Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 96

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)


Special Meeting

12:30 PM, Monday, December 9, 2013
Seaside Council Chamber
440 Harcourt Ave
Seaside, CA 93955

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. October 31, 2013 Special Meeting

2. November 14, 2013 Special Meeting

3. November 14, 2013 Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

4. Review, Discuss and Provide Recommendations on draft SPI Report to the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Design Build Consultant selection process
(Alex Wesner)

5. Discuss and Provide direction to Water Authority Vice-President Burnett on the Design-
Build Selection Scheduled for discussion at the at the Governance Committee meeting on
Dec 11, 2013 (Burnett)

6. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on Alternates Funding Scenarios as
Related to Cost of Water (Cullem)

ADJOURNMENT




The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Monday, December 9, 2013
2

Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a
meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
SPECIAL MEETING
10:00 AM, Thursday, October 31, 2013
MONTEREY COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Della Sala

Directors Absent: Rubio,

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Salla opened the floor to public comment.
David Lifland requested an update on the status of the test well permit and expressed
concern about stranded costs, delays and dead ends.
Nelson Vega requested releasing a schedule so the uninformed public would be able to
understand the project status.
The Directors agreed to angendize a discussion on the slant test wells and to update the website
to include a timeline for both Ground Water Replenishment and the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project.

AGENDA ITEMS
1. Discuss, Review, and Authorize a Contract with Separation Processes Incorporated(SPI) for
Engineering Support Services on Behalf of the Governance Committee During Cal-Am's
Selection Process for the Design-Build Firm for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project,
and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate, Prepare and Sign a Water Authority Contract
with SPI, and/or Sign an Agreement for a Water Authority Cost Share with Another Public
Agency Contracting with SPI for Said Services, at a Cost to the Water Authority Not-to-Exceed
$12,000 and Determine Role of Authority Representative to the Governance Committee.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item and explained the purpose for the special meeting.
Cal am extended an invitation to participate in the review and selection process of the Design
Build firm for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The staff recommendation was to
authorize a contract with Separation Processes Incorporated Consultants to participate on
behalf of the Authority and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Ultimately, the
costs of the consultant will be split between the three agencies associated with the Governance
committee. He noted the time sensitive nature of the item, the fact It is rare that Cal Am has
invited the opportunity allowing a public agency to participate in the private selection process
due to proprietary information and the costs associated with this contract. Mr. Cullem answered
questions from the Board.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 1., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, October 31, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
SPECIAL MEETING Minutes - Thursday, October 31, 2013
2
President Della Sala clarified the intent would be to execute a contract with SPI without the
approval of the two other Governance Committee members with the expectation that they
would approve the action at their next meeting. Legal Council Freeman encouraged executing
the agreement as not to exceed $12,000 of Authority Funds, and include phases which would
allow time for approval from other participating agencies.

President Della Sala Invited public comment on the item.
Nelson Vega spoke in support of the action indicating it was a small financial cost to
ensure the selection is consistent with Authority policy and in the best interest of the
public.
Tom Rowley spoke in support of requesting Monterey County to contribute funding for
this project and spoke in support of SPI consultants. Lastly he requested continuing with
seeking Monterey County support as a member of the Authority.
David Lifland questioned the details of the non-disclosure agreement, the amount of
time needed for review of the proposals and the size of the facility that was proposed.

Public comment was closed and Mr. Cullem and Vice President Burnett responded to public
comments.

Director Kamp spoke in support of hiring SPI to take on the complex project evaluation and
expressed concern about the time line. Legal Counsel Freeman assured the Directors that
action taken today could initiate the process with a not to exceed amount and if necessary
further action could be taken at the next Authority meeting.

Director Burnett clarified the importance of the action is not about cost but about being able to
participate in the process and the fact the decision cannot be made in public, which is the
fundamental purpose of this agency, due to proprietary information. This action would require
three non-disclosure agreements and there will be a 1-month period that the information will be
confidential before it could be released.
On motion by Director Kampe and Seconded by Director Edelen and approved by the following
vote the Authority approved the staff recommendation to authorize the President to approve the
contract with SPI Consultants with a not to exceed amount of $12,000 with the assumption the
other two Governance Committee members are willing to act in good faith and contribute after
the services are rendered and to authorize Director Burnett to sign a non disclosure agreement
to participate in the process
Speaking on the Second, Director Edelen spoke to the offer from Cal Am shows a cooperative
attitude and good will and bodes for a good partnership and for providing water to the
peninsula. Director Kampe agreed.
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Rubio
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 1., tem Page 2, Packet Page 2
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, October 31, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
SPECIAL MEETING Minutes - Thursday, October 31, 2013
3

ATTEST:





Lesley Milton, Clerk of the Authority Chuck Della Sala, President

MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 1., tem Page 3, Packet Page 3



MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
SPECIAL MEETING
6:55 PM, Thursday, November 14, 2013
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda.
Nelson Vega spoke on behalf of the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses who requested
that the Authority take action or discuss the petition of Public Water Now as it is a
distraction for achieving a viable water project.
David Lifland questioned the status of the Environmental Impact Report with the City of
Marina Planning Department.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

1. Approve Textual Format Change to Revised Governance Committee Agreement

Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to the item indicating the changes requested are to amend the
title to Amended and Restated Agreement noting that it is a formality and there are no
substantive changes in the document. President Della Sala invited public comment and had no
requests to speak.
On motion by Director Pendergrass and Seconded by Directors Kampe and Burnett and
approved by the following vote the Authority approved the text format changes as presented to
the governance committee agreement.
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della
Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

2. Authorize the President of the Authority to Send a Letter to the Monterey County Board of
Supervisors Extending an Invitation for Membership on the Authority Board and Request a Fair
Share Allocation of Membership Fees.

Executive Director Cullem reported on this item providing a history for Authority actions
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 2., tem Page 1, Packet Page 5
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, November 14, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, November 14, 2013
2
attempting to encourage the participation of the County of Monterey as a member of the
Authority. He noted that the Board of Supervisors authorized approval of the Fiscal Year 2012-
13 allocation for participating on the Authority but has chosen not to participate due to the
unresolved issue posed to the State of California Attorney General. Staff is recommending that
since the County is participating as a member of the Governance Committee that the Authority
request a fair share allocation of membership fees. The residents in the Cal Am service area
are being represented at the Governance Committee level. This letter would extend another
invitation to join the Authority board and if they elect not to do that, they are being asked to fund
their contribution.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment.
David Lifland questioned if this cost is related to the contract with SPI consultants.
Legal Counsel Freeman indicated it was a separate billing.
On motion by Vice President Burnett and seconded by Director Kampe the Authority approved
the staff recommendation to send a letter to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors
extending an invitation for membership on the Authority Board and request a fair share
allocation of membership fees.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della
Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT



ATTEST:





Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Chuck Della Sala, President

MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 2., tem Page 2, Packet Page 6

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, November 14, 2013
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

Vice President Burnett reported on updates provided to the State Water Resources Control
Board regarding the Peninsula's progress to reach the Cease and Desist Order.
Executive Cullem reported that the public outreach efforts have been progressing and the PR
consultant and interns will likely participate during Whale Fest in Monterey. He also reported
that the Financial Audit is in full progress.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comments for items not on the agenda.
Nelson Vega expressed concern that outreach has not been effective at communicating
the potential financial impact to the community if water restrictions are imposed in 2017.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. October 10, 2013

On motion by Director Rubio and Seconded by Vice President Burnett and approved by the
following vote the Authority approved the Minutes of October 10, 2013 with requested
modifications.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None




MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 3., tem Page 1, Packet Page 7
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, November 14, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, November 14, 2013
2
AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive Update and Discuss Presentation Regarding the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project

Cal Am Engineer Rich Svinland provided updates on three items pertaining to the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP):
1) Status of the Design Build Vendor Selection Process
2) Test Well Permit Applications and Project Status
3) Bore Hole Program.
Design Build Selection Process:
Cal Am received proposals for the second phase of the RFP for Design Build Services and
interviews and are taking place to evaluate the proposals. The final selection will be made on
November 11, 2013. Negotiations will conclude before the notice is made public and Cal Am
will submit all information at the December 11, 2013 Governance Committee meeting.
Test Well Update
Mr. Svinland reported that it is unlikely that Cal Am will be able to drill the test well in the non-
nesting season for the snowy plover bird. The City of Marina requested the following six
additional studies as part of the Negative Declaration for the Environmental Impact Report:
1. Additional geotechnical studies
2. Essential fish habitat study - impacts to marine life/
3. Quality of water study for the water put back into the bay
4. Archeological study of the Semex buildings
5. Recommended coastal hazard and wave study - long term effect of the test wells
6. Specific habitat primary report
Mr. Svinland indicated that after all of the above reports are submitted and approved through
the City of Marina, then it has to go to the Coastal Commission for approval. There is a very
remote chance to be able to drill this season, but that it is highly unlikely.
Bore Holes: 5 of the 12 proposed bore holes have been completed to date. Cal Am has
commissioned a hydrologist working group to prepare a report of the bore holes.
Mr. Svinland answered questions from the Directors.
President Della Sala invited public comments on the item.
Nelson Vega questioned when the wells are in full production, how many wells are
needed and how many gallons per minute are needed to meet the demand for the 9.6
mgd plant.
David Lifland questioned specific technical questions regarding the bore holes.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 3., tem Page 2, Packet Page 8
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, November 14, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, November 14, 2013
3

Mr. Svinland responded to Mr. Vegas questions that 16,000 gpm are needed to make 9.6 mgd
per day. The project is estimating 2,000 gpm per well, which requires 8 wells running at all
times, and additional wells will be needed for redundancy. Worst-case scenario; a total of 15
wells will be needed. Mr. Svinland responded to Mr. Liflands questions indicating that the
working group of the expert geologist will provide a final report in the near future. This item was
for information only, no action was taken.
3. It is recommended that the MPRWA Receive, update, discuss, and provide direction on a work
plan for Water Authority support of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
(MRWPCA) Ground Water Replenishment Project (GWR).

Executive Director Cullem presented the report indicating that the Authority has asked that the
MRWPCA advise the Authority of what assistance is needed to assist with moving the GWR
project forward. A letter has been submitted by Mr. Israel outlining potential avenues for
assistance. Mr. Cullem reported that the TAC has discussed the letter and will remain engaged.
Vice President Burnett reported that TAC Member Narigi has come forward with key questions
regarding the GWR project, and will work the Mr. Cullem to clarify and identify issues to discuss
with the full Board or TAC.
President Della Sala invited public comments on the item.
Nelson Vega expressed concern about the cost of the program, potential stranded costs
and about the States regulations on this type of project.
David Lifland questioned water tests at the pilot plant if they were going to be testing the
drainage ditch and the agricultural wash ponds and asked if the building location has
been determined.

Keith Israel, General Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
responded to Mr. Vegas concerns regarding the capital invested and the operating costs. He
indicated that costs for the development are funded 66% by the MRWPCA and 33% by the
MPWMD. Even if GWR does not go forward at this time, this technology would be reused for
other projects so would not be considered stranded costs, but research and development costs.
Mr. Israel noted that the project still is on track with regards to schedule and does seem to be
ripe politically. Mr. Israel then responded to Mr. Lifland that the EIR includes the produce wash
water, storm water from Lake El Estero and Salinas reclamation ditch water as alternative
sources of water. The plant would be at the current MRWPCA facility and the wells would be
in the Seaside Basin.
Vice President Burnet indicated that he shares the same concerns about stranded costs. He
spoke to two factors that would affect the GWR project: First regarding the cost differential
between the larger and the smaller plant which will get clarity when the bids are revealed, and
second is if the water purchase agreement for the source water and the product water would
trigger debt equivalency, at which point the project would be dead.
This item was for information only, no action was taken.



MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 3., tem Page 3, Packet Page 9
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, November 14, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, November 14, 2013
4
4. Approve extension of deadline for Fiscal Year 2012-13 Financial Report and Full Opinion Audit
to December 31, 2013, and authorize a time extension of the contract with McGilloway, Ray,
Brown and Kaufman to March 31, 2014.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item, the selection process of the Auditing firm and the
contract. He noted that because it is first audit for the Authority, it will take more time to deliver
the annual report and requested an extension. President Della Sala opened the item to public
comment and had no requests to speak.

On motion by Director Edelen and Seconded by Director Kampe and passed by the following
vote, the Authority approved the extension of deadline for Fiscal Year 2012-13 Financial Report
and Full Opinion Audit to December 31, 2013, and authorized a time extension of the contract
with McGilloway, Ray, Brown and Kaufman to March 31, 2014.
Speaking on the second, Director Rubio spoke to the audit being an important piece for the
transparency for the Authority and encouraged staying on schedule as it goes to the credibility
of the agency. President Della Sala concurred.
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

5. Discuss and Approve a Contract Change Order with Separation Processes, Inc. to Increase the
Contract Amount to Not-to-Exceed $36,000, and Extend the Completion Date to March 31,
2014.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the recommendation to extend the award of contract for
Separation Processes Inc. The other two agencies have not had a chance to act on this item
but have been provided letters of support for their fair share contribution of $12,000 each. Mr.
Cullem proposed expanding the contract with SPI Consultants with assurances from the other
parties to pay. President Della Sala opened the item to public comment and had no requests to
speak.
On motion by Director Kampe and Seconded by Director Edelen and passed by the following
vote, the Authority approved Approve a Contract Change Order with Separation Processes, Inc.
to Increase the Contract Amount to Not-to-Exceed $36,000, and Extend the Completion Date to
March 31, 2014.
Speaking on the second Director Rubio requested that future financial actions should include a
report of a fiscal impact and how it relates to the adopted budget.
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

Vice President Burnett requested consideration of the need to hold a special meeting due to the
release date of the Design Build Contract Vendor Selection and the need to provide direction
prior to the December 11, 2013 Governance Committee Meeting. The Directors discussed and
agreed to schedule a special meeting.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 3., tem Page 4, Packet Page 10
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, November 14, 2013


Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, November 14, 2013
5

6. Adoption of Resolution, Approving Donald G. Freeman as Legal Counsel through December
31, 2014 and Authorizing the Authority President to Execute a contract with Perry Freeman.

Legal Counsel Freeman recused himself from this agenda item. Executive Director Cullem
spoke to the item and the terms of the agreement noting there were no modifications from the
previous agreement and recommended that the Authority extend the contract through
December 31, 2014. President Della Sala opened the item to public comment and had no
requests to speak.
On motion by Director Rubio and Seconded by Director Pendergrass and passed by the
following vote, the Authority adopted Resolution 2013-09, approving Donald G. Freeman as
Legal Counsel through December 31, 2014 and authorizing the Authority President to execute
a contract with Perry & Freeman for legal counsel services.
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT



ATTEST:





Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Chuck Della Sala, President

MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 3., tem Page 5, Packet Page 11

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: December 09, 2013
Item No: 4.


08/12


FROM: Executive Director Cullem


SUBJECT: Review, Discuss and Provide Recommendations on the SPI Report to the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Design Build Consultant
Selection Process


RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Authority review, discuss and provide recommendations on the SPI
Report on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Design Build Consultant
Selection Process.

DISCUSSION:
On November 14, 2013, the Water Authority approved a change order to Separation Processes,
Inc. (SPI) to proceed with phases 2 and 3 of its contract monitoring the Cal-Am Design-Build
consultant selection process.

SPI performed phases 1, 2, and 3 from November 5 to December 6, 2013. Attached is a report
from SPI that will be presented to the Governance Committee on December 11, 2013. The
report is also available on line at www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us .

Alex Wesner, the author of the SPI report, discussed it at the TAC meeting of December 9. TAC
comments will be relayed to the Authority Board by the Executive Director when Alex makes his
verbal presentation to the Water Authority at its meeting of December 9.

Additional related reports of interest include Cal-Am Notification Letter #3, Cal-Am Proposal
Evaluation Report; and Draft Design-Build Agreement, all of which were to be posted to the
Water Project web page www.watersupplyproject.com as of December 6
th
.



ATTACHMENT:
SPI report on the Review of the Selection Process for the Design-Build Contractor

MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 1, Packet Page 13
Date: December 6, 2013
To: Members of the Governance Committee
From: Alex Wesner, PE
Subject: Review of Selection Process for the Design-Build Contractor for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project

SUMMARY
This memorandum summarizes my review of the process California American Water (Cal-Am)
undertook for the purposes of securing an agreement with a preferred design-build (D-B)
contractor for design and construction of the proposed desalination plant infrastructure
component of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. Under an agreement with Cal-Am,
I was provided access to documents related to the selection process, attended all interviews with
the candidate proposers, and witnessed deliberations of the selection team. I was also present
during negotiations and follow up discussions between Cal-Am and the selected proposer.
Previously the Governance Committee (GC) had reviewed and commented on the antecedent
documents to the current selection processthe request for statements of qualification (SOQs)
from qualified D-B contractors and the request for proposals (RFP) for design and construction
of the proposed desalination plant facilities. Candidate D-B contractors meeting the
qualifications criteria for the proposed work received the RFP and were permitted to submit a
proposal.
The previous RFP document set the terms for both the scope of work and evaluation
process/criteria for the proposals. Proposers were required to provide fixed price bids and
supporting basis of design documents and drawings for a base proposal consisting of a prescribed
treatment process design and defined plant production capacities of 6.4 mgd and 9.6 mgd, with a
master-plan/build-out capacity at the site of 12.8 mgd. Proposers were required to submit pricing
adjustments on five required alternative proposals, primarily involving post-treatment system
equipment and component warranties. They were also allowed to submit voluntary alternative
proposals which deviated from prescribed criteria in the RFP along with their associated price
adjustments.
Proposals from four teams were received on October 16, 2013Black & Veatch Constructors
(B&V), CDM Constructors Inc. (CDM), CH2M Hill Engineers (CH2M Hill), and MWH
Constructors Inc. (MWH). A fifth D-B contractor, Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., was approved
through the SOQ phase but elected not to submit a proposal. Cal-Am assembled both a Selection
Committee and Evaluation Team, comprised of four and ten individuals, respectively. In
practice, the two entities worked cooperatively to evaluate the submitted proposals, conduct
interviews with each proposer, and negotiate with the selected proposer to finalize terms of an
agreement. The Evaluation Team prepared a final Proposal Evaluation Report dated November
16, 2013 summarizing their process and ultimate selection of the most advantageous proposer;
SPI
3156 Lionshead Ave.,Suite 2
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Tel: 760-400-3660
Fax: 760-400-3661
www.spi-engineering.com
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 2, Packet Page 14
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 2


the term used within the documents to signify the D-B contractor selected for final negotiation of
a contract.
The evaluation included both financial and technical components, weighted 60 percent for
financial criteria and 40 percent for technical criteria. The Evaluation Team recommended and
the Selection Team accepted the proposal from CDM as the most advantageous. Table 1
provides the scoring for the proposals from each team.

Table 1: Summary of Final Scoring of Proposals
Proposer
Technical Criteria
(40 Pts)
Business and Financial
Criteria
(60 Pts)
Total
B&V 35.8 50.2 86.0
CDM 36.1 59.8 95.9
CH2M Hill 40.0 48.0 88.0
MWH 35.1 51.4 86.5

Each of the main criteria categories included sub-categories that went into calculating the overall
score. The Technical Criteria score was made up of the following:
Project Delivery 10 percent
Technical Reliability and Viability 17 percent
Operability 10 percent
Technical Qualifications 2 percent
Other 1 percent
The Business and Financial Criteria score was sub-categorized as well:
Cost Effectiveness of Proposals 50 percent
Business Terms and Conditions 8 percent
Proposer/Guarantor Financial Qualifications 2 percent
Cost effectiveness of the proposals was the most strongly weighted criterion at 50 percent of the
total score. Overall scoring was based on a weighting of the fixed DB price proposal for each
capacity increment (60 percent of the total score) and a net present value (NPV) evaluation
which included both the fixed price and present worth of the guaranteed energy cost. The NPV
calculation was broken down into four sub-categories, derived from evaluations at each plant
capacity and terms of 20 and 30 years. Each of these sub-category figures was given a weighting
of 10 percentfor a cumulative 40 percent total.
The fixed DB price for each plant capacity figures prominently in the evaluation and is
summarized by proposer in Table 2. It also represents the price each D-B contractor offered to
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 3, Packet Page 15
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 3


design and build the base case desalination facilities.

Table 2: Summary of Fixed Bid Prices for Base Scope of Work
Proposer
Fixed D-B Price
6.4 MGD Plant
Fixed D-B Price
9.6 MGD Plant
B&V $88.9M $99.0M
CDM $78.0M $85.2M
CH2M Hill $102.3 M $110.0M
MWH $81.9M $91.9M

It should be noted that the above bid prices fall in the low end of the range projected in our
comparative evaluation of projects conducted last J anuary. Though estimates in that report were
for plant capacities of 5.4 mgd and 9.0 mgd, the comparable estimate of facilities cost (less the
30 percent contingency factor applied at the time of the estimates) would be $109.6M for the
larger plant option and $90.0M for the smaller capacity plant. The costs are therefore considered
very competitive.

In whole I consider the process of selection fair and typical of selection processes used by public
water utilities. My recommendation to the GC is to support Cal-Ams selection of CDM to
design and build the desalination facilities infrastructure.


DISCUSSION
Background
The Governance Committee (GC) was created on March 8, 2013 by an agreement emanating out
of Application A.12-04-019 by California American Water Company (Cal-Am) for approval of
the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), filed with the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in April 2012. The GC consists of a single representative
and designated alternate from each of four parties to the agreementthe Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority (MPRWA); the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD; the County of Monterey (County); and Cal-Am. Under the terms of the agreement,
the GC has various prescribed roles for review of documents and provision of recommendations
for various components of the MPWSP.
Under terms of the agreement, the GC is provided a discretionary role in execution of the
MPWSP under three categoriesA, B and C. Category A activities and decisions represent the
strongest level of input from the GC, while categories B and C are more advisory. The present
activity is classified under Category B and allows the GC to make a recommendation on receipt
of a written recommendation and supporting documents from Cal-Am. Cal-Am has the option at
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 4, Packet Page 16
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 4


its sole discretion to follow or oppose the recommendation from the GC, but must provide a
written explanation to the GC explaining its reasons for any opposing decision.

Document Summary
Cal-Am has released the following documents related to the selection process for the D-B
Contractor. I was given access to each of these documents prior to their public release as part of
the agreement with Cal-Am:
1. Request for Statements of Qualification from candidate proposers in California American
Water Request for Qualifications from Prospective Design-Build Entities, April 1, 2013.
2. Statements of Qualification submitted by candidate proposers:
ARB, Inc.
Bay Water Partners
Black & Veatch
CDM
CH2M Hill
Filanc
Kiewit
MWH
Walsh
3. Cal-Ams selection of candidate proposers to receive the RFP in California American
Water Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Infrastructure Statement
of Qualifications Analysis, May 31, 2013; in which the following five teams were
selected:
CDM
MWH
Kiewit
Black & Veatch
CH2M Hill
4. Cal-Ams request for proposals document and related addenda in California American
Water Request for Proposals for Design and Construction of Desalination Infrastructure
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, June 17, 2013.
5. The proposals submitted by four of the five pre-qualified teams (all teams with the
exception of Kiewit submitted a proposal).
6. Cal-Ams evaluation of the proposals and selection of the preferred D-B contractor in
California American Water Proposal Evaluation Report, Request for Proposals for
Design and Construction of Desalination Infrastructure for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project, November 16, 2013.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 5, Packet Page 17
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 5


7. The Agreement and supporting contract documents between Cal-Am and CDM, Design-
Build Agreement for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination
Infrastructure, December 6, 2013.

Process Description
The overall process of D-B selection was similar to that employed by other California public
utilities, such as West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) in Carson, CA. In terms of
the D-B process employed, the RFP dictated a prescriptive approach in which overall process
design and technical criteria are established as part of the RFP documents and candidate
proposers submit fixed price bids. Other, non-prescriptive D-B approaches are different from
this model, in that they are essentially performance based and selection is based on
qualifications/approach rather than price. Such an approach can increase flexibility in the design
and construction approach, but decrease price competitiveness as price negotiations occur at a
non-competitive stage of the process when the design details are complete. For the MPWSP, the
prescriptive approach was expanded slightly by allowing proposers to submit voluntary
alternative proposals in addition to the based bid. This allowed consideration of alternate
treatment or technological approaches with fixed pricing. Cal-Am also required proposers to
submit pricing on five required alternative proposals:
For the UV disinfection system, a credit if the California Department of Public Health
assigns sufficient disinfection credits to the overall treatment process to allow it to be
removed from the project.
For the post-treatment product water stabilization system, a calcite contactor alternative
in place of the hydrated lime feed system in the base bid.
Also for the post-treatment product water stabilization system, an RDP Tekkem batch
slurry lime feed system in place of the hydrated lime feed system in the base bid.
Pricing for a 5-year RO membrane element warranty in place of the manufacturers
standard 3-year warranty.
Pricing for a 2-year warranty on the high pressure RO system feed pumps in place of the
manufacturers standard 1-year warranty.
Cal-Am assembled an evaluation team of individuals who had participated in development of the
RFP and related technical criteria. A listing of those individuals is included in the Evaluation
Report. The evaluation team reviewed the written proposals from each team and conducted a
preliminary scoring exercise on that basis. The evaluation team also assembled a list of
questions for each team. The questions were provided ahead of in person interviews, which were
conducted the week of November 4, 2013. Each team was given an interview that lasted 3-hours
and consisted of both a formal presentation by the team and open question and answer discussion
between the parties. The teams provided written responses to the questions and the evaluation
team updated its scoring based on any new information or clarifications provided in the
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 6, Packet Page 18
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 6


interviews and questionnaire responses. CDM remained the preferred proposer in both the
preliminary and final scoring, and was notified of their selection on November 16, 2013.
Following selection, the evaluation team met with members of CDMs project team to negotiate
and clarify the final scope of work and D-B agreement. Formal negotiations took place over two
days, November 19-20, 2013. The negotiations culminated in the draft D-B agreement between
Cal-Am and CDM published December 6, 2013 for review by the GC.

Process Assessment
The overall process was similar and in several respects stronger than other prescriptive D-B
selection processes which I have been involved with. Notable features include the following:
A particularly strong D-B Agreement within the RFP documents, protective of Cal-Am
(and by extension, rate payers) from a cost and risk perspective and cognizant of schedule
uncertainties.
A thorough evaluation process, including the lengthy team interviews and subsequent
negotiations with CDM by the full evaluation team.
A balanced evaluation of technical approach and cost; with a higher weighting of non-
cost criteria than typical.
The ability of teams to propose voluntary alternative proposals for consideration by the
evaluation team.
In the end Cal-Am elected to base its overall selection on the base alternative pricing from each
team. A summary of voluntary alternative proposals submitted by the candidate D-B teams is
included in the Evaluation Report. Details of each proposal are included in the individual
proposal documents from the candidate teams. In general, the high value alternatives related to a
proposed elimination of the upstream media filters and chemical addition facilities from the base
treatment alternativean approach considered too risky given uncertainties in raw water quality
to the facility. None of the voluntary alternative cost proposals that were considered negotiable
by the evaluation team were significant enough to change the scoring of the proposals.
The final negotiation process with CDM was unique in my experience and a credit to the overall
process. Most of the risk in a prescriptive D-B procurement in which the contract price is
established at the time of bid is in undefined issues between the technical criteria, proposal, and
final construction documents. The D-B contractor must base his price on certain assumptions
that he believes meet the intent and requirements of the RFP and related technical criteria. Not
all of these assumptions are clear at the time of proposal and typically emerge as the project
design documents are developed. Disagreements over compliance or the application of RFP
requirements can lead to increases in cost and/or schedule delays. The negotiation process in this
case sought to further define key assumptions between the parties and likely forestalled future
disagreements.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 7, Packet Page 19
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 7


The final agreement included several outcomes from the negotiation process that clarified the
scope of work (SC) and accommodated some of the required alternative (RA) proposals as well
as CDMs voluntary alternative (VA) proposals. A summary of these items and their associated
cost impact is presented in Table 3.
Tabl e 3: Summar y of Fi nal D-B Pr i c e Adj ust ment s
Item Description
Potential Cost
Impact
Status
VA-1
Replace the hydrated lime feed
system from the base bid
alternative with a saturated lime
solution feed system as
manufactured by Cal-Flo.
$1.0 M Credit @
6.4 mgd
$1.5 M Credit @
9.6 mgd
Still under negotiation. Credit
likely to decrease pending
incorporation of additional features
requested by Cal-Am.
RA-1
Eliminate the UV system from the
project facilities.
$0.313 M Credit
(fixed)
Cal-Am has until Feb. 4, 2016 to
exercise this option.
VA-2
Use various alternative materials
of construction
$0.3 M Credit
(fixed)
Still under negotiation.
RA-2
Replace the hydrated lime feed
system from the base bid with a
calcite contactor system.
$1.26 M Add
(fixed)
Still under negotiation, and would
only apply if the Cal-Flo alternative
under VA-1 is not accepted.
VA-3
Allow the use of multi-ported
pressure vessels on the RO trains
in lieu of pipe headers
$0.14M Credit @
6.4 mgd
$0.19M Credit @
9.6 mgd
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
VA-4
Allow the use of various different
materials of construction,
including electrical breakers,
transformers, valves, and curbs
$0.36M Credit @
6.4 mgd
$0.37M Credit @
9.6 mgd
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
RA-3
Provide a 2-year warranty from
the RO high pressure pump
manufacturer in lieu of a
standard 1-year warranty
$0.012 M Add
(fixed)
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
SC-1
Provide an 8-in potable water line
for future connection to the
landfill at MRWPCA RTP.
$0.043 M Add
(fixed)
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
SC-2
Change RO cleaning system
piping from PVC to CPVC
$0.024M Add @
6.4 mgd
$0.026M Add @
9.6 mgd
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
SC-3
Provide upgrades to product
water storage tanks, including
additional security measures
$0.2 M Add
(fixed)
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 8, Packet Page 20
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 8


Item Description
Potential Cost
Impact
Status
SC-4
Change the finished water
storage tank from lined steel to
pre-stressed concrete type
$0.69 M Add
(fixed)
Included in the draft contract fixed
design-build price.
SC-5
Revise piping at the pressure
filters to relocate pressurized
lines from beneath structural
concrete.
$0.816 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-6
Revise piping trenches inside the
RO building to improve
maintenance access.
$0.317 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-7
Eliminate the site septic system
from the base bid and replace it
with a sewage lift station.
$0.233 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-8
Provide independent testing of
earthwork, concrete paving and
cast-in-place concrete
$0.1 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-9
Provide additional supplies for
the on-site construction trailer
occupied by Cal-Ams
representative
$0.05 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-10
Conduct background checks on
D-B contractor and subcontractor
key employees

$0.01 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-11
Provide outside water quality
sampling services during startup,
commissioning, and testing
$0.05 M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.
SC-12
Miscellaneous upgrades in
landscape features; interior and
exterior architectural features,;
and computers, telephones, etc.
$0.25M Add
(fixed)
Included as an allowance in the
draft contract fixed design-build
price.

As noted in the table, some identified issues are still being negotiated between the parties and
will be incorporated into the final contract between CDM and Cal-Am prior to execution. The
final contract value for the draft agreement between Cal-Am and CDM is $86,984,544.65 for the
9.6 mgd plant capacity alternative, which includes CDMs initial bid price for the 9.6 mgd plant
along with the allowances listed in Table 3 above. The corresponding adjusted price for the 6.4
mgd plant alternative is $79,802,290.16. The adjusted costs represents a roughly $1.8 M
increase above their original bid proposal prices, but are still well below the next lowest price
proposal and do not change the overall scoring. Should the plant capacity be reduced to 6.4 mgd,
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 9, Packet Page 21
SPI MEMORANDUM December 6, 2013
Subject: Review of Cal-Am D-B Contractor Selection Page 9


the draft agreement includes a fixed deduct of $7,182,254.49.
The schedule for implementation of the facilities is dynamic and Cal-Am and CDM have taken a
proactive approach to accommodate flexibility. CDM has proposed to advance its design
initially to a 60 percent completion level by August 2014, projected to be coincident with final
CPUC approval. They would then provide only permitting support through the time period
necessary to secure a coastal development permit. Cal-Ams current schedule envisions having
this complete in February 2015, but could conceivably be extended without excessive cost
escalation beyond the contractual indexing of construction costs which the draft agreement
allows for. The completion of the design to a 90 percent level would be completed in September
2015 providing the coastal permit date is held, at which point there would be a second hold
pending the decision on the groundwater replenishment (GWR) project in October 2015. The
schedule then calls for a rapid completion to final construction documents by November 2015.
The rapid transition from 90 percent to final design was accommodated by CDM through
increasing the size of the process building from the original proposal submitted in October to
accommodate equipment for either plant capacity. This had the net effect of increasing the cost
for the 6.4 mgd facility by roughly $0.5 M. It should be noted that this adjusted price was
provided prior to the final evaluation and scoring of proposals, and was used in all cost
calculations. Finally, Cal-Am currently envisions a staggered construction of their supply wells
due to environmental limitations. It is projected that two thirds of the required supply wells
would be complete in September 2017, sufficient to run that plant at 6.4 mgd. If the actual plant
capacity built is 9.6 mgd, the final supply wells would be complete in March 2018. Cal-Am and
CDM have negotiated a two part commissioning plan
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 10, Packet Page 22
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
MONTEREY PENINSULAWATERSUPPLY PROJECT
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
CAL-AM NOTIFICATION# 3
TO: Jason Burnett, Chair, MPWSP Governance Committee
FROM: Richard Svindland, VP Engineering, California American Water
DATE: December 6, 2013
RE: Cal-Am Notification # 3 Execution of Design-Build Agreement for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Infrastructure
This Cal-Am Notification is submitted to you pursuant to, and in compliance with,
Section V.B. of the Amended and Restated Agreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project Governance Committee (the "Agreement"), dated November 5,
2013, entered into by and among the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
("MPRWA"), the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ("MPWMD"), the
County of Monterey ("County"), and the California-American Water Company ("Cal-
Am"). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in
the Agreement.
Cal-Am intends to execute a contract valued in excess of $1 million, relating to the
design and construction of the Desalination Infrastructure (the "DB Contract"). Pursuant
to Section V.D., Category B.2., of the Agreement, the Governance Committee may
recommend which contractor should be retained for the DB Contract, and issue any
recommendations concerning the terms of the final DB Contract.
Cal-Am has determined these matters are ripe for presentation to, and recommendation
by, the Governance Committee. Cal-Am's recommendation is that Cal-Am enter into the
DB Contract with CDM Constructors, Inc. It is Cal-Am's current intent to execute the
DB Contract relating to the design and construction of the Desalination Infrastructure on
or about December 20, 2013. The Governance Committee may, under Category B.2: (1)
recommend which contractor should be retained under the DB Contract; and, (2) issue
any recommendations concerning the terms of the final DB Contract.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 11, Packet Page 23
In accordance with your request, Cal-Am will provide the following information to the
Governance Committee pursuant to Section V.D., Category B.2, by posting various
documents, including Cal-Am's Proposal Evaluation Report dated November 16, 2013,
on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project website by 3 p.m. on December 6,
2013: (1) a copy of all responsive proposals received for the work, except for any
proprietary information provided by proposers; (2) a written description of the process
Cal-Am undertook to select the recommended contractor; (3) a summary of the
considerations that Cal-Am deems pertinent to support its recommendation; and (4) any
other information that Cal-Am believes will assist the Governance Committee in its
review of the recommended DB Contract and contractor. This information can be
accessed at www.watersupplyproject.org in the Procurement Opportunities section.
Pursuant to Section V.B. of the Agreement, the Governance Committee shall issue its
recommendations, if any, to Cal-Am within ten (10) calendar days following receipt of
this Cal-Am Notification. The recommendations should be in writing and sent to Richard
Svindland of Cal-Am at richard.svindland@amwater.com.
2
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 12, Packet Page 24

PROPOSAL EVALUATION REPORT


Request for Proposals
for
Design and Construction of Desalination Infrastructure
for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project



November 16, 2013


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 13, Packet Page 25

Table of Contents

Page No.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 PROCUREMENT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF REPORT................................ 3
2.1.1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS......................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Request for Proposals............................................................................................ 3
2.2 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION PROCESS....................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Procurement Team................................................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Evaluation Process................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Scoring Methodology ............................................................................................. 5
3.0 SUMMARY OF DESIGN-BUILD TEAMS AND PROPOSED PROJECT ............................... 5
3.1 BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Design-Build Team................................................................................................ 7
3.1.2 Proposed Base Project ........................................................................................... 7
3.2 CDM CONSTRUCTORS, INC........................................................................................ 8
3.2.1 Design-Build Team................................................................................................ 8
3.2.2 Proposed Base Project ........................................................................................... 8
3.3 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. .................................................................................... 9
3.3.1 Design-Build Team................................................................................................ 9
3.3.2 Proposed Base Project ........................................................................................... 9
3.4 MWH CONSTRUCTORS, INC. .................................................................................... 10
3.4.1 Design-Build Team.............................................................................................. 10
3.4.2 Proposed Base Project ......................................................................................... 10
4.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SCORING..................................................................... 11
4.1 CONFORMANCE REVIEW......................................................................................... 11
4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA............................................................................................ 11
4.2.1 TECHNICAL CRITERIA (40%) .............................................................................. 11
4.2.1.1 Project Delivery (10%) ...................................................................................... 12
4.2.1.2 Technical Reliability and Viability (17%)........................................................... 15
4.2.1.3 Operability (10%) ............................................................................................. 30
4.2.1.4 Technical Qualifications (2%) ........................................................................... 38
4.2.1.5 Other (1%) ....................................................................................................... 39
4.2.1.6 Scoring of the Technical Criteria ...................................................................... 40
4.2.2 BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CRITERIA (60%) ...................................................... 40
4.2.2.1 Cost Effectiveness of Proposal (50%) ............................................................... 41
4.2.2.2 Business Terms and Conditions (8%) .............................................................. 43
4.2.2.3 Proposer/Guarantor Financial Qualifications (2%) .......................................... 49
4.2.2.4 Scoring of the Business and Financial Criteria................................................. 50
5.0 OVERALL SCORES FOR PROPOSALS........................................................................... 51
6.0 EVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATION.................................................................... 51



MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 14, Packet Page 26

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report relates to the evaluation of Proposals received in response to the Request for
Proposals for Design and Construction of Desalination Infrastructure for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project, dated J une 17, 2013, as amended (the RFP) issued by California-
American Water Company (CAW) and the designation of the Preferred Proposer with whom
to enter into negotiations. Proposals in response to the RFP were received on October 16, 2013
from four Proposers: Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. (Black & Veatch); CDM
Constructors, Inc. (CDM Smith); CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. (CH2M Hill); and MWH
Constructors, Inc. (MWH).
An evaluation of the four Proposals has been conducted by the Evaluation Team in
accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The criteria included in the RFP
include (1) technical evaluation criteria (40% weighting) including project delivery, technical
reliability and viability, operability, technical qualifications, and other (which was determined to
be Proposer interviews) and (2) business and financial criteria (60% weighting) including cost
effectiveness, business terms and conditions, and financial strength.
While all four Proposers are highly qualified and submitted very comprehensive
Proposals, the Proposal submitted by CDM Smith was determined to be the most advantageous
Proposal submitted. This determination was based upon several factors as described in more
detail in this Evaluation Report; however, the primary factors favoring CDM Smith are its
significant cost effectiveness, exceptional acceptance of the terms and conditions included in the
draft design-build agreement (the Draft DB Agreement), and a strong overall technical
Proposal.
CDM Smiths Proposal is 11% more cost effective than the next most cost effective
Proposal. This advantageous pricing Proposal is due to (1) the cost effective capital cost
submitted by CDM Smith (for both the 6.4 mgd and 9.6 mgd plants) and (2) the anticipated
electricity costs based upon its advantageous electricity utilization guarantee. CDM Smiths
pricing Proposal was determined to be most advantageous under the base case analysis as well as
under several sensitivity analyses.
CDM Smiths acceptance of the terms and conditions included in the Draft DB
Agreement is highly advantageous. It took very few exceptions generally and did not take any
exceptions to the most material risk provisions set forth in the Draft DB Agreement. This is a
distinguishing feature of its Proposal as compared to other Proposers and especially considering
the time and other sensitivities associated with this project.
CDM Smith submitted a strong technical Proposal. It has a qualified team and has
proposed that experienced personnel will be assigned to the Project. It has valuable local
experience including working with regulatory agencies as it designed and permitted the local
Sand City desalination facility. Overall, its design effectively accomplishes the requirements of
the RFP without adding unnecessary features that would drive up cost.
It is the Evaluation Teams recommendation, therefore, that CDM Smith be designated
the Preferred Proposer for the commencement of negotiations.


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 15, Packet Page 27

The table below is a summary of the final scores for both the technical criteria and the
business and financial criteria and the total score for each Proposer.
Proposer
Technical Criteria
(40 pts)
Business and
Financial Criteria
(60 pts)
Total
Black & Veatch 35.8 50.2 86.0
CDM Smith 36.1 59.8 95.9
CH2M Hill 40.0 48.0 88.0
MWH 35.1 51.4 86.5

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROCUREMENT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF REPORT
CAW has undertaken a procurement through a Request for Qualifications/Request for
Proposals process for a contract to design, permit, construct, startup, and test certain desalination
infrastructure. This evaluation report has been prepared for the Selection Committee by the
Evaluation Team (as defined in Section 2.2.1 below) and sets forth the analysis and scoring by
the Evaluation Team of the Proposals submitted in response to the RFP, based upon the
evaluation criteria and weighting set forth in the RFP, as well as a recommendation for selection
of the most advantageous Proposal.
2.1.1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
CAW issued a Request for Qualifications from Prospective Design-Build Entities (the
RFQ) on April 1, 2013, in order to shortlist firms to receive the RFP. Key staff for members
of the oversight committee formed by CAW, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority,
the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and the County of Monterey (the
Governance Committee) reviewed and commented on the RFQ before its issuance. Nine
statements of qualifications (SOQs) were received from respondents on May 1, 2013. In
accordance with the RFQ, CAW evaluated the nine SOQs and shortlisted the following five
firms as eligible to submit proposals in response to the RFP:
Black & Veatch
CDM Smith
CH2M Hill
Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (Kiewit)
MWH
2.1.2 Request for Proposals
On J une 17, 2013, CAW undertook the second phase of the procurement process by
issuing the RFP to the five shortlisted respondents. The RFP was reviewed and commented on
3


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 16, Packet Page 28

by the Governance Committee before its issuance. A mandatory pre-Proposal conference was
held on J uly 9, 2013, with the five shortlisted respondents. Pre-Proposal interviews with each
shortlisted respondent were conducted on J uly 9 J uly 11, 2013 to discuss technical issues and
on J uly 15 J uly 17, 2013 to discuss contractual issues. CAW issued Addendum 1 on J uly 24,
2013. The shortlisted respondents submitted written comments and questions on the RFP
including the Draft DB Agreement on J uly 31, 2013.
CAW issued Addendum 2 on August 23, 2013 which included revisions to the RFP
including the Draft DB Agreement and written responses to certain questions that were
submitted. CAW offered the shortlisted firms an opportunity to individually attend a one-hour
conference call with CAW for clarification following Addendum 2, with CH2M Hill, Kiewit,
and MWH accepting.
CAW issued Addendum 3 on September 13, 2013, and Addendum 4 on September 27,
2013. CAW offered the shortlisted firms an opportunity to individually have a thirty-minute
conference call with CAW for clarification following Addendum 4, with CH2M Hill accepting.
Proposals were submitted on October 16, 2013, by Black & Veatch; CDM Smith; CH2M Hill;
and MWH (collectively, the Proposers). Kiewit did not submit a Proposal. Clarification
questions were distributed to each Proposer on November 1, 2013, and CAW conducted
interviews with the Proposers on November 5 - November 6, 2013 and received written
responses to clarification questions on November 8, 2013.
2.2 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION PROCESS
2.2.1 Procurement Team
A Selection Committee was established to (i) review and evaluate the SOQs; (ii)
shortlist firms to receive the RFP; (iii) review and evaluate the Proposals; (iv) conduct interviews
with each Proposer; (v) review the evaluation information provided by the Evaluation Team (as
defined below); and (vi) identify the most advantageous Proposal using the criteria and
weighting detailed in the RFP. The Selection Committee consists of the following CAW
employees:
Richard Svindland, Vice President, Engineering
Gary Paquette, Business Performance Director
Eric Sabolsice, General Manager, Coastal Division
Anthony Cerasuolo, Vice President, LegalOperations
The Evaluation Team was established to assist the Selection Committee by reviewing
and evaluating responses to the RFQ; advising the Selection Committee regarding the
shortlisting process; reviewing and clarifying the Proposals; evaluating the Proposals; and
providing a recommendation to the Selection Committee as to the most advantageous Proposal.
The Evaluation Team consists of the following internal and external advisors:
Ian Crooks, California American Water
Lori Girard, California American Water
4


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 17, Packet Page 29

Roger Hulbert, California American Water
Holley J oy, California American Water
David Sousa, California American Water
Steve Creel, American Water - Engineering
J ack Gallagher, American Water - Engineering
Celine Trussell, Trussell Technologies
Rhodes Trussell, Trussell Technologies
Rick Sapir, Hawkins Delafield & Wood
2.2.2 Evaluation Process
The Evaluation Team has individually reviewed the Proposals; identified and discussed
advantageous and non-advantageous elements of each Proposal; identified areas where
clarification was needed; conducted in-person interviews with each Proposer; and reviewed,
discussed, and evaluated the clarified Proposals, based upon the criteria and weighting included
in the RFP.
2.2.3 Scoring Methodology
In undertaking the evaluation of the Proposals, the Evaluation Team has both (i)
complied with the weighted scoring set forth in the RFP and (ii) applied a sound and consistent
methodology for the scoring of Proposals. The same scoring rationale was used by the
Evaluation Team for each evaluation category. Proposals were evaluated for each category in a
manner such that the highest possible points were assigned to the best Proposal in that category.
Proposals were scored in each category not just based upon their ranking, but instead based upon
the relative value of each Proposal as compared to the other Proposals for each category (e.g., the
difference between the best and second best may be minimal (10 v. 9.5) while the difference
between the second best and the third best may be substantial (9.5 v. 6)). The Evaluation Team
has applied this rationale to the scoring of the quantifiable evaluation categories (i.e., cost
effectiveness of Proposals) as well as the other not-so-readily quantifiable evaluation categories.
Applying the same scoring methodology for each evaluation category ensures that the relative
value of a point in each category is the same and that each category actually receives the
weighting intended.
3.0 SUMMARY OF DESIGN-BUILD TEAMS AND PROPOSED PROJECT
This section provides a summary of each Proposers team (including identification of any
changes from the SOQ) and a summary of each proposed project. The RFP required Proposals
for 9.6 million gallons daily (mgd) and for 6.4 mgd.
In preparing the RFP, CAW developed design and construction requirements, including
conditions for the quality of raw water and finished water, for the Proposers to use in developing
a base Proposal. The RFP required each Proposer to prepare its Proposal consistent with those
requirements and four required alternatives (UV disinfection, post-stabilization, five-year
membrane warranty, and two-year RO feed pump warranty), and the RFP invited voluntary
alternatives that would reduce life cycle cost or improve operations.
5


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 18, Packet Page 30

Each Proposer submitted a base Proposal consistent with the design and construction
requirements in the RFP, which are summarized below:
Raw water piping (from the property line)
Granular media filtration system (filters, backwashing supply, spent backwash water
clarification and recycle facilities)
Filtered water storage and pumping system
Reverse osmosis system
Product water stabilization system
UV disinfection system
Finished water storage and disinfection
Finished water pumping system and piping (piping to the property line)
Salinas Valley desalinated water return pumping system and piping (piping to the
property line)
Concentrate equalization, aeration and disposal system (piping to the property line)
Chemical storage and feed facilities
Electrical facilities including power supply
Standby power facilities
Process control and instrumentation system
Buildings, inclusive of all mechanical, electrical, and special systems:
Administration facilities
Reverse osmosis building
Chemical building
UV building
Granular media filtration building
Electrical buildings (as needed)
Project Site improvements

The facility to be constructed will be designed to reliably deliver either 7,168 acre-feet
per year with a rated design capacity of 6.4 mgd or 10,752 acre-feet per year with a rated design
capacity of 9.6 mgd of desalinated water for potable use. The selected final design capacity
depends on the future decision of implementation of the groundwater replenishment (GWR)
project.
Water from the Pacific Ocean will be delivered to the Project Site by pipeline from slant
beach wells from the nearby coast. Treatment consists of oxidation with sodium hypochlorite,
granular media filtration, dechlorination, pH adjustment with sulfuric acid, cartridge filtration, a
first pass of seawater reverse osmosis, a partial second pass of brackish water reverse osmosis,
disinfection with ultraviolet light, post-stabilization treatment with carbon dioxide and hydrated
lime, pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide, addition of an orthophosphate corrosion inhibitor
and post-chlorination with sodium hypochlorite.
Each Proposer prepared and submitted an acceptable base design and acceptable required
alternatives in compliance with the requirements of the RFP. Each team also proposed multiple
voluntary alternatives. These voluntary alternatives ranged from simple alternatives such as
6


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 19, Packet Page 31

replacing the on-site chlorine generator with purchased sodium hypochlorite periodically
transported to the site by truck to more complex alternatives, including some sets of alternatives
bundled together. Many of the voluntary alternatives received were evaluated but not accepted
by CAW because they are either not cost-effective or are not technically advantageous. Many of
the voluntary alternative proposals submitted had been considered by CAW during the
development of the design and construction requirements and had been determined to be non-
advantageous. The voluntary alternative proposals received from each Proposer are listed in
Appendix A hereto. There are a limited number of voluntary alternative Proposals that were
submitted by all four Proposers in a substantially similar form that the Evaluation Team believes
CAW should consider further or that are not material to the evaluation of the Proposals. There
are also a number of less material voluntary alternatives that may still be considered by CAW.
Because the Evaluation Team believes that further information and analysis is required prior to
determining whether to accept any such voluntary alternative proposals and because the cost and
technical advantages associated with these alternatives are similar for each Proposer, the
voluntary alternative Proposals were deemed not to materially affect the cost effectiveness or
technical comparison among the Proposals. Upon selection of the Preferred Proposer, it is
expected that the voluntary alternatives will be addressed in the final Design-Build Agreement.
Proposers were required to propose on four required alternatives (UV disinfection, post
stabilization, five-year membrane warranty, and two-year RO feed pump warranty). The
required alternative proposals received from each Proposer are listed in Appendix B hereto. The
Evaluation Team believes that further information and analysis is required prior to determining
whether to accept any required alternatives, but the required alternatives were deemed not to
materially affect the cost effectiveness or technical comparison among the Proposals. Upon
selection of the Preferred Proposer, it is expected that the required alternatives will be addressed
in the final Design-Build Agreement.
3.1 BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.
3.1.1 Design-Build Team
Black & Veatch Construction, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Black & Veatch Holding Company, is the Design-Builder with which CAW would
enter into the DB Agreement. The Guarantor is Black & Veatch Holding Company. Black &
Veatch Construction, Inc. would also serve as the general contractor for the Project and would
perform the majority of Design-Build Work required for the Project. Black & Veatchs Proposal
identified the following significant subcontractors and their roles:
Significant Subcontractors:
Doosan Hydro Technology LLC (ROEM)
Schneider Electric (Electrical Equipment)
TESCO Controls, Inc. (Systems Integration)
3.1.2 Proposed Base Project
Black & Veatch proposed a base project that met the design and construction
requirements. Black & Veatchs pretreatment consists of eight duty and two redundant pressure
7


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 20, Packet Page 32

media filters. Filtered water then flows to two filtered water tanks, and is pumped to the RO
system. The RO system begins with cartridge filters in a four duty and one standby
configuration. The flow is then split among the RO trains, each of which consists of first pass
high pressure pumps, first pass seawater RO membranes and pressure vessels, energy recovery
devices and associated booster pumps, second pass feed pumps, and second pass brackish water
RO membranes and pressure vessels. Six 1.6 mgd trains are proposed, with one additional train
as standby. RO membranes proposed are Hydranautics SWC5-LD and ESPAB-MAX, along
with ERIs PX-Q300 or Flowserves DWEER energy recovery devices, and horizontal multi-
stage high pressure pumps from Torishima or an equivalent manufacturer. Stabilization of the
RO system product water is proposed with a continuous, flow-paced hydrated lime plus lime
saturator system. Carbon dioxide and caustic are the proposed options for finished water
alkalinity and pH adjustment. A UV system is proposed for final disinfection. Overall, the
proposed treatment system would result in 4-log reduction of Cryptosporidium, 5-log reduction
of Giardia, and 6-log reduction of virus.
3.2 CDM CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
3.2.1 Design-Build Team
CDM Constructors, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CDM
Smith, Inc., is the Design-Builder with which CAW would enter into the DB Agreement. The
Guarantor is CDM Smith, Inc. CDM Smith, Inc. would also serve as the design firm, and CDM
Constructors, Inc. would serve as general contractor for the Project. CDM Smiths Proposal
identified the following significant subcontractors and other team members and their roles:
Significant Subcontractors:
H2O Innovation USA, Inc. (ROEM)
EHDD (Architectural)

Other Team Members:
Whitson and Associates, Inc. (Survey/Civil)
Pacific Crest Engineering, Inc. (Geotechnical)
RosTek Associates, Inc. (Seawater Desalination Technical Advisor)
Infilco Degremont, Inc. (Seawater Process Design Advisor)
J DH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. (Corrosion)
J oni L. J anecki & Associates, Inc. (Landscape Architecture)
Oona J ohnson Landscape Architecture (Landscape Architecture)
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. (Acoustic/Vibration)
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (Environmental/Permitting)
EOA, Inc. (Environmental/Permitting)
3.2.2 Proposed Base Project
8
CDM Smith proposed a base project that met the design and construction requirements.
CDM Smith proposed eight duty and two redundant pressure media filters for pretreatment.
Filtered water then flows to two filtered water tanks, and is pumped to the RO system. The RO
system begins with seven cartridge filters, and the combined cartridge filter effluent is sent to


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 21, Packet Page 33

seven first pass RO trains, which are to be operated as six duty and one standby units. Each first
pass seawater RO train consists of a high pressure pump, an energy recovery device and
associated booster pump, and first pass seawater RO membranes and pressure vessels. A portion
of the combined first pass permeate is then sent to the second pass RO trains, each of which
consists of a brackish water RO feed pump and second pass brackish water RO membranes and
pressure vessels. Four second pass RO trains are proposed, to be operated as three duty and one
standby units. RO membranes proposed are Hydranautics SWC5-LD, SWC6-LD, and ESPA2-
LD, along with ERIs PX-Q300 energy recovery devices, and horizontal multistage high pressure
centrifugal pumps. RO system product water stabilization is proposed via a hydrated lime
system with lime saturators. Carbon dioxide and caustic may be added for finished water
alkalinity and pH adjustment. A UV disinfection system is proposed for final disinfection,
upstream of the product water stabilization. Overall, the proposed treatment system would result
in 6-log reduction of Cryptosporidium, 7-log reduction of Giardia, and 6-log reduction of virus.
3.3 CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC.
3.3.1 Design-Build Team
CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd., is the Design-Builder with which CAW would enter into the DB
Agreement. The Guarantor is CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. would
serve as the design firm. CH2M Hills Proposal identified the following significant
subcontractors and their roles:
Significant Subcontractors:
Biwater AEWT, Inc. (ROEM)
Granite Construction, Inc. (General Contractor/Construction)
Blocka Construction, Inc. (Electrical Contractor)

3.3.2 Proposed Base Project
CH2M Hill proposed a base project that met the design and construction requirements.
CH2M Hill pretreatment consists of eight duty and two redundant pressure media filters.
Filtered water is sent to two filtered water tanks, and then pumped to the RO system. The RO
system begins with four cartridge filters, with the combined cartridge filter effluent feeding the
first pass RO trains. Six duty and one redundant first pass seawater RO trains are proposed, each
consisting of a high pressure pump, two energy recovery devices and one associated recirculation
pump, and seawater RO membranes and pressure vessels. Two second pass brackish water RO
trains are proposed, each consisting of a feed pump and brackish water RO membranes and
pressure vessels. RO membranes proposed are Hydranautics SWC5-LD and ESPA2 MAX,
along with Flowserves DWEER 1200 energy recovery devices, and Torishimas horizontal ring
section centrifugal high pressure pumps. Stabilization of the RO system product water is
proposed with a batch-based lime slurry system with lime saturators. Carbon dioxide and caustic
are proposed for finished water alkalinity and pH adjustment. A UV system is proposed for final
disinfection. Overall, the proposed treatment system would result in 4-log reduction of
Cryptosporidium, 5-log reduction of Giardia, and 6-log reduction of virus.
9


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 22, Packet Page 34

3.4 MWH CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
3.4.1 Design-Build Team
MWH Constructors, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect subsidiary of MWH
Global, Inc., is the Design-Builder with which CAW would enter into the DB Agreement. The
Guarantor is MWH Americas, Inc. MWH Americas, Inc. would also serve as the design firm,
and MWH Constructors, Inc. would serve as the general contractor for the Project. MWHs
Proposal identified the following significant subcontractors and other team members and their
roles:
Significant Subcontractors:
Aquatech/MWH Treatment (ROEM)
C. Overaa & Co. (Building)
Don Chapin Company (Civil)
WRNS Studio (Architect)

Other Team Members:
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (Environmental/Permitting)
AGS, Inc. (Geotechnical)
Westland Management Solutions, Inc. (Project Controls)
Katz & Associates (Public Relations)
Lee, Inc. (Surveying)

3.4.2 Proposed Base Project
MWH proposed a base project that met the design and construction requirements. MWH
proposed pretreatment consists of twelve duty and two redundant pressure media filters. Filtered
water is sent to two filtered water tanks, and then pumped to the RO system. The RO system
beings with seven cartridge filters, operated as six duty and one standby units. Combined
cartridge filter effluent then flows to six duty and one standby first pass RO trains. Each first
pass RO train consists of a high pressure pump, energy recovery device and associated pump,
and seawater RO membranes and pressure vessels. Three second pass brackish RO trains are
proposed, each consisting of a feed pump and brackish water RO membranes and pressure
vessels. RO membranes proposed are Torays TM820R-400 and TM720-440 membranes,
positive displacement type energy recovery devices, and horizontal multi-stage centrifugal high
pressure pumps. Stabilization of the RO system product water is via the RDP Tekkem lime
slurry system without a lime saturator. Carbon dioxide and caustic are proposed for finished
water alkalinity and pH adjustment. A UV system is proposed for final disinfection. Overall,
the proposed treatment system would result in 4-log reduction of Cryptosporidium, 5-log
reduction of Giardia, and 6-log reduction of virus.
10


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 23, Packet Page 35

4.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SCORING
4.1 CONFORMANCE REVIEW
Proposals were first evaluated for conformance with the specific requirements set forth in
Section 4 of the RFP. Responsive Proposals were to:
Be received at the correct address at or before the specified date and time;
Include a base Proposal that complied with the design and construction
requirements set forth in Appendix 2 of the Draft DB Agreement;
Include completed Proposal Forms and necessary attachments;
Provide the requisite Proposal Bond; and
Provide a markup of the Draft DB Agreement.
All Proposers provided responsive Proposals.
4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
A description of the evaluation criteria is included below as well as a breakdown of the
overall weighting for each criterion and subcriterion.
CATEGORY PERCENT WEIGHTING

TECHNICAL CRITERIA 40%
PROJ ECT DELIVERY 10%
TECHNICAL RELIABILITY AND VIABILITY 17%
OPERABILITY 10%
TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS 2%
OTHER 1%

BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CRITERIA 60%
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PROPOSALS 50%
BUSINESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS 8%
PROPOSER/GUARANTOR FINANCIAL
QUALIFICATIONS
2%

The RFP included an Other section under Business and Financial Criteria, but the
Evaluation Team has determined that there are no other criteria to be evaluated as part of the
Business and Financial Criteria.

4.2.1 TECHNICAL CRITERIA (40%)
The technical criteria evaluated by the Evaluation Team consisted of project delivery,
technical reliability and viability, operability, technical qualifications, and the quality of Proposer
interviews. For each of the criterion below, a description of the factors considered and a
11


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 24, Packet Page 36

description of the significant benefits and drawbacks of each Proposal within that category is
provided, as well as a comparison of Proposals for such criterion.
4.2.1.1 Project Delivery (10%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the project delivery criterion for each
Proposer.
12
Project Delivery
(10 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 8.5
CDM Smith 9.0
CH2M Hill 10.0
MWH 8.0

4.2.1.1.1 Description
This criterion includes the Proposers approach to developing, managing, and scheduling
the construction, commissioning, start-up, and Acceptance Test activities; the potential need for
and timing of supplemental environmental review; the ability of the proposed design to meet all
regulatory requirements of all applicable Governmental Bodies; the proposed methods for
coordination with applicable utilities; the Proposers approach to project planning, purchasing,
coordination of subcontractors, sequencing, and managing the construction activities to meet the
schedule; the expertise and management capability to integrate the required expertise of the
Proposers team members for the overall benefit of the Project; the Proposers understanding and
inclusion in the schedule of the requirements necessary to test equipment, commission the
Project and conduct the Acceptance Test; the Proposers WMDVBE Utilization Plan and its
Local Resources Utilization Plan; the Proposers approach to avoiding adverse environmental
impacts, protecting natural resources, and mitigating environmental impacts; current and
projected workloads of the Proposer; the proposed Design-Build Quality Management Plan; and
the Proposers schedule and strategy for identifying and obtaining all required Governmental
Approvals, preparing applications for such Governmental Approvals, and timely obtaining all
Governmental Approvals. In consideration of the WMDVBE Utilization Plans and the Local
Resource Utilization Plans, the Proposers demonstrated abilities and experience in the following
six areas was considered: (1) management commitment and engagement, (2) outreach and
community partnership, (3) mentoring and development, (4) sourcing and procurement, (5)
technical assistance and capacity building, and (6) reporting and metrics.
4.2.1.1.2 Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch provided good information on how it would be a considerate contractor,
with examples of previous award-winning community outreach efforts. Black & Veatchs
proposed schedule was closely aligned to CAWs revised schedule. The majority of Black &
Veatchs project delivery information was considered good or adequate.


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 25, Packet Page 37

With respect to its WMDVBE Utilization Plan, management commitment appears to be
in place by members of the team that presented; however, a designated supplier diversity
contact accountable to ensure success of goals established was not introduced. Black & Veatch
indicated its intention to use good faith efforts to meet the local work force of 50% of the labor
force as measured by man hours but did not provide any specific plan.
4.2.1.1.3 CDM Smith
CDM Smith addressed the permitting challenges and referenced a philosophy of
meeting early and often with permitting agencies and CAW. Because of prior project
experience, CDM Smith recognized the importance of coordination among the desalination
project components (slant wells, intake, pipeline, etc). CDM Smiths project team includes two
permitting consultants with Denise Duffy & Associates assisting in securing local permits and
San Francisco-based EOA will assist with the CDPH and NPDE permits.
CDM Smith identified an additional permit for the project. Included in its fixed design-
build price are efforts to secure a RWQCB Waste Discharge Permit for storage of waste brine,
prior to disposal. CDM Smiths commissioning plan was determined to be one of the best
among the Proposers.
CDM Smith satisfactorily meets the core competencies needed to achieve the established
WMDVBE goals for the Project. Clear recognition of CAWs history in meeting or surpassing
established CPUC supplier diversity goals and the desire to ensure continued success were
demonstrated. Management commitment and engagement was seen through its experiences in
surpassing WMDVBE goals on previous projects. CDM Smiths team includes local team
members serving in important roles as well as local union labor forces. CDM Smith indicates it
will meet the local labor force goal of 50%.
4.2.1.1.4 CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill took a proactive approach to permit acquisition, meeting with several of the
permitting agencies. CH2M Hill provided a very detailed laydown and staging area plan, with a
site map identifying the various locations and uses for each area. CH2M Hill proposed early
planning and schedule integration with the other components of the project (wells, pipeline, etc).
The sequence of construction activities was detailed and easy to understand. The sequence was
laid out in a chronological format, with an associated highlighted site plan. The work flow and
sequence of construction activities were consequently clear and easy to understand. CH2M Hill
proposed a communications plan for CAW and for the governmental agencies involved in permit
acquisition.
CH2M Hill satisfactorily meets the core competencies needed to achieve the established
WMDVBE goals for the Project. CH2M Hill has met or exceeded the core competencies above
those recognized as measures for success in achieving WMDVBE goals. Management
commitment and engagement was evident as the overall project manager was able to effectively
articulate knowledge of the CPUC Supplier Diversity Program. CH2M Hill has established a
strategic partnership with a CPUC-certified WMDVBE, Blocka Construction Inc. that will
represent over half of the WMDVBE spending goal. Because of its relationship with Blocka,.
13


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 26, Packet Page 38

CH2M Hill presented the most complete local labor utilization approach and indicated it would
meet the 50% goal.
4.2.1.1.5 MWH
MWH proposed to use Denise Duffy & Associates to coordinate efforts to secure local
permit approvals. MWH provided general information on permitting, but not at the level of
detail that was provided by the other Proposers. MWH had a generic commissioning section that
did not provide the level of detail that the other Proposers did.
MWH did not fully present or demonstrate its ability to meet core competencies in
meeting WMDVBE goals established for the Project. MWH did not provide a clear and
formulated plan to actively seek, include, and potentially award subcontracts to WMDVBEs.
MWH stated at its interview that its approach to achieving WMDVBE goals would only be
finalized and customized upon receipt of contract award. MWH has included local sub
contractor and has provided a local labor force approach but did not commit to achieving the
50% goal.
4.2.1.1.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Project
Delivery
All teams provided Project Delivery criteria in accordance with the RFP. CH2M Hill
scored the highest in this category with CDM Smith as a close second. The CH2M Hill and
CDM Smith teams demonstrated in their Proposals that they understood the schedule, the
permitting requirements, the project scope, the anticipated environmental mitigation risk areas,
and CAWs project deadlines. CH2M Hill submitted a detailed startup and commissioning plan,
which outlined its approach to test and commission the desalination plant. CH2M Hills
graphical commissioning flow chart, featuring highlighted areas of its site plan that corresponded
to activities on a startup timeline, stood out amongst the Proposals. The remaining Proposals
were satisfactory and met the requirements of the RFP but did not include the amount of
information or level of detail that CH2M Hill or CDM Smith.
All of the Proposers have sufficient resources to successfully complete this project. CDM
Smith intends to self-perform the electrical and instrumentation work, whereas CH2M Hill has
teamed with a civil contractor Granite Construction and an electrical/HVAC MWDVBE
subcontractor Blocka Construction. Black & Veatch intends to self perform mechanical
equipment installation and mechanical piping installation and MWH intends to self-perform
electrical and mechanical. All Proposers emphasized the importance of safety and demonstrated
proposed project specific Safety Plans which would promote and ensure a safe work
environment during the execution of the work.
All of the Proposers have developed aggressive but achievable schedules which leverage
the advantages of the design-build process. CH2M Hill and MWH provided a detailed approach
and work plan regarding the sequencing and staging of the work.
14


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 27, Packet Page 39

Both CH2M Hill and CDM Smith articulated the importance of engaging local resources
for their teams. Both teams have begun outreach programs and clearly demonstrated a program
to engage local resources in order to maximize local business and local qualified subcontractors.
CH2M Hill and CDM Smith received the highest scores for their WMDVBE Utilization
Plans. CH2M Hill met the core competencies needed to achieve the established WMDVBE
goals for the Project and potentially will significantly surpass the WMDVBE spending goal.
CDM Smith received a slightly lower score than CH2M Hill for its WMDVBE Utilization Plan
because has not made as much progress as CH2M Hill towards significantly surpassing the
WMDVBE spending goal.
Black & Veatch and MWH received the lowest evaluations for their WMDVBE
Utilization Plans. For both Black & Veatch and MWH, given the size and scope of the Project
and the priority placed on WMDVBE utilization by CAW, a more definitive approach to goal
attainment would have been desirable as part of their Proposals.
4.2.1.2 Technical Reliability and Viability (17%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the technical reliability and
viability criterion for each Proposer.
15
Technical Reliability and Viability
(17 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 15.3
CDM Smith 15.3
CH2M Hill 17.0
MWH 14.5

4.2.1.2.1 Description
This criterion includes the reliability and flexibility of the proposed facilities to treat
variability in raw water; the ability of the proposed facilities to consistently deliver 9.6 mgd; the
ability of the proposed processes including the reverse osmosis and post-stabilization processes
to reliably meet the requirements of the Draft DB Agreement over the life of the project;
sufficiency of scope of geotechnical investigation; structural and architectural design; flexibility
of the proposed design to allow for scaling down to a rated capacity of 6.4 mgd; flexibility of the
proposed design to allow for future modifications or additions to meet future regulatory
requirements; architectural appearance, aesthetics, and environmental sustainability; the quality
of the equipment and materials proposed to be used, including consideration of the corrosive
local coastal marine atmosphere; and the clarity and completeness of the Proposal.


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 28, Packet Page 40

4.2.1.2.2 Black & Veatch
Pretreatment
Black & Veatch proposed pressure filters that are compliant with the RFP. Black &
Veatch proposed a NSF 61 listed pressure vessel lining system. It also proposed air wash to
supplement water backwash. The end of the filter vessels with valves, actuators, and
instrumentation is enclosed within a building. Black & Veatch provided the ability to add
coagulant to remove colloidal material that may be present.
Cartridge Filters
Black & Veatch proposed five cartridge filter vessels prior to the seven-train RO system.
The design maximum loading rate with one filter out of service is 3.7 gpm/10-inch length. The
cartridge filters will be housed on a pad outside of the RO building. The vessels will be
constructed of the required grade stainless steel, and the filter material will be constructed of the
required grade polypropylene.
High pressure pump/VFDs
Seven RO first pass high-pressure pumpsone dedicated pump for each first pass RO
trainare proposed, including horizontal, multistage, ring section type, centrifugal pumps with
variable frequency drive, and a design efficiency of 82.7%.
RO System
Black & Veatch provided a split partial two-pass RO system with Hydranautics SWC5
LD membranes in the first pass and ESPA B Max membranes in the second pass along with
ERIs PX-Q300 or Flowserves DWEER energy recovery devices, and horizontal multi-stage
high pressure pumps from Torishima or an equivalent manufacturer. Black & Veatch proposed
six first pass RO trains, with one additional train as standby. Each first pass train has 76 pressure
vessels and is proposed to operate at an 8 gfd applied flux. Black & Veatch proposed six second
pass RO trains, with one additional train as standby. Each second pass train has 13 pressure
vessels and is proposed to operate at a 16.2 gfd applied flux. The Clean-In-Place (CIP) system
consists of two 8,000-gallon CIP tanks and two CIP pumps as well as a neutralization tank.
UV System
Black & Veatch selected LPHO UV reactors (one duty and one spare) that offer low
energy consumption. The units have been validated according to USEPA guidelines by a third
party. Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) was provided as requested in the RFP.
CDPH Permitting/Disinfection
Disinfection requirements for Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Virus removal or inactivation are
2-log/2-log/2-log through the RO system, 2-log/2-log/0 with UV disinfection, and 0/1-log/4-log
through final disinfection. The proposed treatment facility achieves the required pathogen
16


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 29, Packet Page 41

treatment. The proposed UV disinfection system includes two UV reactors containing low-
pressure, high-output lamps. For finished water storage and disinfection, the proposal states that
the tanks are designed is accordance with the capacity, baffling, and disinfection requirements
specified in the RFP. The storage tanks will be above ground and constructed of steel.
Post-treatment
The post-treatment stabilization system that Black & Veatch has proposed is a high
density lime system using hydrated lime. This system is produces a concentrated lime slurry
similar to liquid lime. The system includes one 14-foot diameter, 35-foot tall hydrated lime
storage silo; one 500-gallon lime slurry batch tank; and two lime slurry metering pumps. No
lime saturators are required for this system.
Black & Veatch also included design criteria for a continuous, flow-paced hydrated lime
plus lime saturator system. This system includes one 14-foot diameter hydrated lime silo with a
25 ton storage capacity; two 24-foot diameter lime saturators; one 14,000-gal lime slurry bulk
storage tank; and one 500-gal lime slurry batch tank.
The second option for post-treatment stabilization is the calcite contactor system. Black
& Veatchs proposed calcite system uses 11 vertical calcite pressure filters, each with a surface
area of 113 sf and a maximum loading rate of 3.0 gpm/sf. The empty bed contact time for this
system was not provided. This alternative eliminates the hydrated lime silo system from the
chemical storage facility.
For all of these systems, carbon dioxide and caustic can be added to adjust the finished
water alkalinity and pH.
Large Process Tanks Filtered (Seawater) Tanks and Finished Water (Clearwells)
Black & Veatch proposed welded steel construction for the two finished water storage
(750,000 gallons each). The scope of the internal baffling system was not identified. Two
AWWA D103 bolted steel tanks were proposed for the filtered water tanks per the RFP.
Water Quality
Black & Veatch demonstrated that its Proposal is capable of meeting or exceeding the
water quality performance requirements.
Yard Piping
Yard piping selection of materials is compliant with the RFP, using HDPE or DIP for
underground piping. Piping for raw water supply is appropriately sized with an ultimate velocity
of 9 fps and is rated for 110 psi. Flexible piping connections at large storage tanks were not
provided.
17


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 30, Packet Page 42

Process Piping and Valves
Black & Veatch identified super duplex stainless steel for high pressure piping per the
RFP but did not identify the PREN associated values. Black & Veatch included Bray butterfly
valves in its base proposal, although Bray valves were not in the preferred manufacturer list. A
voluntary alternative at additional cost was identified to provide Dezurik butterfly valves.
Electrical System
Electrical service is to be procured from PG&E at 21 kV with a single line. The electrical
design includes two 7.5 MVA transformers stepping down to 4160 volts to supply the high
pressure pump VFDs and two 480 volt transformers. Power is routed around the site at 480
volts. Space is provided for future connection to the 4160 volt buss for future landfill power
supply. All 480 volt VFDs will be mounted in the MCC. Only the medium voltage VFDs for
the high pressure pumps will be mounted separately from the MCCs. Conduit selection for
various conditions is compliant with the RFP. Underground ductbanks supplying process power
are concrete encased. Power for exterior lighting around the site is direct bury without concrete
encasement.
A 1000 KW standby diesel fueled genset, including self contained double wall fuel
storage tank is provided to operate the loads identified in the RFP including flush pumps, lights,
controls, security, and one finished water pump. The generator capacity is sufficient to meet the
RFP requirements. Black & Veatch proposed all lighting to be highly energy efficient LED type.
Instrumentation and Control
A comprehensive instrumentation and control system is proposed by Black & Veatch. Each
process is controlled independently by a dedicated programmable logic controllers (PLC)
system which communicates with the plants DCS for overall process coordination. Each RO
Train will have a remote I/O block which communicates with the RO PLC system using Ethernet
protocol. Redundancy is provided for the CPU, CPU power supply, and communication.
Remote I/O are standalone with Ethernet redundant communication. Ethernet TCP/IP
communication is also provided for SCADA/ DCS communication. Black & Veatch proposed
Allen Bradley PLCs that are consistent with the RFP.
Engineering Effort
Black & Veatch proposed 496 design drawings. Its design cost (excluding permitting,
etc.) is $7,689 per drawing. Black & Veatchs engineering effort during construction is $1.2
million which intended to cover review of vendor submittals and resolution of technical issues
that arise during the construction phase. The drawings submitted with its Proposal were clear
and detailed. The technical information provided was clear, although there was some confusion
in the text with the plant electrical service voltage. Black & Veatch proposed to expand upon the
geotechnical work already performed at the site with seven additional soil borings. The borings
would be located at critical locations for structures.
18


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 31, Packet Page 43

4.2.1.2.3 CDM Smith
Pretreatment
CDM Smith proposed 10 pressure filters for iron and manganese removal. Controls and
valves are consistent with the RFP. The end of the filter vessels with valves, actuators, and
instrumentation is enclosed within a building. Extensive piping and fittings were located below
the floor slab, and some piping was located below the pressure vessels potentially increasing
future maintenance efforts.
Cartridge Filters
CDM Smith included seven cartridge filter vessels prior to the seven train RO system in
its Proposal. The design maximum loading rate with one filter out of service is 4 gpm/10-inch
length. The cartridge filters will be housed on a pad outside the RO building. The vessels will
be constructed of the required grade stainless steel, and the filter material will be constructed of
the required grade polypropylene.
High Pressure Pump/VFDs
CDM Smith proposed seven RO first pass high-pressure pumpsone dedicated pump for
each first pass RO train. Horizontal, multistage, ring section type centrifugal pumps with
variable frequency drive and a minimum efficiency of 80% are proposed. As specified in the
RFP, the pumps will be constructed of super duplex stainless steel.
RO System
CDM Smith provided a hybrid split partial two-pass RO system with Hydranautics
SWC5 LD and SWC6 LD membranes in the first pass and ESPA 2 LD membranes in the second
pass. The RO system design uses Flowserves horizontal, multistage, centrifugal pressure pumps
and ERIs PX Q3000 energy recovery devices. CDM Smith proposed six first pass RO trains,
with one additional train as standby. Each first pass train has 76 pressure vessels and is proposed
to operate at a 7.9 gfd nominal flux. CDM Smith proposed three second pass RO trains, with one
additional train as standby. Each second pass train has 26 pressure vessels and is proposed to not
exceed a flux of 18 gfd. The CIP system consists of one 15,600-gallon CIP tank, two CIP pumps
and one 15,600-gallon neutralization tank.
UV System
CDM Smith selected a medium pressure UV system. Detailed life cycle cost comparison
was not submitted. The UV units were shown inside the RO building. UPS was provided for the
UV system per the RFP.
CDPH Permitting/Disinfection
Disinfection requirements for Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Virus removal or inactivation are
2-log/2-log/2-log through the RO system, 2-log/2-log/0 with UV disinfection, and 0/1-log/4-log
19


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 32, Packet Page 44

through final disinfection. The Proposal includes an additional 2-log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia above what is required. For a small additional UV dose (5.8
mJ /cm
2
for 2-log inactivation versus 22 mJ /cm
2
for 4-log inactivation), the proposed disinfection
scenario provides a large enough safety factor to accommodate the source water being classified
as Bin 4the worst case. CDM Smith proposed three UV reactors containing medium-pressure,
high-output lamps.
The finished water storage tanks are designed in accordance with the capacity, baffling,
and 1-log Giardia inactivation requirements specified in the RFP. The storage tanks will be
above ground and constructed of steel.
Post-treatment
The post-treatment stabilization system that CDM Smith has proposed is the hydrated
lime system. This design uses two 15.5-foot diameter, upflow, lime saturators. The lime water
will be stored in two equalization tanks, each with a capacity of 17,200 gallons. Two duty
centrifugal lime water feed pumps will be used to add saturated lime water to the desalinated
water. For lime storage, one silo with a 47-ton capacity will be required, providing an estimated
31 days of lime storage.
The second option for post-treatment stabilization is the calcite contactor system. CDM
Smiths proposed calcite system uses 18 (17 duty +1 standby) contactors, each with a 12-foot
diameter and bed depth of 11.5 feet. The empty bed contact time with one contactor out of
service is 20.4 minutes. Additional clarification is needed from CDM Smith during design to
address maldistribution among the 18 calcite contactors and seismic condition.
For all of these systems, carbon dioxide and caustic can be added after lime addition to
adjust the finished water alkalinity and pH.
Large Process Tanks Filtered (Seawater) Tanks and Finished Water (Clearwells)
CDM Smith proposed welded steel construction for the two finished water storage tanks
(750,000 gallons each). The proposal drawings did not indicate all of the desired features such
as drains. Two AWWA D103 bolted steel tanks were proposed for the filtered water tanks per
the RFP.
Water Quality
CDM Smith demonstrated that its Proposal is capable of meeting the water quality
performance requirements.
Yard Piping
Yard piping selection of materials is generally compliant with the RFP, using HDPE or
DIP for underground piping. Pipe sizing and pressure rating need to be reviewed and confirmed.
For example, the raw water piping has an 80 psi rating (DR 26). CDM Smith provided a pipe
schedule in response to questions showing some pipe velocities at 9.7 fps at ultimate plant
20


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 33, Packet Page 45

capacity, slightly higher than the 9 fps guideline in the RFP. Flexible piping connections at large
storage tanks that would counteract differential settlement and seismic activity were not called
out.
Process Piping and Valves
For high pressure piping (downstream of the RO high pressure pumps), CDM Smith
proposed schedule 40 super duplex stainless steel which is compliant with the RFP. Second pass
pump discharge piping is schedule 10 316L SS. For CIP supply and return, Schedule 80 PVC
(16 inch and 10 inch) is proposed.
Electrical System
Electrical service will be procured from PG&E at 21 kV with a single supply. The
electrical design includes two 5 MVA transformers stepping down to 4160 volts to supply the
high pressure pump VFDs and two 480 volt transformers. Power is routed underground around
the site at 4160 volts. Space is provided for future connection to the 4160 volt buss for future
landfill gas power supply.
Conduit selection generally concurs with the RFP criteria. A 750 KW standby genset is
proposed. CDM Smith has confirmed it is sufficiently sized to start the required loads without
exceeding a 20% voltage dip.
All VFDs will be 6 pulse type, and installed in MCC enclosures, except for the medium
voltage units for the RO high pressure pumps. CDM Smith is partnering with Schneider and will
provide Square D electrical gear. Smart MCCs are proposed which reduce construction time
by using a PLC for control. The extent of elimination of local controls and integration of process
safety interlocks needs to be identified.
Initial drawings submitted with the Proposal showed some electrical duct banks without
concrete encasement, but subsequently CDM Smith has clarified that all duct banks with
concrete encased.
Instrumentation and Control
A comprehensive instrumentation and control system is proposed. Each process is controlled
independently by a dedicated PLC system which communicates with the Plant DCS for overall
process coordination. CDM Smith proposed Allen Bradley PLCs that are consistent with the
RFP.
Engineering Effort
CDM Smith proposed a total of 450 design drawings. Its design cost (excluding
permitting, etc) is $13,340 per drawing which is the highest of the four teams. The identified cost
of engineering during construction was $2,605,975 which is the second highest of the four
Proposers but is reasonable for a project of this complexity. CDM Smith has a number of local
subconsultants on its team, including an architect, two landscape architect firms, a corrosion
21


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 34, Packet Page 46

control firm, and an acoustic specialty firm. The local expertise will be helpful in permitting.
Smith proposed ten additional soil borings to better understand geotechnical conditions at the
site.
4.2.1.2.4 CH2M Hill
Cartridge Filters
CH2M Hill proposed four cartridge filter vessels prior to the seven train RO system. The
cartridge filters will be designed to meet the design and construction requirements. The cartridge
filters will be housed inside the RO building. The vessels will be constructed of the required
grade stainless steel.
High Pressure Pump/VFDs
CH2M Hills proposed seven RO first pass high-pressure pumpsone dedicated pump
for each first pass RO train. Horizontal, centrifugal ring section pumps with an adjustable speed
drive and a design efficiency greater than 82% are proposed. As specified in the RFP, the pump
internals will be constructed of super duplex stainless steel.
RO System
CH2M Hill provided a floating split partial two-pass RO system with Hydranautics
SWC5 LD membranes in the first pass and ESPA B Max membranes in the second pass. The RO
system design uses Torishimas Horizontal Ring Section Centrifugal high-pressure pumps and
Flowserves DWEER 1200 energy recovery devices. CH2M Hills design offers bidirectional
RO cleaning and a floating second pass with the ability to optimize energy use based on raw
water and temperature conditions.
Unlike the other Proposals, CH2M Hill committed to using Torishima high pressure
pumps, Hydranautics membranes, and DWEER energy recovery devices, having already
negotiated agreements and warranties with each of the manufacturers.
CH2M Hill proposed six first-pass RO trains, with one additional train as standby. Each
first pass train has 71 pressure vessels and is proposed to not exceed a flux of 8.7 gfd and float
between 6.9 and 8.4 gfd. CH2M Hill proposed two duty second pass RO trains. Each second pass
train has 39 pressure vessels and is proposed to not exceed a flux of 18 gfd and float between 5
and 16.5 gfd. The CIP system consists of one 10,000-gallon CIP tank, one CIP pump and one
32,000-gallon neutralization tank.
CDPH Permitting/Disinfection
Disinfection requirements for Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Virus removal or inactivation are
2-log/2-log/2-log through the RO system, 2-log/2-log/0 with UV disinfection, and 0/1-log/4-log
through final disinfection. The proposed treatment system provides this required level of
pathogen treatment.
22


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 35, Packet Page 47

The proposed UV system includes two UV reactors containing low-pressure, high-output
lamps. The capacity of the UV system is larger than required, and is sized to treat 22.4 mgd with
all reactors in service and 11.2 mgd with one reactor out of service.
The finished water storage tanks are designed in accordance with the capacity, baffling,
and 1-log Giardia inactivation requirements specified in the RFP. The storage tanks will be
above ground and constructed of steel.
Post-treatment
The post-treatment stabilization system that CH2M Hill has proposed includes a batch-
type hydrated lime slurry system, using the RDP Tekkem system. The proposed system includes
one hydrated lime silo with a 100-ton capacity, providing 30 days of chemical storage; two 9-
foot diameter lime saturators (1 duty +1 standby); and one lime aging tank.
The second option for post-treatment stabilization (required alternative) is the calcite
contactor system. CH2M Hill proposed calcite system uses six 40-foot long horizontal
contactors, each with a 12-foot diameter and bed depth of 8 feet. The minimum empty bed
contact time with one contactor out of service is 20 minutes. The contactor is an up-flow
pressurized vessel. This alternative eliminates the hydrated lime silo system from the chemical
storage facility. CH2M Hills calcite contactor alternative was designed with seismic conditions
in mind.
For both of these systems, carbon dioxide and caustic can be added after lime addition to
adjust the finished water alkalinity and pH.
Water Quality
CH2M Hill demonstrated that its Proposal is capable of meeting the water quality
performance requirements.
Yard Piping
CH2M Hills yard piping selection of materials is compliant with the RFP, using HDPE
or DIP for underground piping. Piping for raw water supply, concentrate discharge, and finished
water are all appropriately sized with a sufficient pressure rating. Piping will be installed with
provisions for differential settlement at structures. Double flexible joints will typically be used
outside of structures where restrained piping penetrates walls below grade, floor slabs, or
foundations. Pipes connected to above grade reservoirs will have flexible connectors where
joining the tank nozzles to address seismic performance requirements.
Process Piping and Valves
First pass RO isolation valves in 1200 psi service will be high performance butterfly
valves with body disc, and shaft of materials meeting minimum PREN>38. Check valves will be
double disc or double door swing check design with PREN >38 for wetted materials. The RO
23


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 36, Packet Page 48

concentrate control valve will be a V-port ball with wetted materials meeting a minimum
PREN>38. The RO permeate flow control valves will be 316 SSL V-port ball valves.
Second pass RO valves in 300 psi service will be high performance butterfly valves with
body, disc and shaft constructed of 316 SSL. Check valves will be 300 psi 316 SSL double disc
swing check design. The RO concentrate control valve will be a 316 SSL V-port ball valve
design.
Electrical System
Electrical service is to be procured from PG&E at 21 kV. The electrical design
distributes power at 21 kV with two transformers stepping down to 4160 volts to supply the high
pressure RO pumps. The design includes six more transformers (three per end) to reliably
supply 480 volts. SEL devices are shown on each power supply line that will allow power to be
metered within the plant.
The design allows for a second PG&E feed, and for future connection to landfill power
supply. A step-up transformer would be required for a 4,160 volt supply from the landfill. All
VFDs 100 hp or larger will be 18 pulse type generating no electrical system harmonics, and will
be mounted separately from motor control centers. Conduit selection for various conditions is
compliant with the RFP.
A 600 KW standby diesel fueled genset, including self contained double wall fuel storage
tank is provided to operate the loads identified in the RFP including flush pumps, lights, controls,
security, and one finished water pump. A step-up transformer is provided to allow the genset to
power the 21 kV bus.
Engineering Effort
CH2M Hill proposed 580 drawings. Its design cost (excluding permitting, etc) is $9,555
per drawing, and its engineering effort during construction is substantial ($3,581,088). CH2M
Hills Proposal included drawings and text that were clear and detailed.
4.2.1.2.5 MWH
Pretreatment
MWH proposed 14 pressure filters for iron and manganese removal. The filters are 8 feet
diameter and 44 feet long. Controls and valves are consistent with the RFP. The end of the
filters with valves, actuators, and instrumentation is enclosed within a building. A flat plate with
nozzle underdrain is proposed instead of the concrete encased PVC header in the RFP. The flat
plate is easier to construct but will be difficult to protect from corrosion in a seawater
application.
24


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 37, Packet Page 49

Cartridge Filters
MWHs Proposal includes seven cartridge filter vessels prior to the seven train RO
system. The design maximum loading rate with one filter out of service is 4 gpm/10-inch length.
The cartridge filters will be housed on a pad outside the RO building. The vessels will be
constructed of the required grade stainless steel, and the filter material will be constructed of the
required grade polypropylene.
High Pressure Pump/VFDs
MWH proposed seven (six duty plus one standby) RO first pass high-pressure pumps
one dedicated pump for each first pass RO train. Horizontal, multistage, split case centrifugal
pumps with variable frequency drive and a design efficiency of 81% are proposed. As specified
in the RFP, the pumps will be constructed of super duplex stainless steel.
RO System
MWH provided a split partial RO system with Torays TM 820 R-400-34 membranes in
the first pass and TM 720-440 membranes in the second pass. The RO system design is based on
horizontal multistage high pressure pumps and Flowserves DWEER or ERIs PX energy
recovery devices.
MWH proposed six first pass RO trains, with one additional train as standby. Each first
pass train has 69 pressure vessels and is proposed to operate at an average flux of 8.6 gfd. MWH
proposed three duty second pass RO trains. Each second pass train has 28 pressure vessels and is
proposed to operate at an average flux of 14 gfd. The CIP system consists of one 12,000-gallon
CIP tank, one CIP pump and one 17,000-gallon neutralization tank.
UV System
MWH performed a life cycle cost analysis and selected LPHO UV reactors (one duty and
one spare) that offer low energy consumption. The units have been validated according to
USEPA guidelines by a third party. A UPS was provided as requested in the RFP. MWH
provided a thorough life cycle cost analysis.
CDPH Permitting/Disinfection
Disinfection requirements for the Base Case for Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Virus removal
and/or inactivation are 2-log/2-log/2-log through the RO system, 2-log/2-log/0 with UV
disinfection, and 0/1-log/4-log through final disinfection. The proposed treatment system
provides this required level of pathogen treatment.
The proposal refers to CAW assessing the source water from the pilot slant well to
determine if the source water is a groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. The
source water for this treatment facility is a surface waterthe Pacific Oceanand CAW has
already embarked on permitting this source water as outlined in Appendix 2 of the RFP.
25


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 38, Packet Page 50

The proposed UV system includes two UV reactors containing low-pressure, high-output
lamps. The finished water storage tanks are designed in accordance with the capacity, baffling,
and 1-log Giardia inactivation requirements specified in the RFP. The storage tanks will be
above ground and constructed of wire wrapped reinforced concrete.
Post-treatment
MWH proposed the RDP Tekkem lime slurry system for its base Proposal without a
saturator. MWH believes that the RDP Tekkem will meet the plant performance requirement
(specifically, the 0.5 NTU maximum turbidity in the product water) without a saturator. The
proposed system includes one 14-foot diameter lime silo with a 90-ton capacity; two 200-gallon
lime slurry prep tanks; and one 400-gal slurry aging tank. Carbon dioxide and caustic can be
added after lime addition to adjust the finished water alkalinity and pH.
The second option for post treatment stabilization is the calcite contactor system. MWH
did not provide design criteria for this system.
Large Process Tanks Filtered (Seawater) Tanks and Finished Water (Clearwells)
MWH proposed concrete construction for the two finished water storage tanks (750,000
gallons each). MWH has proposed internal baffling to achieve a baffling factor of 0.5, and plans
to use computer modeling to assure the design criteria are met. Two AWWA D103 bolted steel
tanks were proposed for the filtered water tanks per the RFP.
Water Quality
MWH demonstrated that its Proposal is capable of meeting or exceeding the water
quality performance requirements. MWHs Proposal provided many back up calculations and
assumptions to demonstrate its ability to meet the RFP requirements and in particular the water
quality and energy requirements.
Yard Piping
Yard piping selection of materials is compliant with the RFP, using HDPE or DIP for
underground piping. MWH pipe sizing was somewhat more generous than the other teams
proposals. For example, it proposed 48-inch HDPE raw water piping with a 125 psi pressure
rating producing a 5.3 fps velocity at ultimate plant flow. MWH drawings showed flexible
piping connections at large storage tanks that would counteract differential settlement and
seismic activity.
Process Piping and Valves
For high pressure piping (downstream of the RO high pressure pumps) MWH is
proposing duplex stainless steel. Duplex stainless steel is more prone to pitting than super
duplex which was requested in the RFP.
26


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 39, Packet Page 51

Electrical System
Electrical service is to be procured from PG&E at 21 kV with a single service. The
electrical design includes two 7.5 MVA transformers stepping down to 4160 volts to supply the
high pressure pump VFDs and two 480 volt transformers. Power is routed underground around
the site at 4160 volts. Space is provided for future connection to the 4160 volt buss for future
solar power supply but not landfill gas power supply although a spare 4160 volt connection is
shown.
A 1500 KW standby genset, which is more than sufficient capacity, is shown on the
electrical single line diagram. VFDs sized 100 hp and larger will be 18 pulse to minimize
generation of harmful harmonics in the power supply. Units 100 hp and larger will be free
standing while smaller units will be installed in an MCC. Free standing mounting of VFDs is
beneficial for troubleshooting and future replacement.
Instrumentation and Control
A comprehensive instrumentation and control system is proposed. Each process will be
controlled independently by a dedicated PLC system which communicates with the Plant DCS
for overall process coordination. MWH proposed Allen Bradley programmable logic controllers
that are consistent with the RFP. Monitoring of water quality entering the finished water storage
tanks is not provided, and thus off-spec water will be first identified at the entry to the
distribution system which is a disadvantage to the MWH design.
Engineering Effort
MWH proposed a total of 369 design drawings, which was the lowest number of the four
Proposals. Its design cost (excluding permitting, etc) is $4,973 per drawing. The identified cost
of engineering during construction was $964,115. The process related drawings submitted with
proposal were clear and detailed. Minimal information was provided for structures other than the
administration building. MWH did not plan any additional geotechnical investigation beyond
the work presented in the RFP.
4.2.1.2.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Technical
Reliability and Viability
CH2M Hill was determined to have the best Proposal in terms of technical reliability and
viability followed by a tie between CDM Smith and Black & Veatch for second, and finally
MWH.
All four Proposals were responsive to the design and construction requirements such that
each is similar regarding the treatment process, and the Proposals are anticipated to be similarly
reliable during operation. However, the Proposals differed in their post-treatment systems,
specifically their lime preparation and addition. The most significant differences identified
between the Proposals are the plant layout, structures and architecture, and electrical system
layout. The Proposers chose to apply different levels of design conservatism to each of the key
plant design features which it had control over (i.e., pipe size, filter backwash water lagoon,
27


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 40, Packet Page 52

tanks, lime saturators sizing, electrical system robustness, etc.). In many cases these facilities
were different for each Proposer.
CH2M Hills Proposal was the most clear and complete with sufficient level of detail in
their preliminary Basis of Design Report (BODR), and also in its drawings. Black and Veatch
provided clear drawings and provided more detail in its BODR than listed in the RFP, but
provided the least amount of backup information for operation and maintenance costs. CDM
Smiths BODR mirrored the RFP with little additional information. CDM Smiths drawings
sufficiently conveyed its design approach. CDM Smith provided the highest level detail to back
up information for their operation and maintenance cost estimates. CDM Smith, MWH, and
CH2M Hill provided excellent information with regards to reverse osmosis modeling. MWH
and CH2M Hill provided excellent information with regards to energy calculations. MWH
provided detailed process type drawings but had little definition of structures.
The RO system designs were similar among the Proposers (in terms of number of skids,
percent second pass, and maximum membrane fluxes) with some differences in the second pass
arrangements and the CIP, neutralization and flush tanks. CDM Smith and CH2M Hill proposed
to meet the water quality performance requirements of the RFP for the RO system (boron and
chloride concentrations during the acceptance test) which was set at a value of 70% of the
notification level while Black & Veatch and MWH proposed to exceed these requirements. CDM
Smith, CH2M Hill and Black & Veatch chose to use Hydranautics membranes in their designs
while MWH chose Torays membranes. Both of these membrane manufacturers are widely used
in seawater applications. CDM Smith had the best permitting approach and improved upon the
design and construction requirements in this area. CH2M Hill and Black & Veatch followed the
design and construction requirements for achieving the regulatory requirements. MWH also
proposed to follow the design and construction requirements for permitting but they suggested an
alternative permitting approach not recommended by CDPH.
The four Proposals were not significantly different in their demonstrated ability of the
proposed processes to meet the contract standards over the project life apart from the ability to
meet the specified product water turbidity. Designs of the lime saturator systems vary widely
from including the larger diameter saturators (Black & Veatchs design) to not including
saturators (MWHs design) while providing package systems. CDMs lime saturator while
smaller than Black & Veatch was still adequate.
CH2M Hill and CDM Smith had the lowest proposed energy consumption in the RO
system. The energy consumption for the distribution system pumping was very close between all
four proposers. The largest differences between the proposers were in their building fixed loads
and their pretreatment pumping. Proposers also varied in the amount of safety factor or
contingencies applied to their energy guarantees.
CH2M Hill had the best architectural concept with CDM Smith a close second with a
lean and good architectural package provided by the same architect that designed the Monterey
Bay aquarium and has a proven track record for aesthetically pleasing metal building that can
resist the marine environment. MWHs architectural concept was not as developed as other
28


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 41, Packet Page 53

proposals especially in their drawings. Black & Veatch had only a very basic architectural
concept but had a voluntary alternative that would improve upon their concept.
MWH had the fewest number of drawings and lowest engineering cost during
construction, along with second lowest effort for permitting. CDM Smith and CH2M Hill had
the highest engineering costs, both for design and construction, but CH2M Hill planned to
produce 130 more drawings, conceivably with more detail. MWHs engineering effort was
notably less than the other three Proposers, which is the least advantageous for CAW.
CDM Smith has a number of subconsultants on its team, including an architect, two
landscape architect firms, a corrosion control firm, and an acoustic specialty firm. CDM Smith
had the leanest permitting effort which is balanced by their permitting team with local expertise
The local expertise and experience with Sand City will be an advantage with local permitting.
MWH received a lower score because it did not plan additional soil borings or
geotechnical investigation like the other three Proposers.
Each of the Proposers proposed similar pressure filter solutions that were compliant with
the RFP. CH2M Hill provided an electrical building at the pressure filters and provided an
internal fusion bonded epoxy lining instead of the requested rubber lining for corrosion control,
which is disadvantageous to CAW. Black & Veatch offered upgrades to the pressure filters such
as air wash in its base proposal. CDM Smith located piping and fittings below the floor slab in
some cases, and some piping was located below the pressure vessels which may increase
maintenance efforts. MWHs base proposal did not include walls on the requested enclosure of
the end of the filter vessels and included a flat plate underdrain, which may be subject to
increased corrosion compared to the PVC/concrete underdrain identified in the RFP.
MWH had the most generous sized piping, but the other Proposers sizing was adequate
for the facility. CH2M Hill and MWH received higher scores for including flexible piping
connections at large storage tanks that would counteract differential settlement and seismic
movement. MWH received a lower score for proposing duplex stainless steel instead of the
more corrosion resistant super duplex stainless steel for first stage RO high pressure pump
discharge piping that the other three Proposers proposed.
Electrical system design is similar among the Proposers, except CH2M Hill chose to
distribute power inside the facility at 21 kV. As a result, CAW staff would be required to
maintain the power distribution gear, which requires specialized training/expertise.
CDM Smith offered the lowest capacity main transformers (5 MVA). Both MWH and
Black & Veatch proposed 7.5 MVA transformers, which could be more advantageous to CAW.
CH2M Hill and MWH planned to have 100 hp and larger VFDs in free standing
enclosures where the other two teams would locate all of the VFDs, except for high pressure
pumps, in MCC enclosures. Free standing enclosures have the advantage of easier maintenance
and ability to change manufacturers in the future. CH2M Hill and MWH proposed premium 18
pulse VFD drives (480 volt) that do not generate harmonic power disturbances but are higher
29


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 42, Packet Page 54

capital costs. The other two teams (CDM and Black &Veatch) planned to reduce capital cost by
using6 pulse VFD drives and filters to manage power quality impacts,
CDM Smith proposed Schneider Smart motor control centers. One advantage is lower
capital cost and more rapid commissioning. CAW staff will require training on this newer
technology. The digital communication between electrical components will complicate any
other manufacturers replacement equipment to be used in the future but is a manageable trade-
off.
A comprehensive instrumentation and control system is proposed by each team. Each
unit process is controlled independently by a dedicated PLC system which communicates with
the Plant DCS for overall process coordination.
CDM Smith was the only Proposal with a medium pressure UV system which will have a
higher life cycle cost but lower capital cost than the more efficient but higher capital cost low
pressure high output system proposed by the other three Proposers. CDM Smith proposed UV
system that are advantageous to CAW because it will allow for a more flexible disinfection
strategy. CDM Smith also located the UV units inside the RO building rather than providing
another structure, which is most advantageous to CAW to reduce capital costs and maintenance
of another building.
CDM Smith, Black and Veatch, and CH2M Hill proposed steel construction for the two
finished water storage tanks (750,000 gallons each). MWH received a higher score for
proposing concrete tanks, which have lower maintenance costs (painting and steel repair) a
higher capital cost, but have the potential to behave differently during an earthquake.
4.2.1.3 Operability (10%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the operability criterion for each Proposer.
30
Operability
(10 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 9.0
CDM Smith 9.0
CH2M Hill 10.0
MWH 9.8

4.2.1.3.1 Description
This criterion includes the Proposers design approach that will assist in the operation and
maintenance of the facility, including each Proposers approach to safety; each Proposers plans
for project site and plant security; identification of system critical and advisory alarms; capability
for remote/automatic operations; design of the electrical power system; design of the
instrumentation and control system; process controls to minimize lag time to improve control


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 43, Packet Page 55

loop performance; ergonomic design of equipment and building locations; location and design of
operator sampling stations; design of on-site laboratory facilities; sufficient access to equipment;
recognition of the space consumed by small piping or electrical conduits at equipment; suitable
provisions for cranes and hoists; lighting for maintenance; access to electrical outlets; providing
clear passageway to access piping; controlling condensation; locating piping to allow for
maintenance; providing suitable lighting; and providing good drainage to keep floors dry.
4.2.1.3.2 Black & Veatch
Plant Layout
Black & Veatch grouped the administration facilities, RO facilities, UV equipment,
electrical building, and chemical storage as a consolidated structure, located on the western side
of the site. The filtered (seawater) storage tanks and pumps will be grouped with the finished
water storage tanks and finished water pumps in the middle of the site. Pretreatment pressure
filters, backwash waste lagoons, and concentrate equalization lagoon will be located on the
eastern side of the site.
The plant will have two entrances, with the main entrance located at the top of the hill on
Charles Benson Road which is a safety concern for traffic. Chemical trucks will be routed to the
chemical unloading area at the back of the plant. A paved turn-around area will be provided
rather than a looped drive.
Space for expansion of the RO building and pretreatment filters for additional capacity is
clearly identified including significant area to the west remains undeveloped should seawater
pre-treatment be required. A small area south of the pretreatment filters may be used for high
rate seawater clarification.
The prominent feature upon entering the plant will be the administration building which
is located in front of the much larger RO building. The finished water storage tanks located east
of the main structures. The electrical substation, standby generator, and transformers will be
located at the northwest corner of the site, out of view of the public.
Architecture/Structural/Finishes
The administration building is constructed of low maintenance architectural CMU while
all other buildings are pre-engineered metal buildings with metal walls. Black & Veatch
provided skylights to allow removal/replacement of the hypochlorite tanks, but did not make
provisions for replacement of other chemical tanks. A detailed dimensioned plan of the
administration building was provided that included all the requested features from the RFP. All
structural steel, joists, roof decking, miscellaneous steel and grating is galvanized. The stairs in
the chemical building are FRP. All above ground interior and exterior piping that is not
insulated or stainless steel is included as painted.
31


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 44, Packet Page 56

Chemical Systems (excluding lime/calcite/carbon dioxide)
Bulk storage tanks for sodium hypochlorite (0.8%), sodium bisulfite, threshold inhibitor,
caustic soda, corrosion inhibitor, and sulfuric acid are provided with tank volumes meeting the
criteria in the RFP. Tanks will be constructed of XLHDPE, or steel for caustic soda, in
accordance with the RFP. Secondary containment for tanks is provided in accordance with the
RFP. Tanks are located within a secure building. Spare feed lines are provided to each feed
point.
One of the three onsite hypochlorite generation system providers identified by Black &
Veatch is not on the preferred list of manufacturers, and investigation would be required to
determine if its equipment is equivalent or better than the desired equipment.
Safety
The proposal was compliant with the safety features requested in the RFP, including
avoiding underground vaults for flow meters and chemical additions, providing safety
showers/eyewashes and tempered water system at locations where chemicals are used. Where
piping was provided in concrete trenches, the trench was suitably sized to allow for access (filter
building and RO building). Suitable secondary containment was provided in bulk chemical
storage with similar chemicals grouped together. Black & Veatch has committed to separate
three phase power from low voltage power in control panels to improve arc flash safety. A
safety cage will be provided in front of the RO vessels to protect workers.
Residuals
The design included two large (950,000 gallons each) lagoons for pressure filter
backwash waste settling and solids storage. Supernatant is recovered by use of submersible
pumps constructed of super duplex stainless steel. Black & Veatch offered a basis for solids
generation by identifying average source water quality conditions. Black & Veatch did not
address the requirement for aeration of the concentrate prior to disposal. A 3 mg concentrate
equalization lagoon is included. Pumping from the lagoon is by submersible pumps constructed
of super duplex stainless steel (three pumps at 4166 gpm each) (two shown on P&ID). The
design includes a 32-inch HDPE discharge line.
4.2.1.3.3 CDM Smith
Plant Layout
CDM Smiths site plan shows the pretreatment filters, filtered water tanks, and spent
filter backwash lagoons at the western side of the site. The concentrate equalization lagoon will
be located at the eastern side of the property.
Visitors will see the stand-alone administration building upon entry to the plant. The RO
building will be the largest structure on site and will be placed behind the administration
building. Finished water storage tanks and pumps will be located to the west of the RO building.
32


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 45, Packet Page 57

The chemical building will be integrated into the RO building, with chemical unloading at the
back of the site, out of sight to visitors.
The plant will have one entrance and one exit to Charles Benson Road. Chemical trucks
are routed to the unloading area at the back of the plant. A looped drive allows for efficient
routing of chemical deliveries.
Space will be available for expansion of the RO building and pretreatment filters.
Significant area to the west remains undeveloped should seawater pre-treatment be required.
Architecture/Structural/Finishes
The administration building is a pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) with corrosion
resistant metal side panels and roof. Likewise, the RO building and pressure filter enclosure are
PEMB construction.
CDM Smiths contingency for replacement of chemical storage tanks is side wall (metal
panel) removal.
A dimensioned floor plan of the administration building was not included in the proposal
drawings, but scaling off the floor plan showed the proposed facilities were generally in line with
the rooms/functions identified in the RFP. A laboratory storage room was not provided, and the
area provided for maintenance was less than requested.
Structural steel will be epoxy coated. All above grade pipe and fittings except stainless
steel pipe and interior FRP piping in trenches will be painted. Architectural metal pre-engineered
building siding will be factory coated (zinc coating with polyvinyldiene fluoride PVDF Kynar
finish coats).
Chemical Systems (excluding lime/calcite/carbon dioxide)
Bulk storage tanks for sodium hypochlorite (0.8%), sodium bisulfite, threshold inhibitor,
caustic soda, corrosion inhibitor, and sulfuric acid are provided with tank volumes meeting the
criteria in the RFP. Tanks will be constructed of XLHDPE, or steel for caustic soda, in
accordance with the RFP. Secondary containment for tanks is provided in accordance with the
RFP. Tanks are located within a secure building. CDM Smith will provide spare feed chemical
lines, but it may be two feed lines within a single carrier pipe. Severn Trent Clortec is the basis
of CDM Smiths onsite hypochlorite generation design.
Safety
CDM Smiths Proposal is compliant with the safety features requested in the RFP,
including avoiding underground vaults for flow meters and chemical additions and providing
safety showers/eyewashes and tempered water system at locations where chemicals are used.
CDM Smith has committed to separate three phase power from low voltage power in
control panels to improve arc flash safety. In the interview, CDM Smith committed to
33


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 46, Packet Page 58

performing the electrical studies early in the design, prior to ordering electrical gear, to help
minimize electrical arc flash hazards.
Residuals
The design included two lagoons for pressure filter backwash waste settling and solids
storage. CDM Smith proposed an air compressor (one duty, one reserve) to add oxygen to the
RO concentrate stream prior to discharge. Details on the installation, and subsequent O&M
implications, are not evident. A 3 mg concentrate equalization lagoon is included per the RFP.
The design includes a 36-inch HDPE discharge line.
4.2.1.3.4 CH2M Hill
Plant Layout
CH2M Hills proposed facilities will be laid out in a horseshoe arrangement with the
concentrate lagoon to the east. The pretreatment pressure filters, filter wastewater lagoons, and
filtered water storage tanks will be located at the western end of the site. The buildings will be
arranged in a campus fashion with the administration building separate with a dedicated
entrance/exit to Charles Benson Road. The largest building will house the RO facilities. All
chemicals will be stored in a stand alone building, and the UV system will be located in a
separate structure. Chemical trucks will be provided with a paved loop around the site with a
separate entrance and exit. Space for expansion of the RO building for additional capacity is
clearly identified. Significant area will remain undeveloped should seawater pre-treatment be
required.
The prominent features upon entering the plant will be the administration building
located in front of the much larger RO building. Most of the outdoor process equipment will be
located out of view, behind the RO building.
Architecture/Structural/Finishes
The administration building is constructed of low maintenance architectural CMU with
multiple roof lines. The administration building is ADA compliant, and a tour path through the
facility is also ADA compliant to accommodate facility tours.
The chemical building, the filter building, UV building, and the finished water pump
electrical building are all constructed of low maintenance CMU. The RO building is a pre-
engineered metal building faced with pre-cast concrete panels with a wave accent feature
across the top. Roof framing of the chemical building allows removal of all bulk storage tanks.
A second control room is located within the RO building, close to the operating
equipment. Restroom facilities are also provided in the RO building.
34


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 47, Packet Page 59

Chemical Systems (excluding lime/calcite/carbon dioxide)
Bulk storage tanks for sodium hypochlorite (0.8%), sodium bisulfite, threshold inhibitor,
caustic soda, corrosion inhibitor, and sulfuric acid will be provided with tank volumes meeting
the criteria in the RFP. Tanks will be constructed of XLHDPE in accordance with the RFP.
Secondary containment for tanks will be provided in accordance with the RFP. Tanks will be
located within a secure building. Spare feed lines will be provided to each feed point by putting
two lines in a single HDPE carrier.
Safety Considerations
CH2M Hills Proposal was compliant with the safety features requested in the RFP,
including avoiding underground vaults for flow meters and chemical additions, providing safety
showers/eyewashes and tempered water system at locations where chemicals are used, and
providing sufficient access to piping located in concrete trenches in the RO building. The
drawings show generous clearances around equipment such as pumps, chemical systems, and
electrical gear. Suitable secondary containment will be provided in bulk chemical storage with
similar chemicals grouped together. Three phase power will be separated from low voltage
control panels to improve arc flash safety.
Residuals
The design included two lagoons for pressure filter backwash waste settling and solids
storage. The design included cascade aeration for the RO concentrate stream that is responsive
to the RFPs request for a non-mechanical means of meeting a 5 mg/L dissolved oxygen target.
A concentrate equalization lagoon is included per the RFP. The design includes a 36-inch HDPE
discharge line.
4.2.1.3.5 MWH
Plant Layout
The MWH site plan shows the pretreatment filters, filtered water tanks, and spent filter
backwash lagoons at the western side of the site. The concentrate equalization lagoon will be
located at the eastern side of the property.
Visitors will see the stand-alone administration building upon entry to the plant. The RO
building will be the largest structure on site and will run beside the administration building.
Finished water storage tanks and pumps will be located behind the RO building and will be out
of sight to visitors. The chemical building also will be out of sight to visitors.
The plant will have a single entrance but two exits to Charles Benson Road. Chemical
trucks will be routed to the unloading area at the back of the plant. A looped drive will allow for
efficient routing of chemical deliveries.
Space will be available for expansion of the RO building and pretreatment filters.
Significant area to the west will remain undeveloped should seawater pre-treatment be required.
35


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 48, Packet Page 60

Architecture/Structural/Finishes
The administration building will be constructed with low maintenance architectural CMU
while all other buildings are pre-engineered metal buildings with metal walls. The proposal was
not definitive on materials of construction for structures other than the administration building.
MWH has identified that a building will not be provided to enclose the
valve/actuator/instrumentation end of the pressure filters; a canopy will be provided instead of
the enclosure identified in the RFP for the base design. Provisions to remove/replace chemical
storage tanks is not evident. A floor plan of the administration building provided for a visitor
area with restrooms and conference room but did not include several of the features requested in
the RFP such as the storage room for the laboratory, and telecom room. No mechanical room
was shown. The maintenance area will be in an inefficient location. Structural steel in corrosive
areas is galvanized. FRP and CPVC piping is not painted. Architectural metal pre-engineered
building siding and roofing will be prefinished, baked-on Kynar paint.
Chemical Systems (excluding lime/calcite/carbon dioxide)
Bulk storage tanks for sodium hypochlorite (0.8%), sodium bisulfite, threshold inhibitor,
caustic soda, corrosion inhibitor, and sulfuric acid are provided with tank volumes meeting the
criteria in the RFP. Tanks will be constructed of XLHDPE, or steel for caustic soda, in
accordance with the RFP. Secondary containment for tanks will be provided in accordance with
the RFP. Tanks will be located within a secure building. Spare feed lines will not be provided to
each feed point, but MWH suggested multiple chemical feed lines could be installed in each
HDPE containment carrier pipe. Siemens will be the basis of MWHs onsite hypochlorite
generation design.
Safety
MWHs Proposal was mostly compliant with the safety features requested in the RFP,
including avoiding underground vaults for flow meters and chemical additions, providing safety
showers/eyewashes and tempered water system at locations where chemicals are used. However,
an underground vault is shown for the RO concentrate pipeline flowmeter.
MWH has committed to separate three phase power which will be separated from low
voltage power in control panels to improve arc flash safety.
Residuals
The design included two lagoons (165,000 gallons each) for pressure filter backwash
waste settling and solids storage. Three recycle pumps will be provided. Details on the
supernatant recycle pump station were not provided. MWH proposed an air compressor (one
duty, one reserve) to add oxygen to the RO concentrate stream. Details on the installation are
not evident.
A 3 mg concentrate equalization lagoon will be included per the RFP. Pumping from the
lagoon will be by submersible pumps (two pumps at 4200 gpm each). The pump materials of
construction are not identified. The design includes a 32-inch HDPE discharge line.
36


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 49, Packet Page 61

4.2.1.3.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Operability
The CH2M Hill facility layout was the most expansive and provided space for
maintenance near each of the facilities while the CDM Smith and Black and Veatch layouts were
the most compact but allow for options in future. CH2M Hill provided a second control
room/station in the RO Building along with restroom facilities. The Black and Veatch layout did
not provide a looped drive for chemical deliveries, but instead provided a turn-around. CDM
Smith analyzed and proposed a layout that minimizes the steps and time operators need to visit
all facilities in a timely manner. CDM Smith located all pumps in one area, bounded by the
fixed structures. Finished water pump suction line (from finished water tanks) is shown
underneath the outdoor electrical power center on the site piping plan inhibiting future
maintenance.
MWH was generous in their pipe sizing which reduces velocity, associated headloss and
minimizes damage from hydraulic transients. MWH also proposed the largest standby electrical
generator. MWH proposed two 7.5 MVA plant service electrical transformers, larger than the 5
MVA units proposed by CDM Smith.
CH2M Hill and MWH include 18 pulse type VFDs, mounted individually, for a number
of pumps which minimizes potential VFD related power quality disturbances from harmonics,
and allows for ease of maintenance and future replacement, which increase their scores.
CDM Smith reduced capital costs by providing proven pre-engineered metal building
with corrosion resistant metal side panels and roof for its administrative building, RO building,
and pressure filter enclosure because CDM Smiths architectural subconsultant demonstrated a
good track record in local area with similar structures in a coastal setting. Structural steel will be
epoxy painted in CDM Smiths Proposal while galvanized structural members were proposed in
other Proposals. CH2M Hill proposed durable materials of construction for structures.
CDM Smith did not provide a laboratory storage room, and the area provided for
maintenance was less than requested; however these items can be addressed during final design
due to the configuration of their building which is easily adaptable. Each team generally can
provide spare chemical feed lines by putting two lines in each carrier pipe.
Each of the teams proposals were generally compliant with the safety features requested
in the RFP, including avoiding underground vaults for flow meters and chemical additions,
providing safety showers/eyewashes and tempered water system at locations where chemicals
are used. Each of the teams agreed to separate three phase power from low voltage controls in
control panels to minimize arc flash hazard to plant maintenance staff. CDM Smith committed
to performing the electrical studies early in the design, prior to ordering electrical gear, to help
minimize electrical arc flash hazards.
CDM Smith proposed concrete pipe trenches that allow limited access to pipe fittings and
flange bolts, and pipe supports. This approach has the benefit of lower initial capital cost but
may require more attention to planning repair or modification work in the future.
37


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 50, Packet Page 62

Each Proposer included two lagoons for pressure filter backwash waste settling and solids
storage. Black & Veatch was conservative and provided much larger lagoons than the other
Proposers, which negatively influenced its ranking.
Black & Veatch did not address the need for aeration of the RO concentrate prior to
disposal. CH2M Hill proposed cascade type aerators that met the RFPs request for a reliable,
low maintenance aeration process. Both CDM Smith and MWH proposed a compressor/blower
to inject air into the concentrate transmission piping that have more O&M concerns than the
CH2M Hill approach, but are proven techniques for increasing dissolved oxygen in a straight
forward and simple manner.
4.2.1.4 Technical Qualifications (2%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the technical qualifications criterion for
each Proposer.
38
Technical Qualifications
(2 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 2.0
CDM Smith 1.8
CH2M Hill 2.0
MWH 1.8

4.2.1.4.1 Description
This criterion includes each Proposers technical qualifications, including each
Proposers experience and qualifications in providing the proposed design-build work and the
demonstrated experience and competency of the key personnel assigned to the Project. Proposers
were also evaluated on changes in key personnel and the addition of new and major
subcontractors such as the Reverse Osmosis Equipment Manufacturer (ROEM).
4.2.1.4.2 Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch and its key personnel were determined to be highly experienced and
competent. Black & Veatch teamed with Doosan Hydro Technology LLC as its ROEM.
Doosan has extensive worldwide seawater desalination experience and is one of the largest
ROEMs by contracted capacity. Black & Veatch and Doosan have successfully completed a
seawater desalination project together, and this team benefits from established alliance with other
key equipment suppliers such as the RO membrane suppliers, the energy recovery device
suppliers, and the high pressure pump suppliers. Black & Veatch changed its key personnel for
commissioning between the SOQ and the Proposal. This change in key personnel strengthens its
team because the new commission staff adds commissioning experience and CAW has had
positive previous work experience with the new personnel.


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 51, Packet Page 63

4.2.1.4.3 CDM Smith
CDM Smith and its key personnel were determined to be highly experienced and
competent. CDM Smith teamed with H2O Innovation as its ROEM. H2O Innovation has
extensive experience with large groundwater desalination and recycled water applications. H2O
Innovation built the Sand City desalination plant that is operated by CAW. . H2O Innovation is a
smaller market player by contracted capacity; however, they are qualified for this project..
4.2.1.4.4 CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill and its key personnel were determined to be highly experienced and
competent. CH2M Hill teamed with Biwater as its ROEM. Biwater has extensive worldwide
seawater desalination experience and is a large market player by contracted capacity. In addition
to teaming with Biwater, CH2M Hill secured the high pressure pump supplier, the energy
recovery device supplier, and the membrane supplier. CH2M Hills team has already negotiated
membrane, pump, and energy recovery device warranties for this Project.
4.2.1.4.5 MWH
MWH and its key personnel were determined to be highly experienced and competent.
MWH teamed with Aquatech as its ROEM. Aquatech has worldwide seawater desalination
experience and is a medium to large market player by contracted capacity.
4.2.1.4.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Technical
Qualifications
Each Proposer and its key personnel were determined to be highly qualified and
competent to design and build the desalination infrastructure. Because the Proposers are all so
highly qualified, the ROEM selection has been determined to be significant in the evaluation of
the technical qualifications.
While each Proposers ROEM met the RFPs ROEM qualification criteria, some had
significant large worldwide seawater desalination experience while others had previous local and
California experience. The ROEMs proposed by CH2M Hill and Black & Veatch were deemed
to be the most advantageous and equivalent because of their strong ROEM experience including
seawater desalination expertise of their proposed staff and project references. CDM Smiths and
MWHs ROEMs ranked slightly below CH2M Hill and Black & Veatch. CDM Smiths
technical qualifications were strong in local seawater desalination but are at a smaller scale than
Black & Veatch or CH2M Hill. MWH recently acquired expertise with Biwater Services and its
ROEM alliance with Aquatech was equally valued.
4.2.1.5 Other (1%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the other criterion for each Proposer.
39


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 52, Packet Page 64

40
Other
(1 pt)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 1.0
CDM Smith 1.0
CH2M Hill 1.0
MWH 1.0

4.2.1.5.1 Description
This criterion includes the quality of the Proposers interviews.
4.2.1.5.2 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Technical
Qualifications
All Proposers were impressive and were deemed to have performed very well during the
interview process. The Evaluation Team has determined that there was no material difference
between the Proposers based upon the quality of the individual interviews.
4.2.1.6 Scoring of the Technical Criteria
The table below is a summary of the final scores for the technical criteria for each
Proposer.
Project
Delivery
(10 pts)
Technical
Reliability
and
Viability
(17 pts)
Operability
(10 pts)
Technical
Qualifications
(2 pts)
Other
(1 pt)
Total
(40 pts)
Proposer
Black &
Veatch
8.5 15.3 9.0 2.0 1.0 35.8
CDM Smith 9.0 15.3 9.0 1.8 1.0 36.1
CH2M Hill 10.0 17.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 40.0
MWH 8.0 14.5 9.8 1.8 1.0 35.1
4.2.2 BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CRITERIA (60%)
For each of the criterion below, a description of the factors considered and a description
of the significant benefits and drawbacks of each Proposal within that category are provided, as
well as a comparison of Proposals for such criterion.


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 53, Packet Page 65

4.2.2.1 Cost Effectiveness of Proposal (50%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the cost effectiveness criterion for each
Proposer.
41
Cost Effectiveness of Proposal
(50 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 43.4
CDM Smith 50.0
CH2M Hill 38.9
MWH 45.2

4.2.2.1.1 Description
In accordance with the RFP, the cost effectiveness of Proposals was evaluated equally for
a 9.6 mgd plant and for a 6.4 mgd plant, and the life cycle costs were evaluated equally over a
20-year operating period and a 30-year operating period. To implement this analysis, the cost
effectiveness of the Proposals was weighted by assigning 30% of this criterion to each of the
fixed design-build price for the 9.6 mgd plant and for the 6.4 mgd plant. The remaining 40% of
the criterion was equally divided between the net present value of the fixed design-build price
and the guaranteed operating costs (i.e., electricity) for (1) the 9.6 mgd plant over a 20-year
operating period, (2) the 9.6 mgd plant over a 30-year operating period, (3) the 6.4 mgd plant
over a 20-year operating period, and (4) the 6.4 mgd plant over a 30-year operating period. The
electricity costs were calculated over 20 and 30 year operating periods by using the guaranteed
electrical utilization of the 9.6 and 6.4 mgd plants during Acceptance Testing at 33.6 ppt and 12
degrees Celsius that was submitted by the Proposers. A discount rate of 5%, an inflation rate of
3%, and power costs of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour were utilized in the net present value analysis.
As discussed in Section 3.0 each Proposer provided several alternatives for each plant
which reduced (or, in some cases, increased) costs, but these alternatives were either not
accepted by CAW or require further evaluation. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the four
Proposers does not materially change based on these alternatives.
CAW also undertook sensitivity analyses by taking into account the non-guaranteed
operating costs submitted by the Proposers, different discount and/or inflation rates, and different
power costs.
4.2.2.1.2 Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch submitted a fixed design-build price of $99,042,543 for the 9.6 mgd plant and
$88,888,553 for the 6.4 mgd plant. Black & Veatch guaranteed electrical utilization at
Acceptance for 33.6 ppt and 12 degrees Celsius of 13.43 kWh/kgal for the 9.6 mgd plant and
13.58 kWh/kgal for the 6.4 mgd plant. The net present value of fixed design-build price and the
power costs over the 20-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are $120,842,788 and


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 54, Packet Page 66

$137,426,812, respectively, and over a 30-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are
$154,030,703 and $179,598,767, respectively.
4.2.2.1.3 CDM Smith
CDM Smith submitted a fixed design-build price of $85,198,810 for the 9.6 mgd plant
and $77,955,798 for the 6.4 mgd plant. CDM Smith guaranteed electrical utilization at
Acceptance for 33.6 ppt and 12 degrees Celsius of 11.956 kWh/kgal for the 9.6 mgd plant and
12.479 kWh/kgal for the 6.4 mgd plant. The net present value of fixed design-build price and the
power costs over the 20-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are $107,724,273 and
$134,524,843, respectively, and over a 30-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are
$122,963,746 and $157,286,702, respectively.
4.2.2.1.4 CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill submitted a fixed design-build price of $109,997,476 for the 9.6 mgd plant
and $102,248,667 for the 6.4 mgd plant. CH2M Hill guaranteed electrical utilization at
Acceptance for 33.6 ppt and 12 degrees Celsius of 11.9 kWh/kgal for the 9.6 mgd plant and 12.1
kWh/kgal for the 6.4 mgd plant. The net present value of the fixed design-build price and the
power costs over the 20-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are $124,842,160 and
$156,682,773, respectively, and over a 30-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are
$139,618,794 and $179,338,019, respectively.
4.2.2.1.5 MWH
MWH submitted a fixed design-build price of $91,884,427 for the 9.6 mgd plant and
$81,895,770 for the 6.4 mgd plant. MWH guaranteed electrical utilization at Acceptance for
33.6 ppt and 12 degrees Celsius of 14.6 kWh/kgal for the 9.6 mgd plant and 15.2 kWh/kgal for
the 6.4 mgd plant. The net present value of the fixed design-build price and the power costs over
the 20-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are $123,926,120 and $142,859,751,
respectively, and over a 30-year operating period for 6.4 mgd and for 9.6 mgd are $158,003,799
and $186,355,221, respectively.
42


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 55, Packet Page 67

4.2.2.1.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Cost
Effectiveness
The below chart shows a comparison of the cost effectiveness of each Proposal for the
fixed design-build price for the 9.6 mgd plant and for the 6.4 mgd plant and the net present
values of the Proposals over 20-year and 30-year operating periods for the 9.6 mgd plant and for
the 6.4 mgd plant periods by using the guaranteed electrical utilization of the 9.6 and 6.4 mgd
plants during Acceptance Testing at 33.6 ppt and 12 degrees Celsius and the net present values
of the fixed design-build price.
Black & Veatch
CDM Smith CH2M Hill MWH
Fixed DB Price
9.6 mgd (30%)
$99,042,543 $85,198,810 $109,997,476 $91,884,427
Fixed DB Price
6.4 mgd (30%)
$88,888,553 $77,955,798 $102,248,667 $81,895,770
NPV (10%)
9.6 mgd / 20 years
$154,030,703 $134,524,843 $156,682,773 $158,003,799
NPV (10%)
9.6 mgd / 30 years
$179,598,767 $157,286,702 $179,338,019 $186,355,221
NPV (10%)
6.4 mgd / 20 years
$120,842,788 $107,724,273 $124,842,160 $123,926,120
NPV (10%)
6.4 mgd / 30 years
$137,426,812 $122,963,746 $139,618,794 $142,859,751
In addition to the analysis of the base case as set forth in Section 4.2.2.1.1, the Evaluation
Team performed several sensitivity analyses to see if changes in base assumptions and including
non-guaranteed operating cost values provided by the Proposers would affect the analysis
regarding the most advantageous Proposer. Appendix C contains a depiction of ranking of the
Proposers cost effectiveness under the base case and through different sensitivity analyses. In
no case did a sensitivity analysis change the determination of the most advantageous Proposal.
4.2.2.2 Business Terms and Conditions (8%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the business terms and conditions
criterion for each Proposer.
43
Business Terms and Conditions
(8 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 4.8
CDM Smith 8.0
CH2M Hill 7.4
MWH 5.6



MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 56, Packet Page 68

4.2.2.2.1 Description
CAW issued the Draft DB Agreement to the Proposers with the RFP. The Draft DB
Agreement set forth CAWs requested contractual positions with respect to the risks and
responsibilities of the Design-Builder and CAW. The RFP requested that the Proposer either
affirm its acceptance of the provisions of the Draft DB Agreement or provide a marked copy of
the Draft DB Agreement indicating the provisions with which it takes exception along with
proposed modifications. This criterion addresses the material advantages and disadvantages of
each Proposers markup to the draft DB Agreement including the extent to which the Proposer
accepted the terms and conditions set forth in the draft DB Agreement included with the RFP or
proposed terms and conditions that are less favorable to CAW than the terms and conditions set
forth in the Draft DB Agreement.
It should be noted that the pricing of Proposals is based on the Draft DB Agreement as
modified by each Proposers markup. Therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that if CAW were
to require a Proposer to accept a material risk that it has taken exception to in its markup, that the
Proposer could require an increase in its pricing to accept such risk.
4.2.2.2.2 Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch took exception to several provisions of the Draft DB Agreement
including the following material exceptions:
Black & Veatch modified the permitting responsibilities and risks for both the general
permits and the New Domestic Water Supply Permit, such that it would only be
responsible for obtaining construction permits which are required to be in its name.
Black & Veatch would not be responsible for obtaining any other permits including
environmental or operational permits, but it would provide assistance to CAW in
obtaining those permits. Black & Veatch shifted the risk and responsibility of obtaining
the New Domestic Water Supply Permit to CAW, and any delays in issuance would
provide Black & Veatch with schedule and cost relief.
Although the Draft DB Agreement generally excludes indemnification payments from the
limitation of liability (except for fines and penalties), MWH modified the provision such
that the only indemnification payments that would be excluded from the limitation of
liability are those for torts resulting in third party claims for death, personal injury, or
property damage.
Black & Veatch modified the delay liquidated damages section such that payment of
delay liquidated damages would be the exclusive remedy resulting from any delay in
achieving the Scheduled Acceptance Date (i.e., no indemnification for fines and penalties
due to its delay).
Black & Veatch added language that provided that neither party would be liable to the
other for fines, penalties, lost profits, revenues, or opportunity costs, costs of substitute
raw or treated water, or increased operating costs.
44


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 57, Packet Page 69

Black & Veatch deleted the provision that indemnity payments are not limited by the
Draft DB Agreements exclusion of special, consequential, or punitive damage payments.
Black & Veatch modified the items that would constitute Design-Builder Events of
Default. It deleted the provisions stating that failure to achieve Acceptance within 90
days of the Scheduled Acceptance Date is an Event of Default for which CAW would
have the right to terminate the DB Agreement, providing that the only relief for CAW
would be continued daily delay liquidated damages.
Black & Veatch proposed that the maximum period for callback obligations would be
two years, and those two years are the only period which CAW may bring claims for
warranted work or for defects.
Black & Veatch proposed to receive cost relief in addition to schedule relief if CAW
chooses to suspend Design-Build Work prior to issuance of the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity.
Black & Veatch proposed that the Performance Bond expire at Acceptance rather than at
the end of the Warranty Period.
Black & Veatch modified the definition of Uncontrollable Circumstance to delete the
materiality standard.
Black & Veatch modified the definition of Change in Law to include delays in issuance
of Governmental Approvals, changes in the nature and severity of typical Governmental
Body actions, and any increases in fines or penalties issued by Governmental Bodies as
Changes in Law.
Black & Veatch proposed being entitled to rely on the testing data produced by CAW and
to receive Uncontrollable Circumstance relief for any variances in the testing data.
Black & Veatch also took exception to the Insurance Requirements that are part of
Appendix 11.
4.2.2.2.3 CDM Smith
CDM Smith took only limited exception to the provisions of the Draft DB Agreement
and generally did not take exception to the most material provisions. CDM Smith did not take
exception to its permitting responsibilities and risk allocation for the general permits or for the
New Domestic Water Supply Permit. CDM Smith did not take exception to the limitation of
liability section, to the requirement to indemnify CAW for fines due to its delays or to the
definition of Uncontrollable Circumstances. CDM Smiths exceptions include:
CDM Smith modified the indemnification provision to require indemnification for the
unexcused non-performance by the Design-Builder of its obligations under the DB
Agreement instead of the performance or non-performance.
CDM Smiths warranty of materials and equipment excludes remedy for damage or
defect caused by modifications not executed by the Design-Builder, improper or
45


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 58, Packet Page 70

insufficient maintenance (rather than grossly improper or grossly insufficient), improper
operation (rather than grossly improper), or normal wear and tear under normal usage.
CDM Smith proposed to replace the Performance Bond after one year following the
Acceptance Date with adequate security for performance of its obligations during the
Warranty Period.
CDM Smith proposed to extend the Extension Period (the period between the Scheduled
Acceptance Date and the date that CAW may terminate the Design-Build Agreement if
the Design-Builder has not achieved Acceptance) from 90 days to 180 days.
4.2.2.2.4 CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill also took limited exceptions to the Draft DB Agreement. CH2M Hill did not
take exception to its permitting responsibilities and risk allocation for the general permits or for
the New Domestic Water Supply Permit nor did it take exception to the requirement to
indemnify CAW for fines and penalties resulting from its delay. CH2M Hills exceptions
include:
CH2M Hill reduced the limitation of liability from 125% to 100% of the Design-Build
Price.
CH2M Hill deleted the requirement to indemnify CAW for the performance or non-
performance of its obligations under the DB Agreement.
CH2M Hill deleted the provision that it would be a Design-Builder Event of Default for
failure to maintain the required Security Instruments.
Upon a material decline in the credit standing of the Guarantor, CH2M Hill proposed a
CAW right to terminate the Design-Build Agreement for convenience without cost to
CAW rather than providing a replacement Guarantor or an enhanced letter of credit.
CH2M Hill also proposed to use its revolving credit facility to determine a material
decline instead of using its Dun and Bradstreet rating.
CH2M Hills warranty of materials and equipment excludes a warranty that the materials
and equipment are free from defects and modifies the exception to the warranty to
include improper or insufficient maintenance or operation (rather than grossly improper
or grossly insufficient).
CH2M Hill proposed to limit the Warranty Period to two years.
CH2M Hill proposed utilizing a retainage bond instead of a 5% withholding of money.
CH2M Hill took exception to the Insurance Requirements that are part of Appendix 11,
proposing to use its standard $25,000,000 umbrella coverage instead of $50,000,000.
46


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 59, Packet Page 71

4.2.2.2.5 MWH
MWH took several exceptions to the Draft DB Agreement including the following
material exceptions:
MWH reduced the limitation of liability from 125% to 50% of the Design-Build Price
and included a separate sub-cap of 20% of the Design-Build Price for fines and penalties
paid as part of any indemnity obligation.
MWH deleted the provision stating that delay liquidated damages are in addition to any
indemnity payments required to be made to CAW.
MWH deleted the requirements that MWH indemnify CAW for (1) the fault of MWH or
any of its officers, directors, employees, representatives, agents or Subcontractors and (2)
the performance or non-performance by MWH of its obligations under the Design-
Build Agreement.
MWH took exception to the general permitting responsibilities and risks. MWH
proposed schedule relief for any delay in obtaining Governmental Approvals beyond
what it could reasonably anticipate. In addition MWH would bear the risk of the
imposition of any such additional terms and conditions imposed by a Governmental Body
in connection with a Governmental Approval only if it could have reasonably anticipated
the change and the change is not beyond its control. MWH also modified the permitting
responsibilities and risks for obtaining the New Domestic Water Supply Permit. MWH
deleted the provision that it would accept the risk of delay, non-issuance, withdrawal,
expiration, revocation, or imposition of any term or condition in connection with
obtaining the New Domestic Water Supply Permit. MWH proposed to assume the risks
of obtaining the New Domestic Water Supply Permit that reflect Applicable Law in
existence as of the Contract Date or that do not exceed the Contract Standards.
MWH added a provision that it is entitled to rely upon the information and data provided
by CAW or obtained from generally acceptable sources within the industry without
MWH independently verifying the information. MWH also added that it would be
entitled to rely on the geotechnical conditions in the Geotechnical Baseline Report
provided by CAW rather than independently investigating the geotechnical conditions.
In addition, MWH deleted the Design-Builders assumption of the risk of the
practicability and possibility of performance of the Design-Build Improvements.
MWH modified the Design-Builder Events of Default such that all Events of Default
require notice to be given before CAW may terminate the Design-Build Agreement.
MWH deleted the limitations for payments of demobilization costs upon CAW
termination for convenience ($200,000 before construction commences and $500,000
after construction commences). MWH also deleted a provision that it would waive its
right to assert that CAW owes MWH a duty of good faith dealing in the exercise of the
right to terminate for convenience.
47


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 60, Packet Page 72

MWH modified the exception to the warranty of materials and equipment to include
improper or insufficient maintenance or operation (rather than grossly improper or
grossly insufficient) and deleted the inclusion of the warranty for damage or defect
caused by any defects or errors in the Operation and Maintenance Manual that will be
prepared by MWH. MWH also modified its callback obligations such that it would not
be obligated to correct malfunctioning or non-conforming work if the malfunction or
non-conformance is due to an Uncontrollable Circumstance.
MWH modified the provisions of the Letter of Credit such that it would expire at
Acceptance and drawings could only be made for Events of Default.
If CAW chooses to suspend Design-Build Work prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity, MWH proposed that it would have the right to
terminate the Design-Build Agreement if the suspension lasts beyond 180 days.
MWH proposed to modify the definition of material and materiality to mean beyond
the reasonable expectations of the party that result in quantifiable impacts. MWH
proposed to modify the definition of discretion to include that the parties must act
reasonably in using their discretion.
MWH also deleted the statements in the Special, Consequential, or Punitive Damages
section that the section only applies to disputes between CAW and MWH and that the
section is not intended to limit the scope of the indemnity provisions.
4.2.2.2.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding Business
Terms and Conditions
CDM Smiths markup of the Draft DB Agreement is the most advantageous to CAW.
CDM Smith took the fewest exceptions and did not take exception to the most material
provisions of the Draft DB Agreement.
CH2M Hill also took limited exceptions, but certain exceptions were more material than
those taken by CDM Smith including its reduction of the limitation of liability from 125% to
100%.
MWHs markup was the third most advantageous, but it was significantly distinguished
from CDM Smith and CH2M Hill. MWHs modifications to the limitation of liability, the
indemnification requirements, the risk allocation for the New Domestic Water Supply Permit, to
the definitions of material and discretion, and its provision that it would be entitled to rely
upon information and data from CAW without independently verifying the information were
significant modifications to the Draft DB Agreement that caused it to score lower than CDM
Smith and CH2M Hill.
Black & Veatch scored lowest in this criterion due to the extent and nature of its
exceptions. Black & Veatchs unwillingness to accept the responsibility and risk in obtaining
non-construction permits and the New Domestic Water Supply Permit, modifications to the
limitation of liability, modifications to the delay liquidated damages, and unwillingness to be
48


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 61, Packet Page 73

liable for fines and penalties are significant modifications that negatively distinguishes Black &
Veatchs markup.
4.2.2.3 Proposer/Guarantor Financial Qualifications (2%)
The table below is a summary of the scores for the Proposer/Guarantor financial
qualifications criterion for each Proposer.
49
Proposer/ Guarantor Financial
Qualifications
(2 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 2.0
CDM Smith 1.8
CH2M Hill 1.4
MWH 1.2

4.2.2.3.1 Description
This criterion includes the financial strength of each Proposer and Guarantor; the
adequacy of the Proposer and the Guarantors financial resources backing the performance of all
of the Proposers obligations under the DB Agreement; the financial capacity of the Proposer and
the Guarantor to assure the full and timely performance of the DB Entitys obligations under the
DB Agreement; the clarity of the roles, responsibilities and risk allocation among the Proposers
team and the Guarantor; Proposers ability to provide a Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and
$1,000,000 Letter of Credit, in accordance with the draft DB Agreement; support for liability
assumption by the Proposer and the Guarantor up to the limits of liability set forth in the draft
DB Agreement; the trailing financial performance of the Proposer and the Guarantor, with
specific consideration of company size, tangible net worth, liquidity, leverage, profitability, and
cash flow; and the presence or absence of material changes in the financial condition of the
Proposer and Guarantor, which, in the opinion of CAW, could affect the Proposers ability to
meet the obligations of the DB Agreement over the Term.
4.2.2.3.2 Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch has a rating from Dun & Bradstreet of 5A2, classifying its appraisal as
good. Black & Veatch has strong working capital and cash flow standards. Black & Veatch
has a credit line of $237.7 million.
4.2.2.3.3 CDM Smith
CDM Smith has a rating from Dun & Bradstreet of 5A2, classifying its appraisal as
good. CDM Smith has moderate working capital and cash flow standards, although still
sufficient to undertake the Project. CDM Smith has a credit line of $100 million.


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 62, Packet Page 74

4.2.2.3.4 CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill has a rating from Dun & Bradstreet of 5A3, classifying its appraisal as fair.
CH2M Hill has strong working capital and cash flow standards. CH2M Hill has a credit line of
$100 million.
4.2.2.3.5 MWH
MWH has a rating from Dun & Bradstreet of 4A3, classifying its appraisal as limited.
MWH has moderate working capital and cash flow standards. MWH has a credit line of $162.5
million.
4.2.2.3.6 Comparison of Proposals Regarding
Proposer/Guarantor Financial Qualifications
All of the Proposers are financially capable of undertaking the Project. Among the
financial factors taken into consideration, including asset bases, capital structure, and operating
results, the Dun & Bradstreet rating was considered more influential and reflective of the
financial strength of the Proposers. Black & Veatch and CDM Smith had the best Dun &
Bradstreet rating, followed closely by CH2M Hill, and MWH had the lowest Dun & Bradstreet
rating. Black & Veatch and CH2M Hill had the strongest capital and cash flow standards,
followed by MWH and CDM Smith. Black & Veatch had the highest credit line, followed by
MWH, with CDM Smith and CH2M Hill tied for third.
4.2.2.4 Scoring of the Business and Financial Criteria
The table below is a summary of the final scores for the business and financial criteria for
each Proposer.
50
Cost
Effectiveness
of Proposal
(50 pts)
Business
Terms and
Conditions
(8 pts)
Proposer/
Guarantor
Financial
Qualifications
(2 pts)
Total
(60 pts)
Proposer
Black & Veatch 43.4 4.8 2.0 50.2
CDM Smith 50.0 8.0 1.8 59.8
CH2M Hill 39.2 7.4 1.4 48.0
MWH 44.6 5.6 1.2 51.4


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 63, Packet Page 75

51


5.0 OVERALL SCORES FOR PROPOSALS
The table below is a summary of the final scores for both the technical criteria and the
business and financial criteria and the total score for each Proposer.
Proposer
Technical Criteria
(40 pts)
Business and
Financial Criteria
(60 pts)
Total
Black & Veatch 35.8 50.2 86.0
CDM Smith 36.1 59.8 95.9
CH2M Hill 40.0 48.0 88.0
MWH 35.1 51.4 86.5

6.0 EVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATION
After careful evaluation of the Proposals based upon the evaluation criteria and weighting
set forth in the RFP, the Evaluation Team has determined that CDM Smith has submitted the
most advantageous Proposal to CAW. The Evaluation Team recommends that the Selection
Committee select CDM Smith as the Preferred Proposer and enter into negotiations for a Design-
Build Agreement with CDM Smith.
It is noted that the scores for CH2M Hill, MWH, and Black & Veatch are extremely
close. As such, in the unlikely event CAW is unable to reach a final Design-Build Agreement
with CDM Smith, the Evaluation Committee recommends that prior to determining which
Proposer to select for negotiations CAW conduct additional discussions, clarifications, and/or
evaluations that it deems appropriate including, for example, with regard to: (1) CH2M Hills
proposed Fixed Design-Build Price, which is significantly above CAWs estimate included in the
RFP and (2) the material exceptions to the Draft DB Agreement taken by MWH and by Black
and Veatch.

MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 64, Packet Page 76
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

A-1
Black & Veatch
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
CAW Decision
Basis of
Decision
Remove filtered water tank and
intermediate pumps
($1,411,00) Not Accepted 1 1
2 Precast concrete exterior shell $1,896,000 Not Accepted 3
Provide canopy over filter pipe
gallery
($312,000) Not Accepted 2 3
4 Provide solar panels $286,000 Not Accepted 3
RO Optimization (3.2 mgd
trains)
($920,000)
Discussion
Required
5
RO train instrumentation
optimization
($174,000)
Discussion
Required
6
Doosan RO test skid upgrade for
membrane CIP
$82,000
Discussion
Required
7
8 Dezurik valves $496,000
Discussion
Required

Pritchard-Brown Generator
Enclosure
$63,000
Discussion
Required
9
Cartridge Filters with lined
carbon steel vessel
($103,000)
Discussion
Required
10

Bases for Decision Key:
1-Undesirable project process risk
2-Undesirable increased operations and maintenance expense
3-Undesirable increase in capital cost
4-Other


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 65, Packet Page 77
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

A-2
CDM Smith
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
CAW Decision
Basis of
Decision
1 RO System Optimization
($3,500,00)
Discussion
Required

Aeration for iron oxidation
($65,000)
Not Accepted 1 2
Iron in dissolved state
(eliminate granular media filter)
($9,700,000) Not Accepted 1 3
Cal-Flo lime slurry
($1,500,000)
Discussion
Required
4
Bulk storage/delivery of Sodium
Hypochlorite
($800,000) Not Accepted 2 5
6 Remove sulfuric acid system ($60,000) Not Accepted 1
Canopy over pressure filters
instead of walls
($880,000) Not Accepted 2 7
Eliminate exterior walls in
Chemical Building
($50,000)
Not Accepted 2 8
Smaller clearwells and add UV
credits
($400,000)
Not Accepted 1 9
10 Lower material standards
($790,000)
Discussion
Required

Reduce vibration monitoring
($50,000)
Not Accepted 2 11
FRP Cartridge Filters
($90,000)
Discussion
Required
12

Bases for Decision Key:
1-Undesirable project process risk
2-Undesirable increased operations and maintenance expense
3-Undesirable increase in capital cost
4-Other


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 66, Packet Page 78
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

A-3
CH2M Hill
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
CAW Decision
Multiport RO vessels ($417,000)
Discussion
Required
1
2 Spool pieces in lieu of valves ($475,000) Not Accepted 1
3 Enhanced Landscaping 302,597 Not Accepted 3
Split pass CIP for first pass RO
train
($95,000) Not Accepted 1 4
Eliminate Filter Backwash pump
station
($640,121)
Discussion
Required
1 5
Overhead RO piping ($875,000)
Discussion
Required
6
Single Finished Water storage tank
alternative
$458,920 Not Accepted 1 7
Canopies at Pretreatment and
Chemical Facilities
($769,293) Not Accepted 3 8
Backwash Equalization Tank and
Solids Dewatering
$103,840 Not Accepted 4 9
10 Direct Bury Electrical Ductbanks ($257,715) Not Accepted 4
Increase pretreatment media
filtration rate
($1,032,000) Not Accepted 1 11
12 Eliminate interior security fencing ($226,703) Not Accepted 4
Lime slurry and CO2 alternative
system
($362,300)
Discussion
Required
13
Buried chemical piping ($398,543)
Discussion
Required
14
Eliminate second spare pressure
filter
($253,000) Not Accepted 1 15
Chemical pump redundancy ($220,000)
Discussion
Required
16
Modify RO train size TBD
Discussion
Required
17
18 Eliminate Redundant RO Train ($2,763,495) Not Accepted 1
19 Smaller finished water tanks ($691,700) Not Accepted 1
Power RO Feed Pumps from
electricity produced on site via
natural gas electrical generation
TBD Not Accepted 4 20
21 Eliminate letter of credit ($225,000) Not Accepted 4
22 RO replacement rate N/A Not Accepted 4

Bases for Decision Key:
1-Undesirable project process risk
2-Undesirable increased operations and maintenance expense
3-Undesirable increase in capital cost
4-Other


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 67, Packet Page 79
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

A-4


MWH
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
CAW Decision
1
Replacement of the
Pretreatment Filters with
Hydrocyclone Sand Separators
($5,140,000) Not Accepted 1
2
Elimination of the Filtered
Water Storage Tanks and
pumping stage
($1,670,000) Not Accepted 1
3
Elimination of the RO
Concentrate Equalization Basin
($579,000) Not Accepted 1
4 Delivered Liquid Lime ($140,000)
Discussion
Required

5
Bulk delivery of sodium
hypochlorite solution
($836,000) Not Accepted 2
6 More efficient RO System $100,000
Discussion
Required

7
Reduced size/scope of buildings
and systems
($5,795,431) Not Accepted 2
8 Add solar energy facility $4,255,197 Not Accepted 3
9 Add Builders Risk Insurance
Annual Rate:
$0.243 per $100
of project value
Not Accepted 4
10 Enhanced Landscaping $395,000 Not Accepted 3

Bases for Decision Key:
1-Undesirable project process risk
2-Undesirable increased operations and maintenance expense
3-Undesirable increase in capital cost
4-Other


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 68, Packet Page 80
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

B-1
Black & Veatch
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
1 UV Disinfection ($307,020)
2a Calcite Contactor $2,110,131
2b RDP Tekkem Batch Slurry $1,461,293
3 5-Year Membrane Warranty $0
4 2-Year RO Feed Pump Warranty $93,425
CDM Smith
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
1 UV Disinfection ($312,500)
2a Calcite Contactor ($12,590)
2b RDP Tekkem Batch Slurry $137,873
3 5-Year Membrane Warranty $0
4 2-Year RO Feed Pump Warranty $11,890
CH2M Hill
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
1 UV Disinfection ($981,335)
2a Calcite Contactor $2,156,656
2b RDP Tekkem Batch Slurry included in base
3 5-Year Membrane Warranty $0
4 2-Year RO Feed Pump Warranty $11,165
MWH
# Description
Fixed DB Price
for 9.6 mgd
Add/Deduct
1 UV Disinfection ($312,500)
2a Calcite Contactor $6,073,579
2b RDP Tekkem Batch Slurry included in base
3 5-Year Membrane Warranty $138,213
4 2-Year RO Feed Pump Warranty $255,000


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 69, Packet Page 81
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Proposer Standings Based on Non-Discounted Cost Effectiveness
B&V
Note: Sensitivity analyses include estimated operating costs as proposed by the Proposers and that such operating
costs are not guaranteed.
C-1
CDM CH2M MWH
9.6 mgd
CapEx (non-discounted) 3 1 4 2
Power (non-discounted, 30-yr.) 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power, non-discounted, 30-yr.) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL
2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd
CapEx (non-discounted) 3 1 4 2
Power (non-discounted, 30-yr.) 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power, non-discounted, 30-yr.) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL
2 1 4 3


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 70, Packet Page 82
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Proposer Standings Based on NPV
5% Discount Rate, $0.10 kWh
B&V
Note: Sensitivity analyses include estimated operating costs as proposed by the Proposers and that such operating
costs are not guaranteed.
C-2
CDM CH2M MWH
(5% DR, 3% IR)
9.6 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
9.6 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV


MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 71, Packet Page 83
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Proposer Standings Based on NPV
4% Discount Rate, $0.10 kWh
B&V
Note: Sensitivity analyses include estimated operating costs as proposed by the Proposers and that such operating
costs are not guaranteed.
C-3
CDM CH2M MWH
9.6 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
9.6 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV



MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 72, Packet Page 84
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Proposer Standings Based on NPV
6% Discount Rate, $0.10 kWh
B&V
Note: Sensitivity analyses include estimated operating costs as proposed by the Proposers and that such operating
costs are not guaranteed.
C-4
CDM CH2M MWH
9.6 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
9.6 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV



MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 73, Packet Page 85
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Proposer Standings Based on NPV
5% Discount Rate, $0.08 kWh
B&V
Note: Sensitivity analyses include estimated operating costs as proposed by the Proposers and that such operating
costs are not guaranteed.
C-5
CDM CH2M MWH
9.6 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
9.6 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV



MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 74, Packet Page 86
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Note: Sensitivity analyses include estimated operating costs as proposed by the Proposers and that such operating
costs are not guaranteed.
C-6


Proposer Standings Based on NPV
5% Discount Rate, $0.12 kWh
B&V CDM CH2M MWH
9.6 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
9.6 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 20 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 3 4 2
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
6.4 mgd - 30 Year
Drawdown CapEx 3 1 4 2
Power 3 2 1 4
O&M (excl. Power) 1 2 4 3
TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV TOTAL 2 1 4 3
NPV

MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 4., tem Page 75, Packet Page 87
APPENDIX D
PROPOSAL EVALUATION RESULTS
D-1


86.0
95.9
88.0
86.5
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
BLACK&VEATCH CDMSMITH CH2MHILL MWH
P
o
i
n
t
s
ProposalsEvaluationResults
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,


1
2
/
9
/
2
0
1
3

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

7
6
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

8
8
APPENDIX D
PROPOSAL EVALUATION RESULTS
D-2



B&V CDM CH2M MWH
Technical
Criteria 35.8 36.1 40.0 35.1
Business
Criteria 50.2 59.8 48.0 51.4
TOTAL 86.0 95.9 88.0 86.5

M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,


1
2
/
9
/
2
0
1
3

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

7
7
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

8
9

Direction to VP Burnett ( 9 Dec 2013)


FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT:
Discuss and Provide Direction to Water Authority Vice-President Burnett on the Design-Build
Selection Scheduled for discussion at the Governance Committee Meeting on Dec 11, 2013.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Authority provide direction to its representative on the Governance
Committee following its review and discussion of the SPI Report on the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Design Build Consultant Selection Process.

DISCUSSION:
The SPI report was presented and discussed under item #4 of todays Authority agenda. Water
Authority Vice-President Burnett, the Authoritys representative on the Governance
Committee, would benefit from direction from the Authority Board.
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 5., tem Page 1, Packet Page 91

WA- Alternate Funding-Cost of Water ( 9 Dec 2013)


FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT:
Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on Alternate Funding Scenarios as Related to the
Cost of Water.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Authority review the alternative funding scenarios as outlined in the
attached Cal-Am attachment to better understand the impact that the various Desal project
funding scenarios have on the cost of water to the average customer as defined in footnote
#4.

DISCUSSION:
The attached Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Financing Scenarios document was
presented and discussed at the CPUC pre-hearing on December 2, 2013. For purpose of
comparison, it refers only to the 9.6 MGD plant.

The columns in the table outline estimated costs caps that cannot be exceeded without CPUC
approval by means of a Tier 2 Advice Letter or a Petition for Modification. Refer to
paragraphs III C and III D of the Comprehensive (Large) settlement agreement for a detailed
discussion.

Go to the Water Authority web site at www.mprwa.org and click on Resource Central than
Documents to find the full text of the settlement agreement.

ATTACHMENT:
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Project & Financing Scenarios ( as of 2 Dec 2013)
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 6., tem Page 1, Packet Page 93
MPRWA Meeting, 12/9/2013 , tem No. 6., tem Page 2, Packet Page 94