HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2010 Operations Committee Agenda Packet AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Engineering, Operations & Maintenance, and Technical Services
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
June 2, 2010 — 5:00 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
www.ocsd.com
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
DECLARATION OF QUORUM
PUBLIC COMMENTS
REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR
REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER
• FY 2010-11 Budget
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve the minutes of the May 5, 2010 Operations Committee meeting.
2. Recommend to the Board of Directors to approve a contingency increase of $71,084
(6%) to the Professional Services Design Agreement with Black & Veatch Corporation,
for Power Monitoring and Control Systems, Job No. J-33-3, for a total contingency of
$378,472 (32%).
Operations Committee
June 2, 2010
Page 2
3. Recommend to the Board of Directors to approve Amendment No. 3 to Purchase Order
No. 102907-OB issued to Hampton-Tedder Technical Services providing for Electrical
Acceptance Testing Services for Collection System and Treatment Plant Projects,
Specification No. PSA-2007-003, extending the contract term to June 30, 2011.
4. Recommend to the Board of Directors to: a) Authorize the General Manager to
competitively bid and subsequently award a facility repair contract to the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder for the Plant No. 1 Sunflower Pump Station Auger
and Trough Rehabilitation, Project No. FE08-14-R, for an amount not to exceed
$625,000; and,
b) Approve a contingency of $125,000 (20%).
5. Recommend to the Board of Directors to approve a Sewer Transfer Agreement with
the city of Orange, transferring ownership and associated easement rights for local
sewers in four formerly unincorporated islands known as AD3A and AD6, which have
been annexed by the city of Orange, in a form approved by General Counsel.
6. Recommend to the Board of Directors to approve Amendment No. 1 to the
Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Project Partners, Inc. for Facilities
Records Group Staffing Support, Specification No. CS-2009-408BD, for a time
extension from July 1 , 2010 through December 31, 2010, and decreasing the contract
by $200,000, for a total amount not to exceed $679,000.
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Recommend to the Board of Directors to approve a contingency increase of $115,530
(12%) to the construction contract with LH Engineering Company, Inc., for Temporary
Upgrades to Plant Security Barriers, Job No. J-108, for a total contingency of $259,943
(27%).
8. Recommend to the Board of Directors to: a) Receive and file Recommendation for
Award memorandum for Rehabilitation of the Magnolia Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 3-
58, constituting the Orange County Sanitation District's basis of award pursuant to
Public Contract Code §§ 20785 and 20133;
b) Receive and file letter dated May 4, 2010 from Instituform Technologies, Inc.
protesting award to Kiewit Pacific Company;
c) Receive and file letter dated May 20, 2010 to Instituform Technologies, Inc.
responding to the protest of award;
Operations Committee
June 2, 2010
Page 3
d) Reject award protest filed by Instituform Technologies, Inc.; and,
e) Award a Design-Build Contract Agreement with Kiewit Pacific Company for the
Rehabilitation of the Magnolia Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 3-58, for a firm, fixed price of
$15,190,000; and,
f) Approve a contingency of $1,519,000 (10%).
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
9. Orange County collaborative shore-line bacteria monitoring program.
DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS
CLOSED SESSION
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Committee,
the Chair may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending real estate
negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections
54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted.
Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c)
employee actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure
under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Committee during a permitted closed session
and are not available for public inspection. At such time as the Committee takes final actions on any of these
subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information.
Convene in closed session
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.
Adjournment— The next Operations Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 7,
2010, at 5:00 p.m.
Operations Committee
June 2, 2010
Page 4
Agenda Posting: In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this
agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative offices 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 all, of the members of District's Board, are
available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board, located at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley,
California.
Items Not Posted: In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Committee
for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item or
because there is a need to take immediate action, which need came to the attention of the Committee subsequent
to the posting of agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72
hours prior to the meeting date.
Public Comments: Any member of the public may address the Operations Committee on specific agenda items or
matters of general interest. As determined by the Chair, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken
for discussion and remarks may be limited to three minutes.
Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by
the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b).
Consent Calendar: All matters placed on the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further
explanation, and unless a particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director or
staff member, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted
by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent
calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. The
Committee Chair will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar.
Items Continued: Items may be continued from this meeting without further notice to a Committee meeting held
within five (5)days of this meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(3).
Meeting Adjournment: This meeting may be adjourned to a later time and items of business from this agenda may
be considered at the later meeting by Order of Adjournment and Notice in accordance with Government Code
Section 54955 (posted within 24 hours).
Accommodations for the Disabled: The Board of Directors Meeting Room is 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.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Notice to Committee Members:
For any questions on the agenda or to place any items on the agenda, Committee members should contact the
Committee Chair or Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting.
Committee Chair Troy Edgar (562)431-3538 tedgar@ci.los-alamitos.ca.us
Committee Secretary: Lilia Kovac (714) 593-7124 Ikovac(@ocsd.com
General Manager Jim Ruth (714) 593-7110 Iruth(a�ocsd.com
Assistant General Manager Bob Ghirelli (714) 593-7400 rghirelli(cDocsd.com
Director of Technical Services Ed Torres (714) 593-7080 etorres(Docsd.com
Director of Engineering Jim Herberg (714) 593-7300 jherberg(a�ocsd.com
Director of Operations & Mntnc. Nick Arhontes (714) 593-7210 narhontes(cDocsd.com
:.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10 06/23/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
2
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Director of Engineering
CIP Project Manager: Wendy Sevenandt
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve a contingency increase of $71,084 (6%) to the Professional Services Design
Agreement with Black & Veatch Corporation, for Power Monitoring and Control
Systems, Job No. J-33-3, for a total contingency of $378,472 (32%).
SUMMARY
The Orange County Sanitation District's (Sanitation District) Power Monitoring and
Control Systems, Job No. J-33-3, will install electrical monitoring and control equipment
at Plant No. 1 . These systems will protect the plant from power outage problems and
will reduce recovery time when problems do occur.
Black & Veatch Corporation (Black & Veatch) is providing design and bidding services
for this project, for a total amount not to exceed $1,489,958.
Additional contingency funds are needed for an amendment to provide additional design
services to change the detailed shutdown sequence to reduce risks and construction
costs. A contingency increase of $71,084 (6%) of the original design cost ($1 ,184,736)
is needed for the added work effort for a total project contingency of $378,472 (32%).
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
February 2007 —Approved a Professional Design Services Agreement (PDSA) with
Black & Veatch to provide engineering services for an amount not to exceed $1,184,736
and approved a 20% contingency ($236,947).
June 2009 - Approved a contingency increase of 6% for the design PDSA. Authorized
staff to negotiate a Professional Construction Services Agreement with Black & Veatch
for construction support services.
Form No.DW-102.2 Agenda Report—Board
Revised: 09/01/2009
Page 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The purpose of this project is to provide a Power Monitoring and Control System which
will protect the plants from power outage problems and will reduce the recovery time
when problems do occur. The system will monitor and control the electrical distribution
systems to better utilize our generation capacity during Southern California Edison
power outages which will reduce the potential of spills. The system will provide
increased safety to electrical maintenance staff by allowing operation of medium voltage
and low voltage circuit breakers from a remote location.
This contingency increase will provide for additional design work, including revisions to
the contract documents to resequence power shutdown and programming to reduce the
construction costs. The design initially required the contractor to provide temporary
power for each of the many electrical shutdowns. After further detailed field
investigation, it was decided to have staff control the power feeds to allow outages for
construction while keeping critical processes and equipment running. In addition, it was
decided to have staff procure and configure additional software for the project instead of
the contractor.
The contingency for design is greater for this project because this type of project with
the complex array of software, hardware, and configuration components. Additional
changes occur as the project is defined and construction means and methods are
evaluated to improve the project. The extra design work will create clearer contract
documents lowering the potential change orders during construction.
CEQA
Notice of Exemption filed on November 30, 2007.
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 (FY 2009-10
Budget Update: Item 90, Page A-11) and the budget is sufficient for the recommended
action.
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
02/28/07 $1,184,736 $236,947(20%)
06/24/09 $ 70,441 (6%)
06/23/10 $ 71,084 (6%)
$378,472 (32%) Total
JH:WS:cb:eh:gc
http://sharepoint/gm/board/Agenda Report Form Library/Item 02.J-33-3 Contingency Increase 060210.docx
Form No.DW-102.2 Agenda Report—Board
Revised: 09/01/2009
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10 06/23/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
3
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Director of Engineering
Project Manager: Terry Krie
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment No. 3 to Purchase Order No. 102907-OB issued to Hampton-
Tedder Technical Services providing for Electrical Acceptance Testing Services for
Collection System and Treatment Plant Projects, Specification No. PSA-2007-003,
extending the contract term to June 30, 2011.
SUMMARY
The Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) utilizes outside firms for
electrical system testing services in support of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects
during the construction of facilities both inside the plants and for pump stations.
The term of the current agreement ends on June 30, 2010. In the past, the Sanitation
District has provided electrical acceptance testing for CIP projects. Contractor
commissioning schedules often change and it can be difficult to schedule the testing
services to support the projects. Contract requirements on new projects have been
revised to require these testing services to be provided by the contractor. This
amendment is necessary to support remaining contracts where the Sanitation District is
required to provide these services and the associated coordination responsibilities.
This amendment will extend the agreement for an additional one-year period with no
change to the existing contract amount.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
March 25, 2009 - Approved Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the Professional Services
Agreement with Hampton-Tedder Technical Services for an additional $400,000 with a
contingency amount of $24,000, for an amount not to exceed $800,000.
May 23, 2007 - Approved Professional Services Agreements with Hampton-Tedder
Technical Services providing for on-call electrical system testing services supporting
CIP projects, Specification No. PSA-2007-003, for a three-year period for an amount not
to exceed $400,000.
Form No.DW-102.2 Revised: 01/11/2010
Page 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The current contract has sufficient funds authorized to complete the work but expires
June 30, 2010. This amendment will extend the contract through June 30, 2011. The
specific projects this will be used to complete include: Replacement of Bitter Point Pump
Station, Contract No. 5-49; Replacement of Rocky Point Pump Station, Contract
No. 5-50; Plant No. 2 Headworks Replacement, Job No. P2-66; and several smaller
projects requiring this electrical equipment testing.
The electrical testing on these projects is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2011.
CEQA
N/A
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This Professional Services Agreement complies with the authority levels of the
Sanitation District's Delegation of Authority. These funds are included in the individual
project budgets that require these services.
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
05/23/07 $400,000 N/A
03/25/09 $150,000 N/A
03/25/09 $250,000 $24,000 (3%)
JH:TK:eh:cb:gc:cb
H:\ntglobal\Agenda Draft Reports\Operations\PSA2007-003 Electrical Services PSA Amend 3 Hampton Tedder- 060210.docx
Form No.DW-102.2 Revised: 01/11/2010
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To
06/02/10 06/26/23/10/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
4
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Director of Engineering
Project Manager: Steve Speakman
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the General Manager to competitively bid and subsequently award a
facility repair contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Plant
No. 1 Sunflower Pump Station Auger and Trough Rehabilitation, Project
No. FE08-14-R, for an amount not to exceed $625,000; and,
2. Approve a contingency of $125,000 (20%).
SUMMARY
The Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) operates the Sunflower
Pump Station to bring wastewater into Plant No. 1.
While the Sanitation District maintenance staff was replacing the pump gear drives on
one of the two Sunflower pumps, staff discovered that the coating system on the steel
pump augers and pump troughs had failed. Discovering the failure, staff performed a
detailed inspection on both pumps and found the coating systems had failed on both
pumps.
The repair work will take several months and must be completed before the next rainy
season. In order to complete the repairs by October, we need to start work in early
July. The Sanitation District's normal procedures would not provide for completing the
work prior to the rainy season.
Staff considered two options that are allowed by District policy: declaring an emergency
or obtaining Board authority for the General Manager to make the award. Authorizing
the General Manager to award the Contract provides for competitive bids while meeting
a time-sensitive deadline. Therefore staff is recommending the General Manger be
authorized to competitively bid and award a contract.
The maintenance repairs are estimated between $550,000 and $625,000.
Form No.DW-102 Revised:01/11/10
Page 1
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
N/A
CEQA
None required; this is a maintenance repair on existing district plant facilities.
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This request complies with authority levels of the Sanitation District's Delegation of
Authority. This item has been budgeted. (FY 2009-10 Budget Update: Line item:
SP-34, A-11 and 2010-11 Budget Line item: SP-34, Section 8, Page 113).
Date of Approval Contract Amount Continaencv
06/23/10 $625,000 $125,000 (20%)
JDH:SS:an:gc
http://sharepoint/gm/board/Agenda Report Form Library/Item 04.FE08-14-R.docx
Form No.DW-102 Revised:01/11/10
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10 06/23/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
5
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Nick Arhontes, Director of Operations and Maintenance
Project Manager: Ann Crafton, Principal Financial Analyst
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Sewer Transfer Agreement with the city of Orange, transferring ownership
and associated easement rights for local sewers in four formerly unincorporated islands
known as AD3A and AD6, which have been annexed by the city of Orange, in a form
approved by General Counsel.
SUMMARY
Over the years, the city of Orange has annexed some of the contiguous unincorporated
islands within their sphere of influence into the City. When the annexations occurred,
following LAFCO's process, the local sewers were not included in the annexations and
ownership of the local sewers were never transferred. The city of Orange has
requested the transfer of ownership of the local sewers in these four formerly
unincorporated islands.
The assets to be transferred consist of 92 manholes and 93 separate sewer pipeline
segments between manholes, comprising a total of 23,283 linear feet of gravity sewer
pipes, all of which are vitrified clay pipe and 8-inches in diameter. This transfer
agreement frees up Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Operations &
Maintenance, Engineering and Finance staff to focus more time and resources on the
regional sewer system and allows a local city to provide local services. Transferring
local assets to local service providers is an element of OCSD's strategic plan. This also
helps eliminate regional sewer fees subsidizing facilities providing only local services.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
December 2009 — Five-Year Strategic Plan, Business Principles Goal #7 Local Sewer
Services — Implement the Board's four recommendations based on the findings of
staff's revenue adequacy report. Continue to seek an asset transfer to other agencies.
Also transfer other local assets back to cities that are not serving a true regional
purpose.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
Form No.DW-102.2 Revised: 01/11/2010
Pagel
CEQA
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
Form No.DW-102.2 Revised: 01/11/2010
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10 06/23/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
6
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Director of Engineering
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with
Project Partners, Inc. for Facilities Records Group Staffing Support, Specification
No. CS-2009-408BD, for a time extension from July 1 , 2010 through December 31,
2010, and decreasing the contract by $200,000, for a total amount not to exceed
$679,000.
SUMMARY
The Engineering Department Asset Management Division is in charge of receiving,
validating, and maintaining the electronic facility records generated for completing
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. These records include engineering
drawings and databases, specifications, and sewer system and treatment plant atlas
maps.
Staff uses record drawings for completed projects, which are obtained from Contractors
and Consultants, to update the official facility records. These records include all the
constructed facilities owned by the Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation
District) and must be kept up-to-date to safely maintain and operate the treatment plants
and sewers, and provide accurate information for future rehabilitation and improvement
designs.
In July 2009, the Board approved the Professional Consultant Services Agreement
(PCSA) with Project Partners, Inc. for Facilities Records Group Staffing Support,
Specification No. CS-2009-408BD, for an amount not to exceed $879,000 for the period
through June 30, 2010.
To date, $367,900 of the original contract authorization amount of $879,000 has been
spent. This amounts to 42% of the original contract total. Staff projects expending
$429,000 through June 30, 2010.
Additional staffing is needed through December 31, 2010, at an estimated cost of
$250,000, for a total contract amount of $679,000, which is $200,000 less than the
current contract amount.
Form No.DW-102-2 Revised 03/01/07
Page 1
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
July 2009 - Approved the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Project
Partners, Inc. for Facilities Records Group Staffing Support, Specification
No. CS-2009-40813D, for an amount not to exceed $879,000 for the period through
June 30, 2010.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the anticipated workload for updating our electronic records
to include completed CIP projects will require an estimated three additional staff.
Staff recommends approval of the extension of PCSA with Project Partners, Inc.
through December 31, 2010, and a contract decrease of $200,000 from the original
agreement amount, for an amount not to exceed $679,000.
CEQA
N/A
BUDGET/DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
This request complies with authority levels of the Sanitation District's Delegation of
Authority. This item has been budgeted.
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
07/22/09 $879,000 N/A
06/23/10 20( 8,000) N/A
$679,000 N/A
JFS:sa:gc
http://sharepoint/gm/board/Agenda Report Form Library/Item 06.CS-2009-408BD.docx
Form No.DW-102-2 Revised 03/01/07
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10 06/23/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Director of Engineering
Project Manager: Victoria Pilko
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Approve a contingency increase of $115,530 (12%) to the construction contract with
LH Engineering Company, Inc., for Temporary Upgrades to Plant Security Barriers,
Job No. J-108, for a total contingency of $259,943 (27%).
SUMMARY
This project provides a new 1 ,300 foot long, 8 foot tall masonry block wall along the
north perimeter of Reclamation Plant No. 1, and other appurtenances including
improved signage and drought-tolerant landscaping.
There have been significant additional costs incurred on this project due to unknown
subsurface differing site conditions, requiring relocation of unknown utilities and footing
design changes due to soil conditions.
The project is 30% complete and in order to be able to cover any further unexpected
field conditions or interferences, staff has determined that the current approved
contingency is inadequate and requests an additional contingency of$115,530 (12%),
for a total project contingency of $259,943 (27%).
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
December, 2009 —Awarded a contract to LH Engineering Company, Inc., for the
construction of the Temporary Upgrades to Plant Security Barriers, Job No. J-108, for
an amount not to exceed $962,751 , and approved contingency of $144,413 (15%).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The project was awarded on December 16, 2009. Notice to Proceed was issued to the
contractor on January 26, 2010.
Form No.DW-102-2 Revised 08/15/08
Page 1
The project is currently projected to expend the contingency approved in December
2009. Several unknown and deteriorated utilities have been discovered that require
relocation and/or repair. In addition, during the final review of the structural calculations
by the City of Fountain Valley during the contractor permitting process, it was noted that
the existing soils report may not be extensive enough to represent the structural design
calculations for the entire length of the footing. The Orange County Sanitation District
(Sanitation District) staff requested an additional soils investigation to verify existing soil
conditions which subsequently led to a change to increase the size of the wall footing.
CEQA
This project was determined to be categorically exempt in accordance with Section
15301 (b). A Notice of Exemption was filed on August 24, 2007.
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 (FY 2010-11
Project J-108 CIP Budget Line Item) and the budget is sufficient for the recommended
action.
Date of Approval Contract Amount Continaencv
12/16/09 $962,751 $144,413 (15%)
06/23/10 $115,530 (12%)
$259,943 (27%)Total
JH:VP:eh:gc
http://sharepoint/gm/board/Agenda Report Form Library/J-108 Contingency increase 062310.docx
Form No.DW-102-2 Revised 08/15/08
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10 06/23/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
s
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Jim Herberg, Director of Engineering
CIP Project Manager: Alberto Acevedo
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive and file Recommendation for Award memorandum for Rehabilitation of the
Magnolia Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 3-58, constituting the Orange County
Sanitation District's basis of award pursuant to Public Contract Code §§ 20785 and
20133;
2. Receive and file letter dated May 4, 2010 from Instituform Technologies, Inc.
protesting award to Kiewit Pacific Company;
3. Receive and file letter dated May 20, 2010 to Instituform Technologies, Inc.
responding to the protest of award;
4. Reject award protest filed by Instituform Technologies, Inc.; and,
5. Award a Design-Build Contract Agreement with Kiewit Pacific Company for the
Rehabilitation of the Magnolia Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 3-58, for a firm, fixed price
of $15,190,000; and,
6. Approve a contingency of $1,519,000 (10%).
SUMMARY
This project will completely rehabilitate the lower reaches of the Magnolia Trunk Sewer,
consisting of approximately five miles of 48-inch and 78-inch diameter PVC-lined
reinforced concrete pipe including 30 manholes and a 36-inch diameter siphon facility.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code § 20785, the Orange County Sanitation District
(Sanitation District) is authorized to issue a Design-Build contract.
Based on a qualifications review process, five Design-Build firms were qualified to
receive a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide Design-Build services for Contract
No. 3-58. The five prequalified Design-Build firms were:
Insituform Technologies, Inc.
Kiewit Pacific Company
SAK Construction of CA LP
Spiniello Companies
Steve Bubalo Construction Co.
Form No.DW-102.2 Agenda Report—Board
Revised: 09/01/2009
Page 1
In November 2009, an RFP was sent to the five prequalified firms listed above and five
proposals were received on February 16, 2010.
The proposals were evaluated based on pre-defined scoring for technical and cost
considerations. The Design-Build firm with the highest score, representing the overall
best value, is Kiewit Pacific Company.
Insituform Technologies, Inc. sent a formal protest of the award to the Sanitation District
following the evaluation. The Sanitation District reviewed and responded to this protest
and the protest does not merit a change to the award recommendation.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
September 2009 - Authorized the General Manager to issue an RFP for Design-Build
firm services to the five most qualified firms and authorized the General Manager to
negotiate Rehabilitation of Magnolia Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 3-58, a Design-Build
Contract Agreement with the Design-Build firm providing "best value," as defined by the
Public Contract Code, to be awarded by the Board of Directors at a future meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The proposals were ranked by an Evaluation Team of six members to determine the
proposal that provided the best value to the Sanitation District. Proposal scoring was
performed in a two step process. The first step evaluated and scored the technical
proposals and the second step evaluated and scored the cost proposals.
The first step of the evaluation of the proposals started on February 17, 2010, and was
completed on March 11 , 2010, and included the following:
1. The Evaluation Team reviewed the technical proposals and established a
preliminary scoring.
2. The Evaluation Team conducted interviews to obtain a better understanding of the
technical proposals and to clarify some of the technical aspects. The interviews
were conducted on March 9 and 10, 2010.
3. The Evaluation Team finalized their scoring of the technical portion.
A summary of the scoring of individual categories is attached for information. Kiewit
Pacific scored the highest in every major technical category, including having the best
construction approach, construction risk mitigation plan, and best safety record.
The second step consisted of the Evaluation Team opening and scoring the separate
cost proposals. Final ranking of the proposals was completed by adding the scoring of
the technical and cost portions of the proposals. Final scoring was completed in
accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The final score was calculated using a
weight scale of 50% on the technical portion and 50% on the cost portion.
Form No.DW-102.2 Agenda Report—Board
Revised: 09/01/2009
Page 2
Final evaluation was completed on March 22, 2010. The Evaluation Team prepared an
Award Recommendation Memorandum to recommend the award based on the Design-
Build firm proposal that provided the best value.
The results of the ranking process are summarized below:
Design-Build firm Tech. Score Cost Score Final Score Ranking
Kiewit Pacific Company 2,593 2,814 5,407 1
Steve Bubalo Construction Co. 2,298 2,826 5,124 2
SAK Construction of CA LP 2,287 2,634 4,921 3
Insituform Technologies, Inc. 2,251 2,634 4,885 4
Spiniello Companies 2,047 1,920 3,967 5
Kiewit Pacific is the recommended design-build firm based on overall scoring. Their
proposed firm, fixed price is $15,190,000. The Engineer's estimate for this work is
$14,000,000 - $20,000,000.
On May 4, 2010, Insituform Technologies sent a formal protest of the award. There
were several concerns cited regarding the validity of the technical and cost scoring of
the proposals. Each of these concerns was reviewed in detail. None of these merit a
change to the original evaluation or scoring of the proposals.
The Design-Build proposal selection was conducted in accordance with the Sanitation
District's adopted policies and procedures and the requirement of the California Public
Contract Code.
CEQA
The recommended action is also within the scope of the program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Collection System Improvement Plan, SCH #2006101018, dated
March, 2007. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), the Sanitation District
has used a written checklist to document its evaluation of the recommended action and
has determined that the recommended action is within the scope of the program EIR.
In addition, the recommended action is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15301 because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance,
permitting, and/or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, and/or
mechanical equipment, involving no expansion of use beyond that currently existing.
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 (FY 2009-10
Budget Update: Item 13 — Page A-7) and the budget is sufficient for the recommended
action.
Form No.DW-102.2 Agenda Report—Board
Revised: 09/01/2009
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommendation for Award Memorandum
2. Formal Protest of Award from Instituform Technologies, Inc.
3. Response to Formal Protest of Award from Instituform Technologies, Inc.
4. Detailed Evaluation Sheet
Date of Approval Contract Amount Contingency
05/26/10 $15,190,000 $1,519,000 (10%)
JH:AA:eh:gc:cb:eh:gc:cb:eh
http://sharepoint/gm/board/Agenda Report Form Library/Item 08.3-58 Kiewit DB.docx
Form No.DW-102.2 Agenda Report—Board
Revised: 09/01/2009
Page 4
o�Nt,I SANITATj
4
W
C
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
o9or b p?•
FCr'N� EN`
Memorandum
E
DATE: April 29, 2010
TO: James D. Herberg, P.E.
Director of Engineering
FROM: Evaluation Team
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Award
Contract No. 3-58, Magnolia Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation
INTRODUCTION
OCSD, in an effort to minimize Public Works Construction schedule cost and risks, opted to utilize
the Design Build procurement and delivery method in accordance with Public Contract Code (PCC)
section 20133, as adopted by reference by PCC section 20785. California licensed General
Contractors, Architects, and Engineers who had an interest in participating in the Design Build
procurement were invited to register online. Industry comments were solicited and most were
incorporated.
Design Build procurement is a two step process. The first step consisted of soliciting eligible
proposers and ranking them from highest to lowest scores achieved. The second step is to issue a
Request for Proposals (RFP)to solicit proposals from the highest ranking firms, negotiate, price and
recommend award.
Following approval by OCSD's Board of Directors on September 23, 2009, the RFP was issued to
the 5 most qualified firms.
RECOMMENDATION
The following is a recommendation by the Evaluation Team for executing a Contract for the following
Scope of Work which includes both design and construction:
The project consists of the rehabilitation of the lower reach of the of Magnolia Trunk Sewer,
comprised of approximately 23,810 feet of 48 inch PVC lined Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP),
2,630 feet of PVC lined 78 inch RCP, 30 manholes, and a 2 barrel 36 inch siphon facility located at
the intersection of Magnolia Street and Edinger Avenue. The reach contains a total of 29 , 8 to 24
inch diameter laterals. The work is to take place in the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove and
Westminster, California.
The period of performance for this work is 515 calendar days.
The Notice to Proceed is anticipated to be in June 2010.
Page 2
April 29, 2010
The Evaluation Team has determined that the proposal submitted by Kiewit Pacific provides the best
value to OCSD.
A recommendation is made to execute a contract with Kiewit Pacific in the amount of
$15,190,000.00. This amount is within the approved construction budget for the Project.
BACKGROUND OF PROCUREMENT
On November 16, 2009, OCSD issued an RFP to procure the Work and services outlined above.
Three Addenda were issued to modify RFP documents.
A mandatory pre-proposal conference was conducted on December 1, 2009 at OCSD facilities to
discuss the proposal submittal requirements, scope of work, schedule, key terms and conditions,
proposal preparation, submittal, and the evaluation process with potential proposers.
The Proposal Submittal Date was extended once to allow more time for reviewing Proposal
Documents and addenda contents. On February 16, 2010, five sealed proposals were received in
response to the RFP. The Proposals are valid through June 16, 2010. Proposals were submitted
by:
• Insituform Technologies, Inc.
• Kiewit Pacific Company
• SAK Construction of CA LP
• Spiniello Companies
• Steve Bubalo Construction Co.
Prior to receipt of submittals, an Evaluation Team was formed consisting of a Project Manager, an
Engineering Manager(PMO), the Senior Construction Inspector Supervisor, an OCSD Project
Engineer, a Resident Engineer, the Safety& Health Supervisor and a representative of OCSD's
Design Build Consultant(AECOM), with support from a Public Information Specialist and a second
representative from OCSD's Design Build Consultant(AECOM). The Evaluation Team was chaired
by an OCSD Contracts Administration representative.
Revision 072709
Page 3
April 29, 2010
EVALUATION RESULTS
The proposals were reviewed for responsiveness and responsibility, and scored using the criteria as
defined in the RFP. The results of the submittals received appear in the order of ranking as follows:
Proposers Total Score— Total Amount of Determination
All Evaluators Proposal
1• Kiewit Pacific 5427.16 $15,190,000.00 Responsive, Responsible
2. Steve Bubalo Responsive, Responsible
Construction 5133.52 $14,735,000.00
Co.
3. SAK 4944.28 $16,237,750.00 Responsive, Responsible
Construction
4. Insituform Responsive, Responsible
Technologies, 4884.68 $15,717,000.00
Inc.
5. Spiniello 3991.56 $20,943,738.00 Responsive, Responsible
Companies
Proposal Irregularities:
In evaluating the safety aspects of the five proposers and their teams, an anomaly has arisen
regarding subcontractors meeting the factor of 1.0 of the national average for their worker's
compensation experience modification rates (EMRs), and meeting the factor of 1.0 of the national
average for their total injury/illness rate (IIRs) and average lost work rate (ALW). Specifically, these
requirements, for subcontractors, are not mandated by statute, but only by the terms of the request
for proposals ("RFP") and each of the top five bidders has listed at least one subcontractor who does
not meet the RFP standard. Staff determined, with the consent of OCSD's General Counsel, that
these irregularities are waivable. Accordingly, the EMRs, IIRs, and ALWs for the subcontractors
which are not mandated by statute are waived at the 1.0 factor. Subcontractors' EMRs, IIRs, and
ALWs will be held to the standard OCIP factor of 1.25.
1. Kiewit Pacific Co
No irregularities observed.
2. Steve Bubalo
No irregularities observed.
3. SAK
No irregularities observed.
Revision 072709
Page 4
April 29, 2010
4. Insituform Technologies, Inc.
No irregularities observed.
5. Spiniello Companies
PF-3 Reciept of Addenda Acknowledgement. Spiniello Companies did not acknowledge
Addendum #3 in their submitted Proposal. Since Addendum #3 extended the Proposal due
date and subsequent Board award date, and the Proposer submitted its Proposal by the date
and time as extended in Addendum #3, the lack of acknowledgement on PF-3 was
determined to be a minor irregularity and was cured by the Proposer's timely submittal;
therefore, the minor irregularity was waived.
CONCLUSION
It is a standard practice for Contracts Administration to provide a debriefing to all Proposers
to ensure responsiveness on future Proposals. The debriefing letters will be issued after an
award is made.
It is recommended that the award be made to Kiewit Pacific Co. for a Firm Fixed Price of
$15,190,000.00 prior to the June 16, 2010 expiration date in order to secure current price.
Gary V. Prater
Evaluation Team Chairperson
Signature. Date: c�
Alberto Aceved
Project Mana r valuation Team Member
Signature: Date:
GVP:JK:
EDMS:003913670
cc: Contract File 7.4.4c
Revision 072709
H Douglas Thomas
VP Global Procurement www.insituform.com
JfjSjtUf jWM
Worldwide Pipeline 17988 Edison Avenue Tel: (636)530-8756
(6) Rehabilitation Chesterfield,MO 63005 Fax: (636)530-8701
May 4, 2010
Mr. Gary V. Prater via Fax(714)968-8851 &
Principal Contracts Administrator Email Construction@OCSD.com
Contract No. 3-58, Magnolia Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Confirmation Receipt Requested
Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain City, CA 92708
RE: Contract No.3-58, Magnolia Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation
Dear Mr. Prater:
Please accept this letter as the formal bid protest of the I-DEK Team regarding the recent notification that
the Contract would be awarded to the Kiewit Team. In response to the I-DEK California Public Records
Act requests, I-DEK has reviewed the submittals of the Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK Teams, together with the
Proposal Evaluation Scoring documents. Based upon our review of the documents, I-DEK has identified
numerous deficiencies and/or discrepancies:
Proposers Ability to Comply with the OCIP and OCSD Safety Requirements: It should be noted that only
the Kiewit Team was awarded the 120 possible points for this item—the other four(4)Teams all received
scores of zero (0) points. I-DEK cannot understand how the scoring was done for this item because it
appears that this item was to evaluate the Team's gtj&to comply, not any actual compliance. The I-DEK
safety and insurance information should have been more than sufficient for OCSD to determine that I-DEK
could fully comply with both the OCIP and OCSD safety requirements. This item must be rescored.
Hydraulics: The I-DEK Team proposed to utilize CIPP technology for the rehabilitation of the existing
lines. In contrast, the Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK Teams proposed to primarily utilize slip-lining technology.
The I-DEK Team's CIPP technology should have received the maximum score of 120 points for hydraulics
since the CIPP technology will provide the highest flow capacity in the final, lined trunk sewer. This
additional capacity, 25% HIGHER (approximately 10 mgd additional capacity)than the Hobas slip-lining
alternative, provides a great value to OCSD for: 1)air flow to minimize odor complaints; and 2)to provide
capacity for operational flexibility to potentially bypass approximately 10 mgd into the Magnolia Sewer from
the Knott Trunk Sewer or other parts of the OCSD system. Furthermore, the I-DEK calculations indicate
that if a Manning's"n" roughness coefficient of 0.011 is used (as documented on Hobas'website for a
pipe in service after several years: http://www.hobaspipe.com/improve sewer hydraulics.asp), several
reaches of Kiewit's proposed Hobas slip-lining technology appear to not meet the OCSD flow
requirements. It is only by using a less conservative Manning's"n"coefficient of 0.010, contrary to Hobas'
website, would Kiewit's(and presumably Bubalo and SAK) method even arguably meet OCSD's design
criteria. Yet, incredibly from I-DEK's point of view, Kiewit was scored the highest on hydraulics (103)while
I-DEK scored the lowest(70). It is difficult for I-DEK to see this as fair scoring.
Structural: The I-DEK Team is concerned that Kiewit's proposed lengths of slip-lining appear overly
optimistic. Attempting to push the Hobas pipe beyond practical limits may very well cause structural
damage to the Hobas pipe, the existing host pipe, or both. It should be noted that Kiewit's technical
submittal states that a push of 5,100 feet is"optimistic"their proposal actually encompasses 8,000 feet
reaches. It would appear that the technical scoring for Kiewit's (and possibly SAK and Bubalo) technical
data for slip-lining should be reviewed in more detail. For example, although Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK all
contemplate using slip-lining as the basis of their proposals, the scoring for those 3 Teams ranged from
67 to 101, a variance that seems inexplicable.
Geotechnical: It appears that the I-DEK Team's choice of CIPP technology should have received the
maximum score of 60 points for Geotechnical since the use of CIPP eliminates the need for geotechnical
work altogether by minimizing the need for excavation. As detailed in I-DEK's submission, I-DEK will only
need limited shallow excavations, primarily within the road base zone and the manhole cone area in about
11 proposed locations. The I-DEK CIPP alternative eliminates the geotechnical unknown impact of
vibration associated with driving sheeting for shoring and excavating the large., deep pits needed for the
slip-lining alternative proposed by Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK. Groundwater dewatering, which has the risk of
ground settlement and the issues with proper disposal/permits, will also be required by Kiewit, Bubalo and
SAK to keep the slip-lining jacking pits dry during the work. Again, the scoring needs to be reviewed
because I-DEK scored the lowest on Construction Approach even though I-DEK's approach appears to be
clearly superior from a Geotechnical standpoint.
Price Proposal: In the scoring for pricing, Kiewit placed second to Bubalo even though it appears that
Kiewit's base bid pricing may have been non-responsive by including a non-conforming polyester resin
product that does not meet the chemical resistance requirements of the Greenbook, which was a
requirement of the RFP. One of Kiewit's Alternative Bid Items was an additive price of$250,000 to use
vinyl ester resin, which appears to be further indication that its base bid pricing was based upon polyester
resin products. In contrast, I-DEK's base bid pricing was for vinyl ester resin, as clearly required by the
RFP. I-DEK's submission then included an Alternative Bid Item for a deductive price of$1,100,000 if
OCSD would allow polyester resin. Thus, for the scoring to be fair and in compliance with the RFP, it
appears that I-DEK's scores for both the Base Bid and Alternatives should have been higher. (I-DEK is
currently reviewing the submissions and scoring of Bubalo and SAK with respect to resin choices).
Life Cycle Cost: It appears that the scoring for the I-DEK Team's choice of CIPP technology should have
received the highest score for Life Cycle Costs due to extending the maximum possible hydraulic capacity
of the final, lined pipe. Reducing the flow carrying capacity of the existing trunk sewer by slip lining or
spiral winding not only reduces operational flexibility, but it also would result in less return of the OCSD's
investment in the rehabilitation of the trunk lines. It is very reasonable to conclude that in the very near
future, OCSD may want to set up a major diversion from the Knott Trunk Sewer to the Magnolia Truck
Sewer due to increased flow requirements. It would be a tremendous asset to OCSD if the CIPP
technology chosen by the I-DEK Team had been utilized and in place instead of the flow limiting slip-lining
technology supported by Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK.
In conclusion, it appears that there may have been numerous scoring mistakes made that warrant either a
re-scoring or OCSD's rejection of all submittals and the issuance of a revised RFP.
Sincerely,
H. Douglas Thomas
Vice President-Global Procurement/Operations Support
Executive Officer for the I-DEK Design Build Team
°NtY 5A 47-,0 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
� � O
to a
Q ? We protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastevvater collection,treatment,and recycling.
o
9�l O a�2
May 20, 2010 Via Fax (636) 530-8701 &
Email dthomas(a-,)insituform.com
Confirm Receipt Requested
H. Douglas Thomas
Insituform Technologies, Inc.
17988 Edison Avenue
Chesterfield, MO 63005
Serving
Anaheim
SUBJECT: Magnolia Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation, Contract No. 3-58
Brea Re: Letter Dated May 4, 2010, Formal Protest
Buena Park
Cypress
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is in receipt of Insituform
Fountain Valley Technologies, Inc.'s (Team I-DEK) letter dated May 4, 2010, protesting staff's
Fullerton recommendation of award of the subject Contract to Kiewit Pacific Company, the
responsive and responsible Design build entity whose proposal provides the best
Garden Grave value to OCSD. This letter shall serve as staff's formal response to your firm's protest.
Huntington Beach
Irvine In sum, your protest does not present any colorable claims for awarding the Contract
to Team I-DEK. The protest is not based upon any alleged failure to comply with the
La Habra procedures set forth in the RFP, or any alleged failure to apply the prescribed
La Palma evaluation criteria. For the most part, the protest challenges the specific scores that
Los Alamitos OCSD's evaluators awarded to the various proposals during the evaluation process.
In effect, Team I-DEK seeks to substitute its own judgment for that of OCSD's
Newport Beach evaluators as to which of the proposals offers OCSD the "best value". This is simply
Orange not a legal basis for upholding a protest and awarding the Contract to Team I-DEK.
By presenting a proposal, Team I-DEK expressly acknowledged that "the
Placentia determination of Best Value may require subjective judgments by OCSD's evaluation
Santa Ana committee members within the framework of the specified evaluation criteria."
Seal Beach (Invitation for Proposals, Contract No. 3-58, "Basis for Selection", Section BS-5).
Stanton The remainder of this letter summarizes the alleged deficiencies and/or discrepancies
Tustin identified in the protest, and provides detailed responses:
Villa Park
Yorba Linda 1, Proposer's Ability to Comply with the OCIP and OCIP Safety Requirements:
Costa Mesa It should be noted that onlythe Kiit Team the 120 possible
Sanitary District ew eam was awarded
points for this item -the other four (4) Teams all received scores of zero (0)
Midway City points. I-DEK cannot understand how the scoring was done for this item
Sanitary District
because it appears that this item was to evaluate the Teams ability to comply,
Irvine Ranch not any actual compliance. The I-DEK safety and insurance information
Water District
should have been more than sufficient for OCSD to determine that I-DEK
County of Orange could fully comply with both the OCIP and OCSD safety requirements. This
item must be restored.
10844 Ellis Avenue • Fountain valley,CA 92708-7018 • 1714)962-2411 • mm.ocsd.com
recycled paper
SANI T,q I.
t 9
n
0
O I�
9orFCT/NQ THE £N�`P����a H. Douglas Thomas
Page 2
May 20, 2010
OCSD response:
Proposers are responsible for compliance with the RFP as described in the
Instructions To Proposers. Proposers must also comply with OCSD's Owner
Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) and OCIP Safety Requirements as
stated in the RFP, including but not limited to: Part 5 Basis For Selection;
Contract Agreement Exhibit B, Section Q Safety; and Exhibit C OCIP
Insurance Manual, Section 5 Safety Standards and Pre-Qualification.
Specific requirements for a drug testing plan and a return to work program
are described in the OCIP Exhibit D OCIP Safety Standards, Section II
Responsibilities, Contractor's Overall Responsibilities, Site-Specific Safety
Program; and in General Requirements GR DB-25. Team I-DEK's Safety Plan
as submitted in its proposal did not include either a drug testing program or a
return to work program.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the request to re-score
this item be determined to be without merit and rejected.
2. Hydraulics:
The I-DEK Team proposed to utilize CIPP technology for the rehabilitation
of the existing lines. In contrast, the Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK Teams
proposed to primarily utilize slip-lining technology. The I-DEK Team's CIPP
technology should have received the maximum score of 120 points for
hydraulics since the CIPP technology will provide the highest flow capacity
in the final, lined trunk sewer. This additional capacity, 25% HIGHER
(approximately 10 mgd additional capacity) than the Hobas slip-lining
alternative, provides a great value to OCSD for: 1) air flow to minimize odor
complaints; and 2) to provide capacity for operational flexibility to potentially
bypass approximately 10 mgd into the Magnolia Sewer from the Knott Trunk
Sewer or other parts of the OCSD system. Furthermore, the I-DEK
calculations indicate that if a Manning's "n" roughness coefficient of 0.011 is
used (as documented on Hobas' website for a pipe in service after several
years: http://www.hobaspipe.com/improve_sewer_hydraulics.asp). Several
reaches of Kiewit's proposed Hobas slip-lining technology appear to not
meet the OCSD flow requirements. It is only by using a less conservative
Manning's "n" coefficient of 0.010, contrary to Hobas' website, would
Kiewit's (and presumably Bubalo and SAK) method even arguably meet
OCSD's design criteria. Yet, incredibly from I-DEK's point of view, Kiewit
ONjv SAHITq T,O
O v
' p
o �
F�rhR THE J`POd
H. Douglas Thomas
Page 3
May 20, 2010
was scored the highest on hydraulics (103) while I-DEK scored the lowest
(70). It is difficult for I-DEK to see this as fair scoring.
OCSD response:
Evaluation and scoring of the hydraulic portion of the proposal included
several elements, overall capacity being only one factor. Other evaluation
factors included the proposer's ability to maintain minimum velocities in the
pipe and the siphon for maintenance purposes and provide the supporting
modeling and calculations requested in the RFP.
The Team I-DEK approach appeared to maximize capacity but did not
conform to the requirements of the Project Criteria and Performance
Requirements (PCPR) which specifically called for increased velocities and
minimum velocity criteria, as stated in Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.3.2.
The calculations provided in Team I-DEK's proposal did not show that a
minimum of 2.0 fps was maintainable along the entire reach as well as a
minimum of 4.0 fps for the self cleaning siphon at the prescribed Peak Dry
Weather Flows at year 2030. Additional capacity over what was required by
the PCPR did not receive additional points.
The Manning Value of n = 0.011 was required by the PCPR for all calculations
and technologies proposed. Kiewit's hydraulic calculations use the Manning's
"n" factor of 0.011 to demonstrate that the rehabilitated pipe was capable of
conveying year 2030 Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) in accordance with
the RFP.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the request to re-score
this item be determined to be without merit and therefore rejected.
3. Structural:
The I-DEK Team is concerned that Kiewit's proposed lengths of slip-lining
appear overly optimistic. Attempting to push the Hobas pipe beyond practical
limits may very well cause structural damage to the Hobas pipe, the existing
host pipe, or both. It should be noted that Kiewit's technical submittal states
that a push of 5,100 feet is "optimistic" their proposal actually encompasses
8,000 feet reaches. It would appear that the technical scoring for Kiewit's (and
possibly SAK and Bubalo) technical data for slip-lining should be reviewed in
more detail. For example, although Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK all contemplate
using slip-lining as the basis of their proposals, the scoring for those 3 Teams
ranged from 67 to 101, a variance that seems inexplicable.
40, SANliq T/0
W O,
2 p
c
¢ A
O -1
9o��cliNG THE ENv`Qoa��2 H. Douglas Thomas
Page 4
May 20, 2010
OCSD response:
Section 3.1.2 of the PCPR established the structural design requirements for
the rehabilitated pipe regardless of the technology used. This section does
not define or limit the maximum distance for pushing a "slip lining" product.
Therefore, the distance is considered as a "means and methods" of the
Proposer and of the technology used.
The evaluation and scoring for this item was based on the proposer's ability to
show that their installed products meet the loading criteria as required by the
RFP. The variance in scoring among the various slip lining proposals is due to
missing structural documentation for different reaches using other lining
materials (CIPP, HDPE, RibLok) in the various proposals. As stated above,
proposed distances of slip lining reaches was not part of the established
evaluation criteria for this item.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the request to re-score
this item be determined to be without merit and therefore rejected.
4. Geotechnical:
It appears that the I-DEK Team's choice of CIPP technology should have
received the maximum score of 60 points for Geotechnical since the use of
CIPP eliminates the need for geotechnical work altogether by minimizing the
need for excavation. As detailed in I-DEK's submission, I-DEK will only need
limited shallow excavations, primarily within the road base zone and the
manhole cone area in about 11 proposed locations. The I-DEK CIPP
alternative eliminates the geotechnical unknown impact of vibration associated
with driving sheeting for shoring and excavating the large, deep pits needed
for the slip-lining alternative proposed by Kiewit, Bubalo and SAK.
Groundwater dewatering, which has the risk of ground settlement and the
issues with proper disposal/permits, will also be required by Kiewit, Bubalo
and SAK to keep the slip-lining jacking pits dry during the work. Again, the
scoring needs to be reviewed because I-DEK scored the lowest on
Construction Approach even though I-DEK's approach appears to be clearly
superior from a Geotechnical standpoint.
�oJt.Y SAWNT /o
� 1
2 �
a
0
9of�cl�"� THE E"''�`����� H. Douglas Thomas
Page 5
May 20, 2010
OCSD response:
The requirement was to identify the geotechnical needs and associated risks
for the particular rehabilitation technology(ies) proposed, not whether one
technology requires less geotechnical investigation than another.
The evaluation and scoring of Team I-DEK's proposal regarding geotechnical
elements reflects certain work items that were not sufficiently addressed: a
new manhole is being added; removal of the cones/caps of several other
manholes; and buried bypass piping. OCSD acknowledges that there is more
geotechnical work in the various other approaches, but significantly more
detail was provided in the other proposals in describing the geotechnical
considerations and in defining how identified risks were to be mitigated.
As identified in the RFP, Geotechnical and Construction Approach were each
separately evaluated and scored items within the Technical Proposal.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the request to re-score
this item be determined to be without merit and therefore rejected.
5. Price Proposal:
In the scoring for pricing, Kiewit placed second to Bubalo even though it
appears that Kiewit's base bid pricing may have been non-responsive by
including a non-conforming polyester resin product that does not meet the
chemical resistance requirements of the Greenbook, which was a requirement
of the RFP. One of Kiewit's Alternative Bid Items was an additive price of
$250,000 to use vinyl ester resin, which appears to be further indication
that its base bid pricing was based upon polyester resin products. In
contrast, I-DEK's base bid pricing was for vinyl ester resin, as clearly
required by the RFP. I-DEK's submission then included an Alternative Bid
Item for a deductive price of $1 ,100,000 if OCSD would allow polyester
resin. Thus, for the scoring to be fair and in compliance with the RFP, it
appears that I-DEK's scores for both the Base Bid and Alternatives should
have been higher. (I-DEK is currently reviewing the submissions and scoring
of Bubalo and SAK with respect to resin choices).
OCSD's response:
Through the Request For Clarifications process, OCSD obtained clarification
from Kiewit and other Proposers utilizing Hobas materials that Hobas will
provide a 40-mil coating of vinyl-ester meeting the requirements of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works (Green Book) as part of their Base
JNty SANITq TJa
�o y
N
? y
S 4
¢ 5 n
9or ��2
F�r�ryC ree fN�`Poe H. Douglas Thomas
Page 6
May 20, 2010
Proposal price. An alternative submitted by Kiewit was additional vinyl-ester
coating beyond the 40-mil amount (60 —mil); that alternative was not selected.
OCSD's Clarification Request and Kiewit's response were provided to your
firm in response to your Public Records Act request.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the request to re-score
this item be determined to be without merit and therefore rejected.
6. Life-Cycle Cost :
It appears that the scoring for the I-DEK Team's choice of CIPP technology
should have received the highest score for Life Cycle Costs due to extending
the maximum possible hydraulic capacity of the final, lined pipe. Reducing the
flow carrying capacity of the existing trunk sewer by slip lining or spiral winding
not only reduces operational flexibility, but it also would result in less return of
the OCSD's investment in the rehabilitation of the trunk lines. It is very
reasonable to conclude that in the very near future, OCSD may want to set up
a major diversion from the Knott Trunk Sewer to the Magnolia Trunk Sewer
due to increased flow requirements. It would be a tremendous asset to OCSD
if the CIPP technology chosen by the I-DEK Team had been utilized and in
place instead of the flow limiting slip-lining technology supported by Kiewit,
Bubalo and SAK.
OCSD response:
As explained in OCSD's response to the hydraulics issue above, the PCPR
only required that the rehabilitated pipeline convey up to year 2030 PVVWF as
specified in Section 2.2 and 2.3. Therefore, additional capacity over what was
required by the PCPR did not receive additional points.
In fact, the reduced velocities of the pipeline may result in additional short-term
maintenance costs resulting from the build-up of solids; however, additional
costs associated with this were not included in Team I-DEK's life cycle cost.
The additional cost/benefits described for bypassing the Knott Trunk do not
pertain to life cycle costs associated with the Magnolia Trunk but rather are
costs attributable to another out-of-service pipeline, which was not part of the
evaluation criteria in the RFP.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the request to re-score
this item be determined to be without merit and therefore rejected.
JV SAr!l JFTJD
� = O
V N�
= 9
c
O H
•
A h
NE E H. Douglas Thomas
Page 7
May 20, 2010
This concludes staff's response to your firm's letter of May 4, 2010. Staff's
recommendation is to reject the Award Protest of Insituform Technologies, Inc. for the
reasons stated in this response. Further, staff intends to recommend award of the
Contract to Kiewit Pacific Company, as the responsive and responsible Design build
entity whose proposal provides the best value at the June 23, 2010 meeting of the
OCSD Board of Directors.
A debriefing and discussion of OCSD's solicitation process and/or any other matters
can be held after Award of Contract.
Gary V. Prater
Principal Contracts Administrator
GVP:yp
EDMS: 003915472
cc: Contract File 7.4.4e
P. Kyle
A. Acevedo
D. Fisher
C. Ambrose
A IT
PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY OF SCORES
EVALUATOR:All Combined Scoring
Project: 3-58 Magnolia Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation
90
FC t
l�NC THE E""
Maximum SAK Bubalo
Points I-DEK Kiewit Construction Spiniello Construction
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: MAXIMUM 500 POINTS(3000 Combined Score)
Design&Construction Expertise:Maximum 290 points(1740 Combined Score)
1 Summary Narrative 60 37 49 43 36 54
2 Design Basis for Useful Life 180 163 145 167 95 140
3 Structural 120 102 90 101 76 67
4 Hydraulics 120 70 103 99 89 94
5 Testing and Acceptance Requirements 60 54 59 26 57 33
6 Design Drawings 180 150 173 165 165 131
7 lGeotechnical 60 32 58 50 54 33
8 Survey 60 55 52 51 46 39
9 Permitting 60 43 49 44 29 49
10 Construction Risk Mitigation Plan 420 303 362 327 295 326
11 Construction Approach 180 106 152 130 120 140
12 Operations&Maintenance 120 91 105 62 57 97
13 Proposed Project Schedule 1 120 1 58 89 1 92 102 1 103
DESIGN&CONSTRUCTION EXPERTISE SUBTOTALI 1740 1 1264 1 1486 1 1357 1 1221 1 1306
Safety Record:Maximum 106 points(636 Combined Score)
1 EMR for the most recent three(3)year period 264 153.84 177 164.04 153.96 177.48
2(a) Average Total Recordable Injury/Illness Rate for recent 3 year period(OSHA) 126 98.7 52.92 81.9 31.2 88.74
2(b) Average Lost Work Rate for recent 3 year period(OSHA Logs/Summaries) 126 88.14 114.24 83.34 41.4 72.3
3 Proposer's ability to comply with the OCIP and OCSD Safety Requirements 120 0 120 0 0 0
SAFETY RECORD SUBTOTAL 636 340.68 464.16 329.28 226.56 338.52
Skilled Labor Force Availability:Maximum 104 points(624 Combined Score)
1 Lead constructor has agreement(s)with registered apprenticeship programs 252 252 252 252 252 252
2 Level of activity in producing graduates with registered apprenticeship 252 252 252 252 252 252
3 Proposer compliance with California apprenticeship laws and regulations 120 120 120 120 120 120
SKILLED LABOR FORCE AVAILABILITY SUBTOTAL 624 624 624 624 624 624
BASE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBTOTAL 3000 2228.68 2574.16 2310.28 2071.56 2268.52
Alternate Proposals: Mamimum 40 Points(240 Combined Score)
1 Alternate Proposal No.1 60 0 39 0 0 0
2 Alternate Proposal No.2 60 22 0 0 0 0
3 Alternate Proposal No.3 60 0 0 0 0 0
4 Alternate Proposal No.4 60 0 0 0 0 39
ALTERNATE PROPOSALS SUBTOTAL 240 22 39 0 0 39
BASE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WITH APPROVED ALTERNATES TOTAL 3240 2250.68 2613.16 2310.28 2071.56 2307.52
PRICE PROPOSAL: MAXIMUM 500 POINTS(3000 Combined Score)
a Lump Sum Price:Maximum 2370 2220 2298 2148 1668 2370
b ILife Cycle Cost 630 414 516 486 252 456
PRICE PROPOSAL SUBTOTAL 3000 2634 2814 2634 1920 2826
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL+PRICE PROPOSAL TOTAL 6240 1 4884.68 1 5427.16 1 4944.28 1 3991.56 1 5133.52
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
06/02/10
AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number
9
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager
Originator: Ed Torres, Director of Technical Services
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Information only re Shore-line bacteria monitoring program update.
SUMMARY
Orange County's coastal, harbor and bay waters are important and integral to the
county's lifestyle and a significant economic asset. For the past 40 years, microbiological
water quality monitoring along 42 miles of open ocean coastline and 72 miles of harbor
and bay frontage has been performed by OCSD and three other public agencies, namely
South Orange County Wastewater Authority, OC Health Care Agency and OC
Watersheds. The monitoring programs at these agencies were established as part of
public health programs and NPDES permit requirements. Because these programs were
developed independently, redundancies and an overall less- than- effective use of public
resources resulted.
The uncertainty of state funding for local health programs, specifically the recreational
water monitoring program, was impetus for the County of Orange Health Care agency to
assemble a working group of representatives from each of the four public agencies to
design a collaborative and integrated ocean water quality monitoring program that is
protective of public health, sustainable and efficient.
Staff will present to the Operations Committee on the scope of the proposed collaborative
program, the impact to OCSD, and schedule for implementation.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
CEQA
N/A
BUDGET / DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
N/A
Form No.DW-102.2 Revised: 01/11/2010
Page 1