1-HVSSD RFSOQ FacilityPlan 07 21 2026.docx

Request for Statements of Qualifications For Wastewater Treatment Facility Planning

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

Heber Valley Special Service District (HVSSD or the District) is seeking Statements of Qualifications, SOQ’s, from professional engineering firms to provide wastewater treatment facility planning for their facility located in Midway, Utah. HVSSD provides wastewater treatment services to Heber and Midway Cities, and unincorporated areas of Wasatch County, Utah. The District’s service area is growing rapidly and significant improvements and expansion to its facilities are planned. The District currently serves a population of approximately 35,000 people, which is expected to nearly double over the next 25 years.

In addition to growth pressure, the District is also challenged with effluent disposal. Current practices, land application and rapid infiltration basins, RIB’s, are becoming increasingly difficult and other options, surface water discharge and Type I reuse, also face significant challenges. Diversifying the District’s disposal options is seen as a key component of this planning effort.

The District is at a transition point in terms of future treatment needs. It is apparent that the existing facilities are not well suited to meet future demands since they; 1) have surpassed or are nearing the end of their service life 2) are unable to reliably meet more stringent effluent requirements and 3) lack a coherent plan for expansion.

Accordingly, the District believes that a comprehensive 20-year facility plan is needed to clearly guide this major transition. The District is seeking a professional engineering consultant with experience, expertise, relationships and resources to prepare a plan that addresses these critical challenges and charts a roadmap for the District’s future.

This Request for Statements of Qualifications ("RFSOQ") is intended to identify the firm whose qualifications, experience, and project approach best meet the District's needs. Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFSOQ. Cost, fees, rates, or other pricing information shall not be included in any Statement of Qualifications and will not be considered during the evaluation process. Following completion of the evaluation, the District intends to negotiate the scope of services and compensation with the highest-ranked firm.

FACILITY BACKGROUND

The District was formed in the late 1970’s to address regional water quality issues caused by growth and the proliferation of septic tanks in the valley. The original facility included a 1.3 MGD 3-cell aerated lagoon system that remains in operation today. A number of improvements have occurred over the years to expand and improve the system to its current rated capacity of 4.34 MGD. Notably, a parallel 2.0 MGD mechanical treatment process was commissioned in 2014. Influent flow to the facility currently averages about 2.3 MGD with an approximate 70%/30% split between Heber and Midway, respectively.

The lagoon system consists of four aerated lagoons followed by two winter storage lagoons. Lagoon effluent is land applied on a 500-acre alfalfa farm located approximately 2 miles south of the treatment plant. All original lagoons have an earthen/clay liner. One cell, Cell 1A which was added in 2001, has a HDPE/membrane liner. They are aerated by four multi-stage centrifugal blowers (2 duty + 2 standby) which provide air to a static tube diffuser system in each lagoon. In general, lagoon performance is satisfactory, albeit inconsistent. Challenges include high organic loading and insufficient aeration. The lagoons are nearing 50 years of service and their fate is up for decision in this facility plan.

The mechanical plant includes a two-train activated sludge process in the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger, MLE, configuration. The following unit processes are employed:

· Bar Screens

· Grit Removal

· Odor Control

· Primary Clarification

· Anoxic Zones Aerobic Zones

· Secondary Clarifiers

· Tertiary Filtration

· UV Disinfection

· Rapid Infiltration Basins

Influent flow to the mechanical plant is regulated to maintain a consistent rate of about 1.2 MGD with the remainder diverted to the lagoons. Effluent is typically disposed of in the RIB’s but can be pumped to winter storage as needed. Performance is restricted by aeration capacity; hence the process is unable to achieve its design capacity. Coordinated expansion of the mechanical plant has not been planned, therefore the next phase of this facility is unclear.

The facility does not include any processes for residuals management. Lagoon residuals settle and collect on the bottom of the lagoons. Mechanical plant residuals, both primary and waste activated sludge, are pumped to lagoon Cell 1, where they settle and are stabilized over time. Much of the lagoon performance shortcomings are attributed to this practice. The two primary lagoon cells were dredged recently to remove the accumulated solids.

The facility is presently regulated under operating permit UTOP9002 which has been administratively continued since 2019. The District has engaged with DWQ for permit renewal and has been advised that the RIB’s will likely be regulated under a groundwater permit going forward. The District is in the process of developing the information required for a draft groundwater permit application and is under contract with Loughlin Water Associates, LLC, for this effort.

SCOPE OF WORK

The Scope of Work will be negotiated with the selected firm and incorporated into an Engineering Services Agreement specifically for this assignment. The contents of the facility plan are expected to include the following key sections. The fundamental activities and expectations for each section are provided and establish the core scope of work. This does not represent the entire or complete scope of work, additional sections or tasks may be required.

1. Executive Summary- Prepare a concise summary of the plan with a focus on the key findings, decisions and the selected alternative.

2. Purpose and Need- Define the problem(s) that the Facility Plan is aiming to address.

3. Future Conditions – Develop population projections for the service area over a 20-year planning period considering multiple growth rates. Make future flow projections according to population based on past facility data. Prepare maps and figures depicting the existing and future service areas of District. Estimate population and flows for service area buildout conditions. Consider scenarios with expanded or additional service areas.

4. Design Criteria & Regulatory – Develop the fundamental influent and effluent design criteria to be used for the planning period. Compile and evaluate historic operating data to develop influent flow and loading values. Consult with UDWQ to determine future effluent limitations and permit conditions for all disposal alternatives. Assist the District in negotiating permit conditions with UDWQ. Attendance at meetings with UDWQ is expected. Address other regulatory constraints that will or may have an impact on the future facility. Assist the District in evaluating and selecting additional effluent disposal options.

5. Existing Conditions- Analyze existing design, operational and performance data to assess the condition of existing facilities and their ability to meet future conditions. Identify deficiencies in the existing system’s ability to meet current and/or future conditions. Meet with District staff to discuss existing infrastructure and tour the facility. Assess the existing environmental conditions associated with the site and planning area.

6. Alternatives Analyses-. A two-step alternatives analyses is expected that will start with an initial screening of all alternatives to develop a short list of preferred alternatives for further analyses. Develop a comprehensive list of viable alternatives capable of meeting future conditions and design criteria. Prepare flow sheets and schematics to illustrate the configuration layout of each alternative. Prepare preliminary design criteria for major unit processes. Coordinate with equipment vendors to gather relevant information for proposed processes and equipment. Develop capital and operational cost opinions for selected alternatives and prepare life cycle cost analyses. Provide a comparison matrix based on multiple criteria such as cost, operability, environmental considerations, and other non-monetary factors.

7. Selected Alternative- Justify the selection of the preferred alternative. Advance the development of design criteria, operational parameters and any ancillary/support systems. Refine capital and operational costs. Develop future considerations and approaches for future needs. Prepare conceptual site plans illustrating the layout of the facility on the site and identify future phases. Develop a hydraulic profile for the process. Prepare renderings of major processes or facilities to allow the owner, stakeholders and public to visualize the planned facility. Synthesize the findings into a preliminary Capital Improvement Plan. Develop a phased plan of implementation with costs associated with each phase. Consider the fate of existing infrastructure and the associated costs to decommission or repurpose such. Develop a phasing plan with opinions of costs for each major phase and a project timeline across the planning period.

8. Financial, Funding and User Rates - Develop capital construction, operation and maintenance cost opinions for the recommended improvements. Develop a preliminary funding strategy that evaluates the efficacy of various funding sources and their viability. Prepare estimates of monthly user rates and assess against state affordability criteria. The District expects to conduct a user rate study using their third-party financial advisor. Consultant will be expected to work closely with the advisor to facilitate the study.

9. Regulatory and Environmental Assessment - Prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NEPA and all EPA requirements.

10. Public Involvement/Stakeholder Engagement – Consultant will be expected to engage with the public and stakeholders to solicit their input and feedback throughout the planning effort. Facilitate meetings, open houses, workshops or similar with the public and stakeholders. Document and incorporate feedback from these entities into the plan. It is envisioned that the efforts of this task will be documented and included as an appendix or attachment to the plan and the outcomes will be integrated into the plan.

The following supporting and ancillary work items shall also be provided by the consultant:

11. Progress/Milestone Meetings- Arrange, attend, facilitate and document regular progress meetings with the District. The focus of these meetings will be to coordinate plan execution, discuss and resolve any questions or issues, and to provide the status of plan progress. Present plan information to the District’s management and/or governing Board at milestones in plan development. The frequency and scope of meetings shall be negotiated with the selected consultant.

12. Project Management- Provide ongoing supervision of project controls to facilitate a successful project/plan. Provide a dedicated project manager to supervise the execution of the project and monitor conformance to schedule, budget and risk mitigation. The project manager shall be a licensed professional engineer in the state of Utah.

13. Deliverables- The final deliverable will be a written report provided in hardcopy and electronic formats to the District. The report will contain the information presented above and any supporting information Contained as appendices. Milestone or progress deliverables of the draft report or portions thereof are expected during the project. The final report shall be signed and stamped by the project manager. A series of other various deliverables are also anticipated throughout the duration of the project. A schedule of project deliverables shall be negotiated with the selected consultant.

Guidelines for the facility plan include:

· The plan shall address mainstream liquid treatment, residual management and effluent disposal.

· The plan shall be prepared in accordance with SRF funding requirements, as applicable.

· The plan shall adhere to treatment facility regulations as provided in U.A.C. Rule R317-3 or other recognized industry design standards such as WEF MOP-8, Ten States Standards, etc.

The scope items listed above are not an all-inclusive list but describe the general nature of the work to be provided. The scope of work is subject to change based on the needs of the District.

CONTENT

Statements of Qualifications shall include, at a minimum, the following content:

A. Cover Letter: Briefly describe the firm’s experience, resources, and unique qualifications to offer the requested services. Provide the name and corporate address of the company and identify the local or branch office, if any, from where services will be provided. List the proposed project manager and highlight their qualifications for this assignment. Note any teaming partners and their role. Provide the name and contact information for the person(s) to contact regarding the SOQ. Letter shall be signed by the proposed project manager and/or a principal of the submitting firm.

B. Tab A – Company Background/Experience: Indicate the history and size of the company. Provide the range of services offered by the company and any specialized services offered as they relate to this work. Describe the company’s experience providing the requested or similar services and any strategies employed to facilitate success. Illustrate the company’s clientele and correlation to this assignment. Indicate if company teaming or partnership(s) are proposed and who the lead firm will be. Briefly describe the supporting role of any proposed partner(s) and their qualifications for this role.

C. Tab B – Relevant Experience and References: Describe the firms experience in preparing wastewater treatment facility plans. Spotlight experience that correlates to the situation and challenges faced by the District. Furnish a table that lists all wastewater facility plans prepared by the firm over the last 10 years indicating the following: name of client/facility, date completed, plans completed out of the local office and those that the proposed project manager were involved with. Limit the table to twenty entries and note the number of additional plans completed, if applicable.

Provide at least three client references for the plans listed in the requested table. At least one reference shall have worked closely with the proposed project manager. Provide current contact information (minimum of name, title, email and phone) for each reference. Identify any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including any existing or recent business or personal relationships with current District Board members, officers, or employees that may be relevant to this procurement.

D. Tab C – Team and Approach Provide the name and resume of the proposed project manager and their qualifications for this assignment. Provide the managers’ current assignments and include a statement of their availability to perform the requested services. Provide a list or organizational chart indicating all key team members, their role in this assignment and relevant experience. Highlight the role of any teaming partners and their qualifications.

Describe the firm’s approach to this project. The project approach should describe any differentiating factors such as specialized skills or practices, value-added services, or past experience that would facilitate the plan objectives.

E. Formatting- The following guidelines shall be used when preparing the SOQ. Failure to follow these guidelines may render an SOQ unresponsive and be cause for rejection.

· Proposals are limited to 25 pages total. Cover sheets and divider pages do not count toward the total pages.

· All pages/text shall be 8.5 x 11-inch size, single-sided printing, font size 12-point.

· Proposals shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Format (.pdf) and shall be bookmarked to the tabs noted above.

· The SOQ shall be submitted as a single file.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated by a selection committee made up of District staff and Board Members. Each of the above categories will be scored based on the content included in each tab and how well it aligns with the needs of the District. The following lists the weighting of each category as well as the relevant factors that will be considered when rating that category.

A. Tab A -Company Background/Experience (20%) Scoring will be based on the firm’s history of providing similar services to comparable entities, with local/Utah based experience receiving higher scores. Specific experience relating to the assignments listed in the scope of work will receive higher ratings. Firms with greater depth and breadth of experience and resources will be scored more favorably. Teaming arrangements that clearly strengthen the team and offer added value will be scored higher.

B. Tab B – Relevant Experience and References (30%) A breadth of successful experience preparing similar facility plans will be considered more favorably in scoring. Experience with similar issues and challenges as the District will receive higher scores.

Responses and feedback from references given will be heavily weighted in this category. References with direct experience working with the proposed client manager will be rated more favorably. Favorable references beyond the minimum required may also bolster scoring.

C. Tab C- Team and Approach (50%) The relevant experience of the project manager and supporting team will be scored heavily. Proximity of the local office and project manager to HVSSD will also be a consideration. Discussion of key team members, and their experience/expertise in their noted role will factor in scoring. Providing a well-defined role and a history of past success for any teaming partner will be considered in the scoring. Rating of the team’s approach to the work will be based on how well it aligns with the Ditrict’s needs and vision and any differentiating factors that could offer value to the District.

SOQ’s that contain cost information, fees or rates may be subject to disqualification.

SOQ’s will be scored on a scale of 0-100% and the firm receiving the highest score will be selected for further consideration. Each category will be reviewed by a selection committee member and given a rating from 0-10 with 10 being the best and 0 the worst rating. A final score for each category will be determined by taking the average of the committee member scores for each category divided by ten and multiplying that by the weighting factor to give a final score for each category. The sum of the final scores for each category will be the total score. As an example, a sample scoring matrix is presented below.

The District expects to enter negotiations with the highest ranked firm and to formalize the scope and terms and conditions of an agreement. Should these negotiations fail, the District may enter negotiations with the next highest ranked firm.

Sample Scoring Matrix

Relevant Experience/References

During the evaluation process, HVSSD reserves the right to request additional information or clarifications from proposers and seek references or other information reasonably necessary to evaluate the qualifications of any proposer. The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for any reason the District deems necessary based on the needs of the District, to waive any minor discrepancies or informalities to best serve the needs of the District and to negotiate the engagement of the most qualified firm based on the needs of the District.

There is no expressed or implied obligation for the District to reimburse responding firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request.

QUESTIONS, ADDENDA, SUBMISSION

The District has designated James Goodley, General Manager, as the Procurement Officer for this solicitation. The Procurement Officer shall serve as the District's sole point of contact regarding this RFSOQ. All communications, questions, requests for clarification, and other inquiries concerning this solicitation shall be directed exclusively through the Procurement Officer in the manner described below. Proposers shall not contact District Board members, District staff, or other representatives regarding this solicitation except through the Procurement Officer or as otherwise expressly authorized by this RFSOQ.

This solicitation is being managed through the Utah Public Procurement Place, U3P, portal at the following address: https://utah.bonfirehub.com/opportunities/245586. All correspondence, inquiries and submissions shall be directed through this opportunity located on this site. Proposing firms shall not directly reach out to District staff with inquiries or communications concerning this request.

All questions or communication concerning this request shall be submitted through U3P by 5:00 PM MST, August 24, 2026. Any inquiries made after this time may not receive a response. If needed, the District may provide addenda to this request. Responses to questions and/or addenda will be posted to the U3P site with final responses/addendum being posted by 5:00 PM MST, August 26, 2026.

SOQ submissions must be received by 5:00 PM MST, Monday, August 31, 2026, on the noted U3P site. SOQs received after this deadline will not be considered. All submitted SOQs will become and remain the property of the District and shall be subject to the Government Records Access and Management Act, Utah Code 63G-2-101. Any proposer claiming protection under GRAMA shall clearly identify the protected material and the applicable statutory basis. The District makes no representation that any material will ultimately be determined to be protected.

SCHEDULE

The following tentative schedule provides an outline for the anticipated sequence of events related to this RFSOQ.

CANCELLATION OR MODIFICATION

The District reserves the right to cancel or modify the terms and conditions of this RFSOQ at any time.

PROTESTS

Protests concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to the District's Procurement Officer and will be governed by the Utah Procurement Code and the District's Procurement Policy.