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:

The difference on our approach to working for a very small community or utility would start with focusing more on discussion during the scoping of a task, in which we anticipate the need to discuss and define the outcome come on the interest and level of input, and expectations for project success.

We will also consider the quantity and quality of current information or data that may be available from the utility. This will directly influence the amount of effort required to evaluate the system, plan and evaluate alternatives, and ultimately complete a detailed design. We have the expertise and ability to scope and complete additional sampling, testing, and observations as may be required to overcome shortcomings in historical data, or develop a balanced approach utilizing utility staff, to execute supplemental sampling, testing, or data capture, with direction and oversight from us in order to achieve a lower cost outcome when possible.

Something we do with all tasks and projects is focus on knowledge transfer. With very small communities or utilities, we found the need to be more supportive early and throughout the project, so that deliverables and outcomes are more well understood, and the decision-making process can be more successful, and be less stressful for such communities or utilities. This means explicitly taking the time to discuss and describe how certain alternatives or approaches may influence the capital cost to implement, versus the long-term cost to maintain and sustain other alternatives. We know from experience that the largest cost of water system infrastructure is the long-term cost to operate, and decisions that can extend the life cycle of infrastructure or improve the ease of operation will most influence the long-term affordability and success of the project. Equally, not all solutions involve a capital investment, but may be better suited with improved administrative or management techniques, or technical or administrative training for staff or operators to change operating or maintenance strategies to meet the project goals.

Additionally, taking time to have discussions about the level of commitment that would be required to support each alternative is also very important. Many times, the solution required to meet compliance may introduce additional or new technology that that owner may be less familiar with or have less administrative constitution to sustain. Is important to describe and quantify those commitments early to support good decision making, and we can help the small community or utility staff with our expertise in training relating to technology, operations, and management.

From our experience, we have also found that sometimes, simple drawings and general construction oversight is needed to obtain both the Approval to Construct and Approval of Construction from the regulator. Usually, a conversation between the Engineer and regulator helps to quickly solve any potential issues on the submittal.

Most of all, is the need to show up, virtually and in person when needed. Even though many water systems are anticipated to be remote or rural by location and the need for virtual meetings and coordination are generally required, there is great value in showing up and having face-to-face conversations during the scoping of the project, through system evaluation, and in presenting recommendations. In our experience, the most effective knowledge transfer occurred during and after the face-to-face workshops, and we are always happy to meet face to face with these stakeholders.

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:

Project Vision and Goal Setting Our approach to designing and permitting a drinking water system starts with establishing agreement on the project goals, including water quality, budget, schedule, quality, performance and stakeholder expectations. We find it critical that as a professional services provider, we present to the stakeholders and regulators what the defined regulatory requirements are and other industry standards that should be in place to guide the project or task to the solution. Taking the time to compile these requirements and expectations will serve as the “north star” for all valuations, alternative analysis, design, and all decisions throughout the project.

Data Acquisition and Existing Conditions Verification After setting the project vision and goals, we will request, compile, and evaluate the water system historic information, regulatory records, and complete desktop and field assessments of the system to help identify the boundaries for the project and support the design criteria and guidelines. Typically, we include a site visit with the utility or community stakeholders along with a meeting to help initiate these efforts and gain agreement prior to proceeding with developing a scope and approach for designing improvements or replacements for water systems, unless otherwise defined or provided.

After we've captured the initial information and evaluated against the defined design and project design criteria and project goals, we would proceed with a deficiency analysis to define which parts or components of the system currently cannot meet or support the project requirements or goals and identify any gaps in information or data that may be required to best support design of any improvements. The results of this evaluation would summarize such deficiencies and gaps which become the focus of improvement for the system. This is a critical step where a holistic view is required to consider physical infrastructure including mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and controls, site and other environmental factors, in addition to operational and maintenance strategies, system management and financial capabilities and commitments to properly identify root causes or hurdles that have helped the tribute to any deficiencies or gaps or may hinder the long-term success of any new solutions. Generally, we present this to the stakeholders for input and discussion prior to proceeding.

Alternatives Analysis After an understanding has developed and agreed upon on system deficiencies and the focus of improvements, we would proceed with a brief alternative analysis come on generally consisting of up to three (3) alternatives of either configuration, technology, operation and maintenance (O&M) strategies and/or a combination of several to project The anticipated performance alignment with the project goals, capital cost requirements, and long-term cost expectations. Other factors to be evaluated may also include safety, sustainability, ease of operation or constructability. Depending on the budget and schedule for the specific task or project, we will develop budgetary cost estimates based on industry standards to a certain level of completeness and accuracy that will properly support project budgeting. This may require obtaining equipment or material budgetary quotes from vendors or providers, developing preliminary designs to a level suitable for quantity development, and discussions with providers on availability, and time frames for engagement and procurement if selected.

The results of our alternative analysis resulted in a summary matrix that prioritized our recommendations as based on stakeholder preferences, design criteria, and the project goals. These results will be presented and written in a summary memo along with a brief presentation workshop or meeting to capture feedback from ADEQ and these stakeholders, and ultimately to capture and acknowledge that communities or utilities preference for the alternative and commitment to proceed.

Detailed Design Based on the direction from the utility or community, Consor would begin the detailed design process including the development of engineering calculations, reports, detailed construction drawings and technical specifications to support the regulatory review and approval of building or operational permits and to achieve approval so the project may be bid to contractors.

Regulatory Approval Regulatory permitting support services may include preparing initial preapplications, developing and compiling of materials to present and guide discussions at pre-application or application meetings, in addition to developing and preparing the full permit application prior to submittal for regulatory review. Our efforts would also include contact and discussions with regulators during the review process until approval is gained.

Bid and Procurement After receipt of regulatory approval, we would prepare a conformed set of project documents, referred to as the Tender Package, for advertising and procurement of a Contractor to delivery of the project. This may also include the support of writing project descriptions, developing a bid tab, preparing a quantities list, and drafting and the advertisement to support the community or utilities effort to successfully advertise the project.

We anticipate support efforts may also include participating in preproposal meetings, to help describe the project and improvements as designed by Consor, and help communicate owners’ expectations regarding the project, schedule, quality, budget.

Very Small Communities and Utilities Our approach of designing and permitting a treatment system for a small community or utility is similar to ascribed above. However, we acknowledge that the breadth or depth of detail in the design may need to be refined to match the skill set and capability of available or anticipated contractors. As an example, we have found with very small communities and utilities that the use of technical specifications to guide construction or improvements maybe to administratively cumbersome, and hence such information would need to be seated on the construction drawings. Additionally, the level of detail and direction provided in the construction drawings may need to be expanded to both provide the direction to the contractor, and direction to the owner and or inspectors who will administer that contract.

Other considerations may include more hands-on support as the engineer of record during construction to help verify the quality and performance of the work completed in support of the owners interest or provide additional administrative support to the owner for them to be successful in overseeing construction. This is a differentiator for our team, as we have multi-discipline professionals well-versed and accomplished in the operations and management of such utilities in addition to being design engineers. We have demonstrated the ability to speak at the same level and make common connections with such stakeholders, which we found to bolster the success of our projects.

This also means providing the proper direction and the contract documents to meet the owner's expectations for interaction and management by the contractor throughout the project. This could include providing additional managerial support for documentation perhaps related to grants and reporting, managing project records, championing meetings, or providing support to non-technical stakeholders such as councils or community staff.

Our approach to selecting the best water treatment technology would follow the outline as defined in our step-by-step approach below.

Assess Water Quality

· Conduct Water Testing: Analyze the groundwater to determine the types and concentrations of contaminants, such as microbial pathogens, heavy metals, nitrates, arsenic, fluoride, iron, manganese, hardness, and organic chemicals.

· Identify all regulatory standards and compare the water quality results against local and national drinking water standards (e.g., EPA Primary and Secondary drinking water standards to identify which contaminants need to be addressed.

Define Treatment Objectives

· Establish Treatment Goals: Based on the water quality assessment, define the specific contaminants that need to be removed or reduced, and set target levels for each.

· Consider System Size and Capacity: Understand the daily water demand, peak flow rates, and the number of users to determine the required capacity of the treatment system.

Evaluate Treatment Options

· Review Available Technologies: Research various water treatment technologies for pretreatment, treatment, and disinfection and match technology to contaminants: We would shortlist two (2) to three (3) best alternatives, as based on a preliminary analysis, for further evaluation.

· Consider Residuals Management: Evaluate how the technology handles waste or by-products, like sludge or concentrated brine, and how these will be managed or disposed of.

· We would also contact equipment manufacturers to capture information technology information and data, installation list, availability, and budgetary estimates.

· If warranted, we would also identify existing installations of such treatment technology and reach out to those owners or operators to capture input and insight on lessons learned and feedback on cost, performance, quality, and ease of operation.

· Additionally, if warranted and requested by the owner, we would coordinate field visits to observe existing technology and capture owner and operator feedback in person.

Develop Conceptual Design

· Based on the short list of technologies from the efforts above, develop a conceptual design to a preliminary level suitable for quantity development, foot printing, and to confirm hydraulic design and treatment technology size and configuration.

· This step would also identify at least the minimum instrumentation, and controls would be required and would also forecast the electrical amp or horsepower demand for the system.

Assess Feasibility and Cost

· Initial and Operating Costs: Develop a budgetary cost model for the capital costs for construction and the ongoing operational and maintenance costs, including the costs of energy, chemicals, labor, laboratory and compliance, residual disposal, and replacement parts.

· System Complexity and Maintenance: Consider the technical expertise required to operate and maintain the system. Simpler systems might be more suitable for areas with limited technical capacity.

· Reliability and Robustness: Assess the reliability of the technology under varying water quality conditions and its robustness against fluctuations in water demand or quality.

Pilot Testing

· If warranted, required, or desired, a pilot study could also be conducted. Typically, this would consist of developing a pilot protocol plan to implement a small-scale pilot study to evaluate the performance of the selected technology in real-world conditions. This helps in verifying effectiveness and identifying potential operational challenges.

Regulatory Approval

· Engage with ADEQ as the regulatory authorities, or other County authorities if needed to ensure that the selected technology meets local regulatory requirements, and it is feasible to obtain necessary approvals or permits.

Stakeholder Presentation and Decision

· The information from the steps above would be summarized into a technical memorandum and shared with the owner along with providing a presentation on the outcome and efforts completed to develop such recommendations.

· As part of that presentation, we would discuss any concerns or questions and support the owner’s decision with which water treatment technology they want to commit to and proceed with detailed design, permitting, and delivery.

After which, we would proceed with the steps outlined in the sections above in preparing the detailed design, supporting regulatory approval, and the delivery of the project.

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:

A key element to creating practical solutions that are cost-effective and sustainable begins with an understanding of the impacts of limited resources such as material, skilled labor, technical proficiency, and funds. Our key team members have experience in working within such conditions. We know sustainability is more than being cost effective; it extends to future planning, maintainability, training/education, and access to technical resources.

Solutions should also be just solutions. For example, while it may be cost effective to provide a prepackaged treatment system for a remote community, the same solution may create issues of needing higher skilled operators, mechanics, expensive maintenance, or complex components not locally available. As Consor develops a solution, these experiences and concepts will guide our approach and alternative analysis to practical solutions. When a solution is being settled upon, we will ask: how it might be simplified, again is it practical, can it be worked on by the available labor, can it be supported by the community and its resources, and is it robust to endure neglected maintenance?

During design we may use a combination of simplified drawings and coordinated construction, or even recommend alternative delivery, in an effort to provide a cost-effective delivered solution. Working close with ADEQ and community leadership, Consor will provide technical assistance through the planning, ATC and AOC permitting process and assist in potential issue resolution.

Additionally, Consor has certified operations staff to help train and provide resources beyond design to help the community be more self-sufficient, whereby creating a more sustainable solution. A sustainable solution is also one that is wanted and not one that a community is forced into. Consor actively listens to and actively partners with the communities to confirm solutions are meeting their expectations.

For example, Kitsap Public Utility District asked us to complete a corrosion control recommendation report, followed by a predesign report, and final design. We reviewed the water quality and EPA’s guidance and found that the recommended corrosion control method was to add orthophosphate, since the sum of all dissolved inorganic carbonate containing species (DIC) was relatively high and the system exceeded only the lead action level. However, the operators and the management of the utility were concerned about the hazard of phosphoric acid for operations and on the discharge of phosphate to the environment. Consor developed a plan that allowed the District to raise pH with soda ash and if needed in the future, left room for the addition of orthophosphate.

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:

The ability for us to ensure treatment solutions that involve modifying water chemistry will not exacerbate other water quality issues or performance conditions is founded in proper understanding of the existing water quality, and the range of influence that identified alternatives could and part on the finished water quality.

We find that the first step on this path to success will be to complete a comprehensive water quality analysis at the onset of the project and agree upon the extent of both what analytes should be sampled and measured, and the duration and quantity of such analysis for comparison with historical records and for use in the development of the project goals and alternative selection.

The next step is to consider source water variability, where the potential variability in water quality over time such as seasonal changes, the use and availability of different water sources, or Sources that are influenced by other anthropogenic or environmental conditions, including climate variability. The results of that evaluation should help define the boundaries of source water quality for consideration and design and evaluation.

Next, this requires a comprehensive understanding of actual and potential chemical interactions. Some reactions are able to be predicted based on molar concentrations, mass balance, and or speciation due to pH or temperature. Such predictions can be completed by using chemical modeling and confirmed with chemical manufacturer recommendations to predict the performance, precipitation, or the formation of harmful byproducts, such as disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in chlorination processes or excessive scaling and corrosion.

It is critical that sufficient time be planned in the project to execute this evaluation and evaluate the results across a matrix of the potential operating conditions, in which the results can be summarized and used in the decision-making process.

Once potential or actual concerns have been identified or when the proposed configuration of unit processes and/or chemical addition conditions cannot be stoichiometrically confirmed through theory, pilot testing may be appropriate Pilot testing can provide added confidence in the decision and used to verify and validate the treatment technology performance at a small-scale level prior to the large investment. Such pilot testing would require the development of a pilot protocol, including monitoring sampling, measurement and safety requirements to test the proposed conditions in a controlled environment. This will help to observe any unforeseen issues and allows for adjustments and optimization of chemicals to meet the project goals.

Other items that should be considered when proceeding with the detailed design as if the proposed improvement will address multiple water quality issues simultaneously. For example, if adjusting pH to prevent corrosion, ensure that the adjustment doesn’t lead to reduced effectiveness of disinfection. Additionally, we will need to consider secondary impacts such as the potential for pipe corrosion or scaling in the distribution network, water quality concerns due to water age and the distribution network, and while it water quality concerns in storage based on daily use, and or lack of use. Other secondary impacts could include taste, odor, and corrosivity.

Contingency planning is also recommended for any anticipated potential negative impacts when adjusting water chemistry due to unplanned circumstances that might occur, such as component failure, unplanned and maintenance activities, or power outages. Contingency plan should provide a path to ensure long-term compliance and the ability to quickly address any issues.

Risks should also be considered relating to any potential public health impacts from changes in water chemistry, particularly for sensitive populations. This may require a plan for public communication in support of regulatory requirements or specifically for anticipated concerns even if they don’t pose a health risk. Ultimately, there may be the need for continuous monitoring and/or feedback loops to elevate the confidence and compliance with the proposed improvements, if such risks can't be designed out. Such systems would monitor water quality parameters during operation, and either make adjustments as needed to prevent new water quality issues from arising or provide alarms for others to make such adjustment.

Altogether, these are our approaches to verify the modification of water chemistry will not introduce undesired water quality problems or lead to operational or maintenance conditions that prevent the ability to perform as planned.

Questions 5: How will you ensure that project(s) stays on schedule and is(are) completed on-time as per the task order offer/award?

· If a project is not on schedule, describe what steps will be taken to get the project back on track?

· 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:

For each project or task for this contract, the project manager and project team will develop a detailed project work plan (schedule) that will outline each step of the project and will align with the agreed upon scope and with the firm and project specific project and quality management plan.

We understand that ADEQ, and the small community or utility needs to be confident that the project schedule is realistic and will not allow key issues to extend the schedule or cause budget increases. Our project team will work to control and communicate these factors, so projects can be delivered on time, within budget, and be successful.

This will include the development of a detailed project work plan that outlines each step of the project’s design and its duration, starting with establishing a timeline by assigning start and end dates to each task, and will use Gantt-style charts to visualize the schedule, identify dependencies, such as the relationships between tasks and the order in which they must be completed, cover resource allocation which will assign our resources) to each task based on availability and expertise.

If at any point in time the project is not on schedule, the first steps to be taken will be to communicate this to your team, as transparency and experience and notification is paramount to maintain confidence will be developed in our project management plan. The planning for risk management will define the contingency plan and path to resolution dependent on the root cause of the schedule change, which will also be cataloged in the risk register. The risk register will include proactive projections of potential or actual risk to the project or progress, document past risk items addressed or not, and quantify the potential magnitude of that risk based on criticality where criticality is a function of the likeliness and the consequence of occurrence.

The project manager along with their project team will recommend a path to resolution related to schedule issues and we'll communicate that with the client and project team, and we'll share their insights and professional opinions on risk. If the project team’s reason for the schedule change or a plan for rectification is not acceptable by the client, then one of our multiple points of escalation to the program manager, principal, and/or the quality manager will trigger a discussion to capture your concern and feedback and interject their involvement in correction to that path.

The root causes of impacts the schedule can vary based on the specific project, geography, resources, change end availability or capability, delays in other aspects of the project scope that are interdependent. Our philosophy is not to assign fault but accept responsibility and come to the table with an open mind and ready to listen to feedback and input in addition to providing our own insights.

If our specific project or task team were to become unable to complete the task assigned on the schedule agreed to, our principal and leadership is committed to reallocate resources and prioritize those to the project when the schedule concern is related to our capacity. We anticipate, in such a scenario, new resources or leadership may need to reevaluate and develop a new schedule to deliver the project as defined.

If the project schedule issues are determined to be due to subconsultant or other external providers, then our project management and leadership team would identify and engage other service providers to confirm if alternative paths are available for completion prior to bringing them to ADEQ to discuss feasibility of amending the contract or adding additional subconsultants.

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:

Consor implements an internal quality control plan, with a Quality Manual, as developed based on industry, regulatory, and business standards for Quality Management Systems (QMS) that focuses on ensuring our organization can consistently meet customer, regulatory, and business requirements. It emphasizes a process-oriented approach that defines key components and processes involved.

These are documents that we can share and would present early on in the initiation of the project that describe the path and points of contact for quality, schedule, and budget. Regular updates will be scheduled as part of this contract such as monthly reports or meetings. We will include schedule and quality in each of those and aim to make that a priority throughout the project.

Quality Control Plan At the onset of a project, that specific project manager and quality lead will develop a quality control portion of the project management plan, where they will outline the goals, expectations of efforts anticipated on the project. Key items that will be addressed in that manual will include verifying that the proper qualified individuals are both doing the work and reviewing the work, what regulatory requirements and industry standards are used or appropriate for guiding the design or evaluation, and identifying the various levels and milestones for review and validation to confirm deliverables are accurate and appropriate for release.

This may also identify additional quality control measures which could incorporate key reviews and input from peers, senior staff, and/or independent/external professionals when appropriate. A depiction of our general quality assurance process flow chart is provided to the right.

Consor Quality Assurance Process Flowchart Problem & Dispute Resolution Continuous communication between ADEQ, project stakeholders, and our team is necessary to identify conflicts and issues before they arise. Should an issue arise, immediate communication is critical for problem identification and resolution. We understand the importance of communicating problems as soon as they are identified and involving the ADEQ and the small community in the resolution. This minimizes the potential for issues to grow from a problem into a crisis. We will establish an escalation plan for dispute resolution for each project or task, but our philosophy is to resolve conflicts at the lowest level of that ladder.

Our company and our team structure proposed for this contract identifies multiple levels of team members and points of contact, consisting of a project manager who's responsible for day-to-day responsiveness and management of resources, For the delivery of a specific project or task. That project manager will be selected or designated based on qualifications, capability, and commitment to that task.

Regardless of the task or project, there will remain our proposed overall program manager who is a principal of the firm, who is continually connected with all the teams and projects and serves as a point for escalation for issue resolution.

Additionally, as each task or project is scoped, we will develop a project team around the proposed project or task manager that will include, when appropriate, a principal level engineer, who is tasked with supporting quality assurance and quality control procedures and serves and an as an additional point of contact for resolution beyond the project or task manager. Equally, we empower our staff at all levels to be responsible and accountable for efforts of the project and provide them with a direct path to our principal and task specific principles or quality managers to notify of any issues for resolution.

Additionally, we have senior leadership who will be connected with this program including our District Manager, Mark Lee, who is the regional designated representative, responsible for supporting all projects and efforts, and who can rally additional support, corrective actions, or different resources, just as our proposed Program Manager, Frederick Tack can also respond and re-allocate resources as needed.

Paths for Resolution The foundation of our QMS is the “Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle”, where:

· Plan: Establish objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the client’s requirements and our policies.

· Do: Implement the processes.

· Check: Monitor and measure processes and product against policies, objectives, and requirements for the product and report the results.

· Act: Take actions to continually improve process performance.

That is a simple outline of our process-based approach that includes the following:

· Inputs: Requirements (e.g., Utility needs, regulatory requirements)

· Processes: Activities that transform inputs into outputs (e.g., design, production, testing)

· Outputs: Products or services that meet client requirements We also promote and enact risk-based thinking, that identifies and quantifies risks and opportunities within processes to improve outcomes and prevent undesirable results.

We anticipate that all projects have the potential for challenges and problems along the way. Each project and team should have procedures in place to anticipate and prevent or minimize the impact of challenges should they occur. However, we have found that the best preparation to overcome challenges is a commitment to leadership. Emphasizing the role of leadership in fostering a quality culture and aligning the QMS with the organization’s strategic direction, and effectively communicating progress, risk, and resolutions consistently with our clients has led to the best outcomes even in the presence of challenging conditions.

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:

Our example is a small community water system, in which the on-site water treatment plant was no longer meeting water quality needs. A system evaluation was completed, and alternatives developed following the specific approach as described in the questions above and resulted in alternatives including, 1) rehabilitate the existing water treatment plant (WTP); 2) replace the WTP; and 3) extend and connect to a neighboring public water system.

The first obstacle was that the water quality data was sporadic, and a full new source water quality profile was recommended for sampling but was unsupported as part of the project. Our approach to overcome this obstacle was to negotiate a change order with the community and their operator to expand the next quarter of sampling to include portions of the full profile requested. However, this did not occur until after the initial alternatives were evaluated. The impact to the project was that the evaluation of scope and cost of the improvement to rehabilitate or replace the existing WTP did not reflect the actual water quality, in which interfering constituents were later identified.

The second obstacle was not all members of that small community agreed on the approach of the recommended alternative, thereby bifurcating the system. This significantly raised the costs for each alternative as some elected to renew the existing well and WTP, and others wanted to connect to the other PWS.

Another obstacle was that many of the small community members were unwilling and uninterested in Alternative 3, as they were concerned about the potential higher costs of becoming a customer to another Public Water System (PWS). The impact to the project was that this alternative was dismissed and the effort started on the design of the replacement of the WTP. Upon reaching the milestone of 30 percent level of completeness, the cost model revealed the new capital cost to install and the long-term cost to operate, which was deemed unmanageable by the small community.

At this point in the project, the small community changed the priority and willingness to consider a non-treatment-based solution and selected to proceed with decommissioning the on-site water treatment plant in exchange for extending a water line to their community.

To overcome these challenges, we first rescoped the professional services required to complete that change in design. We worked with the provider to utilize as much of the existing contract and scope that was not already spent, and reallocated it to the appropriate task, and executed a small change order to accommodate the additional design and permitting requirements. This also changed the approach for bidding the work and procuring a contractor for pipeline installation versus water treatment plant construction.

In the end the outcome changed the overall project schedule by an additional nine months and increased the professional services cost by approximately $70,000. However, it lowered the annual cost to operate by approximately $50,000, resulting in $1,000,000 savings over 20 years.

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):

In this example, this water system would qualify as a community water system as it serves more than 15 connections, assumed to be year-round residence and provides water for drinking, cooking, bathing and cleaning. Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that can be present in groundwater at concentrations that exceed the MCL of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L). Removing uranium from water is essential to protect public health. Our initial consideration based on the conditions outlined above that's that the top three alternatives for consideration would be to 1) provide a new drinking water source, as a new groundwater well located out of the floodway and away from the river; or 2) provide a new drinking water source, by extending and connecting to a another potable source from an adjacent utility; or 3) implement treatment to me drinking water quality requirements.

Alternative 1 – New Well Installation in a Better Location A new groundwater well could be sited and drilled from outside the floodplain and away from the river, in an attempt to gain access to better water quality as indicated by the neighboring systems. We anticipate that this could be the most cost-effective solution, based on our experience, carries a higher level of risk as the water quality is unknown until tested after the cost for drilling has been expended.

· First, we would complete due diligence to identify and evaluate the land currently owned by this community and identify any encumbrances and define the boundaries.

· Additionally, we would also identify the location of existing wells in comparison to the septic systems installed with each residence.

· We would also define the floodplain and floodway boundaries as to be confirmed with FEMA and any local floodplain regulator.

· We would also identify existing public and private access easements and any utility corridors or other encumbrances that could influence citing a new well or accessing for installation and maintenance.

· The results of that analysis could be used to identify conceptual locations for the new well.

· Based on those results, we could evaluate proximity of other groundwater wells through ADWR records And confirm the depth of the groundwater, in an attempt to forecast what water quality may be feasible in that proximity.

· If the community’s property ownership did not extend beyond the floodplain or outside of other encumbrances, we would also evaluate other adjacent land that may be vacant and potentially a target for acquisition.

· Based on the results of this alternative and the efforts defined above, we would develop a conceptual design of the new groundwater well along with the hydraulics to convey the water to the existing public water system and make the new connection. Based on that conceptual design we could develop a cost model and seed that into a matrix for evaluation and decision prior to proceeding with detailed design.

Alternative 2 – Connection to an adjacent Water System This alternative would consist of investigating the possibility of connecting to a nearby water system with the appropriate water quality.

· This alternative starts with identifying at least two (2) nearby public water systems and quantifying the distance and alignment for a new water line to extend to the subject system.

· This would also include due diligence on land and public right of way to develop just at a conceptual level what is possible and identify what the challenges regarding access first, then constructability and cost.

· If conceptual feasibility is identified, then communication with the adjacent communities, to discuss and identify the capacity, and willingness to connect and provide water. Sometimes the hurdles are not technical but can be limited by contract or business and insurance limitations. The hydraulics would also need to be evaluated.

· It may be possible to identify additional systems to connect to based on the results of the above efforts, which may discount this alternative.

· The benefits of this alternative are lower cost to operate but the trade-off of a higher fee for water.

· This alternative would introduce certain risks such as loss of control of the water system at the source, decrease resiliency by lack of redundancy, and could potentially have a higher cost than new well drilling or treatment, depending on length, materials and constructability.

Alternative 3 – Water Treatment System This alternative would consist of designing a small treatment system to address the excess uranium concentrations above the MCL and consider other secondary water quality concerns. Although this alternative could be less capital cost than Alternative 2, the long-term cost to operate and manage could be greater. The benefit is improved confidence in water quality and known outcome of the investment, and assurance of potentially treating each or most of the water quality concerns.

Full water quality and analysis should be conducted on the existing source and compare it with historical information. Based on those results, we would shortlist two (2) to three (3) treatment technologies to be included in the alternative analysis. Several treatment technologies can effectively reduce uranium concentrations in drinking water with the following considerations

· Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR) – implements electrical potential to drive ions through selective membranes, separating uranium from the water. This can be highly effective for uranium removal, particularly in cases where water has a high total dissolved solids (TDS) content. This process is energy-intensive and may require pretreatment for optimal operation. Similarly to RO, this system will produce a lower quantity of brine that contains concentrated uranium, which must be managed and regular maintenance and can be costly. If there is not an ultimate on-site, or nearby location to ultimately dispose of the brine, this alternative may quickly become cost prohibitive.

· Reverse Osmosis (RO) – utilizes a semipermeable membrane to remove uranium along with other dissolved solids from water by applying pressure. RO can remove up to 99% of uranium, making it one of the most effective methods, but will produce a significant amount of brine that contains concentrated uranium, which must be managed. RO systems also require regular maintenance and can be costly. If there is not an ultimate on-site, or nearby location to ultimately dispose of the brine, this alternative may also quickly become cost prohibitive.

· Nanofiltration (NF) – similar to RO, NF uses a membrane with slightly larger pores to remove uranium and other contaminants and can remove a high percentage of uranium, particularly useful for partially softening water. However, due to the high TDS concentrations in the source water, this option can become limited on effectiveness.

· Ion Exchange (IX) – utilizes resin beads to replace uranium ions in the water with less harmful ions, typically chloride. SBA Type 1 of 2 IX resin is appropriate for Uranium removal and can be highly effective for uranium removal, especially when uranium is present in its dissolved ionic form. However, sulfate concentrations above 250 mg/L could seriously interfere with performance and may not be effective on uranium concentrations greater than 30 ppb. Additionally, residuals will be a concern, as the primary waste is the spent regenerant brine, which contains concentrated uranium, and must be treated as radioactive waste and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations. Other concerns include long-term storage and disposal options which need to be secure and compliant with environmental regulations, and the need for frequent regeneration may generate a significant volume of waste, both of which can be costly. Therefore, IX would not be one of the top 3 technologies to be included in an alternatives analysis.

· Activated Alumina (AA) – utilizes a porous material that adsorbs uranium ions from water as it passes through a filter. AA can be effective for uranium removal, especially in acidic to neutral pH conditions, but the media needs periodic regeneration or replacement, and disposal of spent media containing uranium must be handled properly. This option will also generate a wastewater stream. We are only aware of two (2) AA systems implemented in Arizona and are familiar with the complexity and high demand on operators and laboratory work to maintain performance. Therefore, we would not recommend including AA as a viable alternative at this time.

· Coagulation/Filtration (CF) – consists of adding a coagulant (such as alum) to the water, which causes uranium to precipitate out of solution, forming solid particles that can then be removed through filtration, and can also be effective for removing uranium, particularly when it is present in particulate form, but requires careful control of pH and coagulant dosage, and the resulting sludge may require special handling due to its radioactive content.