Attachment 12 - Method of Approach.pdf

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:

Our approach to working with very small communities is tailored to address their unique challenges, particularly the capacity gaps in technical expertise, managerial oversight, and financial resources. Being a company who deals day in day out with exactly these types of systems, we understand the realities of managing small water systems and speak the language of these communities. This allows us to build strong personal relationships with local operators and board members, fostering trust and open communication. Our hope is that our personal experience in the trenches can help systems see our role as someone there to help that understands the challenges they face. If we can accomplish that then we can get more transparent communication and buy - in from the boots of the ground system staff.

As operators, not engineers, we bring a practical, hands-on perspective, focusing on real-world solutions that are feasible within the community's existing capabilities. Our approach is highly collaborative, involving face-to-face interactions and ongoing support, which ensures that our recommendations are well-received and actionable.

In contrast, our work with larger utilities involves more structured processes, leveraging the resources and specialized staff available in those settings. We recognize that with small systems, a simple solution is the best solution because small utilities struggle to maintain complex system components. However, the core of our approach remains the same:

delivering effective, sustainable solutions tailored to the specific needs of the community.

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.

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

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

Offeror Response:

N/A

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

Offeror Response:

To ensure that our proposed solutions are practical, cost-effective, and sustainable for small water systems, we take a holistic and tailored approach that considers the unique constraints and needs of each community.

1. Practicality:

○ We begin any project by talking with the stakeholders and hearing what they have to say. Then we guide the conservation along gaining an understanding of the system's current state, identifying both immediate needs and long-term challenges. Whenever possible, we seek solutions designed to be readily implementable, leveraging existing infrastructure, and requiring minimal maintenance to minimize disruption and complexity.

2. Cost-Effectiveness:

○ Understanding the financial limitations of small systems, we prioritize solutions that deliver the highest impact for the lowest cost. This includes seeking out grants, low-interest loans, and other funding opportunities to reduce the financial burden on the community. Additionally, we recommend phased approaches that allow for incremental improvements over time, spreading out costs and making projects more manageable.

3. Sustainability:

○ Sustainability is at the core of our approach. We focus on long-term viability by incorporating asset management planning, preventative maintenance strategies, and capacity-building initiatives that empower local operators to maintain the system effectively. Our goal is to create solutions that not only address current issues but also position the system for success well into the future.

By combining these elements, we ensure that our proposed solutions are not only feasible and affordable but also durable and adaptable, providing lasting benefits to the small water systems we serve. It may be a poor analogy but we know that if you give a small system a European sports car for an end product they won’t be able to keep it running. We want to see systems get a toyota tacoma for a solution, ensuring that the cost of maintenance is low and reliability is high. Small systems often reach out because they don’t have the money to fix their problems in the first place, we should not burden them with high maintenance costs on the backend because now they will have a new problem to worry about.

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)

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

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?

Offeror Response:

N/A

Questions 5: How will you ensure that project(s) stays on schedule and is(are) completed on-time as per the task order offer/award?

If a project is not on schedule, describe what steps will be taken to get the project back on track?

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:

How will you ensure that project(s) stays on schedule and is(are) completed on-time as per the task order offer/award?

To ensure that projects stay on schedule and are completed on time, we implement a detailed project management plan from the outset. This includes setting clear milestones, deadlines, and deliverables, all of which are closely monitored through regular progress meetings and status reports. We use project management tools to track tasks, allocate resources efficiently, and ensure that every team member understands their responsibilities and deadlines.

If a project is not on schedule, describe what steps will be taken to get the project back on track?

We will develop a corrective action plan that may include reallocating resources, adjusting timelines, or revising the scope of work to focus on critical path tasks. We also increase communication with all stakeholders to ensure alignment and to expedite decision-making where necessary.

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 our team is backed up or unavailable to finish a job, we have contingency plans in place, including cross-training team members to handle multiple roles and responsibilities. Additionally, we maintain relationships with trusted partners who can join our team if additional capacity is needed. We also prioritize high-impact tasks to ensure that the most critical aspects of the project are completed on time.

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

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

If our subcontractor experiences delays or issues, we will immediately engage with their support team to resolve the problem. We also have backup processes and manual interventions ready to ensure that critical tasks can continue without significant disruption. Our internal team is trained to adapt quickly to these situations, minimizing any potential impact on the project schedule.

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:

At Mogollon Water Management, we have a structured and thorough process to ensure that all technical documents submitted to ADEQ are complete and accurate. Tasks are assigned by the management team depending on the project’s needs. Once assigned, Caleb Brock, our Project Manager, prepares the initial draft of the technical documents, focusing on accuracy, regulatory compliance, and completeness.

The review process includes the following steps:

● Task Assignment: Manager assigns the task and provides initial guidance on the document requirements.

● Draft Preparation: Caleb Brock prepares the draft, ensuring it aligns with the project’s goals and meets regulatory standards.

● Review and Edits: Manager conducts a comprehensive review of the draft, making necessary edits and ensuring that all aspects of the document are accurate, clear, and compliant with submission guidelines.

Points of Contact for Issue Resolution: If ADEQ identifies an issue with a submitted document, both Caleb Brock and Blake Anderson are available to promptly address and resolve the matter. Caleb, as the primary drafter, will handle specific corrections, while Blake oversees the final adjustments to ensure that the document meets all ADEQ requirements before resubmission. This approach ensures that any issues are resolved efficiently and effectively.

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:

One significant project that required us to adapt our methodology was our work with the Pinedale Estates DWID. The community faced severe water quality issues, and our initial plan involved drilling new wells to address the problem.

Unfortunately, the first and second wells drilled in the community boundaries were low-quality and would not resolve the community’s issues. This unexpected setback forced us to rethink our approach entirely.

Obstacles: The primary obstacles were the poor water quality from the new wells and the need to find an alternative water source. This was especially challenging due to the low quality of nearby private wells sampled in the area, lack of data and options for available property (the community is surrounded on three sides by National Forest). The only viable solution was to acquire a well from three well-share owners located a mile to the

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 northeast of the community. However, negotiations with the well owners were complex and challenging, with one owner particularly resistant to the idea.

Impact on the Project: The project timeline was significantly extended, and the uncertainty around securing a new water source created a high-stakes situation for our team. We were dedicated to the project and referred to this time as our own personal hostage negotiations because we were not going to give up on finding a solution.

The extended negotiations also put pressure on maintaining community trust and ensuring that a solution would eventually be found.

Steps Taken to Overcome Obstacles: We recognized that a purely technical solution would not suffice; instead, we needed to focus on building personal connections and advocating for the community’s needs. Over several months, we met with the well-share owners, explaining the critical situation and the benefits of signing over their well for use in the DWID’s system. When negotiations stalled with the final holdout, we took the extra step of driving to Phoenix to meet the owner in person. We organized a dinner meeting to rebuild trust and find common ground, ultimately persuading the owner to agree. Ultimately all three well share owners agreed to sign over the well to the DWID for no cash compensation, only credit to their water billing account for future water consumption.

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?

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

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

Given the multiple water quality issues faced by this small rural public water system, there are several alternatives to address the problems in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. Based on experience, it is in the system's best interest to avoid long-term reliance on complex treatment solutions. With only 20 customers, the system likely lacks the technical and financial capacity to operate and maintain a treatment plant, especially if waste disposal is involved.

Alternative 1: Construction or Acquisition of a New Source

● Description: This alternative involves acquiring or constructing a new well based on geological data, well drilling logs, and analysis of potential causes for low-quality water near the river. The goal is to find a site with better water quality, ideally close to existing distribution infrastructure to minimize costs.

Alternative 2: Evaluation of an Onsite Treatment Plant

● Description: This option involves assessing the feasibility of constructing an onsite water treatment plant to address the water quality issues. The evaluation considers the cost of construction, ongoing maintenance, and waste disposal, as well as the long-term sustainability of the treatment plant. Given the small size and limited resources of the system, the costs and operational demands of a treatment plant may outweigh the benefits.

Alternative 3: Installing Point of Use (POU) Treatment Systems

● Description: This approach considers installing POU treatment systems in each home to address water quality issues at the point of use. While this may be the most cost-effective short-term solution, it requires consideration of the system’s capacity to manage maintenance and regulatory reporting, as well as the potential long-term costs and added regulatory burden.

Tasks to Develop Summary Recommendation Report:

The goal is to recommend a solution that avoids long-term reliance on complex treatment systems and instead secures a new, easy-to-operate water source. The following tasks prioritize the most cost-effective and sustainable solutions:

1. Perform Due Diligence on Existing Wells in the Area

○ Purpose: Investigate existing wells and review well driller reports to understand the reasons for better water quality away from the river. Key questions include whether proximity to the river and the floodplain is contributing to MCL exceedances and whether differences in well construction or geological conditions are influencing water quality.

○ Information Obtained: Geological data, well drilling logs, and water quality results to determine if similar conditions can be replicated for a new community well.

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

○ Summary Recommendation Report: Analysis of well data, mapping of wells (including sampling results, depth of casing, slots, and water levels), and design recommendations to minimize the risk of accessing another poor-quality source.

2. Investigate Property Near Known Quality Wells and Evaluate Nearby System Consolidation

○ Purpose: Identify properties near wells with good water quality and assess the feasibility of purchasing these properties or acquiring the wells for community use. Additionally, evaluate the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of tying into nearby water systems or consolidating with them to enhance water quality and system sustainability. This evaluation includes examining proximity to existing infrastructure, accessibility without requiring new easements, and the potential benefits of consolidation.

○ Information Obtained: Scoring of sites based on the likelihood of good water quality, access to property without new easements, and proximity to the existing distribution system and power.

The analysis will also include a review of the costs and benefits of connecting to or consolidating with nearby systems, considering factors such as infrastructure compatibility, legal requirements, and long-term operational impacts.

○ Summary Recommendation Report: This portion of the report will provide recommendations for acquiring property or wells, including basic cost estimates and a map showing how the new source would be integrated into the community’s existing system. It will also include an analysis of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of consolidating with nearby systems, with recommendations on whether such an approach would offer a more sustainable and cost-effective solution.

3. Evaluate POU Systems

○ Purpose: Assess the feasibility of installing Point of Use (POU) treatment systems in homes.

○ Information Obtained: Cost estimates and maintenance requirements for POU systems, along with resident feedback on managing these systems.

○ Summary Recommendation Report: Cost-benefit analysis of POU systems, including long-term maintenance considerations.

4. Evaluate Onsite Treatment Plant

○ Purpose: Evaluate the feasibility of constructing an onsite treatment plant, considering long-term costs and operational complexity.

○ Information Obtained: Detailed cost estimates for construction, maintenance, and waste disposal.

○ Summary Recommendation Report: Analysis of the feasibility of an onsite treatment plant, including whether it should be pursued given the system's limitations.

Recommended Alternative: Alternative 1 - Construction or Acquisition of a New Source

Based on experience with small systems and with the information provided we would likely recommend Alternative 1: Construction or Acquisition of a New Source as the best solution for the system. This approach prioritizes securing a new water source which, without need for treatment, is inherently lower cost and easier to manage.

Rationale:

● Simplicity: A new well with good water quality would eliminate the need for complex treatment processes, making it easier for the small system to operate and maintain with limited resources.

Capacity Development/Technical Assistance to Small Public Drinking Water Systems

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

● Cost-Effectiveness: While the upfront costs may be higher than installing POU systems, the long-term operational costs and maintenance burden would be significantly lower. Additionally the cost of a new drill would likely be close to the cost of building a treatment facility depending on the level of Uranium.

● Sustainability: A new well provides a long-term solution that addresses the root cause of the water quality issues without adding ongoing treatment or regulatory burdens.