1-LC070 LCWTP Rebuild CMGC RFP.pdf

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Rebuild Project Construction Manager/General Contractor

Owner Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy 3430 East Danish Road Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84093

Engineer Stantec Consulting 2890 E Cottonwood Parkway #300 Salt Lake City, UT 84121

Table of Contents

Owner Engineer

1. Introduction

2. Project Overview

2.1 Background

2.2 Project Objectives

2.3 Budget and Funding

2.4 Permits

2.5 Anticipated Project Schedule

3. CM/GC Services

4. Roles and Responsibilities

5. Procurement Process

5.1 Communications

5.2 Schedule

5.3 Pre-Proposal Meeting and Site Tour

5.4 Interviews

6. Proposal Requirements

6.1 Submittal Location and Deadline

6.2 Format

6.3 Content

6.3.1 Transmittal Letter

6.3.2 Executive Summary

6.3.3 CM/GC Profile

6.3.4 Project Team Structure and Key Personnel

6.3.5 Relevant Project Experience

6.3.6 Project Approach

6.3.7 Appendix A – Supporting Financial and Company Information

6.3.8 Appendix B – Resumes

6.3.9 Appendix C – Agreement Comments (optional)

6.3.10 Appendix D – Pricing Information

6.3.11 Appendix E – Letter of Commitment

7. Evaluation and Selection

7.1 Responsiveness

7.2 Minimum Requirements (Pass/Fail)

7.3 Proposal Evaluation

7.4 Interview and Pricing Evaluation

8. Conditions for Proposers

8.1 Owner Authority

8.2 Rights of the Owner

8.3 Obligation to Keep Project Team Intact

8.4 Addenda

8.5 GRAMA

Attachment A – Project Background Documents Attachment B – Agreement Attachment C – Non-disclosure Agreement Attachment D – Pricing Information Form(s) Attachment E – Project Performance Evaluation Form

1. Introduction

The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (Owner) issues this solicitation for the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Rebuild Project (Project) and invites responses from interested parties to this Request for Proposals (RFP)1.

This RFP is posted on the Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P). A link to the U3P posting may be found on the Owner’s website.

Firms interested in providing construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) services for the Project should submit their Proposal according to the requirements set forth in this RFP, including the format and content guidelines in Section 6. Proposals will be reviewed, evaluated, and ranked using a best-value selection process, as described in Section 7, for award of the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Rebuild Project Construction Manager/General Contractor Agreement which is provided as RFP Attachment B.

The Project is to be designed and constructed in two phases using the CM/GC delivery method.

Phase I preconstruction services encompass constructability reviews, value engineering, estimating, risk management, and scheduling activities. Phase I is completed when there is agreement on the Project schedule and guaranteed maximum price (GMP).

Phase II construction services, in which the CM/GC assumes the general contractor role, encompasses further design review, risk management, procurement of subcontractors and vendors, equipment procurement, self-performance of certain elements of the construction (where permitted and at the Owner’s discretion), and full construction and commissioning, which may occur in a single or multiple GMP packages, at the discretion of the Owner.

The Owner’s objectives for this delivery method are:

• Relationship. Foster a collaborative relationship between the Owner, Engineer, and CM/GC early in the project. The Owner’s Project Team has established four core project values known under the acronym CAFÉ: Collaboration, Accountability, Flexibility, and Engagement.

• Cost transparency. Ensure a transparent “open-book” process for all project costs, including subcontractor bids and self-performed work, and where the Owner is provided with frequent cost estimates leading up to the GMP.

• Constructability. Utilize the CM/GC’s expertise to identify design conflicts, improve buildability, and reduce the likelihood of contingency requests during construction.

• Market conditions. Receive real-time data on labor availability, material lead times, and potential supply chain disruptions to refine project planning.

• Project controls. Develop and maintain a master schedule and cost tracking system to ensure the project meets completion dates and budget requirements. Obtain a cost-loaded schedule from the CM/GC after GMP is accepted.

• Risk allocation. Ensure that risks are identified, allocated, and quantified. Ensure that risk registers are maintained. The risk register shall be the basis for project contingency costs.

1 In no event will the Owner be liable for any costs incurred by any Proposer or any other party in developing or submitting a Proposal.

2. Project Overview

Owner is a public water system providing wholesale finished drinking water to its two member cities, Salt Lake City and Sandy City. The Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (LCWTP) is located at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon at 3430 East Danish Road, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84093.

2.1 Background

With the capability to treat up to 150 million gallons of water per day (MGD), the LCWTP has safely delivered clean drinking water to residents in the Salt Lake Valley since 1960. Today, treated water from the LCWTP reaches approximately 500,000 people daily.

To accommodate changing water quality regulations, improved water reliability, and aging infrastructure, the LCWTP has undergone several improvements over the years. These include:

• filter rehabilitation (early 1990s),

• waste-wash-water improvements (mid-1990s),

• electrical upgrades (late 1990s),

• new chemical storage and feed systems (early 2000s), and

• upgrades to the inlet and outlet works (mid-2000s).

While many areas of the plant have been improved over time, the flocculation and sedimentation basins (including much of the mechanical equipment), filtration complex, and ancillary support buildings are original.

The age and condition of the original structures and facilities now presents a growing risk to the operability and resiliency of the LCWTP. Therefore, in 2026, the Owner hired Stantec to assess, plan, prioritize, and design a rebuild of features presenting a risk to the LCWTP, constituting the Project. The Project Basis of Design Report was published on June 30, 2026 and can be found in Attachment A2.

2.2 Project Objectives

The Project includes three primary objectives:

1. Reconstruct portions of LCWTP to maintain service and protect staff during and following a hazard event. (Although primarily defined as an earthquake, a hazard event is any other type of natural disaster including landslide, wildfire, etc.).

2. Upgrade the performance of chemical feed, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration processes.

3. Improve electrical and process control systems.

The CM/GC will collaborate closely with the Owner and its Engineer to develop a design that achieves the Owner’s objectives at a mutually agreeable GMP for delivery of the Project objectives. CM/GC services are further described in Section 3 – CM/GC Services.

2.3 Budget and Funding

The Engineer’s Class 5 opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) is shown in the table below.

2 The Owner is providing these documents only for the purpose of informing Proposal development and does not confer a license or grant for any other use.

The Owner may use any combination of traditional bonding, State Revolving Fund (SRF), other state funds, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) funds, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) funds, and other available state and/or federal funds to provide the capital funding needed for the Project. If the Project utilizes or may utilize federal funding for the work or products covered under this RFP, then the Project is subject to the provisions of Article 19 of the Supplementary Conditions (00800), including Schedule 19.04 (attached as Exhibit D to the Supplementary Conditions), as well as any requirements of the applicable funding agreement(s). CM/GC shall be prepared for any combination of funding and ramifications thereof, including compliance with Article 19 of the Supplementary Conditions regarding federal funding.

Depending upon available funding, Owner may choose to reduce the design scope as each revised, estimated GMP is received through design, deferring a portion of the scope. Preliminary (30%) design will be completed for the entire project priced in the OPCC above. Sixty-percent design may be reduced in scope to meet Owner’s available funding based on CM/GC’s 30% GMP. Similarly, 90% design may be reduced based on CM/GC’s 60% GMP. Scope reduction will be based on Owner’s facility/process priority, with the intent to focus on the areas of highest importance first. Deferred design may be revisited following award of, or periodically throughout, construction.

2.4 Permits

The table3 below summarizes permits that are anticipated or potentially required for the design, construction, and operation of the Project.

3 Stantec Table 2-1 – Permitting Matrix (Overview of Permitting Requirements January 2026)

Permit or Approval

Agency / Authority Having

Jurisdiction

(AHJ)

Project Phase to Initiate

Acquisition

Permit Obtained by Whom

Requirement Conditions

Anticipated Permit Timeline

Construction Approval

Utah Division of Drinking Water

Preconstruction Owner Required 30+ days

Building Permit City of Cottonwood Heights

Preconstruction Owner Required 7-14 days of plan review time

Water System Operating Permit

Utah Division of Drinking Water

Prior to plant operation

Owner Required for operation

30+ days

Stream Alteration Permit

Utah Division of Water Rights

8-12 months prior to construction

Owner Required if project alters the bed or banks of a natural stream

20+ days

National Environmental Policy Act

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Preliminary Design Owner Required if using Federal funding

Environmental Assessment takes 6-12 months.

More time needed if it has significant impacts.

Section 106 (Cultural Resources)

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(USBR), U.S.

Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Historic Preservation Office

Preliminary Design Owner Required if using Federal funding

30-day review period if no historic properties are found or are adversely affected.

Section 7 (Endangered Species Act Resources Biological Opinion)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS)

Preliminary Design Owner Required if using Federal funding

90-120 days

Unified Fire Authority Fire Prevention Permit

Unified Fire Authority (UFA)

Preconstruction CM/GC Required 7-14 days of plan review

Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) General Construction

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)

Preconstruction CM/GC Required 14 days

UPDES

Construction Dewatering/

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)

Preconstruction CM/GC Required 30 days

Demolition Notification Form

Division of Air Quality

Construction CM/GC Required 10 working days prior to demolition

2.5 Anticipated Project Schedule

Owner expects to procure a CM/GC partner in order to facilitate completion of a complex design, construction, and startup process prior to commencement of the 2034 Winter Olympics, which will be held in Salt Lake City. The following schedule provides an anticipated timeline of milestones, subject to change.

Critical Task Completion Date Responsibility/Attendance

30% Design Perform 30% preliminary design June 30, 2027 Engineer/Owner, CM/GC

60% Design Perform 60% intermediate design June 30, 2028 Engineer/Owner, CM/GC

90% Design Perform 90% design December 31, 2028 Engineer/Owner, CM/GC

Guaranteed Maximum Price Multiple Work Packages Varies on Work

Package(s) timing. CM/GC

Construction CM/GC construction Agreement award (if GMP accepted by Owner)

Varies on Work Package(s) timing. Owner/CM/GC

Construction Substantial Completion December 31, 2032 CM/GC/Owner, Engineer

A master/baseline schedule shall be established by the CM/GC together with the Engineer and Owner leading up to GMP. Once the final GMP is approved CM/GC shall establish a cost-loaded schedule.

3. CM/GC Services

This RFP seeks CM/GC preconstruction and procurement services. These services (CM/GC Services) are described in Exhibit A of Attachment B.

As discussed above in Section 2.3, a portion of the scope may be deferred. Because of this possibility, CM/GC Services will be authorized through Task Orders, as set out in Attachment B. A Task Order for CM/GC Services for 30% design will be issued contemporaneously with the award of the Agreement.

The scope of CM/GC Services is the basis for Phase I pricing, which shall be submitted in accordance with RFP Section 6.3.10.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

The table4 below describes the roles and responsibilities of the Owner and CM/GC for Project services to encourage Project success. Roles and responsibilities are more fully described in Attachment B.

4 Copyright © 2022 Water Collaborative Delivery Association | CMAR Procurement RFQ-P

Owner CM/GC Project Management • Make day-to-day decisions

• Approve design and construction plans

• Manage contracts with Owner Advisor, Engineer, and CM/GC

• Provide Project funding

• Approve scope changes

• Coordinate with Owner operations

• Single point of contact with the Owner’s Project Manager for construction-related items

• Develop and implement Project management and quality management plans

• Perform risk management and mitigation activities including risk allocation and risk register during pre-construction and construction.

• Establish and maintain contingency request management plan

• Develop and implement Project health and safety practices

• Facilitate resolution of Project issues and challenges

Preconstruction Services • Manage interface between design and construction teams

• Review Phase I deliverables and submissions

• Furnish existing studies and data including record drawings, preliminary studies, etc.

• Provide access to site/easements

• Obtain government approvals and permits for which the Owner is responsible

• Review early Works Packages and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) proposals; negotiate early Works Packages and GMP in good faith

• Prepare and maintain a Project cost model and Project schedule

• Provide constructability input during Phase I

• Prepare equipment and subcontract procurement plan

• Develop early Works Packages and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) proposals; negotiate early Works Packages and GMP in good faith

• Provide additional Owner-requested, Project-specific services necessary for Project success

• Value engineering

• Develop early Work Packages

Construction Services • Participate in construction Project meetings

• Monitor construction activities

• Coordination of engineering services during construction

• Ensure timely responses to construction documents (e.g.

submittals, requests for information, notices) as defined in the Agreement

• Deliver constructed Work

• Manage self-performing and subcontracted Work

• Manage craft labor

• Maintain site safety and security

• Coordination with Engineer

• Obtain government approvals and permits for which the CM/GC is responsible

• Provide warranty coverage for constructed Work

Commissioning and Startup • Lead the team in the early development of the facility commissioning plan with responsibilities clearly delineated

• Manage Engineer’s preparation of facility Operations & Maintenance (O&M) manual

• Engage meaningfully in commissioning, startup and training activities and prepare for hand-off from CM/GC

• Coordinate construction activities with and lead assigned testing, commissioning, startup, and training activities, coordinating with Owner’s O&M staff for planning and to minimize impacts

• Provide timely and complete submission of manufacturer’s equipment O&M materials

5. Procurement Process

This Section describes the communication expectations and schedule for this procurement process. A mandatory pre-Proposal site meeting will be required for all Proposal submittals. Following the submission of Proposals, Proposers will be short-listed for interviews as discussed below. Once interviews are complete, the preferred Proposer will be selected, as discussed below.

5.1 Communications

All communication should be submitted through U3P. Administrative questions pertaining to U3P, the posting, and to RSVP to the pre-Proposal meeting may be directed to the Owner as follows:

Elizabeth Woodall Administrative Assistant 801-942-9600 woodall@mwdsls.gov

No oral communications from the Owner, Engineer, or other individuals are binding.

5.2 Schedule

• RFP Issued Tuesday, August 11, 2026

• Pre-Proposal Site Meeting (Mandatory) Tuesday, August 25, 2026, 2:00 p.m.

• Deadline for Questions Thursday, September 3, 2026

• Final Addendum (if any) Thursday, September 10, 2026

• Proposal Deadline Tuesday, September 22, 2026

• Short-List Notification/Notice for Interview Thursday, October 8, 2026

• Interviews October 26 - November 5, 2026, by invitation

• Final Selection Notification Thursday, November 5, 2026

• Anticipated Notice to Proceed Tuesday, December 15, 2026

5.3 Pre-Proposal Meeting and Site Tour

A pre-Proposal meeting and site tour will be held at the LCWTP, 3430 East Danish Road, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84093 on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 starting at 2:00 p.m. MDT lasting until 4:30 p.m. The pre-Proposal meeting and site tour is mandatory. Attendees will have the opportunity to tour the Project site to familiarize themselves with site conditions and constraints. This will be the only opportunity for Proposers to visit the site prior to the Proposal deadline. Proposers are required to notify the Owner 48 hours prior to the meeting of the number of individuals who will attend the site tour on behalf of the Proposer. Each Proposer is limited to a maximum of five attendees.

5.4 Interviews

Proposers whose scoring meets the requirements described in Section 7.3 will qualify to be interviewed.

Those selected for interviews will be notified by phone by October 8, 2026. Interviews will be held at the LCWTP and scheduled for a maximum of three hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on the dates described in Section 5.2 above. The Owner will provide guidelines, expectations, and sample questions to assist proposers with interview preparation.

6. Proposal Requirements

Proposals should follow the format, content, and submittal guidelines outlined below. Failure to do so may result in the Proposal being considered nonresponsive5.

5 Owner reserves the right to waive irregularities deemed reasonable and in its best interest.

mailto:woodall@mwdsls.gov

6.1 Submittal Location and Deadline

Complete Proposals should be submitted via U3P. Questions regarding U3P, references, or other administrative items should be directed to the Owner contact as described in Section 5.1. The submission deadline is 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 2026.

6.2 Format

Proposals should adhere to the following format:

• File type: Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file.

• Font size: Minimum font size shall be 11 pt.

• Bookmarks: The submitted PDF must contain bookmarks for each section listed in Section 6.3.

• Page Size: 8½” x 11”. 11”x17” counts for two pages.

• Page limit: The Proposal must not exceed 35 total pages, excluding the transmittal letter, index or table of contents, front and back covers, title pages/separation tabs, and appendices. Divider pages should not include required RFP content or they will be included in the page count.

6.3 Content

The content requirements included in this RFP are the minimum content requirements for the Proposal.

The Proposal should include relevant information that is directly related to the Proposal requirements.

Proposals are encouraged to showcase company values, character, and creativity. However, Proposals should not contain standard marketing or other general materials. The Proposal must include the following information in the order listed below:

1. Transmittal Letter

2. Executive Summary

3. CM/GC Profile

4. Project Team Structure and Key Personnel

5. Relevant Project Experience

6. Project Approach

7. Appendix A: Supporting Financial and Company Documentation

8. Appendix B: Resumes

9. Appendix C: Comments on the form of Agreement (if any)

10. Appendix D: Pricing Information

11. Appendix E: Letter of Commitment

6.3.1 Transmittal Letter

The Proposal must include a transmittal letter (two-page maximum) on the Proposer’s letterhead, signed by a representative of the Proposer authorized to commit the Proposer to the obligations contained in the Proposal. The transmittal letter must include the name, address, phone number, and email address for the Proposer contact and must specify who would be the CM/GC’s signatory to any contract documents executed with the Owner. The transmittal letter may include other information deemed relevant by the Proposer.

6.3.2 Executive Summary

An executive summary (three-page maximum) should include an overview of the key elements of the Proposal. The executive summary cannot be used to convey any additional information not found elsewhere in the Proposal.

6.3.3 CM/GC Profile

The following information should be provided by the Proposer. In the case of a joint venture, provide the information for both parties. Records and additional documentation supporting this Section of the Proposal should be included in Appendix A – Supporting Financial and Company Documentation.

General Information

• Lines of business and service offerings

• Locations of home and other offices

• Average number of employees (professional and non-professional) over the past three years in the office(s) that are going to support the Project

• Years in business

• Legal Structure o Identify organization structure (e.g. corporation, LLC, general partnership) o Describe how this structure or similar has been used to deliver similar projects o Provide information on party(ies) who hold an interest greater than or equal to 10% of the organization

• Project Office Location o Identify where the Proposer’s Project office will be during Phase I o Identify where construction management Work will be performed during Phase I

Safety

• Describe the Proposer’s safety program including safety statistics

• Provide records indicating categories of accidents and their incidence or frequency rate for the past three years

• Provide the experience modification rate (EMR6) calculated by the National Council on Compensation Insurance or similar rating bureau for the last three years

• Provide the days-away-from-work injury7 incidence rate for the last three years, calculated by multiplying the number of days-away-from-work injuries for the particular year by 200,000 and then dividing the product by the person-hours worked for that year

Financial Financial documentation, later outlined in Section 6.3.7, pertains to factors or events that have the potential to adversely impact the Proposer’s or Proposer’s joint-venture partner’s ability to perform its

6 EMR is also referred to as the experience modification rating, experience modification factor, experience modifier or X-mod. If this value is greater than the industry average of 1.0, the Proposer may provide mitigating information to explain the reasons for the EMR rating.

7 A day-away-from-work injury is an injury that prevents an employee from returning to their next regularly scheduled shift.

contractual commitments. If any of the questions below are answered in a manner that indicates unfavorable factors or events are present, the Proposer must (1) describe in detail the unfavorable factor or event and (2) provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the unfavorable factor or event will not adversely impact the Proposer’s ability to perform its contractual commitments.

• Are there any pending or past (within five years) legal proceedings and judgments, or any contingent liability that could adversely affect the financial position or ability to perform contractual commitments to the Owner?

• Has the Proposer failed to complete any contract or has any contract been terminated due to alleged poor performance or default within the past five years?

• Has the Proposer been debarred within the past five years, or is it currently under consideration for debarment on public contracts by the federal government or by any state or local government?

Self-Performance The Owner intends for CM/GC to self-perform least 40% of the total scope of Work under the Contract Documents, as determined on a monetary basis (see Article 10 of Attachment B – Agreement). Please indicate which portions of the Work shall be self-performed.

Key Firms Identify and provide general information for subcontractors and subconsultants included on the Project Team. Include EMR safety records for the past three years for any Key Firm anticipated to be responsible for construction activities. The Owner is primarily interested in selecting a CM/GC partner and those key firms which are considered a core part of the preconstruction Work. Key Firms fulfill key roles that must be identified in Proposer’s Proposal and are committed to work on the Project if Proposer is selected as the CM/GC

The following Key Firms and/or subcontractors are not to be included in the CM/GC’s Proposal

• Electrical/Instrumentation

• Integration/Programming

• Public Engagement

• Survey

These contractors will be selected with the help of the Owner following selection of a CM/GC.

6.3.4 Project Team Structure and Key Personnel

This Section should highlight how the Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience provide a unique benefit for the Project and proposed Project approach. The Proposer should describe the division of services between the CM/GC and each of the Key Firms (identify each Key Firm’s services). Include organizational chart(s) explaining the reporting relationships and responsibilities of the CM/GC and Key Firms during Phases I and II. The Project Team are the CM/GC, Key Firms (such as subcontractors and subconsultants), and Key Personnel identified in the Proposer’s Proposal. Key Personnel are those individuals, employed by the CM/GC or Key Firms included on the Project Team, who would fill certain key roles in delivery of the Project and related services, including the positions described in the RFP.

At least one organizational chart should identify all Key Personnel with firm affiliations. Suggested Key Personnel include, at a minimum, the following:

• Project Director – accountable for successful delivery of the project

• Project Manager – responsible for the overall delivery of the project including planning, design review, construction, and commissioning

• Preconstruction Manager – responsible for constructability review; risk identification; and allocation, permit setup, cost estimating, procurement, and construction price development. This Work is identified as Phase I – Preconstruction

• Construction Manager – responsible for the delivery of the construction phase of the Project, risk identification and allocation, safety, quality management, and managing team resources and schedule. This Work is identified as Phase II – Construction. To the extent possible, the Construction Manager should have some involvement in Phase I – Preconstruction Work

• Site Superintendent – assigned to the project full time in the field to manage, make safe, and provide quality control for all construction activities, trades, subcontractors, and team field staff on the Project site

• Commissioning and Startup Manager – responsible for the commissioning and startup and maintaining of all plant operations during construction

• Quality Manager – responsible for development, implementation, and management of the Project quality plan

• Safety Manager – responsible for project safety and development and implementation of the Project safety plan

Please explain in the Proposal any changes to the above list.

Describe Key Personnel by name and how the experience of each aligns with the proposed role.

Specifically discuss the Project Manager’s experience leading similar teams. While discussing Key Personnel, the Proposer should explain how the Project Manager will integrate the CM/GC team with the Owner and Engineer. Provide an explanation of how the Preconstruction and Construction Managers will perform the Project hand-off.

Provide a brief explanation of the Project Team’s prior experience working on projects together.

Preference will be given to teams that include Key Personnel that have worked together on prior projects.

6.3.5 Relevant Project Experience

The Proposer should include a minimum of four reference project descriptions that demonstrate experience with relevant projects of similar scope and/or scale for municipal clients in the United States, completed or under construction in the last ten years. Projects provided must be of the collaborative delivery model with a strong preference towards CM/GC (CMAR). Owner is looking for recent similar project in which Key Personnel were involved. Each project description should contain at least the following information:

• Project name and location

• Name of Client

• Client reference and contact information

• Engineer’s PM reference and contact information

• Delivery model

• Contract dates and phases of the project during which services were provided

• Role of CM/GC and/or Key Firms

• Initial and final contract value and reason(s) for change

• Scheduled and actual completion dates and an explanation if they differ

• Description of project showing relevance

• Names of Key Personnel that participated in the project and are included in this Proposal, along with a clear description of their roles and responsibilities

For each reference project included in the Proposal, the Proposer must coordinate submission of a Project Performance Evaluation Form from the project client reference. This form is intended to be delivered from the project client reference directly back to the Owner for reference verification. It will not be included with the proposal document uploaded to U3P. This form can be found in Attachment E – Project Performance Evaluation Form.

In addition to the project descriptions, the Proposal should include a summary table cross-referencing the Project Team (CM/GC, Key Firms, and Key Personnel) with participation in the reference projects.

6.3.6 Project Approach

The Proposer should demonstrate its understanding of the Project and provide a conceptual approach for providing its services.

Project Understanding

• Discuss work elements critical to the Project’s success and the Proposer’s approach to managing these elements and mitigating risks for Project success.

• Identify specific constructability and value engineering ideas that may enhance ability to meet Project objectives.

Collaborative Delivery Approach

• Discuss the Proposer’s approach to establishing a collaborative relationship with the Owner and Engineer during preconstruction and construction services. This should include the Proposer’s approach to communication with Owner.

Cost Model

• Describe the process for developing the cost model and construction price qualification. Include the Proposer’s approach to risk management, open-book pricing, and contingency development.

• Discuss potential strategies to the successfully navigate, maximize and manage federal funding options throughout the Project.

Procurement & Self-Performance

• Describe the Proposer’s procurement approach, including initial ideas on packaging and phasing.

• Describe which components of the Project the Proposer plans to self-perform and the Proposer’s plan to demonstrate best value for any work self-performed.

• Describe the Proposer’s approach to selecting and managing subcontractors and equipment vendors and maximizing the use of qualified, local contractors on the project. (Local contractors, vendors, or subcontractors are those whose offices are located within a 100 mile-radius of the LCWTP site).

Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO)

• Describe the Proposer’s approach to developing a plan to maintain facility and building/staff operations during construction. (Illustrate with specific examples, key risks and opportunities related to MOPO). Describe the risks and approach to mitigating those risks.

• Describe the Proposer’s process for developing MOPO. Describe the communication plan with the Owner staff regarding shutdowns, temporary utility relocations and other related efforts.

• Describe how the Proposer will keep people and equipment safe and efficient at the facility, and provide staff access to their workplace.

• Provide a continuity plan between preconstruction and construction services.

• Describe Proposer’s commitment to implementing preconstruction MOPO to construction MOPO.

• Provide the process for developing a commissioning and startup plan.

Project Documentation and Asset Management

• Provide a brief description of how the Proposer’s use of technology, software, and other related services will benefit the Project during preconstruction, construction, startup, commissioning, and long-term O&M. Include plans for document organization during preconstruction and construction and the transfer thereof at project closeout.

• Highlight key ideas for assimilation of Project documentation into an asset management program.

6.3.7 Appendix A – Supporting Financial and Company Information Appendix A should include all records and documents supporting the Proposer’s profile as well as the following required documents:

• Company Licenses: Provide proof of appropriate General Contractor license and documentation that the Proposed company is legally registered, in good standing, and authorized to do business in the State of Utah.

• Financial Statements: Provide annual financial statements for the past three years. For publicly traded companies, references to US Securities and Exchange Commission 10-K filings and any recent 10-Q and 8-K fillings are adequate. For entities that are not publicly traded, provide annual audited financial statements for the same period. If the Proposer is a joint venture, LLC, or partnership, such financial statements must be provided for each partner or member.

• Payment and Performance Bonds: Provide a letter issued by the Proposer’s surety company to verify the availability of a bond of at least $800 million for this Project. The surety must be authorized by law to do business in Utah and must have an A.M. Best Company Financial Strength Rating (FSR) of A-, IX or better. The surety company must be listed in the US Department of Treasury’s Circular 570.

• Insurance: Provide a letter from the Proposer’s insurance company stating its ability to acquire and provide the minimum limits for the required insurance provided in the Supplementary Conditions (00800). The required insurance must be obtained and maintained from insurance companies that have an A.M. Best Rating of A-, IX or better and are duly licensed or authorized in Utah.

• Legal Proceedings and Judgements: Provide a sworn statement from the Proposer’s general counsel to the effect that there are no pending or past (within five years) legal proceedings or judgments or any contingent liability that could adversely affect the financial position or ability to perform contractual commitments to the Owner.

6.3.8 Appendix B – Resumes

Provide resumes for all Key Personnel. Limit resumes to two pages or fewer per individual and include the following information:

• Academic and professional proposals

• Professional registration(s) as applicable

• Tenure with organization and industry

• Experience as it relates to the Project and the individual’s specified role on the Project

6.3.9 Appendix C – Agreement Comments (optional)

Proposers may include a detailed markup of the Agreement, including exhibits, of requested revisions by the Proposer. Such comments may take any form that is convenient to the Proposer.

If included, Appendix C must explain the reason for each requested revision and the associated benefits to the Owner. Any proposed revisions should allocate risk more efficiently, improve parties’ understanding of risk allocation, improve clarity of terms where ambiguity or uncertainty may arise during the term’s application or interpretation, or similar.

The Owner is not obligated to accept any requested revisions submitted by the Proposer when negotiating and finalizing the Agreement. The Owner may also request additional revisions during negotiations before finalizing the Agreement, including amending contract provisions in light of applicable funding sources. Although the Owner may undertake negotiations of the Agreement in light of any proposed changes requested through Appendix C, Appendix C will be treated as an offer that the Owner can accept as-is without further negotiations or revision.

6.3.10 Appendix D – Pricing Information

Those Proposers selected for the interview shall provide the relevant pricing information forms in Attachment D – Pricing Information Form(s). The pricing information shall be provided by 5:00 p.m. seven days prior to the Proposer’s interview date. The information shall be submitted electronically to Elizabeth Woodall at the email in Section 5.1. Pricing should be provided for the scope of services detailed in Exhibit A of Attachment B for the full scope of the Project as set out in Anticipated Project Schedule (Section 2.5), above. As discussed above, Owner intends to issue a Task Order for 30% design CM/GC Services contemporaneous with the award of the Agreement, which will be based on Attachment D. The Owner then intends to solicit preconstruction costs from the successful CM/GC with each design milestone, which will be incorporated into applicable Task Orders. Proposers are reminded to provide a work breakdown structure8 for proposed preconstruction pricing, including labor rate escalations for the life of the project. Any proposed scope additions shall be priced out separately.

Please be advised that the Owner is not interested in proposed fees or rates that provide excessive discounts from the CM/GC’s anticipated actual costs for the requested services, and may consider such an approach nonresponsive.

6.3.11 Appendix E – Letter of Commitment

The Proposal should include a letter of commitment formally committing to maintain team consistency for the full duration of the LCWTP Rebuild Project. The letter should include a guarantee that Key Personnel

8 Work breakdown structure must include an itemized budget by task including individual hours and hourly rates.

listed in Section 6.3.4 assigned to the preconstruction phase will remain actively engaged through Project construction, commissioning, startup, and completion.

7. Evaluation and Selection

The Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by the Owner, with assistance provided by outside advisors if desired by the Owner, according to the requirements and criteria outlined in this RFP. During the Proposal evaluation, the Owner may submit questions or requests for clarification to one or more Proposer. Failure of the Proposer to respond in a timely manner may be grounds for elimination from further consideration.

7.1 Responsiveness

Each Proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it is responsive to the RFP. Failure to comply with the requirements of this RFP may result in rejection of the Proposal for non-responsiveness. At its discretion, the Owner may ask a Proposer for clarification or additional information to remedy a deficiency or waive a failure to a meet a requirement of the RFP.

7.2 Minimum Requirements (Pass/Fail)

Responsive Proposals will be reviewed to determine if they meet the minimum requirements outlined below. At its discretion, the Owner may ask a Proposer for clarification or additional information to remedy a deficiency and waive a failure to a meet a pass/fail requirement of the RFP.

Any Proposal that does not satisfy all of the following minimum requirements may be rejected:

• CM/GC must demonstrate it has the bonding capacity described in Section 6.3.7.

• CM/GC must demonstrate it can provide the insurance coverage described in Section 6.3.7.

• CM/GC must have an unqualified audit opinion, and no substantial doubt about the ability to continue as a going concern.

• CM/GC must not have unfavorable debarment status.

• CM/GC and other Key Firms must be licensed in Utah for the type of work to be performed.

7.3 Proposal Evaluation

The selection committee will evaluate and rank the responsive Proposals that satisfy the minimum requirements by applying the weighted comparative scoring evaluation criteria outlined below.

1. Transmittal Letter Not scored.

2. Executive Summary Not scored.

3. CM/GC Profile 11%

4. Project Team Structure and Key Personnel, including Letter of

Commitment 38%

5. Relevant Project Experience 17%

6. Project Approach 34%

Appendix A – Supporting Financial and Company Documentation Pass/Fail.

Appendix B – Resumes Scored as part of 4.

Appendix C – Agreement Comments Not scored.

Proposals will be comparatively evaluated using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for each of the weighted criteria. The resulting percentage rank/preference score for each Proposal will be normalized to a point score, where the highest rank percentage score earns the maximum available points and subsequent rank scores earn a point score proportional by rank percentage.

The maximum point score for Proposal evaluation is 60 points. Firms who score between 40 and 60 points will be selected for interviews.

7.4 Interview and Pricing Evaluation

The Owner will provide interview evaluation criteria, guidelines, expectations, and sample questions to assist Proposers with interview preparation. This document will be shared with Proposers at the time of notification for interview.

Those selected for interviews will provide pricing information in accordance with the direction provided in Section 6.3.10 above. Pricing information will not be viewed by the Owner until after the interview.

A maximum point score for the interview and pricing evaluation is 40 points. Interviewees will be comparatively evaluated using AHP for each of the weighted criteria outlined below. The resulting percentage rank/preference score for each Proposal will be normalized to a point score, where the highest rank percentage score earns the maximum available points and subsequent rank scores earn a point score proportional by rank percentage.

Interview and Pricing scoring will be based on the following weighted criteria below:

1. Creativity in Problem Solving (Solve a Problem) 22%

2. Clarity and Innovation on Presented Topics (Team and Approach) 13%

3. Quality of Responses (Q&A) 22%

4. Interaction, Collaboration, Teamwork and Performance 37%

5. Pricing Information 6%

Selection will be made based on a combined score of both the Proposal Evaluation (Section 7.3) and the Interview and Pricing Evaluation (Section 7.4).

After the selection process is complete, the Owner will either select the top-ranked Proposer for contract award based on its scope, fee, and/or Agreement comments or negotiate the scope, fee, and/or final terms of the Agreement as set out in Section 6.3.9. If negotiations with the top-ranked Proposer are not successful, the Owner may select or negotiate with the second highest-ranked Proposer, and so on.

8. Conditions for Proposers

8.1 Owner Authority

Owner is a Utah special district governed by Title 17B of the Utah Code, and specifically Chapter 1 and Chapter 2a, Part 6. The procurement process for this Project is authorized under Title 63G, Chapter 6a of the Utah Code, and specifically Part 7.

8.2 Rights of the Owner

In connection with this procurement process, including the receipt and evaluation of proposals and award of the Agreement, Owner reserves to itself (at its sole discretion) all rights available to it under applicable law, including without limitation, with or without cause and with or without notice, the right to:

• Cancel, withdraw, postpone, or extend this RFP, in whole or in part, at any time prior to the execution of the Agreement, without incurring any obligations or liabilities.

• Modify the procurement schedule.

• Waive deficiencies, informalities, and irregularities in a Proposal and accept and review a non-responsive Proposal.

• Suspend and terminate the procurement process or terminate evaluations of proposals received.

• Allow corrections to data submitted with any proposal.

• Hold meetings and interviews, and conduct discussions and correspondence, with one or more of the Proposers to seek an improved understanding of any information contained in a proposal.

• Seek or obtain, from any source, data that has the potential to improve the understanding and evaluation of the Proposals.

• Seek clarification from any Proposer to fully understand information provided in the proposal and to help evaluate and rank the Proposers.

• Reject a Proposal containing exceptions, additions, qualifications, or conditions not called for in the RFP or otherwise not acceptable to the Owner.

• Conduct an independent investigation of any information, including experience, included in a proposal by contacting project references, accessing public information, contacting independent parties, or any other means.

• Request additional information from a Proposer during the evaluation of its proposal.

8.3 Obligation to Keep Project Team Intact

Owner expects all Key Firms and Key Personnel proposed to be available to provide services for this Project. Proposers are advised that all Key Firms and Key Personnel identified in the Proposal shall remain on the Project Team for the duration of the procurement process and execution of the Project.

Key Personnel are committed to the Project and changes may not be accepted, unless they no longer work for the firm or Owner otherwise agrees that a change is appropriate. If extraordinary circumstances require a change, it must be submitted in writing to the Owner, which, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to authorize a change, recognizing that certain circumstances (such as termination of employment) may occur that are beyond the Proposer’s control.

8.4 Addenda

If any revisions to the RFP or procurement process become necessary or desirable (at the Owner’s sole discretion), the Owner may issue written addenda. The Owner will issue any such addenda through U3P.

It is each Proposer’s responsibility to obtain all addenda prior to submitting its Proposal.

8.5 GRAMA

Owner is subject to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act, Title 63G, Chapter 2 of the Utah Code (GRAMA). If a Proposer claims any portion of its Proposal contains proprietary information, it is responsible to understand and implement any protection provided by GRAMA, including Section 63G-2-309 (https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63G/Chapter2/63G-2-S309.html), as that section may be amended. Owner will not be bound by any instructions or watermarks, stamps, or similar designations contained in a Proposal, but rather, will only be governed by GRAMA and Owner’s GRAMA regulations.

All materials become the property of Owner and may be returned at Owner’s option.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63G/Chapter2/63G-2-S309.html

Attachment A – Project Background Documents

Proposers shall review the index of Project background documents to support Proposal development.

The Owner may also update the index of Project background documents from time to time with new information via addenda to the RFP or during Phase I.

Document Number

Document Title

001 Existing LCWTP Plant Flow Diagram and Hydraulic Profile

002 LCWTP Rebuild – Basis of Design Report – June 2026

Upon execution of the Agreement between the Owner and the CM/GC, a Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) will also be signed in the form included as Attachment C.

Basis of Design Report

Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Rebuild Project Phase 1: Basis of Design

St an te c

C on su lti ng S er vi ce s

In c.

Prepared for:

Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy

Prepared by:

Stantec

Date:

June 29, 2026

Project/File:

181301792

Revision Record

Revision Description Author Date Quality Check

Date Independent Review

Date

0 Draft M. Bertoch 5/22/26 J. Gelmini 5/26/26 D. Hatch 5/28/26 1 Final M. Bertoch 6/29/26 T. Spivak 6/29/26 B. Jeppson 6/29/26

Disclaimer The conclusions in the Report titled Basis of Design Report are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk.

Stantec has assumed all information received from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein.

This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client.

While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result.

Prepared by:

Signature

Jennifer Gelmini, PE Printed Name

Reviewed by:

Signature

Brad Jeppson, PE Printed Name

Approved by:

Signature

Mark Graham, PE Printed Name

Project: 181301792 i

Acronyms / Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ iv 1 Introduction 2 Background

2.1 Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy

2.2 Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant

3 Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Rebuild Project Background

3.1 Raw Water Quality

3.2 Level of…