1-BPM006379_Solicitation_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:

In a very small community or utility, our approach begins with the implementation of our TRUSTED™ project delivery and project management processes. We understand the unique challenges these systems face, such as limited financial resources, reduced technical expertise, and often outdated infrastructure. Using our TRUSTED™ process as a foundation, we customize our approach based on the needs of each individual client. This involves developing a project-specific management plan that includes tailored communication methods, risk management strategies, and critical success factors that are designed to meet the specific requirements of the project and client.

Smaller clients often face additional challenges beyond financial and technical constraints, such as being understaffed and operating outside their areas of expertise. To address these issues, we emphasize clear, non-technical communication and a robust project management and communication strategy. We build in additional communication checkpoints and project management support to ensure that these clients receive the guidance they need. This includes assisting with data gathering and other tasks that a larger city might typically handle internally.

For smaller communities, we also provide more detailed guidance on what needs to be done, offering step-by-step instructions rather than the more general guidance that may be sufficient for larger cities. Our goal is to ensure that our proposed solutions are not only cost-effective and practical but also aligned with the community’s capacity to manage and sustain them over the long term.

For medium or large utilities, our approach becomes more involved, still drawing on our TRUSTED™ Project Delivery process and a Customized Project Management Plan. We understand that in these larger agencies, the stakeholders include not just external parties or the public, but also various internal departments. While funding and staffing challenges can still exist, these agencies often have staff with a better technical grasp who can offer valuable input on the agency’s needs.

We take advantage of the scale and resources available to these larger utilities by integrating advanced systems for real-time monitoring and automation, which helps streamline processes and make everything run more smoothly. Managing these projects involves coordinating with multiple stakeholders, including city officials, regulatory bodies, and engineering teams. Recognizing that larger agencies can be more complex and sometimes political, we focus on clear and thoughtful communication to ensure all parties are on the same page.

These projects also tend to be more complicated, with more hoops to jump through, especially when it comes to regulations. Our Customized Project Management Plan helps us keep everything organized and on track, addressing the agency’s needs while planning for future growth and potential changes. We make sure that, despite the complexity, we’re delivering what the agency needs in a way that’s straightforward and effective.

“Your team did a really good job. Would love to see the map of this process. Glad there are people who can do this kind of work.” - Eric Veium, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

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:

Our process for designing and permitting a drinking water treatment system starts with identifying the water supply source, whether it’s groundwater or surface water. We then take a close look at the existing system, if there is one, to understand its current treatment and distribution capabilities. If it’s a new system, we assess what the demands will be right from the start. It's important to understand not only the current demands but also any future growth that might increase those demands, so we can design and permit a system that either meets future needs from the outset or can be easily expanded when necessary.

Next, we conduct detailed water quality analyses to identify any contaminants and evaluate the condition of current facilities. For small public water systems, we prioritize cost-effective and simple technologies that are easy to operate and maintain, keeping in mind the limited resources available to these smaller utilities. Throughout the permitting process, we work closely with the relevant regulatory agencies to make sure all designs meet the required standards, and we take care of preparing all the necessary documentation, including engineering reports and environmental assessments.

To select the best treatment technology, we start by tailoring our approach based on the specific water quality, keeping in mind whether the source is surface water or groundwater, as this greatly influences the treatment options. We evaluate various treatment methods, such as filtration, disinfection, softening, and advanced oxidation processes, to determine their effectiveness in addressing the contaminants identified in the water quality analysis.

We then consider the operational requirements of each technology, including energy consumption, maintenance needs, and the level of operator training required, to ensure that the solution is practical and manageable for the utility. We also look at life-cycle costs, taking into account not just the design and construction expenses, but also ongoing maintenance costs and the expected lifespan of the treatment system.

Whenever possible, we choose technologies that offer modularity and scalability, allowing the system to adapt to future needs. Before moving forward, we thoroughly assess the chosen technology to ensure it will perform well under actual operating conditions and meet all necessary regulatory requirements.

“We had a very good flow during the feasibility study for Sorensen Park. The communication, speed of deliverables, quality of deliverables, and feedback were all exceptional. In a project like this, the ability to quickly and accurately incorporate comments provided from both the District and the applicant/developer is critical and I believe that Watearth did an exceptional job at that.” - Eric Bonilla, Los Angeles County Public Works

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:

We ensure that our proposed solutions are practical, cost-effective, and sustainable by starting with a thorough needs assessment, knowing the budgetary constraints and available funding of the small water system. This includes evaluating the system’s current operational capabilities, budget constraints, and long-term sustainability goals. We prioritize solutions that integrate proven, low-maintenance technologies, which require minimal operator intervention and training. We also perform a life-cycle cost analysis to verify that the initial capital investment and ongoing operational costs are feasible for the small water system.

To ensure sustainability for a small system, we focus on solutions that are not only technically sound but also practical and affordable for the community to implement, operate, and maintain over time. We incorporate energy-efficient technologies and design systems that minimize operational complexity, making them easier for local personnel to manage. For example, we might recommend pressurized systems to reduce operational costs or choose treatment methods that are simpler to operate and maintain with the resources available.

We also consider the availability of local resources, such as parts and technical support, to ensure the system can be maintained without relying on distant suppliers, which helps control costs and downtime. Life-cycle costs are a key part of our analysis, including both the initial design and construction expenses as well as the ongoing maintenance and operation costs. We plan for routine O&M activities and assess these costs upfront to ensure they align with the small system’s budget and funding capabilities.

Our approach is tied to our Project Management Plan, where we define critical success factors for sustainability and incorporate risk management strategies to identify and mitigate potential challenges. This includes implementing an adaptive management approach, where continuous monitoring and feedback loops are established to allow for adjustments to the system as needed, ensuring it remains practical and sustainable over time. We also help the community navigate funding opportunities and secure the necessary resources to support the system throughout its design lifespan.

“The report was a really good one. Very thorough. The Country Club really liked it and are excited to work on the recommendations. The City also like it – good and comprehensive. Project management and communication was really good regarding status, technical memos, and keeping us in the loop.” - Goutam Dobey, City of Redlands.

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:

When designing a treatment system that modifies water chemistry, our environmental engineers and scientists begin by assessing the potential interactions of constituents in the source water with the proposed treatment methods. This starts with a thorough literature review, as we've done on more than a dozen projects for the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), to understand how these constituents might behave under different treatment scenarios. If necessary, we can also perform water quality modeling or bench testing to simulate chemical reactions and assess the potential outcomes.

If we identify interactions that cannot be effectively mitigated, we will evaluate additional treatment methods to ensure that the system delivers safe and reliable water quality. Our approach is designed to anticipate and address any potential issues early in the design process, ensuring that the final treatment system is both effective and sustainable.

We also implement a phased approach that includes pilot testing under controlled conditions to monitor the actual impact of the treatment process on the water chemistry. During this phase, real-time monitoring tools are employed to track key water quality parameters, enabling us to identify and address any deviations from expected outcomes quickly. Furthermore, the design incorporates safeguards such as secondary treatment stages or buffer systems to neutralize any unintended by-products. By thoroughly understanding the water chemistry and carefully monitoring the treatment process, we optimize the system to prevent exacerbating existing water quality problems or introducing new issues.

“The team is incredibly impressed with the level of detail and thought put into the report. […] this review has already been the basis for me to initiate the internal review of the environmental process to streamline it and get us on a better, more efficient track. You have been incredibly patient and persistent, and I’m so grateful for the chance to work with you both!” - Les Davis, Texas Water Development Board.

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:

Our process begins with the Project Kickoff, where we meet the team to establish clear roles and responsibilities. We gather key client, subcontractor, and agency contacts to determine the chain of command and ensure everyone understands their role in the project. This step is crucial for setting the foundation for effective communication and collaboration.

An adaptive project management plan is then developed, customized to the specific needs and goals of the project. This plan outlines the project’s scope, schedule, budget, risk management strategies, and critical success factors, providing a roadmap that guides the team from start to finish.

Our primary objective is to ease the client’s burden by managing all technical aspects and providing a clear, informative approach for each task. We handle client communications, coordinate meetings, prepare agendas, document minutes, and deliver regular progress reports, ensuring that everyone stays aligned and informed throughout the project.

As the project progresses, we emphasize our QA/QC process to ensure that all deliverables meet our high standards of quality. This continuous quality control is a key component of our approach, helping to identify and address potential issues early on, keeping the project on track.

If the project faces delays, our contingency plans, integrated into the adaptive project management plan, allow us to respond quickly. We may reallocate resources, accelerate tasks, or extend work hours to recover lost time. In cases where a subcontractor is falling behind, we engage in direct communication to identify the root cause and collaborate on solutions, such as providing additional support or redistributing tasks among other team members.

Finally, as we approach project closeout, our focus shifts to ensuring all final deliverables are completed to the client’s satisfaction, all documentation is properly finalized, and lessons learned are documented for continuous improvement.

By following this structured, proactive approach, we ensure that potential delays are addressed promptly, keeping the project on schedule and within budget, and maintaining our commitment to delivering successful outcomes.

“Thank you Jennifer and Jeremy. You all were very responsive and helpful with all of my questions, and it was a pleasure working with you and your team.” - Andrew Kim, P.E.,Los Angeles County Public Works.

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:

At Watearth, ensuring that our technical documents are complete and accurate before submission to ADEQ is a top priority. Our review process encompasses both Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC), reflecting our commitment to delivering the highest quality work.

Quality Assurance (QA): Our QA process begins with internal meetings to discuss each task, including a thorough understanding of the scope and the methodology to be used. These meetings ensure that our approach is well-defined and aligned with the project’s goals. We also hold client meetings to discuss our tasks and approach to each one, ensuring that the entire project team, including subcontractors and other stakeholders, is on the same page. This collaborative approach helps us address potential challenges early on and ensures that the design documents, as well as reports, are developed with a clear, shared understanding.

Quality Control (QC): Once the groundwork is established, our QC process kicks in. The journey starts with the Original Writer, who drafts the document with careful attention to detail. They work closely with their peers to ensure that every technical aspect, from GIS data to CAD drawings and modeling, is accurate and reliable. This collaborative approach helps establish a strong foundation for the deliverable.

Once the draft is ready, our Project Manager (PM) conducts a detailed review. This isn’t just a surface-level check; the PM dives deep into the content, verifying clarity, formatting, data accuracy, and ensuring that the document meets all the requirements outlined in the project scope. The goal is to ensure the document is not only technically sound but also practical and accessible, showcasing our expertise.

Following this, a Technical Editor reviews the document to enhance its readability and consistency, ensuring the document is clear, precise, and easy to understand, making it ready for the final rounds of review.

A Senior Manager then takes a closer look, focusing on the document's technical accuracy and how well it aligns with the project's objectives. Their review reinforces our commitment to delivering high-quality work.

Finally, the document undergoes a final review and approval by our Principal and Engineer of Record, Jennifer J. Walker. This step includes verifying that all necessary seals and signatures are in place, confirming that the document is ready for submission to ADEQ.

If ADEQ encounters any issues with the document, in addition to the PM, they should also reach out to Jennifer J. Walker for resolution. Jennifer, as the Principal and Engineer of Record, can provide additional support and ensure that any concerns are addressed promptly and thoroughly.

For verification, ADEQ can review two key documents:

· The QA/QC Checklist: This checklist details the steps we’ve taken to review and ensure the quality of the document.

· The Final Approved Document: This is the sealed and signed document, indicating that it has passed all levels of review and is ready for submission.

By integrating both QA and QC into our review process, we ensure that our deliverables, whether they are design documents or reports, are accurate, complete, and aligned with the client’s expectations.

“We sincerely appreciate the professionalism of you and your staff as we worked through the review process. This comprehensive report will serve as the instrument to continue to evaluate our processes, identify areas of improvement and implement necessary improvements along the way.” - Les Davis, Texas Water Development Board.

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:

During the Adventure Park Project, we encountered significant challenges that required us to change our approach. The biggest obstacle was the need to redesign the reservoir to be completely water-tight. Originally, the reservoir was engineered to allow some infiltration into the groundwater, but it became clear that a fully water-tight solution was necessary to meet the project’s objectives.

This change involved developing a new design that would wrap the reservoir in a rubber membrane, preventing groundwater from infiltrating the reservoir. The difficulty lay in modifying the existing design, which had been selected under the assumption that some infiltration was acceptable. To address this, we upgraded the seals on the reservoir components and completely encased the 20-acre-foot structure in a rubber membrane.

Implementing this new design had a significant impact on the project schedule and required careful coordination to avoid further delays. We relied on our TRUSTED™ project delivery process to manage these challenges effectively. By applying our project management strategies, we were able to adjust the project schedule, keep all stakeholders informed through transparent communication, and ensure that the necessary changes were made without compromising the overall timeline and budget.

Ultimately, the revised approach was successful. The modifications ensured that the reservoir met the required standards, and the project was completed with minimal additional delays. Our ability to adapt to these challenges using our TRUSTED™ process was key to the project's success.

“This is the fastest I’ve seen things distributed. It went very well, and this was a good week.” - Louis Romero, Los Angeles County DPW.

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):

Alternatives:

1. Well Relocation and Development:

· Task: Conduct a comprehensive hydrogeological survey to identify alternative well sites, particularly away from the floodway of the major river, where groundwater contamination is likely less severe.

· Purpose: To tap into cleaner aquifer zones, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for extensive treatment of the raw water. This approach could address the uranium contamination as well as other secondary contaminants like chloride, sulfate, and TDS. This strategy was considered in the City of Chino Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Program, where a similar approach was taken to evaluate and mitigate contaminants through strategic site selection.

· Outcome: This alternative could provide a long-term, low-maintenance solution with improved water quality, reducing both operational costs and reliance on complex treatment processes. It may also mitigate flood risk by relocating the well out of the floodway.

2. Advanced Treatment Options on the well site:

· Task: Implement pilot studies for advanced water treatment technologies such as reverse osmosis (RO) or ion exchange (IX) systems. RO can effectively remove a broad range of contaminants, including uranium, TDS, and hardness. IX can specifically target uranium and other ionized contaminants.

· Purpose: To achieve regulatory compliance by directly treating the water for the specific contaminants of concern. The treatment system would be designed to handle the chemical composition of the well water while minimizing operational complexity and costs.

· Outcome: Although capital and operational expenses might be higher, this option would meet water quality standards. A successful pilot would lead to full-scale implementation, with careful consideration of waste management for the brine or spent media produced by these processes, as was addressed in the TWDB Statewide Water Conservation BMPs Modeling Tool project.

3. Blending of Well Water Sources:

· Task: Develop an infrastructure plan to blend water from the existing well with another source of better quality. This could involve drilling an additional well or securing water from a neighboring system with superior water quality.

· Purpose: To reduce contaminant concentrations through dilution, making the water more compliant with MCLs without relying solely on intensive treatment technologies.

· Outcome: Blending could offer a cost-effective and simpler solution compared to full-scale treatment. However, this approach depends on the availability and quality of the secondary water source and may require substantial infrastructure investments.

Recommendation:

Given the constraints of the small rural system and the need for a sustainable, long-term solution, the recommended approach combines well relocation with targeted treatment. This solution addresses the immediate need to reduce contaminant levels while considering the system's long-term viability.

Tasks include:

1. Hydrogeological Survey and Well Siting:

· Conduct a detailed hydrogeological study to locate and develop a new well site with better water quality, focusing on areas outside the river’s influence. This includes soil and aquifer testing, water quality sampling, and assessing the potential yield of the new well.

· Purpose: To secure a clean, reliable water source that minimizes the need for extensive treatment.

2. Pilot Testing for Targeted Treatment:

· Implement a pilot study for ion exchange or another suitable technology tailored to the specific contaminant profile of the new well’s water. This phase will involve small-scale testing to fine-tune the treatment process, ensuring it meets MCLs for uranium and other contaminants.

· Purpose: To validate the treatment process under real-world conditions and to design a system that is both effective and manageable for the small utility.

3. System Integration and Monitoring:

· Develop the necessary infrastructure to connect the new well to the existing distribution system, incorporating the pilot-tested treatment technology. Install monitoring systems to continuously assess water quality and system performance, enabling proactive adjustments as needed.

· Purpose: To provide a comprehensive solution that is integrated into the existing infrastructure, ensuring continuous compliance with water quality standards.

Purpose and Information:

These tasks are designed to systematically address the water quality issues in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. The hydrogeological survey will provide critical data on the optimal well location, while the pilot testing ensures that the chosen treatment technology is both effective and scalable. The final system integration will create a reliable and compliant water supply for the community. The summary recommendation report to ADEQ will include detailed hydrogeological data, pilot test results, treatment design specifications, and a cost-benefit analysis of the entire solution.

For Instance these are the required design report components for the project involving a 10-inch diameter well or larger, as well as other sources: Arizona Land Department Well Drilling Forms, Arizona Water Commission Adequacy of Water Supply Report, Water Quality Analysis, Preliminary Planning Report, and Final Report. The Final Report will also be accompanied by construction plans, specifications, a Certificate of Approval to Construct, Notification of Start of Construction, Final Inspection, As-Built Plans, assignment of a Certified Operator, and Approval to Operate.

“This report looks great. I feel like everything present in the report is already 15% design. Thanks again, this looks awesome.” - Kelley Rich, City of Austin Stream Restoration Section.

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