Board Committee
approval. Requirements for Scope of Work, Proposal, Procurement and Negotiation
Agreement Continuation of Services, Agreement of Services, and Conflict of Interest
apply for both Major Capital Projects and Specialty-Item Capital Projects, with
difference only in authorization levels.
Section 4.08: Major Capital Proiect: Scope of Work.
A. For every project approved by the Board of Directors and for which
outside services are required, the District staff shall develop a comprehensive scope of
work.
18
B. The scope shall define the extent of the services and the time
required.
Section 4.09: Major Capital Proiect: Selection of Consultants - Procedure.
For the employment of any professional consulting services for major capital projects,
the following procedures shall apply:
A. Pr000sals - Notice Requesting. Staff shall prepare a Request for
Proposal ("RFP") or a Request for Qualifications ("RFQ")for the scope of work which
shall include a request for the firm's qualifications, personnel capability, demonstration
of firm's capabilities, identification of personnel assigned to the project, estimate of
number of hours for each aspect of the project, fee proposals and conflict of interest
disclaimer. The Request for Qualifications' process may be used, at Staffs discretion,
to narrow the field of fines submitting proposals on the project.
District shall maintain a comprehensive list of professional
consultants' demonstrated competence. Notice shall be mailed to all firms requesting
notice of any RFP or RFQ issued by the District. Optionally, notice may be given by
publication in professional journals or publications of general circulation.
B. Staff Screening Committee. A screening committee of at least two
(2) staff members as chosen by the Department Director shall review all submitted
proposals and prepare a recommendation for selection of the best qualified consultant
to the Selection Committee, as described in Paragraph D below.
C. Proposals - Contents. Proposals submitted shall:
1. Acknowledge the scope of the project and extent of the
services required.
2. Include a description of the firm's qualifications for
performing the proposed work.
3. In the case of a proposal for construction management
services, each fine shall provide evidence that its personnel that will carry out on-
site responsibilities have expertise and experience in construction project design
review and evaluation, construction mobilization and supervision, bid evaluation,
project scheduling, cost-benefit analysis, claims review and negotiation, and
general management and administration of a construction project.
4. Include past performance records of the firm.
19
5. Demonstrate the firm's capabilities to complete the work
within the time allotted.
6. Identify the specific key personnel to be assigned to the
project.
7. Provide an estimate of the number of hours involved in each
aspect of the scope of work for such personnel.
8. Be accompanied by a sealed fee proposal estimate which
shall not be opened until the firm is selected as being qualified. Thereafter, it
shall be the basis, for procurement negotiations. The form of the fee proposal
shall be as described in Subsections F2 and F3 below.
9. Contain a conflict of interest disclaimer.
10. Provide any other information required to properly evaluate
the firm's qualifications and familiarity with the types of problems applicable to
the project.
20
D. Selection Committee- Membership.
1. The members of the Board of Directors Standing Committee
principally responsible for the project and contract under consideration for
approval shall constitute the Selection Committee for District projects.
2. At the discretion of the District Chair, additional Directors may
be appointed to the Committee to assist in the consideration of proposals for
specific projects.
E. Review of Proposals by Staff Committee and Selection Committee.
1. The Staff Committee shall review each proposal and the
qualifications of each firm with due consideration of office location, reputation in
the professional community, experience, both generally and specifically on
similar-type projects,the project approach, understanding of the scope of work,
financial standing, number of qualified personnel and their availability for the
project, quality of references,work load and other factors relevant to the project
being considered.
2. The Staff Committee, upon completion of their evaluation of
all proposals, shall determine those firms deemed to be fully qualified to provide
the services sought by the District based on their demonstrated competence and
qualifications.
3. The Staff Committee, upon making a determination of the
fully qualified firms, shall rank the firs considered, in order of preference, based
upon the qualification of each, as described in Subparagraph E(1)above.
Thereafter the Committee shall open the sealed fee proposal of the qualified
firs. Based upon the fee proposal, the committee may recommend to the
Selection Committee or the Board of Directors an individual or fir for award of
the contract. The recommended individual or fir can be ranked lower than
firs with higher fee proposals.
4. The Selection Committee shall receive and review the
recommendation of the Staff Committee and either award or recommend to the
Board of Directors, either the approval or disapproval of the Staff
recommendation to award a contract, as authorized in Section 4.10 below.
F. Procurement and Negotiation of Agreement. To determine the fir
to be selected and the compensation for the services sought, the following procedures
will be strictly adhered to:
1. The Staff Committee will, at its discretion, invite the firm that
is considered to be the best qualified to appear before the Staff Committee.
21
2. The proposal for fees associated with the services as
submitted by the selected firm shall be presented in sufficient detail to enable the
Staff Committee to adequately ascertain the level of effort associated with the
scope of work and to determine whether the firm has thoroughly identified the
efforts associated with the services and thoroughly understands the work
required.
3. The basis of the fee shall be: Cost plus a fixed fee with a
maximum amount, a per diem rate(s)with a maximum amount, or a lump sum
(fixed) fee.
4. If it is the decision of the Staff Committee to use methods for
compensation other than the lump sum or cost plus a fixed fee with a maximum,
or the per diem rates with a maximum, justifications for this decision shall be
made by the Staff Committee in its recommendation to the Selection Committee
and the Board of Directors.
5. The Staff Committee shall review the compensation
requested by the firm which shall be compared with the maximum fee as
previously established.
6. The final negotiated fee, as recommended to the Selection
Committee and Board of Directors, shall be certified by the Staff Committee as
reasonable for the services requested and not resulting in excessive profits for
the firm.
7. If agreement is not reached, the negotiations should be
terminated and similar interviews should then follow with the next-ranked firm.
8. All such negotiations shall be on a strictly confidential basis,
and in no case shall the compensation discussed with one firth be discussed with
another.
G. Continuation of Services.
1. In some instances where a qualified firm has satisfactorily
completed one phase in the development of a project and the Board determines
that it is in the best interests of the District to retain the same firm for subsequent
phases of related work, the Staff Committee or the Selection Committee may be
authorized to proceed directly with negotiations with that firm for the additional
work.
2. Continuation of services may arise when a firm has
completed a feasibility report or a preliminary engineering report and the services
22
for said work are satisfactory to the Board and the procedure of examining other
firms for subsequent phases is not deemed necessary or cost effective.
3. In the event that satisfactory negotiations for price cannot be
concluded under these circumstances, negotiations should be terminated and
the provisions set forth hereinabove for selection of a firm would apply.
H. Specialized Services.
1. In the event that specialized services are required where it is
determined that only one qualified firm can best perform the services for a
specific project for professional fees estimated to be in an amount greater than
$50,000.00, the Staff Committee will report to the Selection Committee said
findings and request authority to negotiate directly with the particular specialized
firm.
2. The basis of selection of the specialized firm or individual
under Subparagraph H(1) above, along with the negotiated fee, shall be
presented to the Board of Directors for consideration.
1. Agreement for Services.
1. Upon approval by the Board of a negotiated agreement for
professional services, a contract shall be executed in a form approved by the
General Counsel.
2. The contract shall include, but not be limited to the following
terms:
(a) A statement of the scope of the project.
(b) The basis and individual elements of the fees.
(c) The basis for payment to the firm.
(d) The time limits in which the services must be performed.
(a) Provisions for fee adjustments should there be changes
in the scope of work.
(f) If it is determined by the Selection Committee that the
District may be caused to incur a penalty or liability, or suffer a loss
because of the failure of the firm to perform the work within specified time
limits, the contract shall include a clause setting forth penalties for such
23
nonperformance or delayed performance, in amounts to be determined by
the Committee.
(g) For projects exceeding $50,000.00 in fees or in other
cases as determined by the District, errors and omissions insurance in an
amount recommended by the General Counsel (based upon engineering
data from the Department Director)shall be required, unless the Standing
Committee or Board of Directors, as the rase may be, waives said
insurance.
For projects that involve small engineering studies where a
consultant is asked to provide a report not related or leading directly to a
design project, the General Manager (based upon engineering data from
the Department Director), in his discretion, may waive the requirement for
the consultant to provide errors and omissions/professional liability
insurance.
J. Conflict of Interest.
1. The District maintains a Conflict of Interest Code, pursuant
to California Government Code Section 87100 at sea.,which governs the
activities and performance of duties of its officers, employees, or agents in the
conduct of project work for the District.
2. No Director, officer, employee or agent shall solicit or accept
rebates, kickbacks,favors or other unlawful consideration from any individual or
firm on behalf of any firm that may be potentially selected as a qualified firm to
provide professional consulting services to the District. Acceptance of food and
refreshments of nominal value on infrequent occasions and acceptance of
gratuities or gifts shall not be deemed a violation of this provision, provided that if
said items exceed $290.00, or the amount as fixed by Government Code Section
89503, or California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18940.1, in a calendar
year, the Director, officer, employee or agent may be disqualified from
participating in the decision pursuant to Article III of the District's Conflict of
Interest Code; and provided further, that any Director, officer, employee or agent,
as a designated employee under the District's Conflict of Interest Code, shall
report any amount of gifts on his/her annual Statement of Economic Interest as
required by said Cade.
3. Any firm seeking selection under these procedures that
violates the District's Conflict of Interest Code shall be automatically disqualified.
Section 4.10: Major Capital Proiect: Award of Professional Services
Agreements.
24
A. Primary Agreement. The award and execution of an agreement for
professional consulting services on behalf of the District shall be made in accordance
with the following delegations of authority:
Authorizing Authority Authorized Action
1. Department Heads Solicitation of Requests for
Qualifications ('RFQ") and Requests for
Proposals (RFP").
2. General Manager Authorization to evaluate proposals and
to execute contracts up to $25,000.
3. OMTS, PDC, or FAHR Receive recommendations of Staff and
Committee (or Standing General Manager, and approve Profes-
(Committees) sional Services Agreements of over
$25,000.00 up to $50,000.00.
4. Board of Directors Receive recommendations of Staff,
General Manager and Committee, and
approve Professional Services
Agreements for over$50,000.00.
B. Primary Agreement-Addenda. The award and execution of an
addendum to an agreement for professional consulting services on behalf of the District
shall be made in accordance with the following:
Authorizing Authority Authorized Action
1. Department Head Authority to negotiate addenda and make
recommendation to General Manager.
2. General Manager Receive recommendation of
Department Head and approve contract
changes in an amount up to $25,000.00
per addendum. The total additive value
of all addenda shall not exceed
$50,000.00.
3. OMTS, PDC, or FAHR Receive recommendations of Staff and
Committee (or Standing General Manager, and approve contract
Committee) changes between $25,000.00 and
$50,000.00. The total additive value of
all addenda shall not exceed
$100,000.00.
25
4. Board of Directors Receive recommendations of Staff,
General Manager and Committee and
approve contract changes in amounts
over$50,000.00 for each change order,
over$100,000 cumulatively for the
agreement.
Section 4.11: Major Capital Project: Approval of Plans and Specifications.
The procedure and authority for the approval of the design plans and specifications for
construction of new or modified District's major capital projects is as follows:
A. For any project with approved budget authority, the Director of
Engineering is authorized to advertise for construction bids, set a bid date, and receive
all bids.
B. For any project, if the engineer's estimate for the construction
contract, as provided by the Director of Engineering or the District's consulting design
engineer is equal to or less than the approved construction budget for the project, the
Director of Engineering may advertise for bids, and upon receipt, the lowest responsive
bid of a responsible bidder will be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval.
C. For any project, if the engineer's estimate for the construction
contract, as provided by the Director of Engineering or the District's consulting design
engineer, is greater than the approved construction budget for the project, the Director
of Engineering shall submit the project to the Standing Committee for recommendation,
and based thereon, to the Board of Directors for approval.
D. For any project, upon receipt of bids for the construction, if the
lowest responsive bid of a responsible bidder is equal to or less than the approved
construction budget for the project, the bid will be submitted to the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors, upon receipt of the bid, shall approve the plans and
specifications of the project and may award a contract.
E. For any project, upon receipt of bids for the construction, if the
lowest responsive bid of a responsible bidder is greater than the approved construction
budget for the project, Staff shall present the bid and a recommendation to the
Standing Committee for review and recommendation to the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE V
PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Section 5.01 Purpose and Scope. Public works contracts are herein
26
ARTICLE VII
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 7.01: Noncompliance. Any transaction failing to comply with this
Resolution in any respect is voidable in the discretion of the Board of Directors, and any
employee willfully and knowingly violating any provision of this Resolution may be
subject to disciplinary action.
Section 7.02: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the
entire Resolution or any of the remaining portions thereof. The Board of Directors
hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution, and each section,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact
that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 7.03: Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon adoption by the Board of Directors.
Section 7.04: Repeal of Prior Resolutions. Resolutions Nos. OCSD 98-8.
OCSO 98-12, OCSD 98-21, and OCSD 98-43 are hereby repealed in their entirety.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held
November 17, 1999.
Chair
ATTEST:
Board Secretary
31
4/17/96
CONSULTANT SELEC77ON PROCEDURES
Fvaluatinn Crirarin
The written proposals for services shall be evaluated on the following six criteria:
]. Pert prn rh andSchedule
Consider the following when evaluating the project approach and schedule: As
presented in the proposal, does the firm seem to understand the requirements of the
project? Has the firm clearly presented how it would do the project? Has the firm
suggested innovative ideas? Has the firm pointed out areas of concern and potential
solutions based on its experience? Has the firm proposed a project schedule that meets
the District's needs and is achievable?
2. Fmerienre nnA OnnlWrnrionc nfthp Prr ierr M vannoer
Consider the following: Does the proposal indicate that the Project Manager has the
necessary experience? Does the Project Manager possess other qualifications valuable
for this project? -
j. Experienro nrrhe Firm and other Project Tenm Writhe
Consider the following: Does the proposal indicate that the firm and, more
particularly, the other team mempers have the necessary experience for their designated
project task?
4, 7-me Cnmmitmont of Key S_tflff
Consider the following: How many manhours is key staff committing to the project? -
Are they or junior staff doing a significant amount of the work? When evaluating the
time commitment, keep in mind the type and complexity of the project. That is, a
complex study or design will require a greater percentage of key or senior staff time
than will a less complex project, such as a pipeline design.
S. Manhnur F_crimnty
Consider the following: In the proposal, manhours should be provided for key staff for
each project task, along with total manhours per task for all staff. In reviewing the
manhour breakdown, does the firm seem to have a good grasp of the level of effort
- 1 -
OCWD Policy
required for each task? Are the manhours per task and overall manhours proposed
similar to that for other firms? This is an indicator of the level of understanding of the
project by the proposing firm.
6. Rnrnrd nrrery an Rernnt Similar Pr ortc
This information comes from checking references provided in the proposal. In talking
with other agencies for whom the proposing firm and project team have worked, have
they completed similar projects on time and on budget? Has the project manager been
able to work successfully with other clients? Did the design result in a successful
construction project? Would the references use the firm or project manager again?
Prnnnced Fvalumion Prnr-s
Relative weighting will be established for each of the six criteria for each project as the
Request far Proposal for Services is prepared. The weighting may change with the size and
complexity of the project. Also, the number of criteria items might change. In all cases, the
selection criteria and the relative weighting will be described in the RFP.
The proposals will be reviewed by a committee of District staff. The committee will consist of
the Group Manager under whom the work will be funded, the proposal manager and a third
staff member, or other staff as directed by the General Manager.
An example Evaluation Form follows. Each reviewer will independently evaluate each
proposal. The reviewers will compare and discuss their evaluations. The evaluation score of
each firm will be the combined score of the reviewers.
The proposing firms will be ranked using the above process, without consideration of the
project fee. This is accomplished by having each proposing firm submit its proposed fee in a
sealed envelope separate from the rest of the proposal.
Before the fee envelopes are opened, the proposal review scores will be evaluated and ranked.
Normally, only the top three will be selected for fee consideration. However, if the scores are
close and the review committee determines that more than the top three scoring firms are
qualtfled to do the project, then all those so determined will be identified.
The fee envelopes will be opened. Staff will review the evaluation score and the proposed fee
for each of the identified firms and present these with a recommendation to the Board.
As part of the recommendation to the Board, staff will provide information on the proposed
project budget and schedule. After the project is complete, staff will provide a report to the
Board on the project's success in meeting its budget, schedule and other goals.
_ z _
OCWD Policy
4/17/96
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT PROPOSAL EVALUA7YON FORM
PROJECT.-
PROPOSING FIRM. REVIEWER. DATE:
I
RELATIVE REVIEWER'S WEIGHTING
WEIGHTING EVALUAT70N X
E VALUATION CRITERIA OF CRITERIA SCORE (1-5) SCORE COMMENTS
1. Project Approach and Schedule 25% 4 1.00
2. Experience and Qual y1cations of
Prof. Mgr. 35% 5 1.75
3. Experience of Firm and other team
members 10% 3 0.30
4. Time Commitment of Key Staff 10% 3 0.30
5. Manhour Estimate 15% 2 0.30
6. Record of Success on Similar
Projects 1 5% 1 4 0.20
TOTAL 100% ago= 3.85
Scoring: 5 = Excellent
4 = Above Average
3 = Average
2 = Below Average
I = Poor
OCWD Policy
CA Codes(prc:30320-30329) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/...group=30001-31000&file=30320-30329
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 30320-30329
30320. (a) The people of California find and declare that the
duties, responsibilities, and quasi-judicial actions of the
commission are sensitive and extremely important for the well-being
of current and future generations and that the public interest and
principles of fundamental fairness and due process of law require
that the commission conduct its affairs in an open, objective, and
impartial manner free of undue influence and the abuse of power and
authority. It is further found that, to be effective, California's
coastal protection program requires public awareness, understanding,
support, participation, and confidence in the commission and its
practices and procedures. Accordingly, this article is necessary to
preserve the public's welfare and the integrity of, and to maintain
the public's trust in, the commission and the implementation of this
division.
(b) The people of California further find that in a democracy, due
process, fairness, and the responsible exercise of authority are all
essential elements of good government which require that the public'
s business be conducted in public meetings, with limited exceptions
for sensitive personnel matters and litigation, and on the official
record. Reasonable restrictions are necessary and proper to prevent
future abuses and misuse of governmental power so long as all members
of the public are given adequate opportunities to present their
views and opinions to the commission through written or oral
communications on the official record either before or during the
public hearing on any matter before the commission.
30321. For purposes of this article, "a matter within the
commission's jurisdiction" means any permit action, federal
consistency review, appeal, local coastal program, port master plan,
public works plan, long-range development plan, categorical or other
exclusions from coastal development permit requirements, or any other
quasi-judicial matter requiring commission action, for which an
application has been submitted to the commission.
30322. (a) For purposes of this article, except as provided in
subdivision (b), an "ex parts communication" is any oral or written
communication between a member of the commission and an interested
person, about a matter within the commission's jurisdiction, which
does not occur in a public hearing, workshop, or other official
proceeding, or on the official record of the proceeding on the
matter.
(b) The following communications are not ex parts communications:
(1) Any communication between a staff member acting in his or her
official capacity and any commission member or interested person.
(2) Any communication limited entirely to procedural issues,
including, but not limited to, the hearing schedule, location,
format, or filing date.
(3) Any communication which takes place on the record during an
official proceeding of a state, regional, or local agency that _
involves a member of the commission who also serves as an official of
that agency.
CA Coastal Commission
1 of 3 627/01 8:58 AM
CA Codes(prc:30320-30329) hnp:!/www.leginl'o.cm.gov/egi-bin/...group=30001-31000&file=30320-30329
(4) Any communication between a member of the commission, with
regard to any action of another state agency or of a regional or
local agency of which the member is an official, and any other
official or employee of that agency, including any person who is
acting as an attorney for the agency.
(5) Any communication between a nonvoting commission member and a
staff member of a state agency where both the commission member and
the staff member are acting in an official capacity.
(6) Any communication to a nonvoting commission member relating to
an action pending before the commission, where the nonvoting
commission member does not participate in that action, either through
written or verbal communication, on or off the record, with other
members of the commission.
30323. For purposes of this article, an "interested person" is any
of the following:
(a) Any applicant, an agent or an employee of the applicant, or a
person receiving consideration for representing the applicant, or a
participant in the proceeding on any matter before the commission.
(b) Any person with a financial interest, as described in Article
1 (commencing with Section 87100) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the
Government Code, in a matter before the commission, or an agent or
employee of the person with a financial interest, or a person
receiving consideration for representing the person with a financial
interest.
(c) A representative acting on behalf of any civic, environmental,
neighborhood, business, labor, trade, or similar organization who
intends to influence the decision of a commission member on a matter
before the commission.
30324. (a) No commission member, nor any interested person, shall
conduct an ex parts communication unless the commission member fully
discloses and makes public the ex parts communication by providing e
full report of the communication to the executive director within
seven days after the communication or, if the communication occurs
within seven days of the next commission hearing, to the commission
on the record of the proceeding at that hearing.
(b) (1) The commission shall adopt standard disclosure forms for
reporting ex parts communications which shall include, but not be
limited to, all of the following information:
(A) The date, time, and location of the communication.
(8) The identity of the person or persons initiating and the
person or persons receiving the communication.
(C) A complete description of the content of the communication,
including the complete text of any written material that was a part
of the communication.
(2) The executive director shall place in the public record any
report of an ex parts communication.
(c) Communications shall cease to be ex parts communications when
fully disclosed and placed in the commission's official record.
30325. Nothing in this article prohibits any person or any
interested person from testifying at a commission hearing, workshop,
or other official proceeding, or from submitting written comments for
the record on a matter before the commission. Written comments
shall be submitted by mail or delivered to a commission office, or
may be delivered to the commission at the time and place of a
scheduled hearing.
CA Coastal Commission
2 of 3 6/27101 8:58 AM
CA Codes(pm:30320.30329) hapl/w".Ieginfo.ca.gov/Cgi-bin/...group-3000I-i I000&file=30320-30339
30326. Any person, including a commission member, may request the
commission staff Ed conduct a workshop on any matter before the
commission or on any subject that could be useful to the commission.
When the executive director determines that a request is appropriate
and feasible, a workshop shall be scheduled at an appropriate time
and location.
30327. (a) No commission member or alternate shall make,
participate in making, or any other way attempt to use his or her
official position to influence a commission decision about which the
member or alternate has knowingly had an ex parts communication that
has not been reported pursuant to Section 30324.
(b) In addition to any other applicable penalty, including a civil
fine imposed pursuant to Section 30824, a commission member who
knowingly violates this section shall be subject to a civil fine, not
to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) .
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the court may award
attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party.
30328. If a violation of this article occurs and a commission
decision may have been affected by the violation, an aggrieved
person, as described in Section 30801, my seek a writ of mandate
from a court requiring the commission to revoke its action and rehear
the matter.
30329. Notwithstanding Section 11425.10 of the Government Code, the
ex parts communications provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act (Article 7 (commencing with Section 11430.10) of Chapter 4.5 of
Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) do not apply
to proceedings of the California Coastal Commission under this
division.
CA Coastal Commission
3 of3 &27/01 8:58 AM
aIEERING COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
U]1801
Ife�Nyq,Oer (pem Number
Orange County sanitation Distnct K 8
FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager
Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
SUBJECT: August Agenda Items for Consideration by Working Committees
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Review with staff the tentative agenda items scheduled for review by the Working
Committees in August.
SUMMARY
Staff routinely prepares for the Steering Committee a list of items scheduled for
presentation to the Working Committees and the Board at their next monthly meetings.
This allows the Steering Committee the opportunity to review these items early enough
to make reassignments in the review or approval process.
The following items are scheduled to be considered by the Committees in August:
OMTS Committee: 1. Biosolids Management Update
2. Update on Huntington Beach Summer Testing Program
3. Biosolids Management Option Contracts
4. 2001-02 Research Program
PDC Committee: 1. Approve Closeout Agreement and Notice of Completion for
Job No. J-60, Chlorine Building Mechanical Equipment
Demonstration at Plant No. 1
2. Ratify Change Order No. 1 to Jobs Nos. J-71-1 and J-71-2,
Distribution and Junction Box Odor Control Modifications
3. Approve Addendum No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement
for Job No. J-77, Effluent Pump Station Annex
4. Approve Professional Services Agreement for Job No. P2-66,
Headworks Final Design
5. Approve Plans and Specifications, Approve Budget
Amendment and Award Construction Contract for Job No.
P2-85-1, Clarifiers E and G Rehabilitation at Plant No. 2
6. Authorize Director of Engineering to Negotiate Sale of
Properties re Contract 5-51, Rehabilitation of 14' Street Pump
Station, and Contract No. 5-52, Rehabilitation of"A" Street
Pump Station
7. Ratify Change Orders Nos. 4 and 5 and approve Closeout
Agreement and Notice of Completion, Contract No. 11-17-3
8. Approve Addendum No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement
for Contract No. 2-24-1, Carbon Canyon Dam Sewer and
Pump Station Abandonment
9. Approve Reimbursement Agreement reCOnlitaCtNO.�•I-2,
Modifications to Main Street Pump Station
FAHR Committee: 1. Adopt resolution authorizing COPS to reimburse CIP
2. Lease changes for storage at Garfield Ward
3. 2001-02 Financial Plan Status
4. Update Human Resources Policies and Procedures
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
N/A
BUDGETIMPACT
❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: )
❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
® Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NA
ALTERNATIVES
NA
CEQA FINDINGS
Not a project.
ATTACHMENTS
NA
jt
cW.eewva.�aen,w c�..�nn,ro„eo,U00a nwy ..
ear Page 2
E
Orange County Sanitation District
(714) 962-2411
www.ocsd.com
mailing address:
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California
92728-8127
street address:
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
92708-7018
6
published on recycled paper