Loading...
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