1-Attachment 12.pdf

Request for Proposal

Solicitation No. BPM006379

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Solicitation Attachment – Method of Approach | Revision No. 1 | Revised 11-22

Attachment 12 – Method of Approach

The Offeror shall provide a narrative response to each question that demonstrates their understanding of the Scope of

Work requirements and describes the company’s overall method of approach for providing the Service(s) stated in this

Solicitation. If there is a question that is not applicable to the Services required by the Scope of Work, you may mark it

“N/A”. The narrative should not contain language used for marketing purposes.

Offeror shall provide a response either after each question or in a separate document entitled: “Attachment 12 -

Method of Approach.” If a separate document is used, please clearly designate each section and double-check to ensure that each question has been answered. If any information provided is considered CONFIDENTIAL by

Offeror, the information must be specifically included in the Confidential Information Designation Attachment and related documentation to be assessed for confidential treatment under A.A.C. R2-7-103. Response to Method of

Approach shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Question 1: How would your approach for a project differ working for a very small community or utility as opposed to a medium or large city or utility?

Offeror Response:

Smaller Utilities usually do not have adequate mapping and/or inventory of the facilities. Generally, medium or large utilities do.

Therefore, after the initial site visit, for small utilities, we usually prepare a detailed field map of the project facilities to create a plan base for design. For large utilities, we request plan records and manuals to inventory the system. Then, we would schedule a site/field meeting with the owner or operator to discuss the status (age, maintenance, etc) of the facilities. Typically, small systems do not have any pressure/flow models, and many times do not know the pressure regime within the system, so more field measurements are required for the modelling. Generally speaking, the small systems require more field work to determine base line information for the design.

Offeror shall respond to question #2, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

5 - Design of water system improvements

7 - Drinking water permit applications (e.g., ATC, AOC, APP, AZPDES)

11- Preparing Corrosion Control Assessments & Treatment Recommendations

Question 2: What is your process when designing and permitting a drinking water treatment system? How would you approach the design & permitting of a treatment system for a small public water system? Describe the steps that you take to select the best treatment technology.

Offeror Response:

The process when designing and permitting a drinking water treatment system begins with knowing the relevant drinking water standards, the applicable engineering design standards, and the required Approval to Construct/Approval of

Construction documentation. Baseline water quality sampling (preferably with multiple sample sets of representative source water) is required to establish the starting point for the treatment design. Site visits to observe and record actual water system data, area layout, and equipment, along with meeting the system’s owner and operator are essential to the design. The engineer must work as part of the team with the regulatory agencies, permitting authorities, and water system staff.

The approach to the design and permitting of a treatment system for a small public water system is the same as described above, with some additional considerations. First, the treatment design must be simple enough to be operated with

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) limited resources. Small water systems do not have round-the-clock staffing and normally have limited technical skills and knowledge. While good training and support during the start-up and initial operations phase helps, engineers move on to other projects while the water system staff are left to operate the treatment plant forever. Second, the water treatment plant design must have reasonable operating and maintenance costs that can be borne by the water system.

Replacement parts must be readily available. The level of support available from the treatment plant vendors (if applicable) should be considered. And finally, small water systems normally require financial assistance to design/engineer/permit treatment systems. Engineers must be willing and able to help with financing aspects during all phases of the design, permitting, and ultimately, the construction, of the water treatment plant.

The steps to select the best treatment technology will vary with the project and the treatment type, but in general, in addition to insuring the technology can achieve the required finished water quality, the engineer must consider capital costs, operating & maintenance costs, daily operational requirements, and disposal requirements (if any).

Question 3: How will you ensure your proposed solution to the assigned task is practical, cost-effective, and sustainable for the small water system?

Offeror Response:

Typically, small water systems are comprised of a well, a storage tank, booster pumps and a distribution system. System deficiencies are typically a failed well, inadequate storage, undersized/old pumps, and aging/undersized distribution systems. In order for the proposed solution to be practical, it needs to integrate with the abilities of the operator/owner to maintain it. Many times, replacing the existing end suction centrifugal pumps with vertical VFD pumps, does not allow the maintenance man the ability to “swap out” pumps when a pump goes down, and many times they do not have the expertise to fix the VFD controller. Installing a new storage tank that is higher than the existing tank does not allow the system to take advantage of all of the water stored (because the lower tank will overflow before the higher tank completely fills). Depending on depth, new wells should have a large enough diameter to allow flexibility in the submersible pump selection. Simple solutions such as removing sludge from existing facilities to lower the contaminant level to below the MCL, or raising a submersible pump in the water column to get it further from the sludge in the bottom of the well should be evaluated.

Generally, the most cost effective solutions are the solutions that have parts that are the most available. Many small systems are in remote areas, so availability is a real concern. Domestic pumps are typically more available than foreign pumps and therefore less expensive. End suction pumps on a pressure switch are less expensive than a VFD controller, and can be purchased off the shelf.

Plastic storage tanks are easier to find than site welded tanks. Schedule 40 pipe for 3-inches or less is more available and less expensive than Schedule 80 pipe. Sometimes upgrading to 3 phase power from single phase power will save on the electrical components. Many times a dial-up remote sensor is easier for the owner/operator to operate, and less expensive, than a full SCADA system. If appropriate, blending should be considered for treatment options to pro-long the life of the media, and media replacement costs should be evaluated prior to the media selection.

Having accurate records and maps of a water system is the first step towards sustainability. Systematic inspections, testing and exercising, as well as preparing a replacement/upgrade program is also very important. Using a standard pump for as many applications as possible allows for the operator to keep a spare pump when the production pumps break, so it extends the life of the system. Sometimes increasing the pressure within the system will have adverse impacts to the existing pipes, especially if the existing pipes are AC, so a PRV should be installed, or the sensitivity of the existing pipes and connections should be evaluated. Labeling flow direction and removing non-operating equipment helps when new operators and/or contractors work on the site. Corrosion anodes can be placed on welded steel tanks to pro-long the life of the tank.

Generally speaking, the more simple and straight forward the task lay-out, the more practical, cost-effective and sustainable it is.

Offeror shall respond to question #4, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

5 - Design of water system improvements

7 - Drinking water permit applications (e.g., ATC, AOC, APP, AZPDES)

11- Preparing Corrosion Control Assessments & Treatment Recommendations

Question 4: When designing a treatment system that modifies water chemistry, how do you ensure this treatment won’t cause or exacerbate other water quality problems?

To help ensure treatment won’t cause or exacerbate other water quality problems, the engineer should have a thorough understanding of water chemistry. Whenever possible, water treatment should be designed so that it does not significantly alter water chemistry, due to the potential unwanted downstream effects and a more complex treatment design (both of which are especially bad for small water systems). However, sometimes it is unavoidable, making it necessary to specify a multi-stage treatment plant. Smart, effective sampling, and sometimes even pilot studies for very complex treatment systems, can be used to help ensure the treatment design will solve the intended water quality issue without causing additional problems. In addition, training is needed for the water system staff and operator to ensure everyone understands what each step in the treatment process is supposed to do, how to control each step in the process, and what can happen if the process gets out of control. Two common examples of competing water quality issues are disinfection/DBPs and pH adjustment/corrosion.

Questions 5: How will you ensure that project(s) stays on schedule and is(are) completed on-time as per the task order offer/award?

If a project is not on schedule, describe what steps will be taken to get the project back on track?

If your team is backed up or unavailable to finish a job, describe what steps will be taken to get the project delivered on time?

If your subcontractor is falling behind stated deliverable, describe what steps will be taken to get the project on track and delivered on time?

Greg Carlson Engineering only has 2 employees and one sub-contractor. Greg Carlson is the project manager and principal designer, so it is up to Mr. Carlson to allocate his time and pass projects along to Juan Feria in a timely manner so that projects stay on schedule.

If Mr. Carlson or Mr. Feria are behind schedule, they will work over-time and weekends to get back on schedule.

Greg Carlson will prioritize this contract when allocating manpower. If the team gets backed up, other projects will be delayed so that the project gets on schedule.

My subcontractor has yet to fall behind, and is usually ahead of schedule. If in the event she falls behand, so will also work overtime or weekends to get the project on schedule.

Question 6: Describe your company’s review process to ensure that technical documents are complete and accurate prior to submission to ADEQ. What documents can ADEQ review to verify if the review was completed? If

ADEQ finds an issue, who, other than the PM, is the point of contact for resolution?

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

All technical documents are reviewed and sealed by Greg Carlson. Most technical documents are composed and/or designed by Greg

Carlson. ADEQ can contact Mr. Carlson at anytime to verify if the documents were reviewed by Greg Carlson. Since Greg Carlson is the principal designer, he is the only point of contact.

Question 7: Describe a time where obstacles faced during a project resulted in a change to your methodology of approach. What were the obstacles, the impact to the project and what did you do to overcome them?

Offeror Response:

Greg Carlson Engineering LLC was awarded a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) to prepare permitting applications for six (6) in-line arsenic treatment units to be installed throughout the school campus. The directive from the school was that since the school’s domestic water system and irrigation system were connected, the school did not want to install a single larger unit and incur the expense of using treated water for irrigation, especially since irrigating the play fields used over 30,000 gallons/day in the hot months.

A water Master Plan was prepared for the existing system and construction plans were prepared for each of the 6 treatment units along with specification documents, and the project was put out to bid. Unfortunately, no bids were received for the project. Feedback from the prospective venders indicated that the smaller individual units were overly complicated to install.

As such, it was determined that installation of a larger centralized treatment unit, and segregating the domestic water from the irrigation system would be more appropriate for the school.

As part of the project re-evaluation and scoping it was determined that separating the school irrigation system from the potable water system would reduce the size and operating costs of a centralized unit. The potable water system would continue to use Well #2 as the water source, and the irrigation system could use one of the other wells on the campus as a water source.

Greg Carlson Engineering was tasked with evaluating the other two wells on the campus to determine their viability for use as a source for the irrigation system. An un-used well near the play fields was identified as the most appropriate well to use. Greg Carlson

Engineering is presently preparing a proposal to prepare plans for a centralized treatment unit for the potable water, and equipping the other well to be connected into the irrigation system for the play fields.

Offeror shall respond to scenario #1, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following

4 - Construction Administration & Construction Management

5 - Design of water system improvements

7 - Drinking water permit applications

8 - Funding Assistance

9 - Legal assistance (e.g., forming corporate status, corporate documents)

10- Median Household Income Surveys

12 - Preparing Environmental Documents/Archeological Surveys

13 - Preparing Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER)

14 - Rate studies, rate reviews, rate cases

16 - System Evaluations

19 - Water Quality Compliance Options

Scenario 1: A small, rural public water system has multiple water quality issues. There are 20 current connections;

the customers are low income and/or retirees. All the homes are on septic systems. The system consists of one well (located within the floodway of a major river), an elevated storage tank and distribution system.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

The water system has maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances for uranium. In addition, chloride, sulfate, total hardness and total dissolved solids are well above the secondary MCLs. Sampling of private wells in the area indicated better water quality may be found away from the river. Outline at least three alternatives to address the water quality issues that are cost effective and sustainable for this very small water system. Provide your recommendation for the best alternative for the system.

For your recommendation include the following information for this scenario:

A bullet list of tasks that your firm would conduct to address the water quality issues and implement a solution. The tasks should be presented in the order they would be conducted. Each task should include the purpose of the task (e.g., why are you doing it? What information will be obtained in doing the task? What other information would be included in your summary recommendation report to ADEQ?

Offeror Response (limit response for scenario #1 to two (2) pages):

ALTERNATIVE 1-Install treatment at the existing elevated storage site

• Records Research-Obtain existing Maps and Documents o FEMA MAP- work map to determine Base Flood Elevation for river o LOCAL Flood Map-determine any other floodplain related issues o ADWR-Image records and Driller’s Log to determine depth of existing well, static water levels, lithographic stratums and water bearing stratums.

o Records of Survey (ROS)-search publically available ROS to determine base information for parcel boundaries, public lands, and extents of fee simple parcels owned by the water company o Water Quality Data-obtain base information for the primary and secondary contaminants o Water Use Data-obtain water use from metering reading and/or public report

• Field Survey-Map the existing well and storage sites and inventory the components o Take field measurements and prepare map of site(s) o Obtain make and model of all pumps to determine flow rates o Observe any pressure gauges for pressure readings o Document pipe sizes and materials o Read well pump flow meter to determine flow rate for treatment system.

o Document power supply, service panels and control panels

• Site Evaluation- determine if a treatment unit can be placed on the site o Determine if site is susceptible to freeze conditions and requires a building o Determine approximate size of unit and auxiliary components based on flow rate and treatment units o Determine if preliminary unit footprint will fit on site without any additional fill. If additional fill is required, the site might not be able to be utilized since the floodway is considered a “no-build” zone by FEMA. If the unit can be placed on the existing pad, then a determination will need to be made, whether the unit is considered a “critical facility” which would require elevation 2-ft above the BFE.

o Determine location for waste disposal. Backwash and regeneration water for the units will require disposal.

Determine if disposal fields can be placed in the floodplain, if not, is there enough room on the elevated pad?

• Design Treatment Unit-determine the primary and pre-treatment units and disposal systems o Pre-treatment- Evaluate the necessity for in-line filters, water softening, and/or charcoal filters.

o Ion Exchange through adsorptive media-select the best media treatment for the site based upon media life (bed volumes) and replacement costs. Many time pH is a factor in the selection process.

o Determine if a booster is required after the treatment chain, since the treatment chain will create a pressure drop.

• Cost Analysis- determine initial capital costs, maintenance costs, and media replacement costs.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – Drill a new well in a location outside the floodplain where sampling indicates better water quality

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

• Outline the best location for siting the new well using Well Driller’s logs, water sampling of local wells, and fence diagrams.

Then determine if any customers are willing to sell land or a perpetual easement for the new well in the more favorable location. Explore public funding options for acquiring a well site.

• Obtain a Title search to determine if easements, and/or right-of-ways are available to connect the new well to the existing storage tank and/or system.

• Additional Records Research-Obtain existing Maps and Documents o FEMA MAP- to make sure new site is outside the floodplain o LOCAL Flood Map-determine any other floodplain related issues related to the new site o Records of Survey-to determine base information for parcel boundaries, public lands, and extents of fee simple parcels owned by the water company o Water Use Data-obtain water use from metering reading and/or public report

• System Map-Map proposed well location to determine if adequate right of way is available to connect to storage tank, or if a new storage tank at the new well site will be required.

• Field Survey-Map the existing distribution system o Document available power supply for the new well.

o Document any obstacle within the right-of-way, fences, washes, hills, etc.

• Site Evaluation- determine if site is large enough to drill well and also install a treatment unit if necessary o Determine if site is susceptible to freeze conditions and requires a building

• Cost Analysis- determine site acquisition cost, drilling cost, site equipment cost, operating (electric and/or treatment) costs.

ALTERNATIVE 3- Install POU/POE units at each house

• Determine whether a Point of Use or Point of Entry unit is more feasible for the houses.

• Determine whether or not the residences are receptive of installing the units in the houses.

• Determine if the residences are capable of maintaining the units.

• Determine if the residences will allow entry to the houses for testing.

• Cost Analysis- determine unit acquisition costs, unit installation costs, unit replacement costs.

RECOMMENDATION

Typically Alternative 3 is the least desirable due to the inability of the homeowners to maintain the units on a long term basis, especially considering if the homeowners sell their houses or rent their houses, and the new tenants do not understand the process and/or necessity of the units.

Selecting between alternatives 1 & 2 would be dependent upon whether or not the proposed treatment would fit on the existing site footprint for Alternative 1, and whether or not a proper site could be obtained for Alternative 2.

All things being equal, Alternative 2 would be the best long term option since it would require the least maintenance and operational costs.