Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/12/15 Item 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .". I ~ \ ft.. CITY OF .~ (HUlA VISTA 12/15/09, Ttem~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND RMC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT FOR PREPARING A WASTEWATER . RECLAl\;fATlON FACILITY FEASIB}jrl1\Y STUDY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~~ ASSISTANT DIRE!T OF ENGINE~ CITY MANAGER ASSISTANT CITY. ANAGER S"- 4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO ~ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUMMARY On September 1,2009, per Resolution No. 2009-207, the City Council approved an agreement between the City and Otay Water District (Otay) for joint participation to hire a consultant to prepare a wastewater reclamation facility feasibility study. City staff has been researching various options available to meet the City of Chula Vista's long-term sewer treatment capacity needs. This item will allow the City to enter into an agreement with RMC Water and Environment (RMC) to prepare the feasibility study and evaluate alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section IS061(b)(3) (General Rule) of the state CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, additional environmental review will be required as applicable prior to the approval of any future project specific development entitlements including, but not limited to, site development plans, building pennits, land development permits, and conditional use permits. RECOMMENDA TION Council adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON Not applicable. 7-1 12/15/09, Item~ Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION In 2005 Chula Vista completed a Wastewater Master Plan, concurrent with the updates of the City's General Plan, which identified a shortage of wastewater collection treatment capacity at build out. Additional wastewater collection treatment capacity can be obtained by the City through the construction of a wastewater reclamation facility or by acquiring additional sewage treatment capacity from the City of San Diego or other participating agencies within the Metropolitan Sewerage System, per terrns of the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement. Otay's long-term projected recycled water demand established the need to increase its recycled water supply. As such both agencies are working together towards completion of a wastewater reclamation facility feasibility study, which includes recycled water production for increased local supply. On September 24, 2009, Council entered into a joint agreement with Otay (Attachment I) to analyze the feasibility of constructing and operating a wastewater reclamation facility within the City of Chula Vista and evaluate related alternatives and options. This joint agreement outlines the scope of the study, roles of each agency, and funding responsibilities. Under the terrns of the agreement, Otay will reimburse the City for half of the expenses of the feasibility study in an amount not to exceed $150,000. A forrnal Request for Proposal was released on October 2, 2009 to potential respondents and advertised in local newspapers. Public Works Engineering received a total of 6 proposals. A committee comprised of City and Otay staff evaluated the proposals. The scope of work for the feasibility study seeks to assimilate previous studies, analyze treatment options, integrate perrnitting and regulatory requirements and develop alternatives including evaluation of a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process so that inforrned decisions can be made by both agencies. The scope will address issues including, but not limited to the following: . Assessing lifecycle capital and operating costs and/or savings including non-economic factors associated with the construction of a plant able to treat up to 6 MGD (previous studies only contemplated plant sizes able to treat up to 4 MGD). . Assessing costs associated with various "fail-safe" options that would accommodate wastewater flows in case of power outage or plant failure. . Developmg a wet weather disposal strategy including improvements needed to deliver recycled water to the currently identified primary user, Otay, and the amount of potential revenue that would result from recycling the wastewater. . Evaluating and creating a matrix of options and associated costs for the discharge of potentially unused recycled water generated by the treatment plant. . Comparing the cost of purchasing Metro System capacity plus the cost of obtaining additional recycled water to meet Otay's future demands. . Identifying the challenges, risks, and public concerns. 7-2 12/15/09, Item~ Page 3 of 5 . Facilitating stakeholder meetings including public outreach and community meetings. The consultant may be asked to complete additional optional tasks required for the project. The optional tasks may include: I) preparation of grant applications and identification of funding options; 2) evaluation of "Design-build-operate- finance" agreements to fund construction; and 3) completion of a recycled water market assessment. The cost of optional tasks is negotiable. It is estimated that the cost associated with completion of the mandatory and optional tasks identified in the request for proposal and the consultant's proposal will not exceed $300,000. This cost will be shared equally by both agencies. Consultant Selection Process On October 21, 2009, the City Manager approved the fonnation of the selection committee for this project in accordance with Section 2.57 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (see Attachment 2). Consequently, the selection committee for this project was formed with the following members: Otav \Vater District Citv of Chula Vista Rod Posada, Chief Engineer [racsema Quilantan, Asst. Director of Engineering J ames Peasley, Engineering Manager Frank Ri vera, Principal Civil Engineer Roberto Yano, Senior Civil Engineer Six proposals were received from quahfied consultants. All of the firms met the minimum criteria and scope of work in the RFP. As a result all were invited to participate in an interview. The selection committee using the criteria identified below evaluated written proposals and conducted interviews on November 23,2009. Proposals Interview Company Staff Experience Additional Creativity and lJ1Sight to Issues Capacity to Perform Work Strength of Project Issues Responsiveness to Scope of Work Presentation, Communication Skills Familiarity with Regional issues Response to Questions Specific MBR Experience The following is a summary (in alphabetical order) of the proposals evaluated by the selection committee: RFP Cost without Cost with Consultant ontion al tasks opiional tasks CH2MHILL $ 196,224 $283,684 Pace $197,288 $246,788 PBS&J $235,639 $304,791 Malcolm Pimie $199,824 $278,840 RMC Water and Environment $199,990 $745,690 URS $179,935 $309,935 7-3 12/15/09, Item~ Page 4 of 5 After an in-depth review of the finalists, cost comparison and reference check, the committee selected RMC in association with Carollo Engineers to conduct the study. References confirmed that RMC has demonstrated their ability to deliver and meet the scope of work for this project. RMC is well known for their high caliber of work, strong methodology, creative solutions, and ability to meet project scope and deliverables on time and within budget and maintain ongoing relationships with their clients. Rl'vlC has committed top engineers and teamed with Carollo Engineers including Dr. Michael Welch. Dr. Welch provides a strong and current basis for identifying pernlitting requirements and regulatory issues for several wet weather disposal strategies. The project manager, Don Bunts has 27 years of experience in planning and implementing wastewater management solutions in Southern California. Carollo Engineers is a national leader in wastewater and recycled water treatment design. Carollo provides specific experience in MBR design and installation, including work for the cities of Corona and Redlands. Furthermore, RMC has experience and a strong understanding 0 f the local environmental and permitting agency requirements as well as the City of San Diego and/or other participating agencies within the Metropolitan Sewerage System. Services for this project will be performed locally out of their San Diego office. Proiect Schedule The project is estimated to take up to nine months for completion. Specifically, as detailed in the proposed scope of work, RMC will be allowed six weeks from receipt of the Notice to Proceed and receipt of all background data to complete a draft Technical Memorandum. Subsequently, RMC will be allowed two weeks following the receipt of City and Otay comments to review and address the comments and finalize the Technical Memorandum. By the time the Technical Memorandum is completed and approved by the City and Otay, the Consultant shall establish a schedule for the delivery of the Draft and Final Report acceptable to RMC, the City, and Otay. The schedule shall not exceed nine months from the Notice to Proceed. In addition, RMC is required to establish a schedule for conducting required community meeting(s) and Otay and Council workshop(s). Final alternatives and recommendations are anticipated to be presented to the City Council and Otay Water District Board in a workshop setting in the Fall of2010. DEC1SION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section 18704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. CURRENT FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding for this proj ect was appropriated during the adoption of the Capital Improvement Budget, capital improvement project SW258 "Sewer Capacity Analysis". As part of the joint participation, Otay will bear the cost of 50% of the consultant services on a reimbursement basis as invoices are submitted. SW258 has sufficient funds ($244,992) for this project. Staff allocated $200,000 budgeted in SW258 to fund the services provided by RMC, and the remaining balance of $44,992 for associated staff costs and/or optional tasks as required. 7-4 12/15/09, 1tell1~ Page 5 of 5 ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact associated with funding the Recommendations resulting from the study will be forwarded to the consideration. feasibility study. City Council tor ATTACHMENTS Attachment I. Joint Agreement between the City ofChula Vista and Otay Water District Attachment 2. Approval of Selection Committee Exhibit A. Agreement between the City ofChula Vista and R!vIC Water and Environment to prepare the feasibility study Prepared by' Janurl Nnji. Associate Civil Engineer. find Public Works Department M. \EngineerIAGENDA\CAS2009112 /5-091Awnrding the ll'lBRfeasibiiity StudyREV.doc 7-5 ATTACHMENT I . Agreement Between the City of C~ula Vista and Otny Water District for Joint Participation to Prepare a Wastew:Her Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION TO PREPARE A WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY This Ab'Tccment is entered into on rJtJ7r. ;2 V ,2009, by and betwcen the City of Chula Vista (hereinafter referred to as Chula Vista) a Municipal Corporation, and thc Otay Water District (hereinafter referred to as Otay), a water district organized under the Municipal Water District Law of 1911. Chula Vista and Otay are collcctively referred to hereinalier as the Parties . and singularly, Party. Chub Vista and Otay, in consideration of their mutual covenants, and for other valuable considerations, agree as follows: RECIT ALS A. The economy, employmcnt, and quality of life within the San Diego County region is dependent on a reliable. and affordable water supply, which requires cooperation among local watcr and sewer scrvice agencies through the pursuit of goals that are of mutual and regional bencfit. B. In 2005 Chub Vista completed a Wastewater Master Plan, concurrent with the update of thc City ofChula Vista's General Plan, which identificd a shortage of wastewater collection disposal capacity prior to the City ofChula Vista's ultimate build out. C. Additional wastewaier collection disposal capacity can be obtained by Chula Vista through the construction of a wastcwater reclamation facility within the City of Chula Vista or by acquiring additional sewage disposal capacity from the City of San Diego or from other participating agcncics within the Metropolitan Sewcragc System, pcr temlS of the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreemcnt. D. The current Otay long-term projected recycled water demand established thc need for increased recycled water supply to satisfy the market demand. E. The Partics intend to work jointly and coopcratively towards the cempletion of a feasibility study analyzing the potcntial construction of a wastewater reclamation facility within thc City of Chula Vista, which includes recycled watcr production for increased local supply. F. Chula Vista, in coordination with Swectwater Authority and Otay, have completed two studies analyzing the feasibility of constructing a wastewater rcclamation facility within the City ofChula Vista utilizing Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) teclmology capable of producing rccycled water mecting Title 22 requiremcnts. The MBR technology was found to be technically fcasible. G. The Parties wish to further analyze the feasibility ofa wastewater reclamation facility .through thc acquisition of professional engineering consulting services to provide additional analyses regarding costs and physical improvements required to permit and construct a wastcwater reclamation facility. 1 7-6 2. CJ(}9- 207 Agreement Between the City ofChu]a Vista an-d Otay Water District for Joint Participation to Prepare a Wastewater Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study H. The Parties each have detcrmined that it is in thcir respective bcst intcrest and in the intercst of their customers and constituents to cnter into this Agrccment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. All cxhibits attached to this Agreement constitute an integral part of this Agrccment and are incorporated into the terms hereof. 2. The wastewater reclamation facility feasibility study is hereafter referrcd to as the Project. 3. The Parties agree that neither this Agreement nor the completion of the Project, as herein contemplated, is a projcct subject to CEQA. 4. Chula Vista and Otay staffcxpenses, for implemcntation and management of the Project efforts, shall be paid for by each Party and not shared by or between thc Partics and shall not be included or considered in each Parties computation of its participation toward costs of the Projcct. 5. Chula Vista shall act as the lead agency with respect to professional engineering consultant acquisition and contracting, project managcment, and financing of thc Project, and will therefore be responsiblc for such tasks as scheduling consultant intcrviews, projeetteam meetings, and payment of consultant invoices. Chula Vista will also serve as the primary point of contact with the consultant. No additional consideration shall be granted to Chula Vista as a result of these responsibilities. In all othcr respects, thc Partics will jointly and equally participate in any and all othcr efforts of the Project such as in making comments and providing dircction in thc interview of potential consultants. revicwing the feasibility study, and ovcrseeing the perfom1ancc of the scope of work to be accomplished by a professional engineering consulting firm. This provision shall in no way affect the obligations of each Party undcr the terms of this Agreement. 6. The Parties agrec that the seopc of work for the Project as provided in Exhibit "A", attached to this Agreement, shall be used in the Chula Vista request for proposal for acquisition of professional engineering consulting services for thc Project. 7. The budgct for the Project is currently set at $300,000 and each Party agrees to obligate funds to the Projcct as follows: a. Otay shall budget and contribute an amount not to cxceed $] 50,000 for the professional enginccring consultant serviccs required to completc the Project. b. Chula Vista shall budget and contribute an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the profcssional engineering consultant scrviees rcquired to complete thc Project. 2 7-7 Aorecmcnt Between the Cir\' ofChula Vista m;d Otay Water District for 'Joint Participation to Prepare a Wastewater Recl<lmalion Facility Feasibility Study c. Should the consultant fee submitted with the proposals received for the Project from consultants be in exccss 01'$300,000, Chula Vista may agree to be solely responsible for the excess costs, In this case, the Otay contribution would remain at the not to exceed $150,000 amount. If Chula Vista chooses not to contribute additional funds above its not to exceed $150,000 budget amount for the Project, then ChuJa Vista will work with Otay to either reduce the proposed scope ofwork as providcd in Exhibit "A" in a manner such that the consultant could complete the study within the $300,000 total budget or agrce to increase the total budget accordingly with costs shared at 50-50 between the Parties. d. Should the Panies to this Agreement agree to request the consultant to whom the contract is awarded to complete any or all of the Optional Tasks described within the Exhibit "A" scope of work, each of the Panies will pay 50% of the cost of the performance of each agreed upon Optional Task. e, Should either Pany to this Agreemcnt without the consent of the other Party request' the consultant to whom the contract is awarded to complete any ur all of the Optional Tasks described within the Exhibit "A" scope of work, the Party making the request shall be obligated to solely pay for the performance of the requcsted Optional'Task(s). 8. The Parties agree to amend this Agreement as may be necessary to address any changes or additions to the Exhibit "A" scope of work for the Project, to address any increases in contributions above $150,000 by either Party, or to address adding any or all of the Optional Tasks described within Exhibit "/\" for the Study that may arise. The Parties agree to negotiate, approve, and execute any required amcndments to this Agreement in a timely fashion, 9. The Parties shall seek, in good faith and within a reasonable time, to resolve any disputes regarding this Agreement first by meeting and conferring among two designated staff representatives, one each from Chula Vista and Otay. Any dispute that cannot be resolved by the staff representatives may be referred by either Party to the Chula Vista City Manager and to the Otay General Manager for resolution, Neither Party will resort to litigation until there is an impasse between the Chula Vista City Manager and the Olay General Manager. 10, The current projected schedule tor the Project is as follow: . Award professional engineering consultant services contract: December 2009. . Complete Project: February 2011. 11, Chub Vista shall invoice Otay monthly per the terms of this Agreement and any of its amendments Cor Olay's pan ion oCthe invoiced amounts Chula Vista approves for payment to the consultant for the Project. As long as Otay's budget, as established under paragraph 7,a" above or later agreed to by Otay in writing, is not exceeded, Otay shall be obligated to remit payme~l in full within sixty (60) calendar days from the Chula Vista invoice date. IfChula Vista approves for payment any amounts in excess of the budget established in paragraph 7 herein wilhout the 3 7-8 Agreeme-nt Between the City ofChula Vista and Otay Water District [or Joint Participation to Prepare a Wastewater Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study prior writlen consent of atay, Chula Vista shall bear sole responsibility for the amounts that exceed budget unless atay, in its sole discretion, agrees to pay any portion of the excess costs. Invoices shall be sent to alaY at the address 01'2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096, Attention: James Peasley. 12. In the event atay fails to'pay any amount when due, interest thereon shall accrue at the rate often percent per annum from the date when.dueuntil payment is received by Chula Vista. 13. All work products resulting from the professional engineering consultant services provided for the Project shall be the joint property of Chula Vista and atay. 14. The ternl of this Agreement shall be from the date tirsr above indicated and shall continue until when the Project is 100 % complete and all invoices have been paid unless this Agreement is earlier terminated by mutual agreement of the Parties. 15. Each Party agrees to indemnify, defend at its expense, including attorneys' fees, and hold the other harnlless from and against all claims, costs, demands, losses, and liability of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to liability for bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, property damage (including loss of use), or violation of law, caused by or arising out of any error, omission, negligent act, or willful misconduct of that Party, its officers, directors, employees, agents, volunteers, or any other person acting pursuant to its control in performing under this Agreement. 16. The indemnification provisions of this Agreement shalI.survivetermination of this Agreement. ] 7. This Agreement, and any and all exhibits attached to it, represent the entire'understanding of the Parties as to those mallers contained in it, and supersedes and cancels any prior oral or written understandings, promises, or representations with respect to those matters covered in it. 18. All exhibits and Recitals contained herein are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. 19. This Agreement will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court in the County of San Diego, State of California; provided that the dispute resolution procedure outlined in paragraph 21, below, has been completed. California law shall apply, without regard to any conflict of laws to the interpretation orany provision of this Agreement. 20. This Agreement may be modified only by a subsequent written amendment executed by the Parties. Either Party may give notice that it wishes to amend this Agreement at any time with written notice. Any amendments will have to be mutually agreed upon by both Chula Vista and Otay, in writing. 21. If a dispute arises out of, or relines to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, which cannot be resolved by the Parties, Ihe Parties will first submit 10 mandatory mediation under the ,Rules 4 7-9 Agreement Between the City ofChuJa Vista and Otay Water District for Joint Particiration to Prerare a Wastewater Reclam:uion Facility Feasibility Study of the American Arbitration Association or any other ncutral organization agreed upon before having recourse in a court of law. Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be documented in writing by all Parties. Mediation shall be confidential in accordance with the provisions of Cali fomi a law. All mediation results shall be "non-binding" and inadmissible for any purpose in any legal proceeding, unless all Parties otherwise agree upon such admission in writing. 22. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of thIs agreemcnt against the City unless a claim has lirst been presented in writing and tiled with the City and actcd upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Otay shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the tem1S of this Agreement. 23. No failure of a Party to insist upon the strict pcrlom1anee by the other of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant. tenn, or condition of this Agreement, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or of such covenant, tenn, Or condition. No waiver of any breach shall affect or alter this Agreement, and each and every covenant, condition, and teml hereof shall continue in full force and effect to any existing or subsequent breach. 24. None of the Parties shall assign its respective obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other Party. Any assignment in violation of this paragraph shall constitute a default by the Party attempting the assi,,'11ment and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement or for the enforcement of any available equitable remedies, at the discretion of the other Party. In no event shall any putative assignment create a contractual relationship between the other Party and any putative assignee. 25. This Agreement and all rights and obligations contained herein shall be in effect whether or not any or all Parties to this Agreement have becn slIccecued by another entity, and all rights and obligations of the Parties shall be vested and binding on their successors-in-interest. 26. Ifthc perfonnance of any act required of the Parties is directly prcvented or delayed by reason of strikes, lockouts, labor uisputcs, vandalism, terrorism or other criminal act, unusual governmental delays, acts of God, fire, floods, epidemics, frcight embargoes, or other causes beyond the reasonable control of the Party required to perform an act, that Party shall be excused from perfonning that act for the period of time equal to the period of time of the prevention or delay. In the event the Party claims the existence of such a delay, the Party claiming thc delay shalf notil)' the other Party in writing of that fact within 14 calendar days after the beginning of any such claimed delay. 27. The Parties agree that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms, and conditions of this Agreement. and the decision whether \0 seek advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is the sole responsibility of each ofthc Parties. This 5 7-10 Agreement Bet1\'ecn the City of Chula Vista and O(3)' Water District for Joinl Participation to Prepare a Wastewater Reclamalion Facility Feasibility Study Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against any Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of this Agreement. 28. In the event anyone of the provisions of this Agreement shall'for any reason be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agrecment shall be unimpaired, and the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision(s) shall be replaced by a mutually acceptable provision, which being valid, legal, and enforceable, comes closcst to the intcntion of the Parties underlying the invalid, illegal, or unenforecable provision. 29. For purposes of this Agrcement, the relationship of the Parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of cach other or as joint vcntures or partners. The Parties shall maintain sole and exelusive control ovcr their personnel, agents, consultants, and opcrations. 30. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties or affect the legal liability of the Parties to this Agreement to third parties. 3 I. This Agreemcnt may be cxecuted in multiple counterparts, which when taken together shall constitute 'a single signed original as though all Parties had executed the same page. 32. Ifany part of this Agreement is abandoned or indefinitely delayed, due to circumstances bcyond the control of the Parties, this Agreement may be terminated by the either Party. 33. Any notice or instrument required to be givcn or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any Unitcd States Post Office, certified mail, and return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addresscd to: Otay Water District General Manager 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd. Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096 City of Chula Vista Director of Public Works 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 and shall be effective upon reeeipt thereof. 34. This Agreement shall not be decmed to have been accepted and shall not be binding upon eithcr Party until duly authorized officers of both Partics have executed this Agreement. 35. Chula Vista and Otay exccute this Agreement, thereby indicating that they have read and undcrstood same, and indicate their full and complete conscnt to its terms and conditions. 6 7-11 Agreement Between ,the City of Chub Vista and Otay Water District for Joint Participation to Prepare a Wastewater Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study 36. The individuals executing this agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 37. This Agreement shall be deemed executed and effective as of the date first written above on this Agreement. IN W,'rNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. City ofChula Vista Approved as to rorrn and legality: Bart Mieo.f.ld C. I Ity A on ey Attachments: Exhibit "A" 7 7-12 Ola)' Water District ,.. Ma 'Wato General ager Olay Water District General Counsel {;~ A(j~ .... . ATTACHMENT Z - MEMORANDUM October 21, 2009 File No. SW-258 FROM: Jim Sandoval, City Manager , ~r.- Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Ma ' ',S ) Richard Hopkins, City Engineer lracsema Quilantan, Assistant Dr o Frank Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer <(f-r-- TO: VIA: SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Selection Committee to Evaluate Qualifications and Interview Eligible, Consultants to Provide Consultant Services Needed to Facilitate the City of Chula Vista Acquisition of Additional Wastewater Disposal Capacity The scope of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to retain, a consultant to perform a comprehensive analysis and advise the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Water District on planning their future demands for treating and recycling the wastewater generated by the City.of Chula Vista. This RFP was issued on October 2,2009 with a due date of Wednesday, November 4,2009. The responsive consultants will be screened and ranked based on criteria set forth in the RFP. Subsequently, the top three to five candidates will be interviewed and one consultant will be recommended by the Selection Committee to be awarded the project, which will then be brought forth to the City Council for approval. In accordance with Section 2.57 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, we are requesting your approval to appoint the following people to form the subject Committee that will be responsible to evaluate the qualifications and interview the successful respondents as necessary to select a qualified consultant: Otav Water District Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering James Peasley, Engineering Manager City of Chula Vista Iracsema Quilantan, Assistant Director Frank Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer Roberto Yano, Sr. Civil Engineer Please sign and return this sheet if you concur with the recommendation to appoint the above listed committee members. Thank you. J:\Engineer\SEWER\TREAThIENT PLANT\Sec1ection Committee\~FQ le~ection committee Memo.doc EXHIBIT A CONSULTANT SERVICES NEEDED TO FACILITATE THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL W ASTEW ATER DISPOSAL . CAPACITY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Al'lD SCOPE OF WORK Project Narrative In 2005, the City of Chula Vista: (City) updated its Wastewater Master Plan (WW1\1P) concurrent with the update of the City's General Plan. As part of that effort,.thc City analyzed the impact of the "Preferred Land Use Altcrnative" at build out. It was determined that the City would be gencrating more sewage flow than the City had the ability to dispose and/or treat. Therefore, the .City needs to increase its disposal and/or treatment capacity either through the acquisition of additional capacity rights in the City of San Diego, (Metro System Capacity) or through the construction of its own independent wastewater reclamation facility. Since the additional .sewage disposal and/or treatment .need deterrnimition, the City has conducted or participated in a variety of studies to explore thes<< alternatives. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to solicit and retain a consultant to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the options under consideration, taking into account the findings of previous studies, and advise the City and Otay Water District on the best course of action. Previous Studies City. ofChula Vista Wastewater Reclamation Plant Studv bv Brown & Caldwell- April 2005 In June 2005, Sweetwater Authority (Sweetwater) completed a Recycled Water Master Plan (R WMP) for its service area that identified potential recycled water customers, the infrastructure . to serve those customers, and their projected average annual recycled water demand. Concurrent with Sweetwater's RWMP, the City retained the services of a consultant - Brown & Caldwell (B&C) - to conduct a study that would evaluate the options available to the City to deal with its projected Metro System wastewater disposal capacity deficiency, estimated to be 5 mgd, The B&C study evaluated a variety of options to deal with the City's projected capacity deficiency including varying combinations of conventional "end of the pipe" secondary and MER reclamation iype facilities. It compared the benefits/costs of .those alternatives to acquiring additional capacity in the Metro system. The study ultimately recommended the acquisition of additional capacity in the Metro system as the most cost-effective alternative. A copy of tbe B&C study is attached as Exhibit 1. It is important to note that the B&C study was done with the . underlying assumption that the Dynergy (formerly Duke Energy) power plant, the key user identified through Sweetwater's RWMP, would be the primary user of the recycled water generated from the reclamation plant. Since then, due to a variety. of reasons, the Dynergy plant is no longer considering utilizing recycled water for their cooling process, which further impacted the findings of the B&C study. 7-14 City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 2 of g Joint Feasibility Studv for a Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MER) by RMC Water & Environment - October 2007 . In 2006, subsequent to the decision by Dynergy to pursue other options for their cooling process, Otay Water District (Otay WD) indicated a need to augment their recycled water supply. In addition, Sweetwater was also exploring the feasibility of developing and constructing an independent recycled water distribution system in their serVice area Consequently, the City of Chula Vista, Sweetwater, and Otay WD, retained another consultant, RMC Water & Environment, to prepare a feasibility study to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a Membrane Bioreactor Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MBR). ]t was contemplated that the MER plant would reduce the City's reliance on the City of San Diego (Metro System) treatment facilities while allowing the Sweetwater Authority and/or Otay WD to purvey recycled water to retail recycled water customers within their service areas. The MBR plant would operate by "scalping" flow off the existing wastewater truilk lines, while returning the resultillg solids to the Metro System. The MBR Study"was completed in October 2007, and the results of that analysis showed that the project was not economically advantageous for the Sweetwater Authority due to the excessive cost associated with the construction of transnllssion and distribution lines required to convey the projected recytled water demand of Sweetwater. However, the MBR study suggested implementation costs associated with a Chula VistaJOtay WD 4 MGD MBR facility seemed comparable to that of the City obtaining capacity in the Metro System directly, and should be further analyzed. A copy of the study is attached as EXhibit 2. Metro Capacitv Valuation Studv bv Raftelis.& Associates - November 2007 Concurrent with the Joint Feasibility Srudy, the Participating Agencies' (PAs) in the Metro System also retained a consultant, Raftelis & Associates, to prepare a Capacity Valuation Study with the goal of determining a value for treatment capacity in the Metro system. The results of that study would enable member agencies to trade,' exchange, or lease capacity among themselves. A copy of the most recent draft of the srudy is attached as Exhibit 3. SCOPE OF WORK The City is currently 'weighing two primary options for the acquisition of additional sewage disposal capacity: 1. Purchase of additional Metro System capacity rights from another member agency, including the City of San Diego, for a price within the range recommended by the Capacity Valuation Study. 2. Build a new wastewater reclamation facility in partnership..with Otay WD and/or other agencies. 7-15 City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 3 of 9 Through the studies discussed above, the City has developed some level of understanding of the benefits/costs, opportunities, and constraints associated with pursuing either option. The City is now interested in retaining additional consultant services to better refine some of the elements of the options under consideration. The cost fo"r these services is not to exceed $200,000. ' The tasks outlined below in the Scope of Work shall enable the Consultant to provide guidance to the City and to Otay WD on the best course of action: City and Otay WD Objectives L Provide reliable, cost-effcctive wastewater disposal service to accommodate both near- term and long-term growth projections in a manner that protects, or even benefits, the local environment. 2. Ensure the City has adequate authority and control to meet City wastewater needs to buildout. 3. Gain approval of our long-term service plan from the public, elected officials, and regulatory agencies. ' 4. Develop increased local recycled water supply for the Otay WD, City and Otay WD Project Goals: ]. Provide the City with information regarding an option to acquiring additional Metro System disposal capacity from another agency or agencies allowing City to meet treatment capacity needs now, and to City buildout. 2. Provide the City information regarding a realistic preliminary plan and associated cost estimates to develop a cost effective wastewater reclamation facility year-round (such as an MER plant) able to meet City needs now, and to City buildout. 3. Provide the City with information regarding a wastewater reclamation facility that would increase the Otay WD supply of recycled water, and the impacts on such a facility resulting from decreased recycled water demand during the winter months. Task 1- Collect Existing Data The Consultant shall compile and review the following existing studies and documents: . Sweetwater Recycled Water Master Plan . City ofChula Vista Wastewater Master Plan by PBS&J - May 2005 . City of Chula Vista Wastewater Reclamation Plant Study by Brown & Caldwell - April 2005 . Joint Feasibility Study for a Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MER) by JUvlC Water & Environment - October 2007 . Metro Capacity Valuation Study by Raftelis' & Associates - February 2008 7-16 "City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 4 of 9 . City of Chula Vista's Build out Flow Projections - July 2008 - Wastewater Engineering . Master Wastewater Disposal Agreement with the City of San Diego . East Omy Mesa Sewer Study by PBS&J on behalf of County of San Diego . Otay Water District Draft Water Resources Master Plan by PBS&J . Otay Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan, by CDM . Draft Otay Water District North District Recycled Water System Development Project Phase I Concept Study, by PBS&J Task 2 - Treatment Analysis A) Previous studies have evaluated MBR plants able to treat up to 4 MGD. The Consultant shall re-evaluate the MER treatment option for planning, permitting, environmental, design, construction management, and construction costs, including all associated improvements required to support, a 6 MGD reclamation plant. Said plant should be phased to meet short-term and long-term needs, but should ultimately be fully constructed in no more than three phases. " Each phase should be able to produce recycled water meeting the requirements of Title 22 and the requirements of the existing Otay WD recycled water RWCWB permit. " Cost estimates for the plant should consider a design that would enclose all treatment facilities within an aesthetically pleasing building that would allow the plant to be located in, or near, a residential community. B) The Consultant shall evaluate up to three potential project sites proposed by City staff to determine if the sites provide adequate acreage for each of the treatment facility scenarios described above. This analysis should include, but not be limited to, "Site I" as discussed in the RMC Study, provide land acquisition cost estimates, and a list of facilities required (and their associated costs) in order to connect proposed sites to both" sewer and recycled water transmission lines. Task 3 -Effluent Diversion Options The Consultant shall prepare a detailed evaluation of various effluent diversion options: A) Fail-safe Requirements - The Consultant shall evaluate and recommend the most cost- effective, feasible option for providing a fail-safe mechanism for the reclamation plant in case the plant becomes non-operational for any reason. Options to be considered shall include, but "not be limited to, on-site storage or re-introduction of the effluent flows into a trunk sewer line and ultimately into the City of San Diego South Metro Interceptor. The Consultant shall determine what penalties; if any, the City would need to pay per day to the Metropolitan Wastewater District for any treatment capacity volume violations associated with re-introduction of effluent flows from the plant into the Metro System. Capital, operation, and maintenance related costs associated with 7-17 City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 5 of 9 each option identified should be analyzed over a 20-year period and discussed in' the report. B) Effluent Diversion - Otay WD is currently designated as the primary user of the recycled water to be generated by the proposed wastewater reclamation facility. The Otay WD has updated long-term recycled water demand projections, It is projected that 'the Otay WD may not be able to, take all the flow generated by the proposed wastewater reclamation facility in the near term, especially during the ",'inter mo~ths. ' Consequently, the Consultant shall provide an evaluation of the Otay WD long-term market demand for recycled water in relation to wintcr demand and current take or pay requirements per terms of the existing SBWRP supply agreement With the City of San Diego, This evaluation mIl consider the potential of the'recycled water supply from the'Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility both bcing not available and available to the eastern portion of the City and the demand increase associated Mth the recycled water supply link to the Otay Mesa, The Consultant shall also determine the potential revenue generated from water sales under the following scenarios: a Otay purchases all of the flow generaied' year-round by the MER or other such plant b. Otay only purchases the amount of water they need in order to meet demand with remaining recycled water being conveyed to the South Bay Ocean Outfall. c. Otay only purchases the amount of water they need in order to meet demand mth remaining recycled water being conveyed into the Salt Creek drainage basin, C) The Consultant shall also quantify the City of San Diego's cost for treating flow through the South Bay Wastewater Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). Determine at the SBWRP the cost of treatment to the secondary level and the cost of treatment to the tertiary level, and their potential net revenue loss of not selling recycled water io the Otay WD. D) As identified in the RMC study, a wastewater reclamation facility to be potentially located along Main Street ("Site I") would require the construction of a transmission pipeline to convey recycled ",ater to the existing 30-inch diameter Otay WD recycled water transmission main connecting the SBWRP with the Otay WD 450-1 Reservoir. The, Consultant shall re-evaluate the size and cost (including both capital and maintenance costs over a 20 year period) to construct a transmission line from the wastewater reclamation facility to, the Otay WD existing recycled water transmission main able to accommodate flows resulting from a 6 MGD treatment facility. The Consultant shall also analyze the feasibility and discuss the capital, operational, and maintenance costs associated "'"-th improvements that may be required to utilize the existing 3D-inch transmission main that will allow produced recycled water generated by the proposed reclamation plant to flow into the South Bay Ocean Outfall via the 7-18 city of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 6 of 9 SBWRP systems during periods of time when the Otay WD has insufficient demand for recycled water. E) The Consultant shall determine the capital and maintenance costs associated with constructing an independent dedicated transmission line to convey recycled water that is able to convey up to 6 MGD from the existing Otay' WD transmission main to the South Bay Ocean Outfall over a. 20 year period. This could be either a connection directly to the South Bay Ocean Outfall or disposal via the existing International Boundary and Water Commission ("IBWC") Treatment Facility system. F) The Consultant shall evaluate the possibility of discharging excess recycled water produced during low demand periods of the year, via live stream discharge into the Salt Creek or other drainage basin and/or discharge via constructed wetlands, as a means to dispose of all, or a portion of, treated effluent from the proposed reclamation facility. The evaluation shall include permitting issues, constraints, potential discharge and . wetland locations within the City of Chula Vista or other viable locations, and all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of such facilities. Task 4 - Permitting Requirements The Consultant shall clearly identify all applicable regulatory agencies that have oversight on wastewater reclamation facilities. The Consultant shall list these agencies and the permits required including purpose of each permit from each agency, and the order that each permit should be obtained. The Consultant shall also describe probable timeframes, required studies, and costs associated with the acquisition of each permit. Task 5 - Create a Matrix of Options The Consultant shall create a matrix of all the results of the various wastewater reclamation studies, including the study described herein, and show how these options compare to the "Metro Capacity" costs shown in the Capacity Valuation. Study. Task 6 - Recommend Options Based on City of Chula Vista and Otay WD Project Goals and Objectives as previously described, the Consultant shall make a recommendation to 'proceed with one of the following: A) Purchase of additional Metro System capacity rights from the City of San Diego or a participating member agency - provide guidance on negotiation pararoeters and on the determination of a "fair price." B) Construct a wastewater reclamation facility in the City of Chula Vista. The study to be accomplished as described herein along with previous studies have all analyzed the costs for increasing the City's wastewater disposal capacity by building an MER 7-19 City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 7 of g reclarnation plant. The City chose this direction prima-rily based on the understanding that MER plants need a relatively small footprint On which to operate, are relatively easy to operate, are reasonably priced, and can be easily upsized should our treatment needs grow in the future. The Consultant, having read the existing studies on the topic .and understanding the City's needs, shall briefly discuss whether or not an !vlBR plant is the most appropriate type of facility to increase the City's sewer disposal capacity, or if other treatnient methods should be considered. The Consultant shall briefly summarize their frndings in the report should the construction of a treatment facility be their recommendation, stating that either the City is correct in analyzing an MER plant as the best available option, or recommend an alternative treatment method with specific reasons as to why such an option would provide a better alternative for the City of Chula Vista than an MER facility. Task 7 - Meetings and Public Outreach The Consultant shall assume the following meetings are required: A) One two-hour kickoff meeting with City and Otay WD staff to review the existing reports and data being provided to the Consultant, and to ensure understanding of the desired scope of work. B) Two two-hour workshops with City and Otay WD staff to review Consultant's draft report, matri.x of options, and recommendations. C) One two-hour workshop with City of Chula Vista Council members. D) One two-hour workshop with Otay WD Board of Directors. E) One City ofChula Vista Council meeting. F) One Otay ViD Board of Directors Meeting. The Consultant and the City along with Otay WD may recommend additional meetings that they deem ne'cessary to facilitate the achievement of the project goals and objectives. In addition to the meetings described above, the Consultant will be expected to hold one community meeting to introduce the concept of a Chula Vista wastewater reclamation facility, obtaining the general public's opinion of the idea and any concerns they may have. The Consultant will be expected to facilitate the meeting with assistance from City and Otay WD staff at a location to be determined and provided by the City of Chula Vista Task 8 - Deliverables A) Deliverables shall include an outline of the Consultants' report (Technical Memorandum) and Final Report. 7-20 City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 8 of 9 B) A progress report (one page bullet item summary of activities initiated, on-going, and/or completed during the period) shall be included vvith the Consultant's monthly invoice. Task 9 - Schedule The Consultant shall be allowed six weeks from receipt of the Notice to Proceed and receipt of all background data shown in Task I to complete the Technical Memorandum, and two weeks after the City and Otay WD review comments have been received to complete the fmal draft of the Technical Memorandum. The Consultant shall allow two weeks each for the agenCies reviews of draft reports. By the time the Technical Memorandum is completed and approved by the City and Otay WD, the Consultant shall establish a schedule for the delivery of the Final Report acceptable to the Consultant, the City, and Otay WD. Said schedule shall not exceed 9 months from the notice to proceed. Optional Tasks Consultant shall prepare individual cost estimates for the optional tasks described below. These tasks are optional in that the City and Otay WD mayor may not decide to ask the Consultant to perform the work. A) Preparing a Grant Application - The Consultant selected for the project may be asked to prepare a grant application seekiog funding from appropriate sources for either or all of the planning, design, and/or construction of a wastewater reclamation facility. B) The Consultant selected may be asked to provide an analysis. of a San Diego County Water Authority study regarding a regional brine line to determine potential project cost savings for utilizing such a regional facility for disposal of excess recycled water produced. Said analysis would be needed for each potential project site and account for tlie improvements required to connect the reclamation facility to the proposed brine line. C) For companies or project teams that provide operation and facility fmancing services under "design-build-operate-finance" agreements or other such public-private partnerships: Evaluate the different facilities described in Task 2A over a 20-year and 30-year period, comparing the costs the City would incur under a traditional design- build process (with the City operating the facility) versus a public-private partnership (with funding and facility operation coming from private entities). Provide detailed information regarding the marmer in which such a partnership would work. . D) Identify large potential recycled water customers in Chula Vista west ofI-805 (such as the San Diego Country Club), estimate the volume of recycled water they might consume throughout the year, and determine the costs associated with building the infrastructure necessary to deliver recycled water from the reclamation plant to each. Firm Qualification Submittal Requirements: 7-21 City of Chula Vista Sewage Treatment Capacity Acquisition Request for Proposals Page 9 of 9 Interested applicants are requested to submit a summary of their qualifications. The statements shall be concise and not exceed a total of] 5 pages two-sided or 30 pages one-sided inclusive of all appendices with narrative font size no smaller than 10. The statement shall include the following: I. General description of the consulting firm with the name, address, contact number, along with the finn's expertise, qualifications, and involvement in this type of consulting. 2. The ofiice location of the principal consultant who w-ill be providing the services. 3. Overall understanding of the scope of work and identification of unique characteristics of this project. 4. Record of completed similar work or projects within the last five years with a comparable magnitude in size, scope of work, and include references and contact information. 5. List of speciiic experience demonstrating a complete understanding of MBR systems and other treatment options, including their design, capital, and operating costs. 6. List of each key member of the team as well as any sub-consultant's team to be utilized on this project along with individual staff's qualifications and recent experience within the past five years in similar projects with your firm that has been completed and/or is under construction. 7. List the name of the Project Manager, who will be the City's contact and hislher office location during the term of the contract. The selection process will be limited to the most qualiiied firms. In order to be considered, a firm's qualifications must include special knowledge of MBR technology along with associated design, capital, and operational costs. Additional consideration may be given to firms that have -completed design projects using MER technology or have a record of success on similar work for research and/or design of wastewater reclamation facilities. The Selection Advisory Committee will evaluate the statements and then recommend the top three to five most qualified firms to continue in the RFP evaluation process. The City and Otay WD staff shall eonsist of the selection team. Jo\Engineer\SEWER\TREATMBIT PLA;.\1T\09 Fr::asibility Study\NtBR Consultant Sc:"ices RFP.doc 7-22 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND IUvIC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT FOR PREPARING A WASTEWATER RECLAl'vlATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, the economy, employment, and quality of life within the San Diego County region is dependent on a reliable and affordable water supply; and WHEREAS, additional wastewater collection disposal capacity can be obtained by Chula Vista through the construction of a wastewater reclamation facility within the City of Chula Vista or by acquiring additional sewage disposal capacity from Metropolitan Wastewater Department (Metro) of the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the current Otay Water District long-term projected recycled water demand established the need for increased recycled water supply to satisfy the market demand; and WHEREAS, City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District wish to further analyze the feasibility of a wastewater reclamation facility through the acquisition of professional engineering consulting services to provide additional analyses regarding costs and physical improvements required to permit and construct a wastewater reclamation facility; and. WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal ("RFP") was issued with a due date of November 4,2009; and WHEREAS, on said date, the City of Chula Vista received six (6) proposals from firms interested in providing said consultant services; and WHEREAS, after the City completed their review of the proposals and interviewed all six firms, the City and Otay Water District selected RL\1C Water and Environment to provide said services; and WHEREAS, IUvIC Water and Environment warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can deliver the services required in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and RLvIC Water and Environment for preparing a Wastewater Reclamation Facility Feasibility study. Presented by Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works 7-23 THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FOR1\J1ALL Y SIGNED UPON APPR ;vAL BY T CITY C CIL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND RMC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT TO PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES NEEDED TO F ACILIT A TE THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL CAPACITY 7-24 Agreement between City of Chula Vista and, RJvlC Water and Environment to Provide Consultant Services Needed to Facilitate the City of Chula Vista Acquisition of Additional Wastewater Disposal Capacity This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is othenvise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph l, is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, The economy, employment, and quality of life within the San Diego County region is dependent on a reliable and affordable water supply, which requires cooperation among local water and sewer service agencies through the pursuit of goals that are of mutual and regional benefit. WHEREAS, in 2005 Chula Vista completed a Wastewater Master Plan, concurrent with the update of the City of Chula Vista's General Plan, which identified a shortage of wastewater collection disposal capacity prior to the City of Chula Vista's ultimate build out. 'WHEREAS, additional wastewater collection disposal capacity can be obtained by Chula Vista through the construction of a wastewater reclamation facility within tile City of Chula Vista or by acquiring additional sewage disposal capacity from the City of San Diego or from other participating agencies within the Metropolitan Sewerage System, per terms of the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement. WHEREAS, the current Otay long-term projected recycled water demand established the need for increased recycled water supply to satisfy the market demand, \VHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District intend to work jointly and cooperatively towards the completion of a feasibility study analyzing the potential construction of a wastewater reclamation facility within the City of Chula Vista, which includes recycled water production for increased local supply, WHEREAS, Chula Vista, in coordination with Sweetwater Authority and Otay, have completed two studies analyzing the feasibility of constructing a wastewater reclamation facility within the City of Chula Vista utilizing Membrane Bioreactor (MER) technology capable of producing recycled water meeting Title 22 requirements, The MER technology was found to be technically feasible. WHEREAS, The Parties wish to further analyze the feasibility of a wastewater reclamation facility through the acquisition of professional engineering consulting services to Page 1 7-25 provide additional analyses regarding costs and physical improvements required to permit and construct a wastewater reclamation facility. WHEREAS, A Request for Proposal ("RFP") was issued with a due date of November 4, 2009; and, WHEREAS, on said date, the City of Chula Vista received six (6) proposals from fIrms interested in providing said consultant services; and, . WHEREAS, after the City completed their review of the proposals for all six fIrms, the City selected RMC Water and Environment to provide the services necessary; and, WHEREAS, RLVlC Water and Environment warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and RMC Water and Environment do hereby mutually agree as follows: All of the Recitals above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. ARTICLE 1. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS A. General I. General Duties. Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties". 2. Scope of Work and Schedule. In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.9, entitled "Task 10- Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.9, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identifIed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defmed Services". Failure to complete the DefIned Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, terminate this Agreement. 1. /?edt/clfol1S fn Scope 0/ fforle City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time, reduce the DefIned Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. ii. Adm/fond ServICes. In addition to performing the DefIned Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Page 2 7-26 Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in3 B, Paragraph 13(C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. 3. Task Orders. Consultant shall not commence work on a Project unless and until the City has issued a written "Task Order" for that Project. No costs incurred on a Project prior to the issuance of a Task Order shall be recoverable by Consultant under this Agreement. 4. Standard of Care. The Consultant expressly warrants that the work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, and the Task Orders shall be performed in accordance with the standard of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. 1. /Vo ffaiver ifStol1t1ortl if Core. Where approval by City or other agencies as may be applicable is required, it is understood to be conceptual approval only and does not relieve the Consultant of responsibility for complying with all laws, codes, industry standards, and liability for damages caused by negligent acts, errors, omissions, noncompliance with industry standards, or the willful misconduct of the Consultant or its subconsultants. B. Application of Laws. Should a federal or state law pre-empt a local law, or regulation, the Consultant must comply with the federal or state law and implementing regulations. No provision of the Agreement requires the Consultant to observe or enforce compliance with any provision, perform any'other act, or do any other thing in contravention of federal, state, territorial, or local law, regulation, or ordinance. If compliance with any provision of the Agreement violates or would require the Consultant to violate any law, the Consultant agrees to notify City immediately in writing. Should this occur, the City and the Consultant agree that they will make appropriate arrangements to proceed with or, if necessary, terminate the Project, or portions thereof, expeditiously. I. Subcontractors. Consultant agrees to take appropriate measures necessary to ensure that all Project participants, such as subcontractors, comply with all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies, whether federal, state, or local, affecting performance of the Defined Services for a Project. In addition, if a subcontractor is expected to fulfill any responsibilities of the Consultant under this Agreement, the Consultant shall assure that the subcontractor carries out the Consultant's responsibilities as set forth in this Agreement. C. Insurance 1. General. Consultant must procure and maintain, during the period of performance of this Agreement, policies of insurance from insurance companies to protect against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the Page 3 7-27 performance of the work under the Agreement and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement of work. 2. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage must be at least as broad as: 1. CGL Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CGOOOI). 11 Auto. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). iii. ire Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. IV. E&O Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. Architects' and Engineers' coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability. 3. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor must maintain limits no less than those included in the table below: i. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, (Including (including death), and property damage. If Commercial General operations, Liability insurance with a general aggregate limit is used, either products and the general aggre gate limit must apply separately to this completed project/location or the general aggregate limit must be twice the operations, as required occurrence limit. applicable) 11. Automobile $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury, including death, and Liability: property damage. ... Workers' Statutory 111. Compensation $1,000,000 each accident Employer's $1,000,000 disease-policy limit Liability: $1,000,000 disease-each employee IV. Professional $1,000,000 each occurrence Liability or Errors $2.000.000 policv aggregate & Omissions Liability: 4. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant will provide a fmancial Page 4 7-28 guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. 5. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability, automobile liability, and where appropriate, the worker's compensation policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. Ada/donol/nsureds. City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds with respect all policies of insurance, including those with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Consultant, where applicable, and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished in' connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement must not exclude Products/Completed Operations coverage. 11. Fnino;y /nsuronce. The Consultant's General Liability insurance coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance. iii. Concellolion. The insurance policies required must be endorsed to state that coverage will not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. iv. Acl/~'e Negligence. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insureds in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. v. 1J7oA-er q/'Stlorogolion. Consultant's insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each required policy providing coverage for the term required by this Agreement. 6. Claims Forms. If General Liability, Pollution and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverage are written on a claims-made form: 1. /relro LJole. The "Retro Date" must be shown, and must be before the date of the. contract or the beginning of the contract work. ii. Ahinlenonce ond EVIdence. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work. Page 5 7-29 iii. Concellolion. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a "Retro Date" prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. iv. Copks. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review. 7. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers ("LESLI") with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically rated. 8. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements affecting coverage required by Section C. The endorsements should be on insurance industry forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the contract requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications. 9. Subconsultants. Consultants must include all sub consultants as insureds under its policies or furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subconsultant. All coverage for subconsultants is subject to all of the requirements included in these specifications. 10. Not a Limitation of Other Obligations. Insurance provisions under this Article shall not be construed to limit the Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, including Indemnity. '. D. Security for Performance 1. Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 21, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond in the form prescribed by the City and by such sureties which are authorized to transact such business in the State of California, listed as approved by the United States Department of Treasury Circular 570, http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570, and whose underwriting limitation is sufficient to issue bonds in the amount required by the agreement, and which also satisfy the requirements stated in Section 995.660 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as provided otherwise by laws or regulations. All bonds signed by an agent must be accompanied by a certified copy of such agent's authority to act. Surety companies must Page 6 7-30 be duly licensed or authorized in the jurisdiction in which the Project is located to issue bonds for the limits so required. Form must be satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adj acent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph 21. 2. Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 21, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph 21 3. Other Security. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 21, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. E. Business License. Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. ARTICLE II. CITY OBLIGATIONS A. Consultation and Cooperation. City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained for each Task Order, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this Agreement and the Task Order. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.1, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond thirty (30) days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation. 1. Following Receipt of Billing. Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 20, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 20, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to Page 7 7-31 the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in Paragraph 21 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. 2. Supporting Information. Any billing submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing, including properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, or vouchers describing in detail the nature of the charges to the Project in order to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and such billing shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 20(C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Exclusions. In determining the amount of the compensation City will exclude any cost 1) incurred prior to the effective &lte of this Agreement; 2) arising out of or related to the errors, omissions, negligence or acts of willful misconduct of the Consultant, its agents, employees, or subcontractors. 1. Errors and Omiysions. In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 4. Payment Not Final Approval. The Consultant understands and agrees that payment to the Consultant for any Project cost does not constitute a City final decision about whether that cost is allowable and eligible for payment under the Project and does not constitute a waiver of any violation of Consultant of the terms of the Agreement. The Consultant acknowledges that City will not make a final determination about the eligibility of any cost until the final payment has been made on the Project or the results of an audit of the Project requested by the City has been completed, whichever occurs latest. If City determines that the Consultant is not entitled to receive any portion of the compensation due or paid, City will notify the Consultant in writing, stating its reasons. The Consultant agrees that Project closeout will not alter the Consultant's responsibility to return any funds due City as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other similar transactions; nor will Project closeout alter the right of City to disallow costs and recover funds provided for the Project on the basis of a later audit or other review. 1. Constlltant S OblIgation to Ft!Y. Upon notification to the Consultant that specific amounts are owed to City, whether for excess payments or disallowed costs, the Consultant agrees to remit to City promptly the amounts owed, including applicable interest. ARTICLE III. ETHICS A. Financial Interests of Consultant- Page 8 7-32 I. Consultant is Desi[!t1ated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 17, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of tbe Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 17 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. 2. No Participation in Decision. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. 3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by tbe Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. 4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. 5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise tbe City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's tbat may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated tbereunder. . 6. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant i,varrants, represents and agrees: 1. That neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be tbe subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17. 11. That no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City Page 9 7-33 of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months thereafter. iii. That Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months after the expiration of this Agreeme~t, except with the written permission of City. iv. That Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party that may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. IV. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES A. Application of Section. The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 16. I. Estimating Damages. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. 2. Amount of Penalty. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the Consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). 3. Request for Extension of Time. If the performance of any act required of Consultant is directly prevented or delayed by reason of strikes, lockouts, labor disputes, unusual governmental delays, acts of God, fire, floods, epidemics, freight embargoes, or other causes beyond the reasonable control of the Consultant, as determined by the City, Consultant shall be excused from performing that act for the period of time equal to the period oftime of the prevention or delay. In the event Consultant claims the existence of such a delay, the Consultant shall notify the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, in writing of that fact within ten (10) calendar days after the beginning of any such claimed delay. Extensions of time will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. ARTICLE V. INDEMNIFICATION A. Defense, Indemnity, and Hold Harmless. I. General Requirement. Except for liability for Professional Services covered under Article V, Section (A)(2), Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any and all Page 10 7-34 claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors, arising out of or in connection 'with the performance of the Defined Services or this Agreement. This indemnity provision does not include any claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations, attorneys fees) arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. 2. Professional Services. For those professionals who are required to be licensed by the state (e.g. architects, landscape architects, surveyors and engineers) ("Design Professionals"), Design Professionals shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to any negligence, errors or omissions, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Design Professional, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Design Professional's Services. Also covered is liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Design Professional, its employees, agents or officers, or any third party. The Design Professional's duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. This section in no way alters, affects or modifies the Design Professional's obligation and duties under this Agreement. 3. Costs of Defense and Award. Included in the obligations in Sections I and 2, above, is the Consultant's obligation to defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City. or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expense and cost incurred by each of them in connection therewith. 4. Insurance Proceeds. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers. Page 11 7-35 5. Declarations. Consultant's obligations under Article V shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 6. Enforcement Costs. Consultant agrees to pay any and all costs City incurs enforcing the indemnity and defense provisions set forth in Article V. 7. Survival. Consultant's obligations under Article V shall survive the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE VI. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. Termination for Cause. If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all fmished or unfmished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the .property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation, in an amount not to exceed that payable under this Agreement and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach, for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination,. B. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City. City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation, in an amount not to exceed that payable under this Agreement, for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. ARTICLE VII. RECORD RETENTION AND ACCESS A. Record Retention. During the course of the Project and for three (3) years following completion, the Consultant agrees and to maintain, intact and readily accessible, all data; documents, reports, records, contracts, and supporting materials relating to the Project as City may require. B. Access to Records of Consultant and Subconsultants. The Consultant agrees to permit, and require its subconsultants to permit City or its authorized representatives, upon request, to inspect all Project work, materials, payrolls, and other data, and to audit the books, records, and accounts of the Contractor and its subconsultants pertaining to the Project. Page 12 7-36 C. Project Closeout. The Consultant agrees that Project closeout does not alter the reporting and record retention requirements of this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII. PROJECT COMPLETION, AUDIT, AND CLOSEOUT A. Project Completion. Within ninety (90) calendar days following Project completion or termination by CITY, the Consultant agrees to submit a final certification of Project expenses and audit reports, as applicable. B. Audit of Consultants. The Consultant agrees to have performed financial and compliance audits the City may require. The Consultant also agrees to obtain any other audits required by City. The Consultant agrees that Project closeout will not alter the Consultant's audit responsibilities. Audit costs are allowable Project costs. C. Project Closeout. Project closeout occurs when City notifies the Consultant that City has closed the Project, and either forwards the final payment or acknowledges that the Consultant has remitted the proper refund. The Consultant agrees that Project closeout by City does not invalidate any continuing requirements imposed by the Agreement or any unmet requirements set forth in a written notification from City ARTICLE VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Assignability. The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or notation), without prior written consent of City. I. Limited Consent. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 19 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". B. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material. All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express \vTitten consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. C. Independent Contractor. City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, Page 13 7-37 employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, independent contractors and shall not be deemed to be employees of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. I. Actions on Behalf of City. Except as City may specify in writing, Grantee shall have no authority, express or .implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever, as an agent or otherwise. Grantee shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind City or its members, agents, or employees, to any obligation whatsoever, unless expressly provided in this Agreement. 2. No Obligations to Third Parties. In connection with the Project, the Consultant agrees and shall require that it's agents, employees, subcontractors agree that the City shall not . be responsible for any obligations or liabilities to any third party, including its agents, employees, subcontractors, or other person or entity that is not a party to this Agreement. Notwithstanding that the City may have concurred in or approved any solicitation, subagreement, or third party contract at any tier, neither City shall have any obligations or liabilities to such other party. D. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein,. and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose ofresolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. E. Administration of Contract. Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as said party's contract administrator' who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. F. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. G. Attorney's Fees. Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. H. Statement of Costs. In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Page 14 7-38 Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document.' I. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman. If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. J. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permined to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in . the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each ofthe designated parties. K. Integration. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. L. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. M. Governing LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. (End of page. Next page is signature page.) Page 15 7-39 Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chu\a Vista and RMC Water and Environment to provide services needed to facilitate the City of Chula Vista acquisition of additional wastewater disposal capacity IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and RMC Water and Environment have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: City of Chu\a Vista By: Cheryl Cox, Mayor Attest: Donna Norris, City Clerk Approved as to form: Bart Miesfeld, City Attorney Dated: RMC Water and Environment By:~ Tom Richardson, Principal In Charge Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A. Exhibit B. RMC Proposed Cost Estimate Exhibit C. RMC Proposed Project Approach Page 16 7-40 Exhibit A to Agreement between City ofChula Vista and Rt\1C Water and Environment to Provide Consultant Services Needed to Facilitate the City of Chula Vista Acquisition of Additional Wastewater Disposal Capacity 1. Effective Date of Agreement: Same as final City signature on page 16 of this agreement. 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City ofChula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of Cali fomi a ( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California ( ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a ( ) Other: , a [insert business form] ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: RMC Water and Environment 4225 Executive Square, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92037 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fa;", Number of Consultant: 4225 Executive Square, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92037 Page 17 7-41 Telephone: (858) 875-7400 Fax: (858) 875-7401 7. General Duties: 7.1 Task I - Collect Existing Data The Consultant shall compile and review the following existing studies and documents: o Sweetwater Recycled Water Master Plan o City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan by PBS&J - May 2005 o City of Chula Vista Wastewater Reclamation Plant Study by Brown & Caldwell - April 2005 o Joint Feasibility Study for a Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MER) by RMC Water & Environment - October 2007 o Metro Capacity Valuation Study by Raftelis & Associates - February 2008 o City of Chula Vista's Build out Flow Projections - July 2008 - Wastewater Engineering o Master Wastewater Disposal Agreement with the City of San Diego o East Otay Mesa Sewer Study by PBS&J on behalf of County of San Diego o Otay Water District Draft Water Resources Master Plan by PBS&J o Otay Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan, by CDM o Draft Otay Water District North District Recycled Water System Development Project Phase I Concept Study, by PBS&J 7.2 Task 2 - Treatment Analysis A) Previous studies have evaluated MER plants able to treat up to 4 MGD. The Consultant shall re-evaluate the MER treatment option for planning, permitting, environmental, design, construction management, and construction costs, including all associated improvements required to support, a 6 MGD reclamation plant. Said plant should be phased to meet short-term and long-term needs, but should ultimately be fully constructed in no more than three phases. Each phase should be able to produce recycled water meeting the requirements of Title 22 and the requirements of the existing Otay WD recycled water RWCWB permit. Cost estimates for the plant should consider a design that would enclose all treatment facilities within an aesthetically pleasing building that would allow the plant to be located in, or near, a res!dential community. B) The Consultant shall evaluate up to three potential project sites proposed by City staff to determine if the sites provide adequate acreage for each of the treatment facility scenarios described above. This analysis should include, but not be limited to, "Site I" as discussed in the RMC Study, provide land acquisition cost estimates, and a list of facilities required (and their associated costs) in order to connect proposed sites to both sewer and recycled water transmission lines. Page 18 7-42 7.3 Task 3 -Effluent Diversion Options The Consultant shall prepare a detailed evaluation of various effluent diversion options: A) Fail-safe Requirements - The Consultant shall evaluate and recommend the most cost- effective, feasible option for providing a fail-safe mechanism for the reclamation plant in case the plant becomes non-operational for any reason. Options to be considered shall include, but not be limited to, on-site storage or re-introduction of the effluent flows into a trunk sewer line and ultimately into the City of San Diego South Metro Interceptor. The Consultant shall determine what penalties, if any, the City would need to pay per day to the Metropolitan Wastewater District for any treatment capacity volume violations associated with re-introduction of effluent flows from the plant into the Metro System. Capital, operation, and maintenance related costs associated with each option identified should be analyzed over a 20-year period and discussed in the report. B) Effluent Diversion - Otay WD is currently designated as the primary user of the recycled water to be generated by the proposed wastewater reclamation facility. The Otay WD has updated long-term recycled water demand projections. It is projected that the Otay WD may not be able to take all the flow generated by the proposed wastewater reclamation facility in the near term, especially during the winter months. Consequently, the Consultant shall provide an evaluation of the Otay 'NO long-term market. demand for recycled water in relation to winter demand and current take or pay requirements per terms of the existing SBWRP supply agreement with the City of San Diego. This evaluation will consider the potential of the recycled water supply from the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility both being not available and available to the eastern portion of the City and the demand increase associated with the recycled water supply link to the Otay Mesa. The Consultant shall also determine the potential revenue generated from water sales under the following scenarios: a. Otay purchases all of the flow generated year-round by the MBR or other such plant b. Otay only purchases the amount of water they need in order to meet demand with remaining recycled water being conveyed to the South Bay Ocean Outfall. c. Otay only purchases the amount of water they need in order to meet demand with remaining recycled water being conveyed into the Salt Creek drainage basin. C) The Consultant shall also quantify the City of San Diego's cost for treating flow through the South Bay Wastewater Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). Determine at the SBWRP the cost of treatment to the secondary level and the cost of treatment to the tertiary level, and their potential net revenue loss of not selling recycled water to the OtayWD. D) As identified in the RMC study, a wastewater reclamation facility to be potentially located along Main Street ("Site I") would require the construction of a transmission Page 19 7-43 pipeline to convey recycled water to the existing 3~-inch diameter Otay WD recycled water transmission main connecting the SBWRP with the Otay WD 450-1 Reservoir. The Consultant shall re-evaluate the size and cost (including both capital and maintenance costs over a 20 year period) to construct a transmission line from the wastewater reclamation facility to the Otay WD existing recycled water transmission main able to accommodate flows resulting from a 6 MGD treatment facility. The Consultant shall also analyze the feasibility and discuss the capital, operational, and maintenance costs associated with improvements that may be required to utilize the existing 3~-inch transmission main that will allow produced recycled water generated by the proposed reclamation plant to flow into the South Bay Ocean Outfall via the SBWRP systems during periods of time when the Otay WD has insufficient demand for recycled water. E) The Consultant shall determine the capital and maintenance costs associated with constructing an independent dedicated transmission line to convey recycled water that is able to convey up to 6 MGD from the existing Otay WD transmission main to the South Bay Ocean Outfall over a 20 year period. This could be either a connection directly to the South Bay Ocean Outfall or disposal via the existing International Boundary and Water Commission ("IBWC") Treatment Facility system. F) The Consultant shall evaluate the possibility of discharging excess recycled water produced during low demand periods of the year, via live stream discharge into the Salt Creek or other drainage basin and/or discharge via constructed wetlands, as a means to dispose of all, or a portion of, treated effluent from the proposed reclamation facility. The evaluation shall include permitting issues, constraints, potential discharge and wetland locations within the City of Chula Vista or other viable locations, and all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of such facilities. 7.4 Task 4 - Permitting Requirements The Consultant shall clearly identify all applicable regulatory agencies that have oversight on wastewater reclamation facilities. The Consultant shall list these agencies and the permits required including purpose of each permit from each agency, and the order that each permit should be obtained. Th~ Consultant shall also describe probable timeframes, required studies, and costs associated with the acquisition of each permit. 7 .5 Task 5 - Create a Matrix of Options The Consultant shall create a matrix of all the results of the various wastewater reclamation studies, including the study described herein, and show how these options compare to the "Metro Capacity" costs shown in the Capacity Valuation Study. 7.6 Task 6 - Recommend Options Based on City of Chula Vista and Otay WD Project Goals and Objectives as previously described, the Consultant shall make a recommendation to proceed with one of the following: Page 20 7-44 A) Purchase of additional Metro System capacity rights from the City of San Diego or a participating member agency - provide guidance on negotiation parameters and on the determination of a "fair price." B) Construct a wastewater reclamation facility in the City of Chula Vista. The study to be accomplished as described herein along with previous studies has all analyzed the costs for increasing the City's wastewater disposal capacity by building an MER reclamation plant. The City chose this direction primarily based on the understanding that MER plants need a relatively small footprint on which to operate, are relatively easy to operate, are reasonably priced, and can be easily upsized should our treatment needs to grow in the future. The Consultant, having read the existing studies on the topic and understanding the City's needs, shall briefly discuss whether or not an MER plant is the most appropriate type of facility to increase the City's sewer disposal capacity, or if other treatment methods should be considered. The Consultant shall briefly summarize their findings in the report should the construction of a treatment facility be their recommendation, stating that either the City is correct in analyzing an MER plant as the best available option, or recommend an alternative treatment method with specific reasons as to why such an option would provide a better alternative for the City of Chula Vista than an MBR facility. 7.7 Task 7 - Meetings and Public Outreach The Consultant shall assume the following meetings are required: A) One two-hour kickoff meeting with City and Otay WD staff to review the existing reports and data being provided to the Consultant, and to ensure understanding of the desired scope of work. B) Two two-hour workshops with City and Otay WD staff to review Consultant's draft report, matrix of options, and recommendations. C) One two-hour workshop with City of Chula Vista Council members. D) One two-hour workshop with Otay WD Board of Directors. E) One City ofChula Vista Council meeting. F) One Otay WD Board of Directors Meeting. The Consultant and the City along with Otay WD may recommend additional meetings that they deem necessary to facilitate the achievement of the project goals and objectives. In addition to the meetings described above, the Consultant will be expected to hold one community meeting to introduce the concept of a Chula Vista wastewater reclamation facility, obtaining the general public's opinion of the idea and any concerns they may have. The Consultant will be expected to facilitate the meeting with assistance from City and Otay WD staff at a location to be determined and provided by the City of Chula Vista. 7.8- Task 8 - Deliverables Page 21 7-45 Deliverables shall include two hard copies and one electronic copy of the following: 1- Draft Technical Memorandum 2- Final Technical Memorandum 3- Draft of Feasibility Study Report 4- Final Feasibility Study Report 5- A progress report (one page bullet item summary of activities initiated, on- going, and/or completed during the period) shall be included with the Consultant's monthly invoice. 7.9. Task 9 -Additional Tasks Listed in RMC Project Approach In addition to the tasks listed above, all tasks identified in the proposed Project Approach that was submitted by RMC are here made a part of this agreement (see Exhibit C). 7.10- Task 10 - Schedule The Consultant shall be allowed six weeks from receipt of the Notice to Proceed and receipt of all background data shown in Task I to complete a draft Technical Memorandum. The Consultant shall allow two weeks for the agencies reviews of the Draft Technical Memorandum. Subsequently, the Consultant shall be allowed two weeks following the receipt of City and Otay WD comments to review and address the comments and finalize the Technical Memorandum. By the time the Technical Memorandum is completed and approved by the City and Otay WD, the Consultant shall establish a schedule for the delivery of the Draft and Final Report acceptable to the Consultant, the City, and Otay WD. Said schedule shall not exceed 9 months from the notice to proceed. 8. Personnel All services provided hereunder shall be performed solely by the below-listed individuals, except for those certain non-professional, administrative services, such as photocopying, typing, or faxing. Any substitutions shall require City's prior written consent. Violations of this provision shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement. I) Don Bunts, Project Manager - RMC 2) Michael Welch, Effluent Management and Permitting - Independent Consultant 3) Dawn Guendert, Membrane Technologies - Carollo Engineers 4) Vincent Roquebert, MBR Design - Carollo Engineers 5) Paul Giguere, Sewage Flow Analysis - Rj\1C 6) Mike Matson, Recycled Water Conveyance - RMC 7) Ted Downen, Cost Estimating- Carollo Engineers 8) Tish Berge, Financial Analysis and Funding - RL\.1C 9) Elizabeth Caliva, Project Support - RL\.1C Page 22 7-46 Don Bunts shall as a single point of contact for the City. The City shall reserve the right of refusing personnel assigned this project. 9. Conflict of Interest Consultant shall not retain any clients who are doing work under pennits or contractual agreements with the City of Chula Vista unless otherwise approved in writing by City Engineer. 10. Work not listed in Schedule Additional services shall be addressed in the manner identified in Article leA) (2) (i). The schedule for providing this work shall be negotiated in good faith between the City and the Consultant. The negotiated price(s) for additional services shall be based on the hourly rates as listed in Exhibit B of this agreement. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: a. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of De live rabies: The Consultant shall be allowed six weeks from receipt of the Notice to Proceed and receipt of all background data shown in Task I of the Request for Proposal to complete the Technical Memorandum, and two weeks after the City and OtayWD review comments have been received to complete the final draft of the Technical Memorandum. The Consultant shall allow two weeks each for the agencies reviews of draft reports. By the time the Technical Memorandum is completed and approved by the City and Otay WD, the Consultant shall establish a schedule for the delivery of the Final Report acceptable to the Consultant, the City, and Otay WD. Said schedule shall not exceed 9 months from the notice to proceed. II. Date for completion of all Consultant services: Nine month after Notice to Proceed. 12. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Final Report 13. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For perfonnance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Oeliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows: Page 23 7-47 Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee ( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Phase 1. 2. 3. Fee for Said Phase $ $ $ ( ) I. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or Page 24 7-48 such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule herein below according to the following terms and conditions: (I) (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will.perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $199,990, including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation"). Optional tasks as approved by the City not to exceed amount listed in Exhibit B for Optional Tasks. (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to $500,000 ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. See Exhibit B for wage rates. ( )Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 20_, if delay in providing services is caused by City. 14. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: (X) None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate $ $ $ $ $ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Reports, not to exceed $ Copies, not to exceed $ Travel, not to exceed $ Printing, not to exceed $ Postage, not to exceed $ Page 25 7-49 ( ) (x) (x) Delivery, not to exceed $ Outside Services: Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: , not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ $ Cost Plus 15% Cost Plus 15% $ $ 15. Contract Administrators: City: Roberto Yano, Sr. Civil Engineer Public Services Building 476 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: (619) 476-2402 Fax: (619) 691-5171 Consultant: Don Bunts, Project Manager RMCWater and Environment 4225 Executive Square, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 875-7400 Fax: (858) 875-7401 16. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $ ( ) Other: per day. 17. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X)Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ( ) Category No.1. Investments and sources of income. ( ) Category No.2. Interests in real property. ( ) Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property. and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department ( ) Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income that engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Page 26 7-50 ( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies; materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No.7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 18. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 19. Permitted Subconsultants: Carollo Engineers 20. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period oftime: (X) Monthly ( ) Quarter! y ( ) Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month (X) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: SW-258 21. Security for Performance Page 27 7-51 ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: Type: Amount: $ ( ) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: ( ) Retention Amount: $ % Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: Page 28 7-52 4 ~ " c:_t;i 3: ~ <:l .g-:g. .lO:a~ . " . . o. __a Ol'. Q)~..2 . .Q ~a~ B -g :;. ~:.; ~~~ >- ~~g 0'<::;: iijU'ti "-~ . 0 ~ - ,,- 0_0 tto~ , a . ~ o " . :g, ~ 3~ 00 '"""'....., t;;g~~ ~~-~ ~ EXHIBIT B ~E;g~~~~ ...;:;":i.....,...~~ ..... ........... ....--............ '-g-.. : ;~, !:~f~h;:~, i~l:~~;}. :q!o'" -.~u. .:-,' ~t.. '0 ' ~U' - ~. ~~ a " ~l o ~ -g :1 1- !; ~:-" ",:. <!]' ~ " ~: 1:3',' "-l ;.l ~ --:- t3 'll. 00 o ]~ ". j - , ~ 8:. :., 1-.. .', ~t. ~~ ~~ g~ ",j... "'''',::..,. a;;:~ ., ..."",,,,,,::, ~ .::>0"''''''''''''' ",...~- .. - :;::~g<! ............. ",' ":~"'i. ;:; "".. ~ " . . - ~"''''~ 00 .. ,.;~ ClCClO 0"''''''' .......""':i " 0000000 .,"'''' '" ......,,- ",,,,a,,,_...,,, ...g;",'",;,,;,,; ~:=l g~~:::: ~~:l~1!:l5!~ 'I'!"' . ' <.~ . .. " .. 0 ~a ~ 0 e" ':::'lli.. ~e. ~':i " :-5:.. ~. .. UI., ! , ~ a ~ " , < n' ~.~ .. l! a:~ ~ "'8' c ;. , Ii ~. " ! H ,.'~' .. .,+..i :",C',,";' ",\," ,J;;1';I~ ":;';"'il~1 - .~ , . " ~ l :I " -: -. -- NN .0 .,,,,s;:; " ~ -~ ~ ~ . . ~ 1 , , ~., ~ :; ~ g .x""'= p- ~F! ," . ~!! ~~~ ~ ~ ~ C:"'W -N" ..~~"'.. 15 ",s~';:!:;!""E! ...~s........~ ~~ H '3.9 =...0<1 .. 8;::l '8 "<::,,"=,,, ,. ."'a" ,*"51 O:l1'l. ~~~.! ~ ,3u ,!!,. g .. e.;! ~o ~;t~~a! a oS ~ ~ 'll n ~;:J"'.s'3; diH>~ ~~i"l~~ ""~51~8 g -~ j!:::I""" ':;C~31~ g '2"5 "'j ~] 1 ~ ~ X;: w..,n..> :r::r;UI -..........'" "'0;0;...";"; '0 >0 ,;,,; N"'_ 000 "',..,"'_'" ",...,,.., "'.... -... '" <0"'''' N'" "',..,Q ,.;,.; "Q':"~ ~~ .. >0 "'''' " i ~ ~ > , B . , . ~ -E's '::1:i ~ ~ 1"" " 88 ~~ ,; , ! , " ~ - . 7-53 .0' __N ""rim ::=" ~;;1:.11 - - - ..",s g~:!i~~ .. "~...'" _ <0 "''''............ ,................ =" .,.;ri 00000 ;!;e3:q~ t'ici ....:i 0-...", "'~...~ :=.:" ~~~~ $;:;~~ 'N' '" "",,,,,, ......~o c>"'...'" -'g...~ ~~...5!:i:l ............... ........... , "",........ -.....~ ~ .0 ~ o .....~ o N ":::~:il ...~...<:Ig ",~..;:\ - ~ . - ~ . . o . . , o 'i 1 I " ~ , o ~ ! . ~ o . 1? j~ . 'g g~ . ::<...2" . c::: ~~ ~ :~~~j ';:l~"u l~lu -"'..... ~,.;,.;,.: . l . ~ , I ," l:' 1jJg .n -~g~ -N" o:i",., 0.. 0__ ...,.;... ~"'?:l " ~ " 000 ..-;....g .-- _N .:..:,.; .."'';: 000 0'_ ,..;.;.... ;:~~ 5!"'~ 00. ~ d U I" ,. jj , ~~ l.l N u ,0 00 ~ """"",,,,, "'..-"'''' ......."'~,... ~-,.:~~ ~ ~ - .. ",,,,_,,,,,,, -......"'.... ,'><'.'" ...'" :i . ~ . ~~3g~ ..,:":o;;r;;<;j . g~~t;;~ . . :i:l ~L~:::@ ;;1:5!c:>...~ . " ~ e , 3 < " ~ ~ I , a . . ,I l~ ~1 -~ ~~ <1= " . . , . . -~'i~ ::!.'i-<1 ~~H ~"'SIu ~g~~ ~:i~~ l;l '" i ~ ~:~~ i~~~ - ~ l~Jj <o:lue j i o ~ , 00 -. o . . . ! , o ~ ~ N .. i o - oi , , . . . . . 1 . , d . . . o o . ~ . . , , . " ! i ~ ~ i , ~ ji il ! ~ ; " ! ! ~ ~ , i " . . ~f : , !t i ~ ]~ ,. -" i~ i ~i B .. 'il A . ~ ~ H c: ';E "El g' ~ ~ '~~ ~ H !~'t W. ~:irI~ .~q U-"Sll' ~i] ~ j~ ~'~ !~~K ~ ~,!l? - ~ 1J .a ti2~ ll.<I:d5.... ~..;"'.;..,: , . " o , ~ . , . i a < , ~ " Proiect Aooroach EXHIBIT C Our team has developed the following two-point approach to address the key issues identified above, develop a defensible cost estimate for a permitable wastewater disposal alternative to acquiring additional Metro System capacity rights, and ultimately advise the City and Otay Water District on the best course of action. This approach will be woven through the scope of work envisioned by the City and Otay Water District and implemented through a collaborative process that will build buy~in in the ultimate recommended course of action. Our team proposes a two-step process for evaluating the winter months effluent disposal options that will allow us to initially think "outside the box" while quickly focusing on the most viable and cost effective alternatives. Step 1 wiil be to identify all potential strategies, including "outside the box" ideas, and perform a preliminary screening to identify the most viable strategies. The table below lists some of main disposal options envisioned by our team and associated key issues. ~~W'e'~w,eathe~'Dj5p~osa'IJAiteoft1aHiJ'~~~~ ~REfy;'ls:Sue's:'~i~~~;'.~::d~~~-;f~ti~~~~~~~S:t~2i,t~;;~;~~~ftf;:~~~~~~;t~,~~~~~1~ Salt Creek Discharge or Wetland . Permitting and Regulatory uncertainty are major challenges . Nitrogen and Phosphorus requirements for discharge require advanced treatment and may still be difficult to meet . Potential institutional constraints of outfal1 capacity and the South Bay WRP . Cost of capacity in the South Bay Ocean Outfall . Cost of pipeline would be significant . Institutional constraints relative to outfall capacity . Cost of capacity in the South Bay Ocean Outfall Use existing RW pipeline to the South Bay Ocean Outfail New Disposal Pipeline to South Bay Ocean Outfail or International Boundary and Water Commission Treatment Plant t.~,~,i~.u:ro~~t ~'~i$:-'''';' Indirect Potable Reuse: Groundwater Recharge Existing RW Storage Reservoir operational changes: Empty storage before wet weather MBR plant provides base RW supply and discharge South Bay WRF flow to the Ocean Short-term Lease with future Indirect Potable Reuse or combined with Regional Brine Pipeline . Acceptable recharge locations are limited (Le. Lower Sweetwater Basin orTijuana River Valley Basin) Need to conform to Department of Public Health groundwater recharge requirements Groundwater monitoring requirements can be costly Possible near-term solution with 2-mgd satellite plant, but not enough storage for long~term wastewater needs likely only a partial solution to meeting winter disposal needs Costs implications relative to recycled water take or pay agreement Under utilization of existing South Bay WRF facilities. This is only a partial soiution as limited winter demands mean that other disposal strategy is needed. Long-term indirect potable reuse not well defined at this time. The Regional Brine Pipeline has institutional chailenges relative to multiple agencies participation. . . . . . . . . . 7-54 Step 2 of the evaluation would entail further development of the most promising alternatives from Step 1, including preparing detailed cost estimates. The Step 2 findings and cost estimates would be part of the input for the Matrix of Options. Develop sufficient engineering details to reliably assess life cycle costs of options Key elements impacting the overall cost or a permitable scalping plant in addition to the wet weather disposal strategy c!iscussed ,above include: site selection, process selection, design criteria, fail~safe requirements, and impact on existing contractual arrangements. Once the plant is defined, reliability of the life cycle costs will hinge upon the accuracy of the facillties cost estimate as well as sludge disposal costs. The scope will tackle all aspects. Key aspects are discussed below. Site Selection Site selection has a Significant impact on project costs and implementation. The RMC/Carollo team understands the important characteristics in identifying and evaluating sites for satellite treatment plants: . Proximity to available and adequate wastewater flows . Proximity to recycled water distribution system .. land availability and costs relative to the facilities and capacity plans . land use compatibility . Property acquisition constraints . Site topography . Character of the surrounding area which impacts costs associated architectural features and impact mitigation for noise and odors . Avoidance of environmental resources . Avoidance of geotechnical hazards or flooding hazards The RMC/Carollo team will use a combination of GIS, aerial mapping, and local knowledge to evaluate the merits and infrastructure requirements for the different sites. We will compare facility and infrastructure cast estimates to see if there are significant differences between sites. Often property acquisition constraints such as an owners" willingness to sell are not known at this stage of the project so multiple sites may be carried forward should the overall project be identified as being viable. Process Selection The RMC/Carollo team has the expertise in both MBR and conventional treatment fac~\ities to provide an objective evaluation of the right process for the City and District. The life cycle cost evaluation and treatment comparison is dependent on availability and cast of land, the winter disposal strategy, and water quality needs (i.e. need for reverse osmosis treatment). The MBR process has been recommended aver more conventional treatment processes throughout the state including the City of Modesto, City of Redlands, and recently for the Cil'l of Malibu. The advantages of an MBR facility are a reduced footprint as membrane filtration gets incorporated into the secondary treatment process 7-55 eliminating the need for secondary clarifiers and the foatp:in~ far separate filtration facilities. MBR can also be an advantage where advanced treatment for the recycled water is needed such as demineralization for salinity control or other constraints. Our team's objective approach has at times resulted in a recommendation of conventional treatment; this was the outcome of the analYSis we completed for the Sunnyslope County Water District's Recycled Water Treatment Improvement Project. Design Criteria The process configuration for the wastewater reclamation MBR facility includes screening and grit removal in the headworks followed by secondary treatment through an MBR and finished with disinfection. Our team has experience in the design of headworks ranging from less than one mgd to more that 7-mgd for MBR facilities. It is currently common practice to provide a screening process that has a i-millimeter (mm) opening size to screen hair and other fine material that could wrap around the M8R hollow fiber membranes and cause fouling issues or damage the membranes. Our process evaluations will be based on accurate mass balance models, which are continually calibrated to reflect the latest industry experience, and have proven to be remarkable accurate in predicting plant performance and equipment sizing. Results of piloting and operatfng MBR facilities will be used to validate the optimum design flux rates for your facility. Dependable Cost Estimate Over the last five years, project costs have taken a dramatic turn as the economy has traveled through various cycles. Recent bids have generally been coming in below cost projections as competition for projects has been significantly higher in the current bidding environment. Our team employs a variety of strategies to provide the most up-to-date cost data leading to dependable cost estimates. Our strategies include: . Using bid results and progress payment information from other projects to give us insight into the current bidding environment will be the basis for developing cost estimates for the project. RMC and Carollo Engineers have continu,ous streams of treatment and infrastructure projects that go out for bid and are in the process of being constructed which provide this current unit cost data. . Leveraging the expertise of a contractor with local experience to further refine the cost for the recommended MBR alternative. We have worked in the past with contractors such as WM Lyles and Stanek Construction to develop and check the basis for cost estimates. . Requesting specific manufacturer cost proposals for specialized process equipment such as MBR equipment, to give us the most up to date cost data for the process equipment. The RMC;Carollo team wili also evaluate the solid ioads returned to the Metro System and estimate the required "strength" capacity that may need to be acquired from the City of San Diego. Estimating the cost of additional strength capacity will entail reviewing Metro System agreements and/or capital allocations associated with total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand. 7-56 Metro System Capacity Purchase or Capacity Lease Agreement The cost estimate for the preferred satellite wastewater reclamation plant will be used to define the upper limit that the City should be willing to pay for Metro System Capacity and SBWRP Capacity respectively. The results of previous work on capacity valuation will also be a basis for negotiations. Other factors impacting value include: . Market Availability: Number of agencies with capacity available and willingness to sell . Excess Capacity: An agency with significantly more capacity available than planned use may be willing to negotiate a lower price . Capital Improvement Cost Share Savings to Seller: Selling excess capacity can benefit a seller in that their proportionate share of annual capital improvements costs for the existing plant would be reduced, therefore, saving them money The RMCjCarollo team also believes there may be merit in exploring a capacity lease agreement. A partner agency may be willing to structure a lease based on the value of the treatment plant assets approach with some markup. A lease agreement would allow an agency to recover cost for their capacity without giving up long-term capacity rights. A lease agreement would delay the need for a capacity purchase and allow the City to participate in either a future Metro System plant expansion or the City could build a reclamation plant in the future with less time remaining on the take or pay agreement with SBWRP. Alternative Comparison The RMCjCarollo team proposes to include both costs and non-economic factors in the ultimate option comparison. If cost estimates of various options are comparable with no apparent frontrunner, the,n non- economic factors that identify implementation chaltenges or risk may also be important in the decision making process. The RMCjCarollo team proposes to highlight and rank non-economic factors such as community perception, institutional constraints, being in control of future wastewater related costs, permitting effort, and environmental impacts, providing the City and District with a comprehensive story of the options. The City's and District's objectives are also envisioned to be a prominent factor in the decision process and the matrix will identify the objectives met by each option. Optional Tasks We are ready to assist the City and District with any additional tasks required for the project. We understand that optional tasks may include: A. Preparation of Grant Applications B. Evaluation of <lDesjgn-build-operate-finance'~ agreements for a satellite wastewater reclamation plant C. Evaluate other alternative delivery methods that may be available D. Recycled water market assessment 7-57