Bid Notice-Water System Modernization and Raw Water Intake Improvements.pdf

CITY OF MONROE, OREGON

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

WATER SYSTEM MODERNIZATION AND RAW WATER INTAKE IMPROVEMENTS

RFP No.: RFP-2026-01

Issue Date: August 25, 2026

Closing Date: October 9, 2026

Closing Time: 5:00 PM PST

Description: The City of Monroe (“City”) requests proposals from qualified engineering firms to provide professional engineering services for evaluation, design, permitting, and implementation of two coordinated municipal water infrastructure projects: (1) improvements to the City's raw water intake on the Long Tom River necessary in connection with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District (“USACE-PD”) Section 1135 Long Tom River Ecosystem Restoration Project; and (2) Water System Modernization improvements addressing water quality, treatment performance, operational reliability, monitoring, controls, and related infrastructure.

City Contact:

Thomas Fiorelli, City Administrator/City Planner City of Monroe 664 Commercial Street Monroe, Oregon 97456 thomas.fiorelli@monroeoregon.gov

Proposal Submission: Proposals shall be submitted electronically through OregonBuys in accordance with this RFP.

Single Point of Contact: There will be one point of contact for this Request for Proposals (RFP). All questions concerning the RFP, procurement process, Scope of Services, or selection process shall be directed to the City Contact identified above. The City's official response to questions, clarifications, or changes to this RFP will be issued in writing through the Addendum process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Instructions to Proposers

2. Project Background and Objectives

3. Minimum Qualifications

4. Proposal Requirements

5. Evaluation and Consultant Selection

6. Contract Structure

Appendices/Exhibits

Exhibit 1 – Scope of Professional Services

Appendix A – December 2022 Civil West Disinfection By Products – Feasibility Study

Appendix B – January 2022 River Design Group Water Intake Technical Memorandum

Appendix C – January 2026 USACE-PD Section 1135 Decision Document

Appendix D – Available Existing Water Treatment Plant As-Built Drawings

1. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1.1. GENERAL

The City of Monroe requests proposals from qualified professional engineering firms interested in providing the services described in this RFP.

The City intends to select a multidisciplinary Consultant capable of working collaboratively with the City, its Engineer of Record, USACE-PD, regulatory agencies, and other project partners to evaluate, design, and implement coordinated improvements to the City's raw water intake and municipal water treatment system.

Proposers are responsible for becoming familiar with the requirements of this RFP and all referenced materials prior to submitting a proposal.

1.2. INFORMATION OF RECORD

The official source of information for this procurement will be OregonBuys.

It is the responsibility of each Proposer to review OregonBuys periodically for Addenda, responses to questions, schedule changes, and other information issued by the City.

Verbal statements or interpretations by City staff, consultants, committee members, or project partners shall not modify the requirements of this RFP.

1.3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND COST

Proposals shall be prepared in a clear and concise manner and shall provide the information requested in this RFP.

The Proposer is responsible for all costs associated with preparing and submitting its Proposal, participating in interviews or meetings associated with the selection process, negotiating a contract, or otherwise participating in this procurement.

The City shall not be responsible for any costs incurred by a Proposer prior to execution of a contract.

1.4. QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

Questions concerning this RFP shall be submitted in writing to the City Contact no later than the date identified in the Schedule of Events.

Where appropriate, the City will respond to questions through written Addenda.

Information obtained from any source other than a written Addendum issued by the City shall not modify or supersede the requirements of this RFP.

1.5. ADDENDA

Changes, clarifications, corrections, or modifications to this RFP will be made by written Addendum.

Proposers are responsible for ensuring that all Addenda have been reviewed and acknowledged prior to submitting a Proposal.

1.6. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Proposals shall be submitted electronically through OregonBuys before the Closing Date and Time stated in this RFP.

Proposals received after the Closing Date and Time will not be considered.

The City is not responsible for proposals submitted in a manner or to a location other than as required by this RFP.

1.7. PUBLIC RECORDS

Proposals submitted in response to this RFP are public records and are subject to disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law.

A Proposer seeking to protect information that it believes is exempt from disclosure shall clearly identify the information and the applicable basis for exemption. Marking an entire Proposal confidential or proprietary will not be accepted as sufficient identification of exempt material.

The City does not guarantee that information identified by a Proposer as confidential or proprietary will be exempt from disclosure.

1.8. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

The City reserves the right, consistent with applicable law, to:

• Reject any or all Proposals;

• Cancel or modify this RFP;

• Waive minor informalities or irregularities;

• Request clarification or additional information;

• Conduct interviews with one or more Proposers;

• Negotiate the final Scope of Services and contract terms with the highest-ranked Proposer; and

• Award a contract when determined to be in the best interest of the City.

1.9. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

EVENT DATE

Request for Proposals Issued 08/25/2026

Pre-Proposal Meeting and Site Visit1 09/08/2026

Questions Due 09/11/2026

Deadline for Protests of Solicitation (ORS 279B.405) 09/14/2026

Final Addendum Issued 09/18/2026

Proposals Due 10/09/2026

Proposal Evaluation and Schedule Interviews 10/09-10/15/2026

Interviews 10/19/2026

Notice of Intent to Award 10/26/2026

Contract Negotiation 10/27/2026-TBD

City Council Authorization TBD

Contract Award/Notice to Proceed TBD

Note: Schedule is anticipated and subject to change by Addendum 1 Email City Contact to confirm and schedule site visit

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

2.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW

The City of Monroe owns and operates a municipal drinking water system supplied by surface water from the Long Tom River. The City is currently advancing two separate but closely coordinated capital improvement projects affecting the City's raw water supply and treatment system during the 2027 in-water work window:

1. Long Tom River Raw Water Intake Improvements, necessary to maintain reliable municipal water withdrawal following implementation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) Section 1135 Long Tom River Ecosystem Restoration Project; and

2. Water System Modernization Improvements, intended to address drinking water quality, treatment performance, operational reliability, automation, and resiliency within the City's municipal water system.

The two projects have separate origins, funding sources, and administrative requirements.

However, they are technically interrelated. Decisions concerning raw water withdrawal, pumping, source-water quality, pretreatment, treatment processes, electrical systems, controls, and automation have the potential to affect both projects.

The City therefore intends to select a single multidisciplinary engineering Consultant capable of evaluating and designing the two projects as components of an integrated municipal water system while maintaining clear separation between their respective scopes, costs, funding sources, and regulatory requirements.

The selected Consultant shall review available prior studies, existing system information, current operating conditions, applicable regulatory requirements, and available funding and shall exercise independent professional judgment in developing recommendations for each project. Previous studies and planning documents are provided as background and as a starting point for the Consultant's work and shall not be interpreted as prescribing a predetermined engineering solution.

2.2. Project Schedule

The City anticipates that implementation of the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project will require close coordination with the Section 1135 Project. Based upon currently available information, USACE-PD anticipates in-water construction associated with the Section 1135 Project during summer 2027. Construction of the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project, or those portions necessary to maintain the City's raw water supply following implementation of the Section 1135 Project, is anticipated to be coordinated with the in-water work window.

The Water System Modernization Project is not presently subject to the same summer 2027 construction target. Its implementation schedule will depend upon completion of the evaluation and validation, Basis of Design, regulatory review, final design, procurement, equipment lead times, available funding, and coordination with the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project. The City expects the Consultant to recommend an appropriate implementation schedule and sequencing for the modernization improvements based upon those considerations.

The detailed Section 1135 project schedule remains under development. The selected Consultant will be expected to coordinate the design and implementation schedules for both City projects with the Section 1135 schedule as it is further developed.

2.3. RELATIONSHIP TO THE SECTION 1135 PROJECT

The Section 1135 ecosystem restoration project and the City's raw water intake improvements are separate but interdependent projects.

USACE-PD is responsible for implementation of the Section 1135 Project. The City is responsible for its municipal water infrastructure, including improvements necessary to maintain the City's raw water supply.

The selected Consultant will be expected to coordinate closely with USACE-PD throughout the Project. The Consultant shall not assume that hydraulic, geomorphic, geotechnical, permitting, or other technical work developed for the Section 1135 Project will necessarily satisfy the requirements for design of the City's intake.

Where information developed by USACE-PD is suitable for the City's purposes, the City desires to make efficient use of that information and avoid unnecessary duplication. Where additional analysis is necessary for the intake, the Consultant shall identify and perform or coordinate the additional work. This distinction is particularly important because USACE- PD's hydraulic modeling was developed specifically for the ecosystem restoration project.

2.4. PREVIOUS INTAKE EVALUATION

In January 2022, River Design Group, Inc. (RDG) prepared a planning-level technical memorandum for the Long Tom Watershed Council evaluating potential modifications to the City's intake in response to changes then being considered for the Monroe Drop Structure.

The memorandum evaluated two primary concepts:

Alternative 1 – Relocate the Intake. Construct a new intake upstream near the Highway 99W bridge.

Alternative 2 – Extend the Existing Intake. Retain the existing intake location and extend the intake pipeline farther into the river channel.

RDG recommended relocation of the intake near the bridge as the preferred planning-level alternative.

The 2022 memorandum is provided as background information only, and the Consultant shall not assume that the alternative recommended in the memorandum represents the City's final selection.

The analysis was prepared using an earlier understanding of the Section 1135 Project and relied in part upon 2017 USACE hydraulic modeling. The current Section 1135 project includes a broader removal and restoration scope than was evaluated in the 2022 intake analysis. Accordingly, previous assumptions, alternatives, hydraulic conditions, costs, and conclusions shall be reviewed and revalidated against current conditions and current USACE design information.

The City does not intend for the selected Consultant to begin the alternatives analysis from zero. The Consultant shall use the previous work as a starting point, determine what remains valid, identify what has changed, and recommend the appropriate path forward.

2.5. WATER SYSTEM MODERNIZATION PROJECT

The City has experienced recurring challenges associated with drinking water disinfection byproducts (“DBPs”), including Total Trihalomethanes (“TTHMs”) and Haloacetic Acids (HAA5s).

In December 2022, Civil West Engineering Services, Inc. prepared the Disinfection By Products – Feasibility Study to evaluate the City's water system and identify potential improvements to reduce DBP formation and improve treatment performance.

The study evaluated the City's water system from raw water withdrawal through treatment, storage, and distribution and identified natural organic matter in the City's Long Tom River source water as an important contributor to DBP formation. The study evaluated potential improvements involving raw water pumping, chemical dosing, flow metering, pretreatment, treatment processes, SCADA and automation, chlorine dosing and controls, storage, and distribution-system operations.

The study recommended a combination of improvements including upgrades to raw water pumping, metering, chemical dosing and controls; pretreatment and clarification ahead of the City's existing ultrafiltration membrane system; improvements to treatment plant instrumentation, chemical dosing, and SCADA/automation; and continued operational measures within the distribution system.

The City has not determined that the existing membrane treatment process must be retained as part of the Water System Modernization Project. The selected Consultant shall evaluate whether continued use, modification, partial replacement, or replacement of the existing treatment process provides the most appropriate approach to achieving the City's water-quality, operational, regulatory, reliability, and funding objectives.

The Civil West study is provided as the principal planning-level basis for the Water System Modernization Project but does not constitute final design direction. The selected Consultant shall review and validate its findings and recommendations against the current system conditions, water-quality and operational data, applicable regulatory requirements, available funding, and the concurrent Raw Water Intake Improvements Project.

The Consultant shall therefore evaluate the two projects as components of an integrated municipal water system and identify opportunities to coordinate design, investigations, equipment, controls, construction sequencing, and other work where doing so provides technical or economic benefit to the City. Such coordination shall not merge the projects for financial purposes, and the Consultant shall maintain sufficient task and cost accounting to separately identify services and costs attributable to each project and funding source.

2.6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROJECTS

The Raw Water Intake Improvements and Water System Modernization Improvements are separate projects for purposes of funding, grant administration, cost allocation, and financial reporting. The City nevertheless considers technical coordination between the projects essential.

Intake location, configuration, pumping, and operation may influence the characteristics of raw water entering the treatment system, including turbidity, natural organic matter, algae, sediment, and other conditions affecting treatment performance and DBP precursor loading.

Conversely, decisions concerning pretreatment, chemical dosing, pumping, controls, and treatment processes may affect the appropriate configuration and operational requirements of the raw water intake.

The Consultant shall therefore evaluate the two projects as components of an integrated municipal water system and shall identify opportunities to coordinate design, investigations, equipment, controls, construction sequencing, and other work where doing so provides technical or economic benefit to the City.

Such coordination shall not merge the projects for financial purposes. The Consultant shall maintain sufficient task and cost accounting to separately identify services and costs attributable to each project and funding source.

2.7. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The City's overarching objective is to maintain a safe, reliable, and resilient municipal drinking water system through coordinated improvements to raw water withdrawal, treatment, monitoring, controls, and related infrastructure.

The Raw Water Intake Improvements Project and Water System Modernization Project have separate funding sources, regulatory requirements, and implementation needs. However, the City expects the selected Consultant to recognize and evaluate the technical relationships between the projects and to develop recommendations that support reliable operation of the City's water system as a whole.

The City seeks solutions that address current project needs while providing practical, maintainable, and cost-effective infrastructure appropriate for the City's long-term operations.

2.7.1. Raw Water Intake Objectives

The primary objective of the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project is to maintain a safe, reliable, and continuously available municipal raw water supply before, during, and after implementation of the Section 1135 Project.

The selected Consultant shall assist the City in developing an intake solution that:

1. Maintains reliable municipal water withdrawal under anticipated post-project river conditions and provides adequate capacity for current and reasonably anticipated municipal water-system requirements;

2. Avoids or minimizes interruption to the City's raw water supply during construction and transition to the completed Section 1135 condition;

3. Is compatible with the final Section 1135 project configuration and meets applicable fish-screening, environmental, drinking-water, and other regulatory requirements;

4. Accounts for sedimentation, debris, scour, channel evolution, low-flow conditions, and other river processes affecting long-term intake performance;

5. Provides appropriate reliability, redundancy, and operational resiliency;

6. Provides safe and practical access for operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair;

7. Is constructible within applicable environmental, permitting, and in-water work constraints and coordinates appropriately with Section 1135 construction and the Water System Modernization Project; and

8. Provides reasonable life-cycle value and a durable solution appropriate for municipal water infrastructure.

2.7.2. Water System Modernization Objectives

The primary objective of the Water System Modernization Project is to improve the City's ability to consistently produce safe drinking water while addressing known water quality, treatment, monitoring, automation, and operational needs.

The selected Consultant shall assist the City in developing modernization improvements that:

1. Improve the City's ability to consistently comply with applicable drinking-water quality requirements, including by reducing conditions contributing to TTHM, HAA5, and other disinfection byproduct formation and improving management of DBP precursor loading where reasonably achievable;

2. Improve treatment performance and reliability through appropriate pretreatment, process, equipment, and operational improvements;

3. Improve raw-water and treatment-process monitoring, metering, instrumentation, controls, communications, and automation to support effective operational response to changing source-water and treatment conditions;

4. Integrate proposed improvements appropriately with existing facilities, equipment, and infrastructure determined to remain in service;

5. Evaluate the continued suitability of the City's existing ultrafiltration membrane treatment system and determine whether retention, modification, partial replacement, or replacement of the existing treatment process would best serve the objectives of the Water System Modernization Project;

6. Improve reliability and redundancy of critical treatment processes and equipment where appropriate;

7. Provide infrastructure that can be safely and practically operated and maintained by City staff, with appropriate consideration of energy use, chemical consumption, maintenance requirements, equipment availability, and other long-term operating considerations;

8. Coordinate appropriately with the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project; and

9. Prioritize improvements to maximize water quality, operational, and public benefit within available project funding.

2.7.3. Integrated Project Objectives

Although the projects will remain separate for funding and administrative purposes, the City expects the Consultant to identify opportunities where coordinated evaluation, design, or implementation will improve overall project outcomes.

The Consultant shall:

1. Evaluate material relationships among intake location and operation, source-water characteristics, pumping, treatment processes, chemical dosing, monitoring, controls, and other interconnected system elements;

2. Identify decisions under either project that may materially affect the design, performance, cost, or operation of the other and advise the City of significant tradeoffs;

3. Coordinate technical investigations, design information, infrastructure, electrical, instrumentation, controls, SCADA, communications, and other systems where doing so avoids unnecessary duplication or provides technical or economic benefit;

4. Coordinate project schedules and construction sequencing to minimize impacts to water-system operations; and

5. Maintain appropriate separation of project costs, tasks, deliverables, and funding requirements.

2.7.4. Project Delivery Objectives

In addition to the technical objectives above, the City seeks a Consultant that will support successful delivery of both projects through collaborative, transparent, and practical project management.

Throughout the work, the Consultant shall:

1. Exercise independent professional judgment, use previous planning and engineering work where appropriate, and independently validate information material to project decisions;

2. Identify significant technical, regulatory, financial, and schedule risks early enough for the City to make informed decisions;

3. Coordinate effectively with City staff, the City's Engineer of Record, USACE-PD, Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Water Resources Department, regulatory agencies, and other project partners;

4. Develop practical and constructible recommendations appropriate to the City's staffing, operational capabilities, long-term maintenance resources, available funding, and schedule constraints;

5. Consider capital cost together with long-term operating, maintenance, replacement, and life-cycle costs while maintaining continuity of municipal water service as a fundamental project consideration; and

6. Provide the City with sufficient information at major decision points to understand alternatives, costs, risks, tradeoffs, and recommended actions.

3. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

To be considered, the Proposer shall demonstrate that:

• The firm is legally qualified to perform professional engineering services in the State of Oregon.

• The Project Manager and responsible professional engineers are appropriately licensed or will be appropriately licensed in Oregon prior to performing services requiring Oregon registration.

• The proposed team has demonstrated experience with municipal water infrastructure of comparable complexity.

• The proposed team possesses, either internally or through identified subconsultants, the technical capabilities necessary to perform the Scope of Services.

• The Proposer has sufficient organizational capacity to perform the work within the Project schedule.

A Proposal failing to demonstrate the Minimum Qualifications may be rejected without further evaluation.

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposals should be prepared and organized in a clear and concise manner and shall include all information required by this RFP. The proposal shall not exceed 20 pages in total length (excluding resumes). Minimum font size is 11 points.

The City is interested in the Proposer's understanding and approach to the Project.

Proposers shall not include cost or pricing information in their Proposals.

This procurement is being conducted as a qualifications-based selection pursuant to ORS 279C.110. Proposals will be evaluated and ranked based upon the qualifications and evaluation criteria identified in this RFP without consideration of proposed compensation.

Following selection of the highest-ranked Proposer, the City will request appropriate cost and pricing information from that Proposer for purposes of negotiating the final Scope of Services, compensation, and contract terms.

4.1. COVER LETTER

Provide a cover letter identifying:

• Firm name and address;

• Primary contact;

• Proposed Project Manager;

• Authorized representative;

• A statement confirming the Proposer's availability to perform the work;

• A statement acknowledging receipt of all Addenda; and

• Any requested exceptions to the City's proposed contract terms, if permitted.

4.2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

Describe the Proposer's understanding of the Project.

The response should demonstrate an understanding of the relationship among:

• The City's existing municipal water system and raw water intake;

• The Section 1135 Project, anticipated changes to the Long Tom River, and previous raw water intake planning;

• The December 2022 Civil West Disinfection By Products – Feasibility Study, the City's DBP/TTHM challenges, and Water System Modernization objectives;

• The relationship among source-water conditions, raw water withdrawal, treatment processes, and DBP formation;

• Applicable regulatory requirements and OWRD-funded modernization objectives;

• Construction sequencing and the City's need to maintain uninterrupted municipal water service; and

• The technical and administrative relationship between the two separately funded projects.

Identify the issues the Proposer believes will be most important to successful delivery of the Project.

4.3. TECHNICAL APPROACH

Describe the proposed approach to completing the Scope of Services.

The response should explain how the Proposer intends to:

• Validate existing information, identify material data gaps, and determine the need for supplemental technical investigation or analysis;

• Coordinate with USACE-PD, OHA, and other project partners and regulatory agencies;

• Re-evaluate previously identified raw water intake alternatives and develop a recommended intake approach;

• Review and validate the Civil West feasibility study recommendations and develop a recommended Water System Modernization approach;

• Evaluate and coordinate source-water, treatment, electrical, instrumentation, controls, and SCADA considerations across the two project components;

• Advance the projects through permitting, Basis of Design, and final design;

• Address constructability, construction sequencing, and continuity of municipal water service;

• Manage technical uncertainty and project risk; and

• Maintain appropriate cost and task separation between the two funded projects.

The City is specifically interested in the Proposer's engineering judgment concerning how the work should be performed, not merely a restatement of the Scope of Services.

4.4. PROJECT TEAM

The Proposal shall identify the proposed Project Manager, key personnel, subconsultants, and the individuals responsible for the principal technical disciplines necessary to perform the work, including raw water intake, hydraulics, water treatment/process, electrical, instrumentation and controls, permitting/environmental, and other disciplines proposed by the Proposer.

For each key team member, provide:

• Proposed role;

• Relevant qualifications;

• Professional registration, where applicable;

• Relevant project experience;

• Expected level of involvement; and

• Availability.

The City expects the personnel identified in the Proposal to perform the work. Substitution of key personnel following award shall require City approval.

4.5. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Provide 3 to 5 examples of projects demonstrating experience relevant to this RFP.

The City is particularly interested in experience involving:

• Municipal surface-water intakes, riverine infrastructure, hydraulics, geomorphology, and fish screening;

• Surface-water treatment plants and treatment plant rehabilitation or modernization;

• DBP/TTHM mitigation, pretreatment, clarification, and membrane/ultrafiltration treatment;

• Chemical feed systems, SCADA, instrumentation, and controls;

• Coordination of source-water and treatment-system improvements;

• USACE coordination and environmental permitting;

• OHA drinking-water review and approval;

• Construction within constrained in-water work windows; and

• Projects requiring continuity of municipal water service during construction.

For each example, briefly identify the project, client, services provided, key personnel involved, project outcome, and reference contact.

The City does not expect each project example to demonstrate all the experience identified above. Proposers should select examples that, collectively, best demonstrate the qualifications and relevant experience of the proposed team.

4.6. PROJECT RISKS

Identify the most significant risks the Proposer anticipates for this Project.

For each major risk, describe:

• Why the risk is material;

• When the risk should be addressed;

• How the Proposer recommends managing or reducing the risk; and

• Any decision or information the City should prioritize early in the Project.

The City encourages candid identification of uncertainty. Identification of legitimate Project risks will not be considered negatively in evaluation.

4.7. COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION

Describe the Proposer's approach to communication and coordination with the City, USACE- PD, the City's Engineer of Record, regulatory agencies, project partners, and other consultants.

Describe how the Project Manager will keep the City informed of schedule, budget, decisions, risks, and issues requiring City direction.

4.8. INNOVATION AND VALUE

Identify any approaches, technologies, sequencing strategies, design considerations, or other opportunities that could improve reliability, constructability, resiliency, operations, schedule, or life-cycle value.

The City is not seeking innovation for its own sake. Proposed innovations should provide a clear and practical benefit to the Project.

4.9. CAPACITY AND SCHEDULE

Describe the Proposer's capacity to perform the Project within the anticipated schedule, including any known commitments or staffing constraints that could materially affect performance.

Provide a preliminary Project schedule identifying major tasks and decision points, regulatory and design milestones, bidding, anticipated construction, and significant schedule dependencies, including coordination with the anticipated summer 2027 Section 1135 in-water work.

5. EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION

5.1. GENERAL

Proposals will be evaluated by a City selection committee.

The City intends to conduct interviews with the highest-ranked Proposers to assist in identifying the most qualified Consultant.

The City may request clarification of information contained in a Proposal but is not obligated to permit a Proposer to supplement an incomplete Proposal.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:

Criterion Points

Project Understanding 20

Technical Approach 20

Relevant Experience 15

Project Team and Qualifications 10 Communication and Coordination 10

Innovation and Value Engineering 10

Capacity and Schedule 10 References and Past Performance 5

Total 100

Project Understanding – 20 Points

Evaluation will consider the degree to which the Proposal demonstrates a clear, project-specific understanding of the matters identified in Section 5.2, including the relationship among the City's existing municipal water system, Raw Water Intake Improvements Project, Water System Modernization Project, Section 1135 Project, applicable regulatory requirements, and separate project funding and administrative requirements.

Higher scores will be awarded to Proposals that demonstrate an understanding of Monroe's particular technical, operational, regulatory, and implementation challenges.

Technical Approach – 20 Points

Evaluation will consider the quality, completeness, practicality, and technical soundness of the approach described in response to Section 4.3.

Particular consideration will be given to demonstrated engineering judgment; efficient use and validation of previous technical work; identification and management of project risk and uncertainty; coordination between the two project components; continuity of municipal water service; regulatory coordination; and the ability to advance the work within applicable funding and schedule constraints.

Relevant Experience – 15 Points

Evaluation will consider the extent to which the experience identified in response to Section

5.5 demonstrates successful performance on projects of similar nature, complexity, and regulatory setting.

The City does not expect a single previous project to demonstrate all relevant experience.

Evaluation will consider whether the project examples collectively demonstrate the qualifications and experience necessary to perform the work.

Project Team and Qualifications – 10 Points

Evaluation will consider the qualifications, relevant experience, availability, and proposed roles of the Project Manager, key personnel, and subconsultants identified in response to Section 5.4.

Particular consideration will be given to whether the proposed team collectively provides the technical disciplines necessary to successfully perform both project components and to the demonstrated involvement of the personnel who will actually perform the work.

Communication and Coordination – 10 Points

Evaluation will consider the Proposer's approach to communication, project management, decision-making, and coordination as described in Section 5.7.

Particular consideration will be given to clear responsibility, timely communication, effective coordination among project participants, transparency regarding schedule, budget, and risk, and appropriate escalation of matters requiring City direction.

Innovation and Value Engineering – 10 Points

Evaluation will consider the practical value of the approaches, technologies, sequencing strategies, design considerations, or other opportunities identified in response to Section 5.8.

Proposed innovations should provide a clear benefit to water quality, reliability, resiliency, constructability, operations, maintainability, schedule, cost, or life-cycle value and should be appropriate to the City's system, staffing, funding, and long-term needs.

Capacity and Schedule – 10 Points

Evaluation will consider the Proposer's demonstrated capacity and availability to provide the personnel and resources necessary to perform the work within the anticipated Project schedule, as described in Section 5.9.

Particular consideration will be given to the availability of key personnel, competing workload, ability to mobilize required technical disciplines, coordination of the two project components, and identification and management of material schedule risks.

References and Past Performance – 5 Points

Evaluation will consider information obtained from references and available information regarding the Proposer's past performance on comparable professional services.

Consideration may include quality and completeness of work, responsiveness, communication, performance of key personnel, management of schedule and budget, effectiveness in resolving project issues, and coordination with owners, agencies, and project partners.

The City reserves the right to contact references other than those identified in the Proposal where permitted by applicable procurement requirements.

5.3. INTERVIEWS

The City will invite the highest-ranked Proposers to participate in interviews. The City may establish additional interview scoring criteria and may adjust final rankings based upon interview results.

The proposed Project Manager and other key personnel expected to perform the work should participate in the interview.

5.4. SELECTION AND NEGOTIATION

Following evaluation of proposals, the City intends to identify the highest-ranked Proposer and negotiate a final Scope of Services and compensation consistent with ORS 279C governing procurement of architectural, engineering, photogrammetric mapping, transportation planning, and land surveying services.

If the City is unable to reach agreement with the highest-ranked Proposer, the City may terminate negotiations and proceed to the next-ranked Proposer as permitted by law.

6. CONTRACT STRUCTURE

The City anticipates a phased professional services contract.

The initial authorization is expected to include project management, existing conditions review, necessary and prudent investigations, hydraulic coordination and analysis, alternatives evaluation, and development of the preferred alternative.

Advancement into final design may be conditional upon City acceptance of the recommended alternative and confirmation of available funding.

The City may subsequently authorize additional phases including permitting, final design, bidding assistance, construction-phase services, commissioning, and closeout.

Nothing in this RFP guarantees authorization of every anticipated phase.

The selected Consultant shall not perform services beyond the authorized Scope of Services without prior written authorization from the City.

CITY OF MONROE, OREGON

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

WATER SYSTEM MODERNIZATION AND RAW WATER INTAKE IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT 1 – SCOPE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

The following Scope of Services describes the City's current understanding of the work required.

The City expects Proposers to exercise professional judgment in evaluating this Scope. A Proposer should identify in its Proposal any additional work, modification, sequencing, or technical investigation that it believes is necessary to successfully complete the Project.

The selected Consultant will be responsible for managing its work and coordinating all subconsultants necessary to provide a complete professional services team.

TASK 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

The Consultant shall provide overall project management throughout the duration of the Project.

Services are anticipated to include:

• Project kickoff;

• Project management plan;

• Project schedule and schedule updates;

• Budget and task tracking;

• Regular progress meetings;

• Meeting agendas and summaries;

• Coordination of subconsultants;

• Identification and tracking of project risks;

• Coordination with the City's Engineer of Record;

• Coordination with USACE-PD;

• Coordination with regulatory agencies;

• Integrated management and coordination of the Raw Water Intake Improvements

Project and Water System Modernization Project; and

• Regular written progress reporting.

The Consultant shall identify decisions required from the City, sufficiently in advance, to avoid unnecessary impacts to the Project schedule.

TASK 2 – EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DATA REVIEW

The Consultant shall review available existing information for both the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project and the Water System Modernization Project and shall establish the technical basis necessary to proceed with evaluation and design.

The City will provide available records, reports, drawings, operational information, water-quality data, and other relevant documentation in its possession. The Consultant shall review the available information, identify material data gaps, and determine what additional investigation or verification is necessary to support the work.

At a minimum, the Consultant shall review the following:

Raw Water Intake and Section 1135 Information

• Existing raw water intake infrastructure and available City utility records and drawings;

• Existing survey and bathymetric information;

• Available hydrologic and hydraulic information, including available USACE-PD hydraulic modeling;

• January 2022 River Design Group Water Intake Technical Memorandum;

• Current Section 1135 design and technical information;

• Existing intake operational and maintenance information;

• Available source-water quality information; and

• Other information reasonably necessary to understand existing intake and river conditions.

Water System Modernization Information

• December 2022 Civil West Engineering Services Disinfection By Products – Feasibility Study;

• Existing water treatment plant plans, record drawings, specifications, equipment information, and treatment-process descriptions;

• Existing raw-water pumping, flow-measurement, chemical-feed, and dosing systems;

• Existing ultrafiltration membrane treatment system information;

• Existing instrumentation, controls, telemetry, communications, and SCADA information;

• Existing electrical and standby-power information;

• Available raw-water, finished-water, distribution-system, TTHM, HAA5, and other relevant water-quality data;

• Available operational, maintenance, and equipment-condition information;

• Available Oregon Health Authority correspondence, review materials, and regulatory information;

• Applicable Water System Modernization Project grant documents and technical requirements; and

• Other information reasonably necessary to evaluate the Water System Modernization Project.

Integrated System Review

The Consultant shall review the two projects together where conditions or design decisions may affect both. This review shall include, as applicable, the relationship among source-water quality, intake location and operation, raw-water pumping, pretreatment, treatment processes, chemical dosing, instrumentation, controls, and overall system reliability.

The Consultant shall identify:

• Information that remains suitable for use;

• Information requiring confirmation or update;

• Material inconsistencies among existing records or prior studies;

• Data gaps that may affect alternatives analysis or design;

• Additional field investigation, sampling, testing, modeling, or other technical work recommended by the Consultant; and

• Decisions or information needed from the City or project partners before subsequent tasks can proceed.

Existing information furnished by the City or its project partners shall not relieve the Consultant of responsibility for determining whether the information is adequate and appropriate for its intended engineering use.

TASK 3 – SURVEY AND SITE INVESTIGATION

The Consultant shall perform or coordinate surveying and site investigation necessary to support alternatives evaluation, permitting, final design, bidding, and construction.

Survey shall be appropriate to establish relevant horizontal and vertical control and document existing site conditions.

The Consultant shall identify any additional bathymetric survey, utility locating, property research, or other field investigation required for design.

TASK 4 – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

The Consultant shall evaluate geotechnical conditions relevant to the preferred intake alternatives and perform or coordinate investigations necessary for final design.

The investigation shall be sufficient to evaluate foundation conditions, constructability, bank stability, anchoring requirements, and other geotechnical considerations associated with the recommended alternative.

The Consultant shall specifically consider whether proximity to existing or removed Section 1135 structures creates additional subsurface uncertainty requiring investigation. Available information indicates that as-built records for certain existing structures are unavailable and foundation conditions may be uncertain.

TASK 5 – HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION

The Consultant shall establish the hydrologic and hydraulic design basis for the intake improvements.

The Consultant shall coordinate directly with USACE-PD to determine:

• What hydraulic modeling has been completed or is planned;

• The assumptions and design conditions represented by that modeling;

• Whether the modeling represents immediate post-construction conditions, anticipated long-term channel conditions, or both;

• The format and availability of modeling data; and

• Whether the available modeling is adequate for municipal intake design.

The City intends to avoid unnecessary duplication of USACE work. However, the Consultant shall independently determine whether additional modeling or analysis is required for the intake and shall perform or coordinate supplemental analysis where necessary.

Design conditions shall consider, as applicable, low-flow conditions, anticipated channel evolution, sediment transport, scour, debris, velocity, water depth, flood conditions, and other hydraulic factors affecting intake reliability and constructability.

The Consultant shall confirm the appropriate minimum-flow design assumptions with the City and USACE. Previous planning work assumed a USACE target minimum flow of approximately 30 cfs at Monroe and evaluated intake operation at flows as low as the historical extreme low flow of approximately 7 cfs; these assumptions shall be confirmed.

TASK 6 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The Consultant shall evaluate feasible alternatives for providing reliable municipal raw water withdrawal following implementation of the Section 1135 Project.

At a minimum, the Consultant shall re-evaluate the two alternatives identified in the January 2022 RDG Technical Memorandum:

1. Relocation of the intake near the Highway 99W bridge; and

2. Extension or modification of the existing intake.

The Consultant may identify and evaluate additional alternatives where supported by engineering judgment.

The alternatives analysis shall consider, at a minimum:

• Hydraulic performance;

• Reliability;

• Water quality;

• Fish screening;

• Sedimentation;

• Debris;

• Constructability;

• Environmental impacts;

• Permitting;

• Operations and maintenance;

• Access;

• Power and controls;

• Redundancy;

• Resiliency;

• Coordination and compatibility with the Water System Modernization Project;

• Coordination with Section 1135 construction;

• Capital cost;

• Long-term operation and maintenance cost;

• Life-cycle value; and

• Project risk.

The Consultant shall prepare planning-level cost estimates appropriate to the maturity of each alternative.

The Consultant shall clearly identify assumptions, uncertainties, advantages, disadvantages, and material risks associated with each alternative.

Following review with the City and project partners, the Consultant shall recommend a preferred alternative.

Following acceptance of the preferred alternative, the City may authorize advancement of the Raw Water Intake Improvements Project into Basis of Design under Task 8.

Advancement into final design will be subject to City acceptance of the Basis of Design and written authorization to proceed.

This decision point is intentional. The City does not intend to commit to final design of an intake configuration until current Section 1135 conditions and the prior alternatives have been adequately evaluated.

TASK 7 – WATER SYSTEM MODERNIZATION EVALUATION AND VALIDATION

The Consultant shall review and validate the findings, assumptions, alternatives, and recommendations contained in the December 2022 Civil West Engineering Services Disinfection By Products – Feasibility Study and shall develop a recommended approach for implementation of the City's Water System Modernization Project.

The Civil West feasibility study shall serve as the principal planning-level technical basis for this task. The Consultant shall not assume that the recommendations contained in the study constitute final design direction. The Consultant shall evaluate those recommendations against current system conditions, available water-quality and operational data, current regulatory requirements, available project funding, changes occurring since completion of the feasibility study, and the concurrent Raw Water Intake Improvements Project.

The Consultant shall use existing information where appropriate and shall avoid unnecessary duplication of previous engineering work. Where available information is insufficient to support a recommendation or subsequent design, the Consultant shall identify and recommend additional investigation, sampling, testing, modeling, or other technical evaluation necessary to resolve the deficiency.

Water Quality and Treatment Performance

The Consultant shall evaluate available information regarding source-water quality, treatment performance, finished-water quality, distribution-system water quality, and disinfection byproduct formation.

The evaluation shall consider, as applicable:

• Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs);

• Haloacetic Acids (HAA5s);

• Natural organic matter and other DBP precursor loading;

• Raw-water turbidity and seasonal source-water variability;

• Algae and other source-water conditions affecting treatment;

• Existing treatment performance;

• Chemical application and dosing;

• Disinfection practices;

• Water age and other relevant distribution-system conditions; and

• Other water-quality parameters material to evaluate the modernization improvements.

The Consultant shall evaluate the relationship between source-water characteristics and the City's treatment processes and shall identify whether additional water-quality sampling, testing, bench-scale evaluation, pilot testing, or other investigation is warranted before final design.

Review of Previously Recommended Improvements

The Consultant shall review the improvements evaluated and recommended in the 2022 Civil West feasibility study and determine whether each remains appropriate for implementation.

The review shall include, as applicable:

• Raw-water pumping improvements;

• Variable-frequency drives and associated pumping controls;

• Raw-water flow measurement;

• Chemical feed and dosing improvements;

• Pretreatment;

• Sedimentation and clarification;

• Evaluation of continued suitability, potential modification, partial replacement, or…