HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2012 Board Meeting Agenda _ Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Orange County Sanitation District 6:30 P.M.
Regular Meeting of the Board Room
Board of Directors 10844 Ellis Avenue
+' Fountain Valley, CA 92708
N •' (714) 593-7130
AGENDA
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: (Janet Nguyen, Orange County
Board of Supervisors)
DECLARATION OF QUORUM:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS: If you wish to speak, please complete a Speaker's Form (located at the table
outside of the Board Room) and give it to the Clerk of the Board. Speakers are requested to limit
comments to three minutes.
REPORTS: The Chair and the General Manager may present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters
of general interest to the Directors. These reports are for information only and require no action by the
Directors.
( Ground Water Replenishment System
CLAIMS:
1. Ratify payment of claims of the District, by roll call vote, as follows:
Claims Paid for the Period Ending: 07/15/12 07/31/12
Totals $6,728,548.85 $53,062,575.29
DIRECTORS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308, you are required to disclose any campaign
contribution greater than $250 received in the past twelve months from any party to a contract involving
OCSD. This requires that you identify the contributor by name. Further, you may not participate in the
decision making process to award a contract to such party. For reference, you are directed to the Register
of Warrants as to all current contractors/vendors with OCSD. For the specifics of Government Code
Section 84308, please see your Director's Handbook or call the office of General Counsel.
08/22/12 OCSD Board of Directors'Agenda Page 1 of 4
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar Items are considered to be routine and will be enacted,
by the Board of Directors, after one motion, without discussion. Any items withdrawn from the Consent
Calendar for separate discussion will be considered in the regular order of business.
2. Approve minutes for the Regular Board Meeting held on July 25, 2012.
3. Authorize the General Manager to approve Amendment No. 7 to extend the
agreement with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., for Private Operation and
Maintenance of Oxygen Generation System at Plant No. 2, Purchase Order
43063-OB for an additional five (5) month period beginning retroactively August
1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, at no additional cost to the District.
4. Authorize the General Counsel to appear and represent the interest of the Orange
County Sanitation District in the matter of City of Brea v. State of California, Sacramento
County Superior Court Case No. 34-2012-8000-1204.
STEERING COMMITTEE:
5. Approve minutes of the July 25, 2012, Steering Committee Meeting.
6. Decline Proposal from EnerTech to Enter into a New Agreement for Management
of Biosolids.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE:
7. Approve minutes of the August 1, 2012, Steering Committee Meeting.
8. Approve a contingency increase of $79,540 (10%) to the Professional Design
Services Agreement with AECOM Technical Services for the Balboa Trunk
Sewer Rehabilitation, Project No. 5-47, for a total contingency of $159,280
(20%).
9. Approve a contingency increase of $266,248 (13%) to the construction contract
with J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc., for Interplant Gas Line Rehabilitation,
Project No. J-106, for a total contingency of $409,612 (20%)
10. Approve a budget increase of $97,000 for Central Generation Automation,
Project J-79-1, for a total budget amount of$23,443,000.
08/22/12 OCSD Board of Directors'Agenda Page 2 of 4
NON-CONSENT:
11. A. Receive and file Statement of Complaint for the Recommendation of
Biosolids Management Contract Award letter dated July 12, 2012 from
Terra Renewal West LLC protesting award to Tule Ranch;
B. Receive and file letter dated July 23, 2012 to Terra Renewal West LLC
responding to the Statement of Complaint; and,
C. Approve a contract with Tule Ranch to manage the Orange County
Sanitation District's biosolids from Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment
Plant No. 2 for land application and/or landfill disposal (Specification No.
S-2011-51313D), for the period commencing on January 1, 2013 through
December 31, 2017, with one five-year renewal option, for the unit price of
$54.50 per ton for land application, for a total annual amount not to
exceed $19,000,000.
CLOSED SESSION:
During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the
Board, the Chair may convene the Board 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 Board during a permitted
closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as the Board takes final action
on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information.
Convene in closed session.
(1) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL RE. EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9)
Case: Orange County Sanitation District v. Liberty Mutual, et al., U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV 12-854-JVS (AJWx)
Reconvene in regular session.
Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session.
OTHER BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
ITEMS, IF ANY:
08/22/12 OCSD Board of Directors'Agenda Page 3 of 4
ADJOURNMENT:
Adjourn the Board meeting until the next regular Meeting on September 26, 2012, at
6:30 p.m.
Accommodations for the Disabled: Meeting Rooms are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability
related accommodations, please contact the Orange County Sanitation District Clerk of the Board's office at
(714) 593-7130 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Requests must specify the nature of the disability
and the type of accommodation requested.
Agenda Posting: In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda
has been posted outside the main gate of the Sanitation District's Administration Building located at 10844 Ellis
Avenue, Fountain Valley, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All public
records relating to each agenda item, including any public records distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting
to all, or a majority of the Board of Directors, are available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board.
NOTICE TO DIRECTORS: To place items on the agenda for the Committee Meeting, items must be submitted to the
Clerk of the Board 14 days before the meeting.
Maria E.Ayala
Clerk of the Board
(714)593-7130
mayala@ocsd.com
For any questions on the agenda, Committee members may contact staff at:
General Manager Jim Ruth (714)593-7110 ]ruthC@ocsd.com
Assistant General Manager Bob Ghirelli (714)593-7400 rghirelliC@ocsd.com
Assistant General Manager Jim Herberg (714)593-7300 Iherberg(a)ocsd.com
Director of Facility Support Services Nick Arhontes (714)593-7210 narhontesC@ocsd.com
Director of Finance and Lorenzo Tyner (714)593-7550 ItynerCo)ocsd.com
Administrative Services
Director of Human Resources Jeff Reed (714)593-7144 jreedCcDocsd.com
Director of Operations&Maintenance Ed Torres 714 593-7080 etorres ocsd.com
08/22/12 OCSD Board of Directors'Agenda Page 4 of 4
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
I
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Lorenzo Tyner, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
SUBJECT: PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Ratify Payment of Claims of the District by Roll Call Vote.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308, you are required to disclose any
campaign contribution greater than $250 received in the past twelve months from any
party to a contract involving the Orange County Sanitation District. Further, you may
not participate in the decision making process to award a contract to such party.
For reference, you are directed to the Register of Warrants as to all current
contractors/vendors with the District.
In general, you must disclose the basis of the conflict by identifying the name of the firm
or individual who was the contributor.
For the specifics of Government Code Section 84308, please see your Director's
Handbook or call the office of General Counsel.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See attached listing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copies of Claims Paid reports from 7/01/12 — 7/15/12 and 7/16/12 — 7/31/12
Page 1 of 1
Claims Paid From 7/1/12 to 7/15/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Accounts Payable Warrants
A W Chesterton 49372 $ 928.16 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 49361 39,074.98 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Aerotek 49373 8,874.90 Professional Services/Temporary Services
Ago IndustriesDBA So-Cal Sweeping 49601 980.00 Street Sweeping Services
Airgas Safety,Inc. 49374 5,519.26 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Airgas West 49375 343.05 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Alliant Insurance Services 49362 356,539.96 Insurance
Amtech Elevator Services 49544 1,035.00 Miscellaneous Services
AppleOne Employment Service 49376 5,900.00 Professional Services/Temporary Services
Applied Industrial Technology 49377 92.06 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Aquatic Biosystems, Inc. 49545 138.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Arcadis U.S.,Inc. 49378 10,000.00 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
AT&T Mobility II,L.L.C. 49381 399.98 Telecommunications
AT&T Mobility II,L.L.C. 49382 8,208.73 Telecommunications
AT&T Universal Biller 49379 2,631.67 Telecommunications
AT&T 49380 32.65 Telecommunications
Awards&Trophies Company 49546 23.71 Awards and Framing Services
AWSI 49383 234.00 Professional Services-DOT Program Administration
Barragan Corp. International 49384 1,200.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Battery Systems, Inc. 49547 5,632.94 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
BC Wire Rope&Rigging 49385 230.34 Tools&Supplies
Beach Wire and Cable 49548 458.48 Telecommunications
Bee Man Pest Control, Inc. 49549 175.00 Pest Control Services
Bently Nevada Inc. 49550 4,548.57 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
BHI Management Consulting 49386 1,232.10 Professional Services/Strategic Planning
Black&Veatch Corporation 49551 2,834.43 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Borthwick,Guy,Thibault, Inc. 49552 1,000.00 Professional Services
Brooks Instrument Div.Emerson Electric 49387 2,355.24 Instrument Parts&Supplies
Brown&Caldwell 49537 132,711.24 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Bureau Veritas North America,Inc. 49388 1,959.00 Industrial Hygiene Services
C.A.Short Company 49389 85.12 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Calchamber/Calbizcenteral 49390 257.29 Books&Publications
California Coastal Commission 49553 250.00 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
California Dept.of Child Support 49554 2,137.47 Judgments Payable
California Recreation Company 49555 3,380.32 Boat Slip Rental-Nerissa Ocean Monitoring Vessel
California Relocation Services,Inc. 49391 427.50 Miscellaneous Services-Moving/Relocation
California Special District Association 49557 625.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Callan Associates, Inc. 49392 4,231.75 Investment Advisory Services
Carollo Engineers 49363 32,162.30 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
CASA 49393 425.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
CDW Government, Inc. 49394 4,081.15 Computers,Software/Hardware
Chuck M.Forman 49622 376.26 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
City Clerk's Association of California 49395 150.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
City of Huntington Beach 49431 16,001.69 Water Use
Clean Harbors Environmental Services 49396 9,036.61 Grit&Screenings;Hazard Waste Disposal
Columbia Analytical Services 49397 1,320.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Compressor Components of California 49398 1,800.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Compressor Components of California 49556 8,582.29 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
EXHIBIT A
fin/210/mm Page 1 of 6 7/18/2012
Claims Paid From 7/1/12 to 7/15/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Consumers Pipe&Supply Co. 49399 510.74 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Converse Consultants 49400 6,493.50 Professional Services/Professional Services/Materials&Geotechnical Testing
Cooperative Personnel Services 49403 426.65 Human Resources Services
Corner Bakery Cafe(CBC) 49401 435.47 Catering Services
Corporate Image Maintenance,Inc. 49538 36,215.00 Janitor&Household Service&Supplies
Counterpart Enterprises, Inc. 49402 2,116.25 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Court Order 49581 2,179.38 Judgments Payable
Court Order 49584 150.00 Judgments Payable
Court Order 49597 108.00 Judgments Payable
Court Order 49621 912.50 Judgments Payable
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority 49364 184,458.00 Insurance
CSI Services, Inc. 49404 2,700.92 Professional Services
CWEA Membership 49405 132.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
David R.Heinz 49532 168.60 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Desert Pumps&Parts, Inc. 49365 30,958.17 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Detection Instruments Corporation 49407 3,514.46 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
DLT&V Systems Engineering, Inc. 49406 2,354.00 Computer Applications&Services
Dudek&Associates, Inc. 49558 4,241.41 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Dwyer Instruments, Inc. 49408 513.14 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Embee Performance LLC 49559 700.38 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Employee Benefits Specialists,Inc. 49539 772,209.09 Reimbursed Prepaid Employee Medical&Dependent Care
Employee Benefits Specialists,Inc. 49560 13,787.76 Reimbursed Prepaid Employee Medical&Dependent Care
Enchanter,Inc. 49409 3,040.00 Vessel Services-Monitoring Vessel Nerissa
Environmental&Occupational Risk Mgmt. 49410 4,000.00 Professional Services-Indoor Air Quality Consulting
Ewing Irrigation 49411 335.92 Irrigation Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Express Lens Lab 49412 2,402.32 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Fedex Corporation 49413 23.52 Freight Services
Ferguson Waterworks 49414 272.39 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Filterline Corporation 49415 360.50 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Fisher Scientific 49561 1,060.40 Laboratory Services&Supplies
FLW, Inc. 49416 2,191.83 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Foundation for Cross Connection Control 49562 120.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Fountain Valley AAA Auto Spa 49563 1,210.17 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Franchise Tax Board 49564 972.89 Judgments Payable
Franklin Covey 49565 78.31 Office Supplies
Fuller Truck Accessories 49566 702.77 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Ganahl Lumber Company 49417 11,127.69 Facilities,Maintenance,Services&Supplies
General Petroleum 49418 4,883.60 Fuel and Lubricants
Gerard Daniel Worldwide 49567 202.03 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Glen Mills Inc. 49568 1,040.38 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Global Automation Services,Inc. 49419 280.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Golden State Water Company 49420 137.59 Water Use
Golden West Window Service 49421 980.00 Facilities,Maintenance,Services&Supplies
Golden West Window Service 49569 2,332.00 Facilities,Maintenance,Services&Supplies
Govplace 49570 4,936.16 Computer Applications and Services
Grainger, Inc. 49422 3,335.35 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Grainger, Inc. 49571 2,519.25 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Grating Pacific,Inc. 49572 3,387.66 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Graybar Electric Company 49423 16,433.60 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
EXHIBIT A
fin/210/mm Page 2 of 6 7/18/2012
Claims Paid From 7/1/12 to 7/15/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Graybar Electric Company 49573 1,062.31 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Great Pacific Equipment Co. 49424 4,821.78 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
GRM Information Management Services 49574 665.92 Miscellaneous Services&Supplies
Haaker Equipment Company 49425 1,134.13 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Hach Company 49426 728.29 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Harrington Industrial Plastics,Inc. 49427 1,964.79 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Hasco Oil Co.,Inc. 49428 141.17 Fuel and Lubricants
Hill Brothers 646 64,728.28 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Hilti, Inc. 49429 2,586.45 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Home Depot 49430 395.78 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Hyatt Legal Plans 49575 1,691.00 Professional Services-Legal
ID Enhancements, Inc. 49576 1,425.00 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Indiana Child Support Bureau 49577 290.00 Judgments Payable
Industrial Hearing&Pulmonary Mgmt. 49432 4,800.00 Employee Medical Surveillance Services
Industrial Threaded Products,Inc. 49433 826.22 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Infrastructure Engineering Corp. 49578 202.14 Professional Services
Ingram Products, Inc. 49579 393.72 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Insight Public Sector,Inc. 49434 1,691.29 Computers,Software/Hardware
Intercare Holdings Insurance Svcs.,Inc. 49435 4,116.67 Workers'Compensation Service
Intl.Union of Oper.Eng.AFL CIO Local 501 49580 4,932.94 Dues Deductions
Intratek Computer, Inc. 49436 1,651.33 Network/Server/Printer Maintenance Services
Ironman Parts&Services 49437 156.37 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
James D.Herberg 49623 220.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Jamison Engineering Contractors, Inc. 49438 3,260.00 Professional Services/Construction Support Services
Jays Catering 49439 717.89 Catering Services
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. 645 25,775.75 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. 649 14,331.52 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
John S.Anderson 49527 301.07 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Kasai Consulting 49440 440.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Katherine J.Edwards 49582 5,000.00 Human Resources Services
Kemira Water Solutions 647 88,373.30 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Kiewit/Mass,A Joint Venture 49370 113,571.40 Construction
LA Testing 49441 197.00 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Larry R.Crandall 49530 400.19 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Lee&Ro, Inc. 49442 1,113.32 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Lee&Ro, Inc. 49583 8,024.48 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Lee&Ro, Inc. 49583 5,406.63 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Lillestrand and Associates 49443 502.71 Professional Services
Lucci's Gourmet Foods, Inc. 49444 150.94 Catering Services
Luis Gasca 49531 100.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Magnolia Air Compressor Company Inc. 49445 344.61 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Mainline Information Systems 49540 125,729.42 Computer Applications&Services
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 49446 15,066.74 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Maria E.Ayala 49528 1,366.75 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Maxim Security Systems 49585 2,937.12 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
McMaster-Carr Supply Co. 49447 852.33 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Mettler-Toledo 49586 226.50 Computer Applications&Services
Mid-West Associates, Inc. 49448 8,137.54 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Mitchell Instrument Co. 49449 2,218.57 Tools&Supplies
EXHIBIT A
fin/210/mm Page 3 of 6 7/18/2012
Claims Paid From 7/1/12 to 7/15/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Moore Medical Inc. 49450 8.38 Medical Supplies
Mooring Systems Inc. 49451 500.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Morrow Meadows Corp. 49543 420,295.50 Construction
MTM Recognition Corporation 49452 197.87 Service Awards
NAS Northwestern Aquatic Sciences 49587 865.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Ncompliance Services 49453 658.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
NEAC Compressor Services USA Inc. 49454 4,243.73 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Neal Supply Co. 49455 3,119.04 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Nicholas Oswald 49535 312.41 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Ninyo&Moore 49588 3,266.50 Professional Services/Geotech&Material Testing
Nirve Sports LTD 49456 324.32 Bicycle Purchases
NRG Engine Services,L.L.C. 49457 2,745.14 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
OCEA 49589 672.75 Dues Deductible
OCECO INC 49458 3,907.92 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Olin Corporation 49459 12,588.69 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
OneSource Distributors, Inc. 49460 2,606.21 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Orange County Auto Parts 49590 2,144.95 Truck Supplies
Orange County Hose Company 49461 61.85 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Orange County Sanitation District 49536 1,551.68 Petty Cash Expense
Orange County United Way 49591 40.00 Employee Contributions
OSTS Inc. 49463 950.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Oxygen Service Company 49464 1,120.90 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Oxygen Service Company 49592 656.91 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Pace Precision Products,Inc. 49465 5,223.72 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Pacific Mechanical Supply 49466 2,177.82 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Parker Supply Company 49467 652.79 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Parkhouse Tire,Inc. 49468 2,654.50 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Parkhouse Tire,Inc. 49593 2,012.71 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
PCS Express, Inc. 49594 446.93 Courier Services
Peace Officers Council of CA 49595 2,265.50 Dues Deductions,Supervisors&Professionals
People and Processes, Inc. 49469 9,990.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Pivot Interiors Inc. 49470 720.55 Office Supplies/Furniture
PL Hawn Company,Inc. 49471 2,360.03 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Polydyne,Inc. 648 56,212.08 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Pongsakdi Cady 49529 106.74 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Ponton Industries, Inc. 49472 835.30 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Powerflo Products, Inc. 49473 1,764.01 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Praxair Distribution, Inc. 49474 273.95 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Precision Digital Corporation 49475 1,889.27 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Precon Products 49476 1,400.75 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Primary Source Office Furnishings, Inc. 49477 13,414.88 Minor Equipment/Furniture&Fixtures
Primrose Ice Co.,Inc. 49478 105.00 Water&Ice Services
Procare Work Injury Center 49479 1,382.34 Medical Services
Projectline Technical Services,Inc. 49480 8,054.47 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Prudential Overall Supply 49481 2,893.48 Uniforms
Prudential Overall Supply 49596 3,054.69 Uniforms
Quickstart Intelligence 49482 1,625.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Red Wing Shoes 49483 1,202.19 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Regents of the University of Calif. 49598 9,571.10 Meeting/Training Registration
EXHIBIT A
fin/210/mm Page 4 of 6 7/18/2012
Claims Paid From 7/1/12 to 7/15/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Regents of University of California 49599 15,769.00 Registration
Retrofit Parts&Components,Inc. 49484 24.92 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Riaz K.Moinuddin 49534 125.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
RMB Engineering&Sales,Inc. 49485 4,879.05 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Royale Cleaners 49486 286.00 Miscellaneous Services
RPM Electric Motors 49487 2,089.68 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
RSA Soil Products 49600 2,574.38 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Russell Sigler,Inc.dba Sigler Wholesale 49488 666.20 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Sancon Engineering,Inc. 49366 217,000.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Scale Datacom Llc 49541 389,788.45 Computers,Software/Hardware&Managed Services
Scientific Instrument Services,Inc. 49490 255.31 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 49491 254.80 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Shamrock Supply Co., Inc. 49492 5,324.21 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Shureluck Sales&Engineering 49493 745.20 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Sigma-Aldrich, Inc. 49494 401.69 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Simon L.Watson 49624 379.98 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Snap On Industrial 49495 224.27 Tools
South Coast Environmental Co. 49489 1,228.57 Professional Services-Air Quality Monitoring
Southern California Edison 49367 78,183.95 Utilities
Southern Counties Lubricants 49496 4,959.88 Fuel and Lubricants
Sparklett-Dallas 49497 2,238.68 Miscellaneous Services
SPEX Certiprep,Inc. 49602 54.50 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Staheli Trenchless Consultants,Inc. 49498 13,737.00 Staheli Trenchless Consultants Inc.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 49603 2,082.00 Professional Services/Surveying
Staples 49499 1,757.40 Office Supplies
STL Landscape,Inc. 49371 122,320.10 Construction
Stratus Environmental,Inc. 49500 3,375.00 Professional Services/Groundwater Removal
Stryper Technologies 49501 3,738.00 Computer Hardware&Software
Sunset Industrial Parts 49502 1,790.84 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Super Chem Corporation 49604 911.57 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Support Product Services 49605 10,960.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Teledyne/ISCO 49503 18,274.32 Laboratory Services&Supplies
TestAmerica Ontario 49504 255.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Tetra Tech, Inc. 49606 11,147.20 Professional Services/Engineering Design ServicesS
The Cei Group, Inc. 49505 2,274.44 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
The Creative Group 49506 2,688.00 Professional Services/Temporary Services
The Modal Shop, Inc. 49507 11,969.48 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
The Orange County Register 49462 375.40 Notices&Ads
Thompson Industrial Supply, Inc. 49508 1,447.81 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Thompson Industrial Supply, Inc. 49607 880.50 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Tiano Construction 49608 7,220.00 Facilities,Maintenance,Services&Supplies
Tim H.Hopkins 49533 143.75 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Tony's Lock&Safe Service&Sales 49609 349.59 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Toshiba Business Solutions USA Inc. 49509 414.22 Computers,Software/Hardware&Managed Services
Total-Western, Inc. 49510 2,282.61 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Total-Western, Inc. 49610 700.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Townsend Public Affairs 49611 7,500.00 Professional Services-State Legislative Advocacy
Tule Ranch/Magan Farms 49368 158,095.08 Biosolids Management
TW Telecom Holdings, Inc. 49511 5,206.75 Telecommunications
EXHIBIT A
fin/210/mm Page 5 of 6 7/18/2012
Claims Paid From 7/1/12 to 7/15/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
U Line 49512 44.32 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
U S Bank 49612 8,575.00 Annual COP Administrative Fee
United Parcel Service 49513 332.47 Freight Services
Univar USA Inc 650 4,668.18 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
University Of Southern California 49613 9,593.67 Professional Services/Studies
US Peroxide,L.L.C. 49369 152,045.29 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
US Peroxide,L.L.C. 49542 154,070.79 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Verizon California 49514 632.63 Telecommunications
Verizon Wireless 49515 1,606.73 Telecommunications
Verne's Plumbing 49614 70.00 Plumbing Services&Supplies
Vertech Industrial Systems,Llc 49615 10,730.94 Professional Services/Construction Consulting Services
Village Nurseries 49616 394.68 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Vision Financial Corporation 49516 1,224.24 Employee Voluntary Benefits
Voyager Fleet Systems, Inc. 49617 24,179.05 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
VWR Scientific Products 49517 8,624.07 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Water Environment Federation 49518 220.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Waters Corporation 49618 6,845.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Waxie Sanitary Supply 49519 987.62 Janitor&Household Service&Supplies
WCR Incorporated 49520 271.94 Miscellaneous Services
Wells Fargo Bank Escrow 23518600 49526 6,240.60 Construction,Retention
West Coast Safety Supply Co. 49521 2,155.72 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
West Coast Switchgear,Inc. 49522 423.46 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Weston Solutions, Inc. 49523 18,681.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Westport Apparatus dba Breaker Supply 49524 1,173.40 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Xerox Corporation 49619 1,352.61 Computers,Software/Hardware&Managed Services
Yale/Chase Materials Handling, Inc. 49525 173.58 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,&Electric Cart Parts&Repairs
Yale/Chase Materials Handling, Inc. 49620 2,909.90 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,&Electric Cart Parts&Repairs
Total Accounts Payable-Warrants $ 4,472,150.53
Payroll Disbursements
Employee Paychecks 49435 - 49494 $ 98,000.60 Biweekly Payroll(7/11/12)
Employee Paychecks 49495 1,829.26 Interim Payroll-Reissue Direct Deposit as Check(7/11/12)
Direct Deposit Statements 323046 -323619 1,384,672.35 Biweekly Payroll(7/11/12)
Total Payroll Disbursements $ 1,484,502.21
Wire Transfer Payments
OCSD Payroll Taxes&Contributions $ 771,896.11 Biweekly Payroll(7/11/12)
Total Wire Transfer Payments $ 771,896.11
Total Claims Paid 7101/12-7/15112 $ 6,728,548.85
EXHIBIT A
fin/210/mm Page 6 of 6 7/18/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Accounts Payable Warrants
A W Chesterton 49854 $ 3,438.71 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Absolute Standards,Inc. 49652 795.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Adamson Industries 49855 735.07 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 49856 22,997.99 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
AECOM USA,Inc. 49625 28,074.19 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Aerotek 49653 6,959.79 Professional Services/Temporary Services
Air Liquide America Specialty Gases LLC 49654 199.60 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Airgas Safety,Inc. 49655 1,335.61 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Airgas Safety,Inc. 49835 103,189.86 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Airgas USA,LLC 49857 118.76 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Airgas West 49656 269.04 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Airgas West 49858 2,144.41 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Alhambra Foundry Co.,Ltd. 49859 12,369.70 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Alliant Insurance Services 49626 575,889.00 Insurance
Allied Electronics,Inc. 49657 132.08 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Allied Electronics,Inc. 49860 52.27 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Allied Packing&Rubber, Inc. 49861 73.40 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
American Express 49627 64,076.41 Purchasing Card Program for Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
American Express TVL Related Svcs Co.,Inc. 49658 3,089.17 Purchasing Card Program for Miscellaneous Travel Expenses
American Public Works Association 49659 70.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
AppleOne Employment Service 49660 4,193.75 Professional Services/Temporary Services
Applied Industrial Technology 49661 140.51 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Applied Industrial Technology 49862 1,299.23 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Argus-Hazco 49663 532.29 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Arturo Diaz 49827 132.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Ashbrook Simon Hartley Operations,L.P. 49628 37,105.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
ASSE American Society of Safety Engineers 49664 180.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
AT&T 49853 238.78 Telecommunications
AT&T Long Distance. 49863 27.79 Telecommunications
AT&T Mobility II,L.L.C. 49666 459.85 Telecommunications
AT&T Universal Biller 49665 121.88 Telecommunications
ATCC:Amer.Type Culture Collect 49864 514.50 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Awards&Trophies Company 49667 53.88 Awards and Framing Services
Battery Specialties 49669 766.62 Batteries,Various
Battery Specialties 49865 710.74 Batteries,Various
Battery Systems, Inc. 49866 151.11 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Bee Man Pest Control, Inc. 49670 211.65 Pest Control Services
Bell Pipe&Supply Co. 49671 319.73 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Bentley Systems, Inc. 49672 655.42 Software Maintenance Agreement
Beyond Trust Corporation 49673 17,900.00 Computer Applications and Services
Bickmore Risk Services 49836 55,050.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Black&Veatch Corporation 49629 102,754.24 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Black&Veatch Corporation 49837 64,790.62 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Black&Veatch Corporation 49837 134,771.45 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Black&Veatch Corporation 49837 830.74 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Bonterra Consulting,L.L.C. 49867 989.00 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
BPI Brea LLC 49630 29,906.29 Sewer User Refund
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 1 of 9 817/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Brea Imperial,Inc. 49674 2,500.00 Miscellaneous Services
Brent M.Hall 49829 267.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Brithinee Electric 49868 2,924.16 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Brown&Caldwell 49838 290,917.94 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Brown&Caldwell 49838 173,751.26 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Bureau Veritas North America,Inc. 49675 1,048.10 Industrial Hygiene Services
Bureau Veritas North America,Inc. 49869 2,446.50 Industrial Hygiene Services
California Barricade Rentals 49676 12,665.00 Miscellaneous Services
California Dept.of Child Support 49870 2,137.47 Judgments Payable
California Political Week,Inc. 49871 70.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
California Relocation Services,Inc. 49677 450.00 Miscellaneous Services-Moving/Relocation
Cameron Compression Systems 49678 10,396.14 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Careplus Medical Center 49872 220.00 Human Resource Services
Carollo Engineers 49632 79,430.64 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Carollo Engineers 49839 77,688.97 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Carollo Engineers 49631 49,215.96 Professional Services
Carollo Engineers 49873 14,263.48 Professional Services
CASA 49874 1,275.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
CCP Industries. 49875 10,208.70 Janitor&Household Service&Supplies
City of Fountain Valley 49633 47,320.63 Water Use
City of Huntington Beach 49723 11.08 Water Use
City of Huntington Beach 49876 250.00 Water Use
City of Huntington Beach 49909 354.06 Water Use
City of Newport Beach 49931 303.15 Water Use
City of Seal Beach 49959 152.40 Water Use
Clean Harbors Environmental Services 49679 4,165.20 Grit&Screenings;Hazard Waste Disposal
Clean Harbors Environmental Services 49877 2,718.88 Grit&Screenings;Hazard Waste Disposal
Coast Rubber Stamp,Mfg. 49878 177.79 Stationery&Office Supplies
Compline,LLC 49879 600.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Compressor Components of California 49634 32,355.17 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Constellation Newenergy Gas Division LLC 49680 13,959.18 Natural Gas
Consumers Pipe&Supply Co. 49880 1,159.02 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Controlled Motion Solutions 49681 274.71 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Corner Bakery Cafe(CBC) 49683 138.47 Catering Services
Cornerstone Ondemand, Inc. 49684 21,700.00 Professional Services/I.T.
Cotton Point Design,Inc.dba Power Design 49881 8,130.82 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
County of Orange Auditor Controller 49685 16.50 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
County of Orange Auditor Controller 49686 462.00 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
Court Order 49918 2,179.38 Judgments Payable
Court Order 49922 150.00 Judgments Payable
Court Order 49953 108.00 Judgments Payable
Court Order 49988 912.50 Judgments Payable
CR&R, Inc. 49687 2,271.15 Waste Disposal
Crane Veyor Corp. 49688 2,948.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
CS-AMSCO 49689 19,604.81 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
CSI Services, Inc. 49690 1,102.12 Professional Services
CWEA Membership 49882 132.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
David Gutoff 49691 225.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 2 of 9 817/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
DDB Engineering,Inc. 49692 1,083.77 Professional Services-Advocacy
DeGuelle Glass Co.,Inc. 49693 235.98 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Deirdre E.Bingman 49826 131.39 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
DLT&V Systems Engineering, Inc. 49694 11,539.50 Computer Applications&Services
DTSC(Dept.of Toxic Substances Control) 49883 549.00 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
DTSC(Dept.of Toxic Substances Control) 49884 97.50 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
Dudek&Associates, Inc. 49695 21,183.74 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Dyntek Services,Inc. 49696 3,000.00 Computer Applications&Services
Elite Equipment Inc. 49697 409.66 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Employee Benefits Specialists,Inc. 49698 797.50 Reimbursed Prepaid Employee Medical&Dependent Care
Employee Benefits Specialists,Inc. 49885 13,904.68 Reimbursed Prepaid Employee Medical&Dependent Care
Enchanter,Inc. 49699 2,280.00 Vessel Services-Monitoring Vessel Nerissa
Enchanter,Inc. 49886 3,040.00 Vessel Services-Monitoring Vessel Nerissa
Enertech Environmental 49635 467,315.92 Biosolids Management
ENS Resources, Inc. 49700 7,500.00 Professional Services-Federal Advocacy
Environ Strategy Consultants,Inc. 49887 6,700.00 Professional Services-Quarterly Sampling of Groundwater Monitoring Wells in the Auto
Environmental Engineering&Contracting 49888 1,800.00 Professional Services/Specialty Course Audits
Environmental Resource Associates 49701 2,514.13 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Environmental Resource Associates 49889 364.05 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Envirotech Pumpsystems,Inc. 49987 984.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Ewing Irrigation 49702 742.96 Irrigation Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Excel Door&Gate Co., Inc. 49703 123.75 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Express Lens Lab 49890 948.09 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
First American Corelogic 49682 342.00 Software Maintenance Agreement
Fisher Scientific 49704 4,203.91 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Fisher Scientific 49892 1,360.02 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Fleetmatics USA,LLC 49893 600.00 Professional Services-Legal/Employee Relations
Fleming Environmental, Inc. 49894 300.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Forestry Suppliers 49895 2,229.95 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Franchise Tax Board 49896 972.90 Judgments Payable
Franklin Air Conditioning&Heating Co 49897 6,034.63 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Franklin Covey 49705 80.90 Office Supplies
Fuller Truck Accessories 49706 1,242.33 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Garratt Callahan Company 49898 5,533.43 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Gates Fiberglass Installers 49707 7,524.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
General Petroleum 49708 7,596.60 Fuel and Lubricants
Getinge Castle 49899 440.01 Laboratory Services&Supplies
GHD,L.L.C. 49709 7,350.00 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Golden Bell Products 49636 27,523.00 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Golden State Overnight Delivery Service 49710 157.14 Courier Services
Golden State Overnight Delivery Service 49900 383.90 Courier Services
Golden West Machine, Inc. 49711 20,885.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Golden West Machine, Inc. 49901 1,500.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Government Finance Officers Association 49998 635.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Grainger, Inc. 49712 2,328.18 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Grainger, Inc. 49902 2,523.33 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Graybar Electric Company 49903 14,926.47 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Greentech Landscape,Inc 49713 9,372.00 Landscape Maintenance Services
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 3 of 9 817/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Greentech Landscape,Inc 49904 1,690.00 Landscape Maintenance Services
Guarantee Records Management 49714 774.29 Professional Services-Document Storage&Shredding
Hach Company 49716 7,008.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Hach Company 49717 788.67 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Hach Company 49905 310.23 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Harrington Industrial Plastics,Inc. 49718 16.27 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Harrington Industrial Plastics,Inc. 49906 222.27 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Hasler,Inc. 49719 64.65 Postage Meter Rental
HD Supply 49907 10,769.62 Mechanical Parts&Supplies
HDR Engineering, Inc. 49637 85,552.75 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
HDR Engineering, Inc. 49840 36,188.17 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Helix Electric, Inc. 49647 44,070.74 Construction
Hill Brothers 651 35,883.62 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Home Depot 49720 154.02 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Home Depot 49908 605.80 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Hope Health/IHAC 49721 560.27 Benefits
Hub Auto Supply 49722 1,343.73 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Ian M.Brown 49668 132.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Indiana Child Support Bureau 49910 290.00 Judgments Payable
Industrial Threaded Products,Inc. 49724 3,684.65 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Inorganic Ventures, Inc. 49725 1,021.09 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Intercare Holdings Insurance Svcs.,Inc. 49911 8,616.67 Workers'Compensation Service
International Business Machines 49726 6,135.21 Computer Applications&Services
Intl.Union of Oper.Eng.AFL CIO Local 501 49912 4,908.69 Dues Deductions
Intratek Computer, Inc. 49913 442.40 Network/Server/Printer Maintenance Services
IPMC c/o Parsons 49638 359,163.00 Professional Services/Temporary Services
Irvine Ranch Water District 49727 10.54 Water Use
Irvine Ranch Water District 49914 62.01 Water Use
J F Shea Construction,Inc. 49648 1,240,171.47 Construction
J F Shea Construction,Inc. 49849 339,331.45 Construction
J R Filanc Construction 49850 867,908.83 Construction
James G.Tintle 49832 512.94 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
James G.Tintle 49997 172.14 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Jamison Engineering Contractors, Inc. 49728 3,192.00 Professional Services/Construction Support Services
Jamison Engineering Contractors, Inc. 49915 5,125.45 Professional Services/Construction Support Services
Jays Catering 49729 626.30 Catering Services
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. 653 17,860.63 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. 656 22,625.74 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
JLM Systems Limited 49916 1,525.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Johnny J.Rocha 49996 190.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Johnstone Supply 49730 177.56 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplie
Johnstone Supply 49917 3,931.92 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Kanawha Insurance Company 49919 2,172.41 Voluntary Benefits-SSTD Insurance
Kasai Consulting 49731 440.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Kemira Water Solutions 652 195,357.20 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Kemira Water Solutions 655 106,755.94 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. 49649 334,227.10 Construction
Kiewt/Mass,A Joint Venture 49651 80,508.99 Construction
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 4 of 9 817/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Koff&Associates,Inc. 49732 472.50 Professional Services/Comp&Class Study
LA Testing 49920 33.00 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Labware, Inc. 49733 9,000.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplie
Lee&Ro, Inc. 49921 368.56 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Liberty Mutual Claims 49734 1,625.83 Insurance
Lillestrand and Associates 49735 2,701.90 Professional Services
Lionakis 49736 5,053.00 Professional Services/Architectural and Landscaping Consulting Services
Mail Dispatch,LLC 49923 314.70 Mail Delivery Service
Mainline Information Systems 49737 6,092.00 Computer Applications&Services
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 49841 89,667.34 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Mandic Motors 49738 450.00 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Marcus G.Lambertz 49995 100.00 Employee Computer Loan Program
Margil Jimenez 49830 134.64 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Marvac Electronics 49924 29.01 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Matt Chlor,Inc. 49925 1,703.59 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Maxim Security Systems 49926 19,544.47 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
McMaster-Carr Supply Co. 49739 602.90 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
McMaster-Carr Supply Co. 49927 133.93 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Mesa Consolidated Water District 49928 26.77 Water Use
Michael Asner Consulting 49740 4,520.10 Professional Services
Michael I.Gold 49993 310.11 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Michael T.Dorman 49828 187.50 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Minako America Corporation 49851 447,120.00 Construction
Mine Safety Appliance 49741 3,582.11 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
MTM Recognition Corporation 49742 1,104.36 Service Awards
MWH Americas,Inc. 49842 70,886.05 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
NEAC Compressor Services USA Inc. 49929 3,695.92 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Neal Supply Co. 49743 435.85 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
NetworkFleet, Inc. 49744 2,443.55 Software Maintenance Agreement
Newark Electronics 49930 304.98 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Nickey Petroleum Co., Inc. 49745 1,524.36 Fuel and Lubricants
Ninyo&Moore 49746 5,825.00 Professional Services/Geotech&Material Testing
Nirve Sports LTD 49932 967.14 Bicycle Purchases
Norman A.Traub Associates 49933 5,131.50 Legal Services
NPELRA Annual Training Conference 49747 399.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
OCB Reprographics 49662 23,793.78 Printing/Reprographics Services
OCEA 49934 663.00 Dues Deductible
O'Connell Engineering&Construction, Inc. 49639 25,350.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Office Depot 49748 1,922.04 Office Supplies
Office Depot 49935 660.97 Office Supplies
OI Analytical 49749 4,416.74 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Olin Corporation 49750 5,573.06 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
OneSource Distributors, Inc. 49751 2,820.46 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
OneSource Distributors, Inc. 49936 441.03 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Oracle America Inc. 49752 21,354.51 Software Maintenance Agreement
Orange Coast Auto Body,Inc. 49753 1,509.46 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Orange County Auto Parts 49937 182.10 Truck Supplies
Orange County Council of Governments 49754 7,500.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 5 of 9 817/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Orange County Sanitation District 49999 1,570.19 Petty Cash Expense
Orange County United Way 49938 40.00 Employee Contributions
Orange County Vector Control District 49939 164.48 Pest Control
Orange County Water District 49843 81,546.25 GAP Water
Oxygen Service Company 49755 156.39 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Pacific Mechanical Supply 49940 6,894.38 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Parkhouse Tire,Inc. 49756 1,116.24 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
PC Mall Gov 49757 9,439.69 Software Maintenance Agreement
PCS Express, Inc. 49758 152.76 Courier Services
Peace Officers Council of CA 49941 2,265.50 Dues Deductions,Supervisors&Professionals
Peerless Wiping Materials Co. 49942 1,782.40 Janitor&Household Service&Supplies
PEI Genesis 49759 250.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Performance Pipeline Technologies 49760 9,100.80 Professional Services/CCTV Inspection/Sewerline Cleaning
PL Hawn Company,Inc. 49761 942.34 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
PL Hawn Company,Inc. 49943 2,459.50 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Planetbids, Inc. 49762 903.00 Computer Applications&Services
Polydyne,Inc. 657 18,662.64 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
Ponton Industries, Inc. 49944 331.27 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Port Supply 49763 251.46 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Port Supply 49945 48.71 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Primrose Ice Co.,Inc. 49764 446.25 Water&Ice Services
Primrose Ice Co.,Inc. 49946 105.00 Water&Ice Services
Printing Connection, Inc. 49765 377.35 Printing/Reprographics Services
Procare Work Injury Center 49947 270.00 Medical Services
Process Instruments&Controls,LLC 49948 3,680.72 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Projectline Technical Services,Inc. 49950 531.50 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Projects Partners 49640 27,308.50 Professional Services/Temporary Employment Services
Projects Partners 49949 1,656.00 Professional Services/Temporary Employment Services
Prudential Overall Supply 49951 3,282.28 Uniforms
Q Air-Calif.Div.Pump Engineering 49766 3,732.41 Repair&Maintenance Services and Supplies
Quinn Power Systems 49767 223.43 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Rainbow Disposal Co. 49768 586.39 Waste Disposal
Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. 49769 17,116.09 Material Handling Tools&Equipment
RBF Consulting 49770 4,780.07 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Reliastar 49771 3,727.09 Voluntary Employee Life&Cancer Insurance
Remote Sensing Solutions Inc. 49641 59,960.80 Professional Services/Regional Ocean Modeling System(ROMS)
Restek Corp. 49954 745.47 Laboratory Services&Supplies
RF MacDonald Co. 49952 153.06 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
RMB Engineering&Sales,Inc. 49955 3,658.77 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
RMS Engineering&Design,Inc. 49772 16,020.00 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
RMS Engineering&Design,Inc. 49956 4,920.00 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Robert Holdman 49715 358.13 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Roken Industries Inc 49773 1,800.46 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Roto Rooter NOC#11 49774 448.90 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Royale Cleaners 49775 126.80 Miscellaneous Services
Royale Cleaners 49957 49.70 Miscellaneous Services
RSA Soil Products 49776 2,251.13 Miscellaneous Parts and Supplies
Safety-Kleen 49958 104.79 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 6 of 9 8n/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Sancon Engineering,Inc. 49777 24,127.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
SARBS-CWEA 49778 50.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership-California Water Environmen
Schwing Bioset 654 10,429.58 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Science Applications Intl.Corp. 49779 4,902.00 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 49844 26,999.18 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
Shamrock Supply Co., Inc. 49780 5,419.83 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Shortridge Instruments, Inc. 49781 850.51 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Shureluck Sales&Engineering 49782 388.71 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Siemens Water Technologies Corp. 49783 1,431.74 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Sigma-Aldrich, Inc. 49784 198.42 Laboratory Services&Supplies
SKC West,Inc. 49785 147.13 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Smardan Supply Company 49960 201.46 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Smith Pipe&Supply,Inc. 49961 116.37 Facilities,Maintenance,Services&Supplies
So.Cal Gas Company 49786 15,552.33 Utilities
Southern California Coastal Water 49642 400,000.00 Joint Powers Agreement
Southern California Edison 49643 454,934.03 Utilities
Southern California Edison 49787 1,872.07 Utilities
Sparklett-Dallas 49788 1,458.51 Miscellaneous Services
SSPC The Society for Protective Coating 49789 95.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
St.Croix Sensory, Inc. 49790 2,310.00 Olfactometry Testing Services
Staheli Trenchless Consultants Inc. 49962 5,928.75 Construction
Staples 49791 2,761.74 Office Supplies
State Board of Equalization 49963 5,818.00 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
State Board of Equalization 50000 46,765.00 Governmental Agency Fees&Charges
STL Landscape,Inc. 49852 38,752.40 Construction
Summit Steel 49792 2,924.39 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Summit Steel 49964 404.28 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Synagro West, Inc. 49644 672,035.01 Biosolids Management
Synagro West, Inc. 49834 219.43 Biosolids Management
Synagro West, Inc. 49845 193,236.72 Biosolids Management
TCH Associates, Inc. 49793 5,412.88 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Teledyne/ISCO 49794 226.28 Laboratory Services&Supplies
TestAmerica Ontario 49795 1,814.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
TestAmerica Ontario 49965 350.00 Laboratory Services&Supplies
The Creative Group 49796 2,688.00 Professional Services/Temporary Services
The Fire X-Tinguisher Service Co. 49891 710.83 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
The Standard Insurance Company 49966 2,472.50 Disability Insurance
The Trane Company 49972 504.36 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
The Unisource Corporation 49806 852.30 Paper&Office Supplies
Theodore Robins Ford 49797 30.41 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Thermo Electron North America,L.L.C. 49967 472.14 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Thermo Labsystems Inc. 49798 15,366.23 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Thompson Industrial Supply, Inc. 49799 5,144.71 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Thompson Industrial Supply, Inc. 49968 430.93 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Tiano Construction 49800 720.00 Facilities,Maintenance,Services&Supplies
Tim H.Hopkins 49994 132.00 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
Time Warner Communications 49969 59.17 Telecommunications
Tony S.Lee 49831 122.33 Meeting/Training Expense Reimbursement
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 7 of 9 817/2012
Claims Paid From 7/16/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
Tony's Lock&Safe Service&Sales 49970 315.04 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Toshiba Business Solutions USA Inc. 49971 1,042.86 Computers,Software/Hardware&Managed Services
Tran Consulting Engineers 49801 12,381.99 Professional Services/Engineering Design Services
Tremco Incorporated 49802 2,615.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Tropical Plaza Nursery,Inc. 49973 12,497.50 Landscape Maintenance Services
Truck&Auto Supply,Inc. 49803 139.61 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Tule Ranch/Magan Farms 49645 182,931.37 Biosolids Management
Tule Ranch/Magan Farms 49846 53,320.05 Biosolids Management
Two Wheels One Planet 49974 275.29 Autos,Trucks&Marine Equipment,Parts,Accessories&Services
Underground Service Alert of So.Calif 49804 1,651.50 Professional Services-Dig Alert Notification Service
Underground Service Alert of So.Calif 49976 1,438.50 Professional Services-Dig Alert Notification Service
Union Bank Escrow No#23861 49650 65,009.02 Construction
Union Bank of California 49805 763.85 Banking Services
Union Bank of California Escrow 49992 17,859.55 Construction,Retention
United Parcel Service 49807 135.29 Freight Services
United Parcel Service 49977 914.98 Freight Services
United States Postal Service 49975 5,000.00 Postage
US Equipment Co., Inc. 49978 1,174.49 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
US Peroxide,L.L.C. 49847 97,234.34 Chemicals,Water/Wastewater Treatment
V&A Consulting Engineers 49808 16,527.85 Professional Services
Valin Corporation 49979 3,679.55 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Verizon Wireless 49809 18.32 Telecommunications
Verne's Plumbing 49810 4,621.65 Plumbing Services&Supplies
Verne's Plumbing 49980 5,370.00 Plumbing Services&Supplies
Village Nurseries 49981 659.64 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Vision Internet Providers, Inc 49982 15,372.00 Professional Services/Web Design Services
Vortex Corp. 49811 1,129.30 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Vortex Corp. 49983 1,309.01 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
Vossler&Company 49812 436.88 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
VWR Scientific Products 49813 217.78 Laboratory Services&Supplies
VWR Scientific Products 49984 2,368.66 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Wastewater Technology Trainers 49814 865.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Water Environment Federation 49815 220.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Water Environment Federation 49985 220.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
Waters Corporation 49816 1,785.66 Laboratory Services&Supplies
Waxie Sanitary Supply 49817 465.06 Janitor&Household Service&Supplies
Waxie Sanitary Supply 49986 160.13 Janitor&Household Service&Supplies
Wells Fargo Bank 49825 17,590.90 Construction,Retention
Wells Fargo Bank Escrow23861100 Kiewit 49833 1,756.55 Construction,Retention
West Coast Arborists,Inc. 49818 8,900.00 Landscape Maintenance Services
West Coast Safety Supply Co. 49819 3,936.23 Safety,Security,Health Equipment,Supplies,and Services
West Lite Supply Company,Inc. 49820 45.31 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,Parts&Repairs
Western Blue/Insight/Hewlett Packard 49821 22,243.16 Computers,Software/Hardware
Wondries Fleet Group 49646 37,751.56 Vehicle Purchases
Woodruff Spradlin&Smart 49848 84,832.16 Professional Services-Legal
Xerox Corporation 49822 20,247.82 Computers,Software/Hardware&Managed Services
Yale/Chase Materials Handling, Inc. 49823 60.09 Electrical/Electronic Equipment,&Electric Cart Parts&Repairs
1-800-Conference(R) 49989 44.53 Telecommunications
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 8 of 9 8n/2012
Claims Paid From 7116/12 to 7/31/12
Vendor Warrant No. Amount Description
24 Hour Fire Protection, Inc. 49990 10,000.00 Repair&Maintenance Services and/or Supplies
3CMA 49991 1,100.00 Professional Organizations Meeting/Training/Membership
3D Instruments L.L.C. 49824 995.18 Instrument Parts&Supplies
Total Accounts Payable-Warrants $ 10,441,795.00
Payroll Disbursements
Employee Paychecks 49496 - 49532 $ 84,993.13 Biweekly Payroll(7/25/12)
Employee Paychecks 49533 4,373.00 Interim Payroll-Pymt to Employee on Leave(7/25/12)
Employee Paychecks 49534 3,339.15 Interim Payroll-Retirement(7/26/12)
Employee Paychecks 49535 28,659.85 Interim Payroll-Retirement Leave Payout(7/26/12)'
Employee Paychecks 49563 1,992.22 Interim Payroll-Direct Deposit Item Returned,Reissued(7/30/12)
Direct Deposit Statements 323620 -624182 1,406,326.22 Biweekly Payroll(7/25/12)
Total Payroll Disbursements $ 1,529,683.57 *Check numbers 49536-49562 used for future period.
Wire Transfer Payments
OCSD Payroll Taxes&Contributions $ 784,913.61 Biweekly Payroll(7/25/12)
Union Bank of California 1,822,776.61 Series 2007A Certificates of Participation Interest Payment
Union Bank of California 6,919,279.78 Series 2007E Certificates of Participation Interest Payment
Union Bank of California 10,647,804.81 Series 20011A Certificates of Participation Principal&Interest Payment
Union Bank of California 1,338,691.82 Series 20012A Certificates of Participation Interest Payment
US Bank 6,921,528.15 Series 2008A Refunding Certificates of Participation Principal and Interest Payment
US Bank 860,369.47 Series 2008E Refunding Certificates of Participation Principal and Interest Payment
US Bank 4,548,495.63 Series 2009A Refunding Certificates of Participation Interest Payment
US Bank 2,228,950.56 Series 2010A Revenue Obligation BABS Interest Payment
US Bank 5,018,286.28 Series 2010C Revenue Obligation BABS Interest Payment
Total Wire Transfer Payments $ 41,091,096.72
Total Claims Paid 7/16/12-7/31/12 $ 53,062,575.29
EXHIBIT B
fin/210/mm Page 9 of 9 8/7/2012
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
3
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Ed Torres, Director of Operations and Maintenance
SUBJECT: PLANT NO. 2 OXYGEN SUPPLY SYSTEMS
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to approve Amendment No. 7 to extend the agreement
with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., for Private Operation and Maintenance of
Oxygen Generation System at Plant No. 2, Purchase Order 43063-OB for an additional
five (5) month period beginning retroactively August 1, 2012, through December 31,
2012, at no additional cost to the District.
SUMMARY
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APCI) is currently upgrading OCSD's liquid oxygen
storage and delivery systems under the existing agreement for the Operation and
Maintenance of Oxygen Generation System. The upgrade involves installation of a new
oxygen supply system utilizing delivered liquid oxygen. This new system is in place and
since May 19, 2012, delivered liquid oxygen is being used instead of the oxygen
generated from the Cryogenic Oxygen Generation Systems for Plant No. 2's secondary
treatment process.
There are some elements of the upgrades, including the painting of the liquid oxygen
storage tank and installation of a cathodic protection system that remain to be
completed. The extension of the agreement would allow for the completion of these
tasks and the project closeout.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
April 2012
A. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and subsequently approve
Amendment No. 6 to extend the agreement with Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc., for Private Operation and Maintenance of Oxygen Generation System at
Plant No. 2, Purchase Order 43063-OB for an additional three (3) month period
beginning May 1, 2012, through July 31, 2012, at the current monthly rate of
$27,411.76; and
Page 1 of 3
B. Amend the December 21, 2011 Board action (Item No. 13) and authorize the
General Manager to competitively bid and subsequently award a contract for
liquid oxygen, Specification C-2011-506BD, to the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder, for a one-year period, from the date of the Notice to Proceed
(thereby rescinding original contract term dates), for a total annual amount not to
exceed $750,000.
December 2011 — Authorize the General Manager to competitively bid and
subsequently award a contract for liquid oxygen, Specification C-2011-506BD, to the
lowest responsible and responsive bidder, for a one-year period, March 1, 2012 through
February 28, 2013, for a total annual amount not to exceed $750,000.
July 2011 — Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and subsequently approve
Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., for Private
Operation and Maintenance of Oxygen Generation System at Plant No. 2, Purchase
Order No. 43063-OB to include the following:
A. Extend the agreement with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for an additional
three (3) month period beginning February 2, 2012, through April 30, 2012, at
the current monthly rate of $27,411.76, and,
B. Authorization for Air Products to refurbish the liquid oxygen storage and delivery
system, for a total amount not to exceed $1 ,300,000; and,
C. Approve a contingency of $260,000 (20%) for the liquid oxygen refurbishment.
January 2010 — Amend the May 20, 2009 Board Minutes, Item No. 10, approving
Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement for Private Operation and Maintenance of Oxygen
Generation System at Plant No. 2 with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., (P.O. 43063-
OB), extending the contract for a two-year period beginning February 2, 2010 to
February 1, 2012, for an annual amount not to exceed $328,941.12.
May 2009 — Approve Amendment No. 4 to extend the contract with Air Products for a
two-year period beginning February 2, 2010.
June 2004 — Approve Amendment No. 3 to extend the contract with Air Products for a
five-year period beginning February 2, 2005 and authorize a sole source rehabilitation
of the spare oxygen generation unit by Air Products for an amount not to exceed
$401 ,000.
June 1997 — Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Private Operation and
Maintenance of Oxygen Generation System at Plant No. 2. This amendment reduced
the operating expenses by $215,000 annually.
August 1989 — Board Resolution No. 89-108. This Board action approved the original
contract.
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Staff's intent was to have these project elements completed; unfortunately, a far more
detailed analysis was needed on the coating and cathodic protection project elements
than originally anticipated. These analyses have been completed and the work is ready
to proceed.
CEQA
N/A
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
N/A
DH:SSB:ysh
Page 3of3
WOODRUFF,SPRADUN&SMART
555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1200
COSTA MESA, CA 92626-7670
(714)558-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hon. Members of the Board of Directors
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Bradley R. Hogin
DATE: August 15, 2012
RE: City of Brea v. State of California—OCSD as Real Party in Interest
Sacramento County Superior Court—Case No. 34-2012-8000-1204
GENERAL COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Counsel to appear and represent the interest of the Orange County
Sanitation District in the matter of City of Brea v. State of California, Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No. 34-2012-8000-1204.
SUMMARY
On June 27, 2012, the California Legislature adopted, and the Governor signed,
Assembly Bill 1484, the redevelopment trailer bill, which makes several substantive and
technical amendments to ABx1 26, the bill enacted in late June 2011 that directed the dissolution
of California redevelopment agencies. These new provisions permit the State to retroactively
reallocate tax increments distributed prior to February 1, 2012 and property tax revenues.
Assembly Bill 1484 requires the County Auditor-Controller to calculate "true-up" payments,
which are residual payments that would have been due to taxing entities by successor agencies of
unneeded funds.
On July 16, 2012, the City of Brea and Successor Agency to the Brea Redevelopment
Agency (collectively, 'Brea") filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court (i) seeking a
writ of mandate compelling the State and Orange County Auditor-Controller not to enforce
certain provisions of Assembly Bill 1484, and (ii) seeking an injunction to restrain Respondents
from enforcing certain provisions of Assembly Bill 1484. On July 27, 2012, Brea served the
Orange County Sanitation District with an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate. The
Sanitation District was named as one of the Real Parties in Interest because the Sanitation
District is an "affected taxing agency" as defined under Health and Safety Code section 33353.2,
is a "taxing entity" under Health and Safety Code section 34171(k), and is entitled to receive
pass-through payments and/or distribution of taxes pursuant to Assembly Bill 1484.
872679.1
STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd.of Dir.
08/22/12 08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
2 6
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: EnerTech Proposal
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Decline Proposal from EnerTech to Enter into a New Agreement for Management of
Biosolids.
SUMMARY
At the regular June meeting, the Board took action to declare EnerTech in default of the
2006 Agreement based on unsuccessful completion of the Interim Technical Plan by the
deadline of June 11, 2012. The Board also directed staff to cease all shipments of
biosolids to EnerTech's Rialto facility pursuant to the 2006 Agreement.
The Board further authorized staff to negotiate terms of a new agreement providing for
continued deliveries to EnerTech at a reduced price. The new agreement was to include
language confirming that neither a new agreement, nor the Orange County Sanitation
District's (Sanitation District) decision to continue to provide biosolids, would in any way
revive the Sanitation District's obligations under the old agreement.
EnerTech met with staff and made a two-pronged proposal for a short-term and long-
term agreement. The short-term agreement would be for a reduced rate while EnerTech
continues to demonstrate and commission the facility. The long-term agreement would
start as soon as the facility is fully commissioned, but no later than two years from the
start of the short-term agreement. While staff would like to see the EnerTech facility
successfully commissioned, the progress to date suggests that EnerTech is not able to
meet the long-term obligations established in the previously terminated contract. Also,
the proposed reduced rate is still well above the Sanitation District's lowest cost option,
land application.
Staff does not recommend accepting EnerTech's proposal and does not recommend
further consideration of resuming shipments of biosolids to EnerTech's Rialto facility at
this time. Staff is not confident that the facility will reliably operate at 600 tons per day
of throughput, and the proposed fee is higher than other options currently available to
the Sanitation District. Staff recommends revisiting the Rialto facility if EnerTech can
successfully commission the facility in the future.
Page 1 of 2
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
June 2012 — Declared EnerTech in default of 2006 Agreement and directed staff to
cease shipments to the Rialto facility and provide notice to EnerTech. Directed staff to
negotiate a new agreement providing for continued shipments without reviving the
Sanitation District's obligations under the old agreement.
March 2012 - Adopted Amendment No. 3 with EnerTech which provides the following
changes to the existing contract: (1) Extends the time for completion of the Interim
Technical Plan from March 13, 2012 to June 11 , 2012 (90 days); (2) Continues the
reduced management fee and accumulation of rebates during the time of extension;
and (3) Provides a mechanism to cease delivery of biosolids to EnerTech immediately
after June 11, 2012 if EnerTech does not successfully complete commissioning of the
facility, as defined.
February 2011 - Adopted Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with EnerTech, implementing
an Interim Technical Plan, which included performance measures to be completed no
later than March 13, 2012. In addition, Amendment No. 2 includes: (1) a reduced fee
provision for diverted biosolids to alterative sties during the period of February 16, 2011
to March 13, 2013; (2) a partial reimbursement provision of past management fees for
diverted biosolids in the amount of $1,047,501 .55; and (3) a partial rebate provision of
future management fees for diverted biosolids.
November 2006 - Adopted Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with EnerTech, increasing
the amount of biosolids from 200 tons to 225 tons, and revising the contract period to 25
years with one (1) five-year option, and to increase cost from $69.40 to $72.40 per ton
(plus other variable costs).
July 2005 - Adopted 10-year Agreement with EnerTech Environmental California, LLC
with four (4) five-year options at an initial cost of $69.40 per ton of biosolids managed.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
CEQA
N/A
BUDGET / DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
The recommended action does not authorize additional budget expenditures.
JH:gc
Page 2 of 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd.of Dir.
08/01/12 08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
2 8
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Assistant General Manager
CIP Project Manager: Pamela Koester
SUBJECT: BALBOA TRUNK SEWER REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. 5-47
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve a contingency increase of $79,540 (10%) to the Professional Design Services
Agreement with AECOM Technical Services for the Balboa Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation,
Project No. 5-47, for a total contingency of $159,280 (20%).
SUMMARY
This project will rehabilitate 11 ,931 feet of 15 to 24-inch diameter sewers and 40
manholes along Newport and Balboa Boulevards on the Balboa Peninsula in Newport
Beach. AECOM Technical Services is providing engineering services for this project.
As the Preliminary Design Report (PDR) was being completed in August 2010, Newport
Beach requested the Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) analyze
several options to replace some of the sewers on the Balboa Penisula instead of
rehabilitating them. Based on additional investigations conducted by the Sanitation
District staff, it has been determined that replacing the existing sewer would not be
necessary. The Sanitation District is now in a position to move forward with the original
project. Due to the schedule delay, AECOM Technical Services needs to verify project
assumptions, schedule, and construction costs in order to move forward with final
design.
It is estimated that the fees required to restart the project and revise the design to meet
current design standards will exceed the available contingency. This additional
contingency approval of $79,640 is being requested to cover the remaining design
effort.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
December 2008 — Approved a Professional Design Services Agreement with AECOM
Technical Services to provide professional design services for the Balboa Trunk Sewer
Rehabiltiation, Project No. 5-47, for an amount not to exceed $796,404; and approved a
contingency of $79,640 (10%).
Page 1 of 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate 11,931 feet of the Balboa Trunk Sewer and
40 manholes along Newport and Balboa Boulevards on the Balboa Peninsula in
Newport Beach. The preliminary design of this project started in March of 2009. The
major tasks asociated with the PDR included preparation of updated sewer plans based
on a new survey; hydraulic analyses of the trunk sewer to determine if surcharging
conditions exist in the trunk sewer that need to be addressed; condition assessment of
existing sewers and manholes; identification of suitable rehabitation techniques; and
preparation of construction costs and schedule. A draft PDR was completed in August
of 2010.
As the PDR was being completed, the City of Newport Beach requested the Sanitation
District consider replacing a specific segment of the Balboa Trunk Sewer due to
potential hydraulic issues in the local sewers that may be caused by the hydraulics of
the Balboa Trunk Sewer. The Sanitation District conducted a more in-depth analysis of
the sewer hydraulics and Newport Beach conducted flow monitoring on specific local
sewers that discharge into the Balboa Trunk Sewer. After reviewing the new data, it
was determined that the Balboa Trunk Sewer is not responsible for local sewer
hydraulic issues. The project is now ready to move forward as originally planned.
Since considerable time has passed since the PDR was completed, verification of
existing conditions is warranted. In addition, the plans and specifications need to be
brought up to current requirements including updated cost information, revised sewer
bypass requirements and design, revised stormwater specifications as well as a review
of specifications that may have been revised since the PDR was prepared. Changes
will also need to be made to the traffic control plans and construction phasing based on
current conditions.
CEQA
This project was included in the 2007 Collections Projects, Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). A Notice of Exemption was filed on June 8, 2010.
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This request complies with authority levels of the Sanitation District's Delegation of
Authority. This item is budgeted and the budget is sufficient for the recommended
action (FY2012-13, Section 8, Page 26).
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
12/3/08 $796,404 $ 79,640 (10%)
8/22/12 $ 79,640 (10%)
$159,280 (20%)
JH:PK:dm:gc
Page 2 of 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
08/01/12 08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
3 9
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Assistant General Manager
Project Manager: Martin Dix
SUBJECT: INTERPLANT GAS LINE REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. J-106
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve a contingency increase of $266,248 (13%) to the construction contract with J.
Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc., for Interplant Gas Line Rehabilitation, Project No. J-106,
for a total contingency of $409,612 (20%)
SUMMARY
This project rehabilitates the Interplant Gas Line (pipeline) by installing a new high
density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) within the pipeline. The pipeline was built to transport
digester gas from Plant No. 1 to the cogeneration equipment located at Plant No. 2
where it would be used to generate electricity to operate portions of the Plant No. 2
facility. This project provides a cost savings by maximizing the use of available digester
gas for energy production, and reduces air quality emissions by limiting the flaring of
excess digester gas.
Since the pipeline transports digester gas, the pipeline falls under the jurisdiction of the
US Department of Transportation (DOT) which develops and enforces gas pipeline
regulations. At the beginning of construction, the Orange County Sanitation District
(Sanitation District) staff discovered that the specified HDPE material was based on an
industry standard, but not the standard used by the DOT. The DOT regulations specify
a thicker pipeline wall than the contract specified pipeline. This change in requirement
translates to a higher pipeline material cost.
A budget increase is not needed to cover the additional contingency request. At the
April 2012 Board meeting, the construction contract for the Interplant Gas Line
Rehabilitation Project was awarded to J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc. for $2,048,060,
which is $991 ,940 less than the budgeted construction amount.
To cover the costs of the thicker pipeline material to meet DOT requirements, staff is
requesting an additional contingency of $266,248 (13%), for a total project contingency
of $409,612 (20%).
Page 1 of 2
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
April, 2012 — Approved Plans and Specifications for Interplant Gas Line Rehabilitation,
Project No. J-106, on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board; approved Addendum
No. 1 to the plans and specifications; received and filed bid tabulation and
recommendation; awarded a construction contract to J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc.
for Interplant Gas Line Rehabilitation, Project No. J-106, for a total amount not to
exceed $2,048,060; and, approved a contingency of $143,364 (7%).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Design Consultant used a pipeline standard that is not allowed by the DOT. During
design, the focus of the rehabilitation project was to ensure the rehabilitation pipeline
meet operating pressure requirements governed by a factor of safety. However, the
DOT pipeline standard derates HDPE material for gas use; therefore, a thicker HDPE
material is needed to achieve the same operating pressure. The project specifications
and particularly the pipeline specification section was reviewed by the design team and
the issue relating to the DOT requirements for the pipeline material was an oversight
that was not recognized until the pipeline construction material submittal was received
from the Contractor.
CEQA
Notice of Exemption was filed on January 19, 2006.
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This request for increase in the project contingency complies with authority levels of the
Sanitation District's Delegation of Authority. This item has been budgeted and the
budget is sufficient for the recommended action (FY2012-13, Section 8, Page 66).
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
04/25/12 $2,048,060 $143,364 (7%)
08/22/12 $266,248 (13%)
Total Contingency $409,612 (20%)
JH:MD:dm:gc
Page 2 of 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
08/01/12 08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
4 10
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Assistant General Manager
CIP Project Manager: Dean Fisher
SUBJECT: CENTRAL GENERATION AUTOMATION, PROJECT NO. J-79-1
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve a budget increase of $97,000 for Central Generation Automation, Project
J-79-1, for a total budget amount of $23,443,000.
SUMMARY
This project installs new control systems for the Central Generation Systems (CGS) at
Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2. The original control systems were
installed 20 years ago and are no longer supported by the original manufacturer. The
construction was substantially completed in November 2011.
The J-79-1 budget also funded Project No. J-79-1A; the installation of Continuous
Emissions Monitoring Systems for each engine in the CGS system, in accordance with
the Southern California Air Quality Management Board regulations. The construction
was substantially completed in September 2009.
The project is being closed out. Additional budget is being requested to cover staff
costs to complete the record documentation and finalize the project.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
In January 2009, the Board approved a contract with Sachs Electric Company for an
amount of $9,252,315 to replace the control systems for the Central Generation
Systems.
In September 2008, the Board approved a contract with the Morrow Meadows
Corporation for an amount of $3,958,700 to install CEMS units on each CGS engine.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
CEQA
N/A
Page 1 of 2
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This request complies with authority levels of the Sanitation District's Delegation of
Authority. This item is budgeted, but the budget is insufficient for the recommended
action (FY 2012-13, Section 8, Page 69). The requested budget increase will be funded
from offsets within the CIP Budget.
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
N/A N/A N/A
JH:DF:dm:gc
Page 2 of 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
08/01/12 08/22/12
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
6 11
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Assistant General Manager
Env. Compliance: Jim Colston, Env. Compliance Manager
SUBJECT: BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION
— TULE RANCH
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
A. Receive and file Statement of Complaint for the Recommendation of Biosolids
Management Contract Award letter dated July 12, 2012 from Terra Renewal West
LLC protesting award to Tule Ranch;
B. Receive and file letter dated July 23, 2012 to Terra Renewal West LLC responding
to the Statement of Complaint; and,
C. Approve a contract with Tule Ranch to manage the Orange County Sanitation
District's biosolids from Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 for land
application and/or landfill disposal (Specification No. S-2011-51313D), for the period
commencing on January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017, with one five-year
renewal option, for the unit price of $54.50 per ton for land application, for a total
annual amount not to exceed $19,000,000.
SUMMARY
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) currently has two biosolids management
contractors providing land application and composting. The land application contract is
scheduled to expire on December 31 , 2012.
OCSD released a Request for Proposals (RFP) on January 31 , 2012 seeking proposals
from qualified professional biosolids management contractors to provide land
application after December 31 , 2012.
A total of six proposals were received on April 17, 2012. The proposals were evaluated
and ranked based on pre-defined scoring for technical and cost considerations in
accordance with OCSD's Resolution No. 07-04, Section 5.07. The firm with the highest
ranking by the staff evaluation panel is Tule Ranch, the current land application
contractor.
Contractor selection was on the agenda for consideration at the June 27, 2012 regular
Board Meeting. The item was continued to the August 1, 2012 Operations Committee
meeting. Questions raised by the Board of Directors at the June 27 meeting are
Page 1 of 12
addressed in the "Additional Information" section of this report. Specifically, the RFP
process, review criteria, and evaluation panel are explained in detail.
Terra Renewal West LLC (Terra Renewal), one of the proposers, sent a Statement of
Complaint letter dated July 12, 2012 regarding the award recommendation. OCSD
reviewed and responded to Terra Renewal's Statement of Complaint and found that the
complaint does not merit a change to the award recommendation.
The proposed contract with Tule Ranch for normal operations would cover
approximately one-third to one-half of OCSD's daily production at the rate of $54.50 per
ton for land application. This price is a reduction of $1 .00 per ton from Tule's current
price of $55.50 per ton. This price is $2.56 per mile for a 25-ton load traveling 530 miles
round trip to Yuma, AZ. This price is below the median of $2.66 per mile for 12
Southern California wastewater agencies surveyed in 2012.
The proposed contract also provides for a failsafe option for landfilling all of OCSD's
biosolids at the rate of $69.00 per ton if unusual circumstances such as severe weather
or other emergency conditions require OCSD to divert all of our biosolids to a landfill
until conditions return to normal.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
June 27, 2012 — Continued approval of a contract to manage OCSD's biosolids to
August 1, 2012 Operations Committee.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OCSD has an existing contract with Tule Ranch for the management of biosolids. The
contract expires at the end of this year. The current contract rate is $55.25 per ton for
land application. Tule Ranch has performed exceptionally well over the life of the
contract.
In January 2012, OCSD issued a Request for Proposals to re-contract the land
application biosolids tonnage. The RFP set forth the process for considering the
proposals. The RFP process awards the contract based on the best value to OCSD
rather than just the lowest price. The RFP explained that best value would be
determined by an evaluation committee of staff experts who would rank the proposals
based on the following criteria:
Criteria
Max
Evaluation Criteria Points
(Weight)
1. Overall Qualification and Experience of Firm — Include 100 pts.
experience working with public agencies, length of experience in (10%)
land applying and landfilling biosolids and stability of firm,
experience and technical competence of subcontractors, if any,
Page 2 of 12
and knowledge of the laws and regulations.
2. Staffing Organization — Include qualifications of staff, particularly 100 pts.
key personnel and Project Manager/Project Lead/Foreman that will (10%)
directly work with OCSD staff.
3. Financial Capabilities — Include Net Worth Capital of the last 100 pts.
three years (Balance Sheets) and if Proponent is now the debtor in (10%)
a bankruptcy case.
4. Work Plan — Include project approach, activities, schedule, project 400 pts.
siting, management system preparedness and conformance, (40%)
contractor diversification, and compliance.
5. Cost and Price 300 pts.
(30%)
Total 1000 pts.
(100%)
In April 2012, OCSD received proposals from six firms in response to the RFP. The
evaluation committee determined that five of the six firms met the minimum acceptable
qualifications set forth in the RFP: (1) Avragro Systems, (2) Nursery Products,
(3) McCarthy Farms, (4) Terra Renewal, and (5) Tule Ranch.
The evaluation committee then ranked the five proposals according to the criteria set
forth in the RFP. After considering the first four criteria — everything except price — the
evaluation committee gave Tule Ranch the highest score of 670 points. McCarthy
Farms received the second highest score of 630 points. The third-ranked firm, Terra
Renewal, received a substantially lower score of 460 points.
Because the scores received by Tule Ranch and McCarthy Farms were very close, staff
initiated the "Best and Final Offer" process as described in the RFP. Pursuant to this
process, OCSD staff invited Tule Ranch and McCarthy Farms to meet with OCSD staff
on May 23rd to obtain clarification and additional information, and to discuss specified
issues. During the meeting with McCarthy Farms, OCSD staff learned that McCarthy
Farms had not finished testing its proposed biosolids management process. Thus,
McCarthy Farms could not provide a firm cost proposal. McCarthy Farms elected at
that time to withdraw from the RFP process.
During the meeting with Tule Ranch, OCSD staff obtained additional information and
negotiated the appropriate formula for calculating the fuel surcharge fee. This fee will
escalate based on the price of diesel fuel.
After conclusion of the RFP process, OCSD staff recommended that the Board approve
a contract with Tule Ranch on the following basic terms:
Page 3 of 12
( Term: January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017, with one five-year renewal
option;
( Price:
o $54.50 per ton for land application in Arizona;
o $69.00 per ton for landfill disposal in Arizona (to be used in emergencies
only);
o $6.00 per ton (hauling only) for Orange County landfill;
o A fuel surcharge fee with an escalator based on the actual price of diesel
fuel; and
o A total annual amount not to exceed $19 million.
The proposed contract would not obligate OCSD to provide any minimum amount of
biosolids to Tule Ranch. OCSD staff anticipates managing roughly 250 tons per day
under the contract. This represents about one-third of OCSD's total production of
biosolids. At the rate of $54.50 per ton, managing 250 tons per day is projected to cost
$13,625 a day, or $4,973,125 per year. The annual "not to exceed" amount of
$19 million represents the cost of managing OCSD's total production of 750 tons per
day in the unlikely event that OCSD suddenly has no other management options
(failsafe back-up capacity required in RFP).
At the Board meeting of June 27t", Terra Renewal submitted a letter objecting to the
proposed award to Tule Ranch based on the fact that Terra Renewal offered a lower
price.
After additional review, staff continues to recommend awarding the contract to Tule
Ranch rather than Terra Renewal, despite the fact that Terra Renewal offers a lower
price, for the following key reasons:
1. This award is not based on the low bid. The RFP appropriately stated that
the contract would be awarded based on best value to OCSD rather than
the lowest price. Price was one factor, but only one factor, to be
considered in the evaluation. Biosolids management is subject to very
close scrutiny by local governments, the press, and the public. In the
past, local governments have banned the land application of biosolids
based on perceived risks to human health and the environment. It is very
important that OCSD's contractors adhere to the highest standards in
managing OCSD's biosolids. Thus, pursuant to the RFP, staff
recommends awarding the contract to the most qualified firm — Tule
Ranch — even though that firm does not offer the lowest price.
Page 4 of 12
2. Tule Ranch is the most qualified by a substantial margin. The evaluation
committee ranked Tule Ranch substantially higher than Terra Renewal —
the committee gave Tule Ranch 670 points, and gave Terra Renewal only
460 points. Tule Ranch scored significantly higher across the board in all
evaluation categories.
3. Terra Renewal substantially overstated the cost difference. Terra
Renewal claims that the Terra Renewal price would save OCSD $6 million
over five years as compared with the Tule Ranch price. This is not
correct. OCSD anticipates sending roughly 250 tons per day under the
proposed contract. Based on 250 tons per day, Terra Renewal's price
would save about $2.1 million over the 5-year life of the contract as
compared with Tule Ranch. To put this figure in perspective, it is 2.1% of
the total amount that OCSD has budgeted for biosolids management
during the five-year period — about $100 million.
4. OCSD staff negotiated with Tule Ranch, and the price is fair and
reasonable. OCSD's experts concluded that the Tule Ranch price is fair
and reasonable based on the market for biosolids management.
Moreover, OCSD staff negotiated the terms of the agreement with Tule
Ranch, obtaining a $1 per ton reduction in the price and a favorable
calculation for the fuel surcharge fee.
5. The process was fair. The RFP process was fair to all proposers. The
evaluation panel consisted of impartial experts from various disciplines
who applied objective criteria. All of the criteria to be applied were set
forth in the RFP. As an added measure, OCSD retained the services of
an outside consultant who specializes in public procurements to ensure
that the process was open and fair.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Why is the Award Based on Best Value Rather than the Lowest Price?
Under state law and OCSD's Purchasing Resolution 07-04, OCSD generally awards
contracts based on either (1) competitive bids, or (2) competitive proposals. Under a
competitive bid process, OCSD awards the contract to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder. The contract is not awarded to the "most qualified" firm. Rather,
the contract is awarded to the lowest bidder that submits a responsive bid and is
deemed to be responsible. The competitive bid approach is generally appropriate for
the procurement of goods and services that are considered to be interchangeable.
OCSD follows a competitive bid process, for example, for the award of public works
construction contracts and most contracts for the purchase of goods and services.
Under a competitive proposal process, in contrast, OCSD awards the contract to the
"most qualified" proposer based on a fair and reasonable price. A competitive proposal
process is generally appropriate for the procurement of goods and services that are not
Page 5 of 12
considered interchangeable. Under a competitive proposal process, OCSD awards the
contract based on the "best value" to OCSD rather than the lowest price. Price is one
factor, but only one factor, that OCSD considers when evaluating competitive proposals.
OCSD follows a competitive proposal process, for example, for professional design
service contracts and for most other types of professional service contracts.
OCSD used a competitive proposal process for the contract here because biosolids
management services are not interchangeable. Moreover, OCSD has a great deal at
stake in ensuring that its biosolids management contractors are the most qualified
available, assuming that the price is fair and reasonable.
Since the late 1990s, local governments, the press, regulators, and the public served
have expressed a variety of concerns about the land application of biosolids in their
communities. These concerns include perceived threats to human health and the
environment and complaints about traffic, odor, and noise. In some cases, a
combination of politics, media attention, and public perception has led to outright bans
on the land application of biosolids.
Of course, the concerns about biosolids management in general, and land application in
particular, are unjustified. Federal, state, and local governments have adopted
regulations designed to eliminate any risks posed by the land application of biosolids.
Moreover, qualified firms have for many years safely managed biosolids throughout
California and Arizona without any threat to the community or the environment.
However, because biosolids management is under close and constant scrutiny, it is very
important that OCSD set and follow the very highest standards in biosolids
management. To that end, OCSD became the first biosolids program in the nation to be
certified by the National Biosolids Partnership. This certification is granted when an
agency demonstrates (via a third-party audit) an effective management system that
complies with a best management standard (similar to ISO 14001) and continuous
improvement among many other criteria. In order to implement and maintain these high
standards, it is very important that OCSD select the most qualified firm that is willing to
perform the services at a fair and reasonable price. That is why OCSD elected to
pursue a competitive proposal process rather than a competitive bid process.
What Scores Did the Evaluation Committee Give to Each Proposal?
OCSD staff appointed an evaluation committee consisting of five OCSD staff members.
The committee evaluated the five proposals according to the first four criteria set forth in
the RFP (all criteria except price).
Criteria
Max
Evaluation Criteria Points
(Weight)
Page 6 of 12
1. Overall Qualification and Experience of Firm — Include 100 pts.
experience working with public agencies, length of experience in (10%)
land applying and landfilling biosolids and stability of firm,
experience and technical competence of subcontractors, if any,
and knowledge of the laws and regulations.
2. Staffing Organization — Include qualifications of staff, particularly 100 pts.
key personnel and Project Manager/Project Lead/Foreman that will (10%)
directly work with the District staff.
3. Financial Capabilities — Include Net Worth Capital of the last 100 pts.
three years (Balance Sheets) and if Proponent is now the debtor in (10%)
a bankruptcy case
4. Work Plan — Include project approach, activities, schedule, project 400 pts.
siting, management system preparedness and conformance, (40%)
contractor diversification, and compliance.
The evaluation committee used a consensus-scoring method in order to foster open
discussion among the panel members about relative strengths and weaknesses of each
proposal. During each meeting, the Procurement Officer directed the panel's attention
to each item in the specifications. The panel considered and discussed one proposal at
a time, comparing the proposal against the specifications. The results of the consensus
scoring are as follows:
S-2011-513BD
CONSENSUS Tule Terra
SCORING Ranch McCarthy Renewal Avragro Nursery Possible
Qualifications 100 100 70 40 20 100
Staffing 90 90 70 40 20 100
Financial
Capabilities 80 80 40 0 20 100
Workplan 400 360 280 160 80 400
Total 670 630 460 240 140 700
The Tule Ranch proposal received the highest score based largely on the following
facts. Tule Ranch:
O Has the closest land application sites in Arizona. Other contractors may need to
travel farther.
O Established a truck-transfer yard in Yuma, Arizona to ensure that drivers comply
with Department of Transportation requirements.
O Has strong financials, based on both working capital and net worth. This allows
Tule Ranch to make ongoing capital investments in trucks, equipment, field
offices, maintenance yards, and land in order to ensure land application in
Page 7 of 12
Arizona is sustainable in the long term. Strong financials also means that Tule
Ranch has the ability to honor an indemnity in favor of OCSD.
O Owns all of the trucks and land application equipment to be used under the
contract — there are no owner-operator subcontractors. Thus, Tule Ranch has a
centralized and documented preventive maintenance program, and OCSD can
easily track training, hauling, regulatory compliance, data collection, and
responses to emergencies.
O Has direct control of all aspects of the operations (hauling, application to field,
incorporation/disking into soil, planting, harvesting, crop yields).
O Provided significant investment to meet OCSD's quality standards and oversight
requirements as set forth in OCSD's certified biosolids program.
O Established a local field office close to land application sites, so that it can
maintain closer oversight and control of field operations and respond more
quickly to any issues of concern.
What is the Cost Difference between Tule Ranch and Terra Renewal?
In their letter submitted at the June 27fh Board Meeting, Terra Renewal claimed that the
cost difference between the Tule Ranch proposal and the Terra Renewal proposal is
$6 million over the five-year life of the contract. This is incorrect.
OCSD anticipates sending 250 tons per day to Tule Ranch under the proposed contract
at a rate of $54.50 per ton. This amounts to a projected cost of about $13,625 per day
or $4,973,125 per year.
Terra Renewal's proposed rate is $49.88 per ton. Thus, Terra Renewal's proposal
would cost $12,470 per day or $4,551,550 per year.
The projected cost difference between the Tule Ranch proposal and the Terra Renewal
proposal, then, is $421 ,575 per year, or $2,107,875 over the five-year life of the
contract. To put this amount in perspective, the differential is 2.1% of the $100 million
total amount that OCSD has budgeted for biosolids management over the next five
years. The evaluation committee considered Tule Ranch's proposal to be the best
value as described above.
How Did Staff Take Price into Consideration?
As set forth in the RFP, the evaluation panel could give each proposal up to 300 points
based on cost. Pursuant to the RFP, cost proposals were submitted separately from
the technical proposals, so that the evaluation committee could consider qualifications
first and then price separately.
After determining that Tule Ranch and McCarthy Farms were the most qualified
vendors, the evaluation committee considered cost for those two firms only. The
Page 8 of 12
following table presents the final scores taking into account cost for Tule Ranch and
McCarthy Farms:
S-2011-
513BD
CONSENSUS McCarthy Tule Terra Avragro Nursery
SCORING Farms Ranch Renewal Systems Farms Possible
Qualifications 100 100 70 40 20 100
Staffing 90 90 70 40 20 100
Financial
Capabilities 80 80 40 0 20 100
Workplan 360 400 280 160 80 400
Subtotal
before Cost 630 670 460 240 140 700
Total Cost
Points based
on formula 300 253 300
TOTAL 930 923 460 240 140 1000
In the judgment of the evaluation panel, the prices proposed by both Tule Ranch and
McCarthy Farms were fair and reasonable based on the current market for biosolids
services. This conclusion was based on expert knowledge of the marketplace, including
a survey of biosolids contracts performed by the Southern California Alliance of Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (SCAP) in 2010 and updated by staff in 2012.
According to the 2010 SCAP survey, the cost for land applying of biosolids ranged from
$30.32 to $55.00 per wet ton. However, the costs do not take into account the distance
that biosolids are hauled for a particular agency. When mileage is taken into account,
using a full truck at 25 tons, the 2010 Cost Range per mile is $2.14-$7.61.
OCSD staff contacted several Southern California wastewater agencies for their current
2012 rates - the cost ranged from $36.00 to $54.50 per wet ton, and the Cost per mile
ranged from $2.11 to $3.29. The proposed contract with Tule Ranch would be at a cost
of $54.50 per wet ton, or $2.56 per mile. Tule's price of $2.56 is below the 2012 median
price of $2.66 per mile (see Attachment-5).
Page 9 of 12
The panel did not assign a price ranking for Terra Renewal, Avragro Systems, or
Nursery Farms because, as explained above, Tule Ranch and McCarthy Farms were
deemed to be the most qualified by a substantial margin. However, even if Terra
Renewal's proposal were given the maximum score of 300 for cost, Terra Renewal
would still be ranked well below Tule Ranch — 760 points for Terra Renewal vs. 923
points for Tule Ranch.
After the Best and Final Offer process was concluded, OCSD staff entered into final
negotiations with Tule Ranch regarding price. As a result of these negotiations, Tule
Ranch agreed to lower its price by $1 per ton, from $55.50 to $54.50 for land
application, and from $70 to $69 per ton for landfill disposal. The savings of $1 per ton
amounts to $91,250 per year, or $456,250 over the five-year life of the contract.
In exchange for the price reduction, OCSD staff agreed to remove the performance
bond requirement. A performance bond covers the cost of a bond company to perform
the work if Tule Ranch does not perform (or the expense involved in issuing another
RFP). Given Tule Ranch's financial strength, and 18-year history of working with
OCSD, it seems very unlikely that Tule Ranch would be unable to perform. Moreover,
OCSD maintains multiple contracts for biosolids management so as not to rely on any
one option.
Was the Process Fair?
Staff strongly believes that the process followed in evaluating the proposals and
recommending award was extremely fair to all of the proposers. OCSD utilizes a
standard RFP format, thus staff followed the process as set forth in the RFP.
The evaluation committee was composed of experts from across the agency who
understand the procurement process and the needs of our biosolids management
program. The committee had five voting members: a project manager, a regulatory
compliance expert, a finance expert, a planning expert, and an operations expert. The
committee also included a non-voting risk management and safety expert. OCSD's
Procurement Officer/Sr. Buyer managed the procurement process and Michael Asner,
an external consultant "Fairness Officer," oversaw the process to ensure fairness within
the process, but neither were voting members.
Each evaluation committee member was responsible for reviewing and evaluating
each of the proposals, compiling lists of questions/issues for submission to the
suppliers, attending Supplier presentations, and delivering input to the process of
scoring and selection. [See attached Biosolids Management Program RFP Evaluation
Guide S-2011-513BD, Feb. 2, 2012] Each evaluation committee member was
required to determine if they had any financial or personal conflicts prior to serving on
the panel. Each evaluation committee member then executed a document certifying
that they did not have any conflicts that prevented them from serving on the panel.
A fairness officer is an independent external consultant with expertise in public
procurement. A fairness officer helps to ensure that the process for awarding contracts
is fair, open, and transparent.
Page 10 of 12
Because of the complexity, cost and historic contentiousness in securing a biosolids
management contractor, OCSD hired Michael Asner to serve as fairness officer. Mr.
Asner is a recognized national expert in procurement and has experience with high
risk RFPs. For the last 20 years, Mr. Asner has provided leadership in ensuring that
public procurement is based on "fair, open, and transparent" competition. He has
acted as a Fairness Officer, developed training programs, and written articles and
guides related to this topic. He has been qualified as an expert witness in public
procurement by the Federal Court in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition, Michael Asner
participated as the "Fairness Officer" for OCSD's previous Biosolids RFP in 2003.
Michael Asner's website, www.rfpmentor.com, contains a link to his resume,
http://www.rfpmentor.com/resume-michael-asner. It also contains a section,
http://www.rfpmentor.com/products, describing his current reference publications,
webinars and training CDs, and is used by more than 5000 public agencies. One of
his products, A Guide to Public Procurement for Elected Officials and Public Sector
Managers, is in wide distribution and is available in both printed and electronic form.
This Guide deals with 26 fundamental questions such as "Are bids and proposals
different?" and "What is the legal framework for procurement?"
Mr. Asner advised and directed the procurement and evaluation team during the RFP
process to ensure that every step could survive public and legal scrutiny. He was
involved at every stage of this RFP process, from RFP development through the
completion of the evaluation process. At the conclusion of his service, Mr. Asner
provided OCSD management a written determination of his findings of the RFP
process, concluding that the process he observed was done in a fair, open, and
transparent manner and has identified this RFP evaluation as exemplary. (See
attached report from Michael Asner Consulting dated June 6, 2012)
CEQA
There is no change to the current operation or management of biosolids proposed by
the awarding of this contract.
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This request complies with authority levels of the Sanitation District's Delegation of
Authority. This item has been budgeted. (Line item: Section 5, Page 6). Project
contingency funds (will or will not) be used for this (type of document, i.e. amendment).
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
08/22/12 $19,000,000 N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Terra Renewal dated July 12, 2012
2. Letter to Terra Renewal dated July 23, 2012
3. Biosolids Management Program RFP Evaluation Guide
Page 11 of 12
4. Report from Michael Asner Consulting dated June 6, 2012
5. Southern California Wastewater Agencies Cost Comparison Table
6. Letters from Terra Renewal dated August 1, 2012
7. Agreement may be viewed online at:
http://www.ocsd.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=13912
JH:JC:jb:gc
Page 12 of 12
Terra Renewal West, LLC
12812 Valley View St, Suite 9
TERRA Garden Grove, California 92845
renewal
July 12, 2012
Chris Yates
Orange County Sanitation District, Purchasing
Senior Buyer
Re: Statement of Complaint for the Recommendation of Biosolids Management
Contract Award
This is Terra Renewal West, LLC's (Terra Renewal) statement of complaint regarding
the Orange County Sanitation District (District) evaluation panel's recommendation to
award a contract for the land application of the District's biosolids to Tule Ranch. We
thank the District for providing us the opportunity to file this statement of complaint.
Given the District and its Request for Proposal documents do not provide a formal protest
process, despite District staff s comments otherwise at the June 27 Board of Director's
meeting, we appreciate the District staff s development of a means for us to protest the
recommendation to award a contract through this statement of complaint process.
In addition to some ambiguity and contradictory information experienced during this
process, this complaint is based on: a)the evaluation panel's failure to consider the cost
of the proposals when evaluating the proposals, which does not comply with
requirements stated in the Request for Proposals' (RFP) "Award of Proposal"provision;
b) the inequitable evaluation process employed by District staff to compare the proposals,
and; c)the District staff s recommendation to waive the selected proponent's requirement
to provide a performance bond in violation the requirements of the RFP.
According to District staff and their Fairness Consultant during our debriefing meeting,
the District received five viable proposals and all five proponents were capable of
executing the services required in the RFP. After completing the proposal evaluation
process, the evaluation panel selected a proposal and recommended their selection be
awarded a contract.
In their evaluation process, the evaluation panel did not consider the pricing of the
proposals when they made their selection, which District staff revealed during the
debriefing meeting. Pricing is a crucial aspect of this proposal, and, after determining
they received five (5)viable proposals, the evaluation panel subjectively decided to not
consider pricing of any of the viable proposals except one. In the RFP's Section 3.3,
"Award of Proposal", it states:
"Award will be made to the Proponent offering the most advantageous proposal
after consideration of all Evaluation Criteria set forth in Section 6."
The RFP's Evaluation Criteria Section 6 lists five criteria that the proposals would be
evaluated under. One of the five criteria is "Cost and Pricing", Section 6.5. The
evaluation panel's decision to not consider pricing when evaluating the proposals does
not comply with the required evaluation criteria set forth in the District's RFP, therefore
failing to follow Section 3.3 of the RFP.
Had the evaluation panel considered the pricing of the proposals as part of the evaluation
process, we feel Terra Renewal would have received the highest point total of the
proposals. Since Terra Renewal's proposed price was the lowest of the viable proposals
by a substantial margin, Terra Renewal would have received 300 points in the pricing
category. We don't know how the evaluation panel would have weighted the pricing had
they evaluated pricing, but we can speculate how the scoring would have occurred. As
an example, the panel could have scored each proposal using the price of the lowest
priced proposal as the bench mark for the other proposals. Then, as a subjective scoring
method we came up with, for each $175,000 per year higher a proponent's price is above
the bench mark price, the panel would deduct 100 points from the 300 possible points in
this category. Using these scoring criteria, the incumbent would have scored 60/300 to
Terra Renewal's 300/300,resulting in Terra Renewal being the highest scoring proponent
(see Table 1).
Table 1. Terra Renewal's Example of Proposal Scoring When Considering Pricing
Terra Renewal Tule Ranch
Consensus Score after 460/700 670/700
Evaluation Phase
Price Score using Terra's 300/300 60/300
subjective scoring
TOTAL 760/1000 730/4 000
In this scenario, Terra Renewal would have submitted the highest scoring proposal. The
$421,000 per year cost saving to the District should be weight heavily in the evaluation
process, in our opinion, as should be the opinion of the District. Especially when the
District says Terra Renewal is viable and Terra Renewal has been performing these
services for the District for the last four years under a subcontract with EnerTech
Environmental. A price differential of$421,000 per year higher than another viable
proposal should be apparent and score very few points in this category. The evaluation
panel's process to assign points in each evaluation category was subjective, and may be
counter to the District's fiduciary duty to the District's ratepayers.
Even though we feel our proposal score would have been highest when considering
pricing, in a subjective proposal evaluation and scoring process, the District is not
required to recommend the highest scoring proposal to the Board. One proposal may
receive higher scores in a subjective evaluation process,but, if the District receives
multiple viable proposals who can execute the services of this contract, the panel should
have recommended the proposal that is most advantageous to the District. A viable
proposal that saves the District$2,100,000 over five years is a transparent benefit to the
Page 2 of 5
District. Nowhere in the RFP does it state that the District is obligated to recommend
awarding a contract to the highest scoring proposal, as the District's Fairness Consultant
stated at the debriefing meeting. The RFP does state the District will make an award
"based on the best interest of OCSD after all factors have been evaluated", and pricing is
one of the most crucial factors in this proposal process.
The evaluation panel failed to act in the best interest of the District by disregarding the
significant saving provided by a viable proponent. Terra Renewal's viable proposal to
the District saves the District at least $2,100,000 over the first five year term of the
contract. By only considering the price of one of the five viable proposals, the evaluation
panel obligated the District to accept whatever the pricing was from that selected
proposal, whether it was $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 higher than another viable proposal.
The panel's decision to disregard pricing was not done in the best interests of the District,
most likely a glaring oversight by staff and the "Fairness Consultant".
In today's tough economic climate, many cities and municipalities are dealing with
financial hardship and some are dealing with potential bankruptcy and bankruptcy. The
evaluation staff s disregard of the prices submitted for these services on a five to ten year
contract managing 90,000— 135,000 tons of biosolids per year is a disservice to the
District's ratepayers.
Another basis of our complaint is the District evaluation panel's inequitable evaluation of
the proposals. Not only did the evaluation panel disregard pricing as part of their
evaluation process, they also used different evaluation methods to score each proposal.
At the debriefing meeting, District staff stated that after they deemed five proposals as
viable. But, the panel decided to interview only two proponents regarding their
proposals. District staff admitted this decision was subjective and they could have
interviewed all five viable proponents. District staff stated that the interviewing process
is a means for the evaluation panel to clarify questions they have of the interviewed
proponent. Once the evaluation panel receives these clarifications, that proponent can
receive higher evaluation scores then originally given before the interview was
conducted. Since the panel did not interview all the proponents including Terra Renewal,
the evaluation scores are based on what we believe to be unequal scoring methods.
We feel our score would have been higher had the evaluation panel included us in the
interview process. The interviewed proponents were given a significant advantage over
the other proponents by being able to clarify any questions the panel may have had
regarding their proposal. This is a clearly an inequitable evaluation process leading to
unequal evaluations of the proposals.
The third basis for our statement of complaint is the District's decision to waive the
requirement for the staff recommended incumbent to provide a performance bond. In a
competitive proposal process, all proponents must follow the requirements established in
the RFP documents. Section 3.18 of District's RFP requires any awarded contractor shall
provide a 100% faithful performance bond, as follows:
Page 3 of 5
3.18. Sureties —Awarded Contractor shall, before entering upon the performance of
this Agreement, furnish bores approved by OCSD's General Counsel it the
amourt of one hundred pervert (.IN ) of total annual coiripersation estin•ateo
to be paid to Contractor, to -Larantee the faithful perforn•arce of the work. This
Contract shall not become effective until such bongs are suppliec. to and
approve. by OCSD. Bores must be issued by a surety authorized by the State
Irsurance Commissioner to do business in California arc must be maintained
throughout the life of the project and during the warranty perioQ.
This is straightforward. During the June 27 Board of Director's meeting, the District's
Environmental Compliance Manager stated the following(this quote was taken from the
District's recording of the Board meeting):
"Tule (the incumbent) has the ability and has offered to have a performance bond
for this contract. In discussions with our General Counsel's office, the decision
was made in the contracting process not to include a performance bond with the
standards with the biosolids contract because of the way we manage risk by
having multiple contractors. So that if one fails, the others can pick it up. That is
the way, in other words, there is some cost to the way we manage currently by
having multiple contractors. So adding that bond on top of that cost just adds us
an unnecessary cost. In other words, if Tule fails to perform the other contractors
pick it up in the mean time and we go back out with another contract and we get a
contract going forward."
If a performance bond was not necessary for this contract, it should have been made clear
during the RFP process. Additionally, allowing a company to avoid providing the
required performance bond does not add a cost to the District, as the District's
Environmental Compliance Manager claimed,because the proposal pricing was based on
a contract that included the cost of providing a performance bond. Waiving this
requirement appears to only benefit the company that is not going to provide a bond
because there is a cost for bonding.
And, providing a letter saying you can get a performance bond doesn't guarantee a
company can provide that bond. The only way to know if a company can provide a
performance bond is requiring the bond before entering into a contract, as the RFP states.
If the company can't provide a bond at that time, their proposal should be deemed non-
responsive. This waiving of a performance bond may provide a company an advantage
over the other companies by establishing a separate set of requirements just for that
company.
Our reasons for filing this statement of complaint are based on the proposal evaluation
and award process. We have omitted detailing our frustration regarding the District
staffs Agenda Report submitted to the Board of Director that lacked transparency and
the inaccurate comments made during the June 27 Board meeting from our statement
since it is does not apply to the RFP process. Based on the requirements in the District's
Request for Proposal document and District staff s statements, the award of proposal for
Page 4 of 5
this contract did not consider all the viable proponents' pricing, as required, the
evaluation process did not treat all viable proposals equally, and waiving the proposal
requirement of providing a performance bond creates an appearance of District
establishing different criteria for different proponents.
The land application of biosolids is not a Professional Services Agreement, like
consulting services, that may require the scrutiny of a proposal process. The District's
decision to issue a RFP for these services adds a tremendous amount of subjectivity to the
awarding process. Subjectivity adds personal opinion into what should be a bid process
where the lowest responsive bidder that meets all of the District's qualifications is
awarded a contract. The District staffs decision to award a contract to the proposal that
had the highest score in a subjective evaluation process opens the door to disagreements
over scoring criteria and the process. As it has been said, with subjective statements,
disagreements can go on forever.
Do to the compromised proposal evaluation and award process, we ask that District staff
recommend awarding a contract to Terra Renewal, the lowest cost viable option to the
District, or cancel this RFP and issue a Request for Bid for these services, where the
District selects the lowest priced responsive bidder.
Sincerely,
Jeff Thurber
General Manager
Terra Renewal West, LLC
Cc: Anne Marie Feery, OCSD Purchasing Supervisor
Page 5 of 5
oJ �V SANIT,�TT� ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
It We protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection,treatment,and recycling.
o ;
fCT/NC THE ENv\PQ�
July 23, 2012
Mr.Jeff Thurber
General Manager
Terra Renewal West, LLC
Serving 12812 Valley View Street, Suite 9
Anaheim Garden Grove, CA 92845
Brea
Buena Park RE: Statement of Complaint for the Recommendation of Biosolids Management
Cypress Contract Award
n Valley
Fullerton The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) received the Statement of Complaint from
en Grove Terra Renewal West, LLC (Terra Renewal) dated July 12, 2012 (Request for Proposal (RFP)
CS-2011-5136D).
Beach
Irvine OCSD Staff has reviewed your Statement and notes that Terra Renewal focuses its complaint
y
La Habra on three areas: (1) Performance Bond, (2) Evaluation Process, and (3) Pricing.
`• La Palma OCSD has included the following in response to Terra Renewal's Statement of Complaint:
_�oa Alamitos
t Beach 1) Performance Bond
L-ange Terra Renewal states that "the District staff's recommendation to waive the
Placentia selected Proposer's requirement to provide a performance bond is in violation of
' Sam Ana the requirements of the RFP."
&&Beach OCSD Response: To ensure performance, all proposers were required to show
Stanton proof of the ability to obtain a performance bond. A performance bond covers the
Tustin cost of a bond company to perform the work if the Contractor does not perform (or
the expenses involved in issuing another RFP). The selected proposer met the RFP
Villa Park requirement concerning the ability to provide a performance bond.
Ybrba Linda
Mesa After the proposer was selected, OCSD and the proposer entered into the
District negotiation process. During those negotiations, it was determined that the bond
yory requirement could be waived based on the selected proposer's financial strength
ryDisdict and successful work history. Moreover, OCSD maintains multiple contracts for
Ranch Biosolids management so as not to rely on any one option, lessening the need for
mu)Fct the performance bond requirement. In exchange for this waiver, OCSD received a
of Orange reduction in price.
Y'
10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7018 (714)962-2411 www.ocsd.com
ksawJad naDw
oft' ti '
Mr.Jeff Thurber
� 9
Terra Renewal West, LLC
July 23, 2012
Page 2
crr�c T„ M``Pa
OCSD did not waive the performance bond requirement included for all proposers
during the evaluation of the proposals. It was during negotiation of the final
contract that OCSD made a business decision to withdraw the bond requirement.
Under the terms of RFP, OCSD has complete discretion to negotiate terms that
OCSD deems are in the best interests of OCSD.
2) Evaluation Process
Terra Renewal states that "Another basis of our complaint is the District evaluation
panel's inequitable evaluation of the proposals . . . . We feel our score would have
been higher had the evaluation panel included us in the interview process. The
interviewed proposers were given a significant advantage over the other proposers
by being able to clarify any questions the panel may have had regarding their
proposal."
OCSD Response: OCSD's RFP interview process is not used to adjust scoring, but
rather to allow the proposers whose scores are most competitive an opportunity to
differentiate themselves from the other proposers being interviewed. After
evaluating and scoring the proposals to determine which proposers would be
interviewed,Terra Renewal scored substantially lower than two other firms.
3) Pricing
Terra Renewal states "In their evaluation process, the evaluation panel did not
consider the pricing of the proposals when they made their selection . . . ."
OCSD Response: Pursuant to the RFP, cost proposals were submitted separately
from the technical proposals, so that the evaluation committee could consider
qualifications first and then price separately.
After determining the two most qualified firms that scored higher than the other
proposers by a substantial margin, the evaluation committee considered the cost
component of the proposals for those two firms. In the judgment of the evaluation
panel, the costs proposed by the top scoring firms were fair and reasonable based
on the current market for Biosolids services. This conclusion was based on expert
knowledge of the marketplace, including a survey of the Biosolids contracts
performed by the Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(SCAP). Moreover, it bears noting that, even if Terra Renewal's proposal were given
the maximum score of 300 for cost, Terra Renewal would still be ranked well below
Tule Ranch—760 points for Terra Renewal vs. 923 points for Tule Ranch.
AN$?41
Mr.Jeff Thurber
f 9
Terra Renewal West, LLC
July 23, 2012
.,: Page 3
M
I,y rM N�`Q,O
In conclusion, OCSD staff strongly believes the process followed in evaluating the proposals
and recommending award was fair to all of the proposers, and the recommended award is
in the best interests of OCSD.
Therefore, based on the information listed above,your complaint is denied.
Sincerely,
James D. Ruth
General Manager
JDR:mrs
cc: Chris Marks; Terra Renewal
EMT
James E. Colston, Environ Compl-Reg Affairs Manager
Bradley R. Hogin, General Counsel
a
2 ,p
Q
¢ n
T�cT iN� THE
Biosolids Management Program
RFP Evaluation Guide
S-2011 -513 B D
Feb. 2 , 2012
Biosolids Management Program
RFP Evaluation Guide
This evaluation Guide provides instructions for the following RFP:
1. Specification No. S-2011-513BD Land Application Recycling and Landfill Disposal
Options for Biosolx{s Management.
Contracts/Purchasing: Chris Yates/Greg Blakeley
Project Manager: Tom Meregillano
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. RFP Objective
2. Evaluation Guide Goal/Purpose
3. Evaluation Guide Deliverables
4. Project Scope
5. Project Strategy and Process Flow
5.1 Overall Evaluation Process
5.2 Project Schedule
6. Project Team Roles and Responsibilities
6.1 Responsibilities for All Team Members
6.2 Evaluation Team
7. RFP Evaluation Ranking Definitions
8. RFP Risks
8.1 Critical Success Factors
8.2 Risks
9. Quality Management
9.1 Lists of Pros, Cons, Issues, Questions
9.2 Evaluation Report
10. Evaluators' Worksheets
10.1 Draft Evaluation Worksheet
10.2 Consensus Scoring
10.3 Consensus Scoring Agreement Form
11. Evaluation Guide Approval
11.1 Approved By
11.2 Reviewed By
12. Attachments
12.1 Online Biosolids RFP Evaluator Instructions
3
1. RFP Objective
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a 2003 Long Range Biosolids
Management Plan (LRBMP), which provided a number of recommendations
for management of biosolids over the next several years.
A key recommendation of this plan is the diversification of biosolids products,
markets and contractors. As part of the continuation of the LRBMP, OCSD has
prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP). We are looking for vendors to propose
solutions which will comply with our policy and provide the needed processing
capacities in timely and cost-effective manner.
2. Evaluation Guide Goal/Purpose
The main purpose of this Guide is to ensure that the evaluation process is fair,
transparent and within the guidelines provided by the Purchasing Department.
The deliverable will be a Recommendation Report indicating the preferred
Contractor and the reasons behind the selection. The results and
recommendations from this evaluation will be presented to OCSD's Board of
Directors for approval.
3. Evaluation Guide Deliverables
As a result of the evaluation procedures described in this Guide,the
evaluation team will deliver the following:
• Recommendations Report — This report will document the
final recommendations that result from the evaluation process. It will
summarize the content of the proposals, key points differentiating each,
and the scoring each achieved related to the specifications outlined in
the RFP. It is anticipated that this document will identify the preferred
Supplier, the main reasons for selecting this Supplier, the current state
of negotiations, and will recommend that we complete negotiations and
award a contract.
• Presentation to OCSD's Board of Directors -The Director of Engineering will
present the RFP Evaluation Recommendations to the OCSD's Board of Directors for
approval.
4
4. Project Scope
• Proponents have been requested to propose solutions in response to the issued RFP.
• As proposals are evaluated, all team members will compile a list of Pros, Cons, Issues,
and Questions related to the proposals.
• All team members will contribute to the final consensus scoring of each Supplier's
proposal.
5. Project Strategy and Process Flow
1
5.1 The Overall Evaluation Process
The evaluation will consist of the follow steps:
i. Each proposal will be reviewed to ensure that all mandatory
requirements have been met. Proposals failing to meet one or more
mandatory requirements will be eliminated from further consideration.
The mandatory proposal requirements are summarized in Attachment
H of the RFP.
ii. Each proponent's Financial Capabilities will be reviewed and scored
by the representative from Finance/Accounting.
iii. The evaluation team will review each proposal and
determine if any clarifications are required. If so,
Proponents will be contacted by OCSD. Discussions may
be conducted with Proponents who submit proposals
determined to be reasonably susceptible of being
selected for award for the purpose of assuring full
understanding of and responsiveness to solicitation
requirements.
iv. The evaluation team will determine a preliminary score
and rating for each proposal using the evaluation
procedures, evaluation criteria and weights described in
Section 5 and 6 of the RFP.
V. Based on the scores,the evaluation team may prepare a
short-list of those proposals which are judged as being
capable of providing an acceptable solution. Evaluation
team may require a visit to a Proponent's site as part of this
process.
vi. The evaluation team will open and score (using a pre-
determined scoring formula) the costs of the shortlisted
5
Proponents. This scoring may or may not further narrow
the shortlist.
vii. The Proponents on the short-list, or all Proponents, may
be required to give a presentation explaining their
proposal and addressing requested clarifications. The
scores will then be finalized.
viii. These Proponents the short-list, or all Proponents, may be
asked to submit Best and Final Offers. (A brief explanation
about Best and Final Offers is contained in Attachment-I.) In
conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of any
information derived from proposals to competing
Proponents. Proposals submitted in response to Best and
Final Offer will be re-assessed using the same evaluation
criteria and scoring mechanisms that were used to score
the original proposals.
This analysis will produce a score for each proposal. Evaluation Team
may then select one or more of the highest scoring proposals for
negotiation of appropriate contract(s). Proposals will be selected in order
of decreasing scores.
5.2 ProjectSchedule
The project schedule may be found on the Sharepoint
Biosolids RFP Workspace
http://sharepoint/workspace/Biosolids%20RFP/default.aspx.
6. Project Team Roles and Responsibilities
6.1 Responsibilities for All Team Members
6.1.1 An evaluation team member plays an active role in the selection of
Contractors.
6.1.2 A n objective process will determine the best overall Proponent for a given
proposal.
6.1.3 Evaluation criteria are items of importance that will be considered when
reviewing the proposals of each Proponent. The evaluation criteria and weights
have been included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents. The detailed
breakdown of how points will be assigned must be set prior to the proposal opening.
6.1.4. During the RFP process, the designated representative from Purchasing is
the ONLY person authorized to release results or communicate with the
Proponent. All requests for further information or clarification must be forwarded to
the Purchasing representative.
6
6.1.5. All proposals and corresponding information are CONFIDENTIAL. This
information is not to be discussed with anyone outside the evaluation team.
6.1.6. An evaluation team member shall understand and abide by the provisions of
OCSD's "Conflict of Interest" policy.
6.1.7. While serving as an evaluation team member, all possible conflicts of interest
will be disclosed promptly to the Purchasing Officer.
6.1.8. The integrity of the RFP process should be beyond reproach.
6.2 Evaluation Team
The Evaluation Team is comprised of six evaluators who will contribute to the
consensus scoring. Chris Yates of OCSD Purchasing/Contracts Division, and
Michael Asner, an external consultant, overlook the process to ensure fairness within
the process. OCSD's outside legal advisors, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, have
contributed to the RFP and will be involved in the contracting process.
Each team member is responsible to review and evaluate each of the proposals,
compile lists of questions/issues for submission to the suppliers, to attend Supplier
presentations, and to deliver input into the process of selection.
7
7. RFP Evaluation Ranking Definitions
7.1 Exceptional (90 to 100)—
o The approach will yield a result that exceeds the Objectives qualitatively.
o The proposal offers an approach or features with little or no risk.
o The response covers areas not originally addressed within the RFP category and
includes additional information and recommendations that would prove both
valuable and beneficial to OCSD.
o This response is considered an excellent approach demonstrating the Proponents
authoritative knowledge and understanding of the project.
7.2 Exceeds Objectives (70 to 89)—
o A very good response that shows experience and knowledge within the
category. The Proponent provides insight into their expertise,knowledge
and understanding of the subject matter.
o The collective approach yields a qualitative benefit to the project that is beyond
the minimum objectives.
o The approach being proposed or the majority of the features are acceptable or
above the objectives set out in the RFP.
o The Proponent can easily implement additional features or options. A minimal
number of resources will be required from OCSD.
7.3 Meets Objectives(50 to 69) —
o The approach or the majority of the features proposed meet the objectives.
o No apparent deficiencies noted. Some items could be improved upon but are
still considered acceptable. To enhance them may require rework and
resources from the Proponent and/or OCSD.
o The ranking should reflect some qualitative achievement(s) such as
acceptable delivery timeframe, end-user training program, etc.
7.4 Fails to Meet Objectives (below 50)-
o The proposed approach or a majority of the features for the item are deficient.
The approach taken is undesirable and correction would require a major and
material change in the proposal.
o The correction of any deficiencies either collectively or individually, poses a
serious problem in correction or has a "domino" effect on the other design
features.
8
8. RFP Risks
8.1 Critical Success Factors
Proponent's Proposal Format —the format of the all proposals should be similar
to make the job of comparison easier. The format has been suggested in the
RFP but we are not assured that all proponents will respond as requested.
Complete Proposal Review —the proposal evaluation team must work diligently to
ensure that they understand the complete content of the proposals. It will not be
appropriate to, for example, read the executive summary and financial
summary and jump to conclusions. A complete and thorough evaluation of all
content is required.
List of Pros, Cons, Issues,and Questions —in reviewing each proposal, all team
members must compile a list of Pros, Cons, Issues, and Questions. This list will
form the basis for discussion in the initial review meeting and when the team
performs consensus scoring. All team members must participate.
Consensus Scoring — The consensus scoring is an essential part of this
process.All team members must participate and understand that this grading will
lead to a recommended supplier.
Schedule —It will be essential for all team members to adhere to the schedule for this
project to be successful.
8.2 Risks
We have hired Michael Asner to assist the Project Team in identifying and
mitigating the major risks associated with this procurement process.
Risk of Litigation — This risk is due to the competitive nature of this project.
What if a Supplier that is not selected calls their lawyer immediately? What can
OCSD do to ensure that we are protected, and that our decision is not
challenged?
• All team members must completely review each proposal;
• All team members must contribute to the list of Pros/Cons/Issues/Questions
in writing;
• All team members must attend review meetings and Supplier
presentations, minutes must be recorded;
• All team members must work diligently towards achieving consensus
scores;
9
• No team members are allowed to communicate in private directly with the
Suppliers until the competition has ended. All communications must go
through Purchasing, or more specifically, Chris Yates, Contracts/
Purchasing, Senior Buyer.
• In the end, OCSD's recommendation must have strong foundation in the
form of a Recommendation Report. There must be compelling and
documented reasons why the Project Team recommends the preferred
supplier.
• If there are any reasons why a team member cannot meet a project
obligation, he or she must inform the project manager as soon as possible.
All team members must obtain permission from their departments to
participate in this evaluation.
Risk of No Adequate Proposals — There is a chance that we receive no
proposals that are deemed appropriate or adequate, for a number of reasons.
What can OCSD do to ensure that we receive a winning proposal? What should
OCSD do in the event that we do not?
• A high quality Request For Proposal document is OCSD's best weapon
against this risk. The proper amount of time and planning has been
devoted to ensure a quality document.
• OCSD should not compromise its objectives. If no suitable solutions or
Suppliers are presented, OCSD should address the process and possibly
re-start.
Risk of Inability to Reach Consensus —There is a slight probability that we
receive a proposal that pleases half of the evaluation group, and another that
pleases the other half. What can OCSD do to ensure that we can get by an
impasse of that sort?
• The Project Manager and Contracts/Purchasing will attempt to facilitate a
process which results in consensus.
• Issues that appear to be "show-stoppers", not allowing
consensus to be reached, will be brought up to the OCSD
Management for resolution.
• All team members must be reasonable and listen to the views of
others. Review the project objectives and goals to stay focused.
A balanced approach to evaluation should allow team members to
reach consensus.
10
9 Quality Management
9.1 Lists of Pros, Cons, Issues,Questions
The Lists of Pros, Cons, Issues, and Questions are
essential to achieving a quality product. These lists should be
prepared by each Evaluator.
9.2 Evaluation Report
The Recommendation Report has to be a well-organized
document that illustrates a fair comparison of the proposals. It
should identify the pros, cons, issues, and questions clearly and
in a well-organized fashion.
It must identify the final consensus scores in a concise, easy to
understand format, make a clear indication of the preferred
supplier, and the main reasons for making the
recommendation.
10. Evaluator's Worksheets
10.1 Draft Evaluation Score Sheet—this worksheet will be used in your first draft
evaluation to discuss your projected scores and comments with the evaluation
team.
10.2 Consensus Scoring—this online worksheet will be used for team scoring. The
online documentation is input by Contracts/Purchasing.
10.3 Consensus Scoring Agreement Form —this signature form provides back-up
documentation that the team is in agreement with the Consensus Scoring.
11 Evaluation Guide Approval
11.1 Approved by: Contracts/Purchasing, Chris Yates, C.P.M., CPPB.
Project Manager,Tom Meregillano
11.2 Reviewed by: Michael AsnerConsulting
12 Attachments
12.1 Attachment 1: Online RFP Evaluator Instructions
11
Michael Asner Consulting
MSuite 2003 Our 28th Year in Business
1028 Barclay St.
Vancouver, BC 1984 — 2012
Canada V6E OB1
June 6, 2012
Marc Dubois
Contracts, Purchasing and Materials Manager
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA
U.S.A. 92708
Dear Marc
I am writing this report in my capacity as Fairness Advisor for OCSD's RFP S-2011-
513BD which was issued on Dec. 13, 2011.
My role on this project was to help OCSD ensure that the RFP process was conducted
in a way that is fair, open and transparent to all interested parties.
This RFP process consisted of a number of distinct steps. Each major step and my
comments on it is described below.
1 . The RFP was prepared by the Procurement Officer, Chris Yates, working with
the Evaluation Committee and stakeholders and released on Dec. 13, 2011.
2. A non-mandatory Pre-Proposal telephone conference was held on Feb. 21,
2012. Vendors could participate by dialing in to the conference call.
3. Questions were received by OCSD and answered via addenda posted to
OCSD's planetbids' web site.
4. Six proposals were received.
• Avagro Systems
• McCarthy Family Farms
• Nursery Products
• Synagro
• Terra Renewal LLC
• Tule Ranch
1
5. The Synagro proposal was disqualified as it failed to satisfy a mandatory
requirement and several of the minimum requirements.
6. The remaining five proposals were reviewed, clarifications were identified and
preliminary scores were assigned to the technical and management sections.
7. During the analysis, the Evaluation Committee identified two issues related to
contracting that required input from OCSD's counsel. A letter was sent to
Counsel. Counsel responded in writing. The issues were resolved to the
satisfaction of Counsel, the Procurement Officer and me.
8. Of the five proposals, three obtained low scores and were eliminated from further
consideration, without any examination of their costing proposals. These firms
were Avagro Systems, Nursery Products, and Terra Renewal LLC.
9. For the two remaining proposals, those from McCarthy Family Farms and Tule
Ranch, the cost proposals were examined and found to be complete and
acceptable.
10.The two highest ranking proposals, McCarthy Family Farms and Tule Ranch,
were sent letters identifying issues requiring clarification and inviting each to
submit clarification letters and to meet with the Evaluation Committee to discuss
its proposal.
11.Meetings were held with Tule Farms on May 23, 2012 and McCarthy Family
Farms on May 24.
12.During the meeting with McCarthy Family Farms, McCarthy Family Farms
acknowledged that it was lacking the required permitting and could not commit to
the prices stated in its proposal. For these reasons, McCarthy Family Farms
asked that it be permitted to withdraw its proposal. This was agreed to by the
Procurement Officer.
13.Notice of Intent to Issue a Contract was sent to Tule Ranch.
This RFP process (with the exception of the approval of the Board to award a contract
to Tule Farms) is now complete. OCSD will provide a debriefing to those unsuccessful
vendors that request one.
I was involved at every stage of this RFP process, from the RFP development phase
through to the completion of the evaluation process. I am satisfied beyond any doubt
that OCSD conducted a process that was rigorous and fair to all interested parties.
During the evaluation phase, OCSD made consistent efforts to develop procedures and
approaches that were designed to avoid giving an unfair advantage to any Respondent,
ensuring that each eligible Respondent was provided the same information on a timely
2
basis. I am also satisfied that the RFP Process was conducted in accordance with the
requirements prescribed in the RFP and with the concurrence of legal Counsel.
If you have any questions that arise from this description, I will be pleased to respond.
Yours truly
Michael Asner Consulting
^"�e �s
Michael Asner
Fairness Advisor
3
Southern California Wastewater Agencies Cost
Comparison (2010 SCAP Survey versus 2012)
2010 SCAP SURVEY COST COMPARISON 2012 COST COMPARISON
Total with Location Approx. Mileage Base Cost Approx. Location Approx.
Agencies Fuel (Round Trip) per Ton Total Miles
2010 Cost Cost 2012 Cost
Per mile (Hauling Per Mile
and
Fuel)
City of L.A. $30.32 Merced, 224 $3.38 $48.50 $48.50 Merced, CA, La 576 $2.11
CA Paz , AZ, and
Yuma AZ
LACSD $37.50 Kern, CA 320 $2.93 $48.00 $48.00 Yuma, AZ 520 $2.31
(Emergency
Contract for
2012-2013
OCSD $49.70 Yuma, AZ 580 $2.14 $54.50 $54.50 Yuma, AZ 532 $2.56
(at
current
fuel rate)
City of N/A N/A N/A NA $47.79 $47.79 Yuma, AZ 444 $2.69
Riverside (Emergency
90 day
Contract)
City of N/A N/A N/A N/A $39.95 $49.95 Yuma, AZ 406 $3.08
Oceanside
City of N/A N/A N/A N/A $49.00 $49.00 Yuma, AZ 468 $2.62
Corona
Eastern $55.00 Yuma, AZ 614 $2.24 $46.50 $46.50 Yuma, AZ 431 $2.70
2010 SCAP SURVEY COST COMPARISON 2012 COST COMPARISON
Total with Location Approx. Mileage Base Cost Approx. Location Approx.
Agencies Fuel (Round Trip) per Ton Total Miles
2010 Cost Cost 2012 Cost
Per mile (Hauling Per Mile
and
Fuel)
Municipal WD
Encina $48.50 N/A 205 $5.91 $47 $51.28 Yuma, AZ 390 $3.29
Wastewater
Authority
San Elijo JPA $42.50 N/A 378 $2.81 $42.45 $42.45 Yuma, AZ 378 $2.81
City of N/A N/A N/A N/A $36.00 $36 Yuma, AZ 370 $2.43
Escondido
Goleta $39.58 Kern, CA 360 $2.75 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sanitary
District
Valley $44.49 AZ 146 $7.61 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sanitary
District
2010 Total 2012 Total
Total Cost Range 2010 SCAP Survey Cost Range 2012 Total Cost Range Cost Range
Per Per
Mile/Median Mile/Median
$2.14-$7.61 / $2.11-$3.29/
$30.32-$55.00 $2.87 $36.00-$54.50 $2.66
r Terra Renewal West, LLC
12812 Valley View St,Suite 9
TERRA Garden Grove,California 92845
renewal
August 1, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board:
The August 1, 2012 Operations Committee Agenda Report Item No. 6 part C is a
recommendation from District staff recommending the approval of a contract with Tule
Ranch to manage OCSD biosolids. District staff details their reason to award a contract
to the selected contractor over Terra Renewal in the Agenda Report. We would like to
address the Agenda Report's reasons for not selecting Terra Renewal.
1. This award in not based on the low bid. We understand this was a proposal
process and not a bidding process. But the proposal scoring process is subjective
which may have led to discrepancies in scoring. A low score in the qualification
section eliminated our price from being considered. All proposal should be
evaluated for all factors of the proposals including price.
District staff states a reason for their selection was that it is important that"OCSD
contractors adhere to the highest standards in managing OCSD's biosolids." If
Terra Renewal did not adhere to the highest standard, why did Terra Renewal
land apply 150,000 of OCSD's biosolids since 2008?
2. Tule Ranch is the most qualified by a substantial margin. Terra Renewal manages
more biosolids than any other company in southern California. We manage the
biosolids for:
o City of Los Angeles
o Los Angeles County Sanitation District
o City of San Diego
o City of Riverside
o City of San Bernardino
o SOCWA
o City of Oceanside
o City of Corona
o City of Colton
o Encina Wastewater Authority
3. Terra Renewal substantially overstated the cost difference. The Agenda Report
misstated our claim that the District would save$6 million by using Terra
Renewal. We clearly stated that if the selected contractor were to manage '/2 of
the District's biosolids over 10 years, our price difference would save the District
$6 million. The Agenda Report wrongly says we claimed the savings were over 5
years.
4. OCSD staff negotiated with Tule Ranch, and the price is fair and reasonable. The
selected contractor's price is above the current market price for biosolids land
application. The District used the land application rates from 2010 for
determining what is considered"fair and reasonable". But since 2010,biosolids
management pricing has decreased without factoring fuel. Tule Ranch submitted
a land application price to the City of Escondido of$36 per ton on May 10,2012.
The current market rate for biosolids land application is $36-$50 per ton.
5. The process was fair. The District continues to claim the process was fair when
they admit that pricing of all proposals was not taken into consideration. And
despite receiving 5 viable proposal, OCSD only interview 2.
In the Agenda Report, OCSD staff recommends the Board approve a contract with Tule
Ranch under basic terms. The following is a comparison Tule Ranch's terms to Terra
Renewal's according to the submitted proposals:
Land Application Price without Bond
Tule Ranch- $54.50 per ton
Terra Renewal - $46.38 per ton
Landfill price
Tule Ranch- $69.00 per ton
Terra Renewal - $67.00 per ton
Hauling only for Orange County landfill
Tule Ranch- $6.00 per ton
Terra Renewal - $6.00 per ton(we would match this price if asked)
As a Orange County Sanitation District ratepayer myself and as a local Orange County
company, we ask you to consider these 4 alternatives: 1) Suspend all decisions until a full
and complete Board is present and can act on this decision 2) direct District staff to send
these services out to bid or 3) cancel the present solicitation and re-solicit proposals which
would be awarded that included all the factors, including price from all proposers,before
making any recommendations. 4)That the contract be awarded to Terra Renewal to
prevent the$2.1 —2.80M additional cost the District would otherwise incur.
Sincerely,
Jeff Thurber
General Manager
Terra Renewal West, LLC
Cesar Garcia
From: Chris Marks [chrisamarks@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday,August 01, 2012 4:12 PM
To: Cesar Garcia
Subject: please print the email
Ladies and Gentlemen of the OCSD Board of Directors:
Terra Renewal West, LLC (Terra Renewal) had drafted a letter for the District's Board of Directors regarding
District staffs recommendation to award a contract to the incumbent contractor for biosolids land application
service. We were going to submit the letter before the next Board of Director's Meeting on August 25
Meeting because District staff told us the Board would only discuss our Statement of Complaint at the
Operation's Committee.
But on Monday afternoon the District posted the Agenda for Wednesday's Operations Committee meeting
and we discovered District staff is trying to get this contract awarded at the Operation Committee meeting
where not all Board members are present. We are concerned that District staff is trying to circumvent the full
Board to get a favorable decision on their recommendation and we have been given little time to address the
Board.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
The District's Agenda Report contains some previously undisclosed information regarding the evaluation
process that make staffs recommendation even more questionable than we originally discovered. The
proposal's scoring results highlight the subjectivity to the proposal process because Terra Renewal manages
more biosolids than the incumbent contractor yet Terra Renewal scored lower in the qualifications section of
the proposal. The Agenda Report states the selected contractor "has the closest land application sites in
Arizona" when Terra Renewal is offered the same farm as the incumbent. Why the exaggeration?
The Agenda Report misrepresents Terra Renewal's previous statements. District states in the Agenda Report
"Terra Renewal claims that the Terra Renewal price would save OCSD$6 million over five years." Terra
Renewal never made that claim. Terra Renewal stated that the District could save$6 million dollars over 10
years based on managing% of the District's volumes. Terra Renewal's volume estimate was based on the
District's own statements in their June 27 Agenda Report.
The Agenda Report confirms District staffs lack of concern regarding costs of this service. District staff state in
the Agenda Report that$2,100,000 "in perspective" is only 2.1%of the amount the District spends on
biosolids management. District staff is down playing the significant savings Terra Renewal has offered the
District. And, with the District removing the requirement of a performance bond,Terra Renewal would have
saved the District$2,800,000 over 5 years, even more than we originally thought. District staff tries to
downplays these savings by saying OCSD has budgeted $100 million for biosolids management. OCSD budget
assumes an average price for biosolids management of$73 per ton. As of today,the District is paying an
average $59.25 per ton for biosolids management from what we could determine. Using today's actual cost of
biosolids management for the District, Terra Renewal would actually save the District 3.4%of the$81 million
cost over the next 5 years.
i
Additidnally, the Agenda Report states the District's proposal process was established to select the best value
for OCSD since OCSD has a great deal at stake. If Terra Renewal's land application services put OCSD at risk,
why has OCSD allowed Terra Renewal to land apply over 150,000 tons of the District's biosolids since 2008, as
has LACSD, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, City of Oceanside,
etc.? Clearly Terra Renewal's land application operations have not threaten the sustainability of OCSD's
biosolids management program over the past four years, and all we will do in our proposal is save the District
up to$2,800,000 over the next 5 years if no performance bond is required.
Given the full Board's questions regarding the approval of this contract and our attached letter that points out
District staff's misleading and contradictory statements to the Board, we ask the Board postpone a decision on
this contract until the next Board of Director's meeting.
If the Board has any questions regarding our letter, please contact our General Manager,Jeff Thurber, at (949)
678-3153, or by email at Jeff.Thurber@TerraRenewal.com.
Chris Marks
Assistant General Manager
Terra Renewal West, LLC
z
MEMO August 1,2012
OCSD General Manager Recommending Board Overpay
$2,800,000 for Biosolids Land Application Services
DISTRICT STAFF MISGUIDED BOARD TO GET THE BOARD TO AGREE TO
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BIOSOLIDS LAND APPLICATION
• Exaggerated proposal scores in subjective proposal process (June 27 Agenda
Report)
• Misinformed Board saying Selected Contractor was the "one viable proposal"
(June 27 Agenda Report)
• Claimed the District has a proposal award protest process although they didn't
(Board of Director's Meeting)
• Misguided Board to say Selected Contractor's site is closest site to OCSD
(Terra Renewal operates at the same farming location) (Operation's Meeting
Agenda)
• Made contradicting statements regarding negotiating a final price(Board of
Director's Meeting and Operation Committee Agenda)
• Made contradicting statements that staff changed proposal scoring as part of
interview process (Debriefing meeting and Response to Statement of
Complaint)
DISTRICT STAFF SELECTION PRICE ABOVE CURRENT MARKET RATE
Selected Contractor's rate with OCSD is above market rate
• Incumbent Contractor bid price for City of Escondido at$36.00 per ton
• Terra Renewal's proposed price to Escondido was $39.67/ton
Market Rate for land application is $36-$50/ton in today's competitive market
DISTRICT STAFF HAS 16 YEAR RELATIONSHIP WITH INCUMBENT
CONTRACTOR(Allowing contract to be amended without going to bid)
Terra Renewal West,LLC
12812 Valley View St,Suite 9
TERRA Garden Grove,California 92845
renewal
August 1,2012
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board:
Terra Renewal West,LLC(Terra Renewal)has made every effort with Orange County
Sanitation District(District) staff to address and expose the flaws that were made in the
process of awarding the District's biosolids land application contract. District staff feels
it is more important that they stick to their flawed process and not admit that any
mistakes in their evaluation process that may have been made than to select a qualified,
viable contractor that can successfully perform these services.
In fact,District staff s response letter to Terra Renewal's Statement of Complaint
confirmed that the District's selection will cost the District at least$2,800,000 over the
next five years if a bond is not required. It appears that District staff has been so intent to
defend their process that they made misleading and contradictory statements in their
Agenda Report to the Board of Directors and at the June 27,2012 Board meeting to
exaggerate the results of their selection process. Because District staff refuses to
reconsider their decision,we are appealing to the Board to either award this contract to
Terra Renewal to realize the $2,800,000 savings for the District, or direct District staff to
send these services out to bid to eliminate the subjectivity of a proposal process so
District staff can select the lowest responsive and viable bidder.
Our appeal to the Board comes in light of the District's letter response to Terra
Renewal's Statement of Complaint. In this letter,District staff makes statements that
seem to contradict the rationale for their selection process of selecting only the highest
scoring proposal. Staff uses the defense of allowing the selected contractor to avoid
providing a performance bond for this contract as a"business decision"by the District,
and states the District has "complete discretion"to act in the"best interests of OCSD."
Now,District staff claim that removing the requirement of a bond led to a reduction in
the selected contractor's price. But it was Terra Renewal's proposal that states, "If
OCSD removes the requirement of providing a faithful performance bond,Terra.Renewal
West can decrease our price by approximately 3%, or approximately$1.50 per ton."
Waiving the bond requirement means Terra Renewal's price would have been$6.12 per
ton less than the selected contractor had they waived the performance bond requirement
for Terra Renewal,a$2,800,000 savings over the District staff's selected contractor
(11% savings).
We reviewed the selected contractor's proposal and the selected contractor made no
statement that they would drop their price had the performance bond requirement been
waived that we could find in their proposal. How is selecting a contractor that costs
$2,800,000 more than another viable and capable company a good"business decision"in
the best interest of the District? And, did the District staff use Terra Renewal's proposal
language to get the selected contractor to drop their price?
The District's letter response to our Statement of Complaint(Response Letter)also seems
to contradict the District's reason for soliciting these services through a proposal process
instead of a bidding process. While explaining that a performance bond is unnecessary,
District staff states"OCSD maintains multiple contracts for Biosolids management so as
not to rely on any one option." District staff made this same comment at the June 27
Board meeting adding that there is no risk if the contractor fails. These comments seem
to reinforce that fact that the District should select the lowest priced viable proponent for
these services since there is no risk if the contractor fails to perform. If there is no risk in
selecting a contractor if they do fail,why would the District pay a higher price for the
same service?
Then, after we asked one staff person from the District how they can justify overpaying
for their biosolids land application services,the staff person responded that the District
requires a lot from their contractors so the District should pay more. This was an
acknowledgement from District staff that they do not think overpaying for land
application services is important. District staff stated that Terra Renewal is a viable and
qualified land application company,and that there is no risk in executing this contract, so
why would the District not select Terra Renewal to save $2,800,000 over the next five
years?
District staff stated that Terra Renewal is a viable and qualified land
application company, and that there is no risk in executing this contract, so
why would the District not select Terra Renewal to save$2,800,000 over the
next five years?
Several other statements in the Response Letter contradict statements made by District
staff regarding the award recommendation since the June 27 Board meeting. These
contradictory or inaccurate statements made by staff in this letter,as well as in the June
27 Agenda Report and debriefing meeting,have shown a pattern by staff to push through
their selection.
Terra Renewal has included the following misleading and inaccurate statements made to
the Board and during the Statement of Complaint Process:
Misleading and Inaccurate Statements
Board Agenda Report
After District staff made their selection for award of this contract,District staff submitted
an Agenda Report to the Board detailing why they made their recommendation. After the
conclusion of the June 27t'Board meeting and the June 28t'debriefing meeting,we
determined there were several misleading and inaccurate statements District staff made to
the Board in the Agenda Report.
One misleading statement in the Agenda Report was regarding the number of viable
proposals the District received. The Agenda Report states "OCSD's evaluation panel
narrowed the proposals to one viable proposal,"and recommended awarding a contract to
the one viable proponent. However, during the Board meeting,the Fairness Consultant,
responding to a question regarding Terra Renewal's viability, stated"Terra,like several
other vendors were viable." When Terra Renewal asked the Fairness Consultant at the
debriefing meeting why the Agenda Report said there was"only one viable proposal",he
responded that the words"one viable proposal"was"not probably the right wording."
He then said that"viable was an inappropriate word to use." By stating that OCSD's
evaluation panel narrowed the proposals to one viable proposal gives the Board the
impression that the District has no other viable option for these services. This is not true
and misleading to the Board. The Fairness Consultant himself stated at the Board
meeting that there are several viable proposals.
Another misleading statement in the Agenda Report was regarding the scoring
comparison of the proposals. The Agenda Report provided a Proposal Evaluation Table
with the Consensus Score of each proposal. The Proposal Evaluation Table shows the
scores of all proponents based on a total of 1000 points. But only the incumbent
contractor's,Tule Ranch, score is actually based on 1000 points since only their
proposal's pricing was considered for evaluation. The other three listed proposals' scores
were based on a scale 700 points since their pricing was not considered(pricing was a
300 point category in the evaluation process). This was not clarified to the Board during
the Board meeting,and was not made clear to Terra Renewal until the debriefing meeting
the day after the Board meeting. District staff provided the Board a table that exaggerates
the scoring difference between the proponents,which gives the appearance that one
proposal scored more than twice the points than any other proposal.
Table 1.Actual Agenda Report Proposal Evaluation Table Comparing Proposal's Scoring
PROPOSAL EVALUATION TABLE
Tule "Terra Avagro Nursery McCarthy
Ranch Renewal Products Fancily
Farms
Consensus 92311000 4=1OW 240t1p00 14W10W
Scare 11Vandrawrt
Ranking 1 2 3 4
Table 2. Table Developed Using Scores of Proposals After the Evaluation Phase (Using
District Provided Information)
Tule Terra Avagro Nursery McCarthy
Ranch Renewal Products Family
Farms
Consensus 670/700 460/700 240/700 140/700 withdrawn
Score
June 27,2012 Board of Director's Meeting
At the June 27 Board meeting, an inaccurate statement was made regarding the District's
protest process. During the Board of Director's meeting,the Board asked staff specific
questions regarding the proposal process. One important question asked by the Board
was if the District had a formal protest process. The District's Environmental
Compliance Manager replied either"yes"or"there is". However, during the debriefing
meeting,District staff admitted that there is no formal protest process in the proposal or
provided by the District. District staff said that the Environmental Compliance Manager
"misspoke"during the Board meeting and staff should have corrected the Environmental
Compliance Manager's statement to the Board. The lack of a formal protest process was
again confirmed via email by District staff to Terra Renewal on June 29.
The staffs inaccurate statement that the District does have a formal protest process was a
crucial statement that appeared to influence several of the Board's members' decision on
whether or not to award a contract to the selected proponent. As you know,Terra
Renewal submitted a letter to the Board at the June 27 Board meeting with the concerns
we saw with the staff s decision to award a contract to the selected proponent. But,as a
Board member pointed out,if there was a formal protest process,Terra Renewal did not
follow that process, and the Board should follow the District's own process by awarding
the contract according to staffs recommendation. That inaccurate statement could have
lead to the award of a contract for these services at the June 27 meeting and the District
would be stuck overpaying for their biosolids land application services for the next 5-10
years.
Letter Response to Terra Renewal's Statement of Complaint
There are other contradictory statements made by District staff in addition to the
contradictory statements made in the District's Statement of Complaint Response Letter
detailed earlier in this letter. When justifying staff s decision to waive the selected
contractor's requirement to provide a performance bond,District staff says "In exchange
for this waiver, OCSD received a reduction in price." However, during the Board
meeting,District staff stated that the District accepted the selected proponent's price as
provided in the proposal, and the District did not negotiate a lower price. Why is District
staff now saying that they received a reduction in price,but in the June 27 Board meeting
they stated no reduction was negotiated?
Another contradictory statement in District's Response Letter was regarding the District's
RFP interview process. The Response Letter states the interview process"is not used to
adjust scoring"of proposals. This contradicts the statements made by District staff
during the debriefing meeting held with Terra Renewal where they stated that the scoring
of the interviewed proponents could be changed based on clarifications they provided
regarding their proposal. If proposal scoring is changed for the interviewed proponents
only and not all viable and qualified proponents are interviewed,the evaluation process is
inequitable.
District's High Cost Justification
In the District's Response letter staff states that the selected contractor's price is"fair and
reasonable based on current market for Biosolids services"based on expert knowledge.
But, according to the latest public procurements for biosolids management over the last
two years,the selected contractor's price is much higher than pricing that even they have
provided to another City on May 10,2012.
Over the last two years, four biosolids management contracts have been awarded by
larger biosolids generators. The current rates for those projects,based on diesel fuel price
of$4.00 per gallon,range between$36.00 per ton and$48.53 per ton(see chart below).
The selected contractor's price of$54.50 per ton is outside that range.
Biosolids Generator Awarded Contractor Rate Per Ton
City of Escondido Tule Ranch $36.00
City of San Bernardino McCarthyFamily Farms $42.00
LACSD—Valencia McCarthyFamily Farms $42.50
City of Colton Terra Renewal $46.30
City of Corona Nursery Products $42.00
OCSD Terra Renewal proposed $48.53
OCSD Tule Ranch proposed $54.50
The District staff did admit they only considered the pricing of the two"most qualified"
proposals instead of all considering the pricing of all the viable and qualified proposals.
This failure to consider pricing has lead to the recommendation of the high priced
contractor. But,as a District staff person told us,the District needs to pay more for their
biosolids services because the District is difficult to deal with. That is an absurd excuse
of why the District would recommend overpaying$2,800,000 of ratepayers money.
Conclusion
The District's decision to use a proposal process to select a contractor for services that
the District themselves acknowledge presents little risk to the District has created a
questionable contractor selection process. The District staff acknowledges they did not
consider the cost of the five viable proposals submitted when making their selection.
This has led to the District staffs selection of a contractor that costs at least$2,800,000
more than Terra Renewal,a contractor that exceeded the proposal objectives according to
the proposal scoring results. As described in this letter, District staff has made numerous
inaccurate and contradictory statements to the Board to justify their proposal process.
This has created the appearance that District staff is willing to overspend for biosolids
land application services instead of admitting mistakes in their evaluation process.
District staff s misleading and contradictory statements has also created an appearance of
bias. Then the District spent money on a"Fairness Consultant"to justify their flawed
proposal evaluation process. This appears to be another waste of the District's money.
With the District's history of hiring consultants for questionable reasons,like the
District's former yoga instructor,the use of the"Fairness Consultant"has only led to a
confusing proposal evaluation process that ignored cost when evaluating proposals and
another waste of the District's money.
The District's Board of Directors duty is to provide oversight of District staff when staff
makes questionable decisions. Staffs decision to select a contractor that costs
$2,800,000 more than another qualified,viable contractor for services that pose little risk
to the District is questionable at the least, and fiscally irresponsible.
As a Orange County Sanitation District ratepayer myself and as a local Orange County
company,we ask that you award this contract to Terra Renewal to save your ratepayers
significant money,or direct staff send these services out to bid,not a RFP, and award a
contract to the lowest responsive bidder.
Sincerely,
Jeff Thurber
General Manager
Terra Renewal West,LLC
Timeline of Tule Ranch Contract with OCSD
December 1996 Start of Agreement-$19.00 per ton
1998 1 year extension
1999 1 year extension
2000 1 year extension
2001 1 year extension
2002 1 year extension-$25.40 per ton
January 2003 Amendment to Agreement#1
Addition of western Arizona for$38.75 per ton and other sites
1 year agreement with 4— 1 year extension options
2004 1 year extension
2005 1 year extension
2006 1 year extension
2007 1 year extension end of Agreement
2008 Amendment to Agreement#2
Increase Arizona rate to $46.80 per ton
1 year agreement with 4— 1 year extension options
2009 1 year extension
Amendment to Agreement#3
Remove Kern County from contract
2010 1 year extension
2011 1 year extension
2012 1 year extension end of Agreement-$54.49 per ton
AGREEMENT FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF BIOSOLIDS — LAND APPLICATION AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL
This Agreement for the Management of Biosolids — Land Application and Landfill
Disposal ("Agreement") is made and entered into, to be effective this day of
by and between:
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT,
a County Sanitation District,
(hereinafter referred to as "District" or"OCSD")
AND
TULE RANCH, of,
Fresno, California, a company, (hereinafter
referred to as "Contractor")
The District and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to herein as each
"Party," and collectively referred to herein as the "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Contractor represents that it has the expertise and qualifications
necessary to perform the Biosolids Management services described in this Agreement in
a highly competent manner. Contractor further represents that it has demonstrated
competence in providing the type of services contemplated by this Agreement.
Contractor acknowledges that District is relying on these representations in entering into
this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, subject to the specific terms and conditions set forth herein,
Contractor desires to enter into this Agreement with District for removal and processing
of the District's dewatered Biosolids; and
WHEREAS, subject to the specific terms and conditions set forth herein,
Contractor and District desire to enter into this Agreement providing for:
(i) the transportation and management of the District's Biosolids in
Yuma County, Arizona;
(ii) the transportation and management of the District's Biosolids to
other sites or facilities as directed by the District; and
(iii) the permitting of the Biosolids Management sites and Contractor's
management of operations with District's Biosolids thereon; and
WHEREAS, District desires to have Contractor beneficially use District's
Biosolids at its permitted use sites for land application or proper disposal of biosolids into
permitted landfills in accordance with the specific terms and conditions set forth herein;
and
872230.2
WHEREAS, Contractor represents that it has valid permits from the State of
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, applicable California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, County Health Services Departments, and any other Federal,
State, Regional and/or local Regulatory Agency as necessary, to operate a program for
beneficial use or disposal of Biosolids. Contractor shall forward to District copies of all
necessary permits secured in respect to said operations, as defined herein. Contractor
has a number of existing sites located in, but not limited to, Arizona, that are permitted
for the management of Biosolids under these permits ("Existing Sites"); and
WHEREAS, the District is working with the Orange County Waste and Recycling
to secure entry into their local Orange County landfills, and Contractor is anticipated to
transport, haul, and deliver Biosolids in amounts determined by the District in the event
this option is implemented; and
WHEREAS, the District is interested in utilizing other sites or facilities as a way to
further diversify its portfolio of Biosolids management options, including, but not limited
to, analyzing the suitability of District Biosolids at different facilities, providing District
Biosolids for research or demonstration facilities, or investigating the suitability of a
facility in meeting District tracking and documentation requirements; therefore, from time
to time, Contractor is anticipated to transport, haul, and deliver Biosolids in amounts
determined by the District to other sites or facilities as directed by the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set
forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions
1.1. Biosolids. Means the primarily organic material removed and digested to
clean municipal waste water or domestic sewage. The District's Biosolids meet the non-
hazardous material standard according to the California Administration Code's
procedures and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Toxic Characteristic
Leaching Procedures test. In addition, Biosolids shall meet the EPA's Pollutant Limits, as
established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 503-Sewage Sludge Regulations
(Table 1) and shall also meet the EPA's Class B Pathogen Reduction and Vector
Attraction Reduction Requirements as stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part
503 Sewage Sludge Regulations. Grit and screenings removed during the wastewater
treatment process shall not constitute Biosolids. Digester cleanings are considered
Biosolids, and may meet Class B requirements.
1.2. Biosolids Management. Means the transporting, accepting, delivery, and
final use or processing of Biosolids in compliance with all applicable legal requirements
under federal, state, and local law, including but not limited to those requirements
defined in the California Public Resources Code section 40192 and the Federal Code of
Regulations 40 CFR, Part 503.
1.3. District's Biosolids. Means Biosolids removed by or generated by the
District during the treatment of municipal waste water or domestic sewage at District
Plants.
872230.2
Section 2. Nature of Agreement.
This Agreement, when fully executed by the Parties, shall constitute a contract
whereby Contractor agrees to remove and transport, or accept delivery of Biosolids from
District's Reclamation Plant No. 1 and/or Treatment Plant No. 2, in quantities as
determined and directed by District. Contractor shall further agree to manage District's
Biosolids via land application and/or landfill at established/approved sites or at other
mutually agreed upon sites and facilities for the beneficial use of Biosolids. In addition,
Contractor agrees to transport, haul, and deliver Biosolids in amounts determined by the
District to other sites or facilities as directed by the District. Contractor hereby agrees to
provide the services and fulfill the requirements requested in the District's Request for
Proposal and Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein,
and Contractor shall provide such services consistent with Contractor's proposal,
attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and incorporated herein, or as directed by the District. In
addition, Contractor shall also have the capability of hauling and managing District's
Biosolids to designated locations as determined by the District and must have excess
capacity of a minimum of 750 wet tons per day to manage up to 100% of the District's
daily Biosolids production as a failsafe provision.
Section 3. Term of Agreement.
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set forth above and shall
continue in full force and effect for a period of five calendar years, beginning January 1,
2013, and ending December 31, 2017, unless the Agreement is: (1) terminated prior to
the original expiration date pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; or (2) renewed
pursuant to this Section 3, except as subject to early termination as provided in Section
4 of this Agreement. This Agreement may be extended for up to one additional five-year
term by mutual consent of both Parties at any time during this Agreement's original term.
The Parties may renegotiate the fees or prices set forth in Section 17 as a condition of
any such extension.
Section 4. Early Termination.
4.1. Grounds for Early Termination. This Agreement may only be terminated
at a time prior to the scheduled termination date set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement,
and any renewal thereof by written notice of termination as follows:
A. By either Party in the event the defaulting Party fails to cure a material
breach of this Agreement within thirty (30) days of receipt of a written notice from the
non-defaulting Party of such material breach.
B. By District upon 90 calendar days written notice to Contractor, where
District has determined, in its sole discretion, that the services of Contractor no longer
meet, or are necessary to meet, the District's Biosolids Management needs. In the
event of termination pursuant to this Section 4, subdivision B, Contractor shall have the
opportunity to consult with the District prior to termination and to submit and negotiate
reasonable contract termination expenses, if any.
Such costs may include, but are not limited to:
872230.2
(i) Costs for services and work performed to the date of termination.
(ii) Costs for completing such tasks or work as may be directed by
District.
(iii) Other costs which are reasonably associated with termination.
C. By either Party, in the event of a Force Majeure, if such condition exists
for thirty (30) days or more. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving notice
in writing in accordance with Section 33. Said notice shall be effective twenty-four (24)
hours after receipt.
D. District may, after giving Contractor (and the surety, if any) fifteen (15)
days' written notice and to the extent permitted by laws and regulations, terminate the
services of Contractor for cause, upon the occurrence of any one or more of the
following events:
(i) If Contractor fails to perform the work in accordance with the
Contract Documents including, but not limited to, failure to provide Biosolids
Management services established under the terms of this Agreement, refusal or inability
to correct significant non-compliance or management system non-conformance findings,
failure to supply sufficient skilled workers, or failure to provide suitable materials or
equipment;
(ii) If Contractor otherwise violates in any substantial way any
provisions of the Agreement; and/or
(iii) If Contractor is adjudicated bankrupt, voluntarily files for
bankruptcy, or makes any assignment for the benefit of creditors, District may terminate
this Agreement by giving the Contractor written notice of termination. The Agreement
shall terminate on the date specified in the notice of termination.
4.2. Effect of Early Termination. Where Contractor's services have been so
terminated by District, as set forth in this Section 4, the termination will not affect any
rights or remedies of District against Contractor then existing or which may thereafter
accrue. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor by District will not release
Contractor from liability.
4.3. Rights Upon Termination. On termination of this Agreement by District for
cause, District and Contractor agree as follows:
(i) All of the records in Contractor's possession pertaining to the
operation of the Project, together with all supplies, equipment, or other items of property
owned by District and in Contractor's possession, shall be immediately delivered to
District.
(ii) Contractor's right to compensation shall immediately cease,
except that Contractor is entitled to compensation for services rendered before the
termination date.
Section 5. Composition of Biosolids.
872230.2
All Biosolids to be removed by Contractor shall be digested wastewater Biosolids
that are processed and dewatered by District to an average of 15 or greater percent
solids. The District produces Class B Biosolids by anaerobically digesting primary and
secondary solids at a temperature of approximately 98°F for greater than 15 days.
The District's Biosolids shall meet the non-hazardous material standard according to the
California Administration Code's procedures and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedures test. In addition, the District's
Biosolids shall meet the EPA's alternative Pollutant Limits, as established in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 503-Sewage Sludge Regulations (Table 1). The District's
Biosolids shall also meet the EPA's Class B Pathogen Reduction and Vector Attraction
Reduction Requirements as stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 503 Sewage
Sludge Regulations.
Section 6. Ownership of Biosolids.
All Biosolids removed from District's premises by Contractor shall become the
property of and the responsibility of Contractor at the time Contractor takes possession
at District's facilities. In the event the Biosolids are transported by District to the
Contractor's sites, or to other mutually agreed upon sites, the Biosolids shall become the
property of and responsibility of Contractor at the time Contractor takes possession at its
designated location. The District maintains strict oversight of these Biosolids throughout
the final use process, up to, but not limited to, post-Iandfilling inspections and crop-
harvesting inspections.
Section 7. Permitting of Biosolids Management Land Application and Landfill
Sites.
On execution of this Agreement, Contractor agrees to comply with the following:
7.1 Contractor shall maintain in effect all necessary licenses, permits and
other approvals legally required in order to perform this Agreement.
7.2. Contractor shall promptly notify the District of any action or proceeding to
cancel, withdraw or modify any license, permit or insurance policy held by Contractor
that is related to the District's Biosolids, and of the cancellation, withdrawal, loss or
modification of any such license, permit, or policy.
7.3. Contractor shall forward to District copies of all new or revised permits
obtained for its existing land application or landfill sites. Prior to commencing operations
at such other locations as may be agreed to, Contractor shall forward to District copies
of all necessary permits secured in respect to said operations, as defined herein.
Contractor shall demonstrate to District upon request that it has obtained and kept
current all required business authorizations, including but not limited to Contractor's
license and corporate status.
Section 8. Scheduled Pickup.
Contractor will at all times have a sufficient number of trucks available for
removal and management of Biosolids produced by the District in accordance with a
872230.2
prearranged, mutually agreed upon time schedule, location, and in conformance with the
Biosolids management system requirements.
Section 9. Inclement Weather.
Contractor shall provide adequate facilities to insure its ability to manage
Biosolids produced by District during inclement weather.
Section 10. Biosolids Management Plan.
The Contractor shall provide the District with a thorough Biosolids Management
Plan (BMP) on the effective date of this Agreement. The BMP shall include, but not be
limited to, a complete description of the Contractor's operations, environmental
monitoring, and incident response plan.
Section 11. Biosolids Contractor Requirements
Contractor shall conform to the District's Biosolids Resolutionand Biosolids
Contractor Requirements, as set forth in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated
herein, which may be amended from time to time without the need to amend this
Agreement. The District shall provide notice to Contractor and a reasonable amount of
time for compliance with any amendments to the District's Biosolids Resolution and
Biosolids Contractor Requirements. Amendments to Exhibit "C" shall be incorporated
herein. Consequences for non-conformance with District requirements include, but are
not limited to, truck and driver lockout, reduction in number of scheduled loads,
withholding of payment, and grounds for early termination of this Agreement.
District's Biosolids Management System includes requirements for Biosolids
Contractors. Currently, conformance with District's Biosolids Contractor Requirements
includes a commitment to the National Biosolids Partnership's Code of Good Practice
and other applicable good practices, procedures for tracking biosolids, reporting and
record keeping, regulatory compliance, proactive maintenance, self-imposed
requirements, public outreach and documentation, participation in audits and any
required corrective actions, corrective and preventive actions for all inspection findings,
training and emergency preparedness plans, and other elements that may have
procedural and cost implications for Contractors.
Pursuant to Section 10, Contractor shall develop and submit a Biosolids
Management Plan, which is consistent with the District's Biosolids Contractor
Requirements, prior to execution of this Agreement.
Section 12. Safety.
Contractor's management may be required to attend periodic safety meetings, as
directed by District, and Contractor shall be responsible for insuring that all District safe
working practices are followed by Contractor's personnel. The District may also require
the Contractor to submit safety records.
Section 13. Force Maieure.
872230.2
Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, neither Contractor nor
District shall be held responsible or liable for failure to meet their respective obligations
under this Agreement, if such failure shall be due to causes beyond the control of the
Party that failed to meet its obligations ("Force Majeure"). Such causes shall be limited,
however, to the following: civil disorder, insurrection or acts of the public enemy, or acts
of a federal or state governmental authority which renders it unlawful to implement this
Agreement. A Party shall immediately notify the other Party in writing of such a
condition. No Party, however, shall be relieved of any obligation or liability if such failure
arises out of such Party's own acts or negligence.
Section 14. Records and Reporting.
Contractor shall keep complete and correct daily records of all Biosolids
Management activities, including, but not limited to, records reflecting the date, quantity,
origin and destination of Biosolids removed, transported, land applied, or landfilled.
Upon request by the District, Contractor shall provide the District timely access to all
such records concerning the management of District's Biosolids, including, but not
limited to, application, planting and harvesting dates, crop yields, and the District may
conduct additional laboratory testing to verify regulatory compliance.
Contractor shall provide the District with a monthly report of activities within 30
days after the end of each month during the term of this Agreement, commencing one
(1) month from the effective date of this Agreement. The report of activities shall
include, but not be limited to, amount of biosolids hauled and managed, environmental
monitoring data, crops planted and harvested, crop yields, if applicable, quantities of
residuals applied, problems encountered, communications log and outreach efforts, and
approved drivers lists. Contractor shall provide District with an annual report of
compliance with 40 CFR Sections 501 and 503 no later than February 12 of the year
following the calendar year of the report.
Section 15. Compliance with Laws.
15.1 Contractor shall assure that all processes utilized at its existing land
application or landfill sites, or other approved sites, specific to this Agreement, shall
comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and
pronouncements including but not limited to the following:
A. All activities shall be conducted in accordance with the rules, regulations,
orders and other requirements, as applicable, set forth by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, State of Arizona, State of California,
and not limited to, State of California Water Resource Control Board, California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, State of California CalRecycle, Air Pollution/Air Quality
Control District, County of Orange, Parts 503 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations ("Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge", respectively),
Arizona Article 10 Biosolids Regulations, and such other regulations as may be
applicable now or in the future;
B. Contractor recognizes that Part 503 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is a self-implementing rule and that activities conducted at its existing land
application or landfill sites must comply with all applicable general requirements,
pollutant limits, management practices, operational standards, monitoring requirements,
872230.2
recordkeeping requirements and reporting requirements of the rule. Contractor shall
provide all information relevant to operations at its existing land application or landfill
sites, which the District may include in completing NPDES or other permit applications or
permit-required reports.
15.2. Contractor shall perform under this Agreement in a safe, competent and
compliant manner.
15.3. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws,
statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, orders, directives, and pronouncements in
performing its obligations under this Agreement.
15.4. Without limiting the foregoing, Contractor shall abide by, and shall cause
its employees and subcontractors to abide by, all applicable health, safety and EPA and
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality rules.
15.5. Contractor shall promptly and fully notify the District of any governmental
action or proceeding to enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance, rule, or governmental
order in connection with the District's Biosolids covered under this Agreement.
15.6. Contractor shall keep fully informed of federal, state and local laws,
ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by Contractor, or
in any way affect the District's Biosolids pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 16. Inspections.
District shall have access to Contractor's existing sites and other sites specific to
this Agreement during normal business hours to conduct inspections of Biosolids
Management and related operations. District shall not be required to give advance
notice of such inspections to Contractor.
Section 17. Compensation.
District shall pay Contractor a Base Land Application Fee plus hauling and
transportation cost of$54.50 per wet ton.
District shall pay Contractor a Base Landfill Tipping Fee plus hauling and
transportation cost of$69.00 per wet ton for Biosolids managed on mutually agreed
upon landfills. In addition, the District shall pay Contractor$6.00 per wet ton to transport
and haul the District's Biosolids to the Orange County Waste and Recycling's Prima
Deshecha Landfill located at 32250 La Pata Avenue, San Juan Capistrano, California.
The District shall pay the Orange County Waste and Recycling's Base Landfill Tipping
Fee as separately negotiated by the District.
District shall pay Contractor a mutually agreed upon Base Fee plus hauling and
transportation cost for Biosolids managed at other mutually agreed upon sites. Such
arrangement shall be in writing, authorized by both parties, without the need to amend
this Agreement.
872230.2
Parties have agreed to a fuel surcharge rate calculation as referenced in Exhibit
"B", attached hereto and incorporated herein, and have agreed that no Consumer Price
Index (CPI) adjustment is applicable to this Contract.
Fuel Surcharge Rate = A (X-Y)
A=Distance Multiplier 1) Kern County =3.0 and 2) Yuma County, AZ = 4.8. Where
Distance multiplier is a factor of approximate total miles (round trip), truck fuel efficiency
(assumes 5.5 m/g to Kern and 6.5 m/g to AZ), and an average of 25 tons per truck load.
X = Monthly average fuel Price per gallon
Y = Monthly average fuel price at the date Contract is executed
The total annual cumulative amount paid for all of the District's Biosolids
Management, inclusive of the services under this Agreementshall not exceed
$19,000,000 or the total annual biosolids management budget per year without the
District's express written approval.
Contractor shall produce all books, records, invoices and receipts demonstrating
the actual costs of regulatory fees. The Base Land Application Fee or Base Landfill
Tipping Fee may be subject to adjustment for cost fluctuations based on the sole
discretion of the District if it is determined that an increase in the payment for Biosolids
Management is necessary in order to compensate the Contractor for reasonable costs
incurred in excess of those contemplated at the time this Agreement is executed.
Consumer Price Index adjustment does not apply in this contract. Rate increases shall
be limited to those documented to be necessary to meet the Contractor's increased
expenses.
Contractor agrees to provide the District with written documentation supporting
its request for any increase in the per ton cost to the District.
All Contractor invoices shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt by District.
Contractor shall keep proper books of record and accounts of all revenues to be
shared with District which shall contain complete and correct entries of all deliveries of
Biosolids. Said books and records shall, upon written request, be made available for
inspection by a duly authorized representative of District.
Section 18. Payment and Invoicing.
District shall pay Contractor bi-weekly for services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement upon receipt of an itemized invoice, in a form acceptable to the District to
enable audit of the charges thereon. Contractor shall e-mail the invoices to the District
to the address provided in Section 34, to the attention of"Accounts Payable."
Section 19. Insurance to be Maintained by Contractor.
Contractor and all subcontractors shall purchase and maintain, throughout the
term of this Agreement and any periods of warranty or extensions, insurance in amounts
872230.2
equal to the requirements set forth in the signed Acknowledgement of Insurance
Requirements (attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D"). Contractor shall
not commence work under this Agreement until all required insurance is obtained in a
form acceptable to the District, nor shall Contractor allow any subcontractor to
commence service pursuant to a subcontract until all insurance required of the
subcontractor has been obtained and submitted to the District. Failure to maintain
required insurance coverage shall result in termination of this Agreement.
Section 20. Default and Remedies.
20.1. Allegation of Default. In the event either Party violates any of the terms or
conditions of this Agreement or fails, in the opinion of the other Party, to satisfactorily
perform its duties under this Agreement, the aggrieved Party shall deliver an Allegation
of Default to the violating Party. The Allegation of Default shall be delivered in the
manner described in Section 33 of this Agreement. After delivery of the Allegation of
Default, the violating Party shall have thirty (30) days within which to cure the alleged
default or to otherwise respond to the Allegations of Default.
20.2. Event of Default. In the event that either Party to this Agreement shall fail
to comply, in any material respect, with any of its obligations, covenants or
responsibilities under this Agreement within 30 days after an Allegation of Default has
been issued, this shall constitute an Event of Default, and the non-defaulting party shall
be entitled to the remedies set forth below in Section 20.3.
20.3. Remedies for Default. In the event of an uncured event of default of any
material provision of this Agreement, a Party shall be permitted to pursue any remedy
available to it at law or equity; provided, however, that a Party shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement only in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 hereof. The
pursuit of any right or remedy by a party shall not be exclusive of its right to pursue any
other remedies available to it. Neither Party shall have any right of set-off against any
amounts owed under this Agreement for damages claimed under this Agreement.
Section 21. District CEQA Compliance.
The District's obligations under this Agreement shall become effective upon the
successful completion of District's review of the proposed activities pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.
(CEQA). District shall have no obligations under this Agreement, and the Agreement
shall have no force and effect, unless and until the District determines, in its sole and
absolute discretion, that District has completed all CEQA review, made appropriate
findings under CEQA as required by law, and finally determined to proceed with the
activities described in this Agreement.
Section 22. Indemnification.
Except as to the negligence or willful misconduct of the District, Contractor shall
indemnify, defend (at Contractor's sole cost and expense and with legal counsel
approved by the District, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), protect and
hold harmless the District and all of District's officers, directors, employees, consultants,
and agents (collectively the "Indemnified Parties"), (a)from and against any claim,
expense, loss, liability, cost, including without limitation, attorney's fees, expert fees, or
872230.2
consultant fees caused by, resulting from or arising out of the failure of the Contractor,
its employees, subcontractors, representatives and products, to comply fully with
applicable federal, state, or local laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, or
governmental directives which regulate the acceptance, handling, storage, processing or
management of the District's Biosolids; (b) from all claims, suits and liability for loss or
damage to any tangible property or persons, including death, caused by any negligent or
willful act of the Contractor, its employees, representatives, subcontractors, or
representatives during the preparation, delivery, acceptance, handling, collection,
storage or management of the District's Biosolids; and (c) from all claims, suits and
liability for personal and environmental injury or harm that results from the preparation,
acceptance, handling, collection, handling, storage or management of the District's
Biosolids created by the acts or omissions of the Contractor. Contractor's
indemnification obligation hereunder shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of
this Agreement until such time as action against the Indemnified Parties for such matter
indemnified hereunder is fully and finally barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Section 23. Duty To Defend.
The duty to defend hereunder is wholly independent of and separate from the
duty to indemnify and such duty to defend shall exist regardless of any ultimate liability
of Contractor. Contractor's obligation to defend shall arise immediately upon
presentation of a Claim by any person if, without regard to the merit of the Claim, such
Claim could potentially result in an obligation to indemnify one or more Indemnified
Parties, and upon written notice of such Claim being provided to Contractor. Payment to
Contractor by any Indemnified Party or the payment or advance of defense costs by any
Indemnified Party shall not be a condition precedent to enforcing such Indemnified
Party's rights to indemnification hereunder. In the event a final judgment, arbitration,
award, order, settlement, or other final resolution expressly determines that the claim did
not arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of the Contractor, to any extent, then the District will reimburse Contractor
for the reasonable costs of defending the Indemnified Parties against such Claims.
Section 24. Attorneys' Fees.
In the event that legal action is commenced by either of the Parties hereto in
connection with this Agreement, the Party prevailing in any such action shall be entitled
to recover from the other Party or Parties, in addition to such other relief as the Court
may grant, all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing Party.
Section 25. Contractor's Status.
It is understood and agreed that the Contractor is, and shall be, acting at all times
as an independent contractor herein, and not as an employee of District. Contractor
shall secure, at its own expense, and be responsible for, any and all payment of
applicable taxes including Social Security (FICA), State Disability Insurance
Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, employee payroll taxes, and any other
payroll deduction for Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees in connection
with the services to be performed under this Agreement. The relationship between the
Parties shall be limited to performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms.
Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, neither Party shall have any responsibility
with respect to the services to be provided or contractual benefits assumed by the other
872230.2
Party. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute either Party a partner,
agent or legal representative of the other Party. No liability or benefits, such as workers
compensation, pension rights or liabilities, or other provisions or liabilities arising out of
or related to a contract for hire or employer/employee relationship, shall arise or accrue
to any Party's agent or employee as a result of this Agreement or the performance
thereto.
Section 26. Successors and Assigns.
The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors,
and assigns. No assignment of this Agreement shall be effective without the prior
written consent of the non-assigning Party.
Section 27. Further Assurances.
Whenever requested by the other Party, each Party shall execute, acknowledge,
and deliver all further conveyances, agreements, confirmations, satisfactions, releases,
powers of attorney, instruments of further assurance, approvals, consents, and all further
instruments and documents as may be necessary, expedient, or proper to complete any
conveyances, transfers, sales, and agreements covered by this Agreement, and to do all
other acts and to execute, acknowledge, and deliver all requested documents to carry
out the intent and purpose of this Agreement.
Section 28. Third-Party Rights.
Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer on any
person, other than the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and
assigns, any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement.
Section 29. Entire Agreement; Modifications in Writing.
All previous negotiations had between the Parties hereto and/or their agents with
respect to this Agreement are merged herein and this Agreement alone fully and
completely expresses the Parties' rights and obligations. This Agreement shall not be
modified in any manner except by an instrument in writing executed by the Parties or
their respective successors in interest.
Section 30. Severability.
Should it be found that any part of this Agreement is unlawful or unenforceable,
such part or parts of this Agreement shall be of no force or effect, and this Agreement
shall be treated as if such part or parts had not been inserted.
Section 31. Interpretation.
Each of the Parties hereby waives any provisions of law to the effect that an
ambiguity in a contract or agreement should be interpreted against the Party that drafted
the contract, agreement, or instrument.
872230.2
Section 32. Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the
State of California.
Section 33. Notice.
Any notice, payment, or instrument required or permitted to be given hereunder
shall be deemed received upon personal delivery, email delivery or upon deposit in the
United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed to the Party
for whom intended as follows:
If to Contractor:
If to District: Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Attention: Contracts Manager
mdubois@ocsd.com
With a copy to: Bradley R. Hogin
General Counsel — OCSD
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
bhogin@wss-law.com
872230.2
Section 34. Authority.
The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referenced herein
on behalf of the Parties each represent and warrant that they have the legal power, right
and actual authority to bind the Parties to the terms and conditions hereof and thereof.
Section 35. Waivers.
No waivers or failure to exercise any right, option or privilege under the terms of
this Agreement on any occasion shall be construed to be a waiver of any other right,
option or privilege on any other occasion.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the
day and year first above written.
"DISTRICT"
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
By
Chair, Board of Directors
By
Clerk of the Board
By
Contracts/Purchasing Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bradley R. Hogin
General Counsel
By
"CONTRACTOR"
By
Its President or authorized designee
872230.2