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:

Ironside Engineering, located in rural Northern Arizona has experience working with small communities and small utilities, much more than working with larger communities or utilities. Therefore, our approach for small systems will be in substantial alignment with the approach we take for most of our clients.

In our experience, the primary difference we experience between one of our larger clients, like the City of Show Low, and our smaller clients, like the rural DWIDs we work for, is the availability of technical knowledge and reliable data. For example, the City of Show Low maintains a detailed GIS system to assist in managing its utility inventory, and the smaller utilities typically do not have basic digital mapping of their systems. Additionally, smaller systems do not always have the manpower or technical understanding to provide project planning and administrative services.

Therefore, our approach for smaller systems differs by providing a more comprehensive service slate for the smaller systems. This includes providing general engineering consultation to help plan for future projects or solve issues. The comprehensive service model also includes providing project mapping services, design, procurement services, and construction administration services. Working with smaller systems, in our experience, means acting more as the Owner’s representative in the various project delivery components and ensuring communication with the Owner at the various project steps.

We also look to build in benefits that will assist the small communities outside of just the project-specific benefits. This includes providing drone mapping and digital system maps based on available information that can be used for future planning and be modified to reflect future improvements and changes within the system.

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 for designing and permitting a drinking water system is to get a detailed understanding of the existing water quality metrics within the system. This includes getting water quality testing results from either available records or from the public water system itself. First, if the water system contaminants are all within regulatory levels, then we would not recommend adding in a treatment system that would impact the existing system. If there are contaminant issues within a given system, then the treatment system would be based on the contaminant issues present. Part of our approach in selecting the best treatment technology would be to discuss with local water system operators to determine if they have had similar issues and how they have worked to address those issues. We then use those discussions to inform a comprehensive approach that looks at engineering standards and regulatory requirements for water treatment systems and technology. We find that discussing the issues with operators who implement the solutions and troubleshoot the problems can bring a more rounded perspective to water treatment issues.

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

Our primary methodology to bring practicality and cost-effectiveness to design solutions for small water systems is built into our experience. We are a rural-based engineering firm with over two decades in providing design solutions for small and rural clients. We understand typical constraints experienced by rural water providers, including lack of data and records, remote locations, and inexperience with larger-scale projects. We understand that Phoenix-style solutions are often not practical for these systems. Our solutions look at how we can maximize improvement that will provide ease-of-use benefits to the operators and improve redundancy in the systems. By focusing on these goals, we achieve more sustainable solutions that will generate the most long-term impact.

Another effective approach we use to ensure practical and cost-effective solutions for small water systems is to discuss the projects with local contractors who specialize in that type of work during the design process. Local contractors are also experienced in the typical challenges of similar projects and can provide insight into design decisions that result in a more efficient project. This also helps to minimize changes during construction which can sometimes lead to delays and increased costs.

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:

In order to evaluate how a treatment system may modify water chemistry, it is important to know the existing water chemistry. Depending on the specific situation, this may mean conducting water contaminant testing. More often, this would mean accessing past water quality data provided by various state agencies such as ADEQ and ADWR and assessing the known chemistry. It would also be useful to use this past data to notice changes in the levels of potential contaminants in the system. Looking at the data over time would also help to weed out potential errors in prior testing results. If it appears there may be issues with prior testing results, this would also result in a recommendation that further testing be conducted.

By analyzing the existing water chemistry, we can analyze known academic research about the interactions of contaminants and treatments to help direct an appropriate course of treatment action for a particular system.

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:

The primary method for ensuring projects remain on schedule is to understand the full project extents and discuss with relevant stakeholders prior to the project starting so that an accurate schedule can be developed at the start of the project. By identifying projects task extents and potential risks early in the process, we can provide a realistic schedule and substantially increase the chances to stick with the original schedule. Changing schedules within the duration of a project can lead to frustration from stakeholders and lead to greater chances of miscommunication. In particular, being able to anticipate when approvals or items are needed from those outside the project team is helpful, as these outside factors tend to have the greatest impact on a project. For example, acquiring utility easements to construct a project can be a significant unknown in the schedule of a project, as that portion of a project relies on property owner education, information, and cooperation.

If a project falls behind schedule, it is important to rely on the core project team to come together to determine how to best divide the tasks to help get the project back on track. Within a small firm like Ironside Engineering, all staff members have a stake in the projects getting completed in a timely manner and can work together to determine the most efficient manner to get the project back on schedule. It is also important to provide up-to-date communication to project stakeholders to make sure everyone stays on the same page with the most current project schedule.

In the event the team is backed up or unavailable to finish a job, we would first meet as a team to determine what steps we could take internally to get the project back on track without external impacts. We would then determine if other projects could be rearranged to make time to complete the project. If there were continued issues, we would enlist the help of our contract employees who perform part-time services for us on an as-needed basis to make sure the project stays on-time.

When Ironside Engineering works with subcontractors to complete a job, we prefer to work with subcontractors we have worked with before where there is an existing relationship, and we have a good understanding of their availability and schedule. This working relationship also helps us to communicate directly and quickly with the necessary parties to ensure the subcontractor is staying within project deliverable timelines to keep the overall project on schedule.

Question 6: Describe your company’s review process to ensure that technical documents are complete and accurate prior to submission to ADEQ. What documents can ADEQ review to verify if the review was completed? If ADEQ finds an issue, who, other than the PM, is the point of contact for resolution?

Ironside Engineering is a small, local firm that utilizes a tight-knit team which all work in the same office. Our review process is more informal and on-going throughout the design process. Ultimately, the Project Manager reviews all deliverables for all projects before they are submitted. Additionally, the Principal Engineer receives a summary of all design documents, reports, and major design decisions from the Project Manager before any documents are finalized to ensure they are complete and accurate.

Given the constant nature of our teamwork review process and our small firm, all documents are transmitted via the Project Manager to ensure that all deliverables have gone through a final review before being submitted to the client.

If there are issues, the Project Manager is the first point of contact for resolution. If the issue cannot be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, the Principal Engineer, Bruce Ironside, is readily available for issue consultation and resolution. Mr. Ironside and Dr. Barlow have a close working partnership as the leadership team at Ironside Engineering.

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:

One example of a recent project where we had to change our methodology was during the development of a Recreational Vehicle Park within the service area of a public water system. When we got the project permitted, we had the water system designed to attach to an existing 1” water meter on-site that was sufficient to provide supply to the recreational vehicle units. We designed an on-site fire flow storage system not connected to the public water system so as not to add too much burden to the existing system. This fire flow storage system was proposed to be connected to a currently unused existing well to meet fire department requirements.

The public water system indicated they would shut off the meter and not serve water to the development since they did not believe they had the capacity even for the potable water flows. Therefore, our methodology has changed, and we are in the process of converting the design of the fire flow system from a private system to a small public system to serve the residential water needs. We are designing the system such that it may be able to be consolidated with the existing public water system in the future.

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):

The public water system, as described, faces substantial structural challenges, as many small water systems in Northern Arizona (and elsewhere) do. Primarily, the few service connections means a lack of annual income that can support capital projects. Even if outside funding is secured, it is important to consider operations and maintenance costs that will be incumbent on the system to pay for with the resulting improvements. Given these challenges, the following are our three alternatives for the system, with Alternative 3 being our preferred and recommended alternative for the system:

Alternative #1: New Well The system could seek outside funding to drill a new well outside of the floodway. It is unlikely that the system would be able to generate the capital for such an expense themselves given that there are only 20 current connections, Therefore, there would be a reliance on grant funding or financing for the capital expense of a new well. Typical challenges with this for a very small rural system is having the institutional knowledge to find this funding, secure the necessary engineers and contractors to design and construct the new infrastructure, and then ensure it stays maintained. The additional risk is spending substantial money on a new well and having tests show that the uranium levels are still above the acceptable standards. Given these risks, this is not the preferred alternative.

Alternative #2: Reverse Osmosis System A Reverse Osmosis System is the only commercially accessible water treatment system that can remove uranium from water. Given that there are so few connections in this system, this type of system could be implemented either as a point of source or point of use treatment system. Further engineering and cost-benefit analysis would be needed to determine whether a point-of-source or point-of-use system is the preferred option for this system given the constraints and characteristics of this particular system. Regardless, this alternative would be expensive and require substantial expertise to maintain. This would increase maintenance costs for the system beyond just the initial costs of installing this system. Therefore, this is not the preferred alternative.

Alternative #3 System Consolidation The prompt indicates that there are private wells in the area. This provides opportunity to consolidate the existing system with one or more existing wells or other nearby water infrastructure. The benefits of this alternative are that the existing system may be able to expand to a larger number of customers, the improvements to consolidate the systems through transmission lines, while cost intensive, would be less risky if it was known that the new water source being introduced will meet the necessary water quality metrics.

The following are the list of tasks that would be recommended to implement this alternative:

· Conduct outreach to adjacent property owners to determine interest in conveying their existing private well to the PWS.

· If there is another nearby PWS, conduct outreach to this system to explore options for system consolidation.

· Upon successful agreement to consider consolidating an existing well into the PWS, the PWS would conduct water quality testing for the new source to ensure that this source will meet standards for the PWS.

· After ensuring the new water source is acceptable quality, the system will need engineering analysis to determine the best method to connect this source to the existing system. Engineering analysis will also be required to determine if the well is adequate to serve the population as-is, or if deepening, pump upgrades, or other improvements are required.

· Any easements for the proposed improvements need to be acquired.

· Improvement plans, including Approval-to-Construct, would be prepared for the necessary improvements, and a contractor to construct the

· The existing well can be taken off-line and used as an emergency backup for the system if it is determined to be acceptable to do so by ADEQ.

This preferred alternative minimizes the risks we experience with small rural water systems. This solution will result in generally the same operations and maintenance requirements as the system currently is used to. Additionally, if the consolidation effort allows the system to acquire more customers, then there will be a larger customer base to fund the operations and maintenance activities and potentially allow the system to have more resilience to larger repair or upgrade costs.

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