Request for Proposals: R-2522

Class/Item: 89044, 89045, 89046, 90627, 90628, 91841, 91897, 92517, 92522, 92533, 92534, 92557, 92570, 92597

Date: August 7, 2026

Proposal Deadline: 4:00 p.m., September 8, 2026 (MT) uploaded electronically only to the Rocky Mountain E-purchasing system website.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

The City of Aurora Water Department (“City”) is requesting written proposals from qualified firms to provide professional engineering, asset management, statistical modeling, and software decision-support services for potable water distribution main failure prediction and risk-based renewal planning.

Proposals shall only be submitted electronically through the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System (BidNet) at www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado) no later than 4:00 p.m., (MT), September 8, 2026. No late proposals will be considered.

Please be advised that proposals MUST be submitted through BidNet to be considered responsive. The proposals shall be retained by the City and cannot be returned. If you need assistance with the registration or proposal upload process, you may call BidNet’s vendor support at 1-800-835-4603 or e-mail support@bidnet.com.

Proposal Note: BidNet file size is limited to 200GB per file. Should a proposal exceed that size, make sure to split the document to accommodate the limitation and upload multiple documents if necessary. For any questions or issues contact vendor support above.

Proposals shall consist of:

Water Pipeline Predictive Modeling and Asset Management Decision Support System

Pre-Proposal Conference:

A pre-proposal conference is scheduled for August 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. via TEAMS.

Click on the link below to join.

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/244351401545582?p=w0zb5MwUvK9iZSKSGi

The purpose of the pre-proposal conference is to provide assistance to prospective Firms in the interpretation of the Request for Proposals, Scope of Services, Sample Contracts, and other technical and contractual matters. Attendance at the pre-proposal conference is not mandatory, but highly recommended. Specific requirements for this project are contained in the attached Section I Scope of Services.

Finance Department

Purchasing Services 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Suite 5700 Aurora, Colorado 80012 www.auroragov.org mailto:support@bidnet.com https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/244351401545582?p=w0zb5MwUvK9iZSKSGi http://www.auroragov.org/

Questions Written questions regarding this RFP solicitation shall be emailed to Heidi Ellis, Senior Procurement Agent at heellis@auroragov.org no later than August 24, 2026, by 2:00 pm (MT). It is preferred that all inquiries be sent with R-2522 on the subject line. Inquiries received after the questions due date and time may not be addressed. Responses to written inquiries (if required) will be published in the form of an Addenda/Addendum and posted on BidNet.

Contacts During the Solicitation Process Any questions, comments or other communications shall be directed to the Senior Procurement Agent identified above in the Questions section. No other contact shall be made regarding this RFP solicitation with any other City staff, City Council Members, Agents, Consultant, etc., during the RFP solicitation process. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the offending Firm being removed from consideration.

A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE of key dates for the project has been established as follows:

August 18, 2026 Pre-proposal Conference, at 10:00 a.m. via TEAMS August 24, 2026 Deadline for written Questions due by 2:00 p.m. via email September 8, 2026 Proposals Due by 4:00 p.m. via Bidnet Week of September 14, 2026 Notifications with top-ranked short-listed Firm(s) Week of September 21, 2026 Contract award actions complete/Services may begin

RFP SOLICITATION PROCESS

The Request for Proposals is being solicited under a three-phase qualifications-based procurement procedure.

First Phase: The first phase requires all interested Firms to submit un-priced Technical Qualification Proposals addressing only those items cited in Section II, Proposal Submittal Technical Requirements of this Request for Proposals. Technical proposals will be evaluated using as a basis the general evaluation criteria outlined in Section III, Evaluation Criteria to select a short list of Firms for further participation in the second phase. During the first phase of the Technical Proposal evaluation, the City may at its sole discretion request additional information or hold discussions for clarification purposes with select Firms in order to complete the City’s evaluation of a Firm’s submitted technical proposal. Only those Firms who are placed on the short list will be able to participate during the second phase. In the event the City determines that interviews are not necessary for determining the final ranking of the short-listed Firms, then the City reserves the right to waive the Second Phase interview requirements and enter into direct negotiations pursuant to negotiation process identified below under the third phase of this RFP with the top ranked Firm selected by the City for the award of the contract.

Second Phase: During the second phase all those Firms that the City has notified of being placed on the short list for further participation in this solicitation process, will be required to attend an interview with the City’s evaluation committee. The results of the interview will be used by the City for establishing the final ranking of the short-listed Firms. The Firm that is selected by the City from the interview process that is the number one top ranked Firm shall be considered for award of the contract subject to successful negotiation of a final agreement under the third phase of this RFP process. Should the City be unable to reach agreement with the number one top ranked Firm, negotiations will commence with the second ranked Firm. This process will continue until a satisfactory contract is negotiated, or the City exercises its right to reject all proposals.

mailto:heellis@auroragov.org

Third Phase: During the third phase the top-ranked Firm shall be contacted by the City to begin the negotiation process for award of the contract. Within five (5) business days of being notified by the City that the negotiation process is beginning the top ranked Consultant must submit the following initial Scope of Work, Project Schedule and Price proposal:

1. Detailed Scope of Service: The Scope of Service (SOS) should include a detailed breakdown by Tasks with sub-tasks that show what work shall be provided to the City for completing the proposed designed work identified in Section I, Scope of Service of this solicitation.

2. Detailed Project Schedule: The Project Schedule should directly reflect/correspond to the above proposed SOS in a bar chart format that shows the Tasks and sub-tasks from the beginning to the end of the SOS to be performed.

After the City has completed its initial evaluation of the above submitted SOS, Project Schedule, and Price proposal follow up meetings/negotiation discussions with the top ranked Firm shall be scheduled to discuss potential changes to their submitted proposal. The negotiation discussions shall involve all the aspects of the top ranked Firm submitted SOS, Project Schedule, and Price proposal.

The City shall be the sole judge in determining the number of negotiation discussions, length of the negotiation discussion and any other parameters associated with conducting the negotiation process for the award of the contract. In the event the City determines that negotiations have failed to reach an acceptable agreement for award of the contract to the top ranked Firm, then the City shall notify the top ranked Firm of the City’s decision to conclude negotiations. The City will then contact the second-ranked Firm to begin negotiations as previously identified under the second phase of this solicitation.

Note: Once a final agreement has been negotiated by City staff under the third phase of this solicitation the recommendation for award of the contract will be sent to the Aurora City Council for final approval. Aurora City Council approval will be subject to successful negotiation of the final terms associated with scope of service, schedule and compensation. Once Council approval of the award is obtained and the agreement is signed, work may begin.

Conditions of Award Terms and conditions of this Request for Proposal shall be incorporated in the award by a Professional Design Services Agreement (sample attached). No other documents, agreements, contracts or addenda will be a part of this Request for Proposal and/or award unless authorized by the Office of Purchasing Services.

Licenses The successful Firm(s) without additional expense to the City, shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and for complying with any applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, codes and regulations in connection with the prosecution of the services. The successful Firm(s) and any Sub-consultants, if applicable, will be required to obtain an Aurora Business License. The successful Firm(s) shall provide the Aurora Business License number(s) to the Heidi Ellis - Senior Procurement Agent within thirty (30) days of the contract award.

Addendum to the RFP The City reserves the right to amend by an addendum or addenda to this RFP solicitation, at any time and/or a multiple number of times prior to the date set for receipt of the submission of proposals.

Addenda or addendums will only be posted and updated on the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System located at www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado. It shall be the responsibility of the Firm to obtain all addenda’s/addendums from the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System. Parties obtaining proposal information from other sources do so understanding that their information may be incomplete, inaccurate, or out of date and therefore wholly unreliable from a commercial perspective. Consultants registered for the paid bidding notification service shall be notified either by fax or email depending on the service that they have subscribed to. It shall be the responsibility of prospective Firms registered for the no charge, no notification service on the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System to monitor the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System for any addenda’s/addendums. Failure to do so may lead to reliance on incomplete, inaccurate, or out-of-date information when submitting proposals subjecting such proposals to automatic disqualification from consideration. If revisions are of such a magnitude to warrant, in the City’s opinion, the postponement of the date for receipt of proposals, an addenda/addendum will be issued announcing the new date.

Confidentiality Please be aware that proposals submitted to the City in response to this solicitation shall be subject to the Colorado Open Records Law, Section 24-72-201, et seq., C.R.S. Any privileged or confidential information in the Company’s proposal shall be specifically identified as such by the Firm. If any information is considered to be confidential, the Firm shall agree to indemnify the City for any and all attorney fees the City may incur in defending the withholding of such information by signing and returning the letter found in Section VI of this RFP solicitation. Should the City receive a request for the release of any information in the Firm’s proposal in accordance with the open records law, the City will review the Firm’s proposal, giving consideration to the portions that the Firm indicated contained trade secrets, privileged information, or confidential commercial, financial, geological, or geophysical data, and may release only that information which has not been identified as confidential so long as Section VI has been signed and returned by the Firm along with the proposal. Should the Firm choose not to sign and return Section VI, all information in the Firm proposal may be considered releasable by the City. Firms will be notified of any open records requests prior to the release of such information. If, in the opinion of City's legal counsel, the City is nonetheless compelled to disclose any portion of such information to anyone or else stand liable for contempt or suffer censure or penalty, the City may disclose such information without liability.

SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PROGRAM FOR CONTRACTS OVER $250,000.00

This Request for Proposal is subject to the new Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program approved by City Council on Oct. 15, 2007. The intent is to recognize the role and importance of small businesses in our country’s and City’s continued success. For the City to acknowledge this category of businesses involved with providing professional and regular services it has been determined that certain actions are necessary to support this program.

Objectives of the SBE Program The City’s Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program demonstrates the City’s commitment to the SBE community by promoting economic growth within the local business community and providing a development program to assist SBEs regardless of gender, age, race or ethnicity.

For purposes of the City’s Program, SBEs are defined as a small business if they meet 50% of the Small Business Administration’s size standard that applies to the appropriate North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for the scope being procured. SBEs shall self-certify as to their business size status.

As part of the SBE Program, contracts over $250,000 awarded to large businesses by the City’s Office of Purchasing Service shall require that the large business use a good faith effort to award no less than 10% of their subcontracting dollars to SBEs, if they plan to subcontract any portion of the work. This Program does not apply to large businesses that will perform 100% of the contract work with their own workforce without using any sub-consultants and or to the top-ranked successful firm that has self-certified themselves as a small business enterprise.

Firms are encouraged to identify as many aspects of the work as possible to enhance the utilization of SBEs. Firms are expected to use qualified SBEs. To be qualified, SBEs must have the necessary financial capabilities, skill, experience, and access to the necessary staff, facilities and equipment to perform the work or to provide the supplies or services that are required.

Good Faith Effort If the objective specified herein has not been met, it shall be the responsibility of the large business top ranked firms to demonstrate its good faith efforts in attempting to meet the objective. The large business top ranked firms, if it has not met the specified objective, must provide a completed Good Faith Effort Questionnaire in support of its good faith effort to meet the objective for evaluation and approval by the City.

SBE Program Documents In order to demonstrate compliance with the City’s SBE Program, the top ranked Firm must complete the initial “Request for Business Status” form (refer to Attachment -2 of this RFP). If the top ranked Firm has self-certified as a large business, then that Firm must sign and submit the forms entitled Statement of Intent to Use Small Business Enterprises (SBEs) (Attachment

3) and Individual Letter of Intent for Each Small Business Enterprise (Attachment 4). In addition, if the SBE objective has not been met, the large business top ranked Firm will be required to submit the Good Faith Effort Questionnaire (Attachment 5) as provided for herein under "Good Faith Effort." All forms shall be submitted by the top ranked Firm upon notice of award.

Evaluation Criteria for a Good Faith Effort The adequacy of the large business top ranked Firm’s good faith effort will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

1. The consultant’s outreach efforts, including:

➢ Advertising in trade association publications and other publications;

➢ Mailings to SBEs;

➢ Contacts with SBE contractor organizations;

➢ Phone contacts with SBEs; and

➢ Other activities identified by the consultant.

1. List items of work identified by the Firm for subcontract or supply to meet the Program objectives;

2. Efforts to negotiate with SBEs to obtain them as subcontractors or suppliers;

3. Efforts to provide SBEs a full and fair opportunity to provide a proposal, including the opportunity to review the scope of work and to have the time to prepare proposals and negotiate; and

4. The reasons why the Firm was unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain SBEs as subcontractors, suppliers or joint venture partners.

5. If the City determines that the large business top ranked Firm failed to make a good faith effort, the proposal will be deemed non-responsive and will be rejected.

Acceptance of the Request for Proposals (RFP) By submitting a proposal in response to this RFP solicitation, the Firm accepts all of the conditions described in this RFP solicitation, including the Sample Services Agreement, and agrees to abide by all final decisions made by the City.

CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO

Heidi Ellis, NIGP-CPP, CPPB, C-P.H.M.

Senior Procurement Agent

Attachments: Section I Scope of Services Section II Proposal Submittal Requirements Section III Evaluation Criteria Section IV Special Conditions Section V Letter of Indemnification for Withholding Confidential Information Section VI W-9 Request for Tax-Payer Identification Section VII Business Size Status Form Section VIII Statement of Intent to Use Small Business Enterprises (SBE) Section IX Sample Professional Service Agreement with Insurance Attachment 1 Proposal Acknowledgement Signature Page Attachment 2 City of Aurora – Supplier Conflict of Interest Certification

The remainder of this page left blank intentionally

SECTION I

SPECIFICATIONS/SCOPE OF SERVICES

I. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The City of Aurora Water Department (“City”) is seeking proposals from qualified Firms to provide professional engineering, asset management, statistical modeling, and software decision-support services for potable water distribution main failure prediction and risk-based renewal planning.

The City owns and operates approximately 1,600 miles of potable water distribution pipelines.

These pipelines vary by age, material, diameter, pressure zone, operating condition, failure history, and consequence of failure. The City seeks to evaluate these potable water mains using a defensible, data-driven, and engineering-based process to support proactive renewal planning and capital improvement decision-making.

The City previously completed a predictive water main failure modeling effort using historical water distribution data, including failure history, pipe attributes, soil information, pressure information, and related data. In that prior effort, historical data through approximately 2017 was used to predict failures during a known subsequent period, allowing the City to evaluate model performance against actual observed failures. The prior model was considered useful and was used to support proactive water main replacement decisions.

The City now seeks to update and expand this effort to support the next five-year water main renewal planning horizon. The selected Firm shall provide both professional services and a software-as-a-service decision-support platform that allow the City to identify higher-risk potable water mains, understand the drivers of risk, evaluate future failure potential, develop engineering-based renewal recommendations, group pipe segments into practical projects, and manage capital planning scenarios in an interactive software environment.

The City is not seeking an unsupported scoring output, a static map, or a ranked pipe list alone. The City is seeking a defensible decision-support process that combines predictive modeling, transparent validation, engineering judgment, project grouping, and a usable software platform.

The selected Firm must demonstrate that its model and recommendations are credible, understandable, verifiable, and useful to Aurora Water staff before the City accepts final production outputs.

II. KEY CONCERN TO BE ADDRESSED

The primary objective of this solicitation is to reduce the risk of selecting a product that appears technically advanced but cannot be verified or translated into practical the City’s action.

Accordingly, the project shall include a mandatory post-award validation phase. The selected Firm shall not proceed directly to final five-year predictions, final renewal recommendations, or full production software implementation until the model has been tested against historical City data and reviewed by the City.

The validation phase shall answer the following questions:

1. Does the proposed model perform better than practical baseline methods?

2. Does the model perform at least as well as, or better than, the City’s prior predictive modeling approach, to the extent prior outputs are available?

3. Does the model identify a meaningful share of actual failures within the highest-risk pipe cohorts?

4. Are the model outputs explainable enough for the City’s Project Manager/staff to understand and defend?

5. Are the results useful for engineering review, project grouping, and renewal planning?

6. Can the software platform support the City’s Project Manager/staff review, scenario testing, adjustment of assumptions, and future updates?

7. Does the model appropriately account for the City-specific environmental, geotechnical, and operational factors that may influence pipe failure, such as soil conditions, pressure zones, corrosion potential, groundwater, ground movement, freeze-thaw effects, pipe bedding conditions where known, and other locally relevant risk factors available in the City’s data?

The City recognizes that no model can predict every future failure. The purpose of validation is not to require perfect prediction. The purpose is to verify that the selected Firm’s model provides measurable predictive value, reasonable transparency, and practical decision usefulness.

III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project are to:

1. Evaluate approximately 1,600 miles of the City’s potable water distribution pipelines.

2. Develop, validate, and apply a predictive model for potable water distribution main failures for the next five-year planning horizon.

3. Complete a historical backcast validation before final production modeling.

4. Compare model performance against practical baseline methods, including age-based ranking, break-history-based ranking, material/diameter/age-based engineering scoring, and prior model outputs if available.

5. Generate pipe-level likelihood-of-failure scores.

6. Develop a consequence-of-failure framework.

7. Combine likelihood and consequence into a risk-based prioritization framework.

8. Translate model outputs into engineering-based recommendations.

9. Group recommended pipe segments into practical renewal projects.

10. Develop multiple renewal planning scenarios.

11. Deploy a software platform that allows the City’s Project Manager/staff to review, adjust, analyze, export, and manage the results. The solution must support future model updates, including the integration of new data to ensure output remains current and accurate without any restrictions or dependency a particular vendor.

12. Provide a technical report that documents the methodology, validation results, findings, assumptions, limitations, and recommendations.

13. Train the City’s Project Manager/staff so that the results can be used, explained, and updated over time.

IV. GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES

The selected Firm shall provide all services necessary to complete the project, including project management, data review, data preparation, predictive modeling, validation, engineering analysis, project grouping, software implementation, training, documentation, and support. The scope shall include, at a minimum, the tasks described below.

Task 1 — Project Management, Kickoff, and Work Plan The Firm shall conduct a kickoff meeting with the City’s Project Manager to confirm objectives, roles, responsibilities, available data, project schedule, communication protocols, review meetings, deliverables, and decision points.

The Firm shall prepare a detailed project service plan that includes:

1. Project understanding.

2. Detailed work approach.

3. Project schedule.

4. Key milestones.

5. The City’s review points.

6. Data request list.

7. Validation approach.

8. Software implementation approach.

9. Quality control procedures.

10. Key risks and proposed mitigation measures.

Deliverables:

1. Kickoff meeting agenda.

2. Kickoff meeting minutes.

3. Detailed work plan.

4. Data request memorandum.

5. Project schedule.

Task 2 - Data Collection, Inventory, Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC), and Gap Assessment The Firm shall review available the City data for approximately 1,600 miles of potable water distribution pipelines and determine whether the data is suitable for modeling, validation, consequence analysis, risk scoring, engineering review, and software implementation.

Data may include, but is not limited to:

1. Water distribution Geographic Information System (GIS) pipe inventory.

2. Pipe material, diameter, age, installation year, length, pressure zone, and status.

3. Historical water main breaks, leaks, repairs, work orders, and service disruptions.

4. Prior predictive model outputs, if available.

5. Completed pipe replacement, rehabilitation, and abandonment records.

6. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and limited the City collected soil and corrosivity data.

7. Pressure data.

8. Hydraulic model information, if available.

9. Valve, hydrant, service connection, and customer data, if relevant.

10. Critical facilities and critical customers.

11. Roadway classification.

12. Planned City, roadway, or other infrastructure work.

13. Field observations and institutional knowledge from the City’s Project Manager.

14. Prior condition assessment, acoustic monitoring, leak detection, or inspection data, if available.

The Firm shall evaluate data completeness, consistency, spatial accuracy, temporal accuracy, attribute quality, and relevance to predictive modeling and engineering decision-making.

The Firm shall identify:

1. Missing data.

2. Inconsistent or conflicting records.

3. Duplicate records.

4. Retired or abandoned assets.

5. Pipes with unclear replacement history.

6. Failures that cannot be confidently assigned to specific pipe segments.

7. Data fields that may introduce bias or uncertainty.

8. Data limitations that may affect model performance.

The Firm shall document all assumptions used to clean, normalize, join, or interpret the City’s data.

Deliverables:

1. Data inventory.

2. Data QA/QC memorandum.

3. Data gap assessment.

4. Data preparation methodology.

5. Cleaned and reconciled working dataset, as applicable.

6. Summary of data limitations and implications for validation.

Task 3 — Validation Protocol Before final production modeling, the Firm shall prepare a formal Validation Protocol for the City’s review and acceptance.

The Validation Protocol shall define how the selected model will be tested using a historical backcast approach.

The Validation Protocol shall include:

1. Proposed training period.

2. Proposed validation period.

3. Definition of failure for modeling purposes.

4. Treatment of leaks, breaks, repairs, work orders, and service disruptions.

5. Treatment of pipes replaced, rehabilitated, abandoned, or removed from service.

6. Treatment of pipes that were proactively replaced based on prior risk information.

7. Treatment of missing, uncertain, or inconsistent data.

8. Proposed modeling approach.

9. Baseline comparison methods.

10. Required prediction output format.

11. Performance metrics.

12. Calibration review approach.

13. Subgroup performance review approach.

14. Comparison to prior model results, if available.

15. Aurora Water review process.

16. Criteria for determining whether the model is suitable to proceed to production use.

The Validation Protocol shall be accepted by Aurora Water before the Consultant begins the formal historical validation exercise.

Deliverables:

1. Draft Validation Protocol.

2. Validation Protocol review meeting.

3. Final Validation Protocol.

Task 4 — Historical Backcast Validation The Firm shall perform a historical backcast validation before proceeding to final five-year production predictions.

Under this task, the Firm shall use data available through an agreed historical cutoff date to predict failures during a known subsequent validation period. The City may withhold actual validation-period failure outcomes until the Firm submits pipe-level prediction outputs.

The validation shall compare model predictions to actual observed failures and evaluate whether the model provides measurable predictive value and practical usefulness.

At a minimum, the validation shall include:

1. Precision within the top 1%, 5%, and 10% highest-risk pipe cohorts.

2. Recall or capture rate of actual failures.

3. Lift compared to baseline approaches.

4. Calibration of predicted probabilities or risk scores.

5. Performance by pipe material.

6. Performance by diameter.

7. Performance by age band.

8. Performance by pressure zone.

9. Performance by geographic area.

10. Performance by soil or environmental factors, where applicable.

11. Review of false positives.

12. Review of false negatives.

13. Comparison to prior predictive model outputs, if available.

14. Comparison to age-only ranking.

15. Comparison to break-history-only ranking.

16. Comparison to material/diameter/age-based engineering scoring, if applicable.

The Firm shall prepare a Model Validation Memorandum documenting:

1. Data used.

2. Training and validation periods.

3. Failure definition.

4. Modeling approach.

5. Baseline comparisons.

6. Performance results.

7. Calibration results.

8. Subgroup performance results.

9. Key drivers of risk.

10. Limitations.

11. The City’s interpretation.

12. Recommendation on whether the model is suitable for production use.

The City’s written acceptance of the Model Validation Memorandum shall be required before proceeding to final production predictions, final engineering recommendations, project grouping, and full production software implementation.

If validation results do not demonstrate sufficient predictive value, transparency, or decision usefulness, The City may require model refinement, additional review, modification of later tasks, rejection of the proposed software implementation, or other corrective action before proceeding. The City shall not be obligated to proceed with full production software implementation if the model validation results do not support its use for renewal planning and decision-making.

1. Historical validation prediction file.

2. Baseline comparison results.

3. Model performance tables and graphics.

4. Model Validation Memorandum.

5. Validation review workshop.

6. Revised Model Validation Memorandum, if required.

Task 5 — Production Five-Year Failure Prediction After the City accepts the validation phase, the Firm shall apply the accepted modeling approach to the most current approved City dataset.

The Firm shall generate pipe-level predictions for the next five-year planning horizon.

The production output shall include, at a minimum:

1. Pipe-level likelihood-of-failure score.

2. Five-year failure risk indicator.

3. Relative ranking of pipe segments.

4. Model confidence, uncertainty indicator, data confidence indicator, or other available measure of reliability, where feasible.

5. Key explanatory factors, risk drivers, or available rationale for high-risk rankings.

6. GIS-ready output layers.

7. Tabular export of model results.

8. Documentation of model version and assumptions.

The Firm shall provide sufficient transparency for The City’s Project Manager to understand why pipe segments are ranked as high, moderate, or low risk.

The City does not require a specific statistical method. The Consultant may use any defensible and appropriate modeling approach for water main failure prediction, provided the Consultant explains and justifies the selected method and provides useful interpretation outputs for Aurora Water staff.

1. Production modeling methodology memorandum or equivalent software methodology documentation.

2. Pipe-level likelihood-of-failure results.

3. Five-year failure risk outputs.

4. GIS-ready model output layers.

5. Tabular model output files.

6. Model interpretation summary, including available risk drivers, assumptions, limitations, and any constraints associated with proprietary or commercial off the shelf software.

Task 6 — Consequence of Failure and Risk Framework The Firm shall develop or refine a consequence-of-failure framework for the City’s potable water distribution system.

The consequence framework shall consider, as applicable:

1. Pipe diameter.

2. Pipe function.

3. Pressure zone.

4. Critical customers.

5. Hospitals, schools, emergency services, and other critical facilities.

6. Number of customers potentially affected.

7. Fire flow and service reliability considerations.

8. Roadway classification.

9. Railroad, highway, bridge, waterway, or other crossing impacts.

10. Repair complexity.

11. Redundancy and isolation capability.

12. Operational impacts.

13. Water quality or pressure impacts.

14. Environmental or community impacts, where applicable.

15. Coordination with other planned infrastructure work.

The Firm shall combine likelihood-of-failure and consequence-of-failure results into an overall risk framework suitable for renewal planning.

The Firm shall document all weighting, scoring, and prioritization assumptions.

1. Consequence-of-failure methodology memorandum.

2. Pipe-level consequence-of-failure scores.

3. Pipe-level total risk scores.

4. GIS-ready risk layers.

5. Tabular risk output files.

6. Documentation of scoring assumptions.

Task 7 — Engineering Review and Renewal Recommendations The Firm shall perform an engineering review of the model and risk results.

The purpose of this task is to convert pipe-level analytics into practical, defensible renewal recommendations.

The Firm shall identify recommended actions by pipe segment or project area, such as:

1. Replace.

2. Rehabilitate.

3. Inspect or assess further.

4. Monitor.

5. Coordinate with other planned work.

6. Defer.

The Firm shall not rely solely on model ranking. The Firm shall apply engineering judgment and consider operational, constructability, coordination, and implementation factors.

The engineering review shall consider:

1. Adjacent high-risk and moderate-risk segments.

2. Hydraulic importance.

3. Operational constraints.

4. Field constructability.

5. Recent or planned paving.

6. Planned roadway, sewer, stormwater, or other infrastructure work.

7. Lead service line or service replacement coordination, if applicable.

8. Known Aurora Water staff observations.

9. Critical facilities and service reliability.

10. Data confidence.

11. Consequences of deferral.

12. Relative urgency.

13. Implementation readiness.

The Firm shall clearly distinguish between:

1. Model-generated risk results.

2. Engineering adjustments.

3. Final recommended actions.

1. Engineering review memorandum.

2. Recommended renewal candidate list.

3. Recommended action classification.

4. Documentation of engineering adjustments to model outputs.

5. The City’s Project Manager/staff review workshop.

Task 8 — Project Grouping and Five-Year Renewal Plan The Firm shall group recommended pipe segments into practical renewal projects.

Project grouping shall consider:

1. Geographic proximity.

2. Risk concentration.

3. Consequence of failure.

4. Constructability.

5. Operational considerations.

6. Coordination with other planned work.

7. Logical project limits.

8. Pavement and restoration considerations.

9. Hydraulic considerations.

10. Inclusion of adjacent moderate-risk segments where appropriate.

11. Implementation sequencing.

For each recommended project, the Firm shall provide:

1. Project name or identifier.

2. Project location and limits.

3. Included pipe segments.

4. Pipe material, diameter, age, and length.

5. Primary risk drivers.

6. Likelihood-of-failure summary.

7. Consequence-of-failure summary.

8. Total risk summary.

9. Recommended intervention.

10. Recommended implementation sequence.

11. Coordination opportunities.

12. Constructability considerations.

13. Expected risk reduction.

14. Consequences of deferral.

15. Data confidence or uncertainty rating.

16. Clear engineering rationale.

17. Planning level costs estimates

The Firm shall develop a recommended five-year renewal plan with prioritized projects, implementation sequencing, and supporting rationale.

Deliverables:

1. Project grouping methodology.

2. Draft grouped project list.

3. Five-year recommended renewal plan.

4. GIS-ready project layers.

5. Project summary sheets.

6. Project prioritization workshop.

7. Final grouped project recommendations.

Task 9 — Scenario Analysis The Firm shall develop alternative renewal scenarios to support the City’s decision-making.

Scenarios may include:

1. Highest overall risk reduction.

2. Highest likelihood-of-failure reduction.

3. Highest consequence-of-failure reduction.

4. Critical facility protection.

5. Coordination with other planned work.

6. Near-term implementation readiness.

7. Deferral and monitoring.

8. Balanced renewal across pressure zones, neighborhoods, or asset classes.

9. Anticipated available budget

10. The City-defined planning constraints.

Each scenario shall summarize:

1. Projects included.

2. Pipe length renewed.

3. Number of high-risk assets addressed.

4. Number of high-consequence assets addressed.

5. Expected risk reduction.

6. Expected failures avoided, where reasonably estimable.

7. High-risk assets remaining in service.

8. Tradeoffs.

9. Limitations.

10. Recommended use of the scenario.

Deliverables:

1. Scenario analysis memorandum.

2. Scenario comparison tables and graphics.

3. Recommended preferred scenario or scenarios.

4. Scenario configuration in the software platform.

Task 10 — Software Platform Deployment and Configuration The Firm shall provide a software-as-a-service platform that allows City’s Project Manager/staff to review, adjust, analyze, manage, and export the project results.

The software platform shall not be limited to static viewing. It shall allow the City’s Project Manager/staff to interact with the model outputs, engineering recommendations, project groupings, and planning scenarios.

At a minimum, the software platform shall provide:

1. Interactive GIS-based map interface.

2. Pipe-level likelihood-of-failure, consequence-of-failure, and total risk display.

3. Historical failure visualization.

4. Project grouping visualization.

5. Adjustable risk weights, thresholds, and prioritization parameters.

6. Ability to create, modify, compare, and save planning scenarios.

7. Ability to add, remove, split, combine, or adjust project groupings.

8. Ability to view pipe-level and project-level rationale.

9. Ability to export GIS, tabular, and report-ready outputs.

10. Role-based user access.

11. Audit trail or version history for scenario changes.

12. Dashboard summaries for staff and management review.

13. Documentation of formulas, assumptions, and data refresh process.

14. Ability to update data as new failures, replacements, inspections, and asset edits occur.

15. Support for future model updates.

The software platform shall be configured using the City’s data and shall support the City’s renewal planning workflow.

The Firm shall conduct software acceptance testing with the City’s Project Manager/staff before final acceptance.

1. Software configuration plan.

2. Configured software platform.

3. User accounts and permissions.

4. Scenario analysis tools.

5. Export templates.

6. Software user guide.

7. Software acceptance testing checklist.

8. Final software deployment.

Task 12 — Technical Report and Executive Materials The Firm shall prepare a final technical report documenting the full project.

The report shall include:

1. Executive summary.

2. Project background and objectives.

3. Data inventory and QA/QC findings.

4. Validation Protocol.

5. Historical backcast validation results.

6. Baseline comparisons.

7. Model methodology.

8. Production five-year prediction results.

9. Consequence-of-failure methodology.

10. Total risk framework.

11. Engineering review methodology.

12. Project grouping methodology.

13. Project cost assumptions.

14. Recommended five-year renewal plan.

15. Scenario analysis.

16. Software platform summary.

17. Data limitations.

18. Model limitations.

19. Uncertainty and confidence discussion.

20. Recommended next steps.

21. Appendices with detailed tables, maps, assumptions, and output descriptions.

The Firm shall also prepare executive level materials suitable for presentation to the City’s leadership, Policy Committee, Council, or other decision-makers.

Deliverables:

1. Draft technical report.

2. Aurora Water review meeting.

3. Final technical report.

4. Executive summary.

5. Presentation slides.

6. Final GIS and tabular data package.

Task 13 — Training, Knowledge Transfer, and Support The Firm shall provide training to the City’s Project Manager/staff on the model outputs, risk framework, engineering recommendations, software platform, scenario tools, project grouping functionality, exports, and recommended workflows.

Training shall include:

1. Model interpretation.

2. Understanding likelihood-of-failure scores.

3. Understanding consequence-of-failure scores.

4. Understanding total risk scores.

5. Reviewing and adjusting project groupings.

6. Creating and comparing planning scenarios.

7. Adjusting assumptions and prioritization parameters.

8. Exporting data and reports.

9. Updating data.

10. Understanding model limitations.

11. Explaining results to non-technical audiences.

The Firm shall provide post-deployment support for an agreed period following software acceptance.

Deliverables:

1. Training plan.

2. Training sessions.

3. User guide.

4. Training materials.

5. Post-deployment support log.

Task 14 — Optional Future Updates The City may request future updates after completion of the initial project.

Future updates may include:

1. Incorporation of new failures, repairs, replacements, inspections, and asset edits.

2. Data refresh and QA/QC.

3. Model recalibration or update.

4. Updated likelihood-of-failure scores.

5. Updated consequence-of-failure scores.

6. Updated total risk scores.

7. Updated project recommendations.

8. Updated planning scenarios and costs.

9. Annual performance review comparing predicted risk to actual observed failures.

10. Software updates and user support.

Project Phasing and Authorization The project shall be structured using phase gates.

The anticipated phases are:

1. Phase 1 — Project kickoff, data audit, and validation protocol.

2. Phase 2 — Historical backcast validation.

3. Phase 3 — Production five-year prediction.

4. Phase 4 — Engineering recommendations and project grouping.

5. Phase 5 — Software deployment and configuration.

6. Phase 6 — Training, final reporting, and support.

7. Optional Phase 7 — Future updates.

The City’s written acceptance of the Model Validation Memorandum is required before the Firm may proceed to production five-year prediction, final engineering recommendations, project grouping, and full production software implementation.

This validation gate is a material requirement of the project.

The remainder of this page left blank intentionally

SECTION II

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

Firm proposal shall be clear, complete, and organized in the order listed below. The Firm should provide enough detail to demonstrate their qualifications, approach, and ability to complete the requested services. Proposals should avoid unsupported claims and should clearly explain how the proposed service will be performed, validated, documented, and delivered.

The total length of the core proposal shall be limited to twelve (12) pages maximum, minimum 11-point font size, excluding the following items:

1. Cover letter

2. Table of contents

3. Front and back covers

4. Title page

5. Section dividers

6. Resumes

7. Required forms

8. Sample deliverable

9. Schedule

A. Cover Letter

The cover letter shall include the Firm’s name, primary contact, contact information, statement of interest, acknowledgment of addenda, and signature of an authorized representative.

B. Executive Summary

Provide a concise summary of the Firm’s understanding of the project, proposed approach, key qualifications, and ability to meet the City’s objectives. The executive summary shall specifically address how the Firm will help the City verify model performance before the results are used for renewal planning.

C. Project Understanding and Work Approach

Describe the Firm’s understanding of the City’s objectives and the proposed approach to completing the work.

The response shall address, at a minimum:

1. Data review and preparation.

2. Historical backcast validation.

3. Predictive modeling approach.

4. Baseline comparison approach.

5. Five-year production prediction.

6. Consequence-of-failure and risk framework.

7. Engineering review and renewal recommendations.

8. Project grouping and scenario analysis.

9. Software deployment.

10. Training and knowledge transfer.

D. Validation Approach Describe how the Firm will complete the post-award validation phase.

The response shall include:

1. Recommended historical backcast approach.

2. Proposed training and validation periods.

3. Proposed failure definition.

4. Treatment of replaced, rehabilitated, abandoned, or proactively renewed pipes.

5. Treatment of missing or inconsistent data.

6. Proposed approach to baseline comparisons.

7. Proposed approach to performance metrics.

8. Proposed approach to calibration and subgroup review.

9. Approach for comparing results to prior model outputs, if available.

10. Validation deliverables and recommended acceptance process.

E. Modeling and Risk Methodology Describe the proposed modeling and risk methodology.

The response shall include:

1. Proposed modeling approach.

2. Basis for selecting the proposed method.

3. Key input data and explanatory variables.

4. Treatment of spatial, temporal, and historical failure data.

5. Approach to likelihood-of-failure scoring.

6. Approach to consequence-of-failure scoring.

7. Approach to total risk scoring.

8. Method for communicating model assumptions, limitations, and interpretation to

City’s Project Manager/staff.

F. Engineering and Renewal Planning Approach

Describe how the Firm will convert pipe-level results into engineering recommendations and grouped renewal projects.

The response shall address:

1. Renewal candidate identification.

2. Recommended intervention categories.

3. Engineering review process.

4. Project grouping methodology.

5. Constructability and implementation considerations.

6. Coordination with other infrastructure work.

7. Scenario analysis.

8. Documentation of final recommendations.

The software platform shall support, but not replace, professional engineering judgment. The Firm shall describe how qualified engineering staff will review model outputs, evaluate constructability and operational considerations, incorporate the City’s specific knowledge, and develop final renewal recommendations.

G. Software Platform Describe the proposed software platform and how it will support the City’s renewal planning workflow.

The response shall address:

1. GIS visualization.

2. Risk review tools.

3. Scenario analysis.

4. Project grouping tools.

5. User-adjustable assumptions and parameters.

6. Reporting and export capabilities.

7. User roles and access controls.

8. Audit trail or version history.

9. Data update process.

10. Hosting, cybersecurity, support, and transition procedures.

Firm should include representative screenshots, sample dashboards, or sample workflows where available. The Firm shall identify any requested software functions or requirements that the proposed platform cannot fully satisfy and explain how those limitations will be addressed through engineering review, professional services, documentation, exports, workflows, or other proposed means.

H. Project Team and Relevant Experience

Provide the proposed project team, including key personnel and subconsultants. Identify the project manager, lead engineer, lead modeler, GIS lead, software implementation lead, quality control reviewer, and other key staff.

Provide relevant project experience demonstrating the team’s ability to perform comparable water main failure prediction, asset management, risk-based renewal planning, engineering recommendation, and software implementation work. Include client references for comparable projects.

I. Sample Deliverables Provide sample deliverables from similar projects, if available. Confidential information may be redacted.

Examples may include validation memoranda, technical report excerpts, risk maps, project summary sheets, software screenshots, scenario comparison outputs, executive dashboards, or training materials.

J. Schedule

Provide a proposed project schedule showing major tasks, milestones, review periods, phase gates, and final completion.

The schedule shall clearly identify the validation phase and the City’s decision point before production modeling, final recommendations, and full software implementation.

SECTION III

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Firm’s proposals submitted in accordance with the Section II Requirements of this solicitation will be evaluated on the criteria listed below. The Evaluation Committee will review the Firm’s approach to evaluate the Firm’s understanding of the project to ensure that a proper effort will be devoted to the project, and to evaluate the Firm’s special perspective on approach, techniques, and work efforts.

Interviews may be conducted to further evaluate. Interviews with select Firm(s) (if needed) may be conducted by the Evaluation Committee at its sole discretion to aid in the evaluation of a Firm’s technical proposal submitted pursuant to first phase of this solicitation.

Item Criteria Points

1 Validation Approach. 25

2 Engineering Recommendations and Project Grouping Approach. 20

3 Project Understanding and Overall Work Approach. 15

4 Modeling, Risk Methodology, and Technical Soundness. 15

5 Software Platform Functionality and Usability. 15

6 Relevant Experience, Project Team, and References. 10

TOTAL 100

Past Performance and Professional Conduct – Pass/Fail The City will evaluate the character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and…