2024-02 WWTP Headworks Upgrade RFP QBS_Final.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION

Professional Engineering Services for

PROJECT 2024-02

WWTP HEADWORKS UPGRADE

PROJECT NO: 2024-02

PROJECT TYPE: Professional Engineering Services

PROPOSALS DUE: July 30, 2024, not later than 2:00 PM PST SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO: City of Ashland Public Works -

Engineering, at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.

or by mail to:

20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520

CITY PROJECT MANAGER: Chance Metcalf, PMP PROJECT DURATION: Phase 1: 3-6 Months

Phase 2: 3-6 Months Phase 3: 6-12 Months Phase 4: 12-18 Months

PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING

20 E. MAIN STREET

ASHLAND OR 97520

541-488-5587

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADVERTISEMENT

PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 OBJECTIVES

1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

SCHEDULE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 PROJECT APPROACH (20 POINTS POSSIBLE)

4.2 PROJECT EXPERIENCE (25 POINTS POSSIBLE)

4.3 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE (30 POINTS POSSIBLE)

4.4 PROPOSER’S DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE SIMILAR PROJECTS ON TIME AND WITHIN BUDGET (25

POINTS POSSIBLE)

4.5 TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT (PASS OR FAIL)

4.6 SCORING

EVALUATION PROCESS AND CONSULTANT SELECTION

5.1 REVIEW AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEFECTIVE PROPOSALS

5.2 RIGHT OF REJECTION

5.3 REFERENCES

5.4 RESPONSIBILITY

5.5 CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSE

5.6 INTERVIEWS

5.7 FINALIST SELECTION

5.8 TIES AMONG PROPOSERS

5.9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD

5.10 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

5.11 PROTEST PROCEDURES

5.12 RESULTING CONTRACT

CONTRACT

6.1 CONTRACT FORM

6.2 BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED

6.3 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

6.4 LAWS AND REGULATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

7.1 GENERAL

7.2 INFORMATION OF RECORD

7.3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND FORMAT

7.4 SIGNATURE ON PROPOSAL

7.5 PREPARATION COSTS

7.6 CONFORMANCE TO SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS

7.7 DEFINITIONS

7.8 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

7.9 PROTEST OF REQUIREMENTS

7.10 PROTEST OF CONTRACT AWARD

7.11 PROPOSAL MODIFICATION

7.12 PROPOSAL WITHDRAWALS

7.13 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

7.14 TERMS AND CONDITIONS

7.15 PROPOSAL OPENING

PROPOSAL FORM

CONTRACT FORM INCLUDING EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C

FORM W-9

ADVERTISEMENT

CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS – REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION

for

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

The City of Ashland (City) is seeking Proposals for professional engineering services for Project 2024-02 WWTP HEADWORKS UPGRADE. The purpose of this project is to upgrade the City’s wastewater treatment plant headworks process. This project includes validation of replacement recommendation in the recent Facilities Assessment, evaluate and propose alternatives with a preferred solution, design of a new or upgraded Headworks system, provide oversight during construction phase to ensure compliance with design, perform SCADA programming, testing of equipment and develop final O & M plan. The goal of this project is to upgrade the Headworks process to meet future demands while decreasing maintenance needs and operational costs. This project may be funded by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Project No. 2024-02 will include but is not specifically limited to the following primary work elements:

Phase 1: Validate need, evaluate alternatives, and recommend preferred solution.

Phase 2: Preliminary Engineering of preferred alternative.

Phase 3: Final Engineering & Bidding Services.

Phase 4: Construction Administration and Programming Services, System Testing and O & M Plan.

Proposals must be physically received by July 30, 2024, not later than 2:00 PM PST (main lobby clock), in the City of Ashland Public Works Engineering Office located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520, or by mail at 20 E.

Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520. Proposers mailing Proposals should allow normal delivery time to ensure the timely receipt of their Proposals. Any Proposal received after the date and time set for receipt of Proposals will not be considered and will be returned to the proposer unopened. For further information, contact the City’s Project Manager, Chance Metcalf, PMP at 541-488-5587 or by email at chance.metcalf@ashland.or.us. Consultant selection is anticipated to result in the issuance of a contract for professional engineering services in a form substantially similar to the one provided in this RFP.

Proposal documents may be downloaded from the OregonBuys eProcurement system. Any addenda that may be issued relating to this RFP will be available from OregonBuys, and potential proposers are cautioned to continuously monitor the site for updates and addenda.

All Proposals shall be submitted as set forth in Section 7 - Instructions to Proposers. The City is not responsible for Proposals submitted in any manner, format, or to any delivery point other than as required by this RFP. Proposals shall be limited to six (6) pages, including cover sheet, and must include the services of a Professional Engineer registered in Oregon.

Consultant selection will be based upon weighed criteria as set forth in this Solicitation Document and will include criteria including, but not limited to: similar project experiences, general experience, staffing availability, schedule and response time.

The City of Ashland reserves the right to cancel this procurement or reject any and all Proposals in accordance with

ORS 279B.100.

Scott Fleury PE, Public Works Director

First date of solicitation:

RFP for Project #2024-02: June 26, 2024 file://fs1/Depts/pub-wrks/eng/2024%20Project%20Year/2024-02%20WWTP%20Headworks%20Upgrade/1_Administration/1_Engineering_Pre%20Contract/Project%20RFP/chance.metcalf@ashland.or.us

CITY OF ASHLAND

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS – QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION

PROJECT NO. 2024-02

WWTP HEADWORKS UPGRADE

PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Objectives

The City of Ashland (City) is seeking Proposals from professional engineering consultants for Project 2024- 02 WWTP HEADWORKS UPGRADE. The purpose of this project is to upgrade the City’s wastewater treatment plant Headworks process. This project includes validation of replacement recommendation in the recent Facilities Assessment, evaluate and propose alternatives with a preferred solution, design of a new or upgraded Headworks system, provide oversight during construction phase to ensure compliance with design, perform SCADA programming, testing of equipment and develop final O & M plan. The goal of this project is to upgrade the Headworks process to meet future demands while decreasing maintenance needs and operational costs. This project may be funded by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Project No. 2024-02 will include but is not specifically limited to the following primary work elements:

Phase 1: Validate need, evaluate alternatives, and recommend preferred solution.

Phase 2: Preliminary Engineering of preferred alternative.

Phase 3: Final Engineering & Bidding Services.

Phase 4: Construction Administration and Programming Services, System Testing and O & M Plan.

1.2 Background Information

Wastewater System The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed for an average day dry-weather flow (ADWF) of 2.4 MGD (2018 data) and average day wet weather flow (AWWF) of 2.3 MGD (2018 data) with a current population of 21,457 (2023 data). Flows increase during wet weather months with peak flows in January of roughly 125% of average. The wastewater treatment plant can sustain instantaneous peaks, typically corresponding to rain events, of more than 10 MGD.

The City’s wastewater collection system service area is approximately 6.5 square miles with 7,514 connections: 6,336 residential, 1,093 commercial, and 85 restaurant connections. The collection system contains nearly 110 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, and seven pump stations. The installation of the collection system dates to the early 1900s.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation General Process Description The City of Ashland's wastewater treatment plant operates a secondary treatment system for five months (December 1-April 30), and a tertiary system for the remaining seven months (May 1- November 30). The effluent now discharges into Bear Creek. Both the secondary and tertiary systems discharge an effluent that is within regulatory standards as established in the City’s National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permit.

Secondary Treatment The City of Ashland's Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of grit removal and screening, biological nutrient removal (BNR) process in an oxidation ditch system to treat the wastewater along with secondary clarification, UV disinfection and post aeration. Alum addition and a tertiary membrane filtration system operate from May 1st to November 30th to ensure strict phosphorous limits are met.

The Carrousel Oxidation Ditches and secondary clarifiers are the major unit processes responsible for removing the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and nutrients from the wastewater. The Carrousel Oxidation Ditch process is a variation of the traditional oxidation ditch activated sludge process. The unique features of the Carrousel include the basin configuration and the device used to provide aeration and mixing. The Carrousel basins are typically deeper than standard oxidation ditches and turbine aerators are used instead of brush aerators.

The anoxic basin on each Carrousel Oxidation Ditch consists of a 0.35-million-gallon concrete tank at the head end of each ditch. Each anoxic basin is equipped with a 15-hp submerged turbine mixer to keep the solids in suspension. Raw sewage mixed with RAS enters the anoxic basin at the southern end through the splitter box. Each oxidation ditch consists of a 1.41-million-gallon racetrack-shaped concrete basin. Each of the basins is equipped with two 100-hp surface aerators.

Mixed liquor from the oxidation ditches flows in a common 30-inch diameter pipe to the mixed liquor (ML) splitter box where it is distributed to the three secondary clarifiers. The secondary clarifiers perform several functions simultaneously: clarification; settling; thickening; and solids removal as part of the secondary treatment process. Sludge that accumulates on the bottom of the clarifier flows by gravity to the return activated sludge/waste activated sludge (RAS/WAS) Pump Station. Biomass not required in the secondary system is wasted through the WAS system. WAS is then dewatered, using centrifuges.

Operators haul dewatered solids to the landfill.

Tertiary Treatment The membrane microfiltration system is located downstream of the UV Disinfection process. This tertiary treatment system is designed to provide a high-quality effluent for direct discharge to Ashland Creek. The city operates the tertiary system seven months out of the year, from May 1st until November 30th to meet the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) phosphorus discharge limit of 1.6 lbs/day. The system has four membrane treatment trains immersed in open tanks which operate in parallel. The feed water comes directly from the secondary clarifiers and enters the membrane tank inlet distribution channel. Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) is introduced just upstream of the secondary clarifiers to precipitate the phosphorus. The remaining water is moved through each membrane under a low differential pressure vacuum permeate pump. Reject water from periodic back-pulsing of the membranes is pumped back through the secondary treatment process.

Headworks (Project) The "headworks" of a wastewater treatment plant is the initial stage of the treatment process designed to reduce the level of pollutants in the incoming wastewater discharges. The headworks removes inorganics such as grit, plastics, rags, and other larger debris from the influent waste stream to protect and reduce wear on the main wastewater process equipment. Headworks equipment includes pumps, mechanical screens, screening compactors, grit removal systems and grit washing systems. Upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant in 1998 did not fully replace the headworks.

The headworks layout has grit removal upstream of screening, resulting in the grit system handling the unscreened raw sewage flow without the benefit of rag and debris removal. This reduces the efficiency of the grit system and requires the Operators to manually remove the rags. The grit system components are difficult to procure for replacement as many have become obsolete and overall, the grit mechanism is nearing the end expected useful life. The bar screen is in Fair condition and its main drive components are being worn down. The compactor auger is leaking onto the ground and is not cold weather rated.

A new grit removal facility is recommended downstream of the existing headworks to eliminate operational challenges related to ragging and due to the age of the existing grit system. The new grit facility would include flow splitting to three oxidation ditches, two existing, and one planned future ditch. In addition, based on the condition of the existing headworks screening system, we further recommend the replacement of the influent screen, washer compactor and associated equipment.

Since we recommend installing a new grit removal system downstream of the existing screen, replacing the screen at this some time is a cost-effective approach. Additionally, the condition assessment identified several major screen components that needed repair/refurbishment, so a significant refurbishment investment would be required even if the entire screen were not replaced.

The new headworks grit removal system, recommended above, would include adjustable weir gates to split flow to existing and future oxidation ditches. This would alleviate the poor hydraulic split observed in the existing flow split box during peak flows.

1.3 Reference Documents

• 2019 WWTP Facilities Assessment with current flow and loads, and hydraulic modeling (Jacobs – August 2019).

• 2014 Wastewater facilities Plan (Keller Associates – May 2014).

• 2003 Wastewater Treatment plant as built drawings (RE- Carollo Engineers).

• Wastewater Treatment Plant O & M Plan (Carollo Engineers – 2003).

Documents available to proposers upon request

SCHEDULE

The schedule of events listed below represents City’s estimated schedule for this request for proposal. This schedule is SUBECT TO CHANGE and will be adjusted as required.

EVENT DAILY COUNT (CALENDAR DAYS) DATE

1. Request for Proposal Released 0 6/26/2024

2. Last Date for Request for changes/Protest for Specifications/Questions

11 days prior to Proposal Closing 7/19/2024

3. Last Date for City to Post Addenda 4 days prior to Proposal Closing 7/26/2024

4. Closing Date (last day to submit Proposals) ~30 days after Proposal Release 7/30/2024

5. Responses Evaluated ~15 days after Closing Date 8/14/2024

6. Interviews Held (if necessary) ~23 days after Closing Date 8/22/2024

7. Intent to Award Announced ~30 days after Closing Date 8/29/2024

8. Contract Negotiations / Award ~41 days after Closing Date 9/8/2024

9. Expected Project Completion (all phases) 42 months after Contract Award 3/8/2028

SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 General Requirements

• Personnel, Materials, & Equipment: The Consultant shall provide qualified and competent personnel and shall furnish all supplies, equipment, tools and incidentals required to accomplish the work. All materials and supplies shall be of good quality and suitable for the assigned work.

• Safety Equipment: The Consultant shall provide and use all safety equipment including, and not limited to hard hats, safety vests and clothing required by State, Federal regulations and Department policies and procedures for all field work. All personnel conducting analysis in a confined space must have confined space training.

• Professional Responsibilities: The Consultant shall perform the work using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar work and shall comply will all applicable codes and standards.

• Project Management: The Consultant and the City staff will meet as required during project duration.

The objectives of the meeting will include reviewing the scope, budget, schedule and deliverables. The Consultant will organize and manage the consultant project team and coordinate with city project manager and City staff. Project Management will also include coordination with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and permitting agencies throughout the duration of the project.

• Monthly Invoices and Progress Reports: The Consultant shall prepare monthly invoices, Monthly progress reports, and Daily Inspection Reports which will include the following:

- Work Completed during the month by work task as a percentage of completion.

- Needs for Additional Information, Reviews, or Changes to the Scope of Work.

- Scope, Schedule, and Budget Issues and Changes.

- Date, Time, Weather, contractors onsite, Quantities, pics, and valuable information.

3.2 Specific Requirements

The City of Ashland (City) is seeking professional consultant services for Project 2024-02 WWTP HEADWORKS UPGRADE. The purpose of this project is to upgrade the City’s wastewater treatment plant headworks process. This project includes validation of replacement recommendation in the recent Facilities Assessment, evaluate and propose alternatives with a preferred solution, design of a new or upgraded Headworks system, provide oversight during construction phase to ensure compliance with design, perform SCADA programming, testing of equipment and develop final O & M plan. The goal of this project is to upgrade the Headworks process to meet future demands while decreasing maintenance needs and operational costs. This project may be funded by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water State Revolving Fund. As such there may be additional review and approval step

PHASE 1: Validate need, evaluate alternatives, and recommend preferred solution.

1. Review reference documents and existing system.

2. Validate the need for Headworks system upgrades or full replacement.

3. Evaluate and provide up to three alternatives to Headworks system upgrades or replacement including preliminary cost analysis. Alternatives analysis shall incorporate the following at a minimum:

a. develop design criteria vetted through City’s project team.

b. ability to meet DEQ requirements and potential future requirements.

c. capacity to meet future design flows.

d. use of existing Headworks space and/or obtaining surrounding property from

Parks for expansion of a new Headworks system

e. ease of operation and maintenance.

f. each alternative to have a Technical Memorandum and opinion of cost.

4. Recommend preferred alternative.

a. Recommendation shall be from reliable validated source.

b. Recommendation should include the pros and cons.

c. Recommendation should include preliminary costs for purchase, installation, and annual operation (energy, maintenance).

3.2.2 PHASE 2: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

1. Develop preliminary engineering (30% design)

2. Provide all field data collection services necessary for design of preferred solution.

3. Develop opinion of cost (30% design)

4. Basis of Design Report (30% design)

5. Prepare permitting memo outlining all permitting requirements of construction phase.

PHASE 3: FINAL ENGINEERING AND BIDDING SERVICES

1. Prepare plans and specifications (60%, 90%, 100% design), including design review meetings at the 60% and 90% plan development stages.

2. Develop opinion of cost (60%, 90%, 100% design)

3. Basis of Design Report (100% design)

4. Obtain any permit required for construction/installation of preferred solution.

5. Coordinate Final design review with DEQ and incorporate comments appropriately.

6. Provide technical specifications (back end), City to provide front end.

7. Provide bidding and award related engineering services including conducting a pre-bid meeting, preparing addenda, reviewing bids and making a recommendation for award.

PHASE 4: CONSTRUCTION AND PROGRAMMING SERVICES, SYSTEM TESTING AND O & M PLAN

1. Provide construction administration and inspection services for installation, programming, and testing to ensure compliance to design.

2. Provide Operations and Maintenance Plan upon completion of project and update chapter in WWTP O&M Plan. O&M Plan must meet DEQ requirements.

3.3.3 DEQ CWSRF Loan Program

This project, and subsequent construction elements resulting from this project, may be funded in large part through the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ or DEQ) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Program. As such, time is of the essence. If funded by DEQ CWSRF, the following elements apply:

• Non-Discrimination – “The selected Consultant shall not discriminate on the bases of race color national origin or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 33 in the award and administration of contract awarded under EPA Financial assistance agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in termination of this contract or other legally available remedies.”

• Whistleblower – “The selected Consultant receiving CWSRF funds shall under or through this contract be required to, post notice of the rights and remedies provided to whistleblowers under No Fear Act Pub. L. 107-174. 29 CFR § 1614.703 (d).”

• DBE Participation – The utilization of federal funds is anticipated in this contract via the DEQ CWSRF loan program. Although no specific DBE participation goals will be assigned to this personal services contract, any executed contract and follow on construction services contracts will ensure that a good faith effort to utilize and promote fair share awards to Minority Business Enterprises (MBE), Women’s Business Enterprises (WBE) and Small Business Enterprises (SBE) businesses.

• Intellectual Property – “The selected Consultant hereby grants to the U.S. E.P.A. a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for federal government purposes, any intellectual property developed under this contract. Contractor shall secure from third parties the same license in the name of the U.S. E.P.A.

regarding any intellectual property developed by third parties as subcontractors to perform this project or developed under contract with the Contractor specifically to enable Contractor’s obligations related to this project.”

• Environmental and Natural Resource Laws – “The selected Consultant shall comply with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15).

• Procurement of Recovered Materials – “The selected Consultant must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including procurement of recovered materials in a manner designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247.”

• Prohibition on the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying – The selected Consultant shall sign the Certification Regarding Lobbying form as provided in the appendix.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Written Proposals will be evaluated and scored, and a contract may be awarded based upon the proposer’s qualifications and experience as described below:

4.1 Project Approach (20 Points Possible)

Provide a description of your firm’s approach to completing Wastewater Headworks System retrofits, rehabilitations and/or upgrades. Include a summary of prior partnerships with DEQ and city staff. Include a summary of your quality control program.

4.2 Project Experience (25 Points Possible)

a. Describe how your firm is organized and how its resources will be utilized to complete the work.

b. Provide a summary of relevant work experience.

c. Provide a concise description of at least three (3) projects in the last ten (10) years, involving similar work to those listed in the scope of work.

d. Indicate which members of the proposed project team, if any, who worked on the example projects, and their involvement. These team members should be included in the Key Persons list submitted in 4.3(b) below.

e. Submit references for three of the projects described above. Include the Owners name, organization name, contact name, contact email and phone.

4.3 Project Team Experience (30 Points Possible)

a. Provide a description of the proposed organizational structure to be used for the project.

b. Provide a list of the key staff proposed for this project (“Key Person(s)”). Be specific on the individuals that will play primary roles in development of the required engineering and their experience working with DEQ and municipalities on Headworks projects. Provide a concise summary of each key person(s)’s role, and a description of their relevant experience for this project.

c. Submit resumes that support each Key Person’s relevant experience. No more than five resumes should be submitted as Appendix A and will not count against page limit.

d. Indicate which individual will manage the project and be the primary contact. Indicate the specific experience this individual has managing similar projects.

e. State the estimated proportion of each Key Person’s time that will be spent on City’s project vs.

total time spent on all Key Person’s projects during the term of contract.

f. At a minimum, one key member of the project team must be a professionally licensed civil engineer in the state of Oregon.

4.4 Proposer’s Demonstrated Ability to Successfully Complete Similar Projects on Time and Within Budget (25 Points Possible) For each of the three (3) projects listed in response to 4.2(c), provide a discussion of whether the project was completed on time and on budget or needed to be revised. Briefly explain the reason for any revisions, and what attempts were made to bring the project back on schedule and within budget.

4.5 Termination for Default (Pass or Fail)

Proposers shall indicate if they have had a contract terminated for default in the last five years.

Termination for default is defined as notice to stop performance that was delivered to the Proposer due to the Proposer’s non-performance or poor performance and the issue of performance was either (a) not litigated due to inaction on the part of the Proposer, or (b) litigated and determined that the Proposer was in default.

NOTE: If a Proposer has had a contract terminated for default in this period, then the Proposer shall submit full details including the other party’s name, address and phone number. City of Ashland will evaluate the facts and may, at its sole discretion, reject the Proposal on the grounds of past performance.

4.6 Scoring

CATEGORY POSSIBLE POINTS POINTS SCORING

1. Project Approach 20

2. Project Experience 25

3. Project Team Experience 30

4. Demonstrated Ability to Successfully

Complete Projects on Time and Within Budget

6. Termination for Default P/F Total 100

EVALUATION PROCESS AND CONSULTANT SELECTION

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an evaluation committee of reviewers consisting of at least three City employees. The total number of points possible for written Proposals is 100, and an additional 100 points may be scored through the interview process.

5.1 Review and Acknowledgment of Defective Proposals

Due to limited resources, City generally will not completely review or analyze Proposals that on their faces fail to comply with the minimum mandatory requirements of the solicitation documents nor will City generally investigate the references or qualifications of such proposals. Therefore, City will not acknowledge whether or not an unsuccessful Proposal was complete, responsive, responsible, sufficient, or lawful in any respect. This is a public solicitation, the processes and procedures which are established and required by Oregon law and City-adopted rules. Proposers are advised to strictly follow the process, procedures, and requirements as set forth in this RFP and not anticipate or rely on any opportunity to negotiate, beyond such limitations that are identified herein.

5.2 Right of Rejection

Proposers must comply with all terms of this RFP and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, administrative rules, and regulations. The City may reject any Proposal that does not comply with all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and performance requirements of this RFP.

Proposers may not qualify the Proposal nor restrict the rights of the City. If a Proposer does so, the City may determine the Proposal to be a non-responsive counteroffer, and the Proposal may be rejected.

Minor informalities that may be waived include those that:

• do not affect responsiveness,

• are merely a matter of form or format,

• do not change the relative standing or otherwise prejudice other offers,

• are trivial, negligible, or immaterial in nature,

• do not reflect a material change in the work, or,

• do not constitute a substantial reservation against a requirement or provision.

City reserves the right to refrain from making an award if the City determines that to be in its best interest.

A Proposal from a debarred or suspended Proposer shall be rejected.

5.3 References

The City reserves the right to investigate any and all references and the past performance information provided in the Proposal with respect to the proposer’s successful performance of similar projects, compliance with specifications and contractual obligations, completion or delivery of a project on a schedule, and lawful payment of employees and workers.

The City reserves the right to check any and all sources for information on a proposer’s past performance, including sources other than the references provided in the proposer’s Proposal. The City may consider information available from any source, including government bodies and regulatory authorities.

5.4 Responsibility

The City reserves the right to investigate and evaluate, at any time prior to award and execution of the contract, the apparent successful Proposer’s responsibility for fulfilling the contract. Submission of a signed Proposal shall constitute approval for City to obtain any information City deems necessary to conduct evaluation. City reserves the right to request additional information or documentation from the successful Proposer prior to award of contract. Such information may include, but is not limited to, current and recent balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements, or a performance bond from an acceptable surety. Failure to provide this information will result in rescission of City’s Intent to Award.

City may postpone the award of contract after announcement of the apparent successful Proposer in order to complete its investigation and evaluation. Failure of the apparent successful Proposer to demonstrate responsibility shall render the Proposer non-responsible and shall constitute grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.5 Clarification of Response

City reserves the right to request clarification of any item in any Proposal, or to request additional information necessary to properly evaluate a particular Proposal. All requests for clarification and responses shall be in writing.

During the evaluation of Proposals, Proposers must respond to any request for clarification from the Evaluation Committee within 24 hours of request (Monday through Friday). Inability of the Evaluation Committee to reach a Proposer for clarification and/or failure of a Proposer to respond within the time stated may result in rejection of the Proposer’s Proposal.

5.6 Interviews

The outcome of the Proposal evaluations may result in placement on an interview (short-listed) with time and date of the interview. Should City elect to hold interviews, the total additional points possible for the interview will be 100.

City may invite up to three (3) of the highest-ranked firms (or at a natural break in scoring) to interview.

The Firm’s Key Persons, as identified by City shall be prepared to attend the interview within five (5) business days of notification by City and shall be prepared to answer questions provided with the Interview Invite letter, and questions that will be provided at the time of the interview and discuss the Firm’s proposed project approach.

5.7 Finalist Selection

The firm with the highest total score as a result of written Proposal scoring and interview scoring, if conducted, will be considered the Finalist, and all other firms will be ranked according to the next highest score, etc.

5.8 Ties among Proposers

If City determines after the ranking of potential firms, that two or more of them are equally qualified to be the Finalist, City may select a candidate through any process that the City believes will result in the best value for taking into account the scope, complexity and nature of the Work. The process shall instill public confidence through ethical and fair dealing, honesty and good faith on the part of City and Proposers and shall protect the integrity of the public contracting process.

As part of the procedure for choosing the Finalist between two or more equally qualified candidates, City may elect to give preference to a local consulting firm.

5.9 Notice of Intent to Award

After the completion of the evaluation and ranking, the City will issue a written Notice of Intent to Award, naming the Finalist, and send copies to all Proposers.

5.10 Contract Negotiation

City will begin negotiating the fees for the project, along with expanded scope of work detail, with the highest ranked Proposer and specifically, conduct direct negotiations toward obtaining written agreement on:

a) Contractor’s performance obligations and schedule; and any expansion of the Scope of Work.

b) Contractor’s fees, payment methodology, and a maximum amount payable to Contractor for the Work required under the Contract that is fair and reasonable to City determined solely by City, taking into account the value, scope, complexity and nature of work.

c) Any other provisions City believes to be in the City’s best interest to negotiate.

City shall, either orally or in writing, formally terminate negotiations with the highest ranked Proposer if City and Proposer are unable for any reason to reach agreement on a Contract within a reasonable amount of time. City may thereafter negotiate with the second ranked Proposer, and if necessary, with the third ranked Proposer, and so on, until negotiations result in a Contract. If negotiations with any Proposer do not result in a Contract within a reasonable amount of time, as determined solely by City, City may end the particular formal solicitation. Nothing in the rule precludes City from proceeding with a new formal solicitation for the same Work described in the RFP that failed to result in a Contract.

5.11 Protest Procedures

City shall provide to all Proposers a copy of the selection notice that City sent to the highest ranked Proposer. A Qualified Proposer who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the selection of the highest ranked Proposer may submit a written protest of the selection to the City. A Proposer submitting a protest must claim that the protesting Proposer is the highest ranked Proposer because the Proposals of all higher ranked Proposers failed to meet the requirements of the RFP or because the higher ranked Proposers otherwise are not qualified to perform the Architectural, Engineering, or Land Surveying Services, or Related Services described in the RFP.

Eligible Proposers protesting award shall follow the procedures described herein. Protests that do not follow these procedures shall not be considered. This protest procedure constitutes the sole administrative remedy available to Proposers.

a) Protests must be received within seven (7) days after issuance of the notice of intent to award the Contract. City will not consider late protests.

b) All protests must be in writing, signed by the protesting party or an authorized Agent. The protest must specify the grounds for the protest to be considered by the City

c) Protests based on procedural matters will not be considered.

d) The City’s Public Works Director will review the protest and will fax and mail the protesting party a written response within three (3) business days of receipt of the written protest to the fax number and address provided in the proposal. Any written response may be comprised of a determination of the protest, a notice to the protesting party of the need for additional time in which to evaluate the matter, or other notice to the protesting party.

e) If the Public Works Director’s determination (response) is adverse to the protester, any further appeal of the Public Works Director’s determination by the party must be submitted in writing to the City Manager within three (3) business days of issuance of the Public Works Director’s determination (response).

f) The City Manager will review any appeal of the Public Works Director’s determination and shall fax and mail, in accordance with the fax number and address provided in the proposal, the protesting party a written response within three (3) business days of receipt of written appeal.

g) If the determination of the City Administrator is adverse to the protesting party’s interest, the protesting party may only appeal to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal to the Council with the City Manager within two (2) business days of issuance of the City Manager’s written determination.

h) The Council, in considering the protest, shall review the documentation presented to the Public Works Director and the City Manager on the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting, but in no event shall they be required to review in less than ten (10) business days, and thereafter, base their decision on such material. The Council review will be limited to the evaluation of compliance with City’s policies and procedures, requirements of the RFP and the equal and fair application of City’s contracting rules. The City Council’s determination shall be City’s final decision.

An adversely affected or aggrieved proposer must exhaust all avenues of administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of City’s Consultant selection or Notice of Intent to Award.

5.12 Resulting Contract

Upon reaching final agreement in regard to fees and a final scope of work with an awarded Proposer, the City will issue a Personal Services Agreement (‘PSA”), in substantially the form as found in the Appendix of this RFP. The PSA will include the City’s Standard Terms and Conditions and the final scope of work and fees.

CONTRACT

6.1 Contract Form

The consultant selected by the City will be expected to enter into a written contract in substantially the same form as attached to this RFP. The Proposal should indicate acceptance of the City’s contract provisions. Suggested reasonable alternatives that do not substantially impair City’s rights under the contract may be submitted as outlined under Section 5.11. Unconditional refusal to accept contract provisions will result in Proposal rejection.

Contract Duration –

24-42 months including all phases.

Contract Payment – Contingent upon City’s need, consultant’s performance and availability of approved funding, City reserves the right to amend the contract (within the scope of the project described in this RFP) for additional tasks, project phases and compensation as necessary to complete a particular project.

Proposers are advised that the award and potential dollar amount of the contract under this RFP will be contingent upon approval by the Ashland City Council acting as the Contract Review Board.

Payment will be made for completion of, or acceptable monthly progress on, tasks and deliverables in conformance with contract requirements and applicable standards. The method of compensation will be determined by the City and may be based upon any one or combination of the following methods:

• Cost plus fixed fee, up to a maximum NTE amount

• Fixed price for all services. Fixed price per deliverable. Fixed price per milestone

• Time and materials, up to a maximum NTE amount (City preferred method)

• Price per unit

Ashland Living Wage Requirements – Consultant is required to comply with Chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying at least the living wage as established by the City of Ashland on June 30, 2023 ($18.12 per hour):

• For all hours worked under a service contract between their employer and the City if the contract exceeds $25,335.05 or more.

• For all hours worked in a month if the employee spends 50% or more of the employee’s time in that month working on a project or portion of business of their employer, if the employer has ten or more employees and has received financial assistance for the project or business from the City in excess of $25,335.05.

• The contractor is also required to post the notice included in the appendix predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees.

• In calculating the living wage for full time employees, employers may add the value of health care, retirement, 401K and IRS eligible cafeteria plans, and other benefits to the employee’s wages. The City of Ashland Living Wage Statement is appended to the sample contract included in the appendix.

6.2 Business License Required

The selected consultant must have or acquire a current City of Ashland business license prior to conducting any work under the contract.

6.3 Insurance Requirements

Contactor shall at its own expense provide the following insurance:

a. Worker’s Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers’ compensation coverage for all their subject workers.

b. Professional Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. This is to cover damage caused by any error, omission, or negligent act related to the professional services to be provided under the contract.

c. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. It shall include contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under the contract.

d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for each accident for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable.

e. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days’ written notice from the contractor or its insurer(s) to the City.

Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Contractor shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as additional insurers on any insurance policies required herein but only with respect to contractor’s services to be provided under this contract. As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this contract, the contractor shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are additional insures. The consultant’s insurance is primary and non-contributory. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City’s acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc.

shall be provided to the City. The contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retention and/or self-insurance.

6.4 Laws and Regulations

The proposer is assumed to be familiar with all Federal, State, County or City laws or regulations, which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work or the materials or equipment used or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and no pleas of misunderstanding will be considered on account of ignorance thereof. If the proposer shall discover any provision in these specifications or project information, plans or contract documents which is contrary to or inconsistent with any law or regulations, they shall report it to the City of Ashland in writing.

All work performed by the contractor shall be in compliance with all Federal, State, County and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Unless otherwise specified, the contractor shall be responsible for applying for applicable permits and licenses.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

7.1 General

All proposals and any resulting contracts are subject to the provision and requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes, Sections 279A and 279B. Engineering contracts are further subject to 279C and to the City of Ashland (City) Municipal Code Section 2.50.

7.2 Information of Record

This Request for Proposal (RFP) will be distributed through the Oregonbuys Procurement Network (oregonbuys). All updates, addendum, and related communications will be published through Oregonbuys.

All prospective proposers are advised to continuously monitor the website for information regarding this proposal. It is the sole responsibility of the proposer to check the website on a timely basis for critical information regarding the proposal.

7.3 Proposal Preparation and Format

• Proposals shall be typewritten in 12-point font minimum.

• Except for proposer attachments, proposal form and resumes, the Proposal shall contain no more than 6 pages, including cover sheet.

• Proposal narrative must follow along with scoring criteria sections

• No oral, telegraphic, telephone or facsimile Proposals shall be accepted.

• The electronic submission of a Proposal will not be permitted.

• To be considered, all Proposals must be received by the City prior to the date and time set for

Proposal closing.

• A total of six original (wet signatures), complete Proposals shall be submitted to the City prior to the date and time set for closing.

• One (1) digital copy of the complete Proposal shall be submitted on a CD or thumb drive.

7.4 Signature on Proposal

Proposals shall be signed in ink by an authorized representative of the Proposer. Signature on a Proposal certifies that the Proposal is made without connection with any person, firm or corporation making a proposal for the same goods and/or services and is in all respects fair and made without collusion or fraud.

Signature on a Proposal also certifies that the proposer has read, fully understands and agrees with all solicitation requirements, terms and conditions. No consideration will be given to any claim resulting from proposing without fully comprehending all requirements of this Request for Proposals.

7.5 Preparation Costs

The City may cancel a solicitation, whether informal or formal, or reject all Proposals, without liability incurred by City at any time after issuing an RFP, if City believes it is in City’s best interest to do so.

Consultants responding to RFPs are responsible for all costs they may incur in connection with submitting Proposals and responses to RFPs, which includes, but is not limited to: preparation, submittal, travel expenses, interviews, presentations, or evaluation of any Proposal.

7.6 Conformance to Solicitation Requirements

Proposals shall conform to the requirements of this Request for Proposals. All necessary attachments (Independent Contractor Certification, etc.) shall be submitted with the Proposal and in the required format. Failure to comply with all requirements may result in Proposal rejection.

7.7 Definitions

For the purpose of this RFP:

“Agency” or “City” means City of Ashland.

“Business days” means calendar days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and all City recognized holidays.

“Calendar days” or “days” means any day appearing on the calendar, whether a weekday, weekend day, national holiday, State holiday or other day.

“Council” means City of Ashland Council “Department” means the City of Ashland Engineering Department.

“DEQ” means the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality “Manager” means the City of Ashland Project Manager.

“Proposers”- All firms submitting proposals are referred to as Proposers in this document; after negotiations, an awarded Proposer will be designated as “Consultant”.

“Qualification Based Selection” or “QBS” (for the purposes of this RFP) means evaluations and scoring of proposals based on qualifications, experiences and project approach, without considering cost.

“RFP” means Request for Proposal.

“Scope of Work” means the general character and range of services and supplies needed to complete the work’s purpose and objectives, and an overview of the performance outcomes expected by Agency.

“Services” means the services to be performed under the Contract by the Consultant.

“Statement of Work” means the specific provision in the final contract which sets forth and defines in detail (within the identified Scope of Work) the agreed-upon objectives, expectations, performance standards, services, deliverables, schedule for delivery and other obligations.

7.8 Questions and Clarifications

All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the services, must be submitted in writing to the City’s Project Manager listed in the advertisement for this RFP, at 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. All questions must be received not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date and time set for closing.

Answers to questions received by City, which are deemed by City to be substantive, will be issued as official addenda to this RFP to ensure that all proposers base their proposals on the same information. When appropriate, as determined by City in its sole discretions, revisions, substitution, or clarification of the RFP or attached terms and conditions, an official addendum to this RFP will be issued.