hydro_evals_June_2021_gbleyl.pdf

Hydro Evaluation Gordon Bleyl

27‐May‐21 Hydro Review of SOQ's

Cardno DOWL J2 JE Fuller

Natural Channel Design NextGen Stantec

Tetra Tech Wilson project experience 40 22 22 10 22 5 5 18 14 10 overall experience 20 14 12 10 14 5 5 8 8 15 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 8 9 12 13 5 5 11 9 7 Common Problems 15 6 7 7 14 12 2 5 11 5 Overall Quality of Proposal 10 2 6 6 6 4 2 6 7 6

52 56 45 69 31 19 48 45 43

Ranking 4 2 5 1 8 9 7 2 6

14 June 2021

Cardno max score project experience 40 22 overall experience 20 14 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 8

Common Problems 15 6

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 2 some of the projects listed are not related to scope, pickle ball court, pet park. They do some hydrology but no dam projects are listed. They show some work with boating access facilites.

These however are all done out of state like Florida. Mostly fixed Pier.

Organization chart shows Dam, boating access, NEPa. Most aspects of the scope of contract. No

ALERT

policies, protocalls, chechlists gave specific problems they they had on projects. However, most are not consistant with the scope of this contract. The ones dealing with boating facilities/marinas are within the scope but did not really address common problems did not follow instructions on cover page.

Dowl project experience 40 22 overall experience 20 12 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 9

Common Problems 15 7

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 6

DOWL does mostly dam and hydrology based upon projects. They show one boating access facility. No ALERT prvided a brief organizational chart. List of boating access personel shows three but only one has experience. Although his experience in this area is good similar to most firms Communication, experince, definition on roles, Accurate scopes. Team Efform some reference to projects but more general in nature brief

J2 project experience 40 10 overall experience 20 10 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 12

Common Problems 15 7

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 6

Has done a lot of work with AGFD. However the projects are not representative of the scope of this contract.

Organizational chart was not in an easy quick to view format. More disciplines are listed however engineer llisted for Boating Access does not have a Boating access project on resume.

Points deducted as I can not see relevence just place holder. Their dam engineer is a subconsultant. Geotech, highly respected. Those projects on his resume are all flood control structures in Maricopa county. similar in nature to AGFD but our all have water.

trust respect, teamwork. Attention to detail. Professionalism.

they gave examples for each scoped area where they are to work. However, the boating access has many issues listed but I feel like they grossly missed the most significant problems with boating access. Water levels, distance from parking to ramp, topography and land mass. some of their list is a result of my listed issues. If these were not issues, most of theirs may be able to be accomplished. Also, many of theirs, although problems, are minor. i.e. law enforcement parking contrasting colors on the print out were difficult to read.

JE Fuller project experience 40 22 overall experience 20 14 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 13

Common Problems 15 14

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 6

They can do ALERT. Some mention of dams on their projects in the abbreviated project list.

These are smaller dam related projects, mostly realated to hydrology/EAP's, Table tops and valve replacements. They make mention of Boater Access but not in their project experience.

They have experience with most of the scope. Would not be able to do a large dam project on own but they have some specific experience with dams that is hard to find. ALERT is well covered. Boating access covered each aspect of the scope of contract and how they would complete it provide a list of common problems for each scoope of the contract that they intend to perfom

The order and mixing of some of the grading criteria made it more difficult to analyse. However, they were thourough in their details on work they had accomplished and how the intend to go forward

Natural Channel project experience 40 5 overall experience 20 5 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 5

Common Problems 15 12

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 4

Extensive work on stream restoration and protection Fish barrier work but no Dam and no boater access projects.

no organizational charts. No experience in areas this contract is focuse on, boating access, dams, flood warning typical of all firms but with nature in mind

Problems listed are global and not project specific. However, they know the struggles on every project, permitting and multiple stake holders

Overall, very lacking for what we are looking for, dams, boating access.

NextGen project experience 40 5 overall experience 20 5 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 5

Common Problems 15 2

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 2

This firm does water/wastewater and hydrology. However I do not see dam experience nor boating access experience nor flood warning experience.

This firm does water/wastewater and hydrology. However I do not see dam experience nor boating access experience nor flood warning experience.

Collaborative, engagement, transparency. They have a lot listed in this section and it is good.

They use a map for a hydrology project which is what they have shown that they do but it is so specific that it leaves out most of the scope of this contract

Little discussion on project problems

Not a fit for this scope of work.

Stantec project experience 40 18 overall experience 20 8 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 11

Common Problems 15 6

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 5

Projects consist of dams related and hydrology. No discussion on ALERT nor Boating Access in projects. LTM is listed as subconsultant of ALERT, however, she only does design and not maintenance. Would need to have another sub to perform the work. they perform work locally. Their projects listed, mostly were applicable to the scope of what we do and the size of dam structures that we have at AGFD.

Highly experienced individuals on the team. However they seem to be specialized and not as broad of a package that we are looking for.

collaboration is their buzz word. This fundamentially is great but will cost lots of money.

They discuss share point and virtual meetings. This would be benificial.

common problems were all project management related and having all the right tools (software) in place. Items listed were what every office should have. No discussion on project specific issues like environmental nor working on property by permit or running into Archeological issues. These are the project issues that are out of our control that we have to resolve. These can add years to the project. They items they listed are those that I believe all consultants should have in place.

What was provided was good however, I feel like they only put in for one aspect of the contract and not the full scope. Many of the scopes items may be covered in the organization chart but had no discussion on the items elswhere.

Tetra Tech project experience 40 14 overall experience 20 8 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 7

Common Problems 15 11

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 5

All project experience is for dams. Not project experience listed for Boating Access nor

ALERT

Highly experienced as a group however, the overall experience for all of the scope is not shown in the proposal. Some digging through resumes shows more. But with 37 resumes and a national firm you would expect that they have everything. Only twelve in AZ

Listening then aligning with client. Proactive. Monitor and communicate project specific examples of problems

Too many resumes. I feel as though they threw everything they had into it as these pages were not counted.

Wilson project experience 40 10 overall experience 20 15 design philosophy, process QA/QC 15 7

Common Problems 15 5

Overall Quality of Proposal 10 6 some boating access experience in Texas. One of the projects listed, Carancahua listed Tom Dixon as the only person to work on it. He is NEPA compliance not an engineer. Although they may be in the process of the project design/NEPA most of the work that was said to be done has not. Furthermore, I believe that they list the scope of the project and not what they have accomplished. for this I am removing points. Additionally, most all of the discussions on projects are similar in nature, not very specific. for this reason, I can not adequately evalualte the descriptions of the dam projects. On the resumes, they have stated the same verbage under the projects as they did in the project section. If we do interviews, that would be a great time to clarify some of their projects and specific experience of project principals. Flood Warning to be completed by WEST, however, the write up is non specific and very weak.

mainly discussed what flood warning is. In house they do dam engineering with over 1800 dam related projects. and over 150 new dams. wish they would have given a better example of our issues on dams They have a good orginizational chart. Shows most all fo the areas that is needed by this contract.

lots of communication, sounds good but is also sounds like a lot of money and time. QC industry best practices standard except for NEPA. "ACS doesn’t. . . run into problems because of planning and a highly experienced staff." For this comment, I have rated low as we know that there are always problems. Although, many can prepared for so that it doesn't impact projects. Maybe this is what they were trying to say.

they do all three areas of work that we are looking for. However, not too strong in boating access. They have a sub consultant that is experiencesd with ALERT