Loading...
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