MURRAY CITY, UTAH - REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)

RFQ Title: Engineering Services – PFAS Evaluation and Source Development Study RFQ Number: 26-43 Issue Date: Thursday, October 15, 2026, at 4:00 PM MT SOQ Due Date and Time: Monday, November 16, 2026, at 2:00 PM MT.

Submitting Agency:

Murray City Corporation Division of Purchasing 10 East 4800 South, Room 155 Murray, Utah 84107

Purchasing Agent:

Amandah Maudsley Email: amaudsley@murray.utah.gov Phone: (801) 264-2663

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Procurement Authority

3. Procurement Method

4. Project Background

5. Minimum Qualifications

6. Scope of Services

7. Funding and Federal Requirements

8. Conflict of Interest

9. Anticipated Schedule

10. Evaluation Process and Criteria

11. Negotiation

12. Submittal Requirements

13. Statement of Qualifications Content

14. SOQ Submission Instructions

15. Administrative Provisions

16. Appendix A

17. Attachment A -Draft Agreement

18. Attachment B -DBE Requirements

19. Attachment C -Debarment Certification

20. Attachment D Authority to Sign

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

Murray City is soliciting Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from qualified engineering firms to provide professional engineering services for a PFAS Evaluation and Source Development Study. The study will address the Hyland Well and 500 East Well, two nearby municipal groundwater sources where PFOA has been detected during recent sampling.

The Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has reserved up to $100,000 in Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Emerging Contaminants funding under SRF No. 3F4319PE, with 100% principal forgiveness. Final funding authorization is contingent upon DDW receiving an engineering contract that identifies the project tasks, timeline, and budget.

Consultant selection, contract award, and performance of the work are subject to the funding conditions in Sections 7 and 15.

SECTION 2. PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY

This solicitation is conducted under the authority of the City Purchasing Agent as defined in §3.10.050–.060. All communications must be directed to the Purchasing Agent or designee. To maintain a fair and transparent procurement process, all OƯerors must direct communication regarding this solicitation only to the City’s Purchasing Agent or authorized designee.

OƯerors shall not contact any City elected oƯicials, employees, or evaluation committee members about this RFQ outside of the formal process. Questions, clarifications, or requests for information must be submitted in writing through the Euna Procurement Q&A Section.

Any direct or indirect contact with City oƯicials or staƯ concerning this solicitation—except as specifically authorized—is strictly prohibited and may result in immediate disqualification from further consideration.

This restriction is intended to preserve the integrity of the City’s competitive process and ensure equal access to information for all OƯerors

City Contact Information:

Project Manager

Aron Frisk, Water Superintendent

Purchasing Agent and City Contact

Amandah Maudsley, Purchasing Agent amaudsley@murray.utah.gov 801-264-2663 (OƯice)

Please address all questions in EUNA or to the Purchasing Agent ONLY

SECTION 3. PROCUREMENT METHOD

This procurement will follow a Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) process in accordance with Murray City Code, and the applicable federal requirements identified in this RFQ.

Responsive SOQs will be evaluated and scored using the published criteria in Section 10.

The City may establish the final ranking based solely on the written SOQs

The City may conduct interviews, discussions, or presentations with three of the highest-rated qualified firms if the evaluation committee determines that doing so would assist in evaluating or clarifying the firm’s qualifications, experience, personnel, availability, or project approach. The City is not required to conduct interviews.

If interviews are conducted, the City will notify the invited firms, use the published interview criteria in Section 10, and provide the same core questions and substantially equal opportunity to respond. Interview scores will be added to written SOQ scores to establish the final ranking. Pricing shall not be requested or discussed. If interviews are not conducted, written SOQ scores will establish the final ranking.

After the final ranking is established, the City will negotiate the detailed scope, contract terms, and fair and reasonable compensation with the highest-ranked firm. If negotiations are unsuccessful, the City will formally terminate negotiations with that firm before proceeding to the next highest-ranked firm.

o Written SOQ evaluation: 200 points Interview evaluation: 100 points *If necessary Maximum combined score: 200 points or 300 points

Price shall not be submitted with the initial SOQ. The City will negotiate scope and fee with the highest-ranked firm.

SECTION 4. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Murray City owns and operates a groundwater-based public drinking water system. The City relies on local wells and springs and does not use a surface-water supply. Maintaining dependable groundwater sources is therefore central to system reliability.

Murray’s UCMR 5 and follow-up sampling identified PFOA at the Hyland Well and 500 East Well.

Individual results have included detections near or above the federal PFOA maximum contaminant level; however, individual samples are not by themselves a compliance determination. The consultant shall evaluate the data under the regulatory framework in eƯect during the study and coordinate interpretations with Murray City and the Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW).

The City seeks an independent, practical comparison of mitigation strategies. Treatment may preserve use of the existing sources but can create substantial capital, media-replacement, residuals-disposal, staƯing, energy, and life-cycle obligations. Development of a deeper aquifer may oƯer a more durable source solution, but its feasibility, water quality, yield, aquifer separation, water-right implications, drilling risk, and cost must be established. Operational alternatives such as blending or seasonal use may also merit evaluation but shall not be assumed feasible or compliant without analysis and regulatory coordination.

SECTION 5. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Firms must demonstrate:

A Utah-licensed Professional Engineer responsible for the work and available throughout the project.

Recent experience evaluating PFAS or comparable emerging contaminant issues for municipal drinking-water sources.

Experience with drinking-water treatment alternatives, including granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and membrane processes.

Experience evaluating groundwater source development and hydrogeologic feasibility, including deeper aquifer concepts.

Ability to develop planning-level capital, operation and maintenance, and life-cycle cost estimates.

Knowledge of Utah DDW requirements and applicable federal drinking-water regulations.

Capacity to complete the work within the funding-agreement schedule.

Eligibility for federal award; neither the firm nor its principals may be debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded.

SECTION 6. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The following scope establishes anticipated study tasks. The final scope will be negotiated with the highest-ranked firm and must be approved by the City and, when required, DDW before work begins.

A. Project Management, KickoƯ and Data Review

Conduct a kickoƯ meeting and confirm goals, decision criteria, communication protocols, schedule, and deliverables.

Prepare a project management plan, data-request list, quality-control plan, and detailed schedule.

Review available PFAS results, well records, production and water-quality data, source-protection information, system configuration, and prior studies

Identify material data gaps and recommend targeted actions. Additional sampling or testing shall not proceed without written City authorization.

B. Regulatory and PFAS Data Evaluation

Summarize the PFAS regulatory requirements, compliance-monitoring framework, reporting levels, and schedule applicable to the sources.

Evaluate sampling results by compound, source, date, method, reporting limit, and applicable compliance calculation.

Assess data quality, variability, operational influences, and reasonable design concentrations.

Coordinate regulatory assumptions and planning criteria with Murray City and DDW.

Identify how pending or future regulatory changes could aƯect alternatives without basing the recommendation on speculative relief.

C. Existing Source and System Evaluation

Document the operational role, capacity, condition, seasonal use, pumping configuration, available site area, utilities, hydraulics, and constraints of the Hyland and 500 East sources.

Evaluate how shutdown, reduced use, treatment downtime, blending, or redevelopment would aƯect supply, pressure, storage, fire flow, and operational flexibility.

Verify field conditions necessary for planning. Survey, geotechnical work, or intrusive investigation is excluded unless authorized.

D. Treatment Alternatives Evaluation

At minimum, screen and, where viable, develop planning concepts for:

o Granular activated carbon (GAC).

o Ion exchange (IX).

o Reverse osmosis or other membrane treatment.

o Other proven treatment technologies substantiated for municipal drinking-water application

For each viable alternative, evaluate performance and reliability; pretreatment; design flow and redundancy; footprint; hydraulics; energy; controls; residuals and waste streams;

media or membrane replacement; disposal; operator workload; permitting;

constructability; implementation time; and supply-chain risks. Treatment claims shall be supported by relevant full-scale experience, published data, or recommended bench/pilot testing.

E. Operational and Non-Treatment Alternatives

Evaluate blending only if the City can maintain a controlled, measurable, and regulatorily acceptable blend under expected source and demand conditions.

Evaluate seasonal use, source rotation, reduced production, or temporary shutdown, including lost-capacity and reliability consequences.

Identify required distribution-system or piping modifications Distinguish temporary risk-management measures from durable compliance solutions.

F. Deeper Aquifer and Source Development Feasibility

Review available well logs, hydrogeologic reports, regional stratigraphy, water levels, nearby wells, water quality, and pumping information.

Assess the likelihood of a hydraulically distinct deeper aquifer, potential yield, expected water quality, PFAS vulnerability, and inter-aquifer connection risk.

Develop planning concepts for water-right deepening, replacing, or constructing a new source, as appropriate.

Recommend a phased investigation program, potentially including exploratory drilling, geophysical logging, zone isolation, aquifer testing, and water-quality testing.

Planning level review of water-right implications.

G. Alternatives Comparison and Life-Cycle Cost

Prepare a planning schedule, cost range, uncertainties, and decision gates. Actual drilling, well design, test-well construction, and water-right legal services are excluded unless added by amendment.

Prepare planning-level capital estimates with assumptions, contingencies, accuracy range, and exclusions.

Estimate annual power, media or membrane, testing, waste disposal, labor, maintenance, and replacement costs.

Compare alternatives using an agreed planning horizon and net-present-value approach.

Conduct sensitivity analysis for material assumptions, including PFAS concentration, throughput, media life, disposal cost, and source yield.

Identify fatal flaws, major uncertainties, and information needed before final design or source development.

Provide a comparative matrix addressing more than cost. Including regulatory acceptance, reliability, implementation time, operational burden, technical risk, source capacity and long term adaptability.

H. Recommended Mitigation and Implementation Plan

Recommend a preferred alternative or phased strategy supported by the technical and cost evaluation.

Define near-term operational actions, monitoring or testing, permitting, pilot or bench testing, preliminary design, property, procurement, funding, and decision needs.

Prepare an implementation schedule identifying regulatory milestones and realistic durations.

Identify work that can proceed in parallel and work that should await resolution of key uncertainties.

I. Deliverables, Meetings, and Public Communication

Monthly progress updates and task-based invoices.

Technical memoranda sufficient to document assumptions and decisions.

Draft engineering study report for City and DDW review.

Comment-response matrix and final engineering study report.

Executive summary… for elected officials and the public.

Editable and PDF… planning exhibits, maps, process diagrams, alternatives tables, and cost summaries.

Final engineering study to be signed and sealed by the Utah licensed professional engineer responsible for the work.

J. Optional or Additional Services

Additional PFAS or water-quality sampling, bench or pilot testing, survey, geotechnical work, detailed hydraulic modeling, water-rights technical support, exploratory drilling support, preliminary or final design, grant application assistance, and other services may be authorized by written amendment if eligible funding and budget are available. No optional service is authorized by award of the base contract alone.

SECTION 7. FUNDING AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS (MANDATORY)

This is a federally funded planning project. Funding is expected to be provided, as a whole or in part, through a federal DWSRF Capitalization Grant from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The selected consultant and its subconsultants shall comply with the applicable State and federal requirements identified in this RFQ, the final funding agreement, and DDW instructions.

A. Uniform Guidance

The procurement and resulting contract shall comply with applicable provisions of 2 CFR Part 200, the final funding agreement, and DDW requirements.

Maintain complete project, subcontract, invoice, and supporting records for the required retention period.

Provide records to authorized City, State, and federal reviewers or auditors.

Identify actual or apparent organizational conflicts of interest.

B. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Requirements

OƯerors shall comply with the State of Utah’s fair share goals, applicable federal EEO requirements, and the DBE requirements contained in Attachment B. Attachment B is incorporated into this RFQ as the applicable DBE Special Conditions.

EPA Disadvantaged Business Enterprise requirements under 40 CFR Part 33 apply to this professional-services procurement. Each OƯeror shall complete the six good-faith eƯorts and submit the signed State-provided DBE Certification-Signature Page with its SOQ.

OƯerors shall identify proposed subconsultants and their roles without including fees, rates, or dollar amounts. Cost-related DBE forms, if required by DDW, will be completed after ranking during contract negotiations. The City may request supporting outreach documentation before contract award.

Fully make DBEs aware of contracting opportunities practicable through outreach and recruitment, including placing qualified DBEs on solicitation lists and soliciting them when they are potential sources.

Make information on forthcoming opportunities available to DBEs and establish solicitation and delivery schedules that encourage participation. The City intends to advertise this RFQ for at least 30 calendar days when practicable.

Consider whether portions of the work can be divided into smaller, economically feasible tasks to increase DBE participation.

Encourage contracting with a consortium of DBEs when a contract is too large for one DBE to perform individually.

Use the services and assistance of the U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S.

Department of Commerce Minority Business Development Agency.

Require the selected consultant to apply the preceding good-faith eƯorts when awarding subconsultant agreements.

The selected consultant shall pay subconsultants for satisfactory performance no more than 30 days after receiving payment from the City; notify the City in writing before terminating a DBE subconsultant for convenience; apply the six good-faith eƯorts when replacing a DBE subconsultant; and complete applicable Participation, Performance, and Utilization forms as directed by DDW.

C. Debarment and Suspension

Each OƯeror shall submit the signed State-provided lower-tier debarment certification in Attachment C. The selected consultant shall immediately report any change in eligibility and include the certification clause, without modification, in covered lower-tier transactions and solicitations. The City will verify the selected firm's exclusion status before contract award.

D. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity

The selected consultant shall not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or sex in performing the contract. The consultant shall comply with 40 CFR Part 33 and applicable federal and State equal-employment-opportunity requirements and shall include required provisions in applicable subconsultant agreements. Failure by the consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach of the contract, which may result in termination of the contract or other legally available remedies.

E. Funding Limitation

The City intends to award a contract after negotiations, subject to final DWSRF funding authorization and execution of the Planning Principal Forgiveness Agreement. The consultant shall not begin work or incur costs until the City issues a written Notice to Proceed. Costs incurred before the Notice to Proceed or outside an authorized task are not payable. The consultant shall segregate and document costs by authorized task. Proposed changes aƯecting the approved tasks, timeline, or budget require prior written City approval and any required DDW approval.

SECTION 8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OƯerors shall disclose all actual, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest, including relationships that could impair independent professional judgment. Evaluation committee members will complete conflict disclosures. The City may require mitigation or determine that a conflict is disqualifying.

SECTION 9. SCHEDULE

RFQ Issued: Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 4:00 PM MT

Questions Due: Friday, November 6, 2026 at 5:00 PM MT

Questions Answered by: Tuesday, November 10, 2026, at 5:00 PM

MT.

SOQs Due: Monday, November 16, 2026 at 2:00 PM MT.

Interviews: if conducted TBD

Selection: TBD

Scope and fee negotiation: TBD

Contract Approval / Notice to Proceed: TBD

Draft Study Report: TBD

Final Study Report: 10/1/2027 (Funding Agreement Deadline) The City expects the RFQ to remain open for at least 30 calendar days when practicable to support DBE outreach and competition. The final schedule must conform to the executed funding agreement.

SECTION 10. EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA

SOQs will be evaluated and firms will be ranked in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. Selection will be based on demonstrated competence and qualifications. Price will not be requested, submitted, or considered during the evaluation and ranking process.

An evaluation committee of at least three members, each signing a conflict-of-interest disclosure, will assess SOQs based on the criteria set forth in this RFQ. The Purchasing Agent will first review SOQs for responsiveness and compliance. SOQs that fail to conform in all material respects to the requirements of this RFQ may be rejected as non-responsive. A maximum of 200 points is available.

The evaluation committee will evaluate each responsive SOQ using only the criteria and point values stated below.

Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) will be evaluated based on the following:

Project understanding and identification of key decisions, risks, and data gaps – 0 to 40 points

Technical approach to PFAS treatment and alternatives evaluation – 0- 40 points

Groundwater/source-development and hydrogeologic experience – 0 – 30 points

Qualifications, roles, and availability of key personnel – 0 to 30 points

Utah drinking-water regulation and federally funded/SRF experience – 0 to 25 points

Project management, quality control, schedule, and deliverables – 0 to 20 points

Past performance and references – 0 – 10 points

Familiarity with local conditions and Murray’s groundwater system – 0 – 5 points

Interview Questions

The city may interview one or more of the highest rated firms if the evaluation committee determines interviews would assist in the final ranking. The City is not required to conduct interviews and may establish the final ranking from written SOQs alone. If interviews are conducted, invited firms will receive the same core questions and substantially equal opportunity to respond. Pricing shall not be discussed.

1. What are the most consequential technical and regulatory decisions in this study, and how would your team resolve them?

2. How will you establish defensible PFAS design criteria from a limited and variable sampling record?

3. How will you compare GAC, ion exchange, membrane treatment, blending, operational changes, and source redevelopment without predetermining the outcome?

4. How will you assess whether a deeper aquifer is distinct, developable, and less vulnerable to PFAS?

5. How will you account for residuals, media life, staƯing, energy, and life-cycle cost rather than comparing capital cost alone?

6. What testing is essential before recommending treatment or deeper-source development, and what can reasonably wait?

7. How will your team coordinate with Murray City, DDW, laboratories, and specialty subconsultants while maintaining schedule and quality?

8. Describe a comparable project where the analysis changed the initially preferred alternative. What changed and why?

The shortlisted firms will be scored by the following criteria:

Understanding of project and risks -0 to 20 points Technical Approach and reliability -0 to 20 points PFAS treatment expertise -0 to 15 points Groundwater source development expertise -0 to 15 points Regulatory and funding compliance -0 to 10 points Team qualifications and availability -0 to 10 points Schedule and communication -0 to 10 points

SECTION 11. NEGOTIATION

The City will negotiate scope, contract terms, and compensation with the highest-ranked firm.

Compensation must be determined in writing to be fair and reasonable based on the estimated value, scope, complexity, and professional nature of the services. If a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, negotiations with that firm will be formally terminated, and the City may begin negotiations with the next-ranked firm.

Murray City will:

1. Rank firms based on qualifications

2. Enter negotiations with the top-ranked firm

3. If unsuccessful, proceed to the next ranked firm

SECTION 12. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

Submit:

Cover letter

Firm qualifications and experience

Project team and resumes

Relevant project experience

Project understanding, technical approach, key risks, and decision framework

Project management, quality control, regulatory coordination and schedule

References

Conflict disclosures and requested contract exceptions

Completed DBE certification and applicable State forms

Completed debarment certification

Do not include pricing information.

SECTION 13. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS CONTENTS

SOQ Length: SOQs shall not exceed (20) pages total, excluding cover page and resumes. Excess pages may not be reviewed.

Section 1: Cover Letter (1 page) with project title, RFQ number, company name, and contact information.

Section 2: Firm and Personnel Qualifications (1 to 3 pages) Organization, licenses, roles, availability, and resumes of key staƯ and subconsultants. Resumes may be included in an appendix and will not count toward the page limit.

Section 3: Relevant Experience (2 to 4 pages) PFAS treatment studies, groundwater source-development evaluations, municipal drinking-water work, and DWSRF or federal work.

Section 4: Project Understanding (2 to 3 pages) Murray’s problem, decision context, major uncertainties, regulatory considerations, and data gaps

Section 5: Technical Approach: (2 to 6 pages) Methodology for Tasks 1 through 9, including alternatives comparison and deeper-aquifer feasibility.

Section 6: Project Management and Schedule (1 to 2 pages) Task sequence, coordination, quality control, availability, and ability to meet the funding deadline.

Section 7: Past Performance and References (1 page) Three comparable projects, contacts, dates, firm role, and schedule performance.

Required Disclosures and Forms: Conflicts, contract exceptions, the signed DBE Certification-Signature Page, and the signed debarment certification. These materials are excluded from the 20-page limit. Do not submit DBE forms containing fees, rates, or dollar amounts with the SOQ.

SECTION 14. SOQ SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) shall be electronically submitted, mailed, or hand delivered.

Electronic Submittals (Preferred Method of Delivery):

The Division of Purchasing utilizes the Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P) platform via Euna, formerly known as Bonfire. To respond to this solicitation, register through the U3P Euna platform. First-time users must click “Register” and complete the registration process before reviewing and responding to the solicitation. For registration assistance, consult the online knowledge base, review the FAQs, or contact the Bonfire Support Team at support@gobonfire.com.

When submitting an oƯer electronically through the U3P Euna platform, allow suƯicient time to complete all required online forms and upload documents. The solicitation will close at the date and time stated in this RFQ. If uploads are still in progress at the closing time, the system will stop the submission process, and the oƯer will not be received.

Hand Delivery or Mail Submissions (If you elect not to submit using the preferred electronic method):

All SOQs must be contained in a sealed envelope clearly labeled in the lower right-hand corner with the RFQ number, project title, and firm name, as follows:

“RFQ 26-43, Engineering Services – PFAS Evaluation and Source Development Study, NAME OF FIRM.”

Submit SOQs to:

Murray City Corporation Attn: Amandah Maudsley, Purchasing Agent 10 East 4800 South, Room 155 Murray, UT 84107

SOQs received after the deadline stated in this RFQ will not be accepted and will be returned unopened.

SECTION 15. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Murray City reserves the right to cancel this Request for Qualifications or to reject any or all SOQs, in whole or in part, for good cause when determined to be in the City’s best interest.

The City may waive or permit the correction of minor informalities, ministerial errors, clerical errors, or other immaterial irregularities that do not aƯect the substance of a SOQ, provide an unfair competitive advantage, prejudice another oƯeror, or materially aƯect price, quality, quantity, delivery, scope, or contractual obligations.

The City will not waive the material requirement of this RFQ. A SOQ that fails to conform in all material respects to the requirements of this RFQ may be rejected as non-responsive.

Any cancellation, rejection, waiver, or correction will be documented in the procurement file as required by applicable Murray City Code.

BID PROTESTS

Any actual or prospective oƯeror or OƯeror aggrieved in connection with this RFQ or the proposed award may file a written protest with the Purchasing Agent in accordance with Murray City Code §3.10.470. A protest concerning this RFQ shall be submitted within five business days after the City issues its notice to award a contract. The protest shall include the information required by Murray City Code §3.10.470(A), including the relief sought and the facts and legal authority supporting the protest. Filing a protest does not automatically stay the procurement process.

GRAMA:

SOQs are subject to disclosure under the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act.

An OƯeror claiming that information is protected under Utah Code §63G-2-305(1) or (2) shall submit a written claim of business confidentiality and a concise statement of the reasons supporting the claim, as required by Utah Code §63G-2-309. Merely marking information “confidential” or “protected” does not determine its classification. Murray City will make the final classification and disclosure determination under applicable law.

Award and Contract:

It is the intention of the City to select the highest-ranked, most qualified firm based on the published evaluation criteria and Qualifications-Based Selection process described in this RFQ.

The City will negotiate a contract, including scope and fee, with the highest-ranked firm in accordance with Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) procedures. The City does not guarantee any award as a result of this solicitation.

The City does not guarantee any minimum quantity or amount of work. The City’s payment and performance obligations for each fiscal year are subject to the availability and annual appropriation of funds. If suƯicient funds are not appropriated or otherwise made available, the City may cancel, suspend, or reduce the remaining work without penalty, as provided in the Draft Agreement.

The terms and conditions governing the resulting contract are contained in the Draft Agreement, Attachment A. By submitting a SOQ, the OƯeror acknowledges that it has reviewed the Draft Agreement. Any requested exception must be expressly identified in the SOQ and is subject to the City’s written acceptance.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A – Available Project Information

The City anticipates making the following available to the selected consultant. Information is provided for planning and shall be verified:

PFAS analytical results for Hyland Well and 500 East Well, including UCMR 5 and follow-up data.

Available well construction records, logs, pump information, production history, and water-quality data.

Available mapping, site plans, piping information, SCADA trends, and operational records.

Relevant master planning, source-protection, and prior engineering information in the City’s possession.

DWSRF funding reservation correspondence, draft Agreement, DBE requirements, and debarment certification.

Sampling data are provided for informational and planning purposes. The selected consultant shall review the available data, identify data gaps, and recommend any additional sampling or analysis needed to complete the study.

The consultant is responsible for identifying missing information and verifying conditions material to the analysis. The City does not represent that available information is complete or suitable for final design.

3.61 ppt Hyland Well Calculated average* 2.54 ppt 500 East Calculated average*

*EPA Workbook rule method

5.06

5.36

3.4

5.44

3.7

4.73

3.84 4 4 4

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Hyland Well 500 East Well PFOA MCL

ATTACHMENT A – DRAFT AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

MURRAY CITY CORPORATION

AND

for Engineering Services for a PFAS Evaluation and Source Development Study

This Agreement is made and entered into this day of _________________, 2026

(the “Effective Date”) by and between Murray City Corporation (“City”), a Utah municipal corporation, and __________________________ (“Consultant”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a groundwater-based public drinking water system and the City relies on local wells and springs and therefore maintaining dependable groundwater sources is vital to system reliability; and

WHEREAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (commonly referred to as “PFAS”) are man-made synthetic chemicals, often called “forever chemicals” because they break down very slowly over time and exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects; and

WHEREAS, because of their widespread use and their persistence in the environment, many PFAS can be found in various water and soil locations including wells and springs; and

WHEREAS, testing and sampling results of the City’s Hyland Well and 500 East Well have included detection of PFAS near or above the federal maximum containment levels and the City desires to find potential options to address the elevated PFAS levels in the City’s groundwater sources; and

WHERAS, the City is in need of a consultant to provide professional engineering services for a PFAS Evaluation and Source Development Study of the Hyland and 500 East Wells to provide the City with potential mitigation and treatment strategies (the “Engineering Services”); and

WHEREAS, Consultant indicates that it is ready, willing, and able to perform the

Services as set forth in this Agreement and the City has determined that Consultant’s proposal is both acceptable to and best suits the needs of the City; and

WHEREAS, the parties want to enter into this Agreement to govern the terms of the services;

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the mutual promises and conditions herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

A. SCOPE OF SERVICES. City hereby agrees to engage Consultant, and Consultant hereby agrees to perform Engineering Services according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as outlined in the Murray City Request for Qualifications No. 26-XX (“RFQ 26- XX”) and as set forth in Consultant’s Proposal to RFQ 26-XX dated ______________ (“Consultant’s Proposal”), both of which are attached hereto as “Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall furnish all labor, equipment, and materials to perform the Engineering Services and Consultant shall confer with City for clarification of all pertinent questions that may arise throughout the course of providing Services under this Agreement.

B. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date entered above and be performed according to the schedule set forth in Consultant’s Proposal.

C. FEES AND PAYMENT. Consultant shall complete the services on a time and expense basis. The total consideration to be paid for the services shall not exceed _____________________________________ DOLLARS ($_________). City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice from Consultant and verification of completion of the Work.

D. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Consultant agrees to the following general terms and conditions:

AMENDMENTS: This Agreement may only be amended by the mutual written agreement of the parties.

ASSIGNMENT: Neither party may assign, sell, transfer, subcontract or sublet rights, or delegate any right or obligation under this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the other party. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties.

ATTORNEY’S FEES: In the event that either party should be required to obtain an attorney to enforce any rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, whether or not the matter is actually litigated.

AUTHORITY TO BIND: By signing this Agreement, Consultant, or the individual(s) signing on behalf of Consultant, represents, warrants and guarantees that they have the legal authority to bind the Consultant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:

(A) Consultant shall treat as confidential all non-public information provided by the City that relates to this Agreement, or that Consultant obtains as a result of performance under this Agreement. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Consultant will return all copies of Confidential Information to the City or certify, in writing, that the Confidential Information has been destroyed. This duty of confidentiality shall be ongoing and survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

(B) In no event shall the City be liable to the Consultant for the release of confidential or proprietary information provided by Consultant to City except as provided under the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Consultant represents that it shall prevent any transaction, activity, conduct or condition which would result in a conflict with the City’s interests under this Agreement. Consultant shall immediately notify City upon becoming aware of any such conflicts. Consultant shall cure any conflict within thirty (30) days, unless such conflict is waived in writing by the City.

CONFLICT OF TERMS/ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. In the event of any conflict in the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the order of precedence shall be: (i) the terms and conditions included in the body of this Agreement; (ii) RFQ 26-XX; and (iii) Contractor’s Proposal. Any provision attempting to limit the liability of Contractor or which limits the rights of the City must be in writing and attached to this Agreement or it is rendered null and void. Contractor Terms and Conditions that apply must be in writing and attached to the Agreement. No other Contractor Terms and Conditions will apply to this Agreement including terms listed or referenced on a Contractor’s website, terms listed in a Contractor’s quotation/sales order, invoice, standardized form, etc.

CONSULTANT’S EMPLOYEES. Consultant’s employees, if any, who perform service under this Agreement shall also be bound by the provisions of this Agreement.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, including all attachments and exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all other prior and contemporaneous understandings, negotiations or agreements between the parties, whether oral or written.

FORCE MAJEURE: Except for the obligation to pay for services appropriately rendered in accordance with this Agreement, neither party hereto will be held responsible for loss, damage, delay or default in shipment or performance occasioned by unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the party, including, but not restricted to, fire, flood, epidemics, quarantine, strikes, riot, acts of God or the public enemy and/or war.

GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws, rules, and regulations of the State of Utah. Any action or proceeding arising from this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Utah. Venue shall be in Salt Lake City, in the Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County or the United States District Court of Utah.

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY: The City is a governmental entity subject to the provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah. Execution of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any defense or limitation of liability under the Act by the City.

INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall fully indemnify, defend, and save harmless the City from all claims, losses, suits, actions, damages, and costs of every name and description arising out of Consultant’s performance of this Agreement caused by or that arise from any negligent, reckless or intentional act or omission of Consultant, its agents, employees, officers, partners, or Subcontractors, without limitation; provided, however, that Consultant shall not indemnify for that portion of any claim, loss, or damage arising hereunder due to the sole fault of the City or of independent third parties. This indemnity shall be interpreted in the broadest possible manner consistent with applicable law to indemnify the City.

The obligation to indemnify shall extend to and encompass all costs incurred by the City in defending such claims, demands, lawsuits or actions, including, but not limited to, attorney, witness and expert witness fees, and any other litigation related expenses. Consultant shall pay any costs that may be incurred by the City in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable attorney fees. The parties agree that if there are any limitations of the Consultant’s liability, including a limitation of liability clause for anyone for whom the Consultant is responsible, such limitations of liability will not apply to injuries to persons, including death, or to damages to property. This indemnification obligation is not limited by, but is in addition to the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS: The parties expressly agree that Consultant, Consultant’s employees and any subcontractors are independent contractors and are not agents or employees of the City. Services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement are not rendered as a City employee and amounts paid under this Agreement do not constitute compensation paid to an employee. Consultant is solely responsible for Consultant’s own employment taxes, worker’s compensation premiums and similar expenses. Consultant represents and warrants that it is in compliance, and will remain in compliance during the term of this Agreement, with all federal, state and local laws relating to the payment of employment taxes, worker’s compensation premiums and the like. This Agreement does not create any joint venture, partnership, undertaking, or business arrangement between the parties hereto. The City assumes no liability for the actions of Consultant.

INSURANCE: Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, at its sole cost and expense, procure and without interruption carry and maintain such insurance as will protect the City from claims arising out of the Services or Work described in this Agreement and performed by Consultant. Consultant shall provide City with proof of insurance prior to the commencement of the Work. Specifically, Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance in the amount of at least two million dollars ($2,000,000.00), or such higher amount as described in a Solicitation for this Agreement. Such insurance shall cover errors and omissions, negligent acts and costs of claims/litigation including investigation and court costs. If the policy is written as a “claims made” policy, Consultant must ensure and provide evidence that the policy retroactive date is prior to the start of the contract work, that coverage is maintained during the duration of performance of the Agreement or the contract period (whichever is longer) and that the policy has a reporting period or run-off provision of at least three (3) years following completion or termination of the performance of professional services under the Agreement.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS: At all times during this Agreement, Consultant and all Services performed under this Agreement will fully comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, codes, orders, and regulations, including applicable licensure and certification requirements.

NO PRESUMPTION AGAINST DRAFTING PARTY: Each party agrees that it has had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel regarding the Agreement and to review it carefully. Each party enters this Agreement voluntarily. No presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.

NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES: City and Consultant are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give to any person, firm, corporation, or legal entity, other than the parties, any rights, remedies, or other benefits under or by reason of the Agreement.

NON-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS: Consultant acknowledges that the City cannot contract for the payment of funds not yet appropriated by the Murray City Municipal Council (the “Council”). If funding to the City is not appropriated, is reduced due to an order by the Council or the City’s Mayor, or is required by State law, or if and state or federal funding (when applicable) is not provided, the City may terminate this Agreement or proportionately reduce the services and purchase obligations from the City upon thirty (30) days written notice. In the case that funds are not appropriated or are reduced, the City will reimburse Consultant for services performed through the date of cancellation or reduction, and the City will not be liable for any future commitments, penalties, or liquidated damages. No act or omission by the City which is attributable to the non-appropriation of funds shall constitute a breach of or default under this Agreement.

NOTICE: Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given in accordance with this Agreement shall be in writing and must be personally delivered, mailed by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, or sent by facsimile, in each case properly addressed to the addresses of the parties indicated in the Agreement, or at such other addresses as may hereafter be furnished in writing by either party hereto to the other party. All notices will be effective upon receipt and will be deemed to have been received three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail, or upon fax confirmation.

OFFICIALS, AGENTS AND EMLOYEES OF CITY NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE. In no event shall any official, officer, employee, agent, representative or volunteer of the City be in any way personally liable or responsible for any covenant or agreement herein contained whether expressed or implied, nor for any statement, representation or warranty made herein or in any connection with the Agreement, or for any alleged or actual breach or default of the City’s obligations hereunder.

OTHER AGREEMENTS AND RIGHTS: Consultant certifies that the performance of this Agreement by Consultant will not violate any contracts or agreements with third parties or any third-party rights, including but not limited to non-compete agreements, non-disclosure agreements, patents, trademarks or other intellectual property rights.

OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents and records produced by Consultant in connection with this Agreement, without limitation, shall become and remain the City’s property. The City shall have the right to use such documents and records without restriction or limitation and without further compensation to Consultant. The parties agree that the Services to be performed by Consultant are a work for hire under U.S. copyright laws and that the City shall retain sole ownership of all copyrights therein.

PAYMENT: The City’s payment for the Services shall not be deemed an acceptance of the Services and is without prejudice to any and all claims that the City may have against Consultant.

RETURN OF RECORDS. Upon termination or completion of this Agreement, Consultant shall deliver to the City, all records, notes, data, memoranda, models, and equipment of any nature that are in Consultant’s possession or under Consultant’s control relating to Consultant’s Services under this Agreement. All such records shall remain the property of the City.

SEVERABILITY: In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provisions shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that they are invalid, illegal or unenforceable, and the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

STANDARD OF CARE: The Services of Consultant and its Subcontractors (if any) shall be performed in accordance with the standard of care exercised by licensed and reputable members of their respective professions having substantial experience providing similar services which similarities include type, magnitude, and complexity of the Services that are the subject of this Agreement. Consultant shall be liable to the City for claims, liabilities, additional burdens, penalties, damages, or third-party claims (e.g., another Consultant’s claim against the City), to the extent caused by wrongful acts, errors, or omissions that do not meet this standard of care.

SURVIVAL OF TERMS: Termination or expiration of this Agreement shall not extinguish or prejudice the City’s right to enforce this Agreement with respect to any default or defect in the Services that has not been cured. All provisions of this Agreement that would reasonably be expected to survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement will do so.

TERMINATION:

This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any or no reason upon ten (10) days’ written notice. In the event of termination by the City, the City shall promptly compensate the Consultant for all Services performed by the Consultant prior to termination.

Consultant acknowledges that in the event of termination, all work product, finished or unfinished, including but not limited to all manuals, forms, contracts, schedules, reports, and any and all documents produced by Consultant under this Agreement up to the date of termination are the property of the City and shall be promptly delivered to the City. Copies of work product incomplete at the time of termination shall be marked “Draft-Incomplete.” Any use of incomplete documents or data shall be at the City’s sole risk.

TIME: The Services shall be completed by any applicable deadline stated in this Agreement or its exhibits. For all Services, time is of the essence.

WAIVER: The failure of either party at any time or times hereafter to require strict performance by the other of any of the undertakings, agreements or covenants contained in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such provision, nor in any way affect the validity of the Agreement, any part hereof, or the right of the party hereunder to demand strict compliance and performance therewith. None of the undertakings, agreements, or covenants of either party under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived unless such waiver is evidenced by an instrument in writing signed by both parties.

(Signature Page to Follow)

DATED as of the day and year first written above.

MURRAY CITY CORPORATION CONSULTANT

Brett A. Hales, Mayor (Signature)

(Print Name and Title)

ATTEST:

Brooke Smith, City Recorder

APPROVED AS TO FORM

Murray City Attorney’s Office

APPR…