EPWSABeltpressRFP.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

Sludge Dewatering Equipment Selection — Basis of Design

EPWSA Eastside Water Pollution Control Plant

Issued By: Eatonton Putnam Water & Sewer Authority (EPWSA)

Facility: Eastside Water Pollution Control Plant, Eatonton, GA

Response Deadline: Thursday, 10/22/2026, 2:00 PM ET

Deliver Sealed Proposals To:

Eatonton Putnam Water & Sewer Authority (EPWSA) 663 Godfrey Rd Eatonton, GA 31024

Direct Questions / Addenda Contact:

Andrew Swicegood, ESG Engineering, LLC 478-474-4996 aswicegood@esgengineering.com

Official Planholders List: Maintained via Quest (QuestCDN)

1. Purpose The Eatonton Putnam Water & Sewer Authority (EPWSA, the “Authority”) is conducting a formal qualifications and proposal evaluation for sludge dewatering equipment at the Eastside Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The Authority and its engineer, ESG Engineering LLC, will evaluate belt press/dewatering options and select one manufacturer’s equipment and recommended configuration to serve as the Basis of Design for the planned dewatering improvements.

Selection under this RFP does not constitute award of a purchase order or supply contract. The equipment, technical recommendations, and pricing submitted by the selected respondent will be incorporated into the project’s construction contract documents as the named Basis of Design (with or without an “or approved equal” provision, at the discretion of the Owner/Engineer). Actual procurement of the selected equipment will occur through the Authority’s construction contractor under a separate construction contract.

The Authority reserves the right to reject any or all submittals, waive informalities or irregularities, request clarifications or best-and-final information, negotiate with the highest-ranked respondent, and cancel this solicitation at any time without obligation or compensation for costs incurred in preparing a response. Submittals may be subject to disclosure following selection, consistent with applicable Georgia public records law; respondents wishing to designate portions of their submittal as confidential or proprietary should clearly mark those portions and provide justification, and the Authority will evaluate such requests in accordance with applicable law.

2. Evaluation Criteria and Selection Process Submittals will be scored by an evaluation team consisting of EPWSA staff and ESG Engineering against the weighted criteria below. The Authority/Engineer reserves the right to request interviews, equipment demonstrations, additional information, or site visits from any or all respondents prior to final scoring. The highest-scored respondent’s equipment and recommendations will be selected as the Basis of Design for the project. The Authority is under no obligation to select a respondent if no submittal is determined to be satisfactory.

Evaluation Criterion Weight

Qualifications & Experience 40%

Quality of Technical Solutions/Recommendations 30%

Service & Warranty 15%

Budgetary Pricing 15%

Total 100%

2.1 Qualifications & Experience (40%)

Evaluated based on the manufacturer’s experience supplying belt press/dewatering equipment to municipal facilities of similar size and flow, years in the municipal dewatering market, quality and relevance of references, and the identification and proximity of the local sales representative and nearest service technician.

2.2 Quality of Technical Solutions/Recommendations (30%)

Evaluated based on the technical merit and suitability of the recommended equipment package, ability to meet the performance requirements in Section 5, expandability to accommodate future flows, building/layout assistance, and any value-added alternates or options.

2.3 Service & Warranty (15%)

Evaluated based on the strength and duration of the manufacturer’s standard warranty, proximity of the nearest service center, typical parts availability and lead times, and whether replacement parts must be sourced exclusively from the manufacturer.

2.4 Budgetary Pricing (15%)

Evaluated based on the budgetary pricing provided for the recommended equipment package relative to other respondents. Budgetary pricing is for evaluation and planning purposes; actual procurement will occur via the construction contract referenced in Section 1.

3. Submittal Requirements Respondents shall organize each copy of their proposal into the four tabbed sections below, corresponding to the evaluation criteria in Section 2. Submittals should be complete, concise, and clearly organized to allow consistent scoring.

Tab 1 — Qualifications & Experience

• Statement of the manufacturer’s experience supplying belt press/dewatering equipment to municipal wastewater treatment facilities of similar size/flows, including years in the municipal dewatering market

• Identification of the local sales representative and nearest service technician who would support this installation

• 3–5 references for similar equipment installations (facility name, contact, installation date, size/flow)

• List of nearby installations/applications

Tab 2 — Quality of Solution, Equipment & Future Growth Recommendations

• Recommended unit or combination of units (press equipment and sludge handling/conveyance equipment), with supporting rationale

• Technical/performance information per Section 5 (throughput, cake solids, capture rate, polymer system, wash water, electrical, operator training)

• Options (size and/or number of presses) to accommodate flows from current conditions

(0.26 MGD) up to the future planning flow of 1.0 MGD

• Equipment footprint/space requirements and expandability path (modular addition vs.

larger single-unit replacement)

• Building selection/layout assistance capability

• Any additional value-add information, alternates, or options

Tab 3 — Service & Warranty

• Manufacturer’s standard warranty for the recommended equipment (duration, coverage, exclusions)

• Nearest service center location

• Typical parts availability and lead times; confirmation of whether replacement parts must be sourced exclusively from the manufacturer

Tab 4 — Budgetary Pricing

• Budget-level price for the recommended equipment package, broken down by unit/component

• Pricing for any alternate/expansion configurations identified in Tab 2

• Anticipated price escalation factors, if applicable

Pricing provided is for evaluation and planning purposes; actual procurement will occur via separate construction contract following final design, as described in Section 1.

4. System Information Respondents should use the following facility data as the basis for their recommendations and confirm that their proposed selection(s) can meet these requirements/parameters.

Parameter Value

Permitted Average Daily Flow 0.55 MGD

Permitted Peak Daily Flow 1.50 MGD

Current Average Daily Influent Flow 0.26 MGD (annual average)

Feed Sludge Solids Concentration (from thickener/holding tank)

1.5%

Target Cake Solids After Dewatering 20%

Average Weekly Dry Solids Load 1 ton/week (dry solids)

Average Weekly Pressed Cake Production 5 tons/week (wet cake)

Operating Schedule 5 days/week; 8 hours/day

Redundancy Requirement Readily available replacement parts.

Off-the-shelf bearings.

Sludge Disposal Method Permitted sanitary landfill

Future Planning Flow (long-term, no committed schedule)

Up to 1.0 MGD permitted average daily flow

5. Technical/Performance Requirements Respondents shall confirm that the recommended equipment can achieve a minimum cake solids content of 20% and a solids capture rate of 95% or greater when processing sludge at the feed concentration and dry solids loading rates provided. Respondents shall also state the expected throughput in dry lbs/hr and GPM at both average and peak loading conditions and confirm that peak dry solids load can be processed within the stated 5-day, 8-hour operating schedule without exceeding equipment rated capacity. Additionally, respondents shall describe polymer system requirements (type, dosing range, and whether a conditioning system is included with the equipment package), wash water pressure and volume requirements, electrical service requirements, and the level of operator experience or training required for routine daily operation.

Respondents shall also address equipment footprint and space requirements; the expandability path (e.g., modular unit addition versus single larger-unit replacement) to accommodate the future flow scenario below; estimated operation and maintenance costs (energy, polymer, labor); and the level of process automation/controls provided with the recommended equipment package.

Though no plans or dates are formalized, the Authority anticipates potential expansion of the treatment facility in coming years to accommodate a permitted average daily flow up to 1.0 MGD. Respondents shall provide information on various solutions (size and/or number of presses) that would accommodate various flows/flow ranges from current flows (0.26 MGD) up to the future permitted average daily flow of 1.0 MGD. This future-growth analysis is a scored component of Section 2.2 above.

6. Submission, Addenda & Opening Procedures

6.1 Sealed Proposal Delivery

• One (1) original and two (2) copies of the complete proposal, plus one (1) electronic copy on USB drive, shall be submitted together in a single sealed envelope or package.

• The sealed package shall be clearly marked: “SEALED PROPOSAL — Sludge

Dewatering Equipment Selection — EPWSA Eastside WPCP”.

• Sealed proposals shall be delivered to Eatonton Putnam Water & Sewer Authority

(EPWSA), 663 Godfrey Rd, Eatonton, GA 31024, on or before the response deadline stated above. Proposals received after the deadline will not be considered.

6.2 Questions & Addenda

• Questions regarding this RFP shall be submitted in writing to the Direct

Questions/Addenda Contact above no later than 72 hours prior to the response deadline.

• Addenda, if any, will be distributed in writing to all firms on the official planholders list maintained via Quest (QuestCDN), to ensure all respondents receive equal information.

• Respondents must acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their submittal. Failure to acknowledge any addendum may render the proposal non-responsive.

PROPOSERS MUST COMPLETE AND INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ADDENDUM

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TABLE IN THEIR PROPOSAL:

Addendum No. Date Received

6.3 Opening Procedure

Sealed proposals will be opened privately/administratively by EPWSA and/or ESG Engineering staff following the response deadline. Proposals will not be opened publicly or read aloud;

pricing and technical content remain confidential pending completion of the evaluation described in Section 2.