REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

for

PROJECT # 2021-10

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING

FEASIBILITY STUDY

PROJECT NO: 2021-10

PROJECT TYPE: Professional Engineering Services

PROPOSALS DUE: November 2, 2021, not later than 1:00 PM PST

SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO: City of Ashland Public Works - Engineering, at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520; or by mail to: 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520

CITY PROJECT MANAGER: Chance Metcalf, Project Manager PROJECT DURATION: 3-6 Months

PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING

20 E. MAIN STREET

ASHLAND OR 97520

541/488-5587

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADVERTISEMENT

PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 OBJECTIVES

1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SCHEDULE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 PROJECT APPROACH

4.2 PROJECT EXPERIENCE

4.3 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE

4.4 PROPOSER’S DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE SIMILAR PROJECTS ON TIME AND WITHIN BUDGET

4.5 TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT

4.1 SCORING

EVALUATION PROCESS AND CONSULTANT SELECTION

5.1 REVIEW AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEFECTIVE PROPOSALS

5.2 RIGHT OF REJECTION

5.3 REFERENCES

5.4 RESPONSIBILITY

5.5 CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSE

5.6 INTERVIEWS

5.7 FINALIST SELECTION

5.8 TIES AMONG PROPOSERS

5.9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD

5.10 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

5.11 PROTEST PROCEDURES

5.12 RESULTING CONTRACT

5.13 RFP CANCELLATION

CONTRACT

6.1 CONTRACT FORM

6.2 BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED

6.3 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

6.4 LAWS AND REGULATIONS

INSTRUCTION TO PROPOSERS

7.1 GENERAL

7.2 INFORMATION OF RECORD

7.3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND FORMAT

7.4 SIGNATURE ON PROPOSAL

7.5 PREPARATION COSTS

7.6 CONFORMANCE TO SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS

7.7 NOT USED

7.8 DEFINITIONS

7.9 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

7.10 PROTEST OF REQUIREMENTS

7.11 PROTEST OF CONTRACT AWARD

7.12 PROPOSAL MODIFICATION

7.13 PROPOSAL WITHDRAWALS

7.14 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

7.15 TERMS AND CONDITIONS

7.16 PROPOSAL OPENING

PROPOSAL FORM

CONTRACT FORM INCLUDING CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION, COA LIVING WAGE AND W-9

ADVERTISEMENT

CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS – REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION

for

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

The City of Ashland (City) is seeking Proposals for Professional Engineering Services for the City’s Project No. 2021-10, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING FEASIBILITY STUDY. This project will include an assessment of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Alternatives. The initial assessment shall be based upon current and future flows, capacity and redundancy requirements, sludge waste characteristics, ease of operation and maintenance, and ability to meet DEQ requirements.

Project deliverables will include prioritized recommendations for the Wastewater Treatment Plant In- Vessel Composting Feasibility Study. The goal of this project is to recommend a prioritized In-Vessel Composting Alternative to optimize the wastewater treatment process by improving the biosolids management program.

Project No. 2021-10 will include, but is not specifically limited to, the following primary work elements:

Review, Analyze, Validate, Evaluate, and Recommend an In-Vessel Composting System

Proposals must be physically received by November 2, 2021, not later than 1:00 PM PST, (main lobby clock) in the City of Ashland Engineering Office, located at 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520, or by mail at: 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520. Proposers mailing Proposals should allow normal delivery time to ensure the timely receipt of their Proposals. Any proposal received after the date and time set for receipt of Proposals will not be considered and will be returned to the proposer unopened.

A pre-proposal conference for this project will NOT be held.

For further information regarding this RFP, contact Chance Metcalf, Project Manager at (541) 552-2448 or by email at chance.metcalf@ashland.or.us. Consultant selection is anticipated to result in the issuance of a contract for professional engineering services in a form substantially similar to the one provided in this RFP.

Proposal documents may be downloaded from the Oregon Buys eProcurement System. Any addenda that may be issued, relating to this RFP will be available from Oregon Buys, and potential proposers are cautioned to continuously monitor the site for updates and addenda.

All Proposals shall be submitted as set forth in Section 7 - Instructions to Proposers. The City is not responsible for Proposals submitted in any manner, format, or to any delivery point other than as required by this RFP. Proposals shall be limited to six (6) pages and must be from a Professional Engineer registered in Oregon.

Consultant selection will be based upon weighed criteria as set forth in this RFP and will include criteria including, but not limited to: similar project experiences, general experience, staffing availability, schedule, and response time.

mailto:chance.metcalf@ashland.or.us

CITY OF ASHLAND

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION

PROJECT NO. 2021-10

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING

FEASIBILITY STUDY

PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Objectives

The City of Ashland (City) is seeking proposals from professional engineering consultants to complete Project No. 2021-10, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING FEASIBILITY STUDY.

This project will include an assessment of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Alternatives. The initial assessment shall be based upon current and future flows, capacity and redundancy requirements, sludge waste characteristics, ease of operation and maintenance, and ability to meet DEQ requirements.

Project deliverables will include prioritized recommendations for the Wastewater Treatment Plant In- Vessel Composting Feasibility Study. The goal of this project is to recommend a prioritized In-Vessel Composting Alternative to optimize the wastewater treatment process by improving the biosolids management program.

1.2 Background Information

The City owns and operates the wastewater collection and treatment system works to meet the needs of the residents, businesses, institutions, and industries within the City limits. The City’s wastewater collection system service area is approximately 6.5 square miles with 7,514 connections: 6,336 residential, 1,093 commercial, and 85 restaurant connections. The collection system contains nearly 110 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, and seven pump stations. Installation of the collection system dates to the early 1900s.

The current population of 21,238 (2015) adds a dry weather average flow of 2.3 million gallons per day (mgd) to the treatment plant. This flow represents a load of 3,475 pounds carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and 4,200 pounds total suspended solids (TSS). Ashland has had a waste treatment system since the 1900s. The plant, with its current oxidation ditch process, has been fully operational since 2002. Tertiary membrane filtration was added in 2003.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation Wastewater System The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed for an average day dry-weather flow (ADWF) of

2.1 MGD and average day wet weather flow (AWWF) of 2.3 mgd with a population of 21,238 (2015 data). Flows increase during wet weather months with peak flows in January of roughly 125% of average. The Wastewater Treatment Plant can sustain instantaneous peaks, typically corresponding to rain events, of more than 10 mgd. City collection system staff are aggressively assessing reduction of inflow/infiltration.

General Process Description The City of Ashland's Wastewater Treatment Plant operates an advanced secondary treatment system for five months (December 1-April 30), and a tertiary system the remaining seven months (May 1- November 30). Currently the effluent discharges into Ashland Creek approximately 1/4 of a mile above the confluence of Bear Creek. Both the secondary and tertiary systems discharge an effluent that is within regulatory standards as established in the City’s National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permit.

Secondary Treatment The City of Ashland's Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of grit removal and screening, biological nutrient removal (BNR) process in an oxidation ditch system to treat the wastewater along with secondary clarification, UV disinfection and post aeration. Alum addition and a tertiary membrane filtration system operate from May 1st to November 30th to ensure strict phosphorous limits are met.

The Carrousel Oxidation Ditches and secondary clarifiers are the major unit processes responsible for removing the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and nutrients from the wastewater. The Carrousel Oxidation Ditch process is a variation of the traditional oxidation ditch activated sludge process. The unique features of the Carrousel include the basin configuration and the device used to provide aeration and mixing. The Carrousel basins are typically deeper than standard oxidation ditches and turbine aerators are used instead of brush aerators.

The anoxic basin on each Carrousel Oxidation Ditch consists of a 0.35 million gallon concrete tank at the head end of each ditch. Each anoxic basin is equipped with a 15-hp submerged turbine mixer to keep the solids in suspension. Raw sewage mixed with RAS enters the anoxic basin at the southern end through the splitter box. Each oxidation ditch consists of a 1.7 million gallon racetrack-shaped concrete basin. Each of the basins is equipped with two 100-hp surface aerators.

Mixed liquor from the oxidation ditches flows in a common 30-inch diameter pipe to the mixed liquor splitter box where it is distributed to the three secondary clarifiers. The secondary clarifiers perform several functions simultaneously: clarification; settling; thickening; and solids removal as part of the secondary treatment process. Sludge that accumulates on the bottom of the clarifier flows by gravity to the return activated sludge/waste activated sludge (RAS/WAS) Pump Station. Biomass not required in the secondary system is wasted through the WAS system. WAS is then dewatered, using centrifuges.

Operators currently haul dewatered solids to the landfill.

Tertiary Treatment The membrane microfiltration system (Zenon) is located immediately downstream of the secondary clarifier. This tertiary treatment system is designed to provide a high-quality effluent for direct discharge to Ashland Creek. The City operates the tertiary system seven months out of the year, from May 1st until November 30th to meet the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) phosphorus discharge limit of 1.6 lbs/day. The system has four membrane treatment trains immersed in open tanks which operate in parallel. The feed water comes directly from the secondary clarifiers, and enters the membrane tank inlet distribution channel. Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) is introduced just upstream of the secondary clarifiers to precipitate the phosphorus. The remaining treated effluent is moved through each membrane under a low differential pressure vacuum permeate pump. Reject water from periodic back-pulsing of the membranes is pumped back through the secondary treatment process. Membrane filter cassettes have been recently replaced on a 12 year cycle.

Anticipated NPDES Temperature Requirements The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for developing water quality standards for waters of the U.S. and regulating discharges of pollutants into these waters to ensure that water quality standards are met. Municipal wastewater discharges to surface waters are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. For water quality impaired streams such as Bear Creek, DEQ establishes Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to determine how much of a pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Two TMDLs have been developed for Bear Creek:

• 1992 Bear Creek TMDL – developed criteria for phosphorus, ammonia, and chlorine

• 2007 Bear Creek TMDL – developed criteria for sediment, bacteria, and temperature

These TMDLs establish targets for point sources (e.g. Ashland’s wastewater treatment plant) and non-point sources (e.g. irrigation districts). The 1992 TMDLs were addressed as part of the 1998 wastewater treatment plant upgrades, which included replacing the chlorination system with ultraviolet disinfection and adding membrane filtration to the treatment process to remove phosphorus.

The City’s existing NPDES permit, which was issued in May 2004, does not address the 2007 Bear Creek TMDL. The permit expired in December 2008 but was administratively extended by DEQ and is now up for renewal. DEQ has indicated that the renewal will include restrictions on excess thermal loads, thermal plumes, and copper. By regulation, NPDES permits must be updated to meet new regulations during the renewal period. The City of Ashland is almost complete with the renewal of the NPDES permit.

BIOSOLIDS HANDLING

The City of Ashland must have a reliable means of disposal for its sludge, since it is produced on a continuous basis and there is limited existing storage on-site. The estimated amount of sludge produced is shown in the table below.

Estimated Average Annual Biosolids Produced

Description

Year

2010 2030

Avg. wet tons per day 10.0 12.8

Avg. dry tons per day* 2.0 2.6 e 5-12 Depending on the level of treatment, biosolids may be sold or given to the public as fertilizer, applied to agricultural land or hauled to a landfill. Currently the City of Ashland disposes of their unstabilized dewatered sludge in the Dry Creek Landfill, and has adequate sludge storage and treatment facilities to manage their sludge through 2030 if this practice continues. If this option should become unavailable or if it is desired to beneficially reuse the biosolids for fertilizer, the City would be required to treat their sludge to produce Class A or B biosolids. Therefore, it is important that a backup disposal plan be identified.

Biosolids management is also an important part of the evaluation of treatment plant improvement alternatives. While the quantity and characteristics of biosolids generated are somewhat dependent on the treatment processes utilized, the ultimate disposal method is the controlling factor in evaluating the feasibility of various biosolids handling methods.

Alternates for sludge stabilization, dewatering and disposal are evaluated that may reduce the quantity of biosolids produced, improve the quality of the final end product, reduce disposal costs, and provide a more environmentally friendly alternative to landfilling.

1.3 Reference Documents

• 2003 Wastewater Treatment plant as built drawings (Carollo Engineers).

• 2012 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (Keller Associates)

• 2014 Wastewater Facilities Plan (Keller Associates)

• 2019 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Assessment (Jacobs Engineering)

SCHEDULE

The schedule of events listed below represent City’s estimated schedule for this request for proposal.

This schedule is SUBECT TO CHANGE and will be adjusted as required.

EVENT DAILY COUNT (CALENDAR DAYS) DATE

1 Request for Proposal Released 0 10/06/21

Last Date for Request for changes/Protest for Specifications/Questions

11 days prior to Proposal Closing 10/22/21

3 Last Date for City to Post Addendum 4 days prior to Proposal Closing 10/29/29

4 Closing Date (last day to submit Proposals) 27 days after Proposal Release 11/02/21

5 Responses Evaluated 15 days after Closing Date 11/17/21

6 Interviews Held (if necessary) 24 days after Closing Date 11/26/21

7 Intent to Award Announced ~31 days after Closing Date 12/03/21

8 Contract Negotiations ~43 days after Closing Date 12/15/21

9 Expected Project Completion 6 months after Contract Award 06/15/22

SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 General Requirements

• Personnel, Materials, & Equipment: The Consultant shall provide qualified and competent personnel and shall furnish all supplies, equipment, tools and incidentals required to accomplish the work. All materials and supplies shall be of good quality and suitable for the assigned work.

• Safety Equipment: The Consultant shall provide and use all safety equipment including, and not limited to hard hats, safety vests and clothing required by State, Federal regulations and Department policies and procedures.

• Professional Responsibilities: The Consultant shall perform the work using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar work and shall comply will all applicable codes and standards.

• Project Management: The Consultant and the City staff will meet as required during project duration. The objectives of the meeting will include reviewing the scope, budget, schedule and deliverables. The Consultant will organize and manage the consultant project team and coordinate with city project manager and City staff.

• Monthly Invoices and Progress Reports: The Consultant shall prepare monthly invoices and progress reports including the following:

- Work Completed during the month by work task as a percentage of completion.

- Needs for Additional Information, Reviews, or Changes to the Scope of Work.

- Scope, Schedule, and Budget Issues and Changes.

3.2 Specific Requirements

The City of Ashland (City) is seeking qualifications-based proposals from professional engineering consultants to complete Project 2021-10, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING FEASIBILITY STUDY. This project will include an assessment of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Alternatives. The initial assessment shall be based upon current and future flows, capacity and redundancy requirements, sludge waste characteristics, ease of operation and maintenance, and ability to meet DEQ requirements. Project deliverables will include prioritized recommendations for the Wastewater Treatment Plant In-Vessel Composting Feasibility Study. The goal of this project is to recommend a prioritized In-Vessel Composting Alternative to optimize the wastewater treatment process by improving the biosolids management program.

Consultant Duties: Wastewater Treatment Plant In-Vessel Composting Feasibility Study:

Review, Analyze, Validate, Evaluate, and Recommend an In-Vessel Composting System

1. Review reference documents and existing system.

2. Analyze Biosolids Alternatives based on the 2014 Wastewater Facilities Plan.

3. Validate In-Vessel Composting Alternative.

4. Evaluate and provide alternatives for In-Vessel Composting Systems and provide preliminary cost analysis. Alternatives analysis shall incorporate the following at a minimum:

a. develop design criteria vetted through City’s project team.

b. ability to meet DEQ requirements and potential future requirements.

c. capacity to meet future sludge requirements.

d. use of existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Property or another City Property that would have better space utilization and optimization.

e. discuss advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.

f. ease of operation and maintenance.

g. cleaning requirements and frequency (and costs).

5. Recommend preferred alternative

a. Recommendation shall be from reliable validated source.

b. Recommendation should include preliminary costs for purchase, installation and annual operation (energy and maintenance).

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Written proposals will be evaluated and scored and a contract may be awarded based upon the proposer’s qualifications and experience as described below:

4.1 Project Approach

(20 Points Possible) Provide a description of your firm’s approach to complete a successful assessment of the Wastewater Treatment Plant In-Vessel Composting Feasibility Study. Describe your ability to meet the City’s goals and intent of the proposed project. Include a summary of your quality control program.

4.2 Project Experience

(20 Points Possible)

a. Describe how your firm is organized and how its resources will be utilized to complete the work.

b. Provide a summary of relevant design and construction experience.

c. Provide a concise description of at least three projects in the last 10 years, involving similar work to that listed in the scope of work.

d. Indicate which members of the proposed project team, if any, who worked on the example projects, and will be involved along with their involvement. These team members should be included in the Key Persons list submitted in 4.3(b) below.

e. Submit references for three of the projects described above. Include the Owners name, organization name, contact name, contact email and phone.

4.3 Project Team Experience

(30 Points Possible)

a. Provide a description of the proposed organizational structure to be used for the project.

b. Provide a list of the key staff proposed for this project (“Key Person(s)”), a concise summary of their role, and a description of their relevant experience for this project.

c. Submit resumes (no more than five resumes should be submitted*) that support each Key Person’s relevant experience.

d. Indicate which individual will manage the project and be the primary contact. Indicate the specific experience this individual has managing project similar to the proposed treatment plant project.

*Submitted as Appendix A, will not count against page limit.

4.4 Proposer’s Demonstrated Ability to Successfully Complete Similar Projects on Time and Within Budget

(30 Points Possible) For each of the three (3) projects listed in response to 4.2(c), provide a discussion of whether the project was completed on time and on budget or needed to be revised. Briefly explain the reason for any revisions, and what attempts were made to bring the project back on schedule and within budget.

4.5 Termination for Default

(Pass or Fail) Proposers shall indicate if they have had a contract terminated for default in the last five years.

Termination for default is defined as notice to stop performance that was delivered to the Proposer due to the Proposer’s non-performance or poor performance and the issue of performance was either (a) not litigated due to inaction on the part of the Proposer, or (b) litigated and determined that the Proposer was in default.

NOTE: If a Proposer has had a contract terminated for default in this period, then the Proposer shall submit full details including the other party’s name, address and phone number. City of Ashland will evaluate the facts and may, at its sole discretion, reject the proposal on the grounds of past performance.

4.1 Scoring

CATEGORY POSSIBLE POINTS POINTS SCORING

1. Project Approach 20

2. Project Experience 20

3. Project Team Experience 30

4. Demonstrated Ability to Successfully

Complete Projects on Time and Within Budget

5. Termination for Default P/F Total 100

EVALUATION PROCESS AND CONSULTANT SELECTION

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an evaluation committee of reviewers consisting of at least three City employees. The total number of points possible for written proposals is 100 and an additional 100 points may be scored through the interview process.

5.1 Review and Acknowledgment of Defective Proposals

Due to limited resources, City generally will not completely review or analyze proposals that on their faces fail to comply with the minimum mandatory requirements of the solicitation documents nor will City generally investigate the references or qualifications of such proposals. Therefore, City will not acknowledge whether or not an unsuccessful proposal was complete, responsive, responsible, sufficient, or lawful in any respect. This is a public solicitation, the processes and procedures which are established and required by Oregon law and the Ashland Municipal Code.

Proposers are advised to strictly follow the process, procedures, and requirements as set forth in the RFP documents and not anticipate or rely on any opportunity to negotiate, beyond such limitations that are identified herein.

5.2 Right of Rejection

Proposers must comply with all terms of this RFP, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, administrative rules and regulations. The City may reject any proposal that does not comply with all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and performance requirements of this RFP.

Proposers may not qualify the proposal nor restrict the rights of the City. If a Proposer does so, the City may determine the proposal to be a non-responsive counter-offer, and the proposal may be rejected.

Minor informalities that may be waived include those that:

• do not affect responsiveness,

• are merely a matter of form or format,

• do not change the relative standing or otherwise prejudice other offers,

• are trivial, negligible, or immaterial in nature,

• do not reflect a material change in the work, or,

• do not constitute a substantial reservation against a requirement or provision of this RFP.

The City reserves the right to refrain from making an award if the City determines that to be in its best interest.

A proposal from a debarred or suspended Proposer shall be rejected.

5.3 References

City reserves the right to investigate any and all references and the past performance information provided in the proposal with respect to Respondent’s successful performance of similar projects, compliance with specifications and contractual obligations, completion or delivery of a project on a schedule, and lawful payment of employees and workers.

City reserves the right to check any and all sources for information and to include sources for information and to include sources other than the references provided in the Proposer’s proposal.

City may consider information available from any such source including government bodies and regulatory authorities in evaluating respondents.

5.4 Responsibility

City reserves the right to investigate and evaluate, at any time prior to award and execution of the Contract, the apparent successful Proposer’s responsibility for performing the Contract.

Submission of a signed proposal shall constitute approval for City to obtain any information City deems necessary to conduct evaluation. City reserves the right to request additional information or documentation from the successful Proposer prior to award of contract. Such information may include, but is not limited to, current and recent balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements, or a performance bond from an acceptable surety. Failure to provide this information will result in rescission of City’s Intent to Award.

City may postpone the award of Contract after announcement of the apparent successful Proposer in order to complete its investigation and evaluation. Failure of the apparent successful Proposer to demonstrate responsibility shall render the Proposer non-responsible and shall constitute grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.5 Clarification of Response

City reserves the right to request clarification of any item in any proposal, or to request additional information necessary to properly evaluate a particular proposal. All request for clarification and responses shall be in writing.

During the evaluation of Proposals, Proposers must respond to any request for clarification from the Evaluation Committee within 24 hours of request (Monday through Friday). Inability of the Evaluation Committee to reach a Proposer for clarification and/or failure of a Proposer to respond within the time stated may result in rejection of the Proposer’s Proposal.

5.6 Interviews

The outcome of the proposal evaluations may result in placement on an interview (short-listed) with time and date of the interview. Should City elect to hold interviews, the total additional points possible for the interview will be 100.

City may invite up to three (3) of the highest-ranked firms (or at a natural break in scoring) to interview. The Firm’s Key Persons, as identified by City shall be prepared to attend the interview within five (5) business days of notification by City, and shall be prepared to answer questions provided with the Interview Invite letter, and questions that will be provided at the time of the interview, and discuss the Firm’s proposed project approach.

5.7 Finalist Selection

The proposer with the highest total score as a result of written proposal scoring and interview scoring, if conducted, will be considered the Finalist, and all other proposers will be ranked according to next highest score, etc.

5.8 Ties among Proposers

If City determines after the ranking of potential firms, that two or more of them are equally qualified to be the Finalist, City may select a candidate through any process that the City believes will result in the best value for taking into account the scope, complexity and nature of the Work.

The process shall instill public confidence through ethical and fair dealing, honesty and good faith on the part of City and Proposers and shall protect the integrity of the public contracting process.

As part of the procedure for choosing the Finalist between two or more equally qualified candidates, City may elect to give a preference to a local consulting firm.

5.9 Notice of Intent to Award

After the completion of the evaluation and ranking, the City will issue a written Notice of Intent to Award, naming the Finalist, and send copies to all Proposers.

5.10 Contract Negotiation

City will begin negotiating the fees for the project, along with expanded scope of work detail, with the highest ranked Proposer and specifically, conduct direct negotiations toward obtaining written agreement on:

a) Contractor’s performance obligations and schedule; and any expansion of the Scope of

Work.

b) Contractor’s fees, payment methodology, and a maximum amount payable to Contractor for the Work required under the Contract that is fair and reasonable to City determined solely by City, taking into account the value, scope, complexity and nature of work.

c) Any other provisions City believes to be in the City’s best interest to negotiate.

d) Initial negotiations will be based upon Contract Phase 1.

City shall, either orally or in writing, formally terminate negotiations with the highest ranked Proposer if City and Proposer are unable for any reason to reach agreement on a Contract within a reasonable amount of time. City may thereafter negotiate with the second ranked Proposer, and if necessary, with the third ranked Proposer, and so on, until negotiations result in a Contract. If negotiations with any Proposer do not result in a Contract within a reasonable amount of time, as determined solely by City, City may end the particular formal solicitation. Nothing in the rule precludes City from proceeding with a new formal solicitation for the same Work described in the RFP that failed to result in a Contract.

5.11 Protest Procedures

City shall provide to all Proposers a copy of the selection notice that City sent to the highest ranked Proposer. A Qualified Proposer who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the selection of the highest ranked Proposer may submit a written protest of the selection to the City. A

Proposer submitting a protest must claim that the protesting Proposer is the highest ranked Proposer because the Proposals of all higher ranked Proposers failed to meet the requirements of the RFP or because the higher ranked Proposers otherwise are not qualified to perform the Architectural, Engineering, or Land Surveying Services, or Related Services described in the RFP.

Eligible Proposers protesting award shall follow the procedures described herein. Protests that do not follow these procedures shall not be considered. This protest procedure constitutes the sole administrative remedy available to Proposers.

a) Protests must be received within seven (7) days after issuance of the notice of intent to award the Contract. City will not consider late protests.

b) All protests must be in writing, signed by the protesting party or an authorized Agent. The protest must specify the grounds for the protest in order for the protest to be considered by the City.

c) City’s Public Works Director will review the protest and will fax and mail the protesting party a written response within three (3) business days of receipt of the written protest to the fax number and address provided in the bid of proposal. Any written response may be comprised of a determination of the protest, a notice to the protesting party of the need for additional time in which to evaluate the matter, or other notice to the protesting party.

d) If the Public Works Director’s determination (response) is adverse to the protester, any further appeal of the Public Works Director’s determination by the party must be submitted in writing to the City Administrator within three (3) business days of issuance of the Public Works Director’s determination (response).

e) The City Administrator will review any appeal of the Public Works Director’s determination and shall fax and mail, in accordance with the fax number and address provided in the proposal, the protesting party a written response within three (3) business days of receipt of written appeal.

f) If the determination of the City Administrator is adverse to the protesting party’s interest, the protesting party may only appeal to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal to the Council with the City Administrator within two (2) business days of issuance of the City Administrator’s written determination.

g) The Council, in considering the protest, shall review the documentation presented to the

Public Works Director and the City Administrator on the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting, but in no event shall they be required to review in less than ten (10) business days, and thereafter, base their decision on such material. The Council review will be limited to the evaluation of compliance with the City’s policies and procedures, requirements of the RFP and the equal and fair application of City’s contracting rules. The City Council’s determination shall be City’s final decision.

An adversely affected or aggrieved proposer must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of City’s Consultant selection or Award of Contract decision.

5.12 Resulting Contract

Upon reaching a final agreement in regards to fees and final scope of work with an awarded Proposer, City will issue a Personal Services Contract (‘PSC”), in substantially the same form as found in Exhibit A to this RFP. The PSC will include the City’s Standard Terms and Conditions, the final scope of work, and all fees.

5.13 RFP Cancellation

City may reject any and all proposals and may cancel this RFP at any time if doing so would be in the public interest as determined by the City. In no event shall the City have any liability for the cancellation of this solicitation.

CONTRACT

6.1 Contract Form

The proposer selected by the City will be expected to enter into a written contract in substantially similar form to the one attached to this RFP in “EXHIBIT A”. The proposal should indicate acceptance of the City’s contract provision. Suggested reasonable alternatives that do not substantially impair City’s rights under the contract may be submitted as outlined under Section 7.9. Unconditional refusal to accept the contract provisions will result in proposal rejection.

Contract Duration – The anticipated duration is 3-6 months.

Contract Payment – Contingent upon City’s need, consultant’s performance and availability of approved funding, City reserves the right to amend the contract (within the scope of the project described in this RFP) for additional tasks, project phases and compensation as necessary to complete a particular project. Proposers are advised that the award and potential dollar amount of the contract under this RFP will be contingent upon approval by the Ashland City Council acting as the Local Contract Review Board.

Payment will be made for completion of, or acceptable monthly progress on, tasks and deliverables in conformance with contract requirements and applicable standards. The method of compensation will be determined by the City and may be based upon any one or combination of the following methods:

• Cost plus fixed-fee, up to a maximum NTE amount

• Fixed price for all services. Fixed price per deliverable. Fixed price per milestone

• Time and materials, up to a maximum NTE amount (City preferred method)

• Price per unit

Ashland Living Wage Requirements – Consultant is required to comply with Chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying at least the living wage as established by the City of Ashland on June 30, 2021 ($15.96 per hour):

• For all hours worked under a service contract between their employer and the City if the contract exceeds $22,310.46 or more.

• For all hours worked in a month if the employee spends 50% or more of the employee’s time in that month working on a project or portion of business of their employer, if the employer has ten or more employees and has received financial assistance for the project or business from the City in excess of $22,310.46.

• Contractor is also required to post the notice included in the appendix predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees.

• In calculating the living wage for full time employees, employers may add the value of health care, retirement, 401K and IRS eligible cafeteria plans, and other benefits to the employee’s wages. The City of Ashland Living Wage Statement is appended to the sample contract included in the appendix.

6.2 Business License Required

The selected proposer must have or acquire a current City of Ashland business license prior to conducting any work under this contact.

6.3 Insurance Requirements

Contactor shall at its own expense provide the following insurance:

a. Worker’s Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers’ compensation coverage for all their subject workers.

b. Professional Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by error, omission or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this contract.

c. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 for each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. It shall include contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under this contract.

d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000 for each accident for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable.

e. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days’ written notice from the contractor or its insurer(s) to the City.

Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Contractor shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as additional insurers on any insurance policies required herein but only with respect to contractor’s services to be provided under this contract. As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this contract, the contractor shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates and endorsements prior to commencing work under this contact. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are additional insures. The consultant’s insurance is primary and non-contributory. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City’s acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retention and/or self-insurance.

6.4 Laws and Regulations

The proposer is assumed to be familiar with all Federal, State, County or City laws or regulations, which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work or the materials or equipment used or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and no pleas of misunderstanding will be considered on account of ignorance thereof. If the proposer shall discover any provision in these specifications or project information, plans or contract documents which is contrary to or inconsistent with any law or regulations, they shall report it to the City of Ashland in writing.

All work performed by the successful proposer shall be in compliance with all Federal, State, County and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Unless otherwise specified, the successful proposer shall be responsible for applying for applicable permits and licenses.

INSTRUCTION TO PROPOSERS

7.1 General

All contracts are subject to the requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.50, Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters 279A and 279B. Engineering contracts are further subject to ORS Chapter 279C.

7.2 Information of Record

This Request for Proposal (RFP) will be distributed through the Oregon Buys eProcurement System. All updates, addenda, and related communications will be published through Oregon Buys. All prospective proposers are advised to continuously monitor the website for information regarding this proposal. It is the sole responsibility of the proposer to check the website on a timely basis for critical information regarding the proposal.

7.3 Proposal Preparation and Format

• Proposals shall be typewritten 12 point font minimum.

• Except for proposer attachments, proposal form and resumes, the proposal shall contain no more than 12 pages.

• Proposal narrative must follow along with scoring criteria sections

• No oral, telegraphic, telephone or facsimile proposals shall be accepted.

• The electronic submission of a proposal will not be permitted.

• To be considered, all proposals must be received by the City prior to the hour and date of the advertised proposal closing.

• A total of six originals (wet signatures), and complete proposals shall be submitted to the City prior to the advertised proposal closing date and time.

• 1 digital copy of all submitted documents must be submitted on CD or thumb drive.

7.4 Signature on Proposal

Proposals shall be signed in ink by an authorized representative of the Proposer. Signature on a proposal certifies that the proposal is made without connection with any person, firm or corporation making a proposal for the same goods and/or services and is in all respects fair and made without collusion or fraud. Signature on a proposal also certifies that the Proposer has read, fully understands and agrees with all solicitation requirements, terms and conditions. No consideration will be given to any claim resulting from proposing without fully comprehending all requirements of the Request for Proposals.

7.5 Preparation Costs

The City may cancel a solicitation, whether informal or formal, or reject all proposals, without liability incurred by City at any time after issuing an RFP, if City believes it is in City’s interest to do so. Proposers are responsible for all costs they may incur in connection with submitting Proposals and responses to RFPs, which includes, but is not limited to: submittal preparation, submittal, travel expenses, interviews, presentations, or evaluation of any proposal.

7.6 Conformance to Solicitation Requirements

Proposals shall conform to the requirements of this Request for Proposals. All necessary attachments (Bidder Residency information, Independent Contractor Certification, etc.) shall be submitted with the proposal and in the required format. Failure to comply with all requirements may result in proposal rejection.

7.7 Not Used

7.8 Definitions

For the purpose of this RFP:

“Agency” or “City” means City of Ashland.

“Business days” means calendar days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and all City recognized holidays.

“Calendar days” or “days” means any day appearing on the calendar, whether a weekday, weekend day, national holiday, State holiday or other day.

“Council” means City of Ashland Council “Department” means the City of Ashland Engineering Department “Manager” means the City of Ashland Project Manager “Proposers”- All firms submitting Proposals are referred to as Proposers in this document; after negotiations, an awarded Proposer will be designated as “Consultant”.

“Qualification Based Selection” or “QBS” (for the purposes of this RFP) means evaluations and scoring of proposals based on qualifications, experiences and project approach, without considering cost.

“RFP” means Request for Proposal.

“RFQ” means Request for Qualifications.

“Scope of Work” means the general character and range of services and supplies needed to complete the work’s purpose and objectives, and an overview of the performance outcomes expected by Agency.

“Services” means the services to be performed under the Contract by the proposer.

“Statement of Work” means the specific provision in the final Contract which sets forth and defines in detail (within the identified Scope of Work) the agreed-upon objectives, expectations, performance standards, services, deliverables, schedule for delivery and other obligations.

7.9 Questions and Clarifications

All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the services, must be submitted in writing to the City’s Project Manager listed in the advertisement for this proposal, at 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. All questions must be received not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposal submission deadline.

Answers to questions received by City, which are deemed by City to be substantive, will be issued as official addenda to this RFP to ensure that all proposers base their proposals on the same information.

When appropriate, as determined by City in its sole discretions, revisions, substitution or clarification of the RFP or attached terms and conditions, an official addendum to this RFP will be issued. Proposer shall indicate receipt of all issued addenda by indicating the number of addendum received on the Proposal Form.

Any addendum or addenda issued by the City which may include changes, corrections, additions, interpretations or information, and issued seventy-two (72) hours or more before the scheduled closing time for submission of bids, Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays not included, shall be binding upon the proposer. The City may elect to email addendum to registered proposers but will do so as a courtesy only. All official addendums will be issued through Oregon Buys and it shall be the proposer’s sole responsibility to acquire any and all addendum pertaining to RFP. The proposer is strongly cautioned to monitor this site on a continual basis.

7.10 Protest of Requirements

Proposers may submit a written protest of any provision, specification or contract term contained in this RFP and may request a change to any provision, specification or contract term contained in this RFP, not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the advertised proposal closing date.

A proposer’s written protest must meet the following requirements:

• A detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for the protest.

• The reason for the protest or request for change.

• A statement of the form of relief requested or any proposed changes to the specifications or contract document.

All protests shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the City marked as follows:

PROPOSAL PROTEST

Proposal No. 2021-10 City of Ashland Public Works Dept.

ATTN: City of Ashland Public Works - Engineering, at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520; or by mail to: 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520

City Response: The City may reject without consideration a proposer’s protest after the deadline established for submitting protest. The City shall provide notice to the applicable proposer if it entirely rejects a protest. If the City agrees with the proposer’s protest, in whole or in part, the City shall either issue an addendum reflecting its determination or cancel the solicitation.

Extension of Closing: If the City receives a written protest from a proposer in accordance with this rule, the City may extend closing if the City determines an extension necessary to consider the protest and to issue addenda, if any, to the solicitation of document.

Judicial review of the City’s decision relating to a specification protest shall be in accordance with ORS.

279B.405.

7.11 Protest of Contract Award

Every proposer who submits a proposal shall be notified of its selection status. Any proposer who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the selection or any proposer who contends that the provisions of the RFP or any aspect of the procurement process has promoted favoritism in the award of the contract or has substantial diminished competition, must file a written protest to the RFP within seven (7) calendar days after the date of the selection notice. Failure to file a protest will be deemed a waiver of any claim by an offeror that the procurement process violates any provision of ORS Chapter 279A, 279B, 279C the City of Ashland Local Contract Review Board Rules or the City’s procedures for screening and selection of persons to perform personal services.

7.12 Proposal Modification

Modifications or erasures made before proposal submission shall be initialed in ink by the person signing the proposal. Proposals, once submitted, may be modified in writing before the time and date set for proposal closing. Any modification shall be prepared on company letterhead, shall be signed by an authorized representative, and shall state that the new document supersedes or modifies prior proposal submissions and any other prior proposal modifications. Proposal modifications shall be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked “Proposal Modification,” identifying the RFP number and closing date and time. Proposers may not modify proposals after proposal closing date and time.

7.13 Proposal Withdrawals

Proposals may be withdrawn in writing on company letterhead signed by an authorized representative and received by the…