1-Attachment 12 - Solicitation No. BPM006379 - Method of Approach.docx

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

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:

Question 1 Approach for Very Small Community or Utility vs. Medium or Large City or Utility Our approach is predicated on solutions meeting a triple-bottom-line of being technically feasible and sustainable, managerially feasible and sustainable, and financially feasible and sustainable, all within the resources and capabilities of the system as it is or restructured.

The approach for very small communities or utilities utilizes Asset Based Capacity Development and embraces ASSESSMENT, FACILITATION, and COACHING in a framework of integration and collaboration based on the community or system assets – physical, financial, technological, employee skills, processes and procedures, support networks, and the community being served. We facilitate discovering how skilled and experienced the water system really is … across all areas of operational, financial, and managerial aspects of the utility. From that base, together we find ways to enhance system capacity.

While utilities and organizations are often confronted with their deficits and needs, we believe that the starting point for capacity development is a recognition of strengths and potentials. We utilize a number of context-based tools and practices to identify and maximize strengths and opportunities. We work side-by-side with the water system to develop an implementable and effective strategy to address current and emerging capacity development needs.

1. Understanding the Context:

· Very Small Community or Utility:

· Personalized Engagement: Greater emphasis on building close relationships with community members and local stakeholders. Communication tends to be more direct and personalized. Additional engagement when key functions are outsourced to vendors.

· Resource Limitations: Acknowledge and work within limited resources, both financial and human. Solutions need to be tailored to fit smaller budgets and available expertise. Where documentation is lacking, AARC may need to provide examples based on best practices in the industry.

· Medium or Large City or Utility:

· Formalized Processes: More structured and formal communication with multiple stakeholders, including city officials, departments, and regulatory bodies.

· Greater Resources: Larger budgets and more extensive resources are available, allowing for more complex and expansive solutions.

2. Project Planning and Management:

· Very Small Community or Utility:

· Simplified Processes: Streamlined project plans and simpler project management processes to accommodate smaller teams and less complex bureaucratic structures.

· Flexibility: Greater flexibility in adapting to changes and implementing solutions quickly due to fewer layers of approval.

· Medium or Large City or Utility:

· Detailed Planning: More comprehensive and detailed project plans are required, including extensive risk management and contingency planning due to the larger scale and complexity.

· Formal Approvals: More structured approval processes and stakeholder consultations are necessary, requiring more time for project initiation and execution.

3. Solution Design and Implementation:

· Very Small Community or Utility:

· Cost-Effective Solutions: Focus on cost-effective and practical solutions that fit within the limited budget. Emphasize low-cost, high-impact measures. Recognize need for phased implementation as funding is obtained.

· Local Solutions: Tailor solutions to the specific needs and constraints of the community, considering local conditions and resources.

· Medium or Large City or Utility:

· Advanced Solutions: Ability to implement more advanced and scalable technologies and solutions due to larger budgets and resources.

· Integration: Solutions may need to integrate with existing systems and infrastructure on a larger scale, requiring more detailed coordination and planning.

4. Stakeholder Involvement:

· Very Small Community or Utility:

· Direct Involvement: Directly involve community members and local stakeholders in the planning and decision-making processes. Feedback and input are often gathered through informal meetings and community forums.

· Medium or Large City or Utility:

· Diverse Stakeholders: Engage with a wider range of stakeholders, including various departments, public officials, and possibly external organizations. Formal public consultations and meetings may be required.

5. Monitoring and Evaluation:

· Very Small Community or Utility:

· Simpler Metrics: Use straightforward metrics and monitoring tools to evaluate project success and effectiveness. Adjustments can be made quickly based on direct feedback.

· Medium or Large City or Utility:

· Comprehensive Metrics: Implement more complex monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the performance and impact of the project. This may involve sophisticated data collection and analysis methods.

6. Sustainability and Maintenance:

· Very Small Community or Utility:

· Practical Sustainability: Focus on practical and sustainable solutions that are easy to maintain with limited resources. Emphasize long-term durability and low maintenance requirements.

· Medium or Large City or Utility:

· Advanced Sustainability: Incorporate advanced sustainability practices and technologies, taking advantage of larger budgets to support long-term environmental and operational goals.

By adapting the approach to fit the specific needs and constraints of the community or utility, we ensure that the solutions are effective, appropriate, and sustainable for the given context.

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:

Question 2:

Designing and permitting a drinking water treatment system, especially for small public water systems, requires a detailed, methodical approach to ensure safety, compliance, and sustainability. At AARC, we follow a comprehensive process that addresses the unique challenges small systems face, as defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These systems serve populations of fewer than 10,000 people, and nearly 90% of the 150,000 public water systems in the U.S. fall into this category, with more than half serving fewer than 500 people.

Small public water systems, particularly community water systems with fewer than 10,000 people, often encounter issues such as limited financial resources, aging infrastructure, and difficulties in workforce retention. Given the large percentage of small systems, it is essential to provide them with targeted support to ensure they can deliver safe and reliable drinking water.

AARC's Approach to Designing and Permitting Small Public Water Systems

1. Preliminary Assessment

· Population Served: Identify the population that the system will serve.

· Water Service Type: Determine how potable water is currently provided (e.g., private wells, public wells with treatment and distribution).

· Wastewater Management: Assess whether the community uses septic systems or a public collection and treatment system.

· Regulatory Compliance: Review any existing violations, consent orders, or other regulatory issues tied to the water supply.

· Backflow Prevention: Confirm if the community has a backflow prevention system in place.

· Water Quality Analysis: Sample the water supply to identify any contaminants present.

· System Capacity: Evaluate the system’s capacity and fire flow capabilities. The preliminary assessment should also factor in the level of training and certification of staff, as well as the utility's ability to attract and retain personnel. These factors are crucial, as they may influence the selection of technology, ensuring that the system is both operable and maintainable by the available workforce.

2. Technology Selection

· Tailored Treatment Solutions: Based on the system size, staffing levels, and water quality results, select the most effective treatment technology. For example, sodium hypochlorite might be chosen to minimize staff exposure, or a chlorine/ammonia treatment may be used depending on the specific contaminants identified.

· Well Remediation or Replacement: If public well water samples exceed Maximum Detection Limits (MDLs), we consider whether deeper wells, well remediation, or alternative water sources are necessary.

· Infrastructure Upgrades: Evaluate the age of the distribution system, particularly if lead pipes are in use, and identify opportunities for securing funding to upgrade the system to meet current standards.

3. Permitting Process

· Approval to Construct (ATC): If improvement plans are necessary, the first step in Arizona is obtaining an ATC from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

· Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES): This state program regulates pollutant discharge into surface waters. Although most small public wastewater facilities do not have industrial pretreatment programs, AARC has a dedicated division to manage the discharge of pollutants into surface waters, ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. Our services include developing and implementing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to meet regulatory requirements.

By following this structured approach, AARC ensures that small public water systems are designed and permitted in a way that meets regulatory standards, protects public health, and supports the long-term sustainability of these essential services.

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:

Question 3 Ensuring Practicality, Cost-Effectiveness, and Sustainability To ensure that our proposed solution is practical, cost-effective, and sustainable for the small water system, we will:

1. Assess Needs and Constraints:

· Conduct a Thorough Assessment: Begin with a detailed evaluation of the small water system’s specific needs, constraints, and current infrastructure. This includes reviewing existing resources, understanding operational challenges, and identifying key requirements.

· Engage Stakeholders: Involve stakeholders, including system operators and local community members, to gather insights and ensure the solution aligns with their needs and expectations.

2. Develop Practical Solutions:

· Feasibility Study: Perform a feasibility study to assess the practicality of the proposed solution, including technical feasibility, implementation challenges, and compatibility with existing systems. This also involves understanding the jurisdiction's collective attitude toward current rates and any potential rate increases to fund improvements, which may drive the selection of the final solution. Our advice in this step is guided by our extensive experience working with 164 small systems nationwide, allowing us to recommend what works well and identify solutions that may be more challenging to operate and maintain in various settings.

· Scalable Design: Design solutions that can be scaled or adjusted based on future needs or changes in system requirements, ensuring adaptability over time.

3. Ensure Cost-Effectiveness:

· Budget Analysis: Perform a detailed cost analysis of the proposed solution, including initial implementation costs, ongoing operational costs, and maintenance expenses.

· Cost-Benefit Evaluation: Compare the costs against the anticipated benefits to ensure the solution provides value for money. Consider both direct and indirect cost savings, such as reduced maintenance or operational efficiencies.

· Seek Funding Opportunities: Identify and explore potential funding sources or financial incentives that can help offset costs, such as grants or subsidies.

4. Promote Sustainability:

· Environmental Impact: Evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed solution to ensure it minimizes adverse effects and promotes environmental stewardship.

· Resource Efficiency: Use resources efficiently by incorporating energy-saving technologies, reducing waste, and optimizing water use.

· Long-Term Viability: Ensure the solution supports long-term sustainability by considering factors such as durability, ease of maintenance, and the ability to adapt to future changes in technology or regulations.

5. Implement and Monitor:

· Pilot Testing: Conduct pilot tests or simulations to validate the effectiveness of the solution before full-scale implementation. This helps identify any issues early and allows for adjustments.

· Continuous Monitoring: Establish monitoring systems to track the performance of the solution over time. Collect data on key performance indicators to ensure the solution continues to meet its objectives and remains cost-effective and sustainable.

6. Iterative Improvement:

· Feedback Mechanism: Create a feedback loop with system operators and stakeholders to gather input and make necessary improvements. This ensures that the solution remains relevant and effective in addressing the small water system’s needs.

By following these steps, we aim to deliver a solution that is not only practical and cost-effective but also sustainable, thereby supporting the long-term success and resilience of the small water system.

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?

Offeror Response:

Question 4 At AARC, we prioritize a comprehensive and collaborative approach when designing treatment systems that modify water chemistry. Our established internal policy emphasizes promoting and soliciting both internal and external comments and recommendations throughout the design process. This ensures that the treatment system is not only effective but also avoids unintended consequences that could compromise water quality.

1. Detailed Water Chemistry Analysis

· Laboratory Testing: We begin by conducting thorough laboratory analyses of the water supply and distribution system. This includes identifying the specific chemical composition and any existing water quality issues. Understanding the baseline chemistry is crucial to developing a treatment strategy that addresses current needs without introducing new problems.

· Treatment Planning: Based on these analyses, we determine the most effective treatment options to achieve the desired water quality goals. Our approach ensures that the selected treatment methods align with the specific characteristics of the water chemistry.

2. Proactive Identification and Mitigation of Potential Issues

· Distribution System Monitoring: After implementing the treatment, we continuously monitor the distribution system to detect any emerging water quality issues. If issues arise, we conduct further examinations to identify the root cause, such as potential backflow prevention failures, infiltration issues within the distribution system, or the need to adjust treatment processes from the plant to the end users.

· Corrosion Control Assessments: One critical aspect of maintaining water quality is addressing potential corrosion in the infrastructure. Corrosion can not only damage pipes but also introduce harmful substances into the water supply. AARC Consultants implements several techniques to mitigate corrosion risks, including:

· Material Identification: We assess the materials used in the infrastructure, as different materials have varying susceptibilities to corrosion.

· Environmental Condition Assessment: We evaluate environmental factors like humidity, temperature, and exposure to chemicals that can accelerate corrosion.

· Corrosion Detection: We employ methods such as ultrasonic testing, radiography, and visual inspections to detect early signs of corrosion, enabling us to take corrective action before significant damage occurs.

· Historical Analysis: By reviewing past incidents of corrosion and maintenance records, we identify patterns and high-risk areas, allowing us to implement targeted preventative measures.

3. Advanced Treatment Techniques

· Corrosion Prevention Methods: Depending on the infrastructure and environmental conditions, we apply techniques like sacrificial anodes or impressed current systems to protect metal surfaces from corrosion. Additionally, we may use protective coatings and linings to create a barrier between metal components and corrosive elements.

· Chemical Additives: To further prevent corrosion, we add chemicals to the water that slow down the corrosion process, ensuring the longevity of the infrastructure and the safety of the water.

· Material Selection: For new installations, we recommend using corrosion-resistant materials such as stainless steel or specialized alloys to reduce the likelihood of corrosion over time.

· Water Chemistry Adjustments: In water systems, we carefully adjust pH levels and add corrosion inhibitors to reduce the water’s corrosiveness. This not only protects the infrastructure but also ensures that the water delivered to consumers remains safe and of high quality.

4. Continuous Improvement and Collaboration

· Feedback Integration: Throughout the design and implementation process, we actively seek feedback from all stakeholders, including internal teams, external experts, and the community. This collaborative approach ensures that all potential risks are identified and addressed.

· Ongoing Monitoring and Adaptation: Even after the system is in place, we maintain a proactive stance, monitoring water quality continuously and making adjustments as necessary to prevent any emerging issues from escalating.

By following these steps, AARC ensures that any treatment system we design not only meets the immediate water quality needs but also safeguards against potential long-term issues, providing safe and reliable water to the communities we serve.

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?

Offeror Response:

Question 5

1. Ensuring Project Stays on Schedule:

To ensure that projects stay on schedule and are completed on time as per the task order offer/award, our approach includes:

· Detailed Planning: We develop comprehensive project plans with clear milestones, deadlines, and responsibilities. This includes a detailed timeline and resource allocation to ensure all aspects of the project are accounted for.

· Regular Monitoring: We use project management tools to track progress against the schedule. Weekly internal status meetings are held to review progress, address any issues, and add resources or adjust plans as needed.

· Risk Management: We identify potential risks early and implement mitigation strategies to prevent delays. This includes having contingency plans in place for unforeseen circumstances.

· Clear Communication: Maintaining open lines of communication among all team members, stakeholders, and clients ensures that everyone is informed of progress and any changes to the schedule.

2. Steps to Take if a Project is Not on Schedule:

If a project falls behind schedule, we will:

· Assess the Situation: Determine the cause of the delay by analyzing project data and feedback from team members. This helps in understanding whether the issue is related to resource constraints, scope changes, or other factors.

· Implement Corrective Actions: Develop and execute a plan to address the delay. This might include reallocating resources, adjusting timelines, or revising project tasks.

· Increase Oversight: Intensify monitoring and reporting to ensure that corrective measures are effective and that the project is getting back on track.

· Engage Stakeholders: Communicate with stakeholders to manage expectations and discuss any necessary adjustments to the project scope or deadlines.

3. Handling Team Availability Issues:

If our team is backed up or unavailable, we will:

· Prioritize Tasks: Reassess and prioritize tasks to focus on critical components that impact project deadlines the most.

· Allocate Resources: Shift resources from less critical tasks or projects to ensure that the job gets finished on time.

· Seek Additional Support: If necessary, bring in additional team members or temporary staff to handle the workload and meet deadlines.

· Optimize Workflow: Streamline processes and workflows to improve efficiency and ensure timely delivery.

4. Managing Subcontractor Delays:

AARC does not intend to involve subcontractors for this project. However, if a subcontractor is falling behind, we will:

· Evaluate Performance: Review the subcontractor’s progress and identify the root causes of delays.

· Communicate and Collaborate: Engage with the subcontractor to understand their challenges and collaborate on a revised plan to get back on track.

· Implement Corrective Measures: Adjust project schedules, reallocate tasks, or provide additional support to the subcontractor as needed.

· Monitor Closely: Increase oversight of the subcontractor’s activities to ensure that the revised plan is being followed and that progress is being made.

· Consider Alternatives: If delays persist and impact the project, explore alternative subcontractors or solutions to mitigate further risks.

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?

Offeror Response:

Question 6 To ensure that all technical documents are rigorously reviewed for accuracy and completeness, and to provide ADEQ with the means to verify that these reviews have been properly conducted, we follow the process outlined below:

Company's Review Process

· Initial Draft Review: Technical documents undergo an initial review by the primary author and technical lead to ensure all requirements and technical specifications are addressed.

· Internal Peer Review: A secondary team member with relevant expertise reviews the documents to identify any errors, inconsistencies, or omissions.

· Technical Editor Review: A dedicated technical editor reviews the document for clarity, consistency, and readability. The editor checks for grammatical and spelling errors, ensures that technical jargon is properly explained, and that the overall structure and flow of the document are logical and effective. The document is then checked to ensure it complies with any specific guidelines or formatting requirements set by the client or regulatory bodies. This includes reviewing references, citations, and any required visual aids like charts, tables, or graphics.

· Managerial Review: The Project Manager (PM) performs a final review to ensure that all client requirements and expectations are met before submission.

· Cross-Departmental Review (if applicable): For complex projects, documents may also be reviewed by specialists from other departments (e.g., legal, environmental science) to verify accuracy across disciplines.

· Principal Review: The principal, a senior executive or expert with extensive experience in the relevant field, conducts a thorough review of the deliverables ensuring the overall quality, adherence to strategic goals, compliance with regulatory standards, and alignment is in line with client expectations. The review includes evaluating risk assessments, response strategies, and business continuity plans, ensuring they are robust and comprehensive.

Documents for ADEQ Review

· Review Checklists: ADEQ can request internal review checklists detailing each step taken in the review process.

· QC Approval Records: Documentation showing that the Quality Assurance team has approved the document.

· Change Logs: Records of any changes made during the review process, including reasons for these changes.

· Peer Review Notes: Comments and feedback from the internal peer review process.

Point of Contact for Issue Resolution (Other than the PM)

· Dr. Scott Thomas, Principal Scientist-in-Charge: Dr. Thomas will serve as the secondary point of contact for resolving any issues identified by ADEQ during their review of the submitted documents.

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:

AARC was contracted by a client to complete an AWIA drinking water system Emergency Response Plan (ERP) 30-days prior to the regulatory deadline for certification of the ERP. Completion of an ERP usually requires several months. We scheduled the Kickoff Meeting, immediately submitted a Request for Information (RFI) to the client, began review of publicly available information as a starting point while awaiting the RFI response, and began writing the ERP based on our methodology used with other similar water agencies (our rationale being that we needed to generate content which could be revised as soon as possible rather than wait on information). To complete the ERP on time, we reached agreement with the client that we would provide portions of the draft ERP as they became available for client review (with agreed upon review and comment times). With the focus and responsiveness of the client, we developed and certified the Final ERP two days before the regulatory deadline.

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):

Recommended Approach to Address Water Quality Issues

1. Preliminary Analysis Flow Chart

· Purpose: To systematically identify and outline all necessary steps from conceptual requirements through to the final Preliminary Engineering report submission to ADEQ.

· Outcome: Provides a structured plan for project execution, ensuring all critical tasks are accounted for and executed in the correct sequence.

2. Review of Certified Laboratory Test Results

· Purpose: To determine the concentration of contaminants exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). This will help in identifying feasible treatment alternatives.

· Outcome: Clear understanding of contaminant levels and exceedances, guiding the selection of appropriate treatment methods.

3. Development of Timeline for MCL Exceedance

· Purpose: To collect and review all available information regarding the permitted facility’s history, including compliance with reporting requirements and when the MCL exceedances began.

· Outcome: Establishes a timeline from the onset of MCL exceedances to the present, aiding in identifying the root cause and formulating a corrective action plan.

4. Review of Flood Plain Maps, Geologic Maps, and Well Permits

· Purpose: To assess the risk of flooding, geological suitability, existing well permits in the area and the ability to use the major river as a potable water source. Obtain well logs to determine the depth and flow characteristics of the current well. Determine if land is available for a treatment facility.

· Outcome: A comprehensive understanding of site conditions, including legal descriptions of land owned by the community, and well performance, including historical data on the major river’s depth and flow characteristics including sampling of the river. Identify withdrawal permits on the major river and ensure there is no water withdrawal limitations. Using this information, we would recommend potential alternative well sites for further investigation. This may involve installing a monitoring well to collect water quality samples, which would help determine whether drilling a production well at the site is feasible.

5. Assessment of Treatment Options

· Purpose: Evaluate treatment technologies suitable for the identified contaminants. For uranium removal, options include coagulation and filtration or activated alumina. Reverse osmosis, while comprehensive, is not cost-effective for a system with only 20 connections unless point of use (POU) devices can be used and managed to satisfy regulatory compliance. Point of entry devices (POE) might also be considered, but will likely be too expensive.

· Outcome: Selection of the most appropriate and cost-effective treatment solution based on the specific contaminants and system size. Treatment technology is going to be implemented regardless of the source of potable water.

6. Compliance and Permit Review

· Purpose: Ensure that the small rural community system has met all ADEQ permitting requirements, including water treatment submissions, capacity calculations, and approved plans and specifications.

· Outcome: Verification of compliance with regulatory standards and identification of any necessary permit updates or modifications.

7. Assessment of Treatment Options from Site Inspection

· Purpose: Evaluate treatment technologies suitable for the identified contaminants and site conditions. Conditions include biological conditions, permitting required for both alternatives, time for implementation, cost-effectiveness comparison, funding for Grant alternatives. Preliminary treatment and water supply alternatives for removal of contaminants.

· Outcome: The average water use per household in the U.S. is about 260 gallons per day. This can vary significantly based on factors like climate, household size, and water usage habits. For example, homes in hotter, drier states tend to use more water. 20 Homes at 260 gallons per day equals 5,200 gallons per day or 0.01 MGD. With a hypothetical average water bill of $50.00 per month, the monthly income for the utility is $1,000.00 per month or $12,000.00 annually which will necessitate funding for any improvements.

8. Preliminary Engineering Report

· Purpose: To provide a comprehensive Preliminary Engineering Report to ADEQ which outlines AARC’s approach which will accompany engineering approach with data, economic analysis, Grant Funding Alternatives and a Cost Benefit Analysis including a return on investment. Considering the hypothetical Scenario, the RAI will not be feasible without funding which is a Critical Component to meet the need of the public being served by this Utility.

· Outcome: Provide a thorough Report to ADEQ to meet the needs of this critical community need allowing the low income and/or retirees a continued level of service they need for drinking water.

By following these steps, AARC Engineers will provide a thorough and structured approach to resolving the water quality issues, ensuring the solution is both feasible and compliant with Federal and State standards.

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