1-BPM006379 Attachment 12 - 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:

ERG has worked with water utilities of all sizes and complexities, as well as utilities with different cultural perspectives, such as Tribes and island territories. We understand that compared to medium or large utilities, very small utilities are often more staff and resource limited, and the staff that they do employ have various non-water system responsibilities, or water system operation is a part time job for them. Having a small utility also means a small customer base and less opportunities for self-sustaining revenue.

As eluded to above, very small utilities tend to be capacity limited. Working with a small utility requires a hands-on, adaptable, and resource-conscious approach. When we work with small utilities, we focus on leveraging our in-house expertise to take the burden of the small utility operators and management. We don’t like creating “homework assignments.” We will work to build trust and relationships with the local staff and do our best to serve as an extension of their operation. We do not want to take away from their already limited capacity.

We value onsite, face-to-face support, and feel it is the fastest way to make progress with most utilities, not just very small ones. When proposing operational or capital improvements for small utilities, we work to maximize value by first providing education/training and then prioritizing low-cost, high-impact solutions. ERG staff bring our experience and national perspective to provide valuable insight on other small utilities that have overcome similar challenges.

Capacity building is crucial in very small utilities where staff may wear multiple hats. Small utilities are often well positioned for government and grant assistance but may lack the time to or knowledge of how to access it. Our staff are able to help educate small utilities on grant and funding options and help them complete the application process. We don’t want utilities to miss out on help just because they don’t have time to fill out the paperwork or don’t know where to find it.

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:

NA. ERG does not intend to provide deliverables under the scope of Items 5, 7, or 11.

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:

ERG understands small utilities have limited resources. Any solution we propose will not just consider the upfront cost and effort, but also the ongoing costs and, often more importantly, staff capacity commitments to ensure long-term success. We want to make sure the utility is not only in a position to construct or implement a solution, but also has a plan in place to pay for ongoing operations and maintenance, as well as having the staff capacity and skills to implement or operate the solution into the future. Too often, utilities of all sizes build or implement highly sophisticated solutions without understanding the long-term impacts to their budget and operations. ERG will engage applicable local decision makers and utility management and operators prior to proposing any solution, whether it be a capital improvement or on the operational level. If needed, we have in-house experts that can help estimate upfront and ongoing resource commitments prior to making decisions.

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:

NA. ERG does not intend to provide deliverables under the scope of Items 5, 7, or 11.

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:

ERG regularly provides work products with short turn-around times and is adept at meeting strict schedules. For example, in 2021 ERG conducted 100 virtual inspections and delivered associated reports on behalf of ADEQ within approximately 8 weeks. For each project, ERG develops living tracking sheets and applies procedures to ensure the accurate tracking of activities and product development and ensure that those timelines reflect major project milestones. For example, at the beginning of each project we develop a tracking sheet that identifies the date in which on-site work (e.g., inspections, technical assistance visits) are performed, when draft reports are due for internal QA and to ADEQ for review, and when final reports are due. ERG’s PM oversees adherence to the tracking sheet and follows up immediately with staff if deadlines are or have the potential to be behind schedule.

If a project is not on track, the PM will set up a meeting with the technical staff to identify and resolve the root cause of the issue. This includes identifying which aspects of the project are behind schedule, what is contributing to the delay (e.g., lack of staff capacity, scheduling issues) and how to rectify the issue. After developing a strategy for how to rectify the issue and mitigate future concerns, ERG will set up a meeting with the ADEQ technical contacts and present the strategy, respond to any outstanding questions, and discuss any other concerns that may arise. In the unlikely event that issues continue to occur, the ERG PM will elevate the issue to staff and Practice Area managers, as needed.

Examples of potential issues and strategies for addressing issues may include:

· Potential Issue 1: Deliverables are behind schedule.

· Potential Solution 1: In the event that our team is behind schedule on providing deliverables, we will identify the root cause of the delay, which may include not receiving documents in a timely manner or taking additional time to develop complicated deliverables. ERG will discuss the root cause of the issue with ADEQ and propose a solution to address the issues. For example, if we are not receiving documents from systems within a timely manner, we may request ADEQ to take the lead on requesting documents within specific timeframes. If our team is behind schedule on providing deliverables, we will assign additional staff to assist with developing deliverables. ERG has over 20 water professionals with experience either working previously for water systems or providing technical assistance to systems across the nation. ERG will plug additional staff in to support deliverable development, as needed.

· Potential Issue 2: Public Water Systems are not engaging in technical assistance.

· Potential Solution 2: ERG has experience providing TA to hundreds of water systems of various sizes across the country. Through this experience, we understand that the TA we provide to water systems is most helpful when the systems and operators are engaged in the process. We believe in developing documents (standards, protocols, etc.) along with the system instead of on behalf of the system, to ensure early buy-in and to increase the longevity and usefulness of the products. If ERG does not receive adequate documentation from the systems in a timely manner, which may impede successful product development, ERG will increase communications with the system to understand the delay. Many systems are understaffed and may not have the capacity to engage. ERG will work with the PWSs to identify the best method for communication and engagement, whether that be regularly recurring meetings or onsite visits (as budget allows).

In the event that our team is busy, lacks capacity, or is unavailable to finish a job, we will first work internally to assign replacement staff to the project. As previously mentioned, we have over 20 water professionals who could assist with the projects, as needed. Similarly, we could coordinate with Southwest EFC to address staff openings or delay. Lastly, we have rigorous processes to identify, interview, and hire qualified local staff to support the project and could deploy these processes to fulfill temporary or long-term needs.

Regarding subcontractors, ERG and Southwest EFC have worked together on a variety of projects for the past five years and are very efficient and proficient at completing the tasks at hand within the required budget. ERG believes that applying proactive management strategies and detailed tracking help to ensure project success and identify/mitigate issues before they arise. ERG will include Southwest EFC deliverables in our tracking sheets, hold regular check in meetings with Southwest EFC to ensure projects are on track, and assign ERG staff to review final work products developed by Southwest EFC and ensure they meet required quality standards before delivery to ADEQ. ERG has little concern with the ability of Southwest EFC to meet the required deadlines and provide high-quality products. In the event that Southwest EFC falls behind with a stated deliverable, ERG will take (and escalate) the following actions, as needed:

1. Meet with the subcontractor to determine the reason for the delay and identify steps for improvement, which may include additional oversight from ERG, ERG staff to assist with product development, increasing the frequency of communication, and developing detailed tracking and scheduling requirements to ensure timely product development.

2. Provide additional oversight by ERG by assigning a project coordinator to work closely with the subcontractor during each step of product development. If needed, ERG will assign additional ERG staff to assist with product development and review to ensure timelines are met.

3. Withold payment for the subcontractor if no improvements are made. In the unlikely event that no improvements are made with meeting deadlines and developing products as required by ERG, ERG will terminate payment to the subcontractor and either 1) perform the work in-house; or 2) find another local qualified subcontractor to perform the work.

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:

ERG has a rigorous review and QA/QC tracking progress that is implemented through our corporate Quality Management Plan (QMP, available upon request). We also have experience developing and implementing hundreds of project-specific quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) and similar documents and standardized procedures to ensure the development and delivery of high-quality work products to our clients.

Ensuring the development and delivery of high-quality technical work products begins at contract initiation and scheduling. Once ERG is awarded a project, the project manager (PM) meets with the contracts manager and quality assurance officer (QAO) to evaluate QA-specific requirements within the contract. The PM and QAO then utilize existing checklists and SOPs or develop such documents to support contract-specific QA requirements. In the event that contract-specific QA requirements are not present, ERG implements our standard QA/QC processes and procedures, as stated in the QMP.

ERG determines the level of technical and editorial review needed depending on the intended audience, objectives, and use of the products. For example, ERG has developed thousands of compliance inspection reports and technical guidance on behalf of state agencies, which go through varying levels of technical and editorial reviews before they are delivered to clients. ERG also develop public-facing documents and outreach materials, which receive additional levels of review due to their wide-ranging audience. For the deliverables anticipated under this contract, the PM would work directly with the client to understand their needs for developing technical documents and would assign a qualified lead technical author to develop the outline, draft report, or other product. The draft would then go through a review by a senior technical advisor who is independent of the process for developing the work product to ensure an unbiased review. The lead author would then address the edits from the senior advisor and send the draft to the PM for review. The PM would conduct the review and provide comments, accordingly. The lead author would address comments from the PM and then would send the document to another staff member for a final editorial and formatting review. After addressing remaining comments, the author would either send the document to the client or provide it to the PM who would subsequently transmit the draft. ERG would then meet with the client after they had a chance to review the draft and comments and ask any outstanding questions. The author would then revise the draft and send it through the same process described above before delivering the final version to the client for review and approval.

ERG documents each step of the document review through a tracking sheet and maintains tracked changes and clean versions of the draft and final work products on our protected SharePoint site. ERG is happy to share the tracking sheet and SharePoint files with ADEQ for review and tracking, as requested.

ADEQ is welcome to review the draft and final work products developed by ERG in addition to interim draft and final products, as requested. ADEQ should contact the PM and technical author if unresolved issues are identified. The PM will contact and involve the QAO to fix systemic quality issues in the event that they are identified, per the processes identified in ERG’s QMP.

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:

In helping the County of Hawaii develop their asset management program and fiscal sustainability plan between 2018 and 2022, ERG worked with a team spanning several time zones, supporting a remote utility. Additionally, the project team successfully navigated government shutdowns, a major active volcanic event on the island, and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adjustments to communication and flexibility in scheduling and project timeline were needed to keep the project moving. When COVID limited the ability to meet in person, the project team adopted new ways to communicate and work collaboratively. ERG adopted the use of virtual meeting platforms like Microsoft Teams and Goto Meeting to help bridge the gap created by travel restrictions and the inability to meet face to face. As these tools were not as commonplace then as they are now, particularly for engaging operational staff, we worked together with the utility to optimize this style of project communication and ultimately make it a successful effort. Additionally, due to the delays caused by COVID on this project, we were able to work proactively with our client to add sensible no-cost extensions to this project task order to ensure the work could continue to progress at an appropriate speed during a time when everyone had to adjust the way they did their jobs and lived their lives.

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):

Given the challenges faced by small, rural public water systems, we recognize the need for a cost-effective and sustainable solutions to address the water quality issues. ERG specializes in system evaluation, capacity development, and other related technical assistance. We are not proposing system design and construction management in our scope of services. The following is based on how we see our expertise and services being implemented in the scenario.

First, potential alternatives for mitigating the water quality issues described in the scenario may include:

To determine which solution would likely be the most effective and economical over the long term, ERG would employ the following general approach:

In summary, ERG’s approach relies on understanding the system’s current status and capabilities, educating the system on its options, and working together with the system and its customers to make informed and cost-effective decisions.

In all likelihood, we would recommend relocating the source in this case. Moving the well away from the current location offers the best long-term benefits in terms of improved water quality and public health without the need for potentially expensive and time intensive treatment systems. Additionally, this option minimizes ongoing O&M costs and is more manageable for a small system and its customers. Further, there is a high probability this type of project would qualify for low-interest loan or grant assistance from programs such as the State Revolving Fund, Community Development Block Grant, or other program(s) focused on rural or low-income communities. Coupling that with our ability to help a community navigate and execute the application processes, constructing a new well in a safer location becomes an appealing option.

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