City Council

Agenda Request

Agenda Of:

December 5, 2006

Agenda Request No:

V A

Initiated By:

Chad Nesvadba PE, Utilities Engineer

Responsible Department:

Utilities

Presented By:

SuEllen Staggs, Director of Utilities

Department Head:

SuEllen Staggs, Director of Utilities

 

 

Additional Department. Head (s):

n/a

Subject / Proceeding:

Authorize preliminary Engineering Services contract with CDM for wastewater treament plant expansion.

Exhibits:

Scope of Services

Clearances

Approval

Legal:

n/a

Executive Director:

n/a

Purchasing:

n/a

Asst. City Manager:

Karen H. Glynn

Budget:

linda symank

Director of fiscal services

City Manager:

Allen Bogard

Budget

Expenditure Required:  $

249,330

Amount Budgeted/Reallocation:  $

1,193,744 in WW0602

Additional Appropriation:  $

N/A

Recommended Action

Staff recommends City Council authorize the execution of a contract between CDM and the City for preliminary engineering services for the expansion of the west wastewater treatment plant in the amount of $249,330.

Executive Summary

The City’s Wastewater Master Plan adopted in 2004 identifies and recommends the City build a wastewater treatment plant in the far west side of the ETJ near the New Territory wastewater treatment plant.  We have named it the West Plant.  The West Plant will serve all of the remaining areas to be developed in the City north of Highway 59 including tracts 2, 3, Telfair, and the Lake Point and business park infill and eventually some flows from the North Plant when it is abandoned in the distant future.  As part of existing strategic partnership negotiations with New Territory MUDs, the MUDs have indicated they are amenable to the City expanding the existing MUD plant  to meet these demands.

 

To meet this recommendation, the Utilities staff completed a comprehensive RFQ process to choose the best qualified engineering firm to perform the initial preliminary engineering services for the project. The City sent Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) to twelve (12) consulting firms, and received Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) from seven (7) teams.  Four (4) teams were short listed and interviewed by the consultant selection committee, which was made up of City employees and representatives from M.U.D. 112, M.U.D. 111 and the Brazos River Authority (BRA).  CDM was the recommended consultant selected by the committee.

 

The Utilities Department has solicited a proposal from CDM, Inc to provide engineering consulting services to prepare a preliminary engineering report for the expansion of capacity at the Fort Bend County M.U.D. No. 112 wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site from 2.5 MGD to 6.0 MGD.  Although the PER is focused on the expansion to 6 MGD it will take into consideration the footprint of the plant needed for the eventual expansion to approximately 10.5 MGD when the North plant is decommissioned in the distant future. Additional services include geotechnical and surveying as necessary for project design. The contract scope of work is as follows:

 

1.      A summary of recommended improvements, including:

a.       Define design parameters by analysis of existing plant data and anticipated effluent limits.

b.      Process audit of the existing MUD 112 WWTP to identify optimization opportunities including power consumption cost reduction.

c.       Recommended treatment process provides for three (3) alternatives.

d.      A summary of recommended improvements for each plant component and treatment process.

e.       Comparison of disinfection options, which will include lifecycle cost analysis.

f.        List anticipated electrical and instrumentation requirements.

g.       Overall plant layout for each of the three alternatives.

h.       Layouts/recommendations shall take into account possible additional future treatment to meet re-use standards as well as anticipated effluent limits should effluent be diverted to Oyster Creek.

2.      Facility design criteria recommendations, which include determining the size of each process unit based on current regulatory criteria and industry standards and will include provisions for modifying the facilities to meet this criteria in future phases.

3.      Identify and discuss “good neighbor” policies and issues such as:

a.       Odor prevention/control;

b.      Noise prevention/control;

c.       And landscaping and overall appearance.

d.      Phasing analysis will be performed

4.      Documentation for TCEQ coordination.

5.      Perform site usability analysis with regard to the existing and proposed flood plain location, which includes confirming the location of the flood plain through on the ground survey.

6.      Identify potential alternate financing vehicles including grants, matching funds, and energy savings incentives.

7.      Identify possible pretreatment design features based on current Industrial Waste Ordinance.

8.      Identify options for on-site treated effluent reuse and identify regulations.

9.      Review sludge handling methods and make recommendations for improvements.

10.   Schedule of final design/construction.

11.  Engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for the recommended improvements.

 

Funding for the West Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project preliminary engineering services phase has been budgeted in the FY2006 Capital Improvement Program with design scheduled for FY2007 and construction scheduled for FY2009.

 

Following is a proposed schedule for the project:

·        Preliminary engineering – December 2006 – June 2007

·        Final design – November 2007 – August 2009 (270 calendar days)

·        Bid phase – August 2009 – September 2009 (60 calendar days)

·        Construction – November 2009 –November 2011 (24 Months)

 

As you may recall, we are currently working through the wastewater permit application process as well. Staff will work diligently with the consultant to ensure coordination and approvals necessary for finalizing the SPA agreements, the permit process and this project.

 

CDM, Inc has agreed to perform the proposed engineering service within 180 days from notice to proceed for an amount not to exceed $249,330.  Funding for the requested engineering services is available in CIP No. WW0602 with a current balance of $1,193,744.

 

Staff recommends Council authorize the execution of contract between CDM and the City for preliminary engineering services for the expansion of the west wastewater treatment plant in the amount of $249,330.

 

 

Exhibits

 

 

I.       PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

Preliminary engineering services for the construction of the West WWTP will be performed.  The following scope of work is for those preliminary engineering services.

 

B.     Project Management:

 

1.      Conduct a project initiation meeting to clarify requirements for the project;

 

2.      Coordinate with staff and project personnel to complete project tasks and meet project objectives;

 

3.      Conduct project meetings with staff on an as needed basis and provide appropriate minutes of the meetings and necessary documentation;

 

4.      Develop and maintain a project schedule with detailed milestones; and

 

5.      Provide quality control reviews and technical reviews of all evaluations and recommendations, technical memoranda, and reports.

 

C.     Preliminary Engineering Report (PER): The Engineer shall prepare a preliminary engineering report (PER) for approval and revise as required.  Such report shall consist of preliminary layouts, sketches, recommended final design criteria, and construction costs estimates.  The report shall be prepared in sufficient detail so as to: (1) clearly indicate alternate treatment processes and anticipated problems; and (2) make final recommendations.

 

The preliminary engineering report will address the following aspects of the wastewater treatment plant facilities design:

 

1.      A summary of recommended improvements, including:

 

a.       Define design parameters by analysis of existing plant data and anticipated effluent limits.

 

b.      Process audit of the existing MUD 112 WWTP to identify optimization opportunities including power consumption cost reduction.

 

c.       Recommended treatment process based on three (3) alternatives using detailed process calculations. The analysis will be performed on single design baseline flow (i.e. not multiple phasing scenarios) which will be determined in the initial project kick-off meeting.  Analysis will include comparison of initial capital costs, estimated electricity usage/costs, and estimated O&M costs necessary for a lifecycle comparison.  The term of the lifecycle shall be determined in the initial project kick-off meeting.  The analysis will also identify potential construction complications with each alternative.  The three process alternatives shall include:

 

(1)   Fine bubble aeration with dissolved oxygen control

(2)   Carousel

(3)   Membrane bioreactor

 

d.      A summary of recommended improvements for each plant component and treatment process.

 

e.       Comparison of UV disinfection to existing bleach system which will include lifecycle cost analysis.

 

f.        List anticipated electrical and instrumentation requirements including the following:

 

(1)   Anticipated electrical service requirements, availability, and cost

(2)   Site lighting including light pollution to adjacent residents

(3)   Safety and security options

 

g.       Overall plant layout for each of the three alternatives including hydraulic considerations in accordance with the City’s phasing plan.

 

h.       Layouts/recommendations shall take into account possible additional future treatment to meet re-use standards as well as anticipated effluent limits should effluent be diverted to Oyster Creek.

 

2.      Facility design criteria recommendations which include determining the size of each process unit based on current regulatory criteria and industry standards.  This item will include provisions for modifying the facilities to meet this criteria in future phases.

 

3.      Identify and discuss “good neighbor” policies and issues such as:

 

a.       Odor prevention/control;

b.      Noise prevention/control;

c.       And landscaping and overall appearance.

 

4.      Once a process is selected from I.B.1.c above, a phasing analysis will be performed for the following scenarios:

 

a.       1.0 MGD expansion plus a future 2.5 MGD expansion

b.      2.5 MGD expansion plus a future 1.0 MGD expansion

c.       3.5 MGD expansion

 

5.      Documentation for TCEQ coordination.

 

6.      Perform site usability analysis with regard to the existing and proposed flood plain location which includes confirming the location of the flood plain through on the ground survey.

 

7.      Identify potential alternate financing vehicles including grants, matching funds, and energy savings incentives.

 

8.      Identify possible pretreatment design features based on current Industrial Waste Ordinance.

 

9.      Identify options for on-site treated effluent reuse and identify regulations.

 

10.  Review existing sludge dewatering and disposal methods and make possible recommendations for improvements based on current regulations.

 

11.  Schedule of final design/construction.

 

12.  Engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for the recommended improvements.

 

II.    FINAL DESIGN SERVICES

 

A.     Not included in this Scope.

 

III. DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

A.     Not included in this Scope.

 

IV.  ADDITIONAL SERVICES

 

Additional services will be provided on an as-needed basis as described below.

 

A.     Surveying

 

1.      Engineer will perform design topographical surveying for the currently wooded treatment plant site as well as the existing WWTP structures.  Permanent control points and bench marks to USGS datum will be established.

 

B.     Geotechnical Investigation

 

1.      Engineer will conduct preliminary geotechnical investigation for design of the improvements.  Purpose for preliminary geotechnical investigation is to identify any special or unusual conditions that could significantly impact final design or construction costs.  Boring locations will be in the existing cleared MUD 112 site, as close to the “new site” as possible.  Once structures are identified in final design, additional boring will be necessary.

 

C.     TPDES Permit Application

 

1.