Attachment_12___Method_of_Approach_638602599115598489.docx

Request for Proposal

Solicitation No. BPM006379

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

Attachment 12 – Method of Approach

The Offeror shall provide a narrative response to each question that demonstrates their understanding of the Scope of Work requirements and describes the company’s overall method of approach for providing the Service(s) stated in this Solicitation. If there is a question that is not applicable to the Services required by the Scope of Work, you may mark it “N/A”. The narrative should not contain language used for marketing purposes.

Offeror shall provide a response either after each question or in a separate document entitled: “Attachment 12 - Method of Approach.” If a separate document is used, please clearly designate each section and double-check to ensure that each question has been answered. If any information provided is considered CONFIDENTIAL by Offeror, the information must be specifically included in the Confidential Information Designation Attachment and related documentation to be assessed for confidential treatment under A.A.C. R2-7-103. Response to Method of Approach shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Question 1: How would your approach for a project differ working for a very small community or utility as opposed to a medium or large city or utility?

Offeror Response:

No matter the size of the community, communication is the most important aspect of the project. We would communicate regularly on status but would likely increase the frequency of communication with a very small community/utility. In our experience, the very small community/utility has limited staff with potentially less overall experience than the larger city or utility. We will take the time to explain our methodology and approach with the very small community/utility so that they can understand why we recommend a certain direction. Available funding can also be an issue with a very small community/utility, therefore, we will provide cost effective options for review, if available.

Offeror shall respond to question #2, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

5 - Design of water system improvements 7 - Drinking water permit applications (e.g., ATC, AOC, APP, AZPDES) 11- Preparing Corrosion Control Assessments & Treatment Recommendations

Question 2: What is your process when designing and permitting a drinking water treatment system? How would you approach the design & permitting of a treatment system for a small public water system? Describe the steps that you take to select the best treatment technology.

Offeror Response:

We will request water quality data at the beginning of the project. If certain water quality is not available, we will work with the small public water system so that they can obtain the necessary information. Based on the water quality data, as well as the site limitations, permitting requirements, testing requirements, and overall design criteria, we can determine options for review with the small public water system that will meet drinking water standards. Generally, if funding allows and if required by the State Agency, we will oversee pilot testing of the treatment options. This will provide the best information since it analyzes the impact of treatment and chemical addition on the actual source water. Bench testing is also an alternative for some chemical addition options. Cost is also a major factor when it comes to treatment. We will provide an estimate of probable construction cost so that the small public water system understands the financial needs for the various treatment options.

Question 3: How will you ensure your proposed solution to the assigned task is practical, cost-effective, and sustainable for the small water system?

Many factors need to be considered including how easily the equipment can be operated, the lifecycle of the equipment, capital costs as well as operation and maintenance costs. Ease of operation will be important for the operator of the small system. Simplicity will be a consideration, if feasible, however, depending on the situation, there may be only a few options to meet the water quality goals of the system. Cost will also be a consideration. Not only the upfront capital costs but also an evaluation of the long term operation and maintenance costs will be considered. In terms of treatment equipment, a detailed analysis on the various options will be completed assuming a pilot test is completed which provides valuable information on the life of the media and needed chemical addition. Based on this information, the options can be presented on a present worth basis so that a practical, cost-effective and sustainable option can be chosen.

Offeror shall respond to question #4, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

5 - Design of water system improvements 7 - Drinking water permit applications (e.g., ATC, AOC, APP, AZPDES) 11- Preparing Corrosion Control Assessments & Treatment Recommendations

Question 4: When designing a treatment system that modifies water chemistry, how do you ensure this treatment won’t cause or exacerbate other water quality problems?

We would rely on past experience and engineering knowledge on designing similar systems with similar conditions. We would also reach out to the supplier of the required equipment to review any challenges experienced on past projects based on the water quality of the source water. Depending on the water quality of the source water, we could reach out to a water quality expert to determine if there any concerns. If funding allows, pilot testing is the best approach to determining any potential issues with the water chemistry on a small scale, before the water is put into the distribution system. Bench testing can also be completed, if possible.

If your team is backed up or unavailable to finish a job, describe what steps will be taken to get the project delivered on time?

If your subcontractor is falling behind stated deliverable, describe what steps will be taken to get the project on track and delivered on time?

Offeror Response:

The team (T&H and ADEQ) must agree on a reasonable timeline for completion of the project based on need, funding requirements, and availability of information. We will commit the personnel on the project to complete the work within the allotted timeframe. The team will meet internally on a weekly basis to monitor progress and schedule. A detailed task schedule is developed internally and monitored by the Project Manager and reviewed at the weekly meeting. Additionally, the team will meet with ADEQ on a monthly basis which includes a discussion on project status and schedule.

Communication is the cornerstone to any successful project. Written follow-up is necessary to communicate the status of the work and possible issues that may delay completion such as availability of information, availability of water system personnel for a site meeting, or additional scope items requested. This way, all stakeholders are informed, and a plan can be developed to get the project back on schedule.

T&H will only take on projects that the team can feasibly complete within the allotted timeframe. We will not overextend ourselves, resulting in late submittals. If we do find ourselves backed up, we will bring in additional team members to assist with certain tasks so that the project can be delivered on time.

We will present a schedule to the subcontractor at the beginning of the project so that they are aware of the timeline. If our subcontractor is falling behind, we will set up a meeting with them to review status and to develop a plan of action. If they miss any milestone, we will begin setting up weekly meetings to review progress and to answer any questions they may have.

Question 6: Describe your company’s review process to ensure that technical documents are complete and accurate prior to submission to ADEQ. What documents can ADEQ review to verify if the review was completed? If ADEQ finds an issue, who, other than the PM, is the point of contact for resolution?

Offeror Response:

A technical review of the design documents including subcontractors will be scheduled at the 30%, 75% and 90% milestone or as outlined in the contract agreement with the Client. The Project Manager is responsible for inputting and maintaining the milestone dates for technical reviews.

The technical reviewer will attend the kick-off meeting and will determine the timeframe for completion of the required reviews with the Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will schedule a meeting with the technical reviewer prior to the review to discuss any changes or additional relevant information that may have transpired since the kick-off meeting.

Certain projects (larger more complex, WTPs, high profile) will be assigned a Technical Review Committee. See Tech Review Committee Protocols and Procedures. These projects will require a presentation to the committee of all process design parameters and permit requirements which have been confirmed with the Owner prior to start of design. The project will be presented to the committee at the 30%, 75% and 90% milestones. At the 75% and 90% milestones, the project team will include all subcontractors design documents for the technical review committee review.

The team is responsible for meeting the technical review deadlines as determined by the Technical Reviewer and the PM. The necessary information to be submitted to the Technical Reviewer will be determined based on the project specific technical review checklist. Project teams will utilize the respective checklists during design/report preparation and the completed checklist will be made available to the Technical Reviewer at each milestone. The project team will provide the design/report to the Technical Reviewer at least one week prior to the due date to the Owner. Projects submitted for technical review with insufficient time for a comprehensive review will be noted by the Technical Reviewer and the Project Manager will be required to contact the Owner for an extension. The following are guidelines for the information needed for review:

At the kickoff meeting, the PM should provide the following information:

30% Milestone (when applicable to project)

75% Milestone

90% Milestone

Project Documentation/Tech Review Folders It is the responsibility of the Project Team to organize the information for the Technical Reviewer’s use. Each project folder should have a Tech Review folder set up for each Tech Review Project Milestone. See Q:/TH Standards/Standard Project Folder Organization. The Tech Review folder should be populated with all the information noted above that is being provided to the Tech Reviewer for review.

All Tech Reviewer comments, memos, markups, etc. should be saved in the appropriate Tech Review Milestone folder along with Project Teams responses to those comments and markups and the completed Tech Review Project Signoff form (see below).

All edits on plans, specifications, and reports will be highlighted when completed and reviewed with the technical reviewer. Changes that are not made will be reviewed with the technical reviewer prior to finalizing. It is the responsibility of the project team to initiate a meeting or conference call with the technical reviewer to review the edits.

The project team is responsible for scheduling a meeting with each subcontractor to review the edits of the technical reviewer(s).

Technical review comments and edits will be scanned and kept on the server in the appropriate Tech Review folder.

Tech Review Signoff Following completion of the Technical Review process at each project milestone, the Project Manager shall complete the Tech Review sign off form and have the form signed by the Technical Reviewer. The Technical Reviewer shall only endorse the signoff form upon being satisfied that all comments made during the Technical Review process have been addressed to the Technical Reviewer’s satisfaction. Project Deliverables should not be made to the client without this signoff from the Technical Reviewer. The Tech Review signoff form shall be kept in the Project Files in the appropriate Technical Review file folder with a copy saved in the Q:/Technical Review folder with a new job folder added by project number.

The level of technical review required for a particular project, including the number of reviews, meetings, complexity of the project, etc., shall be considered when preparing the technical review portion of the budget for the project.

A Project Officer will always be assigned to a project. The officer is generally a principal of the firm and highly interested in the satisfaction of our clients. A list of personnel on the project with contact information will be provided to the ADEQ. We intend to prepare a client communication plan prior to the start of any project that outlines contact information for all stakeholders, when status reports are required, and what information is needed on the status reports.

Question 7: Describe a time where obstacles faced during a project resulted in a change to your methodology of approach. What were the obstacles, the impact to the project and what did you do to overcome them?

Offeror Response:

During design of a water treatment facility in Massachusetts, Tata & Howard reached out the Plumbing Inspector to determine if a bathroom would be required in a fully automated, unmanned facility. The Plumbing Inspector indicated that a bathroom would not be required. The design progressed and during construction, the building code changed, requiring a bathroom in any pump station or water treatment facility. Therefore, the Plumbing Inspector recommended that we submit a Plumbing Variance through the state plumbing board for relief from 248 CMR 10.10(18) table 1 to not include a bathroom in the facility. The variance was denied on the grounds that although sewer was not available and septic was not possible on site, we could still put in a bathroom and send it to a tight tank. The local Plumbing Inspector was supportive of going to the state board, but argued against the variance at the hearing.

Even though we received confirmation that a bathroom was not required during the design process, we were required to pivot during construction and include a bathroom within the existing design. We were able to accommodate the bathroom but needed to complete the reworked design within a very short timeframe and worked with the contractor and Town to meet the new requirements of the Plumbing Inspector.

Offeror shall respond to scenario #1, if proposing to provide services for one or more of the following deliverables:

4 - Construction Administration & Construction Management 5 - Design of water system improvements 7 - Drinking water permit applications 8 - Funding Assistance 9 - Legal assistance (e.g., forming corporate status, corporate documents) 10- Median Household Income Surveys 12 - Preparing Environmental Documents/Archeological Surveys 13 - Preparing Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER) 14 - Rate studies, rate reviews, rate cases 16 - System Evaluations 19 - Water Quality Compliance Options

Scenario 1: A small, rural public water system has multiple water quality issues. There are 20 current connections; the customers are low income and/or retirees. All the homes are on septic systems. The system consists of one well (located within the floodway of a major river), an elevated storage tank and distribution system.

The water system has maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances for uranium. In addition, chloride, sulfate, total hardness and total dissolved solids are well above the secondary MCLs. Sampling of private wells in the area indicated better water quality may be found away from the river. Outline at least three alternatives to address the water quality issues that are cost effective and sustainable for this very small water system. Provide your recommendation for the best alternative for the system.

For your recommendation include the following information for this scenario:

A bullet list of tasks that your firm would conduct to address the water quality issues and implement a solution. The tasks should be presented in the order they would be conducted. Each task should include the purpose of the task (e.g., why are you doing it? What information will be obtained in doing the task? What other information would be included in your summary recommendation report to ADEQ?

Offeror Response (limit response for scenario #1 to two (2) pages):

· Site Visit with the water system (to determine local conditions)

· Obtain maps and plans of existing system

· Interview operator

· Determine water usage during different times of the year

· Determine history of the system

· Review any treatment processes that they may have in place

· Obtain and review complaints that have been received

· Obtain information on the drawdown of the existing well

· Review water quality changes during different pumping levels

· Obtain all available water quality information; request additional testing, if necessary

· Obtain information from the operator on the local geology, water quality, quantity of water in the area

· Review other water systems in the area, and if extra capacity is available

· History of the system, engineers, well drillers, contractors

· Meet with the local ADEQ system reviewer (to determine local knowledge and history of the system)

· How local systems have dealt with similar conditions and history of the small system’s past

· Any information the person has on the local area

· Meet with local water systems (if they have available water to sell)

· if available, amount of water available and quality of the water

· Get their knowledge of the local area

· Check ADWR records (well information)

· Water levels of existing registered wells

· Water rights issues, if priority rights are available to the subdivision, if in an AMA

· Any water quality information that they may have

· Determine who the driller was and the available information of the existing well

· Contact the driller of the well

· Determine their knowledge of the well

· Does the water quality improve by going deeper in the aquifer?

· Costs of deepening the well or drilling a new well

· Is contamination limited to certain levels in the aquifer

· Summarize the data obtained from previous tasks

· Develop alternatives and costs

· Potential solutions include:

· Deepen the existing well to improve water quality and quantity

· Drill a new well

· Connect to a different existing system, if available or feasible

· If these solutions are not feasible, then:

· Determine if individual treatment systems would work at each drinking water tap

· Determine if system wide treatment systems such as reverse osmosis or ion exchange would be feasible; include in the analysis treatment options for chloride, sulfate, total hardness and total dissolved solids and/or impact on reverse osmosis or ion exchange

· The report to ADEQ would include:

· A summary of the local data included in the previous tasks

· Cost estimates of each of the alternatives

· The recommended option

· Reasoning for the recommended option

Solicitation Attachment – Method of Approach | Revision No. 1 | Revised 11-22 image1.jpg