1-Attachment 12_Method of Approach.docx

Request for Proposal

Arizona Department of Environmental

Solicitation No. BPM006379 Quality (ADEQ) 1110 W. Washington Street

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems Phoenix, AZ 85007

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:

GHD possesses an extreme passion for public service and in providing the best it can possibly offer for all sizes of public water systems. Engineering design and support needs to be affordable yet of acceptable quality for small and very small systems. Communication between the design consultant, ADEQ, and the public water systems must be developed and nurtured and a relationship developed with trust and respect. Small and very small water systems have less connections and therefore less revenue; engineering fees and support must be appropriate to consider affordability. Additionally, GHD is in constant communications with compliance and plan reviewers to consider the nature and circumstances of the application submittals for these systems.

Since small utilities usually have fewer personnel, engineering solutions that adapt to this situation are always a must. Timing of response, equipment that does not require constant attention, fail safe design are some of the considerations that GHD implements every time we design for small utilities.

Arizona has over 200 small and very small public water systems. For the sake of the Arizona Citizens and the environment served by these small and very small public water systems, it is GHD’s responsibility and ethics of its employees to work efficiently under an affordable budget to successfully service the citizens and environment.

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 first step is to develop communications with the public water system owner, the operator, and all involved with the public water system including in this case the support provided by ADEQ. GHD would then reach out to the regulatory authority to identify noncompliances, compliance orders, and regulatory concerns. GHD would then come together with all identified to develop a schedule of needs and concerns and form a team to develop a proposal with scope of work and budget to present to stakeholders and ADEQ. Needs would be identified in addition to water treatment such as the possible needs for electrical improvements. Negociations between ADEQ, the public water system, and the designer would take place until a budget was reached that represented the needs and afforability of the public water system.

Once an agreement was informally reached, GHD would move forward gathering initial information with long lead times such as flood use permit requirements. Information received from ADEQ and the public water system would immediately be reviewed and understood as the foundation for the design. With the purchase order received, the design team would form and develop a project schedule for meetings, administration, levels of design, permitting and submittal for construction certificates, construction administration, project closeout, and other tasks found in the scope of work. Based on over 100 years of experience in water treatment systems amongst staff dedicated to the project, all treatment technologies will be considered and evaluated for capital costs, long-term O&M costs, ease of O&M, safety, and performance reliability. The various technolgies would be be placed in an evaluation matrix and discussed in the design report or technical memo. Staff of the designer are always on the look out for new and promising technologies that may improve the overall treatment objectives considered. All information would be shared with the public water sytems, the operator, and ADEQ so that support could be developed for a specific technology and components.

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

Based on GHD’s experience in water treatment systems amongst staff dedicated to the project, all treatment technologies will be considered and evaluated for capital costs, long-term O&M costs, ease of O&M, safety, and performance reliability. The various technolgies would be be placed in an evaluation matrix and discussed in the design report or technical memo. Staff of the designer are always on the look out for new and promising technologies that may improve the overall treatment objectives considered. All information would be shared with the public water sytem, the operator, and ADEQ so that support could be developed for a specific technology and components. Vendor feedback and modeling of the various technololgies are instrumental to successfully picking the technology that suits the needs, affordability, and performance of the public water system owner.

Offeror shall respond to question #4, 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 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?

The designer and the stakeholders need to consider each site on a case-by-case basis. The best option would be no pH adjustments are needed to optimize performance of arsenic asorption media for wellhead treatment systems; as a result, no change takes place in the finsished water with the exception of removal of chemicals and compounds such as total arsenic and silica. As a result, the water chemistry remains generally the same before and after treatment. For example, a current project of GHD involves the reduction of raw water pH to enhance the performance of the arsenic adsorption media; to bring the pH back up to raw water pH after media treatment, GHD is proposing the addition of sodium hydroxide or sodium bicarbonate to the treatment effluent. If no legacy information is available regarding lead and copper problems in customer service lines or deterioration of distribution pipes, then a corrosion control assessment must be part of the design process to validate whether or not water quality will be impacted from the treatment additiona and accessories.

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?

· Periodic meetings with ADEQ staff and client will ensure that there are no surprises regarding the project. If a project is behind schedule, GHD will generate a plan that may include reallocate resources or adding more people to the project, prioritize critical tasks and deliverables, reduce scope, etc. Fundamental changes in strategy may include fundamental changes in design, elimination of tasks determined to be redundant, and acceleration techniques. As a last resort, staff may be replaced on a project.

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?

· The designer being to back logged or busy to finish a project is not an acceptable scenario for the GHD project manager. GHD is currently deep in all levels of staff so that there is no excuse for defaulting on a project. In the formation of project team, GHD evaluates individual team members, with respect to their long-term workload estimates. By having a national presence, GHD is able to pull resources from other areas to satisfy the local needs of the projects.

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

· The designer’s first step would be to talk to ADEQ, Maricopa County CDBG Projects Coordinator, and the PWS owner. Once information was obtained from talking with the group, the designer would reach out to the contractor in a tactful and careful manner regarding solutions on how the project could be gotten back on track, with respect to schedule. Purchase orders are issued to the subcontractors but they are not fully paid until the deliverable are fully complete.

GHD stresses that its project managers stay on schedule and on budget. Any negative variation in schedule or finance is to be reported to leadership without hesitation (See above for additional responses.).

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?

GHD has participated in the International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001 program for over 20 years. ISO 9001 places strict QA/QC requirements on its certified members including documentation, internal audits, and external audits. A QA/QC officer will be assigned to the project and will be required to complete and sign QA/QC forms during document reviews; these forms are electronically filed and retained for at least five years and are available to ADEQ upon request. The review and form completion project are required for all projects transmitted from GHD.

Request for Proposal

Arizona Department of Environmental

Solicitation No. BPM006379 Quality (ADEQ) 1110 W. Washington Street

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems Phoenix, AZ 85007

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

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?

One of GHD projects in Casa Grande, AZ required a service entrance section to feed a new pump being installed. Given the extremely long lead times the electrical gear is experiencing, GHD proposed a few options to Arizona Water Company to mitigate the risk and stay in schedule. The option of adding a meter can instead of a SES was not well received at the beginning but GHD was able to answer all the question the client had in order for them to approve the change in scope to sat in schedule. A meter can was ordered and installed successfully. The plant went into operations in April 2024.

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

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.

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):

Option 1: Source Modification of Public Water System:

Since only 20 connections are present, the designer would discuss with private well owners the possibility of supplying the very small public water system. The 20 residences and business would finance the re-routing of the distribution main to one of the higher quality wells located away from the river. Those making up the 20 connections would provide all financial support for regulatory review, approval, initial sampling, and routine operation and monitoring by a certified ADEQ Grade 1 or Grade 2 water treatment operator from the original system. In turn, the private well owner would receive monthly water bill revenues from the twenty customers. The designer would ask the regulator if the old infrastructure could be left in place encase there was a need to return to the original well. All improvement costs might be covered by the 20 customers via WIFA and BABA funds. Operation and maintenance of the private water well converted to public use would also be covered by the public water system. The following tasks would be utilized to support Option 1:

1. Meet with the residents, the public water system, ADEQ, and the delegated PWS regulator to see whether the PWS would consider an outreach to the private well owners possessing better water quality.

2. Provided that support could obtained from ADEQ and the PWS, the designer would coordinate a meeting with the private well owners to discuss the benefits on water sales to the private well owners from the PWS with 20 connections. The objective is to avoid the expense to the PWS of having to drill, install, complete, and develop a new production well; this includes the initial boring, soil sampling, and water sampling investigations to verify an ideal location to try a new production well.

3. If interest and support was obtained from the private well owners, the designer would prepare a scope of consulting work needed to provide the conceptual design for connecting the distribution main to the private well and mothballing the original well. Provided a buy-in could be reached on the conceptual design, the final design detailed in the work scope would be implemented.

4. The designer would assist the PWS or act as their agent in applying for grants and WIFA funding.

5. The designer would continue to support the project as outlined in the original scope by providing permitting support, construction administration, startup and commissioning support, and project close-out support.

6. The designer would continue to call ADEQ and the PWS after the project to follow up and support the success and sustainability of the PWS.

Option 2: Point of Use (POU) Reverse Osmosis Systems:

Considering the financial state of the public water system and its 20 customers, the designer would discuss circumstances with the public water system regulator regarding the installation and maintenance of 20 under the kitchen sink reverse osmosis packages also containing carbon and fiber filtration. These packages would be monitored and maintained by the operator of record. The packages would have a process indicator device on the sink counter linked to specific conductivity; the light would come on when specific conductivity values rose to a trigger value or a set point. The POU packages would remove the uranium, chloride, sulfate, total hardness, and TDS from the drinking water to compliance levels in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The designer has been involved with 18 POU projects and their installation and operation in accordance with the ADEQ Point of Use Guidance Manual. The concentrate from each POU would not be an intense load on the septic system, with respect to quantity. The following tasks would be utilized to support Option 2:

1. Meet with the residents, the public water system, the delegated PWS regulator, and ADEQ to see whether or they would support POU system

2. Provided that support could obtained, the designer would meet with the PWS and the operator of record to discuss the operability and maintenance of the POU systems

3. The designer would prepare a scope of work, budget, and schedule for ADEQ

4. The designer would prepare a workplan, O&M manual, and a 12-year sampling schedule for the PWS, ADEQ, and the delegated PWS regulator

5. The designer would prepare a bid solicitation package to reach out to POU system providers

6. The designer would assist the parties in evaluating the proposals to supply 22 POU systems and would also assist with the award

7. The designer would provide additional support to the PWS during the installation of 20 POU systems and would be available for future questions by ADEQ, the local PWS regulator, the PWS, and the citizens

Option 3: Ion Exchange Resins:

The use of both cationic and anionic exchange resin may be an option as a solution to removing uranium, chloride, sulfate, hardness, TDS, and total hardness. The designer has experience and knowledge where both the cationic resin and the anionic resin are loaded in the same vessels. Because there are only 20 connections, the designer recommends 12” diameter x 6’ tall resin vessels that can be changed out and transported back to the ion exchange supplier’s regeneration facility. The operator of record would be supplied with an ample stock of regenerated media vessels that could be placed online to meet treatment demand. The following tasks would be utilized to support Option 3:

1. Meet with the residents, the public water system, delegated PWS regulator, and ADEQ to see whether the PWS would consider an ion exchange package to treat the original well effluent. Placement of the treatment system would be recommended off the river flood zone in the direction of the 20 connections

2. If interest and support was obtained, the designer would prepare a scope of consulting work needed to provide the conceptual design for the ion exchange option. Provided a buy-in could be reached on the conceptual design, the final design detailed in the work scope would be implemented.

3. The designer would assist the PWS or act as their agent in applying for grants and WIFA funding.

4. The designer would continue to support the project as outlined in the original scope by providing permitting support, construction administration, startup and commissioning support, and project close-out support.

5. The designer would continue to call ADEQ and the PWS after the project to follow up and support the success and sustainability of the PWS.

Recommendations:

Provided that regulatory approval or a variance could be obtained, the designer recommends the POUs systems for the following reasons:

· Change in Scope of Work for the Operator of Record and the PWS: Installation of the POU systems by a licensed plumber is simplistic and the least disruptive to the existing PWS. The sampling schedule provided in the ADEQ POU Guidance Manual is comprehensive but quite manageable by PWS staff, i.e., sampling of each POU every 36 months.

· Capital Costs: The cost of each POU is less $1,000, and labor is approximately $250. As a result, total capital costs are approximately $25,000 or less.

· O&M Costs: In addition to sampling for performance verification, the filter cartridges, the GAC cartridges, and the reverse osmosis membranes are replaced. The filters and GAC cartridges should be replaced annually, and the membranes every three years.

· The customers stay connected with the PWS and gain insight and appreciation for their public water supply.

Solicitation Attachment – Method of Approach | Revision No. 1 | Revised 11-22 image1.jpeg