S-10-0164 Attachment 26 Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes.doc

Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes

S-10-0164 Attachment #26

Eagle Lake Sewer Ponds Project

Pre-Bid Meeting, Site Visit Notes 12 May 2010 10:00am Attendance:

22 Contractors

8 FS Staff:

Jack Walton, Forest Engineer

Heather Blevins, Assistant Forest Engineer

Olivia Garcia, Environmental Engineer Rod Vineyard, EL Biomass Specialist John Allison, Water/Wastewater Technician Brian Hindman, Civil Engineering Technician Jacob Conners, Intern Civil Engineer, Stenographer for meeting John Cunningham, Environmental Engineer

Time:

10:02 Heather Blevins:

Start

Purpose of meeting: Intro to Project Phase I

Intro FS Staff

Minutes will be posed on Fed Biz Ops (www.fbo.gov) by Fri 14 May

Review of Agenda

10:06 Heather Blevins:

Review of Statement of Work (posted 27 April)

Facility first built 35 yrs ago

Season of work will be June thru October

Services – pg. 6-7 of solicitation

A. Environmental: Contractor will attend and participate in State Water Board – pg. 6, Section A, iii. of solicitation

B. Construction Management

CRITICAL: Plant is to remain operational for the duration of the project

Reviewed current Discharge Permit

Reviewed current facility practices and quantities 10:10 Olivia Garcia:

Review of Attachments – pg. 32, Section J:

1-2

Integrated design features identified in Environmental Assessment 3-8

Copies of all existing engineering drawings

State of California Discharge Permit – evaporation only, won’t change

AutoCAD .dwg file

Drawing .pdf file (for individuals w/o access to AutoCAD)

Estimated current sludge volume

Leak survey report

Photos of facility

Existing flow map

Watershed snowpak data

History of Freeboard (>1995)

Flow Rates of sewage to Plant (>2003)

19-20 Snow survey

Hydrologic investigation report

Wetland delineation report

23-24 Timber Sale

CRITICAL: Now a separate contract – DISREGARD

Past Performance Questionnaire

Addition

1. Decision Notice (signed 3/10/10) will be posted online (www.fbo.gov)

2. Final Environmental Assessment (EA) will be posted online.

10:15 Rod Vineyard:

Existing and 2010 season snow conditions: (3-4ft normal) 30 in.of snow =164% of 1 May Average

12 in. of water Expect access to site by 1 April, Snowed out of site by 1 Dec

10:27 Heather Blevins:

Review of Phase I Qualification, Selection Req.’s – pg. 50 Reminder to Contractor to review carefully

FS will select 2-4 contractors to bid for Phase II

Review of Instructions regarding submittals – pg. 44 CO is accepting electronic submittals ONLY Review of Evaluation Factors, pg. 48-49, section M

Technical approach

Analysis of EA for fatal flaws – pg. 49, Section 1a Past performance and qualifications

Project is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CRITICAL: Contractor should carefully review submittal requirements

Deadline for submittals is not later than 2pm on 19 May 10:33 Question and Answer period:

Q: What are the units for data on snow condition report?

A: Actual snow depth (inches) and Water Content (inches) Q: Are all the ponds currently lined? How much are they leaking?

A: Yes. All ponds will be re-lined. We have a location survey for leaks but we do not have volume.

Q: Does any rainfall data exist for the site?

A: No. Please use data from Norvell and Silver Lakes or Upper Pine Creek.

Q: Are there any limits by Lahontan regarding timeframes?

A: No. However, the area is mainly heavy clay, which makes work weather dependent. Please review Integrated Design Features Q: Are proposals due 19 May?

A: Yes, at 2pm. Please check Fed Biz Ops to see if additional information has been posted before final submittal.

Q: Do proposals have to be hand delivered?

A: No. Contractor must submit proposal electronically Q: Is there a page limit for past performance and qualifications?

A: No. Please see Phase I evaluation factors.

Q: Are monies for this project secured?

A: Yes, it has been confirmed.

Q: Has a 100yr water balance been performed?

A: No. Please refer to attachments for more information.

Q: What is the intended outcome of this project?

A: Currently, there is insufficient capacity to empty any one pond and service it. The intended outcome is to increase functionality and protect ground water resources as described in the Environmental Assessment. Please see Purpose and Need for Action section.

Q: Where has the sludge been hauled historically?

A: No sludge has been hauled since facility first opened. As part of the project, sludge will be removed, de-watered near facility then hauled out. A sludge management plan is required by Lahontan.

Q: Is there any hazardous material in the ponds?

A: All sewage comes from recreation sites. There is no hazardous material.

Q: May sludge be hauled to the local landfill?

A: Unknown. Most likely it needs to be dried (no liquids) before behind hauled there.

Q: What is the condition of the current power source(s)?

A: 200Amp, 3-Phase.

Q: Are there any additional drawings or reports?

A: No.

Q: Why does the facility not discharge treated waste water?

A: Per Lahontan Region Tahoe Office, this area is designated a no discharge basin.

Q: Are there any odors around ponds?

A: No.

Q: Are aerators run during the winter?

A: No. There is no access to the facility, which makes it hard to monitor.

Q: What is the budget for the project?

A: The government’s estimate is between $1 million and $5 million. It will be discussed further during Phase II.

Q: When will work start?

A: Contract will be awarded in September. Design and field work must begin within 10 days of Notice to Proceed. Construction will begin spring 2011. Please see page 10 of the solicitation.

Q: What is the deadline for the Phase II submittal?

A: TBD by Contracting Officer.

Q: What is the mandatory mobilization date?

A: Will be determined after pre-work conference during Phase II Q: Who is the Lahontan representative for this project?

A: Scott Ferguson.

Q: What are the design requirements from Lahontan?

A: No nutrients are to be discharged. The existing permit is for lined ponds. We do not anticipate that to change. Lahontan is working with us on future requirements. A leak detection system will also be required.

Q: Are there any known environmental restrictions (i.e. bird nests, plants)?

A: There is a wetland to the southwest of the ponds. Contractor shall refer to Environmental Assessment for more information.

10:57 Site visit overview

After arrival, contractors will have opportunity to wander for about 30min.

Think about questions. We will then regroup and answer them.

Safety:

It snowed yesterday on County Road A-1, be very careful driving

Beware of gopher holes at site

Beware of slipping on liners.

Directions to site Everything outside facility and road is private land, be careful traveling to and from the site.

11:01 Break off to Eagle Lake Sewer Ponds site visit

11:50 Arrived at Sewer Ponds

12:20 Regroup

Q: Are the existing ponds single or double lined?

A: Most are single lined. The liner is double reinforced on the upper slope due to maintenance in some areas.

Q: Will any water for construction be provided?

A: A plan to drill a well is proposed for this summer. FS will provide power.

Q: Have deer become a problem?

A: Yes. There will be a fence contract in the future to help prevent deer from entering. Lahontan requires a fence. It will also help prevent duck hunters from entering facility.

Q: What is the mileage from the gate to the ponds?

A: Approximately 1.8 miles Q: How many 8a certified contractors are in attendance?

A: Eight contractors raised their hand.

Email more questions to: Neil Belden: nbelden@fs.fed.us or Heather Blevins: hblevins@fs.fed.us This is an 8a contract.

At least 15% of the work is to be done by contractor (as opposed to sub-contractor)

12:35 Break away from Sewer Ponds

FS will remain until contractors are finished. Contractors are welcome to stay for further questions, site visit, etc. This is not an open site. Gate is locked at bottom of the hill.

Q: What is the estimated number of trees to be removed?

A: The timber sale will be removing:

Per Acre: 107 trees

>10” DBH

(Actual)

116 trees

4”-12” DBH

(Estimate)

Actual number of stumps to be removed by the contractor will be determined by the final project design.

Q: Is there a disposal site for stumps? Will they be grinded, burned, etc.?

A: No. Alternatives for removal will be addressed during Phase II.

Q: Are the trees marked with blue staying or being cut?

A: Blue markings indicate trees to be removed during timber sale.

Q: Will there be solar powered components in the future.

A: The Forest Service is interested in alternative energy sources.

Additional Questions & Answers:

Q: Phase 1 evaluation references a review of the “draft Forest Service Environmental Assessment…”. Are Attachments 1 and 2 the pertinent sections of that doc or are there others? Please clarify what documents should be reviewed as part of this requirement.

A: Attachment #1 – Integrated Design Features and Attachment #2 – Identified

Alternatives with Maps are the pertinent sections of the Environmental

Assessment for review. Note: For additional reference, the Decision

Notice for the Final Environmental Assessment was signed on 3/10/2010 and will be posted on website.

Q: What is the actual influent flow to the treatment plant? Attachment 18 shows influent by year at about 1.6 MG per season. But, a footnote makes reference to the WDID which says 2.6 MG each season. What is the source of this discrepancy? Please verify that the tables shown in Attachment 18 correctly detail the total influent wastewater on an annual basis.

A: Actual wastewater influent varies from year to year based on number of visitors to the Eagle Lake recreational area. Attachment #18 reflects actual influent volumes collected since 2003. The WDID permit, Attachment #9, reflects “maximum” annual volumes of wastewater that can be collected for treatment at this wastewater facility. No discrepancy.

Q: WDID Section II, C states that “a Sludge Management Plan shall be submitted at least 120 days prior to the removal and disposal of sludge from the treatment and evaporation lagoons”. But, there is no mention of a sludge management plan in the procurement docs. Should a sludge management plan be anticipated to be required?

A: In accordance with the WDID permit, any sludge removal and disposal will require a Sludge Management Plan approved by the Lahontan Water

Quality Board. All sludge related work will be addressed in the future.

Only Phase I proposals are required at this time.

Q: Why is “enhancement of Biological Treatment process and functionality” an “objective for this upgrade”? (See page 7 of 50 under B. Construction Management Services) What is driving this objective?

There is no indication that the discharge point will change or that enhanced treatment is required. The reasoning for increased capacity is outlined (to provide for continued operations during construction and to accommodate permitted flows into the future) but not enhanced biological treatment. Also, the EA documents that were provided do not detail any plans or provisions for enhancing the biological treatment process or functionality. Please clarify this point – is enhanced biological treatment really an objective for this upgrade? If so, why? And, how much enhancement would the Forest Service like to pay for?

A: Enhancement of the biological treatment process and functionality is the objective for this upgrade to take advantage of the bacteria’s ability to use diverse wastewater constituents to provide energy for microbial metabolism, cell synthesis, and reproduction of new bacterial cells given a wide range of influent volumes. Improvement to existing functionality will provide greater flexibility for overall maintenance of liners, plumbing, sludge, etc. The Environmental Assessment is used for decision making and is not intended to provide details of plans or provisions to meet this objective.

Q: Why do Design and Construction services include “Estimate of

Construction Project Costs for Alternative 3”? Why Alternative 3?

Alternative 1 is the preferred option isn’t it? Why not provide costs for the other alternatives?

A: The Decision Maker selected Alternative #3 reflected in the Decision Notice dated 3/10/2010. The Environmental Assessment did not have a preferred option, but a Proposed Action of Alternative #1. During the scoping process, the public raised issues that resulted in other alternatives being created and analyzed. Alternative #3 was selected because it met all criteria in the Proposed Action and resolved all issues identified in Alternative #1.

Q: Clarify what submittals will be required for Phase 2. It is important to define that now so that teams can be adequately formed during the Phase

1 stage.

A: Page 47 of Solicitation – “Questions related to Phase II will not be addressed at the Pre-Bid conference.” Only Phase I proposals are required at this time.

Q: The Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 94‐94 does not specifically reference a “leaking detection and monitoring plan”. It does however include a section on “Vadose Zone Monitoring.” Is the requirement on Solicitation page 6 (A, iv.) to update WDID Section I. C. Vadose Zone Monitoring?

A: The requirement on page 6 (A, iv) of the Solicitation is to comply with the WDID permit, not to update the permit. Only the Lahontan State Water Board has the authority to update an existing WDID permit.

Q: What design documents will be required? Are full PS&E required? Who will review draft design docs? What levels of review and submittal drafts should be anticipated? This is important to clarify so that designers can correctly quantify the level of effort that will be required to prepare plans and technical specifications.

A: Page 47 of Solicitation – “Questions related to Phase II will not be addressed at the Pre-Bid conference.” Only Phase I proposals are required at this time.