HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-20 EO&WR Committee Packet 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BY TELECONFERENCE
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
August 19, 2020
11:00 A.M.
This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting
in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that
a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions
will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations
to the full board for its consideration and formal action.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JU-
RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
In lieu of in-person attendance, members of the public may submit their comments on
agendized and non-agendized items via email at boardsecretary@otaywater.gov.
Public comments submitted will be read into the record at the Committee Meeting and
the public may continue to watch and listen to the meeting. The information on how to
watch and listen to the District’s live streaming can be found at this link:
https://otaywater.gov/board-of-directors/agenda-and-minutes/committee-meetings/
DISCUSSION ITEMS
3. RECEIVE THE SDCWA REGIONAL CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY (PHASE
A RESULTS) AND REVIEW, INCLUDING ANALYSIS FROM THE MEMBER AGENCY
MANAGERS’ INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS (BEACHEM) [15 minutes]
4. AWARD A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO
MURRAYSMITH, INC. FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OF THE
VISTA DIEGO HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN
AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $331,794 (MARCHIORO) [5 minutes]
2
5. AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO UNIFIED FIELD SERVICE
CORPORATION FOR THE RECYCLED WATER TANK COATING PROJECT IN AN
AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $506,252 (CAMERON) [5 minutes]
6. AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL COATINGS,
LLC, FOR THE 850-1 & 1200-1 RESERVOIRS INTERIOR/EXTERIOR COATINGS &
UPGRADES PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,443,000 (CAMERON)
[5 minutes]
7. AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES
AGREEMENT TO CALBURTON, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $600,000
FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) FISCAL YEARS (FY), FY 2021 THROUGH FY 2023
(ENDING JUNE 30, 2023) [O’DONNELL] {5 minutes}
8. REPORT ON PROPOSAL FEE SCORING EVALUATION FOR CONSULTANT
SELECTION (KENNEDY) [10 minutes]
9. FOURTH QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
REPORT (LONG) [5 minutes]
10. ADJOURNMENT
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
Tim Smith, Chair
Gary Croucher
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be delib-
erated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis-
trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the
open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the
Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting
her at (619) 670-2280.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to par-
ticipate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior
to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on August 14, 2020 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the reg-
ular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 24
hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section
§54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley, California on August 14, 2020.
/s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Beachem
Chief Financial Officer
PROJECT: DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: To Present the SDCWA Regional Conveyance System Feasibility
Phase A Study and Review
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board receive the SDCWA Regional Conveyance System
Feasibility (Phase A Results) and Review, including analysis from the
Member Agency Managers’ Independent Consultants.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
That the Board receive the SDCWA Regional Conveyance System
Feasibility (Phase A Results) and Review, including analysis from the
Member Agency Managers’ Independent Consultants.
ANALYSIS:
Staff Position
With the scheduled release of the Regional Conveyance System (RCS)
Feasibility Phase A Study by SDCWA staff on June 12, 2020, and a
tentatively scheduled vote that was to be July 23, 2020, the District
joined a group of Member Agency Managers and their Independent
Consultants (DLM) to complete a review of the RCS Feasibility Phase A
AGENDA ITEM 3
2
Study in a cost effective and efficient manner in order to understand
if the RCS Feasibility Study efforts should continue and to provide
informed comments. The review by DLM was completed and published on
July 21, 2020.
District staff has reviewed DLM’s study of the SDCWA RCS. DLM was
provided the SDCWA model. DLM modified the model creating an
interactive tool where many of the variables can be modified creating
a multitude of possible outcomes. Staff believes the collaborative
approach with other member agencies was a cost effective way to
obtain a productive financial tool. While the efforts of DLM are
valuable in providing insights into the SDCWA financial model and the
sensitivity of numerous variables to the overall viability of the
RCS, the work performed is too narrow to support the conclusions put
forward by DLM.
Consistently, staff does not believe that there is sufficient
information in the original SDCWA report or the DLM study to draw a
conclusion. Staff believes that a broader view of the project must
be taken, and a detailed analysis of various financial and non-
financial factors must be performed to take any position on the RCS
project. The magnitude of the project demands that a more thorough
analysis be performed.
Staff believes that the initial work performed by SDCWA provides a
narrow view of the overall financial decision, focusing only on the
construction and financing costs of the project. In this limited
view of the decision, SDCWA identified a possible positive outcome.
In the communication from SDCWA dated June 12, 2020, see Attachment
B, SDCWA states that both the 3A and 5A alternatives are economically
competitive. In this communication SDCWA acknowledges that the next
step is to do a more robust examination. Staff agrees with this
acknowledgment.
Conversely, the work by DLM provides a model where negative outcomes
are highlighted. In DLM’s final report dated July 21, 2020, see
Attachment C, they state that the “RCS is not cost-effective under
standard measures of economic efficiency.” The report also
highlights a model, Case 1, where “losses outweigh benefits.”
In both cases the financial models are a narrow view of the question.
Staff supports SDCWA’s suggestion that an additional study is needed,
a study that is broadened, pulling in much more information which is
critically and expertly evaluated to give greater clarity to the
possible outcomes.
3
DLM’s Primary Conclusion
DLM’s most significant conclusion is that “The RCS project… is not
cost-effective…” and that “Further investigation of the RCS therefore
appears unwarranted at this time.”
First, staff realizes that this is a complex landscape with various
agreements, past and present lawsuits, differing viewpoints,
sensitivity of timing, long-term water supply, and preservation of
water rights. These matters cannot be set aside. A narrow financial
analysis of the construction costs is only a piece of the overall
decision. When looking at such a large and long-term water project,
the interplay of all factors related to the RCS need to be
incorporated and quantified. Factors that have a bearing on this
decision have not been quantified in this study or even identified;
therefore, a decisive conclusion cannot be determined at this time.
Second, there are significant cost drivers which can dramatically
swing the financial analysis. Staff requested that additional work
be done to support the values being used, however none was provided.
Staff does not believe the contract with DLM could possibly provide
for this level of work.
The following is a list of factors that lack critical evaluation as
well as probability analysis.
- Interest Rate
- Discount Rate
- MWD Cost Inflators
- SDCWA Cost Inflators
- Construction Cost Inflators
- Amortization Rate
- Labor Cost Multiplier
- Financial Partnerships
- Replacement Cost
- Environmental Risk
- Grant Funding
Each of these factors have varying degrees of impact on the financial
viability of the RCS. Even if the narrow financial analysis was the
only analysis needed, a clear understanding of these factors is
critical to drawing any conclusions.
In place of the conclusion to end any further evaluation, staff feels
that the logical direction is to build on the work already performed.
The existing work by SDCWA and DLM is an excellent introduction to a
4
more robust effort that can adequately evaluate the whole of the
project and the interplay of all the factors.
Knowing that the SDCWA and DLM studies were too constrained and
lacked critical evaluations for these types of conclusions, Otay
staff’s recommendation is that a more detailed study is warranted.
Other Factors
DLM suggests moving forward with an MWD exchange agreement without
acknowledging the shortcomings of the prior MWD negotiations or why
the last MWD proposal was not acceptable. Staff believes DLM’s
dismissal of the RCS is premature and the MWD solution ignores the
reality of the recently failed proposal.
The issue of generational equity is important as it justifies debt
financing to supplement pay-go financing. However, we do not believe
that generational equity should determine if a project should be
built or not. As a side point, a generational equity evaluation
should not only include the costs being paid for by the current
generation, as DLM’s study does, but also the benefits it is
currently receiving from prior generations. Even if the generational
equity question was relevant, the limited scope and time constraints
of the DLM engagement were not sufficient to make a complete
assessment.
Staff agrees that the period of economic analysis should go well
beyond the standard 30- or 40-year period due to the long-term nature
of the costs and benefits. DLM seems to question the long-term
financial analysis by repeatedly focusing on the phrase “non-
standard”, and yet they acknowledge that this project is a long-term
project that does fit the standard.
From an engineering perspective, staff does not think the report
adequately valued the other alignments and the potential benefits
they could have to other member agencies in the south county that are
not interconnected with the SDCWA. Staff suggests looking at ways to
monetize the value of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) water to
another entity like the Central Arizona Project, or even MWD, to
offset the cost of a local water supply project.
Staff questions the demand projections in the report. SDCWA’s demand
projections for the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan were recently
“reset” by SDCWA staff. Staff recommends SDCWA work closer with
member agencies to update their projects and a sensitivity analysis
of the 50-year demand projections be included in future studies.
5
Staff also questions what impact will there be to the economic study
if agencies reduce their demand on SDCWA as more agencies roll off
from SDCWA. Staff suggest SDCWA identify any stranded assets that
may result from this project along with the cost for maintaining
those stranded assets and include the information in the study. With
the conservation and transfer agreement with IID expiring in 2077,
staff suggests SDCWA consider how the terms of any extension changes
the economic assumptions of the project.
Conclusion
Staff supports further evaluation of the RCS project. This future
evaluation must include a more encompassing approach and must have
expert evaluation of all the key factors. While this is not
consistent with the DLM recommendation, it agrees with the direction
SDCWA has discussed, which is to have a more robust evaluation of the
project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is an informational item and has no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The District ensures its continued financial health through sound
policies and procedures.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Compliance with the laws governing the District.
Attachments:
A) Committee Action
B) SDCWA Presentation “Regional Conveyance System Study”
C) DLM Report “Report of the MAM Independent Consultant: SDCWA
Regional Conveyance System Feasibility Review” Including
Economic Model.
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
To Present the SDCWA Regional Conveyance System Feasibility
Phase A Study and Review
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This is an informational item only.
Member Agency Managers’ Meeting
June 16, 2020
HPG’s Independent Cost Review
B&V’s Initial Alternatives Screening
Staff’s Updated Economic Analysis
Schedule and Next Steps
2
Agenda
3
May
CR Issues Briefing Packet
Independent Cost Review
Updated B&V Analysis
Updated Financial Analysis
June
CRWG Meeting
Phase A Materials
Progress Since April
Hunter Pacific Group’s
Independent Cost Review
4
5
Hunter Pacific Group
Experience
Tunneling & geotechnical
Estimating, scheduling,
and risk experts
Similar magnitude
projects
Competitive Process
6
Scope
1.Capital/OM&R estimates
2.Contingency
3.Schedule
4.Risk
Process
Detailed B&V data
Communication via Water
Authority
Independent Cost Review
7
Alternatives Under Study
8
Cost Review Key Findings
•Additional risks and steel liners
•Significant changeTunnels
•Not in agreement
•No change
Water Treatment, Canals, PGF, PCF, Electric Distribution
•Agreement
•Minor changeOperational Storage
•Agreement
•No change
Pipelines, Pump Stations, OM&R
9
Cost Updates Based on Findings
Updated
Tunneling Costs
Operational Storage
No updates
Treatment Costs
Electrical transmission
Updated Cost Range
$4.9B -$5.3B
8%
B&V
Hunter Pacific
Econ Range
+/-40%
Black & Veatch’s
Initial Alternatives Screening
10
11
Project Objectives
Project objectives help to establish
guidelines for evaluation of alternatives
12
Methodology
Scoring and Weighting
Decision Model
Criteria
Objectives
Cost -NPV
Environmental
Land Impacts
Greenhouse Gas
Regulatory
Institutional
OM&R
Partnerships
Initial Screening Process
Alternatives 3A 5A 5C
Objectives
(Pass –Y/N)Y Y N
Weighted Score 422 380 148
13
Alternatives 3A/5A
Meet objectives
Cost competitive (NPV)
No fatal flaws
Close scores
Recommendations
Screen out Alternative 5C
High OM&R Costs
NPV Not Competitive
Analyze Alternatives 3A/5A
in potential Phase B
Initial Screening Results
14
Flexibility in Decision-Making
2020 2030 2040 204520252035
Phase A?
Phase B?
?
Preliminary Design?
Environmental Work?
Land Costs?
ROW?
First Design Package?
CEQA/NEPA/Permits?
Legal Review/Agreements?
= Offramp
Pre-construction -10 years Construction –15 years
15
Flexibility in Decision-Making
2020 20302025
First Design Packages
15-Year Construction Period
$1.3M
Legal Review/Agreements
$24M
$5M
$14M
$20M
$103M
$7M
$6M
Phase B?
Phase A?
?
Preliminary Design?
Environmental Work?
??
ROW?
Land Costs ?
?
CEQA/NEPA/Permits ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
= Offramp
Staff’s
Updated Economic Analysis
16
Updated economics based on revised BV costs
Analyzed extension of status quo
Conducted preliminary sensitivity analysis
+/-40% on B&V capital cost
Debt Interest Rate (4%-6%)
17
Follow-Up Items
MWD Reliance
MWD
Transportation
MWD Supplies
Canal Lining
Regional
Conveyance
System
Regional Conveyance
System
Canal Lining
SDCWA-IID
Water Transfer
Local Supply
QSA
Replacement
MWD
Transportation
Canal Lining
New
Local Supplies
Water Supply & Conveyance Alternatives
18
Su
p
p
l
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
19
Extension of Status Quo (IID + MWD Exchange)
Extending 200,000 IID AF through 2077 (or 2112) lowers supply costs,
but foregoes significant transportation savings
MWD Reliance assumes 5.1% annual increases, based on 20-yr historical average.
Does not include costs related to Cal WaterFix or MWD’s recycled water program.
$25.1
$36.3
$36.3
$36.3
$10.7
$6.9
$14.6
$13.6
$6.9
$38.3
$32.0
$50.8
$49.8
$43.2
$49.0
3A - Baseline
MWD Reliance (IID Exchange Ends 2047)
MWD Reliance (IID Exchange to 2077)
MWD Reliance (IID Exchange to 2112)
Local Supply (IID Exchange End 2047)
Net Present Value of 277,700 AF (2045-2112)
Transportation Supply
20
+/-40% of Capital Cost
Up
f
r
o
n
t
Co
s
t
s
(
$
)
1st
Ye
a
r
Re
t
u
r
n
o
n
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
1st
Ye
a
r
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
$1.9B 2059 2046
$4.0B 2067 2054
$7.0B 2073 2058
+/-8% on overall NPV. High impact on upfront expenditures
$34.3
$32.0
$28.2
$0 $20 $40
3A +40%
3A - Baseline
3A -40%
Billions
Net Present Value Overview (2019-2112)
Transportation Supply
21
Financing Cost Sensitivity
Up
f
r
o
n
t
Co
s
t
s
(
$
)
1st
Ye
a
r
Re
t
u
r
n
o
n
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
1st
Ye
a
r
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
$3.0B 2063 2053
$4.0B 2067 2054
$5.3B 2069 2056
+/-3% on overall NPV. Modest impact on upfront expenditures
$33.0
$32.0
$31.1
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40
6% Financing
3A - Baseline
4% Financing
Billions
Net Present Value Overview (2019-2112)
Transportation Supply
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Bi
l
l
i
o
n
s
22
Range of NPV Sensitivity
A broader NPV range is developed as portfolios of
sensitivities are analyzed (high and low)
-MWD Reliance After 2047
-3A -High (+40% & 6%)
-3A –Baseline
-3A –Low (-40% & 4%)
High/Low Capital Sensitivity shows significant savings vs
MWD Resilience Baseline
Capital Sensitivity shows range of +/-10%
Limited impact on overall NPV
Greater impact on upfront costs
Additional sensitivities would be conducted in Phase B, if
authorized
Phase B would also further explore partnership
opportunities to further refine costs
23
Updated Economic Analysis Take-Aways
Schedule and Next Steps
24
Phase A Schedule
25
By July 11
MAM Consultant
Report
July 17
CRWG Meeting
July 23
Board Action
Phase B
Final B&V Report and Executive Summary
Available before Board Meeting
$1.3M Budget/12-months
26
Phase B -Budget, Schedule, Scope
Black & Veatch
New
•Partnerships funding
•Project delivery methods
•Property Acquisition
Water Authority Staff
•Economic and sensitivity analysis
•Meet with potential partners
•Support B&V technical analysis
Other Consultants
•Potential independent review
•Financial advisors
•Legal reviews (QSA, partnership agreements, etc.)
Refine
•All-In cost & economic analysis
•Final screening of alternatives
•Multi-use projects & partnerships
•Conveyance alignment & tunneling
•Geotechnical desktop study
•Demand forecast
•Site layouts
•Risk analysis
Member Agency Managers Group
Report of the MAM Independent Consultant:
SDCWA Regional Conveyance System
Feasibility Review
July 2020
Prepared by:
In association with:
GILLINGHAM WATER i July 21, 2020
Member Agency Managers Group
Report of the MAM Independent Consultant:
SDCWA Regional Conveyance System
Feasibility Review
July 2020
Prepared by:
In association with:
______________________________
Don MacFarlane, P.E.
Project Manager
______________________________
Doug Gillingham, P.E., BCEE
12-31-21
6-30-22
Donald L MacFarlane
No. C 33285
CIVIL
The contents of this report represent the analysis and professional judgement of the above authors.
GILLINGHAM WATER ii July 21, 2020
PROJECT TEAM AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONSULTANT TEAM PARTICIPATING MEMBER AGENCIES
DLM Engineering
Don MacFarlane, P.E.
Gillingham Water
Doug Gillingham, P.E. BCEE
Escondido, City of
Fallbrook Public Utility District
Helix Water District
Lakeside Water District
Oceanside, City of
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Otay Water District
Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Rainbow Municipal Water District
Ramona Municipal Water District
Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District
San Diego, City of
San Dieguito Water District
Sweetwater Authority
Vallecitos Water District
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Vista Irrigation District
Yuima Municipal Water District
MAM Coordination Lead:
Kimberly Thorner, Esq. – General Manager, Olivenhain MWD
Thank you also to the San Diego County Water Authority for providing draft reports and the draft economic model, and access to staff for coordination review and comments during the development of our work.
SDCWA Study Coordination Review Team
Kelly Rogers, P.E. (IC coordination lead) Dan Denham
Pierce Rossum Mojgan Poursadighi, P.E. Jim Fisher, P.E.
Nathan Faber, P.E. Kevin Davis, P.E. (Black & Veatch) John Beckmanis, P.E. (Black & Veatch)
GILLINGHAM WATER iii July 21, 2020
CONTENTS
SECTIONS:
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
2. Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8
3. Engineering, Cost, and Risk Review .................................................................................. 23
APPENDICES:
A. Comments from Member Agency Chief Financial Officers .............................................. A-1
B. Economic Model Overview and User’s Guide .................................................................... B-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1: RCS Cost Estimates .................................................................................................. 8
TABLE 2-2: MWD Price Escalation at 5.1%/yr Over 92 Years ................................................. 15
TABLE 2-3: SDCWA Rate Increase to Fund $230M/yr in New Costs ...................................... 22
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: RCS Study Area and Alignments............................................................................ 3
FIGURE 2-1: First-Year Unit Cost Comparison in Dollars per Acre-Foot ................................... 9
FIGURE 2-2: Forty-Year Cost Comparison ................................................................................ 10
FIGURE 2-3: Sixty-Year Cost Comparison ................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 2-4: Period of Analysis Timeline ................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 2-5: Cost and Benefit Distribution for Period Ending 2080 ......................................... 13
FIGURE 2-6: Cost and Benefit Distribution for Period Ending 2112 ......................................... 14
FIGURE 2-7: Cost and Benefit Distribution with Modified MWD Price Escalation ................. 16
FIGURE 2-8: Net Present Value Comparison with SDCWA Default Inputs ............................. 17
FIGURE 2-9: Net Present Value Comparison with Modified MWD Price Escalation ............... 18
FIGURE 2-10: Net Present Value Comparison with Modified IID Price Escalation.................. 19
FIGURE 2-11: Net Present Value Comparison with 50% Capital Grant Funding...................... 20
FIGURE 3-1: SDCWA Current Demand Forecast ...................................................................... 25
FIGURE 3-2: Conceptual Adjusted Water Authority Sales Forecast .......................................... 27
GILLINGHAM WATER 1 July 21, 2020
Executive Summary
Our review of the Water Authority’s Regional Conveyance System (RCS) June 2020 project reports leads us to the following summary observations:
1) The Draft Study’s finding of RCS technically feasibility appears
reasonable, as does its estimate of project costs.
The engineering components of the Draft Study are sound and demonstrate the technical feasibility of an RCS project. Also, the estimates of the project’s capital and annual costs appear to us generally reasonable, with only modest exceptions as noted in our report.
2) The Draft Study’s finding that the project is economically competitive
with other supply and transportation options is not reasonable. We find
the project to be substantially more costly than other options.
The Draft Study’s economic analysis states the RCS project is “cost-competitive with” and “provides
significant savings” in comparison to MWD Reliance (Exchange) and other supply and
transportation scenario options. Our review finds otherwise for the following reasons:
• The project is not cost-effective when evaluated using reasonable assumptions of MWD price escalation. The Draft Study’s economic findings are predicated on the assumption that MWD rates will escalate at levels substantially higher than all other water supply costs throughout an extended 92-year period of analysis. Our review demonstrates the assumed
escalation is not economically sustainable, and its occurrence therefore highly implausible. Over
the long-term, MWD will either have to reduce the costs that drive the rate escalation, shift costs
away from volumetric-based charges to firm unavoidable fixed charges, or a combination of the
two. When the economic model inputs for MWD price escalation are modified accordingly, the
project loses any cost advantage and becomes significantly more costly than the other options.
• There is significant risk of long-term Water Authority sales being insufficient to utilize the project’s planned capacity. The Draft Study’s assessment of project economic risks omits the possibility, or probability, that long-term Water Authority sales will decline to levels below its 330,000 AF/yr of core supplies, putting at risk the ability to utilize a RCS facility at full capacity and thereby further diminishing the project’s cost-feasibility. Until such time as a new Water
Authority demand forecast provides sound evidence to the contrary, we recommend project
planning recognize the likelihood of long-term declines in Water Authority sales.
3) A Negotiated Exchange option appears to offer economic advantage.
The option of a negotiated exchange rate with MWD, with price escalation set at the industry-
standard construction cost index, may offer significant cost advantage in comparison to the other
supply and transportation options, and may warrant further consideration.
4) Recommendation: Refocus long-term QSA supply planning.
The technical and economic feasibility of the RCS have now been advanced to reasonable levels of
planning certainty. Rather than investing further in the evaluation of an RCS project, it appears the
larger QSA planning uncertainties facing the Water Authority now revolve around the extension of
the IID Supply and MWD Exchange agreements, the opportunity for a Negotiated Exchange agreement, and the consequences of long-term Water Authority sales declines. Accordingly, it appears budgets and staffing schedules set aside for RCS investigations could be applied more productively to refining those more consequential planning uncertainties.
GILLINGHAM WATER 2 July 21, 2020
1. Introduction
Purpose
This report presents our review of a draft study by the San Diego County Water Authority (Water
Authority, or SDCWA) to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of a Regional
Conveyance System (RCS) project. Our report was commissioned by 18 of the Water Authority
Member Agency Managers (MAM) to provide independent engineering and economic analysis,
and to help inform the decision on whether the Water Authority should continue, pause, or table
further efforts to evaluate and advance the project.
Background
Water Authority Reports and Presentations and Files Reviewed
The Water Authority has studied variations of a RCS project many times since its formation in
1947, but past iterations have not advanced beyond the planning review phase. For its current
round of evaluation, the Water Authority has produced or commissioned the following reports
and presentations, and these are the documents we have reviewed to conduct our work.
Document / File Author / Date Abbreviation used in this report
1. Draft Regional Conveyance System Study Phase A Black & Veatch (B&V) / June 2020 Draft Study
2. Independent 3rd Party Review of Financial Analysis for the Regional Conveyance System
Hunter Pacific Group (HPG) / May 2020 Independent Cost Review
3. Water Authority Transmittal Letter of June 12, 2020 SDCWA / June 2020 Draft Study Transmittal Letter
4. Water Authority RCS board presentation to March 12 special board meeting SDCWA / March 2020 March Board Presentation Materials
5. SDCWA letter to member agencies of April 27 SDCWA / April 2020 SDCWA Letter of April 27
6. Economic Model SDCWA / June 2020 Revised by IC / July 2020 Economic Model
Water Authority Phase B Go/No Go decision
The Water Authority has recently completed a round of engineering analysis and limited
economic analysis, work it refers to as Phase A. The Water Authority is now considering whether
to proceed with additional investigations it refers to as Phase B. These additional investigations
would include:
• Multi-use, partnerships & funding
• Conveyance alignment & tunneling site layouts
• Geotechnical desktop study
• Additional risk analysis
• Additional economic analysis (if needed to supplement the work contained in this report)
GILLINGHAM WATER 3 July 21, 2020
The Water Authority’s QSA Supplies and MWD Exchange Agreement
Through the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) the Water Authority has acquired a
200,000 acre-foot per year (AF/yr) supply of conserved water from the Imperial Irrigation District
(IID) and also a 77,700 AF/yr supply from funding the lining of the All American and Coachella
Canals. These supplies, known collectively as the “QSA supplies", make up the majority of the
Water Authority’s long-term supply portfolio. The agreement with IID expires in 2047, but has an
option to renew for 30 years to 2077 by mutual agreement. Beginning in 2035, the current pricing
terms of the agreement shift from a Federal inflation index (Gross Domestic Product Implicit
Price Deflator) to either a market-based formula or to the Base Contract Price terms, which are
based on MWD rates and other factors. The canal lining supply expires in 2112.
Currently, both the IID and Canal Lining supplies are conveyed to the Water Authority via the
Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (Metropolitan, or MWD), through an Exchange Agreement that expires in
2047. The 2020 exchange rate is $482 per acre-foot (AF).
The Regional Conveyance System Concept
The RCS would be an 85 to 132-mile long conveyance system, depending on the alignment, to
convey the IID and Canal Lining supplies directly to San Diego County as shown in Figure 1-1.
The facility would provide an alternative and redundant conveyance capability for the San Diego
region and could be funded, built, owned, and operated by the Water Authority. The supplies
would originate at the western end of the All American Canal (AAC), at its connection to the
Westside Main Canal. For the Northern Alignment (3A), , water from the AAC would be
conveyed through approximately 47 miles of canal, 39 miles of pipeline, and 47 miles of tunnel.
The total pump lift is approximately 2,000 feet.
The Water Authority has stated they would not proceed with the RCS unless the IID supply can
be secured through 2112.
FIGURE 1-1: RCS Study Area and Alignments
Source: SDCWA
GILLINGHAM WATER 4 July 21, 2020
One major difference between the CRA and the RCS is the need to desalinate the supply. The
CRA takes its supply from Lake Havasu where generally the level of total dissolved solids (TDS)
is acceptable for delivery to Metropolitan’s member agencies directly or through blending with
State Water Project supplies. At the RCS All American Canal diversion point, the TDS has
increased to the point where desalination is required for use in the Water Authority service area.
The RCS includes a 154 million gallon per day (mgd) reverse osmosis (RO) membrane
desalination treatment plant located in the Imperial Valley, with the stated goal of delivering
water with a TDS concentration of no more than 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l). For comparison,
existing supplies delivered by Metropolitan are typically in that same range, but may at times
trend up to approximately 600 mg/l during periods when the Skinner service area (inclusive of
SDCWA) is being supplied predominantly from Metropolitan’s Colorado River supplies and less
so from the State Water Project (SWP).
The RCS would provide conveyance independence from Metropolitan, and the Draft Study finds
the project is cost competitive with other alternatives including continuing conveyance through
Metropolitan and the development of local San Diego County supplies.
Scope of Services
In general, the Independent Consultant (IC) scope of services includes:
1. Review of the Draft Study, Independent Cost Review, and Water Authority presentations and
correspondence. Provide comments on the engineering and economic aspects of the work.
2. Review of the Water Authority’s Economic Model. Provide comments on the Water
Authority’s analysis. Prepare sensitivity analysis of assumptions and develop and evaluate
additional alternatives.
3. Coordinate with the Member Agency Managers and the Water Authority staff.
4. Prepare a summary report of findings (this report).
Review Process
The participating Member Agency Managers specified that this would be a transparent process
and that interim results would be provided to the Water Authority staff as soon as they had been
reviewed by the MAM. This process was implemented to avoid surprises when the Water
Authority received this report.
The Water Authority hosted an initial RCS briefing for the IC on June 19 focused on presentation
of the Economic Model. For the following three weeks, the IC and Water Authority staff met to
review approaches, answer questions, provide comments and present results. For two of the three
follow-up meetings, the IC briefed the MAM in the morning and then presented the same
presentation to Water Authority staff that afternoon.
The MAM and IC appreciate the Water Authority’s cooperation and support of the project review
and transparent process.
GILLINGHAM WATER 5 July 21, 2020
The Economic Model
Soon after the Water Authority distributed the Draft Study on June 12, the IC through the MAM
requested the Water Authority make available the Economic Model referenced by the Draft Study
for review. The Water Authority agreed to this request and provided the model to the IC on June
19. The Water Authority noted the model was in draft form, and the IC acknowledged this
limitation.
The Economic Model has proven extremely useful to our review, and we are thankful to the
Water Authority for making it available to us. The main value of the Economic Model lies in its
easy ability to test the sensitivity of findings about the economic merits of the RCS to changes in
economic and financial inputs, for factors such as the period of analysis, interest and discount
rates, MWD price escalation rates, and more.
The model contains highly granular data on more than 100 line items of capital and annual cost
estimates developed by the Draft Study, and allocates these over time, including accounting for
multiple tranches of bond financing.
Economic Model Comprehensive Cost Accounting
We have been asked about the comprehensiveness of the model’s cost accounting, in particular
about the following two items, which we address here:
• Inclusion of IID AAC Wheeling Costs: The model accounts for the cost to compensate
IID for use of their capacity in the AAC. This is a relatively modest cost (2020 cost is
$17/AF, escalating at 2.5 percent per year per the Economic Model’s default settings),
and is in addition to approximately $140 million in annual costs reported by the Draft
Study for alignment alternative 3A.
• Inclusion of RO Concentrate Losses: As described above, the Draft Study’s design
concept includes a desalting plant located in the Imperial Valley to reduce the water’s dissolved mineral content prior to the first RCS pump lift. This treatment process would
generate a waste stream of RO concentrate totaling approximately 20,000 AF/yr,
reducing the Water Authority’s available QSA supplies by a like amount, from 277,700
AF/yr to 257,000 AF/yr. Although this quantity of water is lost to the Water Authority
and will not be conveyed through the RCS system under the terms of the Transfer
Agreement the Water Authority must still pay the supply price to IID.
Rather than using this reduced volume as the denominator for unit cost calculations, the
Economic Model instead accounts for the cost of an equivalent volume of MWD Tier 1
purchases as an additional annual cost of the project. This cost is in addition to the
approximately $140 million in annual costs reported by the Draft Study for alignment
alternative 3A. In this way the model presents costs for a supply to San Diego of
277,700 AF/yr, equal to the full amount of QSA supply before losses to desalting.
IC Modifications to Economic Model
In the course of our work, we have modified the original draft model provided by the Water
Authority to include an expanded Dashboard, with expanded functionality for sensitivity testing
and with additional graphical reporting of how project costs and benefits are distributed over
time. The Economic Model is referenced frequently in our report, in particular in Section 2 on
Economic Analysis. Most of the figures and dollar amounts reported in Section 2 are from the
GILLINGHAM WATER 6 July 21, 2020
model. The latest version of the model, Version 1.1 dated 07/20/20, accompanies and is an
integral part of this report. Additional information on the Economic Model, including a complete
list of the model’s input variables and default settings, is included in Appendix B of our report.
Supply and Transportation Scenario Alternatives
The Draft Study presents the net present value costs of the RCS in comparison to MWD Reliance
and Local Supply Development alternatives. The Economic Model supplements these by parsing
the MWD Reliance option into three different options, resulting in five options total inclusive of
the RCS option. The RCS option also has its own alignment alternatives, of which alternative 3A,
the Northern Alignment, is the least costly. We have elected to present results and comparisons
for that alignment only, to the exclusion of the more costly 5A and 5C described in the Draft
Study, and the revised model dashboard includes only the 3A alignment option of the RCS.
The five supply options are defined below:
•RCS 3A: RCS alignment alternative 3A (Northern Alignment) is the least costly and isused here for comparison. RCS becomes operational in 2045.
•MWD Exchange Ends 2047: This option assumes the MWD Exchange Agreement
expires without renewal at the end of 2047, along with the IID agreement. SDCWA then
transitions to buying 200,000 AF/yr of MWD Tier 1 supply. Canal lining water continuesat the MWD Exchange Rate. (This option is titled “MWD Reliance” in the Draft Study.)
•MWD Exchange Ends 2077: Similar to above, but the IID and MWD Exchange
agreements are extended through 2077.
•MWD Exchange Ends 2112: IID and MWD Exchange agreements are both extended to
2112, in alignment with the end date for Canal water.
•2048 Local Supply: The IID agreement expires at the end of 2047, after which SDCWAtransitions to 200,000 AF/yr of new local supply development projects.
To this list the IC has added a sixth option:
•MWD Negotiated Exchange: This option replaces the current exchange agreement with
new terms through 2112, with price escalation tied to the Engineering News Record 20-
Cities Construction Cost Index (ENR_CCI).
All six options are included in the Economic Model accompanying this report.
What Next? Member Agency Manager Use of This Report
We recommend the Member Agency Managers provide the information in this report to their
SDCWA board representatives, and that collectively they work with the Water Authority to apply
whatever is useful in our review to the budgeting and supply planning questions concerned.
The Water Authority has described its evaluation of RCS feasibility as part of a triad of long-term
supply and transportation planning issues that also includes the potential for extension of the IID
supply agreement and the extension of the MWD Exchange agreement. The technical and
economic feasibility of the RCS have now been advanced to reasonable levels of planning
certainty, and are no longer the weak leg of the planning triad. Further investigation of the RCS
GILLINGHAM WATER 7 July 21, 2020
therefore appears unwarranted at this time. Likewise, additional refinement of the project’s
engineering design is unlikely to alter the key findings already available. Rather than investing
further in the evaluation of an RCS project, it appears the larger planning uncertainties facing the
Water Authority now revolve around the extension of the IID Supply and MWD Exchange
agreements, and long-term demand and water sales projections, and that budgets and staffing
schedules set aside for RCS investigations could be applied more productively to refining those
opportunities.
Report Organization
The remainder of the briefing document is organized into sections as follows. The report also
includes appendices as listed in the Table of Contents.
Section: Page
SECTION 2: Economic Analysis ................................................................. 8
SECTION 3: Engineering, Cost, and Risk Review .................................. 22
GILLINGHAM WATER 8 July 21, 2020
2. Economic Analysis
The Draft Study’s economic analysis is insufficient to support
informed decision-making. We have endeavored to provide the
additional information needed.
The Draft Study states the RCS project is “cost-competitive with” and “provides significant
savings” in comparison to MWD Reliance (Exchange) and other supply and transportation
scenario options. In reaching these findings, the Draft Study’s economic analysis has utilized
unusually long evaluation timeframes, and has relied on certain price escalation assumptions that
are highly implausible. The brevity of the Draft Study’s economic review, amounting to two
pages out of a more than 500 page report, is insufficient to support informed decision-making,
and insufficient to provide transparent and objective rationale to the public and ratepayers at
large. Our review in this section addresses these issues, and seeks to provide key parts of the
supplemental information needed.
The RCS is not cost-effective under standard measures of
economic efficiency.
The Water Authority’s draft economic analysis has overlooked conventional public works and
utility economic feasibility reporting methods in favor of a non-standard approach.. Before
addressing the Water Authority’s approach and why we find it insufficient to support informed
decision-making, it is important first to understand the typical public works economic review
methods that have been overlooked.
Standard First-Year Unit Cost Analysis
Most economic assessments of public agency water supply projects begin with a basic
comparative measure of first-year unit costs in dollars per acre-foot. The first step of this process
is to gauge the capital costs of the project, as well as the ongoing annual costs of operations,
maintenance, repair, and replacement (OMRR) necessary to sustain the project over its economic
lifetime. For the RCS project, the Draft Study and the Independent Cost Review have combined
to develop capital and OMRR costs to a level of detail sufficient to support planning decisions.
These costs are summarized in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1: RCS Cost Estimates
RCS 3A March Board Independent Cost Review Draft Study
Capital $4.2 B $5.3 B $5.0 B
Annual (OMRR) $130 M $130 M $143 M
GILLINGHAM WATER 9 July 21, 2020
Using the June final draft cost numbers, the calculation of first-year unit costs then proceeds as
follows:
Note: A previous version of this calculation presented in draft form amortized the project capital at an interest rate of 3 percent per year. We have increased the rate used here to 4 percent per year to be closer to the Draft Study’s default rate of 5 percent per year, recognizing current market conditions are lower. MAM financial officers have advised the actual rate could be driven upwards by the magnitude of the debt undertaking.
Finally, first-year unit cost of the project is compared to its most relevant alternative, in this case
the conveyance of the Water Authority’s QSA supplies via the terms of the existing MWD
Exchange Agreement. For calendar year 2020, the MWD exchange price is $482/AF. The
comparison is illustrated in Figure 2-1.
FIGURE 2-1: First-Year Unit Cost Comparison in Dollars per Acre-Foot (RCS 3A vs. MWD Exchange; transportation only, exclusive of supply costs; in 2020 dollars)
On a standard first-year unit cost basis, the RCS project fairs poorly in comparison to the current
MWD exchange rate. However, the first-year unit cost analysis is only a snapshot, and does not
account for the potential for some costs to escalate at different rates over time.
Standard 30 or 40 Year Cost Analysis
To address the limitations of a first-year unit cost analysis, a conventional economic review
would supplement that snapshot with an assessment of project costs over a period of time. The
time period is commonly set at 30 or 40 years, corresponding to capital finance borrowing terms.
The alignment of the time period of economic analysis with the term of the financing reflects two
common principles, neither of which are written in stone but nevertheless reflect common
practices and thinking for analyzing these types of projects . These are:
RCS First-Year Typical Analysis (in 2020 Dollars, exclusive of supply):
1) Escalate five years to Mid-Point of Construction: $5.0B $5.8B
2) Amortize (40 yrs., 4%): $293M/yr
3) Calculate Total Equivalent Annual Costs: + $143M/yr = $436M/yr
4) Divide by Yield for Unit Cost: ÷ 277,700 AF/yr = $1,570/AF
OMRR $515
Capital $1,055
$1,570
$482
GILLINGHAM WATER 10 July 21, 2020
1) Benefit-Cost Nexus: Project costs should be paid by project beneficiaries. This same
general point is contained in the Water Authority’s 2015 Long Range Financing Plan,
which cites as Guiding Principles (Section 2.1.3):
a. Ensure all beneficiaries of services pay a fair share of costs; and
b. Support intergenerational equity
2) Future Uncertainty: Predictions about the future are uncertain and become more so with
longer periods of forecast. Economic analysis typically discounts future costs and
benefits in part to account for this uncertainty.
Because the Water Authority has the capability of bonding with 40 year terms, we will use that
period for analysis. A standard 40-year net present value (NPV) analysis would proceed with the
following calculations:
• RCS Capital Costs: The $5.8 billion RCS capital cost (escalated to mid-point of
construction) is amortized over 40 years at an interest rate of 4 percent per year (same
interest rate as for First Year unit cost analysis), and brought back to present worth at the
Draft Study’s default discount rate of 3 percent. NPV = $6.5 billion.
• RCS Annual Costs: The $143 million of RCS annual costs are escalated for 40 years at
the Draft Study’s default OMRR rate of 3.7 percent, and then brought back to present
worth at the Draft Study’s default discount rate of 3 percent. NPV = $7.0 billion.
• MWD Exchange Costs: MWD Exchange costs, calculated as $482/AF times
277,700 AF/yr, are escalated for 40 years at the Draft Study’s default rate of 5.1 percent,
and then brought back to present worth at the Draft Study’s default discount rate of 3
percent. NPV = $8.7 billion.
The resulting cost comparison is depicted in Figure 2-2. In comparison to the comparison
presented in Figure 2-1, the data of Figure 2-2 indicate the RCS is still more expensive than the
MWD Exchange alternative, but a lesser ratio. This demonstrates the effect of the differential
escalation rates compounding over forty years.
FIGURE 2-2: Forty-Year Cost Comparison
(RCS 3A vs. MWD Exchange 2047; transportation only, exclusive of supply costs)
(in billions of 2020 dollars)
OMRR $6.5 B
Capital $7.0 B
$8.7 B
$13.5 B
$8.7 B
GILLINGHAM WATER 11 July 21, 2020
Modified 40-Year / 60-Year Cost Analysis
The period of analysis question for the RCS is complicated by the 25-year schedule identified in
the Draft Study for project planning, permitting, design, and construction. A more detailed
analysis is available using the Economic Model. Applying the model to this situation, we can set
the period of analysis to 40 years from the dollar-weighted midpoint of project financing in 2040.
This extends the period of analysis to 2080, 60 years from now. Setting the period of review in
this manner and holding all other input variables (interest and discount rates, capital and OMRR
escalation rates, MWD price escalation rates, etc.) constant at the Economic Model’s default
assumption values, results in the cost comparison presented in Figure 2-3.
FIGURE 2-3: Sixty-Year Cost Comparison (RCS 3A vs. MWD Exchange 2047; transportation only, exclusive of supply costs)
(in billions of 2020 dollars)
The analysis of the RCS project over a 60-year escalation period presents much more positive
results than those of the first-year unit cost approach depicted in Figure 2-1 and the 40-year
analysis presented in Figure 2-2. The project is still more costly than its default alternative (we
will define this and the other alternatives later in this section), and while still not cost-advantaged, is close enough to be considered cost-competitive.
As we will describe later, we find certain of the assumptions used to generate this cost-
competitive outcome to be highly implausible, but the comparison of Figure 2-3 nevertheless
serves to demonstrate the potential for Period of Analysis to exert strong influence on economic
outcomes. This then raises the question of what would happen to the project economic analysis if
we evaluated the project over even longer periods.
The RCS project is non-standard, and may warrant non-standard
economic evaluation. Extended period analysis deserves
consideration, but needs transparent review.
The RCS is a non-standard project not just in the magnitude of its cost, but also in the extent of
the 25-year schedule identified in the Draft Study for project planning, permitting, design, and
construction. The project would also be built to have a design life well in excess of standard
periods of economic analysis. This of itself is not unusual – many water facility capital
investments have long design lifetimes – but lends support to the possibility of evaluating the
economic merits of the project over longer than standard time periods.
$20.1 B $18.9 B
GILLINGHAM WATER 12 July 21, 2020
Extended Period Analysis
This is the approach utilized in the Draft Study. The Draft Study presents an economic analysis of
the project conducted using a period of analysis extending to the year 2112. The selected date
aligns with the end-date of the Water Authority’s Canal Lining supply agreements, but otherwise
has no significance to economic theory or analysis.
This timescale is illustrated in Figure 2-4, where 2040 is the approximate midpoint of project
financing, 2045 is the project on-line date, 2080 is the end-date of a 40-year analysis period
subsequent to the midpoint of project financing, and 2112 is the selected end date of the Draft
Study’s period of analysis.
FIGURE 2-4: Period of Analysis Timeline
Transparency Required
An extension of the period of analysis to 92 years from now, or to 72 years past the projected
midpoint of project financing, is neither right nor wrong, but is unusual and requires an
explanation of: 1) the rationale for why such an extended period may be appropriate, and 2) the
distribution of costs and benefits over time.
Both explanations are absent in the Draft Study and in presentations made to date to the Water
Authority board, and both are necessary to provide transparency and completeness of review
essential to informed decision-making. The first is easily remedied by stating the case for why the
RCS project deserves extended period consideration, even though it fares poorly when evaluated
over conventional terms. The second is remedied by applying the Economic Model to the analysis
of costs and benefits over time, as presented in the next section. With this information available to
a decision-making body, the decision becomes a matter of policy for their consideration.
An extended period of analysis entails generational transfers of
costs and benefits.
If an extended period of analysis is warranted given the unusual timescale of the RCS, then the
economic evaluation should identify the distribution of costs and benefits over time. Put another
way, if the RCS is a generational project, then the economic analysis should examine the
generational transfers of costs and benefits. We have adapted the Economic Model to provide this
generational analysis.
GILLINGHAM WATER 13 July 21, 2020
Case 1: Period of Analysis Ending 2080
We begin with the same comparison of alternatives illustrated in Figure 2-3 for the period of
analysis extending to 2080, 60 years from now and 40 years past the midpoint of project financing, and with all input variables (interest and discount rates, capital and OMRR escalation
rates, MWD price escalation rates, etc.) set at the Economic Model’s default assumption values.
(A complete list of model default inputs is included in Appendix B.) This results in the time
period distribution of net costs and benefits presented in Figure 2-5 and further described below.
FIGURE 2-5: Cost and Benefit Distribution for Period Ending 2080 (RCS 3A vs. MWD Exchange 2047)
The data in Figure 2-5 provides a much broader understanding of the economic comparison than
the simple total NPV comparison of Figure 2-3. The red/black bar chart illustrates how the project at first incurs additional net losses in comparison to its alternative, and then transitions to
providing net benefits. The data boxes above the chart note key dates, including the Crossover
year when net losses transition to net benefits, and the year of break-even, when cumulative
benefits begin to exceed net losses. Data boxes at the bottom summarize the cumulative totals of net losses and net gains, and the net loss or gain to each of three generations spanning the 92-year
period of analysis. For this example, losses outweigh benefits, and the project does not achieve a
break-even date.
Case 2: Period of Analysis Ending 2112
The next step is to extend the period of analysis to 2112, the sole period examined in the Draft
Study. This extends the economic analysis to 92 years from now and 72 years past the midpoint
of project financing. Applying the economic model with this extended period, while keeping all
other inputs at the levels, results in the time period distribution of net costs and benefits presented
in Figure 2-6.
GILLINGHAM WATER 14 July 21, 2020
FIGURE 2-6: Cost and Benefit Distribution for Period Ending 2112 (RCS 3A vs. MWD Exchange 2047)
Figure 2-6 illustrates that for every year the period of analysis is extended beyond standard terms,
the RCS gains additional advantage as black bars are added with ever-increasing net benefits.
Although the chart ends at 2112, the analysis could be extended further, and this would result in
still further advantage for the RCS, but conditioned on the validity or accuracy of the model input
assumptions. With reference to our previous observation about forecast uncertainty increasing the
further out in time the forecast, there are different levels of certainty associated with the red bars
and the black bars. The occurrence and magnitude of the red bars has a high degree of certainty,
as these are costs that arise from the financing of almost $6 billion in capital. In contrast, the
black bars have a high degree of uncertainty, as they arise from a mix of assumptions about of
MWD price escalation rates and other factors whose future is unknown.
The merits of generation transfers are a policy matter.
The contrast of Figure 2-6 with Figure 2-5 is dramatic. The addition of 32 years to the period of
analysis adds 32 progressively higher black bars to the right of the chart, resulting in a cumulative
advantage for the RCS over its alternative of approximately $19 billion (sum of Total Red and
Total Black). The project does not achieve Break-even until 2083, 43 years after the mid-point of
project financing, but after that the gains continue to accrue. We see that Generation 1 incurs a
net loss of almost $3 billion, but the amount seems modest in comparison to the gains accruing to
future generations and to Generation 3 in particular. While the overall Net Present Value clearly
favors the RCS, the generational transfers entailed make clear that a decision to invest in the
project entails policy matters broader than just the overall Net Present Value.
GILLINGHAM WATER 15 July 21, 2020
The Draft Study’s assumptions of MWD price escalation are
highly implausible.
The Draft Study over-extrapolates a 20-year historical trendline of MWD price escalation,
applying the historical trend unchanged throughout the period of analysis. As we demonstrate in
this subsection, this assumption is highly implausible.
Accurate forecasting of long term water rates is difficult. Many factors drive the price of water,
including capital costs, increased operating cost, and changing sales volumes. A standard
assumption on rate forecasting is that the further out the forecast horizon, the more inaccurate the
future projection, because it is impossible to anticipate with any accuracy future conditions and
their effect on rates. When forecasting future water rates, most projections will trend back to
assumptions on underlying inflation or some small increment above inflation so as not to
overstate the compounding effect of escalation factors. This is also reflected in the more standard
approach to the length of an economic analysis so as not to skew the results based on diminishing
accuracy of forecasted key variables and cost drivers.
Escalation rates have limits; systems adapt and adjust
The economic analysis presented in the
Draft Study assumes MWD prices will
escalate at 5.1 percent per year throughout
the 92-year period of analysis. Additional
data presented by Water Authority staff at
its March 12, 2020 special board meeting
documented that MWD Tier 1 Supply
prices have a 20-year escalation average of
5.1 percent per year and that the Exchange
rate components (System Access + Water
Stewardship + System Power) have a
collective 20-year escalation average of 4.5
percent per year. The Draft Study uses the
higher 5.1 percent rate for both Tier 1
Supply and Exchange rates.
The effect of MWD rates escalating at 5.1
percent per year over 92 years is illustrated
in Table 2-2. The table includes for
reference a typical member agency local
supply project, which consistent with the default assumptions of the Economic Model has initial
costs inflating at 3 percent per year, but then being discounted back to present worth at the same 3
percent rate.
TABLE 2-2: MWD Price Escalation at 5.1%/yr Over 92 Years
NPV in 2020 dollars 2020 2045 2085 2112
Pure Water (example) $2,300/AF $2,300/AF $2,300/AF $2,300/AF
MWD Tier 1 Raw All-In $840/AF $1,400/AF $3,100/AF $5,400/AF
Implausible Extrapolations. Yes, if trends had continued Lake Mead would have gone dry, but the unacceptability of that outcome led governments and institutions to change course. Systems adapt and adjust to unsustainable forecasts.
GILLINGHAM WATER 16 July 21, 2020
The point is that MWD price escalation at 5.1 percent over the entire 92 year period of analysis is
not sustainable, and is therefore highly unlikely to occur; the system will need to adapt and adjust.
Rather than basing economic analysis on such an unlikely occurrence, it seems to us prudent, and
much more plausible, to assume MWD will make adaptations and adjustments to prevent rates
from increasing to the point where they drive away most or all of their water sales. Whether those
adjustments entail reductions in the costs driving the price increases, shifting costs to unavoidable
fixed charges, or other measures is beyond the scope of our review. Nevertheless, the finding
holds that rates are highly unlikely to increase at these levels relative to other supply options for
the simple reason they cannot.
Lesser escalation rates quickly move the RCS from black to red
The draft economic analysis presented in the Draft Study is highly sensitive to changes in
assumptions about MWD price escalation. The effect of reducing the MWD escalation rates or
capping the term of the escalation, is significant, quickly reducing the future benefits illustrated
previously in Figure 2-6. For comparison, Figure 2-7 presents the same analysis with the same
extended period through 2112, but with the following adjustments to MWD price escalation:
•Tier 1 Supply: Rates escalate at the default 5.1 percent per year, but only for 20 years,
and thereafter, escalate at the default melded OMRR rate of 3.7 percent per year. The
3.7 percent rate is the same that applies to OMRR escalation for the RCS.
•Exchange Rate: The composite exchange rate escalates at its 20-year average of 4.5
percent per year rather than the Draft Study’s default of 5.1 percent, and after 20 years,
the escalation declines to the default melded OMRR rate of 3.7 percent per year.
FIGURE 2-7: Cost and Benefit Distribution with Modified MWD Price Escalation (RCS 3A vs. MWD Exchange 2047) (Period of analysis through 2112)
GILLINGHAM WATER 17 July 21, 2020
The modest changes to the long term MWD price escalations eliminate the $19 billion cost
advantage of the RCS reflected in Figure 2-6, and result instead in the net $3 billion disadvantage
reflected in Figure 2-7. The actual future of MWD price escalation is uncertain, but we are
confident the escalation rates underlying the data in Figure 2-7 represent a much more plausible
scenario than those for Figure 2-6. On this basis we conclude the project is not cost-effective.
A Negotiated Exchange option appears economically
advantageous.
As requested by the Member Agency Managers, we modified the Economic Model to include an
additional option we have labeled Negotiated Exchange. This option would replace the current
Exchange Agreement with new terms through 2112, with price escalation tied to the Engineering
News Record 20-Cities Construction Cost Index (ENR_CCI). These financial terms were
contained in MWD’s December 2019 Settlement Offer to the Water Authority, and in the Water
Authority’s subsequent counter-offer to MWD. The MWD offer allowed for an additional
increase beyond the ENR escalator for transportation-allocated costs of the Delta Conveyance
project, and the Water Authority’s counter-offer did not. We have included functionality in the
model to examine the scenario with or without the Delta Conveyance included.
Our analysis of this option is limited to the economic aspects derived from the settlement offers,
and does not extend in any way to the legal aspects of the offers, which are beyond our scope of
work.
Beginning with all of the Draft Study’s default financial and economic assumptions, and
maintaining the period of analysis at 92 years, the Negotiated Exchange option provides a Net
Present Value advantage as illustrated in Figure 2-8. The alternative provides an advantage of
approximately $15 billion in comparison to the RCS alternative, and $26 billion in comparison to
the least costly MWD Exchange alternative. This is with the Delta Conveyance included; with the
Delta Conveyance excluded the advantage would increase by an additional two to three billion
dollars depending on assumptions.
FIGURE 2-8: Net Present Value Comparison with SDCWA Default Inputs
(Period of analysis through 2112)
GILLINGHAM WATER 18 July 21, 2020
Because the data in Figure 2-8 assumes MWD rates are escalating at unsustainable levels, the
results overstate the benefit of the Negotiated Exchange option relative to the other options, and
relative to the other MWD Exchange options in particular. Adjusting the MWD Tier 1 Supply and
Exchange escalation rates in the same exact manner as for Figure 2-7, 20 years at 5.1 and 4.5
percent respectively, then 3.7 percent thereafter, we arrive at the Net Present Value comparison
illustrated in Figure 2-9.
FIGURE 2-9: Net Present Value Comparison with Modified MWD Price Escalation
(Period of analysis through 2112)
With MWD price escalation modified to reflect a more likely rate forecast scenario, the
Negotiated Exchange option still maintains a benefit of $7 billion in comparison to the next least-
costly alternative, and $10 billion in comparison to the Draft Study’s default alternative of MWD
Exchange 2047.
MWD rate structure adjustments could alter these projections.
The above analysis of the Negotiated Exchange option, as well as all of the previous
comparisons, rely on an assumption that MWD will maintain its existing rate structure intact,
complete with its heavy reliance on volumetric commodity charges. A shift by MWD of costs
from volumetric commodity charges to fixed charges could reduce its commodity rates, and in the
process could reduce the avoided costs that provide the economic advantage of a Negotiated
Exchange option. This same consideration would apply to the RCS option, reducing the potential
benefits of the project. Detailed consideration of the future of MWD rate structures is beyond our
scope of work.
The Draft Study’s assumptions of IID Supply price escalation do
not account for risk of future price increases above inflation.
The contractual price paid by the Water Authority for IID transfer water is currently indexed to a
published inflation factor, the federal Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (GDPIPD).
According to the 2009 Amended Water Transfer Agreement, the use of the index ends after 2034
and transitions or resets to a market based price.
GILLINGHAM WATER 19 July 21, 2020
The Draft Study’s economic analysis assumes a continuation of IID supply costs at the underlying
rate of inflation. This is in contrast to, and appears to us inconsistent with, the assumption that
MWD will increase well above underlying inflation. Under the terms of the Transfer Agreement,
the use of the GDPIPD index expires at the end of 2034, to be replaced either by a market-based
process if an established market exists, or by the agreement’s Base Contract Price which is based
on MWD rates. This at a minimum would appear to introduce a significant risk, if not the
likelihood that IID supply prices under the Transfer Agreement will escalate over the long-term
at rates greater than inflation, contrary to the Draft Study’s assumptions. Any increase in the
assumed rate of IID price escalation further disadvantages the RCS in comparison to the MWD
Exchange 2047 option.
We have adapted the Economic Model to include additional functionality for IID supply price
escalation sensitivity testing. We will use Figure 2-9 as a point of comparison. Figure 2-9
presents NPV results with MWD Tier 1 and Exchange escalation rates adjusted from default
conditions to be fixed for 20 years at 5.1 and 4.5 percent respectively, and thereafter at 3.7
percent. Leaving all of those adjustments in place, we will next adjust the IID price escalation
assumptions as follows:
•Initial Escalation Rate: 1.9 percent, equal to the 20-year average of the GDPIPD
•Time-Out Date: Initial escalation rate ends after 2034, as per the Transfer Agreement
•Subsequent Escalation Rate: 3.5 percent, reflecting a small discount from the Economic
Model’s default OMRR escalation of 3.7 percent
With those modifications entered into the Economic Model, the NPV comparison of the supply
and transportation alternatives is as depicted in Figure 2-10.
FIGURE 2-10: Net Present Value Comparison with Modified IID Price Escalation
(Period of analysis through 2112)
Notice the NPV cost premium for the RCS has now grown in comparison to the other
alternatives, and that the MWD Exchange 2047, 2077, and 2112 options have reached a level of
parity with each other. The data presented in Figure 2-10 is just one of many scenarios that could
be evaluated with the Economic Model, and suggests there may be opportunity to apply the
model to support further investigation of alternative QSA supply and transportation futures.
GILLINGHAM WATER 20 July 21, 2020
Grant funding, if available, could reduce the RCS cost premium
in comparison to the other alternatives.
The Draft Study notes the prospect that the project could receive State, Federal, or other funding
assistance, reducing the capital cost incurred by the Water Authority and boosting the project’s
economic status in comparison to the other supply and transportation alternatives.
Some of the member agency managers have suggested the prospect of grant funding is unlikely,
citing probable opposition from the remainder of the MWD service area and from the other
Colorado River basin states. Conversely, Water Authority staff have pointed to project’s role in
securing the IID Transfer and maintaining peace on the river. Resolving the divide between those
opinions is beyond the limits of our scope.
We have adapted the Economic Model to provide sensitivity testing of RCS capital costs. Using
the Figure 2-10 scenario as a point of comparison, we can adjust the RCS capital cost as follows:
•RCS Capital Cost Adjustment: Assume 50 percent of project capital is grant funded,
reducing the capital cost to the Water Authority from $5.0 billion (before escalation to
midpoint) to $2.5 billion.
With that modification entered into the Economic Model, and otherwise maintaining all of the
same settings as for Figure 2-10, the NPV comparison of the supply and transportation
alternatives is as depicted in Figure 2-11.
FIGURE 2-11: Net Present Value Comparison with 50% Capital Grant Funding
(Period of analysis through 2112)
The effect of the grant funding is to reduce the project’s NPV by approximately $4 billion,
bringing the project closer in cost to the other alternatives but still more expensive.
GILLINGHAM WATER 21 July 21, 2020
The Local Supply option is specific to SDCWA local project
development and is not intended to reflect the economic merits
of local project development by member agencies.
Several of the MAMs have asked us to comment on the nature of the Local Supply option and on
the economic data reported on the option by Economic Model.
Contrast Between SDCWA and Member Agency Local Supply Economics
The first thing to note about the Local Supply option is that it is intended to reflect the economics
of local supply development by SDCWA, not by member agencies. When SDCWA evaluates the
economics of such a project, its logical point of comparison is to the cost and reliability of MWD
Tier 1 supplies. In contrast, when a member agency evaluates a similar (if smaller) project, their
logical point of comparison is to all-in SDCWA rates, which are currently on the order of
$600/AF higher than MWD rates. In addition, for the case of a Pure Water type local project, a
member agency may be in a better position to benefit from the avoided costs of such a project to
its local wastewater system. For these and other reasons, member agencies are likely to find
economic merit in local projects that would be too costly for SDCWA.
Project Sizing
The second thing to note about the Local Supply option is that SDCWA has sized the option for
the full 200,000 AF/yr needed to replace its IID supply after 2047. (Per the option definition, the
IID agreement would be allowed to expire after 2047 and SDCWA would then need to replace
that supply from MWD or from local supply development.) SDCWA has based the option on a
large seawater desalination facility such as could possibly be built at Camp Pendleton. The
Economic Model includes a default cost for this option of $3,000/AF in 2020 dollars. We concur
with the use of this default setting when the intent is to gauge the costs of SDCWA project
development independent of the member agencies.
In contrast, individual projects undertaken by member agencies will necessarily be sized at
capacities less than the full 200,000 AF/yr of IID supply. Whether a combination of individual
projects could achieve this threshold is a matter of speculation, but it appears at least plausible
and perhaps likely that a combination of local projects could replace a significant share of the IID
supply.
Additional Testing Using Economic Model
The Economic Model allows for testing of the Local Supply option across a range of input
assumptions. Member agencies can use the model to test the results of modified local supply
options populated by multiple smaller member agency projects. Additional notes on the model
and on testing suggestions are included in Appendix B.
GILLINGHAM WATER 22 July 21, 2020
Potential rate increases to fund an RCS can be estimated using
the Red/Black charts.
In Figure 2-7 (“Cost and Benefit Distribution with Modified MWD Price Escalation”), the
cumulative net costs of the RCS project before the economic crossover point in 2079 total
$6.5 billion. Annual net costs exceed $200 million per year from 2041 through 2054, a period of
15 years. During this period, average net costs are approximately $230 million per year. If these
costs were funded by the Water Authority Melded Supply Rate and/or its Transportation Charge
then depending on the Water Authority annual sales volume they would result in the All-In rate
increases listed in Table 2-3. Note that the rate increases shown are just those needed to fund the
RCS, and are in addition to other rate increases the Water Authority will need to fund its ongoing
operations, capital program, and MWD purchase and exchange costs.
TABLE 2-3: SDCWA Rate Increase to Fund $230M/yr in New Costs (in 2020 dollars)
Period Average Annual Cost
Rate Increase for Given SDCWA Annual Sales Volume in AF
200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
2041-2054 $230 M $1,150/AF $920/AF $770/AF $660/AF $580/AF
2038-2077 $160 M $800/AF $640/AF $530/AF $460/AF $400/AF
Prior to 2041 and after 2054 continuing to 2079, lesser increases would be needed to fund the net
costs. After 2079, net costs transition to net benefits and water rates would then be reduced in
comparison to the selected RCS point of comparison.
Some of the member agency finance directors have noted that additional rate impacts might arise
from debt coverage ratio policies, credit rating requirements, bond requirements, and related
issues associated with the issuance of approximately $6 billion in debt. Analysis of these issues is
beyond the scope of our review.
GILLINGHAM WATER 23 July 21, 2020
3.Engineering, Cost, and Risk Review
Engineering Review: The engineering components of the Draft
Study are sound and demonstrate the technical feasibility of an
RCS project.
The Draft Study’s engineering work updates the many previous studies prepared on the topic, and
advances the conceptual project design by demonstrating the potential merits of a Northern
Alignment alternative, by incorporating desalting operations and a Westside Main Canal parallel,
and via other improvements. Our high-level review of the project’s engineering has identified
only modest opportunities for revision, and we find the project engineering overall to be sound.
Our comments on the Draft Study’s engineering and general planning aspects are listed below:
1) 1.5 Previous Studies: Include the 2002 Regional Colorado River Conveyance FeasibilityStudy.
2) 3.2 TOVDS Delivery Point Day Tank Level Control: The text of this section needs
clarification; it is not clear how storage in the day tank is to be regulated. If the goal of the
day tank is to be able to feed the rejection tower at a normal water elevation (NWL) of 1140,
this suggests the bottom of the tank needs to be above that elevation, and equipped with a 400
cfs flow control facility (FCF) regulating flow out of the tank, otherwise the tank is just
floating at the rejection tower NWL as regulated by the existing pressure control facility(PCF) and not providing any operating storage. Also, the text should note the significant
topographic and environmental constraints to siting a tank at this elevation in Twin Oaks
vicinity. These constraints, and the addition of a FCF if needed, would add to project costs.
3) 7.4 Summary of Environmental Issues re: Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Even though thissection is mostly conceptual and directed toward a process description, it should note GHG
emissions as an issue of concern for the RCS. Data in the report indicates the RCS 3A will
have an energy footprint of approximately 2,800 kWh/AF, or approximately 40 percentgreater than for conveyance via the Colorado River Aqueduct. This leads to the possibility
that the RCS might not be the environmentally preferred alternative for project environmental
documentation under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the National Environmental Project Act
(NEPA). Depending on the nature of
federal environmental permits andapprovals needed for the project, this could
present risk to project approval.
4) 9.0 Screening Criteria and Evaluation: The
methodology of combining costs and benefits into a scoring matrix is
problematic. We recommend costs be
pulled out into their own category and then weighed against benefits, reflecting the way
budgets and policy are typically evaluated
in the public agency and utility arena.
Weighing Costs and Benefits. Costs and benefits are the two sides of the balance scale. Matrix scoring evaluations that combine costs and benefits into a single scoring rubric fail to capture this real-world balancing act.
GILLINGHAM WATER 24 July 21, 2020
5) 10.12 Report Summary re: Cost Competitiveness: The summary text states, “Alternatives 3A
and 5A are economically competitive and provide long-term reliability and low cost water to
the region”, and “As discussed in the key findings summarized above, Alignments 3A and 5A
are viable alternatives to the current status quo for the Water Authority.” Our analysis in
Section 2 of this report demonstrates otherwise, and the summary text should be revised to
present a more accurate and complete assessment of the project’s economics.
Cost Analysis: We have only minor comments and suggestions
for consideration.
The independent review of the project cost estimates commissioned by the Water Authority
appears to have been a valuable undertaking that has helped refine and validate the current
estimates. Our high-level review of the project’s costs has identified modest questions and
concerns as identified in our report, but these are not of a magnitude to alter the overall economics of the project. Although much attention is paid in the Draft Study and related
documents to capital costs, these are a minority of the project’s life-cycle costs, and their share
diminishes as the economic period of analysis increases. Annual costs are a more significant
driver of RCS life-cycle costs, and life-cycle costs are more sensitive to changes in annual costs than to capital costs.
Our cost-related review comments are listed below:
1)Construction Management (CM) Costs: The report estimates CM costs at approximately 22 percent of construction costs before contingencies. The 22 percent figure warrants further
review and comparison to the Water Authority’s historical CM costs on projects such as the
San Vicente Pipeline tunnel. Also, the application of the selected percentage to construction
costs before continencies is unusual and warrants re-consideration or explanation.
2)Labor Cost Multipliers: The report uses a labor cost multiplier of 1.6. This appears low if the
intent is to include comprehensive labor costs inclusive of payroll overhead, office space,
equipment, and administrative and managerial overhead.
3)Replacement Costs: The report identifies a replacement cost averaging approximately $2.5M
per year for Alternative 3A. This appears unduly low for a $5B capital project, amounting to
only 0.05 percent of capital costs. Replacement costs should be revisited, with a recognition
that it is not possible to ensure all project components meet their design lifetimes. Construction, material, and equipment flaws may arise decades after project completion and
lead to unexpected costs.
4)Tunnel Repair Costs: Depending on the return interval of large movements on the Elsinore
Fault and depending on the probability of those movements damaging the tunnel, the cost
analysis should consider including a sinking fund repair line item for tunnel repairs. Tunnel
repairs could be enormously expensive if required, and might warrant a sinking fund of
millions or tens of millions of dollars per year.
5)TOVDS Deliver Point Day Tank: See our comments on this item in Section 3.1.
6)Response to HPG Comments: We recommend the final version of the report provide specific
responses to each of the findings and recommendations of the Independent Cost Review.
GILLINGHAM WATER 25 July 21, 2020
Risk Review: The risk of declining water demands appears real
and warrants consideration.
The Draft Study does not account for the risk of declining demands in its Risk Registry. We think
it likely that long-term Water Authority demands are at significant risk of declining to below
330,000 AF/yr, perhaps by a considerable margin, and for this reason we recommend the Draft Study be revised to address demand risk.
The 330,000 AF/yr threshold is significant because it represents the Water Authority’s current
core supply of water, the rounded total of 277,700 AF/yr of QSA supplies and 50,000 AF/yr of
ocean desal. Of these, the Water Authority is obligated to pay for the IID and desal supplies
regardless of whether it uses them. If demands dropped below the 330,000 AF/yr threshold, the
Water Authority might need to leave some of its core supply unused. If such reductions are to its
QSA supplies, then an RCS facility built at a capacity to match full QSA supplies could become oversized. If the RCS could no longer be operated at capacity, the unit costs of the facility would
increase, jeopardizing the potential to ever recover the capital investment in the project.
Also, it is clear from the Draft Study that downsizing the RCS would result in significant cost-
inefficiencies, particularly with regard to the project’s tunnels which for constructability reasons
must be sized for 14 foot or 16 foot diameter bores regardless of finished inside diameter. This
makes it unlikely the demand risk could be mitigated by downsizing the facility without
compounding the project’s economic challenges.
Water Authority Demand Forecast
The Water Authority’s current demand forecast is summarized in Figure 3-1, which is a
presentation slide presented by Water Authority staff at its March 12 special board meeting.
FIGURE 3-1: SDCWA Current Demand Forecast
Source: Presentation Materials from SDCWA board meeting of March 12, 2020
GILLINGHAM WATER 26 July 21, 2020
The upper blue line of the chart depicts total regional water demands. The lower red line depicts
Water Authority sales, which are lower than regional demands by a volume equal to member
agency local supplies. As new local supplies come on line in future years, the red line adjusts
accordingly. The message of the chart is that Water Authority demands (sales) are a function of
1)regional demands, and 2) member agency local supply development. The chart depicts total
regional demands increasing over time, but member agency local project development increasing
as well, with the result that long-term Water Authority demands remain in a range of
approximately 330,000 to 400,000 AF/yr. The Draft Study relies on this forecast to conclude that
long-term Water Authority demands will remain safely above the 330,000 AF/yr threshold.
In presenting this slide, Water Authority staff have noted the forecast is founded in work from the
agency’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, and that the Water Authority is in the process of
developing new demand forecasts due out later this year. Further, they have noted the initial
upward slope of the blue line, which continues to an inflection point in 2030, arises from the 2015
forecast assumption that unit demands post-2008 have been depressed by various extenuating
circumstances, and will gradually return to pre-2008 levels, completing this return in 2030.
Possible Forecast Modifications
We are not aware of any member agencies that believe their per-capita water demands will return
to pre-2008 levels. Further, considering increasing water prices, advancing conservation
practices, changing landscape ethics, and pending dictates of the State Water Resources Control
Board, we find it more likely that per capita demands are more likely to continue their decline
than resume an increase.
Nevertheless, if we make only one adjustment to Figure 2-10, it would be to bring the initial
upward slope of the blue line down to the slope of the post-2030 section of the line, while holding
its 2020 value at approximately 460,000 AF/yr. This reduces the red line post-2030 by
approximately 125,000 AF/yr, bringing Water Authority sales down to the vicinity of
250,000 AF/yr in the later years of the chart. This revision is illustrated in Figure 3-2 (next page).
Resulting Upward Incentive for Member Agency Local Supply Development
The downward adjustment of the blue Regional Demand line has a compounding effect on Water
Authority sales. Not only does the reduction in regional demand lead to a direct reduction in
Water Authority sales, but it also drives Water Authority rate increases as fixed costs are
distributed to a declining sales volume. This in turn creates additional economic incentive of
member agency local supply development, which if it occurred would further diminish Water
Authority sales.
The Future of Ocean Outfalls?
Some of the member agencies have also noted the possibility that ocean discharge regulations
could be modified in the future to ban or significantly reduce wastewater discharges, and that
legislation has been introduced to this effect. This would create further incentive or even
requirements for Pure Water type local supply development, further diminishing Water Authority
sales.
GILLINGHAM WATER 27 July 21, 2020
FIGURE 3-2: Conceptual Adjusted Water Authority Sales Forecast
Demand Risk Summary
The Water Authority’s new demand forecasts are eagerly awaited. In the meantime, any
consideration of the RCS should account for the probability that long-term demands for Water
Authority water will be insufficient to utilize the full 330,000 AF/yr of the combined core
supplies. Demands may even decline below 250,000 AY/yr, the combined IID and Seawater
Desalination supplies. The Water Authority should consider the impact on demands if there is
State legislation that prohibits wastewater treatment plants discharging to the ocean.
GILLINGHAM WATER July 21 2020
APPENDICES:
A. Comments from Member Agency Chief Financial
Officers
B. Economic Model Overview and User’s Guide
GILLINGHAM WATER A-1 July 21, 2020
APPENDIX A: Comments from Member Agency Chief
Financial Officers
A.1. Summary Comments
A draft version of this reports main economic findings and a draft of the Economic Model were
made available to a group of member agency chief financial officers for quality review and
comment. Their comments are summarized below:
• An assumption that MWD’s rates will increase by 5.1 percent for 92 years is not realistic. At
this escalation, the MWD rate would double every 14.4 years and this could significantly
overestimate MWD’s rates 20+ years out. This assumption also assumes MWD will not
change its rate structure for the next 100 years.
• An assumption of 5 percent interest rates for project bonds may be too low. For the Water
Authority to take on $5 billion in debt, it would be challenging to meet debt service coverage
ratios and this may result in a lower credit rating. If the project is funded by a Public-Private
Partnership, the interest rate will be higher. A cost of funds closer to 6.5 percent seems far
more reasonable.
• The Water Authority analysis should include the cost of stranded or underutilized assets
resulting from the RCS. In particular, what is the Water Authority’s share of MWD’s cost to
operate, maintain, repair, and replace their conveyance facilities? Are there Water Authority
facilities that are stranded or underutilized? It seems very probable that MWD will alter its
rate structure at some point to collect the cost of maintaining the Water Authority’s
underutilized capacity, rather than charging the other member agencies for these costs.
• In making assumptions, there should be a link between the IID and MWD rate escalation.
Assuming IID’s rates escalate at only 2.5 percent while MWD’s rates increase 5.1 percent is
too large of a difference. It is not unreasonable to assume that the IID costs will increase at
or near the same levels as MWD. The Water Authority’s most readily available alternative
supply of 200,000 acre-feet is MWD. The assumption that IID would not would not push
hard for higher rates, once the Water Authority committed to the pipeline, is overly
optimistic. A term sheet for a long-term rate schedule should be negotiated with IID before
this project is started.
• The RCS project should be decided by a ballot measure, financed with General Obligation
Bonds, and paid for by residents on the property tax bills. The charge should be in a meter
equivalent like the Water Authority’s Infrastructure Access Rate.
• The period of analysis and generational equity is important and should be explained and
discussed with the Water Authority Board of Directors. For the RCS, what are the costs and
benefits, by generation. Note that costs of public facilities paid by previous generations
benefit us today; an analysis beyond 30- to 40-years should be included.
• The Water Authority should explain the basis for all of their assumptions, in all alternatives,
complete a sensitivity analysis on them, and perform probability analysis.
• The Water Authority should break down the transportation costs by capital and operation and
maintenance.
GILLINGHAM WATER A-2 July 21, 2020
• As member agencies reduce demands on the Water Authority, what impact does that have on
the RCS?
• In the economic analysis, the Water Authority should treat the local supply alternative as a
project, like the other alternatives, rather than simply escalating $3,000/AF.
• RCS repair and replacement costs may be underestimated.
• Is there a benefit to pursuing longer-term debt?
• Periodically, if the project progresses, and before debt is issued, review the assumptions and
costs, and provide additional project off ramps.
• Is there an opportunity to connect member agency reservoirs in the south County, that are not
currently connected?
• Could the Water Authority monetize the value of the IID water to another entity, like the
Central Arizona Project (or even MWD), to offset the cost of a local water supply?
• For each alternative, identify the quantifiable and non-quantifiable project and environmental
risks.
• Is there a value that should be given to a local water supply because it is a long-term,
drought-proof supply?
• The Water Authority should review the IC modifications to their model to help identify any
improvements.
GILLINGHAM WATER B-1 July 21, 2020
APPENDIX B: Economic Model Overview and Guide
B.1. Model Overview and Background
The RCS Economic Model is a spreadsheet model providing analysis of SDCWA's proposed
Colorado River Regional Conveyance System (RCS). The RCS would convey water from the
Imperial Valley to San Diego over or through the Laguna Mountain range and provide an
alternative to use of the MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) for delivery of SDCWA's IID
Transfer and All American Canal Lining water. The model allows for comparison of the RCS to other water supply and transportation options in terms of Net Present Value (NPV), annual net benefits, and other metrics. Key economic input variables, including the term of analysis,
escalation rates, and other factors, are readily adjustable by the user to test the sensitivity of
outcomes to input.
The original version of the model was developed by SDCWA and dated June 18, 2020. SDCWA made that version available to the IC, and subsequently the IC has modified the model to provide an upgraded Dashboard with enhanced sensitivity analysis capabilities and graphical summaries.
Projects of the magnitude of the RCS are inherently political. Informed analysis of project
economics, provided at the earliest practicable stage of project development, can help guide
policy making and help ensure that projects of merit gather support, and those lacking merit be
tabled or dismissed. Our goal for the model is to provide a user-friendly tool to test economic assumptions and to support objective and transparent review of the RCS project.
B.2. Supply and Transportation Scenario Alternatives
The Draft Study presents the net present value costs of the RCS in comparison to MWD Reliance
and Local Supply Development alternatives. The Economic Model supplements these by parsing
the MWD Reliance option into three different options, resulting in five options total inclusive of
the RCS option. The RCS option also has its own alignment alternatives, of which alternative 3A, the Northern Alignment, is the lease costly. We have elected to present results and comparisons for that alignment only, to the exclusion of the more costly 5A and 5C described in the Draft
Study, and the revised model dashboard includes only the 3A alignment option of the RCS.
The five supply and transportation options are defined below:
• RCS 3A: RCS alignment alternative 3A (Northern Alignment) is the least costly and is
used here for comparison. RCS becomes operational in 2045.
• MWD Exchange Ends 2047: This option assumes the MWD Exchange Agreement
expires without renewal at the end of 2047, along with the IID agreement. SDCWA then
transitions to buying 200,000 AF/yr of MWD Tier 1 supply. Canal lining water continues at the MWD Exchange Rate. (This option is titled “MWD Reliance” in the Draft Study.)
• MWD Exchange Ends 2077: Similar to above, but the IID and MWD Exchange
agreements are extended through 2077.
• MWD Exchange Ends 2112: IID and MWD Exchange agreements are both extended to
2112, in alignment with the end date for Canal water.
• 2048 Local Supply: The IID agreement expires at the end of 2047, after which SDCWA
transitions to 200,000 AF/yr of new local supply development projects.
To this list the IC has added a sixth option:
GILLINGHAM WATER B-2 July 21, 2020
• MWD Negotiated Exchange: This option replaces the current exchange agreement with new terms through 2112, with price escalation tied to the Engineering News Record 20-Cities Construction Cost Index (ENR_CCI).
B.3. Model Economic and Financial Inputs and Default Settings
The model’s main economic and financial inputs are included in the dashboard, and are described
below by category. The left-hand column displays a screenshot of an input section of the model,
and the right-hand column contains notes and explanations. All model descriptions in this report
are for version 1.1 dated 07/20/20.
When the model is first opened, all inputs are set to the default conditions utilized by the Draft
Study.
MWD Price Escalation Rates
Tier 1 Supply (20-yr avg. = 5.1%)
Initial Rate Continuing For Thereafter
5.10%100 Yrs 3.70%
5.17%
Exchange Rate (SA+WS+SP) (20-yr avg. = 4.5%)
Initial Rate Continuing For Thereafter
5.10%100 Yrs 3.70%
5.28%
Negotiated Exchange Option
(See Rate worksheet for adtl. adjustments)
Escalation Rate 3.20%
(ENR 20-Cities 20-yr avg. = 3.2%)
Beginning Exchange Rate $482/AF
(2020 Rate = $482/AF)
Add Delta Fix?
% Allocated to Transportation 75%
IC recommended default = 75%
Effective Escalation Rate = 3.28%
over period 2020 to NPV end date
Notes
Default setting is conservative by current market standards, but may be appropriate given challenge of $5B financing
SDCWA advises the default discount rate reflects general water system cost escalation
Default period runs 92 years through 2112
Per the Draft Study, RCS 3A, the least costly alignment alternative, has a capital cost of $5.0 B and an annual OMRR cost of $140 M
Notes
Default Tier 1 Supply escalation is 5.1%/yr continuing for the duration of the 92-year period. The Time-out function and subsequent escalation rate inputs are additions by the IC. We recommend settings of 20 years and 3.7%.
The Exchange Rate escalation default is 5.1%, even though the 20-year average is 4.5%. We recommend the lower rate. The time-out date and subsequent escalation rate are set by the Tier 1 inputs.
The Negotiated Exchange option and settings additions made by the IC to the original model. Our recommended defaults are as listed.
This section allows costs for a Delta Conveyance project to be added to the exchange rate over and above the specified escalation rate. Additional inputs for the Delta Conveyance option are included in the Rate Forecasting worksheet. The gray-shaded box reports the effective escalation rate inclusive of the Delta Conveyance.
Financial Terms and Project Costs
Interest Rate (Conventional)5.00%
(SDCWA Default = 5.0%)
Discount Rate 3.00%
(SDCWA Default = 3.0%)
End Date for NPV Calculation 2112
(SDCWA Default = 2112)
RCS Capital Cost 2020 $5.0 B
(SDCWA Default = $5.0B)
RCS Annual Costs (OMRR) 2020 $140 M
(SDCWA Default = $140M)
GILLINGHAM WATER B-3 July 21, 2020
QSA Supply Cost Escalation (SDCWA Default = 2.5%)
Initial Rate Continuing Through Thereafter
2.50%2112 3.50%
Local (San Diego) Supply Assumptions (Post 2045)
(See Rate worksheet for adtl. adjustments)
Local Water Supply Cost 2020 ($/AF)$3,000
(SDCWA / BV default = $3,000/AF)
Percent Arising from Capital 60%
(IC suggested default = 60%))
Construction & Operations Escalators (defaults in blue)
Operations & Maintenance 3 3.00%
Energy 4 4.00%
Labor 3 3.00%
Major Replacements 3 3.00%
Melded OMRR (Per 3A Costs)3.68%
Construction 3 3.00%
Miscellaneous Assumptions
RCS Delivered AF 277,700
MWD's '21 & '22 Rates Baseline Yes
(If No, rates escalated from 2020 baseline)
Interest Only Until Operational Yes
Debt Term (years)40
(SDCWA default = 40 years)
Notes
Default QSA (IID and Canal supply) escalation is 2.5%, continuing for the duration of the period. The Time-out function and subsequent escalation rate inputs are additions by the IC. We recommend settings of 2134, corresponding to the date after which IID rates become subject to new terms, and 3.5%, reflecting a small discount from the default 3.7% OMRR escalation used for Tier 1 supply.
Also, we recommend the initial escalation rate be set at 1.9%, the current 20-year average of the GDP Implicit Price Deflator specified in the IID agreement as the determinant of rate escalation through 2034.
Notes
The Draft Study default is $3,000 AF in 2020 dollars. We have modified the model to recognize a percentage of the unit cost as capital and finance that over a defined term. Additional inputs are included in the Rate Forecasting worksheet.
Notes
The Draft Study defaults are as listed.
The Melded OMRR value is calculated as a weighted average of the prior escalators as applied to the dollar distribution of the RCS 3A annual costs. This melded value is used as the OMRR escalator for the portion of local supply costs not allocated to capital.
The Draft Study default for construction escalation is 3 percent. For comparison, the 20-year average of the ENR 20-Cities CCI is 3.2%.
Notes
The delivery volume is part of the original model version and is not fully functional. We recommend leaving the value set at the QSA total of 277,700 AF/yr.
The Yes/No options allow for adjustments to the MWD rate escalation baseline, and to adjust whether RCS financing is interest-only until project completion. The Draft Study defaults are as shown.
The RCS finance term can be set at 30 or 40 years. The default is 40 years.
GILLINGHAM WATER B-4 July 21, 2020
B.4. Model Outputs
The right-hand side of the dashboard displays results, in three sections.
Uppermost Section (Green/Blue chart)
The uppermost section presents a tabular summary of Net Present Value for each of the options,
and below this the same data is presented in a horizonal bar graph. We refer to the bar chart at the
Green/Blue chart. Aside from formatting modifications and the addition of the Negotiated
Exchange option, this part of the dashboard is unchanged from the original model version
provided by SDCWA.
A screenshot of this section is shown below and reflects the model results when all of the Draft
Study’s default inputs are applied.
Middle Section (Red/Black chart)
The middle section presents the NPV Annual Net Cost Differential chart, also known as the
Red/Black chart. The chart and accompanying data summaries detail the annual cost differential
between the RCS 3A project and whichever alternative is selected by the user. When the model
opens, the alternative selected is the MWD Exchange 2047 option because this is the default point
of comparison used by the Draft Study. This part of the dashboard was added by the IC.
The Red/Black chart is important because it supplements the Green/Blue chart’s depiction of total
NPV over the period of analysis with detail on how RCS costs and benefits are distributed over
time.
The period of the charted data can be truncated by adjusting downward the NPV End Date
variable in the Financial Terms input section at left.
Net Present Value Analysis (2020 Dollars)*
Supply Option
RCS 3A
MWD Exchange Ends 2047
MWD Exchange Ends 2077
MWD Exchange Ends 2112
Local Supply Alt 2048
MWD Negotiated Exchange
$37,300,000,000
$11,300,000,000
$11,000,000,000
$980/AF$7,200,000,000
$2,360/AF
$32,200,000,000 $43,200,000,000 $2,290/AF
$44,500,000,000
$18,500,000,000
$7,200,000,000
Transportation Supply
$7,200,000,000
$15,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
$26,600,000,000
$37,300,000,000
$37,300,000,000
Total
$33,800,000,000
$52,300,000,000
$51,300,000,000
Unit Cost
$1,790/AF
$2,770/AF
$2,720/AF
$34
$52
$51
$45
$43
$19
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60
RCS 3A
MWD Exchange Ends 2047
MWD Exchange Ends 2077
MWD Exchange Ends 2112
Local Supply Alt 2048
MWD Negotiated Exchange
Billions
Net Present Value Costs* (in Billions of 2020 dollars)
Transportation Supply
GILLINGHAM WATER B-5 July 21, 2020
A screenshot of this section is shown below and reflects the model results when all of the Draft
Study’s default inputs are applied.
Other key data outputs listed in this section are:
• Data windows above the chart indicate the year of Crossover from net losses to net gains, and the year of breakeven, when upfront project investments are recouped.
• Red / Black data windows below the chart indicate the cumulative net draws and returns over the period of analysis.
• Generational Cost Summary boxes below the chart indicate the net cumulative NPV cost and benefits to each of three generations.
Lower Section (Cumulative Cost Chart)
The lower section of the results area contains a chart displaying cumulative costs in 2020 dollars over time for each of the alternatives. This chart was included in the original model on another
worksheet and moved to the dashboard by the IC. A screenshot of this section is shown below
and reflects the model results when all of the Draft Study’s default inputs are applied.
NPV Annual Net Cost Differential -- RCS 3A vs. Selected Alternative (in 2020 dollars)
Total Red:-$3.6 B Total Black:$22.2 B
Gen. 1 (2020-2050)Gen. 2 (2051-2081)Gen. 3 (2082-2112)
-$2.7 B $2.0 B $19.3 B
2062 Break-even:2083Funding
Midpoint:2040 Project
Complete:2045 Crossover:
($400,000,000)
($200,000,000)
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 20402045 2050 2055 2060 2065 20702075 2080 2085 2090 20952100 2105 2110
2045
Planning,Design, Construction ProjectComplete
Selected Alternative:
GILLINGHAM WATER B-6 July 21, 2020
B.5. Instructions
1) General -- Start with the Dashboard: The RCS Dashboard worksheet provides summary
cost and economic comparisons, and the ability to easily adjust most of the key input
variables. Adjustable inputs are indicated by orange cell shading. Use these to test the sensitivity of results to changes in assumptions.
2) Intermediate User Adjustments: See the Rate Forecasting worksheet for additional user
adjustments relative to the Negotiated Exchange, Local Water, and other options. The
adjustments on this worksheet are generally less consequential than those on the Dashboard, but may be of interest to some users.
B.6. Architecture
The Spreadsheet is structured into worksheets as follows. Additional notes and instructions are
included in the main worksheets.
• Hello: Description, architecture, and general instructions
• RCS Dashboard: Main user-input and results summary page
• Rate Forecasting: Generates year-by-year costs for the non-RCS supply and transportation
options
• Cash Flows: Generates the cash-flow analysis summarized on the Dashboard.
• Other Worksheets: The worksheets to the right of the Other Worksheets tab contain
detailed cost estimates and cost scheduling data for each of the three RCS alignment
alternatives. Only Alternative 3A, the least costly of the three, is used in the Dashboard.
B.7. User Notes / Suggestions for Sensitivity Testing
We suggest new users experiment with the following sensitivity testing.
• End Date for NPV Calculation: The model opens at the default setting of 2112 as the end
date for NPV calculation. Experiment with dialing down the end date in increments. Note the
black bars truncate from right to left on the Red/Black chart, driving down RCS project
benefits.
• MWD Rate Escalation: The model opens with MWD rates escalating at 5.1 percent per
year for the full period of analysis. Experiment with timing-out the initial escalation rates, and with adjusting the initial rate for Exchange escalation downward to its 20-year average.
Escalation rates can also be dialed up. This testing demonstrates the comparison of RCS
results to MWD Exchange results to be highly sensitive to MWD rate escalation assumptions.
• Local Supply Adjustments: Adjust Local Supply unit costs on the dashboard. Also, experiment with alternative settings for QSA price escalation, perhaps setting this closer to
MWD price escalation levels. This testing demonstrates the comparison of the Local Supply
option to other options is sensitive to local supply unit costs and to QSA escalation rates.
• Negotiated Exchange Option: Experiment with alternative NPV end dates and MWD
escalation rates to test the sensitivity of the Negotiated Exchange option to changes in these
variables.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Marchioro Senior Civil Engineer
PROJECT: P2639-001102 DIV. NO. 5
APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Professional Engineering Services Agreement for design and construction support of the Vista Diego
Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Project to Murraysmith, Inc.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a professional engineering services agreement to Murraysmith, Inc. (Murraysmith) and authorize the General Manager to execute a professional engineering services agreement with Murraysmith for design and construction support of the Vista Diego Hydropneumatic
Pump Station (Vista Diego HPS) Replacement Project in an amount not-to-exceed $331,794.00 (see Exhibit A for project locations).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
professional engineering services agreement with Murraysmith for design and construction support of the Vista Diego HPS Replacement
Project in an amount not-to-exceed $331,794.00.
AGENDA ITEM 4
2
ANALYSIS:
The Vista Diego HPS Replacement Project (Project) includes a new pump station to replace the District’s existing hydropneumatic pump station.
The entire existing Vista Diego HPS is nearing the end of its useful life. The original 1966 era pump station was retrofitted with a fire
pump in the late 1980's, at which time all electrical gear was replaced and a generator was installed. The 1966 era steel hydropneumatic tank interior requires replacement due to corrosion.
The existing pump station has an ongoing water quality (entrained air) issue.
The existing Vista Diego HPS serves the 1530 Pressure Zone comprised of 6-inch and 8-inch asbestos concrete (ACP) Class 150 piping and approximately thirty-eight (38) small (3/4” to 1”) residential meters
and four (4) fire hydrants. The pressure created by the existing Vista Diego HPS exceeds the pressure class of some of the existing
distribution system piping, which will be addressed with a future CIP project. The District requires a consulting firm to provide a range of professional services, including architectural, landscaping,
hydraulic and surge modeling, potholing, survey, demolition, grading & drainage, structural, mechanical, HVAC, electrical, instrumentation
& control, cathodic protection, coatings, and constructability reviews associated with the Project.
In accordance with the Board of Directors Policy Number 21, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised on May 13, 2020 using BidSync, the District’s online bid solicitation website, and the Otay Water District’s website. The advertisements attracted Letters of Interest and Statements of Qualifications from nine (9) consulting firms. A
Pre-Proposal Meeting was held on June 3, 2020 via Zoom video online conference, which was attended by eight (8) consultants.
On July 1, 2020, proposals were received from the following six (6) consulting firms:
1. Richard Brady & Associates, Inc. (San Diego, CA)
2. Gannett Fleming, Inc. (San Marcos, CA) 3. Lee + Ro, Inc. (City of Industry, CA) 4. Murraysmith, Inc. (San Diego, CA)
5. NV5, Inc. (San Diego, CA) 6. Wood Rodgers, Inc. (San Diego, CA)
3
The following firms submitted letters of interest, but did not submit
a proposal: Carollo Engineers (San Diego, CA), Psomas (San Diego, CA), and Weston Solutions (Carlsbad, CA).
After the proposals were evaluated and ranked by a five-member review panel consisting of Engineering, Operations, and Finance staff, it
was determined that four (4) proposals ranked sufficiently close to warrant being invited to make an oral presentation and respond to questions from the panel. After conducting the interviews on
July 29, 2020 via Zoom video online conferences, the panel completed the consultant ranking process. The scores for Total Fee were added
last and the sum of the scores concluded that Murraysmith had the best approach to the project and provided the best overall value to the District. A summary of the Proposal Ranking is shown in Exhibit
B. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2639, as approved in the FY 2021 budget, is $2,800,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $2,799,794. See Attachment B for the budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that the budget for CIP P2639 is sufficient to support the Project.
The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund. GRANTS/LOANS:
Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none available for this Project, but will continue to pursue
alternative funding for this project. STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency
by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices."
4
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
JM/BK:jf
Https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/P2639 Vista Diego HPS Repl/Staff Reports/09-02-20 Staff Report Consultant Selection for Vista Diego HPS.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2639-001102
Award of a Professional Engineering Services Agreement for design and construction support of the Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Project to
Murraysmith, Inc.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 19, 2020. The Committee supported staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2639-001102
Award of a Professional Engineering Services Agreement for
design and construction support of the Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Project to
Murraysmith, Inc.
7/29/2020
Budget
2,800,000
Planning
Standard Salaries 40,000 28,967 11,033 40,000
10,000 10,000 10,000 Future As-Needed Environmental Consultant
Total Planning 50,000 28,967 21,033 50,000 Design 001102
Standard Salaries 100,000 2,751 97,249 100,000 289,368 289,368 289,368 Murraysmith
20,000 20,000 20,000 Future As-Needed Geotech Consultant10,000 10,000 10,000 Future Agency Fees
2,000 2,000 2,000 Future Reprographics
Total Design 409,368 2,751 406,617 409,368
Construction
42,426 42,426 42,426 Murraysmith1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 Future Construction Contract
76,000 76,000 76,000 Future CM @4%95,000 95,000 95,000 Future Inspection @5%
95,000 95,000 95,000 Future Staff Time @5%10,000 10,000 10,000 Future Agency Fees
15,000 15,000 15,000 Future Security System
95,000 95,000 95,000 Future Contingency @5%
Total Construction 2,328,426 - 2,328,426 2,328,426
Grand Total 2,799,794 31,718 2,768,076 2,799,794
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
p2639-Vista Diego Hydro Pump Station Repl
Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
OTAY WATER DISTRICTVista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station ReplacementLocation Map
EXHIBIT A
CIP P2639F
C:\OneDrive\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\P2639 Vista Diego HPS Repl\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A-Staff Report
!\
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTSDIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
?ò
Aä%&s
?p
?Ë
F
0 200100
Feet
SR-94 CAMPO RD
VISTA DIEGO RD
PROJECT SITE
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness
and Project
Understanding
Technical and
Management
Approach
INDIVIDUAL
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
Cost Proposal*
Consultant's
Commitment to
DBE
TOTAL -
WRITTEN
Additional
Creativity and
Insight
Strength of
Project Manager
Presentation and
Communication
Skills
Responses to
Questions
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL - ORAL
AVERAGE
TOTAL ORAL
SCORE
WITHOUT FEE
TOTAL
SCORE
30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 135 150
Poor/Good/
Excellent
Charles Mederos 21 22 24 67
Brandon DiPietro 23 20 23 66
Marissa Dychitan 23 22 22 67
Steve Beppler 21 20 20 61
Jeff Marchioro 21 19 21 61
Charles Mederos 23 23 24 70
Brandon DiPietro 23 22 24 69
Marissa Dychitan 24 23 24 71
Steve Beppler 23 19 23 65
Jeff Marchioro 22 20 23 65
Charles Mederos 26 22 24 72 886830
Brandon DiPietro 25 23 24 72 997732
Marissa Dychitan 26 24 25 75 10 12 7 7 36
Steve Beppler 25 22 25 72 995629
Jeff Marchioro 27 22 24 73 887730
Charles Mederos 25 24 26 75 10 12 8 9 39
Brandon DiPietro 26 23 25 74 13 13 9 8 43
Marissa Dychitan 27 23 25 75 14 13 9 9 45
Steve Beppler 24 21 25 70 12 13 9 8 42
Jeff Marchioro 25 22 24 71 12 13 10 10 45
Charles Mederos 27 25 26 78 11 9 9 10 39
Brandon DiPietro 28 24 27 79 15 13 9 9 46
Marissa Dychitan 28 24 28 80 14 14 9 9 46
Steve Beppler 28 22 26 76 12 12 8 7 39
Jeff Marchioro 28 21 25 74 13 12 8 8 41
Charles Mederos 27 24 25 76 11 10 8 7 36
Brandon DiPietro 27 22 26 75 12 13 7 8 40
Marissa Dychitan 26 23 27 76 11 13 8 8 40
Steve Beppler 24 22 25 71 11 11 8 8 38
Jeff Marchioro 26 21 24 71 13 13 9 8 43
Consultant Proposed Rates Score
Brady $390,784 6
Gannett Fleming $380,013 6 * Review Panel does not see or consider cost proposals when scoring other categories. The cost proposals are scored by District staff who is not on Review Panel.
Lee & Ro $225,300 15
Murraysmith $331,794 9
NV5 $431,666 3
Wood Rodgers $474,358 1
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement
WRITTEN ORAL
74
MAXIMUM POINTS
6Brady
REFERENCES
COST PROPOSAL SCORING CHART
1 Y 75
YGannett Fleming 68
73 9
NV5
Murraysmith
Y
Lee & Ro 73 Y
Y
Wood Rodgers 74
6
64 Y 70 70
74
82
42
88
43
114
77 3
Excellent
15
80 122
119
125
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
31
39
64
68
104
116
119
113
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Senior Civil Engineer
PROJECTS: R2120-001103 DIV. NO. 3
APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Unified Field Service Corporation for the Recycled Water Storage Tank Coating Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a construction contract to Unified Field Service Corporation (UFSC) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with
UFSC for the Recycled Water Tank Coating Project in an amount not-to-exceed $506,252.00 (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
construction contract with UFSC for the Recycled Water Tank Coating Project in an amount not-to-exceed $506,252.00.
AGENDA ITEM 5
2
ANALYSIS:
The Recycled Water Storage Tank is a 430,000-gallon steel tank and located at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF).
The tank has a concrete floor, welded steel shell, and a floating cover. The tank, built in 1979, has had only coating spot repairs
performed over the years, most recently in March of 2015. The District’s corrosion consultant maintains a Corrosion Control
Program (CCP) that addresses the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrosion protection systems for the District’s steel
reservoirs and buried metallic piping. The Recycled Water Storage Tank was evaluated in 2015 by HDR. Spot repairs were performed at that time, but as noted in the report, these were a temporary
solution until a more extensive coating rehabilitation could be performed. HDR recommended complete removal and replacement of the
internal and external coatings. Structural upgrades were also recommended for the overflow and drain pipe. The Project was advertised on June 24, 2020 using BidSync, the District’s online bid solicitation website, on the Otay Water
District’s website, and in the Daily Transcript. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on July 9, 2020, which was attended by five (5) contractors and vendors via an online Zoom meeting. Two (2) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period.
Bids were publicly opened online via a Zoom meeting on July 28, 2020, with the following results:
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT
1 Unified Field Services Corporation Bakersfield, CA $506,252.00
2 Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. Los Alamitos, CA $510,150.00
3 Capital Industrial Services, LLC
Huntington Beach, CA $543,975.00
4 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Alpine, CA $549,280.00
5 Paso Robles Tank, Inc. Hemet, CA $602,750.00
The Engineer's Estimate is $499,000.
This Project was bid last year along with the 850-1 Reservoir. Staff recommended to reject all bids because only two (2) bids were received and the low bid was significantly higher than the Engineer’s
3
Estimate. The bid last year was $566,700, which included an
additional $49,000 for temporary storage tanks. The tanks will not be needed for this Project since the Chapman Facility will be offline during the Recycled Forcemain AirVac Replacement Project, which is
scheduled to start at the end of the year.
Staff verified that the bid bond provided by UFSC is valid. Staff will also verify that UFSC’s Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract.
A review of the bids was performed by District staff for conformance
with the contract requirements and determined that UFSC was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. UFSC holds a Class A, General Engineering, Contractor’s License in the State of California,
which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid through December 31, 2021. The reference checks indicated a good
overall performance record on similar projects. UFSC submitted the Company Background and Company Safety Questionnaires, as required by the Contract Documents. UFSC received two (2) citations and paid a fine for one incident in 2018. The
citations were a result of an employee fall from scaffolding. As a result, UFSC updated their Safety Plan and implemented additional training. Staff also confirmed that UFSC is registered with the Department of Industrial Relations, as required by Senate Bill SB 854.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP R2120, as approved in the FY 2021 budget, is $700,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $694,532. See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail.
Based on a review of financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates the Project will be completed within the budgeted amount.
The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund.
GRANTS/LOANS:
Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none available for this Project.
4
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to
manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency
by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
KC/BK:mlw
Https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements/Staff Reports/09-02-2020, Staff Report Recycled Water Tank Coating-KC-BK .docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Project Location
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
R2120-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Unified Field Service Corporation for the Recycled Water Storage Tank Coating Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 19, 2020. The Committee supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail CIP R2120
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
R2120-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Unified Field Service Corporation for the Recycled Water Storage Tank Coating
Project
7/30/2020
Budget
700,000
Planning
Standard Salaries 1,500 968 532 1,500
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 1,550 1,018 532 1,550
Design
Standard Salaries 42,000 40,042 1,958 42,000
Service Contracts 11,371 11,371 - 11,371 PSOMAS
46 46 - 46 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION
Total Design 53,417 51,459 1,958 53,417
Construction
Standard Salaries 50,000 - 50,000 50,000
Construcion Contract 506,252 - 506,252 506,252 CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL COATINGS
Service Contracts 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20,000 - 20,000 20,000 COATING INSPECTION
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 WELDING INSPECTION
15,000 - 15,000 15,000 WATCHLIGHT
1,000 - 1,000 1,000 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS
1,500 - 1,500 1,500 CLARKSON LABORATORY
Standard Materials 500 - 500 500 STANDARD MATERIALS
Project Closeout 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 CLOSEOUT
Project Contingency 25,313 - 25,313 25,313 5% CONTINGENCY
Total Construction 639,565 - 639,565 639,565
Grand Total 694,532 52,477 642,055 694,532
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
R2120 - RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
OTAY WATER DISTRICTRALPH W. CHAPMAN WATER RECLAMATION FACILITYRECYCLED WATER STORAGE TANK COATINGLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A
CIP R2120F
C:\OneDrive\Otay Water District\ENG OPERATING - Documents\Technician\GIS\Exhibit A - Staff Report.mxd
!\
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
F
NTS
RECYCLED WATERSTORAGE TANK
0 500250
Feet
RALPH W. CHAPMAN
WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY
CAMPO RD/SR-94
C
A
M
P
O
R
D
/
S
R
-
9
4
S I N G E R LN
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Senior Civil Engineer
PROJECTS: P2533-001103 P2543-001103 DIV. NO. 3&5
APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC for the 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/ Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC (CIC) and Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with
CIC for the 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project in an amount not-to-exceed $1,443,000.00 (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with CIC for the 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project in an amount not-to-
exceed $1,443,000.00.
AGENDA ITEM 6
2
ANALYSIS:
The 850-1 Reservoir is a 1.15-million-gallon potable water storage facility that serves portions of Spring Valley. It is one of four
(4) steel tanks in the 850 Pressure Zone. The 850-1 Reservoir was originally constructed in 1959 and was last recoated on the interior
in 2003 and the exterior in 1995. The 1200-1 Reservoir is a 1.0-million-gallon potable water storage
facility that serves portions of Rancho San Diego. The 1200-1 Reservoir was originally constructed in 1994, and it has never been
recoated. It is the only storage facility in the 1200 Pressure Zone. Service in the 1200 Pressure Zone will be maintained by the new Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Pump Trailer. The trailer will be
located at the 1200-1 Pump Station site and perform as a hydropnuematic pump station to maintain water pressure in the system.
The District’s corrosion consultant maintains a Corrosion Control Program (CCP) that addresses the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrosion protection systems for the District’s steel reservoirs and buried metallic piping. The CCP included a reservoir
maintenance schedule that showed the 850-1 and the 1200-1 Reservoirs are due to be recoated on both the interior and exterior surfaces. An in-service internal and external inspection was performed by Dive/Corr, Inc., which illustrated the interior roof coating was in fair to poor condition with areas of blistering on the shell and
floor beneath the waterline. Although the blistering paint is still protecting the steel, blisters in the paint are the beginning signs of failure. The external inspections showed some of the coating in poor to fair condition and had exceeded its useful life. In addition to replacing the coatings and structural upgrades, safety items will
be installed to comply with current safety and health requirements. During construction, service in the 850 Pressure Zone will be
provided by the 850-2, 850-3, and 850-4 Reservoirs, and as previously described, service in the 1200 Pressure Zone will be maintained by the VFD Pump Trailer.
In addition to the interior and exterior coating removal/replacement,
the recommended structural upgrades are as follows: replace the existing level indicator, install new fall prevention devices on the exterior ladder, modify anode access ports, replace all cathodic
anodes, replace the roof vent, install new safety cable lanyards for roof access, and add multiple tank penetrations for chlorination and
sampling. These upgrades will ensure compliance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards for both Federal (OSHA) and State (Cal-OSHA)
as well as upgrade antiquated equipment on the tank.
3
The Project was advertised on June 16, 2020 using BidSync, the
District’s online bid solicitation website, on the Otay Water District’s website, and in the Daily Transcript. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on June 30, 2020, which was attended by ten (10) contractors
and vendors via an online Zoom meeting. Three (3) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to address questions and
clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened online via a Zoom meeting on July 9, 2020, with the following results:
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT CORRECTED BID AMOUNT
1 Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC Huntington Beach, CA $1,443,000.00
2 Unified Field Services Corporation
Bakersfield, CA $1,507,289.00 $1,507,069.00
3 Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. Los Alamitos, CA $1,550,830.00
4 Spiess Construction Co., Inc. Santa Maria, CA $1,753,785.00
5 Paso Robles Tank, Inc.
Hemet, CA $1,769,149.00
6 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Alpine, CA $2,455,200.00
The Engineer's Estimate is $1,551,000.
A review of the bids was performed by District staff for conformance with the contract requirements. During the review of the bids, staff noted that the number 2 bidder, Unified Field Services Corporation (UFSC), had a calculation error on Bid Item 3.2. The corrected bid
price is shown above. The lowest bidder, CIC, holds a Class C-33 contractor’s license as required by the contract documents. The
reference checks indicated a very good to excellent performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this
company.
On July 10, 2020, the District received a Bid Protest from Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. (AIS), which stated that both CIC and Unified Field Services Corporation should be considered non-
responsive (Exhibit B). AIS’ Bid Protest alleged that neither firm had “the 5 years practical experience and successful history in the
application of specified products to surfaces of steel structures and tanks as required in bid specifications, section 09905-1.7A1.” The
Specification 09905, Reservoir Coatings, Paragraph 1.7.A.1 provides:
4
1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 1. The CONTRACTOR shall be a California licensed Painting and Decorating Contractor (C-33 Classification) or better and shall
have a minimum of five (5) years practical experience and successful history in the application of specified products to
surfaces of steel structures and tanks. As part of the Bid Protest evaluation process, staff forwarded AIS’
Bid Protest to CIC and UFSC requesting a formal response. CIC responded on July 16, 2020 (Exhibit C), and UFSC responded on
July 30, 2020 (Exhibit D). Staff reviewed both responses and completed an evaluation of the Bid
Protests submitted by AIS. Staff determined that the submitted Bid Protest is without merit and the low bidder, CIC, has the experience
and expertise to complete the Project. In addition, CIC is currently completing a steel water tank coating for Vallecitos Water District (Vallecitos). The District has had discussions with Vallecitos’ Project Manager (PM) who stated CIC has done a good job so far with only one minor change order. The PM also stated that Vallecitos
uses a third-party coating inspector who oversees the execution of the work and ensures that the contractor follows the specifications as well as meets the strict coating requirements. As a reminder, the District also uses a third-party coating inspector. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2543, as approved in the FY 2021 budget, is $1,270,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $1,079,354. See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail.
The total budget for CIP P2533, as approved in the FY 2021 budget, is
$1,275,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $1,039,833. See Attachment B-2 for the budget detail.
Based on a review of both financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates the Project will be completed within the budgeted
amounts. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate
model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible
manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency
5
by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and
continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: Addendum No. 2 to the Contract Documents for the 850-1 & 1200-1
Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project, dated June 30, 2020, specifies the procedure for bid protests (see Exhibit E).
Section 3.3 states how a bid controversy for this Project must be
resolved. It gives the Board the right to consider the merits of any timely protests, either accept or reject the protest, and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The Board is also
entitled to reject all bids. An unsuccessful bidder may seek a writ of mandate from a state court to prevent an award to other than the
lowest responsible bidder. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1085) Section 3.3 provides as follows: RESOLUTION OF A BID CONTROVERSY
The District shall review all timely protests prior to awarding a bid. The District shall not be required to hold an administrative
hearing to consider a timely protest, but may do so at its option. At the time of the consideration of the award of the bid, the District shall also consider the merits of any timely protests. The
District may either accept the protest and award the bid to the next lowest responsible bidder or reject the protest and award to the lowest responsible bidder. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as a waiver of the District’s right to reject all bids.
KC/BK:mlw
C:\OneDrive\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\P2533 & P2543 - 1200-1 & 850-1 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Staff Reports\BD 09-02-2020 Staff Report 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoir Coating.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail – CIP P2543
Attachment B-2 – Budget Detail – CIP P2533 Exhibit A – Project Location for 850-1 & 1200-1
Reservoirs Exhibit B - Bid Protest from Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. Exhibit C – CIC’s response to Bid Protest Exhibit D - UFSC’s response to Bid Protest
Exhibit E - Addendum No. 2 to the Contract Documents
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2533-001103 P2543-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC for the 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/ Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 19, 2020. The Committee supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B-1 – Budget Detail CIP P2543
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2533-001103 P2543-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC for the 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/
Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project
7/22/2020
Budget
1,270,000
Planning
Standard Salaries 9,571 9,571 - 9,571
Service Contracts 1,850 1,850 - 1,850 HDR ENGINEERING INC
4,275 4,275 - 4,275 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC
50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 15,746 15,746 - 15,746
Design
Standard Salaries 40,000 35,695 4,305 40,000
Service Contracts 46 46 - 46 DAILY JOURNAL CORP
2,090 2,090 - 2,090 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC
Total Design 42,136 37,831 4,305 42,136
Construction
Standard Salaries 120,000 357 119,643 120,000
Construcion Contract 746,640 - 746,640 746,640 CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL COATINGS
Service Contracts 35,000 - 35,000 35,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
50,000 - 50,000 50,000 COATING INSPECTION
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 WELDING INSPECTION
20,000 - 20,000 20,000 WATCHLIGHT
1,000 - 1,000 1,000 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 CLARKSON LABORATORY
Equipment Charge 2,000 - 2,000 2,000 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
Standard Materials 500 - 500 500 STANDARD MATERIALS
Project Closeout 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 CLOSEOUT
Project Contingency 37,332 - 37,332 37,332 5% CONTINGENCY
Total Construction 1,021,472 357 1,021,115 1,021,472
Grand Total 1,079,354 53,934 1,025,420 1,079,354
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2543 - 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
ATTACHMENT B-2 – Budget Detail CIP P2533
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2533-001103 P2543-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC for the 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/
Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project
7/22/2020
Budget
1,275,000
Planning
Standard Salaries 20,000 19,038 962 20,000
Service Contracts 1,850 1,850 - 1,850 HDR ENGINEERING INC
19,255 19,255 - 19,255 HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC
50 50 - 50 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Total Planning 41,155 40,193 962 41,155
Design
Standard Salaries 30,000 7,563 22,437 30,000
Service Contracts - - - -
Total Design 30,000 7,563 22,437 30,000
Construction
Standard Salaries 120,000 - 120,000 120,000
Construcion Contract 696,360 - 696,360 696,360 CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL COATINGS
Service Contracts 35,000 - 35,000 35,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
50,000 - 50,000 50,000 COATING INSPECTION
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 WELDING INSPECTION
20,000 - 20,000 20,000 WATCHLIGHT
1,000 - 1,000 1,000 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
2,000 - 2,000 2,000 CLARKSON LABORATORY
Equipment Charge 2,000 - 2,000 2,000 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
Standard Materials 500 - 500 500 STANDARD MATERIALS
Project Closeout 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 CLOSEOUT
Project Contingency 34,818 - 34,818 34,818 5% CONTINGENCY
Total Construction 968,678 - 968,678 968,678
Grand Total 1,039,833 47,756 992,077 1,039,833
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2533 - 1200-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
OTAY WATER DISTRICT850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coating & UpgradesLocation Map
EXHIBIT A
CIP P2543
F
C:\OneDrive\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\P2533 & P2543 - 1200-1 & 850-1 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A -Staff Report.mxd
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ94
0 2,7001,350
Feet
V I S T A
HILLSDALE RD
J A M A C H A
!\
VICINITY MAP
1200-1 RES
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
850-1 RES
!\
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
FNTS
SR-94 / CAMPO RD
850-1 Reservoir
1200-1 Reservoir
JAMACHA RD
G R A N D E
RD
BLVD
CIP P2533
Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC. 312.508.5085 Main
141 East 141st Street 312.508.5087 Fax
Hammond, Indiana 46327
REFERENCES
Nick Kristobak Tom Burns
Matrix Services Phillips 66
(714)348-3274 (909)262-4439
nkristobak@matrixservice.com Tom.burns@contractor.p66.com
Mike Lemmon Graham Wendt
Calpine Corporation McDermott/CBI
(707)431-6991 (425)249-5719
mlemmon@calpine.com Graham.wendt@mcdermott.com
Mark Dawson John French
Arvin-Edison Water District Orange County Sanitation District
(661)854-5573 (714)861-2637
mdawson@aewsd.org jfrench@ocsd.com
Joel Steinberg Matt Moss
Jones Lang LaSalle FH Paschen
(312) 228-3923 (773) 444-3474
Joel.Steinberg@am.jll.com mmoss@fhpaschen.com
Atul Sumra Michael Grant
Matrix NAC Pepper Construction
(419)392-6242 (847) 343-2974
Atul.sumra@matrixnac.com mgrant@pepperconstruction.com
Thomas Chakos
Golf Construction LLC
(219) 933-3420
tomchakos@golfconstruction.net
Customer Location Job Name Approximate Value Duration
Enbridge Various Locations Tank Coatings $2,000,000 2020
Vallecitos Water District SanMarocs, CA North Twin Oaks Tank No. 1 Refurbishment $446,000 2020
Marathon Logistics Wilmington/Carson, CA Tank Coatings $200,000 2020
Arvin-Edison Water District Arvin, CA 4 Standpipe Tanks $59,000 2020
Orange County Sanitation District Huntington Beach, CA Pipelines Coating Repairs $72,000 2020
Jones Lang LaSalle Chicago, IL Old Post Office Lead Abatement - Phase 2 $12,648,000 2018-2020
Phillips 66 Los Angeles, CA Tank Painting $1,532,000 2018-2020
Pepper Construction Chicago, IL Wrigley Field Renovations Lead Abatement & Painting $10,290,000 2017-2019
IDOT Chicago, IL Various Bridge Projects $2,369,000 2019
Skyway Concession Company Chicago, IL Stony Island Ramps Cleaning & Painting $2,186,000 2019
F.H. Paschen Chicago, IL Various Bridge Projects $1,807,000 2019
Chicago Department of Transportation Chicago, IL Various Bridge Projects $1,025,000 2019
Enbridge Griffith, IN/Manhattan, IL Griffith Tank 72 & Manhattan Tank 2 $965,000 2019
Seaworld of Texas San Antonio, TX Orca Pool Refurbishment $840,000 2018-2019
Matrix Service Tacoma, WA US Oil Tank 80015 & 80020 $466,000 2018-2019
BP Whiting Refinery Whiting, IN Tanks 3611, 3614 & 3919 $510,000 2019
Calpine Middletown, CA Geysers Units $329,000 2019
Colfax Corporation Chicago, IL Old Post Office Lead Abatement $3,011,000 2017-2018
Mack Construction Chicago, IL Various IDOT and CDOT Cleaning & Painting Projects $715,000 2018
Golf Construction Chicago, IL Amtrak Parking Garage-Blasting & Painting/Other Coatings $590,000 2017-2018
CA Department of Transportation Wilmington, CA Bridge Painting $12,228,000 2015-2017
IL Department of Transportation Various Locations Bridge Painting $5,379,000 2015-2017
Shawn Claypool
Project List
2015-2020
Customer Location Job Name Approximate Value Duration
Shawn Claypool
Project List
2015-2020
Walt Disney World Orlando, FL Living Seas Water Tanks and Pool Coatings Projects $2,259,000 2015-2017
Phillips 66 Wilmington, CA /Torrence, CA Tank Painting $1,973,000 2015-2017
AES
Los Alamitos, CA/Huntington Beach,
CA/Redondo Beach, CA Maintenance Painting and Condensor Cleaning $1,711,000 2015-2017
Calpine Middletown, CA Maintenance Painting $787,000 2015-2017
Sea World San Diego, CA Pool Painting $523,000 2015-2017
Plains All American Pipeline Various Locations Tank and Maintenance Painting $515,252 2015-2017
Kinder Morgan Las Vegas, NV Tank LV554 $305,000 2015-2017
Matrix SME Various Locations Coatings Projects for Enbridge, P66, Olin, Chevron &Kinder Morgan $8,174,000 2015-2016
Southern CA Edison Mountainview, CA Maintenance Painting $433,000 2015-2016
CBI Services Martinez, CA/Honolulu, HI Shell Refinety Tank Painting and Hawaii WWTF Digester $1,873,000 2016
Ivey's Construction Kennedy Space Center, FL VAB Fire Supression Water Supply System Tank $695,000 2016
CW Roen Construction Yorba Linda, CA MWD Diemer East Filter Rehab Project $424,000 2016
NRG California Etiwanda, CA Maintenance Paitning $242,000 2016
MECCON Industries Chicago, IL Areo Chicago O'Hare NE Fuel Tank $230,000 2016
JF Shea Construction LaVerne, CA Weymouth WTP Filter Rehab Upgrades $100,000 2016
F.H. Paschen Various Locations Various Bridge Project for the CTA $3,448,000 2015
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Various Locations Bridge Painting $3,172,000 2015
BP U.S. Pipelines & Logistics Various Locations Tank Painting and Linings $2,129,000 2015
KOA Constructikon Rancho Palos Vendes, CA McCarroll Canyon Pipe $497,000 2015
Irwin Industries Carson, CA Tesoro Tank Painting $166,000 2015
Curtin Maritime Long Beach, CA Long Beach Harbor Barge Water Tanks $141,000 2015
Customer Location Project Value Year
P66 Wilmington TK 170 $145,000 2019
P66 Wilmington TK 28 $255,000 2019
P66 Wilmington 2 Tanks $110,000 2019
P66 Wilmington TK 328 $350,000 2019
P66 Wilmington TK 303 $61,000 2018
P66 Wilmington TK446 $55,000 2018
Enbridge Griffith Tank #79 $1,130,000 2018
Plains LA Basin Various TKS $475,000 2018
Valero Wilmington TK 9009 $684,000 2018
Valero Wilmington TK 9003 $280,000 2018
Marathon El Paso TK 513 $110,000 2018
Marathon El Paso TK 190 $254,000 2018
P66 Carson Waterborne Crude Tk $1,258,000 2017
CBI/ McDermott Honolulu WTP Egg Shaped Digester 1 $1,754,000 2017
CBI/ McDermott Shell Martinez WB Crude Tk - 17597 $584,000 2017
Edison Mountainview GS 2 TKS $480,000 2017
Chevron Huntington Beach TK471 $124,000 2017
Valero Wilmington TK 80001 $480,000 2017
Marathon El Paso TK 803 $480,000 2017
Enbridge Stockbridge Tank #81 $25,000 2017
Enbridge Griffith Tank #71 $750,000 2017
Enbridge Hartsdale Tank #1609 $23,000 2017
Enbridge Cushing Tanks #2231 & 2233 $2,400,000 2017
Enbridge Manhattan Tank #1 $670,000 2017
CBI/ McDermott Honolulu WTP Egg Shaped Digester 2 $1,340,000 2016
CBI/ McDermott Shell Martinez WB Crude Tk - 17596 $584,000 2016
Shell Martinez TK 537 $145,000 2016
Enbridge Patoka Tank #5350 $594,000 2016
Enbridge Cushing Tank #5351 $549,000 2016
Enbridge Griffith Tank #77 $884,000 2016
Matrix SME Flanagan Tank # 19 $1,234,000 2016
Enbridge Cushing Tank # 1453 $550,000 2016
Matrix SME Stockbridge Tanks # 84,85,& 86 $3,450,000 2016
CBI/ McDermott Shell Martinez WB Crude Tk - 17595 $584,000 2015
Shell Martinez TK 1128 $227,000 2015
Matrix Portland 5 TKS $850,000 2015
Chevron Huntington Beach TK476 $85,000 2015
Matrix SME Flanagan Tanks # 12,13,&18 $3,100,000 2015
Enbridge Flanagan 2015 Maintenance $480,000 2015
Matrix SME Flanagan Pipe Manifolds $135,000 2015
Enbridge Cushing Tank # 3334 $330,000 2015
Matrix SME Flanagan Tanks # 10,13,&16 $2,800,000 2014
Enbridge Flanagan 2014 Maintenance $420,000 2014
Matrix SME Flanagan Tanks # 11,14,&17 $2,600,000 2013
Enbridge Flanagan 2013 Maintenance $1,000,000 2013
Enbridge Superior Tank # 1 $450,000 2013
Enbridge Cushing Tank # 3013 $300,000 2012
Enbridge Cushing Tank # 3331 $240,000 2012
Enbridge Patoka Tank # 5347 $500,000 2012
Enbridge Flanagan Tank # 2 $35,000 2012
Enbridge Cushing Tanks # 1030 & 3356 $280,000 2010
Enbridge El Dorado Tank # 4155 $35,000 2010
Enbridge Cushing Tank # 2223 $160,000 2010
Enbridge Flanagan Tank # 1405 $500,000 2008
Enbridge Patoka 2 Tanks $460,000 2007
Enbridge Flanagan Tank # 1402 $650,000 2007
Tank Work Experience
Carboline
Date: July 16, 2020
To: Shawn Claypool
Vice President
Capital Industrial Coatings (CIC)
Subject: Capital Qualified Applicator for Carboline Materials – Otay Water
Reservoir Project 850-1 and 1200-1 Upgrades
Shawn,
This letter is to confirm that Capital Industrial Coatings (CIC) is an applicator in good
standing and extensive experience with the application and installation of Carboline High
Performance Coating Systems.
This includes application of our Plasite, Phenoline and Semstone Series Products as well
as 100% Solids Plural Applied Products, 100% Solids Urethane Systems such as our
Reactamine and Polyclad lines, Carboline Potable Water Systems including Carboguard
891VOC and Phenoline Tank Shield as well as both our Pyrocrete Cementitious and the
Thermo-lag intumescent Fireproofing Systems.
The current primary paint crew for Capital is the core crew that came from Industrial
Coatings and Fireproofing (ICF). This application crew has averaged 5 to 10 industrial
lining applications with Carboline systems per year for almost 10 years and has extensive
knowledge and experience with industrial coating applications.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me,
Sincerely,
Kyle J Smith | Sr. Technical Sales
NACE Certified Coatings Inspector Level III #15655
Carboline | Coatings Linings and Fireproofing
5533 Brooks St | Montclair, CA 91763
Cell: 310-944-5078 | Fax: 310-693-2630
Customer Service: 800-848-4645
Ksmith@carboline.com
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Office 661-858-8223
Class “A”, “B”, “C-33” & “C-10” Licensed Contractor
CA License # 1009928 CA DIR # 1000042614
NV License # 0083382 AZ License # 318827
RE: Protest of Award of the 850-1 and 1200-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project
(CIP P2543 & P2533). Unified Experience.
Response to AIS Letter stating that Unified does not meet the requirements listed in Section 09905 – 1.7
A 1 QUALITY ASSURACNE of the Bid Specifications:
The CONTRACTOR….. shall have a minimum of five (5) years practical experience and successful history in
the application of specified products to surfaces of steel structures and tanks.
1. Chad Johnson RME has the C-33 Classification. Please see attached license. Meets 1.7 A1
2. Please see attached work history showing five plus years of practical experience and successful
history in the application of specified products to surfaces of steel structures and tanks.
References included. Meets 1.7 A1
3. Please also summary of employees and principals for additional information. Meets 1.7 A1
4. Total continuous practical experience and successful history in the application of specified
products to surfaces of steel structures and tanks of the company principal and General A license
holder Wesley Furrh Jr. exceeds ten (10) years. Meets 1.7 A1
5. Total continuous practical experience and successful history in the application of specified
products to surfaces of steel structures and tanks of the companies C-33 License holder Chadwick
Johnson exceeds twenty (20) years. Meets 1.7 A1
Unified Field Services Background
Wesley Furrh Jr. – Unified Field Services Corporation President
Wesley Furrh Jr. was previously the principal owner of NTS Inc. a non-union General Contractor. Mr. Furrh
Jr. ceased operation of NTS Inc. in 2016 to form a union labor company Unified Field Services Corporation.
• Class A License 1009928 Unified Field Services Corporation. C-33 License. C-10 License.
• Class A License 818364 NTS Inc. Issued 3/26/2003. NTS Inc. performed C-33 work and carried that
license.
• Unified Field Services Corporation – 2015 to present. Relevant project list and references
attached.
• NTS Inc. 2003-2016. Relevant project list and references attached.
Chad Johnson – Division Manager (Resume Attached)
Shawn Davisson – Health Environmental Safety Manager (Resume Attached)
Juan Cruz – QA/QC Manager – General Foreman (Resume Attached)
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Office 661-858-8223
Class “A”, “B”, “C-33” & “C-10” Licensed Contractor
CA License # 1009928 CA DIR # 1000042614
NV License # 0083382 AZ License # 318827
Jeff Jones -Superintendent (Resume Attached)
Antonio Castaneda – Foreman (Former AIS Employee 2005 to 2018)
Unified Practical Experience
Supervisor and performed industrial coating work on the following projects detailed on the Unified project
summary among others:
• Pebble Beach Community Service District
• Las Vegas Valley Water District
• Placer County Water Authority, Loomis
• Placer County Water Authority, Rocklin
• Sacramento County Elk Grove, CA
• Fisher Tank, Stockton CA
Previous Practical Experience
AIS employee from 2005 to 2019. Foreman and Supervisor 2009 – 2019. Performed industrial blasting and
coating on interior and exterior steel tanks for multiple water districts including Cal Water, West Kern
Water, Antelope Valley, El Dorado and many others. Blasting and coating tanks, vessels, pipes, elevated
tanks, valves, concrete containments etc. Worked on PAALP, Kinder Morgan, BP Arco, Chevron Refineries,
Aera Energy, Chevron Oil, CRC, Occidental Petroleum, Conoco North Slope Alaska, BP North Slope Alaska.
Potable Water tanks, agricultural tanks, oil and gas tanks and vessels, structural steel, fuel storage tanks.
Elevated Tank Practical Experience
Worked on 2 elevated tank projects in Chico, CA in 2009. 1 elevated tank in Sacramento in 2010. 2 x
elevated tanks at Aera Energy, Dehy Twenty 2008-2010.
Qualification/Certifications
• NACE CIP Level II coating inspector
• CA Lead Worker
• Scaffold User
• Aerial Lift
• Fall Protection
• Confined Space Supervisor
• First Aid/CPR
Albert Gomez – Foreman
Unified Practical Experience
Supervisor and performed industrial coating work on the following projects detailed on the Unified project
summary among others:
• City of Livermore Potable Water Tank
• City of Livingston
• City of Delano
• Georgetown Divide Public Utility District
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Office 661-858-8223
Class “A”, “B”, “C-33” & “C-10” Licensed Contractor
CA License # 1009928 CA DIR # 1000042614
NV License # 0083382 AZ License # 318827
• Placer County Water Authority, Loomis
• Placer County Water Authority, Rocklin
• Fisher Tank, Stockton CA
Previous Practical Experience
• TRB Foreman 2016-2018. Worked as Foreman and industrial coater including a project - 3 x
elevated tank projects at Nellis Air Force Base.
• NTS Inc. Industrial blaster/painter and Foreman 2012-2016.
Qualification/Certifications
• Lead C5
• CA Lead Worker
• Scaffold User
• Aerial Lift
• Fall Protection
• Confined Space Supervisor
• OSHA 30
• First Aid/CPR
Alfonso Reyes Barajas – Journeyman Coater (Former AIS Employee 2008 to 2018)
Unified Practical Experience
Performed industrial coating work on the following projects detailed on the Unified project summary
among others.
• Pebble Beach Community Service District
• Las Vegas Valley Water District
• DWR Devil Canyon Penstock
Qualification/Certifications
• CA Lead Worker
• Scaffold User
• Aerial Lift
• Fall Protection
• Confined Space Entrant and Attendant
Noe Valadez – Journeyman Coater (Former AIS Employee 2008 to 2018)
Unified Practical Experience
Performed industrial coating work on the following projects detailed on the Unified project summary
among others.
• Pebble Beach Community Service District
• Las Vegas Valley Water District
• DWR Devil Canyon Penstock
Qualification/Certifications
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Office 661-858-8223
Class “A”, “B”, “C-33” & “C-10” Licensed Contractor
CA License # 1009928 CA DIR # 1000042614
NV License # 0083382 AZ License # 318827
• CA Lead Worker
• Scaffold User
• Aerial Lift
• Fall Protection
• Confined Space Entrant and Attendant
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__ _
Project Owner:
Pebble Beach Community Service District
3101 Forest Lake Road.
Pebble Beach, California 93953
Project Contact:
Nick Becker
nbecker@pbcsd.org
Contact Phone Number:
530.680.1618.
Project Description:
2.5MG - 115’D X 32’H Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Full Interior Coating System Applied:
Primer Coat of Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646PW applied @ 3-4 mils DFT.
Topcoat of Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Pressure Wash @ 5,000 P.S.I., SSPC SP3 and SP11.
Full Exterior Coating System Applied:
Spot Prime Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646, Full Intermediate Coat of Sherwin Williams
Macropoxy 646PW applied @ 5-10 mils DFT and Full Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane
800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$950,000.00
Project Completion:
May 2020.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__________________
Project Owner:
Las Vegas Valley Water District
1001 S. Valley View Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89153
Project Contact:
Chris Helda
Chris.Helda@lvvwd.com
Contact Phone Number:
702.218.9213.
Project Description:
1MG - 104’D X 32’H Potable Water Tank Interior Floor and Lower 3’ of Shell Re-Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Shell/Floor – Sherwin Williams Poly-Cote 115 applied @ 225-250 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Project Value:
$95,500.00
Project Completion:
May 2020.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project Owner:
Las Vegas Valley Water District
1001 S. Valley View Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89153
Project Contact:
Keith Cooper
Keith.Cooper@lvvwd.com
Contact Phone Number:
702.271.9012.
Project Description:
2MG - 104’D X 32’H Potable Water Tank Full Interior Re-Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Project Value:
$397,505.00
Project Completion:
April 2020.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__ _
Project Owner:
Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Project Contact:
Rob Reis
Rob.Reis@water.ca.gov
Contact Phone Number:
916.257.1810.
Project Description:
Phase I Penstock #1 Full Interior Coating. Project consisted of Interior Abrasive Blasting and
Coating of 2500’LF of 9.5’D Penstock on 50% Slope with access every 1000’LF.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Two Coats of Sherwin Williams Sherglass FF applied @ 25-30 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$3,000,000.00
Project Completion:
March 2020.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__ _
Project Owner:
Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Project Contact:
Moranda Dahl
Moranda.Dahl@water.ca.gov
Contact Phone Number:
916.696.1327.
Project Description:
Santa Ana Pipeline MP 419.00 Pipeline Repairs.
Scope of Work:
Install 2 each WEKO Seals and Sack and Patch Interior Deteriorated Areas of Pre-Stressed
Concrete Pipeline.
Project Value:
$51,563.00
Project Completion:
January 2020.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__ _
Project Owner:
Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Project Contact:
James Albertoni
James.Albertoni@water.ca.gov
Contact Phone Number:
916.661.2572.
Project Description:
Las Perillas Pumping Plant Unit #4 Lead Abatement.
Scope of Work:
Erect Containment and Lead Abate Unit #4 Pump Interior/Exterior, Stairs and Support Structure.
Project Value:
$106,475.00
Project Completion:
December 2019.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__ _
Project Owner:
City of Livingston
1416 “C” Street
Livingston, California 95334
Project Contact:
Noe Martinez
nmartinez@gouveiaengineering.com
Contact Phone Number:
209.648.0415.
Project Description:
1MG - 70’D X 30’H Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Pressure Wash @ 5,000 P.S.I., SSPC SP3 and SP11.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Spot Prime Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 and Full
Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$445,000.00
Project Completion:
May 2019.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__________________
Project Owner:
City of Delano
1015 Eleventh Ave.
Delano, California 93215
Project Contact:
Pedro Nunez
pnunez@cityofdelano.org
Contact Phone Number:
661.720.2256.
Project Description:
1.6MG - 110’D X 22’H Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Exterior Roof Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP-10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”
Exterior Roof Coating System Applied – Prime Coat of Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 applied
@ 5-10 mils DFT and Full Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Exterior Shell Surface Preparation – Pressure Wash @ 5,000 P.S.I., SSPC SP3 and SP11.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Spot Prime Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 applied @ 5-10
mils DFT and Full Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$950,000.00
Project Completion:
July 2018.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
__ _
Project Owner:
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District
6425 Main Street
P.O. Box 4240
Georgetown, California 95634
Project Contact:
Darrell Creeks
dacreeks@gd-pud.org
Contact Phone Number:
661.333.3456.
Project Description:
.3MG - 40’D X 32’H Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Remove and Reinstall Clearwell Baffles.
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Pressure Wash @ 5,000 P.S.I., SSPC SP3 and SP11.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Spot Prime Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 and Full
Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$172,000.00
Project Completion:
July 2018.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project General Contractor:
Paso Robles Tank
825 26th Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
Project Contact:
Desiree Brumley
dbrumley@pasoroblestank.com
Contact Phone Number:
805.423.9398.
Project Description:
Tahoe Utility District – Tahoe City CA.
110’D X 22’H 1.2MG - Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor/Columns/Roof Support Structure – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30
mils DFT (Plural Component Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Full Prime with Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 @ 5-10
mils DFT and Full Topcoat with Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$300,000.00
Project Completion:
August 2018.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project General Contractor:
Paso Robles Tank
825 26th Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
Project Contact:
Desiree Brumley
dbrumley@pasoroblestank.com
Contact Phone Number:
805.423.9398.
Project Description:
Tuolumne Utility District – Jamestown CA.
75’D X 32’H 1MG - Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Full Prime with Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 @ 5-10
mils DFT and Full Topcoat with Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$275,000.00
Project Completion:
October 2018.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project General Contractor:
Paso Robles Tank
825 26th Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
Project Contact:
Desiree Brumley
dbrumley@pasoroblestank.com
Contact Phone Number:
805.423.9398.
Project Description:
Las Valley Water District – Las Vegas NV.
60’D .5MG - Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Lower Exterior Ring Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
3’ of Shell 100% of Floor – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30 mils DFT (Plural
Component Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Spot Prime Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 and Full
Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$60,000.00
Project Completion:
May 2018.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project General Contractor:
Paso Robles Tank
825 26th Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
Project Contact:
Greg Taylor
gtaylor@pasoroblestank.com
Contact Phone Number:
805.835.5735.
Project Description:
Metropolitan Water District – La Verne CA.
48’D X 78’H 1MG - Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Full Interior – Carboline Polyclad 767 applied @ 80-100 mils DFT (Plural Component
Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Full Prime TNEMEC 94H20 Zinc @ 2-4 mils DFT, Full
Intermediate Coat of TNEMEC L140 @ 5-10 mils DFT and Full Topcoat TNEMEC 740 @ 2-4
mils DFT.
Project Value:
$650,000.00
Project Completion:
August 2019.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project General Contractor:
Paso Robles Tank
825 26th Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
Project Contact:
Desiree Brumley
dbrumley@pasoroblestank.com
Contact Phone Number:
805.423.9398.
Project Description:
City of Livermore – Livermore CA.
155’D X 32’H 4.5MG - Potable Water Tank Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor/Columns/Roof Support Structure – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30
mils DFT (Plural Component Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Full Prime with Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 @ 5-10
mils DFT and Full Topcoat with Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$450,000.00
Project Completion:
April 2020.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project General Contractor:
Paso Robles Tank
825 26th Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
Project Contact:
Desiree Brumley
dbrumley@pasoroblestank.com
Contact Phone Number:
805.423.9398.
Project Description:
County of Los Angeles – Asuza CA.
2 each 20’D X 16’H - Potable Water Tanks Full Interior and Exterior Coating.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Ceiling/1’ on to Shell – 2 Coats of Tank Clad HS applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Shell/Floor/Columns/Roof Support Structure – Sherwin Williams Sherplate PW applied @ 25-30
mils DFT (Plural Component Application).
Exterior Surface Preparation – Abrasive Blast to an SSPC SP10 “Near White Metal Blast
Cleaning”.
Exterior Coating System Applied – Full Prime with Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 @ 5-10
mils DFT and Full Topcoat with Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project Value:
$47,817.00
Project Completion:
November 2018.
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
License # 1009928
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Previous Project Experience and References
Project Owner:
Helena Chemical
7576 N. Ingram Ave. #101
Fresno, California 93711
Project Contact:
Gareth Davis
DavisG@HelenaAgri.com
Contact Phone Number:
559.285.3472.
Project’s Description:
• 6 each 35’D X 16’H Tanks. Full Interior and Exterior Coatings @ Calipatria CA.
• 2 each 85’D X 24’H Tanks. Full Interior and Exterior Coatings @ Calipatria CA.
• 2 each 35’D X 16’H Tanks. Interior Floor and 1’ of Shell Coatings @ Calipatria CA.
• 16 each 12’D X 24’H Tanks. Full Exterior Coatings @ Shafter CA.
• 1 each 63.5’D X 24’H Tanks. Full Exterior Coatings @ Hanford CA.
• 1 each 89’D X 24’H Tanks. Full Exterior Coatings @ Hanford CA.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Apply 2 Coats of Sherwin Williams Phenicon FF applied @ 16-20 mils DFT.
Full Exterior Coating System Applied:
Apply Full Prime Coat of Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646PW applied @ 5-10 mils DFT and Full Topcoat
Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project’s Value:
>$2,000,000.00
Projects Completed:
2010-2015.
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
License # 1009928
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project Owner:
California Resources Company
28590 Highway 119
Tupman, California 93276-1001
Project Contacts:
Gerardo Parra
Gerardo.Parra@CRC.com
Phone – 661.695.1051.
Ken Tack
Ken.Tack@CRC.com
Phone – 661.333.9691.
John Goldman
John.Goldman@CRC.com
Phone – 661.332.0386.
Project’s Description:
• 18 each 60’D X 32’H Tanks. Full Exterior Coatings @ 18G Taft CA.
• 6 each 60’D X 32’H Tanks. Full Interior Coatings @ 18G Taft CA.
• 2 each 30’L X 12’D NutShell Filter Vessels. Full Interior Coatings @ 18G Taft CA.
• 1 each 200’D X 40’H Tank. Full Interior and Exterior Coating @ 23S Taft CA.
• 4 each 60’D X 24’H Tank. Full Interior and Exterior Coatings @ 23Z McKittrick CA.
• NTS Inc. has completed many Vessel, Tank and Pipeline Coating application for CRC throughout
the years.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Various Coatings Applied all of which are Plural Component Applied.
Full Exterior Coating System Applied:
Apply Full Prime Coat of Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646PW applied @ 5-10 mils DFT and Full Topcoat
Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
Project’s Value:
>$10,000,000.00
Projects Completed:
2010-2015.
California License # 1009928
California DIR # 1000042614
Nevada License # 0083382
Arizona License # 318827
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class A, B, C-33 and C-10 Licensed Contractor
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project Owner:
California Resources Company
28590 Highway 119
Tupman, California 93276-1001
Project Contact:
Gerardo Parra
Gerardo.Parra@CRC.com
Phone – 661.695.1051.
Ken Tack
Ken.Tack@CRC.com
Phone – 661.333.9691.
John Goldman
John.Goldman@CRC.com
Phone – 661.332.0386.
Project’s Description:
• 4 each 60’D X 32’H Tanks. Full Interior Coatings @ 18G Taft CA.
• 3 each 12’D X 80’L FWKO Vessels. Full Interior Coatings @ 18G Taft CA.
• 3 each 60’D X 24’H Tanks. Full Interior Coatings @ MT. Poso CA.
• 1 each 60’D X 24’H Tank. Full Interior Coating @ North Antelope CA.
• 3 each 60’D X 24’H Tank. Full Interior Coatings @ Mt. Poso CA.
• EPC roof and rafter replacement on 18G T5-1. Taft CA.
• EPC of the Mt Poso 40’D x 32’H welded tank. MT. Poso CA.
Scope of Work:
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied:
Various Coatings Applied all of which are Plural Component Applied.
Full Exterior Coating System Applied:
Apply Full Prime Coat of Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646PW applied @ 5-10 mils DFT and
Full Topcoat Sherwin & Williams Sherloxane 800 applied @ 6-8 mils DFT.
EPC roof and rafter replacement on 18G T5-1. UFSC provided the engineering services,
demolition of existing, procurement, fabrication and installation for the 60 ft. diameter roof & rafter
replacement safely and on time.
EPC of the Mt Poso 40ft. x 32ft. welded tank. This includes the engineering, procurement,
fabrication and install of the above-mentioned tank. UFSC was responsible for the grading and
foundation installation for this project as well. All projects were completed safely and on time.
Project’s Value:
>$5,000,000.00
Projects Completed:
2016-Current.
Unified Field Services Corporation
6906 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield CA. 93308
Class “A”, “C-33” and C-10 Licensed Contractor
License # 1009928
SSPC QP-1 and QP-2 Certified Company
Project Owner:
Anderson Burton
Project Contact:
Greg McMahon
Contact Phone Number:
805.422.1057
Project’s Description:
4 each elevated Tanks – 125’D x 32’H – 150’ elevation.
Full Interior and Exterior Coatings @ Nellis Air Force Base, NV.
Scope of Work:
Lead Abatement
Interior Surface Preparation – SSPC SP 5 “White Metal Blast Cleaning”.
Interior Coating System Applied.
Full Exterior Coating System Applied.
Project’s Value:
> 2million
Projects Completed:
2015-2017
Material Supplier (Paint) – Manhattan Beach Elevated Tank
Vendor
Tnemec
417 Weber Ave.
Compton, CA 90222
Contact
Tony Hobbs
Contact Information
310.804.2326
310.637.2363
thobbs@tnemec.com
Chad J.
Chadwick
7109 BANDOLERO WAY, BAKERSFIELD, CA
93308
(661) 805-8516
CHAD_JOHNSON@UFSC.US
Over 26 years of progressive experience in Field Operations, Shop Operations, Project Management, Regional
Management, Division Management and Sales. Demonstrated ability to effectively and safely estimate, plan,
coordinate, and meet deadlines of multiple projects. Detail oriented with strong organizational skills. A
talent for working well individually and in a team environment, with the proven ability to achieve goals and
contribute to overall company objectives.
Experience
2017 - CURRENT
Division Manager/RME – Unified Field Services Corporation Bakersfield CA.
▪ Manage the Industrial Coating Division for Unified Field Services Corporation.
▪ RME – Responsible Managing Employee.
▪ Holds California Contractors License with C-33 Classification.
▪ Responsible for purchasing all Safety Equipment.
▪ Responsible for keeping employee Safety Training current.
▪ Estimate all projects for Division.
▪ Responsible for invoicing of projects.
▪ Responsible for cost tracking for projects.
▪ Manage over 50 employees.
▪ Schedule all employees and projects.
2015-2016
Secretary/Division Manager – TRB Coating & Construction Bakersfield, CA.
▪ Started the Industrial Coating Company for TRB Oilfield Services.
▪ RMO – Responsible Managing Officer.
▪ Holds California Contractors License with C-33 Classification.
▪ Responsible for purchasing all Safety Equipment.
▪ Responsible for keeping employee Safety Training current.
▪ Estimate all projects for Division.
▪ Responsible for invoicing of projects.
▪ Responsible for cost tracking for projects.
▪ Manage over 20 employees.
▪ Schedule all employees and projects.
▪ Coordinate all materials and equipment ordering and scheduling.
2010-2015
Division Manager – NTS Inc. Bakersfield CA.
▪ Manage the Industrial Coating Division for Unified Field Services Corporation.
▪ Responsible for purchasing all Safety Equipment.
▪ Responsible for keeping employee Safety Training current.
2
▪ Estimate all projects for Division.
▪ Responsible for invoicing of projects.
▪ Responsible for cost tracking for projects.
▪ Manage 50-100 employees.
▪ Schedule all employees and projects
2007-2010
California Regional Manager – Dunkin and Bush Inc. Redmond Washington.
▪ Assisting customers with project job walks, estimation, and execution plans.
▪ Managing project schedules, manpower distribution, and material/equipment allocation.
▪ Assigning project binders which include: Safe Work Plans, Fall Protection Plans, Budgets, Scope of Work,
Product Data/MSDS, and Employee Training Records.
▪ Utilizing Microsoft Project for streamlining of project execution.
▪ Performing estimation, managerial duties, scheduling and invoicing for all projects within California.
▪ Performing safety meetings and site visits with Project Engineers/Coordinators.
▪ Performing non-routine coating inspection services on an as needed basis.
▪ Managing an Abrasive Blasting, Coating and Lining shop and field operations.
2002-2007
Superintendent – Dunkin and Bush Inc. Redmond Washington.
▪ Mobilization of equipment, materials and job specific site set up.
▪ Supervised all day-to-day operations and project execution for 20+ personnel working on multiple projects.
▪ Responsible for overseeing Safety Measures, Budgets, Scheduling, and Materials.
▪ Supervision of field crews in industries including but not limited to Pulp-Paper Mills, Refineries, Oil Fields,
Food Processing and Utilities.
2000-2002
Foreman – Dunkin and Bush Inc. Redmond Washington.
▪ Supervised 2-20-person crews to ensure execution of Safety, Quality and Production.
▪ Daily Time & Materials Sheets, Daily Control Reporting and Quality Assurance.
▪ Application of exotic, plural component and conventional linings and coatings including sprayed in place
polyurethane foam insulation / roofing.
1995-2002
Laborer/Blaster/Painter – Dunkin and Bush Inc. Redmond Washington.
▪ Performed abrasive blasting and applied linings / coatings for various projects.
▪ Mobilized supplies for shop and field projects.
▪ Equipment repair and maintenance in shop and field
Skills
▪ Project Management
▪ Estimating
▪ Sales & Customer Relations
▪ Strong Verbal & Written Communication
▪ Analytical and Problem-Solving Skills
▪ Proficient in Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, and Project
3
Certifications
CURRENT
NACE – National Association of Corrosion Engineers Member.
SSPC – Society for Protective Coatings Member.
▪ NACE CIP Level 1 and 2 Certified Coating Inspector NACE #15647.
▪ SSPC Certified QSC (Quality Control Supervisor).
▪ SSPC C-3/C5 Competent Person Training for Deleading of Industrial Structures.
▪ DOT Operator Qualification (O.Q.) and Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC).
Industries Served
▪ Oil Production – Tank and Pipeline Coatings.
▪ Refining – Tank, Pipe and Systems Coatings.
▪ Hydro Electric – Dam Spillway and Penstock Coatings.
▪ Transportation – Bridge Coatings.
▪ Water (Potable/Non-Potable) – Ground Storage/Elevated Tanks and Pipeline Coatings.
▪ Food Processing – Tanks, Floor and Machinery Coatings.
▪ Pulp and Paper – Tanks, Pipe, Floor and Machinery Coatings.
Client References
▪ James Albertoni – Department of Water Resources – 916.661.2572. – 1416 9th Street, Sacramento,
California 95814.
▪ Moranda Dahl – Department of Water Resources – 916.696.1327. – 1416 9th Street, Sacramento,
California 95814.
▪ Rob Reis – Department of Water Resources – 916.257.4740. – 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California
95814.
▪ Richard Horn – Site Constructors Inc. – 530.518.3684. – 55 Independence Circle, Chico, California
95973.
▪ Gerardo Parra – California Resources Corporation – 661.695.1051. – 28590 Highway 119 Tupman,
California 93276-1001.
▪ Ken Tack – California Resources Corporation – 661.333.9691. – 28590 Highway 119 Tupman, California
93276-1001.
Jeffrey T.
Jones
40231 92nd Street West
Leona Valley, Ca, 93551
(661) 267-2728
Jeff_Jones@UFSC.US
Over 26 years of experience in Field Operations, Shop Operations, and Project Management in abrasive
blasting and coatings in the storage tank industry. Demonstrate the ability to ensure the execution of Safety,
Quality, and Production and meet deadlines of multiple projects.
Experience
2018 - CURRENT
Project Manager/Superintendent – Unified Field Services Corporation Bakersfield CA.
▪ Project management/Field Operations on multiple projects (Water and Oil)
▪ Responsible for coordinating Materials and equipment
▪ Responsible for keeping employee Safety Training current.
▪ Responsible for scheduling employees and projects.
▪ Perform Job walks for future work, Planning, Estimating Projects
▪ Perform site visits and Audits
2015-2017
Project Manager – Blastco Inc. Downey, Ca.
▪ Project management on multiple Water Tank Projects
▪ Responsible for keeping employee Safety Training current.
▪ Manage over 20 field employees.
▪ Schedule employees and projects.
▪ Coordinate all materials and equipment ordering and scheduling.
▪ Perform site visits and Job Safety Audits
2003-2015
Superintendent – CB&I San Luis Obispo, Ca.
▪ Assisting customers with project job walks, estimation, and execution plans.
▪ Managing project schedules, manpower distribution, and material/equipment allocation.
▪ Assigning project binders which include: Safe Work Plans, Fall Protection Plans, Budgets, Scope of Work,
Product Data/MSDS, and Employee Training Records.
▪ Performing safety meetings and site visits
▪ Mobilization of equipment, materials and job specific site set up.
▪ Supervised all day-to-day operations and project execution for 20+ personnel working on multiple projects.
▪ Responsible for overseeing Safety Measures, Budgets, Scheduling, and Materials.
▪ Supervision of field crews in industries including but not limited to Potable Water Tanks, Refineries, Oil
Fields.
▪ Work performed in Ca, Az, Nv, HI, Wash, Or, Mont, Wy, Nm
2
1995-2003
Foreman – CB&I San Luis Obispo, Ca.
▪ Supervised a 4 to 10-person crew for the sand blasting and coatings on Potable/Non Potable Water Tanks,
TES Tanks, Fuel, Gas, & Liquid Nitrogen Tanks, and Spheres ranging from 20,000Gal. to 18Mg Gals. and as
tall as 140’HT.
▪ Scheduling of Fuel, Paint, Sand & other necessary supplies.
▪ Daily Time & Materials Sheets, Daily Control Reporting and Quality Assurance.
▪ Application of plural component and conventional linings and coatings
▪ Communicate with 3rd party inspectors and clients
1993-1994
Laborer/Blaster/Painter – Trusco Tank/CB&I
▪ Performed abrasive blasting and applied linings / coatings for various projects.
▪ Mobilized supplies for shop and field projects.
▪ Equipment repair and maintenance in shop and field
Skills
▪ Project Management/Field Operations
▪ Customer Relations
▪ Strong Verbal & Written Communication
▪ Analytical and Problem-Solving Skills
Certifications
CURRENT
▪ NACE CIP Level 1Certified Coating Inspector.
▪ SSPC Certified QSC (Quality Control Supervisor).
▪ SSPC C-3/C5 Competent Person Training for Deleading of Industrial Structures.
▪ First Aid/CPR
▪ Trained operator for Forklifts, Man Lifts, Scissor Lifts, Bobcat
▪ Safety Training-OSHA 10, Fall Protection, Confined Space, Respiratory Protection, Scaffolding competent
person, Slings & Rigging, Bloodborne Pathogens, Workplace Harassment
Industries Served
▪ Oil Production – Tanks, Vessels, and Pipeline Coatings.
▪ Refining – Tank, Pipe & Sphere Coatings.
▪ Water (Potable/Non-Potable) – Ground Storage/Elevated Tanks and Pipeline Coatings.
SHAWN DAVISSON
Cell (661) 331-1915
s.davisson@outlook.com
_____________________________________________Career Focus_______________________________________________
Driven individual with a diverse skill set, strong work ethic and results driven mentality. Strong
ability to work within teams and multi-task projects under strict deadlines while exceeding team
and company goals.
____________________________________________Accomplishments______________________________________
• OQSG and MEA OQ Evaluator and Administrator
• Competent Person for Scaffold Erection, Dismantle and Inspection
• SSPC C-5 Supervisor/Competent person refresher training for deleading of industrial structures
• OSHA 510
• OSHA 30 Construction Industry
• First Aid/CPR
• B-Best observer of the month 07/2011 - KSI
• Package Handler of the month 07/2008 – Fed-Ex
_________________________________________________Education________________________________________________
Workers’ Compensation Law Certificate, 2019
California State University, Bakersfield – Bakersfield, CA
Safety and Risk Management Certificate, 2014
California State University, Bakersfield – Bakersfield, CA
Bachelor of Arts: Criminal Justice, 2012
California State University, Chico – Chico, CA
Associates of Arts Degree: Liberal Arts, 2010
Taft College – Taft, CA
________________________________________Professional Experience_______________________________________
Health Environment and Safety Manager June 2016 - Current
Unified Field Services Corporation – Bakersfield, CA
• Develop, implement and enforcement of safety program from office to field.
• Oversee safety aspects of small and large bore pipelines, facility constructions, large civil
projects, confined space entries plus many more projects.
• Develop project specific job safety plans.
• Coach, mentor and intervene as required when at risk situations arise.
• Manage OQ program.
• OQSG and MEA OQ evaluator.
• Extensive experience in incident and near-miss investigations and implementing corrective
measures as needed.
• Conduct weekly safety meetings and daily tailgate meetings.
• Perform daily jobsite audits to ensure compliance with OSHA standards and company
policies.
• Conduct company and client orientation for all employees.
• Investigate all incidents, near miss and stop work authorities as needed.
Safety Lead and Rescue Specialist, Blaster and Painter, March 2016 to June 2016
TRB Oilfield Services – Bakersfield, CA
• Inspected above and underground pipelines, vessels, valves and tanks for physical damage
and corrosion.
• Surface prepped and coated tanks, elevated tanks, vessels and piping.
• Confirm weather conditions were in line with the product data sheets prior coating.
• Inspect and set up sand blasting and coating equipment.
• Ensure the breathing box is calibrated and in good working condition.
• Participated in the BBS Program.
• Worked on elevated water tanks at Nellis AFB
Safety Representative, May 2012 to March 2016
NTS Inc. – Taft, CA
• Implementation and enforcement of safety program from office to field.
• Oversee safety aspects of small and large bore pipelines, facility constructions, large civil
projects, confined space entries plus many more projects.
• Build and develop safety program and culture during its successful growth from 200 employees
to 900 employees.
• Helped develop and implement a new excavation process, which has been viewed as the best in
the industry.
• Extensive experience in incident and near-miss investigations, and implementing corrective
measures as needed.
• Managed the H2S and Quad Monitor program including scheduling, logistics and calibration of
monitors.
• Instructor of written and hands on training for reach lifts, backhoes, aerial lifts, side booms,
confined space and fall protection.
• Performed daily jobsite audits to ensure compliance with OSHA regulations and company
policies.
• Gave weekly safety meetings and daily tailgate meetings.
• Trained employees in proper use of PPE.
• Coached employees how to identify at-risk behaviors through the Behavioral Based Safety
Program.
• Managed the USA Program. Marked out lines and communicated with line finders from
different utilities.
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/P2533 & P2543 - 1200-1 & 850-1 Reservoir Int-Ext
Coating/Design/Bid Phase/Addendum/Addendum No2/Addendum No 2.doc
1
ADDENDUM NO. 2
TO THE
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE
850-1 & 1200-1 RESERVOIR INTERIOR/EXTERIOR COATING & UPGRADES
(CIP P2543 & P2533)
June 30, 2020
TO: ALL PLANHOLDERS
FROM: OTAY WATER DISTRICT, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
The following modifications, additions and/or deletions are made a part of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS for the construction of the 850-1 & 1200-1 RESERVOIRS INTERIOR/ EXTERIOR COATING &UPGRADES (CIP P2543 & P2533) project issued fully and completely as if same were set forth therein:
1.The meeting minutes, presentation, and screenshot of attendees from the non-
mandatory pre-bid meeting held on June 30, 2020 are attached hereto.
2.PART 1 - BIDDING AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 00100 INSTRUCTIONS
TO BIDDERS
a. Add the following paragraphs:
32.FILING A BID PROTEST
Bidding procedures, bidder selection, and subsequent bidder protest or appeals will be
conducted in accordance with applicable local, state and federal procurement
regulations and protest procedures established by the District.
Within ten (10) calendar days after the opening of proposals, the District will issue a
“Notice of Apparent Low Bidder” to the lowest responsive and responsible Bidder in
accordance with the Contract Documents. Any protest of the proposed award of the bid
to the bidder deemed the lowest responsible bidder must be submitted in writing to the
District at 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley, CA 91978 no later than ten
(10)days from the posting of the “Notice of Apparent Low Bidder”.
The initial protest must contain a complete statement of the basis for the protest. The
protest must state the facts and refer to the specific portion of the document or the
specific statute that forms the basis for the protest. The protest must include the name,
address and telephone number of the person representing the protesting party.
A subcontractor of a party filing bid on this project may not submit a bid protest. A party
may rely on the bid protest submitted by another bidder but must timely pursue its own
protest.
The procedure and time limits set forth in this policy are mandatory and are the
bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of a bid protest. The bidder’s failure to
fully comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of any right to further
pursue a bid protest.
EXHIBIT E
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/P2533 & P2543 - 1200-1 & 850-1 Reservoir Int-Ext
Coating/Design/Bid Phase/Addendum/Addendum No2/Addendum No 2.doc 2
33. RESOLUTION OF A BID CONTROVERSY
The District shall review all timely protests prior to awarding a bid. The District shall not
be required to hold an administrative hearing to consider a timely protest but may do so
at its option. At the time of the consideration of the award of the bid, the District shall
also consider the merits of any timely protests. The District may either accept the
protest and award the bid to the next lowest responsible bidder or reject the protest
and award to the lowest responsible bidder. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as
a waiver of the District’s right to reject all bids.
3. PART 5, APPENDIX, ADD 1200-1 RESERVOIR DIVE REPORT by DIVE/CORR
Dated March 27, 2017 attached hereto.
Each Bidder shall acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this addendum by inserting the
addendum number in the space provided in Part 2, CONTRACT FORMS, SECTION 00400,
BID PROPOSAL (FORM A), ADDENDA, Page 00400-2.
Sincerely, OTAY WATER DISTRICT
By: ____________________________________
Kevin Cameron, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: June 30, 2020
1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PRE-BID MEETING SUMMARY 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoir Interior/ Exterior Coating & Upgrades
CIP: P2543 & P2533 Date: June 30, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. Location: Virtual Meeting via Zoom Attendees: See attached attendee list
These minutes summarize the substantive items discussed or issues resolved at the meeting to the best of the writer’s memory. If the recipients understand differently, please notify the writer as soon as possible so corrections can be made.
Minutes Prepared by: B. Separa 1. Introductions by Kevin Cameron of Otay Water District 2. Project Description
850-1 (1MG) Reservoir
Steel Reservoir built in 1959.
○ Diameter = 70 feet. ○ Height = 40 feet to the bottom of the knuckle.
Exterior Coating ○ Last coated in 2003 ○ Complete Coating Removal and Replacement; Roof & Shell.
Interior Coating ○ Last Coated in 2003
○ Complete Coating Removal and Replacement; Roof, Shell, & Floor.
New Cathodic Sacrificial Anodes and Reference Cells
○ District will connect after coating warranty expires (2 years)
Structural Upgrades
○ Roof Vent, D-rings, Lanyard Cables, Tank Penetrations, Water Level Indicator, Interior Roof Rafters, Outer Rafter and Shell Connection, Safety Climb Cable, and Tension Bar Replacement.
2
1200-1 (1MG) Reservoir
Steel Reservoir built in 1994.
○ Diameter = 73 feet. ○ Height = 32 feet to the bottom of the knuckle.
Exterior Coating ○ Complete Coating Removal and Replacement; Roof & Shell.
Interior Coating ○ Complete Coating Removal and Replacement; Roof, Shell, & Floor.
New Cathodic Sacrificial Anodes and Reference Cells ○ District will connect after coating warranty expires (2 years)
Structural Upgrades ○ Roof Vent, D-Rings and Lanyard Cables, Tank Penetrations, Water Level Indicator, Rafter and Shell Connection, Tension Bar Replacement, Safety Climb Cable, and all other work. 3. Items of Concern
Coordination with District
• Draining: Performed by OWD Operations Staff. ○ Coating procedures at one tank at a time ○ Contractor will be responsible for removing up to the last 2 feet of water
and silt debris.
• Inspection ○ General Inspection: OWD Inspection Staff ○ Coating Inspection: Third party coating inspections - Surface Preparation & Coating Inspection Full-time.
Cellular & Telemetry Equipment
• Equipment will removed and replaced by the District.
Noise & Dust Control
• Noise levels cannot exceed 65db at 100 ft. away, Residents are in close proximity to both Tanks.
• Complete containment.
Proper disposal of all materials.
Contract Duration: 240 Calendar Days. NTP Planned for November 2, 2020.
Both Tanks are within gated communities
Site visits can be scheduled
Contact Kevin Cameron at kcameron@otaywater.gov
Limit one person per visit
3
Both locations will need access for District Staff. 4. District Standards
• Project specifications and the bid packet are available as part of the Contract Documents.
• OWD considers the empty tank a Full Permit Confined Space.
• The District follows the San Diego Water Agencies’ Standards. The Standard Specifications and Design Guidelines can be found on their website at www.sdwas.com.
• Plans & Plan Holder’s List available at www.bidsync.com 5. Bid Requirements
• The Contractor shall complete Forms A-H per the Bidders Checklist on 00300-1.
o Bid Proposal (Form A) o Bid Bond or other Security (Form B) o Noncollusion Affidavit (Form C)
o Contractors License Affidavit (Form D) o List of Subcontractors\Subconsultants (Form E) o List of References (Form F)
o Company Background Questionnaire (Form G) o Company Safety Questionnaire (Form H)
• The Contractor shall have a minimum of 5 years experience in coating steel tanks o Valid Class A or C-33 License Required
o Valid SSPC-QP1 Certificate Required with Bid • All Consultants, Sub-Consultants and Sub-Contractors shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations per Senate Bill SB854. The District cannot accept proposals if the Contractor or their Sub’s are not registered.
Requests for Information will be accepted up to Monday, July 6, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Bid Opening: July 9, 2020 @ 4:00 pm.
Questions, Answers, and Comments: 1. Question: When is the last day for RFIs?
Answer: Monday, July 6th by 12:00p.m.
2. Question: What are the working hours?
Answer: 7am-4pm. Hours may have to be adjusted if complaints are received from nearby residents, which would change the start time to 8 am.
3. Question: What are the liquidated damages? Answer: Liquidated damages are $2,000 per calendar day.
4
4. Question: Is there power and water available on site? Answer: Power is not available at either site. The contractor will need to provide
their own power. Water will be available through a “Class D” temporary meter off the nearest fire hydrant. Refer to Section 01510 Temporary Construction Facilities. The contractor will be responsible for paying the construction meter deposit, which will be
refunded after the meter is returned to the District. Fees for installation and removal will be deducted from the contractor’s deposit. Currently, the meter deposit is $2,046 and the installation/removal $150.
5. Question: Our bonding company is out of Illinois and are qualified to bond in CA. Does the attorney in fact for the surety need to be a resident agent of CA? Answer: The attorney in fact does not have to be a resident agent of CA. The requirement relating to California is that the bonding company must be licensed to
bond in California. 6. Question: Can the contractor install a door sheet?
Answer: A door sheet will be allowed if the following criteria is met: - Provide a Full Submittal stamped by a Civil or Structural Engineer licensed in California. Submittals shall include details for stiffening,
removal, and replacement. - Once the door sheet has been reinstalled, 100% of welds shall be radiographed per API-650. If defects are found, the weld shall be
repaired, and the repair weld shall be 100% radiographed. Radiograph shall be paid for by the contractor, and the results shall be submitted to the District. - OSHA has determined that even with a door sheet, if a hazardous environment exists, ie. welding, blasting, painting, or oxygen deficient atmosphere, the tank is considered a confined space. Air monitors shall be required at all times.
7. Question: Is there a plan holder’s list? Answer: The vendor viewed list is available on Bidsync and on the Otay Water District’s website.
8. Question: Is there a separate bid item for dehumidification? Answer: No, dehumidification is part of the Coating Removal and Coating Application
bid item. Refer to Section 09865 Surface Preparation and Section 09905 Reservoir Coating.
cc: Attendees C:\OneDrive\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\P2533 & P2543 - 1200-1 & 850-1 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Design\Bid Phase\Pre-Bid Meeting\Pre-Bid Mtg Minutes 06-30-20.doc
June 30, 2020
9:00 am
Project Manager: Kevin Cameron, P.E.
619-670-2248
kcameron@otaywater.gov
Burris Dr
Aerial View: 850-1 Site
850-1 Res
Pointe
Hydro-PS
Aerial View: 1200-1
1200-1
Project Description 850-1
850-1 Reservoir (1.15 MG) built in 1959
Dimensions: Height = 40’, Diameter = 70’
Complete Interior and Exterior Removal and Recoating
New Cathodic Sacrificial Anodes & Reference Cells
○District will connect after coating warranty expires (2 years)
Structural Upgrades
○Roof Vent, D-Rings and Lanyard Cables, Tank Penetrations, Water Level Indicator, Interior Roof Rafters, Outer Rafter and Shell Connection, Tension Bar Replacement, Safety Climb Cable, and all other work.
Project Description
1200-1 Reservoir (1.0 MG) built in 1994
Dimensions: Height = 32’, Diameter = 73’
Complete Interior and Exterior Removal and Recoating
New Cathodic Sacrificial Anodes & Reference Cells
○District will connect after coating warranty expires (2 years)
Structural Upgrades
○Roof Vent, D-Rings and Lanyard Cables, Tank Penetrations, Water Level Indicator, Rafter and Shell Connection, Tension Bar Replacement, Safety Climb Cable, and all other work.
Major Items/Concerns
Coordination with District
Draining: OWD Operations Staff
Contractor will be responsible for removing up to the last
2 feet of water and silt debris.
Tanks: Coating procedures at one tank at a time
Cellular equipment to be removed & replaced by others
Inspection
○OWD –General Inspection
○Third Party Coating Inspection Full-Time
Noise & Dust Control
Complete Containment
Noise Levels Cannot Exceed 65db at 100 ft away,
Residents are in close proximity to both Tanks.
Major Items/Concerns
Contract Duration:
240 Calendar Days
Planned NTP on November 2, 2020
Proper Disposal of all Materials. Contractor to
provide test for interior and exterior paint.
Both Tanks are within gated communities
Site visits can be scheduled
Contact Kevin Cameron at kcameron@otaywater.gov
Limit one person per visit
Both Locations will need access for Staff during
construction
District Standards
Project Specifications
Water Agencies’ Standards
www.sdwas.com
BidSync
www.bidsync.com
Specifications
Bid Requirements
Complete Forms A-H (per Bidders Checklist (00300-1)
Bid Proposal (Form A)
Bid Bond or other Security (Form B)
Noncollusion Affidavit (Form C)
Contractors License Affidavit (Form D)
List of Subcontractors/Subconsultants (Form E)
List of References (Form F)
Company Background Questionnaire (Form G)
Company Safety Questionnaire (Form H)
The Contractor shall have a minimum of 5 years
experience in coating steel tanks
License: Valid Class A or C-33
SSPC-QP1 Certificate Required with Bid
Bid Requirements –Cont.
All Consultants, Sub-Consultants and
Sub-Contractors shall be registered with
the Department of Industrial Relations per
Senate Bill SB854. The District cannot
accept proposals if the Contractor or their
Sub’s are not registered.
Electronic Bids Due: July 9th @ 4 PM
On Bidsync Website
Questions?
Questions will be accepted up to
Monday, July 6, 12:00 p.m.
DIVE ICORR lNc.t
{)
(l
t)
lndustrial Photography & lnspection Seruices
P, O. BOX 30427 . IONG BEACH, CA 90853 . OFFTCE (5ó2) 439-8287 . FAX (5ó2) 438-7t5t
OTAY WATER
DISTRICT
MARCH 27. 2077
RESERVOIR L¿OO-I
INSPECTOR. DAN GROSS
SUPERVISOR. MR. KEVIN CAMERON
DIVE ICORR lNc.I/l
lndustrial Photography & lnspection Seruices
P. O. BOX 30427 . LONG BEACH, CA 90853 . OFFTCE (5ó2) 439-8287 . FAX (5ó2) 43E-7151
TAIIK INSPECTTON REPORT
BRÏEF
AGENCY Otay Water Dist,rict
SUPERVTSOR Mr. Kevin Cameron
STZE 1.00 MG
DTVER Dan Gross
LADDER Yes / fnt. -Yes -Ext
General Survey
FABRICATOR
CONTRACT #
YEAR BUTLT
HEIGHT STATED
VüÏDTH
STZF'
DATE TNSPEcTED ol /zt /tt
TANK NAME _L200-LHATCH South
DATE BUILT_L959
TENDER F Echandi
CP Sacrificial
LAST ]NSPECTED NA
RESERVOTR #L200-1
THE NTIMBERS SHOWN BEIJOW REFLECT THE REPORT WHEN VIEWED IN
CEIiTTERFOLD MODE. A COLOR VIDEO AIJSO ACCOMPA}TIES THTS REPORT.
13-l-6)Reservoir 1200-1 - This is an above ground steel
reservoir three plate courses plus a knuckle course taIl.
The lowest course is referred to as course #f. This is
the only t,ank on the sit,e.
17-r_B)Tank stamp - the nameplate is above the round manway
shown in photograph (#19).
TRUSCO TANK
770
]-994
33.5 |
73.0'
1.0 MG
Le-s0)The exterior wall coating is in good to fair condition.
Coating chalking is heavy. Some corrosion is noted along
t.he floor plat.e extension (#47) .
The overflow is external and exits through course #g(#2L). The drain is adjacent to the overflow and exits
through the floor. The inlet/outlet enters through the
f1oor.
DIVE ICORR lNc.t
This tank has two round manways (#t9,43) . The exterior
target (#¡f ) is connected. Vüater level was 27 | It
appears to be working properly. Both of the guide wires
are det.ached at the roof .
The access gate, vandal guard and roof access hatch were
found securely locked. No major physical site damage orother evidence of vandalism was seen.
The tank retaining ring is concrete and no gross problems
were seen. There are no anchor bo1ts.
s1-eo)The exterior roof coating is in fair condition. Coatingchalking is heavy.
The vent hood (#51) is secure and the screening is in
good condition.
This tank has steel- ports capped with plastic ends. The
port exterj-ors and interiors are in poor condition (#SS-
66) .
The roof access hatch (#89) was found securely locked.
For the purposes of t,his report, Lhe hatch is referred to
as being on the South side.
Handrail is present
e1-1-00)The above water portion of the interior access ladder isin good condition.
The f loat is connected to the t.raveling wire. Both of t,heguide wire springs have broken from the roof (#gl-L00) .
1-01-110) The overflow coating is in good condition. No notable
defects were sighted.
Close examinat.ion of photograph (#fOf) shows the cap of
t,he anode is cracked. There
this tank (#rfg,L33).
are three such anodes in
DIVE ICORR lNc.t
l-l-l- - 134 ) There are three plate courses total . At the time of
inspection the top 6t were exposed.
The above water walls are in good condition. No notable
defects were sighted.
Beams are welded to knuckle braces at the top and bolted
to welded shell clips at the bottom. There are two
fasteners per beam. Fasteners are in good condition.
1-35 - 182 )The roof plates show a coating in good condit.ion with
some exceptions. Exceptions are primarily seen along roof
beam flanges (#f¡Z-I40) and mosL anode port holes (#167).
Scale formation is also seen at beam ends in the tankcenter (#reg-180) .
All wiring for the sacrificial anode Cathodic Protection
System appears to be intact. One of the anodes has a capwith a slight gap below the cap (#265).
The center and only column appears stable. The coating is
in good condit.ion.
l-83-196) The underwater portion of the internal access ladder
appears securely attached and in good condition.
Coating peeling and coating blisters are noted along t,he
lowest waII brace (#193).
Corrosion is noted at the top connection of the safet,y
cable. Caution is recommended to all personnel.
197-200) Bot,h guide wires are properly connected at the floor. The
wires are disconnected at the top.
20L-2r2)The inlet and outlet enter/exit through the f1oor.
Sediment amounts here are minimal. Several small pieces
of plywood were found on the floor and removed at the endof the inspection. There are additional pieces of woodj-n the pipe eIbow.
DIVE ICORR lNc.I
2r3-258)An estimated twent.y-five percent. of the floor coating isblistered. Many of the blister caps are broken (#215).
Where rust tubercles are seen corrosion activity is not
suspected. Pitting is typically l/1-6" deep and less.
Most of the blister patches are within 20'
Blister number is dense and typical size
diameter.
of the wal1.
is %-]-" in
The drain exits through the floor (#ZSS-258). The opening
is clear. Grating is in good condition.
The majority of the floor is bare. Measurable sediment
deposits were not found. No foreign debris from vandalism
was sighted.
Slough piles below the anodes vary in height from 1rr-8rr
(#221,,239 / tne yel1ow ruler shown in all photographs in
this report is 6tt long by 1" wide) .
259-268)The round manway plates both show coating blisters along
the pIat.e edges and at hardware connections. White
deposits are seen where steel is exposed. Corrosj-on
activity is not suspected.
269-274) Both handles for the vafves are Lotally corroded. These
were removed at the end of the inspection.
275-280) Sample taps are c1ear.
28r-328)There are three plate courses plus a knuckle course
total. The top 6t were above water at the time of
inspection and have been previously described as being in
good condition.
Most of the underwater surfaces show a coating in good
condition as wel1. Examples of coating blisters are seen
in the lowest 2t of course #1 (#Zef), but rarely on the
remainder of the wal1s (#295). Coat,ing delamination as
seen in photographs (#gOZ-310) is seen in one case only.
DIVE I CORR,lNc.,l
White deposits are seen where steel is exposed. Corrosion
act,ivit,y is not suspected.
The underwater portion of the overflow pipe is in good
condj-t,íon (#¡zr -328) .
329-344) The column coating is in good condition. Rust tubercles
are rare and small where found.
No indications of movement were sighted.
345*354) Anode material Loss ranges from
moderate. Upper portions are in
(#3s3).
5Z-202. Pitting is
near new condition
)
)
DIVE I CORR,lNc.
EXTERIOR WALLS
EXTERÏOR ROOF
VENT
Screening
HATCH
Safety Handrail
ÏNTERIOR ROOF
ABOVE WALLS
BELOW WALLS
FLOOR
SEDTMENT
FLOAT
GUTDE VüIRES
TARGET
ST'MI,TARY
rz00-r nnssRvorR
Good to fair - some corrosion seen along the
floor plate extensj-on - Coating chalking is
heavy.
Good to fair - no gross corrosion.
Securely attached
Good condition
Securely locked - South side
Good - coating is in good condit.ion.
Overall good - some rust and scale format.ion
along beam edges and at beam ends in t,he tank
center. Gross met.al loss is not. suspected at
this time.
Top 6t - Good
Good overall - some coating blistering in the
lowest 2t of course #f. One patch of coating
delamination mid course #2. White deposits are
seen where steel is exposed. Corrosion
activity is not suspected.
Many patches of coating blisters are seen
estimated 25e" of the floor coating
bl-ist,ered.
Pitting is typically 1-/16'r deep and less.
NuII - No forej-gn debris from vandalism
Good* connected to the traveling wire.
Detached from the roof
Yes
An
is
DIVE ICORR lNc.t
OVERFLOW
MANWAY 1.
MANVüAY 2
COLUMNS
CATHODTC SYST
Rectifier
Anodes
Reference Cel1
Hand Hole Covers
LADDER
Internal
ExternaL
ÏNLET
OUTLET
Good
Round - Plate is blistered along the edges. No
corrosion act.ivity is suspected.
Round - Plat,e is blistered along the edges. No
corrosion act,ivity is suspected.
Good
None
Good - material loss from 5-202
None
Ports - coat,ing on both the inside and ouÈside
is in poor condition.
Good
Good
Some plywood at the base of the elbow
Clear
DIVE ICORR lNc.t
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
RECO¡O4ENDATIONS
The exterior shel1 and roof coatings are in good to fair
condition. Touch up corrosion along the floor plate extension
as soon as possible.
The port,s used to access the Cat,hodic Protection System are
poorly coated on the interior portions. Scale formation is
present,. As these ports are very difficult to coat and capproperly, consider removing the ports and adding hand hole
covers with grommets as a tight seal.
Corrosion appears to have been abated on all typically
submerged surfaces underwater. As the roof underside and upper
wall coaÈ.ings are stil1 in good condition, continue to use CP
to arrest corrosion and re-inspect in three years.
The anodes are 16' above the floor. A notable port,ion of therod is most likely always above water. Consider lowering the
anodes to get full usage or purchase shorter anodes. This is
referred to engineering for review.
If the tank is draÍned for maintenance, check the connections
below the anode cap.
.l't
; ",,"U':
:l' \:.
:, ,
;4a
.l
I
I
/
\
3Ë
E
a
f r !r\ '.ir'''
i"
rt¿
l.'.a
tl
t^
,-J'
Þ
+
)
I
L
\,
T
\
ã.
r_
_
j
__
L
-
\
i
ï.
F
IjIk-*
¡ij
.
}
ç
'
-
I
-.
L
-
-
-
,
\
iv
.-
'
i
\
tÍ
I
l
i\¡\
/\
i
I
I
1
\
tit
Â\
Nt,ru
.4' '1'.
ì,*.7
v/-F_<a .f- -Ê.
.i\
i
-_
1
\'
*
t
qIi\
Õ,
¡v
r.
tt
This page is intentionally blank.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Michael O’Donnell
Supervising Land Surveyor
Brandon DiPietro Field Services Manager
Michael Long Engineering Manager
PROJECT: VARIOUS DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of As-Needed Utility Locating Services Agreement to
CalBurton, Inc. for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services agreement to CalBurton, Inc. (CalBurton) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with CalBurton in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000 for a period of three (3) Fiscal Years (FY), FY 2021 through FY 2023 (ending June 30, 2023).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services agreement with CalBurton in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000 for FY 2021 through FY
2023 (ending June 30, 2023).
AGENDA ITEM 7
2
ANALYSIS:
California Government Code 4216 requires operators of subsurface installations (including water and sewer facilities) to be a member
of the Dig Alert Regional Notification Center which includes the District’s Underground Service Alert (USA) of Southern California
program. As a member, operators are required to locate and field mark their subsurface installations within two (2) days of receiving timely notification. To meet this legal requirement and support the
District’s USA program, the District will require the services of a professional utility locating services consultant for three (3)
fiscal years, FY 2021 through FY 2023 (ending June 30, 2023). It is more efficient and cost effective to augment District staff by issuing an as-needed contract for utility locating services, which
will provide the District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient manner. This concept has also
been used in the past with other disciplines such as engineering design, construction management, electrical, and environmental services. The District has used an as-needed contract for utility locating
services over the previous eight (8) fiscal years. An analysis of the USA workload for FY 2021 through FY 2023 indicates a steadily increasing level of effort from prior years will be needed for utility locating services.
The District will issue task orders to the consultant for specific projects during the contract period based on a detailed scope of work. The consultant will then prepare a schedule and fee estimate for each task order assigned under the contract. Upon written task order authorization from the District, the consultant shall then
proceed with the project, as described in the scope of work.
This As-Needed Utility Locating Services contract does not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work on a USA project. The District does not guarantee work
to the consultant, nor does the District guarantee that it will expend all of the funds authorized by the contract for professional
services. The District solicited for utility locating services by placing an
advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website on April 7, 2020 and with various other publications including the San Diego Daily
Transcript. Fourteen (14) firms submitted a Letter of Interest and a Statement of Qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for As-Needed Utility Locating Services was sent to the fourteen (14)
firms resulting in nine (9) proposals received by May 4, 2020.
3
• AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. – Escondido, Ca
• ALTA Land Surveying – La Mesa, Ca
• CalBurton, Inc. – Fresno, Ca
• CBelow – Chino, Ca
• Cable Pipe and Leak Detection – El Cajon, Ca
• Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC - San Diego, CA
• Kana Subsurface Engineering – Riverside, Ca
• PSOMAS – San Diego, Ca
• Underground Solutions Inc. – Escondido, Ca
The five (5) firms that chose not to propose are Digital Mapping Inc., Huntington Beach, CA, RMA Group, Inc., San Diego, Ca,
Sitescan, Concord, Ca, Spec Services, Inc., Fountain Valley, Ca, and T2 Utility Engineers, Huntington Beach, Ca. In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and scored all written proposals and interviewed the top three (3) firms
on May 28, 2020. CalBurton received the highest score for their services based on their experience, understanding of the scopes of
work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their composite hourly rate. CalBurton was the most qualified consultant with the best overall rating or ranking scores. A summary of the complete
evaluation is shown in Attachment B.
CalBurton submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by the RFP and staff did not find any outstanding issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search.
AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. is currently providing these services to the District under the District’s current As-Needed Utility Locating Services contract, which expires on June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The funds for this contract will be expended from the Fiscal Years 2021, 2022, and 2023 budgets for various CIP and developer projects or programs. This contract is for professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services based on the District's need and schedule, and
expenditures will not be made until a task order is approved by the District for the consultant's services.
Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the
4
professional as-needed consulting services required for the projects
or programs. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate
model, the funds to cover this contract will be available as budgeted for these projects or programs.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to
manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results,
and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None.
MO/BD/ML:jf
P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Utility Locating\FY2021- 2023\Staff Report\Staff Report As-Needed Utility Locating Services_mdo rev2.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
VARIOUS
Award of As-Needed Utility Locating Services Contract to CalBurton, Inc. for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 19,
2020. The Committee supported Staff’s recommendation.
NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee
prior to presentation to the full Board.
Qualifications of
Staff
Understanding of
Scope, Schedule and
Resources
Soundness and Viability
of Proposed Project
Plan
INDIVIDUAL
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
Proposed
Rates*
Consultant's
Commitment to
DBE
AVERAGE
TOTAL
WRITTEN
Additional
Creativity and
Insight
Strength of
Project
Manager
Presentation,
Communication
Skills
Quality of
Response to
Questions
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL - ORAL
AVERAGE TOTAL
ORAL
TOTAL SCORE
WITHOUT FEE TOTAL SCORE REFERENCES
30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 135 150
Poor/Good/
Excellent
Brandon DiPietro 28 24 28 80 12 13 8 8 41
Hector Licon 28 25 28 81 12 12 8 8 40
Kevin Cameron 27 24 28 79 14 13 7 8 42
Michael Long 27 23 27 77 12 12 8 8 40
Michael O'Donnell 28 25 29 82 13 13 7 8 41
Brandon DiPietro 22 20 23 65
Hector Licon 20 20 20 60
Kevin Cameron 22 20 23 65
Michael Long 21 20 22 63
Michael O'Donnell 20 20 20 60
Brandon DiPietro 28 23 27 78 13 13 9 7 42
Hector Licon 28 25 28 81 15 14 8 7 44
Kevin Cameron 28 24 28 80 12 12 8 7 39
Michael Long 27 24 28 79 13 13 9 8 43
Michael O'Donnell 28 25 29 82 12 13 9 7 41
Brandon DiPietro 25 23 23 71
Hector Licon 25 23 25 73
Kevin Cameron 25 20 25 70
Michael Long 26 24 25 75
Michael O'Donnell 25 22 25 72
Brandon DiPietro 26 21 24 71
Hector Licon 25 23 24 72
Kevin Cameron 25 21 26 72
Michael Long 23 21 24 68
Michael O'Donnell 25 22 26 73
Brandon DiPietro 22 20 20 62
Hector Licon 20 20 20 60
Kevin Cameron 22 18 23 63
Michael Long 21 18 18 57
Michael O'Donnell 21 21 20 62
Brandon DiPietro 25 23 25 73
Hector Licon 24 23 27 74
Kevin Cameron 27 22 27 76
Michael Long 25 22 25 72
Michael O'Donnell 25 24 25 74
Brandon DiPietro 24 20 23 67
Hector Licon 23 24 24 71
Kevin Cameron 25 21 24 70
Michael Long 23 22 23 68
Michael O'Donnell 25 21 22 68
Brandon DiPietro 27 24 27 78 13 14 8 9 44
Hector Licon 27 24 27 78 14 15 8 8 45
Kevin Cameron 26 23 26 75 12 13 8 7 40
Michael Long 26 24 27 77 13 14 9 8 44
Michael O'Donnell 27 24 27 78 13 13 8 9 43
Consultant Rate Score
AIRX $550 13
ALTA $945 11
CALBURTON $320 15
CBELOW $1,280 9
CPL $1,120 10
GPRS $2,400 1
KSE $2,403 1
PSOMAS $15,770 N/A *The fees were evaluated by comparing rates for four catagories. The sum of these 4 rates are noted on the table to the left.
USI $1,090 10
120
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
11 Y
80
WRITTEN
121
122 Excellent
RATES SCORING CHART
AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. Y
Alta Land Surveying, Inc. 63
137
CBELOW
41
MAXIMUM POINTS
CALBURTON Y15
13
80
81
42
81
ATTACHMENT B
95
93 134
7474
ORAL
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
As-Needed Utility Locating Services
CPL 71 10 Y 81 81
GPRS 61 1 Y 62
72 9 Y
KSE 74 1 Y 75 75
N/A Y 69 69
62
130
PSOMAS
USI 77 10 Y 87 43
69
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY:Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager
CIP/G.F. NO: P1210-001000 DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT:Informational Item – Proposal Fee Scoring Evaluation for
Consultant Selection
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
The July 20, 2020 Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources (EO&WR) Committee (Committee) asked staff to present at the next
Committee meeting an informational item on the consultant fee scoring evaluation that is used during the consultant selection
process.
ANALYSIS:
Staff presented a brief overview of the consultant selection
process at the October 23, 2019 and the January 21, 2020 EO&WR Committee meetings and presented the results of a review of the scoring for eleven (11) consultant selections. Staff also
presented information on how sensitive these selections were to changes in the total fee score value and reviewed alternative
methods of scoring on the evaluation of the fees proposed by consultants.
AGENDA ITEM 8
2
The Committee asked staff to evaluate methodologies that considers scenarios where slight differences in consultants’ submitted fees exist and the methodologies’ results on the selection process.
Presently, staff assigns a maximum of fifteen (15) points for fee scoring. Exhibit “A” provides a summary of the results if fee
scoring were assigned ten (10) points, twenty (20) points, and if the fee scoring was based on the percentage of the lowest fee, respectively. This summary also identifies what these results
would have been if there was a difference in the consultant fees of only two dollars.
Staff reviewed eleven consultant selections between May 2015 and January 2020. Fifty-eight (58) proposals and fees were reviewed.
Four (4) of the proposal selections were for a single consultant and seven (7) were for two (2) consultants selected for as-needed
engineering consultant contracts.
In reviewing the results of these potential methods, a significant majority of the selections, under the proposed methodology, would have resulted in the same final selection when compared to the
current Board approved fee methodology used as part of the consultant selection process.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To
provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and
fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving
operational practices.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BK/RP:jf
P:\Bob Kennedy\Staff Report\Policy 21 Update\Fee Summary\September 2 2020\Staff Report - Information of Fee Rating and Scoring for Consultants 09-02-20.doc Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Fee Scoring Evaluation Summary
Exhibit B – Fee Scoring Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:P1210-001000 Informational Item – Proposal Fee Scoring Evaluation for Consultant Selection
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 19,
2020. The Committee supported staff’s recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the
Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from
the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board.
Current
Method
2 Firm Name
Weighted
Fee
Total
Score
Before Fee
is Scored
Fee Score
(15 Point
Prorated)
With 10
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
With 20
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
Fee Score
With 20
Points Based
on % of
Lowest Fee
With 15
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
With 10
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
With 20
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
Fee Score
With 20
Points Based
on % of
Lowest Fee
3 As-Needed Traffic Engineering Services (FY 2016-2018)
4 Advantec Consulting Engineers 755$ 69 78 75 81 79 70 70 70 87
5 Darnell & Associates, Inc.650$ 71 83 79 87 85 72 72 72 89
6 Dokken Engineering 818$ 79 87 84 89 89 80 80 80 97
7 Lin Consulting, Inc.630$ 72 84 80 88 88 73 73 73 90
8 Linscott Law & Greenspan Enginee 525$ 68 83 78 88 88 83 78 88 88
9 Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc.1,075$ 76 77 77 77 76 77 77 77 94
10 Nasland Engineering 670$ 70 81 78 85 70 71 71 71 88
11 Rick Engineering Company 585$ 77 90 86 95 93 78 78 78 95
12 STC Traffic, Inc.600$ 73 86 82 90 89 74 74 74 9113
14 As-Needed Engineering Design Consulting Services (FY 2020-2022)
15 B&J HBK 152$ 68
16 Carollo 150$ 114 122 120 125 130 115 115 115 132
17 Hazen and Sawyer 169$ 69
18 Horrocks Engineers 154$ 74
19 Hydroscience Engineers 154$ 108 115 113 117 124 109 109 109 126
20 Lee & Ro 166$ 68
21 NV5 137$ 118 131 127 135 136 119 119 119 138
22 Rick Engineering 131$ 111 126 121 131 131 126 121 131 129
23 Wood Rodgers 157$ 116 121 120 123 116 117 117 117 13424
25 As-Needed Appraisal Services (FY 2019-2021)
26 Anderson & Brabant, Inc.575$ 78 93 88 98 98 93 88 98 98
27 Curtis-Rosenthal, Inc.1,050$ 75 76 76 76 75 76 76 76 93
28 Cushman & Wakefield 600$ 77 91 87 96 95 78 78 78 95
29 Epic Land Solutions, Inc.600$ 78 92 88 97 96 79 79 79 96
30 Hendrickson Appraisal Company, In 580$ 79 94 89 99 97 80 80 80 9731
32 As-Needed Construction Management (FY 2019-2020)
33 Alyson Consulting 142$ 123 131 129 134 139 124 124 124 141
34 G7ei Inc.126$ 102 117 112 122 122 117 112 122 122
35 Louis Berger 161$ 117 118 118 118 131 118 118 118 135
36 Valley, CM 136$ 111 122 119 126 129 112 112 112 129
37 Wallace & Associates 139$ 101 111 108 114 117 102 102 102 11938
August Committee Alternate Methods October Committee Alternate Methods (Assume
a $2 Difference in the Weighted Fee)
Current
Method
2 Firm Name
Weighted
Fee
Total
Score
Before Fee
is Scored
Fee Score
(15 Point
Prorated)
With 10
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
With 20
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
Fee Score
With 20
Points Based
on % of
Lowest Fee
With 15
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
With 10
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
With 20
Point
Prorated
Fee Score
Fee Score
With 20
Points Based
on % of
Lowest Fee
August Committee Alternate Methods October Committee Alternate Methods (Assume
a $2 Difference in the Weighted Fee)
39 As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects for Fiscal Years 2020, 2021, and 2022
40 AEGIS ENGINEERING MANAGEM 102$ 65 80 75 85 85 80 75 85 85
41 MURRAYSMITH 148$ 81 82 82 82 91 82 82 82 9942
43 As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling (FY 2019-2020)
44 Akel 168$ 67 68 68 68 81 68 68 68 85
45 Hazen 154$ 66 73 71 75 82 67 67 67 84
46 Mission Consulting Services 135$ 67 82 77 87 87 82 77 87 87
47 Wood Rodgers 149$ 68 86 83 89 93 78 78 78 95
48 WSC 155$ 80 87 85 89 96 81 81 81 9849
50 As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services (FY 2020-2022)
51 BSE Engineering, Inc.895$ 74 75 75 75 92 75 75 75 92
52 Engineering Partners, Inc. (EPI)835$ 67 82 77 87 87 82 77 87 87
53 Linkture Consulting Engineers, Inc 843$ 68 81 77 85 86 69 69 69 86
54 Moraes/Pham & Associates 860$ 77 86 83 89 95 78 78 78 9555
56 As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling (FY 2018-2019)
57 Akel 155$ 67 75 72 77 77 68 68 68 85
58 Arcadis 145$ 71 80 77 83 83 72 72 72 89
59 Hazen 142$ 75 85 82 88 87 76 76 76 93
60 NCS 106$ 66 81 76 86 86 81 76 86 86
61 West Yost 200$ 73 74 74 74 75 74 74 74 91
62 WSC 152$ 77 85 83 88 87 78 78 78 9563
64 As-Needed Asset Management Services (FY 2018-2020)
65 Carollo 179$ 71 80 77 82 85 72 72 72 89
66 Hazen and Sawyer 143$ 76 91 86 96 96 91 86 96 96
67 HDR 143$ 72 87 82 92 90 73 73 73 90
68 Tata & Howard 224$ 71 72 72 72 79 72 72 72 8969
70 As-Needed Utility Locating Services (FY 2018-2020)
71 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS 1,000$ 80 95 90 100 100 95 90 100 100
72 CBELOW SUBSURFACE IMAGING 1,330$ 73 74 74 74 85 74 74 74 91
73 CABLE PIPE AND LEAK DETECTIO 1,120$ 54 64 61 67 70 55 55 55 7274
75 As-needed Environmental Services (FY 2020-2022)
76 Chambers Group 118$ 71
77 EI 126$ 71
78 Helix 114$ 125 140 135 145 125 140 135 145 145
79 ICF 126$ 127 134 132 136 127 128 128 128 145
80 RECON 135$ 115 116 116 116 115 116 116 116 133
81 Rincon 124$ 112 121 118 123 112 113 113 113 130
83 Deviations from Current Method 3.5 0 0.5 1 1 5 2 6 3
84 Total Consultants Scored 5885
86 Consistent with Final Selection 81% 100% 97% 94% 94% 72% 89% 67% 83%
September 2, 2020
Fee and Scoring Evaluation
Dedicated to Community Service
EXHIBIT B
The method dropped the requirement for EBE, DBE and adding the 5 points to the fee.
Also, the written points were reduced by 10 points (from 75 to 65 points) and the points
added to the fee which increased the fee points from 20 to 35 points.
September 2, 2020
Questions?
Dedicated to Community Service
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Michael J. Long
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Item – Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2020 Capital
Improvement Program Report
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To update the Board about the status of all CIP project expenditures
and to highlight significant issues, progress, and milestones on
major projects.
ANALYSIS:
To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers' expectations to
adequately deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective, and quality water,
each year the District staff prepares a Six-Year CIP Plan that
identifies the District’s infrastructure needs. The CIP is comprised
of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities,
replacement/renewal projects, capital purchases, and developer's
reimbursement projects.
The Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2020 update is intended to provide a
detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the
allotted time and budget of $17.22 million. Expenditures through the
AGENDA ITEM 9
2
Fourth Quarter totaled approximately $15.03 million. Approximately
87% of the Fiscal Year 2020 expenditure budget was spent (see
Attachment B).
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to
manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible
manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency
by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and
continuously improving operational practices."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
MJL/RP:jf
P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2020\Q4\Staff Report\BD 09-02-20 Staff Report Fourth
Quarter FY 2020 CIP Report (ML-RP).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2020 Fourth Quarter CIP
Expenditure Report
Attachment C – Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
VARIOUS
Informational Item – Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2020
Capital Improvement Program Report
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on August 19, 2020.
The Committee supported staff’s recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 4TH QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 6/30/2020)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2020 06/30/20
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2020
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Q4 Comments
CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS -
P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Cameron 30$ 45$ (15)$ 150%4,500$ 642$ 3,858$ 14%
Environmental work is complete. Legal review in
progress. Consultant selection process for design
will begin in FY 2021.
P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Paseo Ranchero and Otay Valley Road Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,500 - 1,500 0%
This project is tied to P2553 and is driven by the City of Chula Vista. Construction is scheduled for
FY 2022.
P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Kennedy 10 - 10 0%3,975 3,823 152 96%
EIR/EIS complete and Presidential permit issued.
Continue meetings with DDW and AdR.
P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Marchioro 270 80 190 30%3,000 1,945 1,055 65%
Schedule driven by Caltrans. Caltrans issued
construction contract notice to proceed Q1 FY
2020. Completion of construction anticipated for
Q2 FY 2022.
P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Beppler 80 33 47 41%600 17 583 3%
Environmental surveys started in Q4, to be
completed in FY 2021 Q1. Budget had expected
completed surveys in FY 2020. Demolition work is
expected to occur in FY 2023.
P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 60 95 (35) 158%2,428 2,227 201 92%
Worked with SCADA group to identify new FY expenses. Going into new Fiscal Year, new
purchases are required, additional PLC's, and Infrastructure enhancements, etc.
P2494 Multiple Species Conservation Plan Coburn-Boyd 30 4 26 13%1,000 931 69 93%
Regulatory Agency review of documents has delayed spending of budget in FY 2020. Anticipate
spending remainder of budget in FY 2021.
P2516 PL - 12-Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage Marchioro - - - 0%1,000 - 1,000 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2026. P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 100 44 56 44%620 335 285 54%Due to COVID-19, work moved to FY 2021.
P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 40 34 6 85%3,500 50 3,450 1%
Project is driven by the City of Chula Vista's schedule for replacement; the City has delayed the
design. The City provided design parameters to
the District in June 2020. NV5 has begun design.
P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%51 - 51 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. These Reservoirs are scheduled to be removed at the
end of their useful life.
P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Ave, Chestnut/Apple Cameron 50 216 (166) 432%820 63 757 8%
Project is in construction, and the contractor is
progressing faster than expected.
P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 75 74 1 99%1,300 105 1,195 8%
This is a County of San Diego driven project. The County has put this project of hold. Project is
currently 50% designed.
P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Paso de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Rd Cameron 50 70 (20) 140%500 106 394 21%
Project is in planning stage; expected to start
design in FY 2021.
P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%895 - 895 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 150 122 28 81%225 150 75 67%
Completed Public Services conference room
expansion, Public Services desk upgrade, and
public entrance door rebuild and safety enhancements. Specification for Board Room
Security pending COVID-19 resolution and/or incorporation of mitigating design elements in FY
2021 Q2-3.
P2619 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Marchioro 2,000 1,477 523 74%3,200 1,387 1,813 43%
Redundant trailer delivered Q3 FY 2020.
Construction completion delayed due to pipe
fabrication delays associated with COVID-19.
Construction completion anticipated Q2 FY 2021.
P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 50 4 46 8%500 214 286 43%
Easement offer sent to property owner Q4 FY
2019. Design phase for valve relocations commenced Q4 FY 2020. Completion of
construction anticipated FY 2022.
P2626 803-4 Reservoir Water Quality Improvements – PAX System Purchase Coburn-Boyd 150 260 (110) 173%325 11 314 3%
Construction was substantially complete for the
project, which is why the budget was exceeded for FY 2020.
P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System Cameron 5 - 5 0%505 - 505 0%Planning to begin in FY 2021
P2638 Buildings and Grounds Refurbishments Payne 89 27 62 30%114 16 98 14%
Due to COVID related delays, the grounds
consultant solicitation was moved to FY 2021 Q1-
2. Installation scheduled in FY 2021 Q3-4.
P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 25 23 2 92%2,800 11 2,789 0%Advance planning work commenced Q3 FY 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2640 Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Pumps Marchioro 458 347 111 76%550 65 485 12%
Portable Trailer Mounted Pumps delivered Q4 FY 2020 with defects. Trailer defects will be
completed Q1 FY 2021. This project has
experienced delays associated COVID-19.
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/20 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/20
Page 1 of 5 8/13/2020
FISCAL YEAR 2020 4TH QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 6/30/2020)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2020 06/30/20
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2020
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Q4 Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/20 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/20
P2642 Rancho Jamul Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 5 1 4 20%2,500 - 2,500 0%
Project will be coordinated with P2040, 1655-1
Reservoir. Completion of construction currently
scheduled for FY 2026.
P2646 North District Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%1,200 - 1,200 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2025.
P2647 Central Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%1,300 - 1,300 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2648 Otay Mesa Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 100 150 (50) 150%430 150 280 35%Design phase completed FY Q4 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021.
P2649 HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 44 1 43 2%130 10 120 8%
Operation's RTU was solicited and scheduled for
installation. Installation will be completed in FY
2021 Q1.
P2652 520 to 640 Pressure Zone Conversion Cameron 20 32 (12) 160%250 17 233 7%
PDR complete. Outreach to customers will begin
in FY 2021.
P2654 Heritage Road Interconnection Improvements Marchioro 65 29 36 45%200 18 182 9%
Project scope will change, pending City
preference. Completion of construction anticipated
FY 2023.
P2658 832-1 Pump Station Modifications Cameron 15 10 5 67%600 7 593 1%
PDR complete. Outreach to customers will begin
in FY 2021.
P2659 District Boardroom Improvements Kerr 180 174 6 97%200 99 101 50%
Project is near completion; however, for FY 2021,
project budget was increased to include other
Boardroom and lobby enhancements.
P2660 Camino Elevado Drive OWD and SWA Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 3 10 (7) 333%250 10 240 4%
Upon project investigation, this project does not
meet the cost to benefit requirements and will not be implemented. Fiscal year budget exceeded
with recognizing the potential for project
elimination.
P2663 Potable Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 50 21 29 42%1,500 6 1,494 0%
Advanced planning work for Rancho Jamul
Hydropneumatic Station began in Q3 FY 2020. Completion of construction scheduled for Q4 FY
2021.
P2664 Otay Mesa Dual Piping Modification Program Beppler 10 21 (11) 210%350 4 346 1%
Draft figures provided to Operations for
confirmation of the existing system and comments
on proposed changes. Design advanced in excess
of FY 2020 budget with delays to other projects.
R2116 RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Force Main Improvements Marchioro 25 53 (28) 212%2,250 2,222 28 99%
Post construction mitigation work completed Q4
FY 2020. CIP closed end of FY 2020.
R2118 Steele Canyon Sewer PS Large Solids Handling Improvements Beppler 5 - 5 0%175 174 1 99%
Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close
out of project at end of fiscal year.
R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements Cameron 390 19 371 5%575 48 527 8%
The construction for this project was delayed until
FY 2021 Q2.
R2125 RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road Marchioro 45 48 (3) 107%225 50 175 22%
Project scope reduced. Construction completed
Q4 FY 2020. CIP closed end of FY 2020.
R2146 Recycled Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 40 21 19 53%700 1 699 0%
Advanced planning work commenced Q3 FY 2020.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2025.
R2150 RWCWRF - Secondary Chlorine Analyzer and Feed System Beppler 1 - 1 0%55 53 2 96%
Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close
out of project at end of fiscal year.
S2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Beppler 50 - 50 0%1,800 1,111 689 62%
Annual County invoicing covers this project, they had no charges this fiscal year. No District
involvement in design and construction.
S2027 Rancho San Diego Pump Station Rehabilitation Beppler 5 - 5 0%3,060 3,050 10 100%
Close out of project at end of fiscal year; County
billing complete.
S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Beppler 100 75 25 75%390 120 270 31%
No activity this quarter, overall spending under
projected cost due to report costing less than anticipated. Report recommended no solids
handling at RWCWRF; but CIP to remain open for
potential future reassessment.
S2047 Asset Management - Info Master Sewer Implementation Zhao 5 - 5 0%58 38 20 66%No expenditures in FY 2020.
S2061 RWCWRF Aeration Controls Consolidation & Optimization Upgrades (S)Beppler 30 4 26 13%220 6 214 3%
Selection of consultant for implementing the project put on hold until alternative consultants
confirmed and pandemic effects lessen.
S2067 RWCWRF Roofing Replacement and Natural Light Enhancement Payne 145 - 145 0%165 16 149 10%
Roofing consultant was contracted to supply bid
documents for solicitation during FY 2021 Q1.
S2071 San Diego Metro Wastewater Capital Improvements Kennedy 132 133 (1) 101%1,546 99 1,447 6%
Annual City of S.D. invoicing covers this project.
No District involvement in design and construction.
Total Capital Facility Projects Total:5,192 3,757 1,435 72%54,037 19,407 34,630 36%
REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS
Page 2 of 5 8/13/2020
FISCAL YEAR 2020 4TH QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 6/30/2020)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2020 06/30/20
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2020
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Q4 Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/20 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/20
P2083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 4,700 4,660 40 99%19,550 18,268 1,282 93%
Completion of construction anticipated Q1 FY
2021.
P2174 PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Upgrade Beppler 350 127 223 36%2,000 70 1,930 4%
Design in progress, at 90% milestone at end of
quarter. Project to be bid in Q1 FY 2021. Delays
in electrical engineer selection and pandemic
impacts resulted in the project not starting
construction in FY 2020 as planned.
P2507 East Palomar Street Utility Relocation Cameron 4 4 - 100%735 733 2 100%Budget is for staff time to collect final reimbursement.
P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program Marchioro 50 35 15 70%1,250 1,240 10 99%
Construction completed Q1 FY 2020. Project one
year warranty scheduled to complete Q1 FY 2021.
P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 25 21 4 84%895 33 862 4%
Design is complete; construction to begin in FY
2021 Q2.
P2534 978-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 20 (15) 400%650 614 36 94%Warranty work complete. Project will be closed.
P2539 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations Cameron 20 48 (28) 240%1,090 990 100 91%
Project is driven by SANDAG. Expenditures within
overall project budget.
P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 810 43 767 5%940 42 898 4%
The construction for this project was delayed until
FY 2021 Q2.
P2544 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 99 (94) 1980%980 929 51 95%Warranty work complete. Project will be closed.
P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,705 1,686 19 99%
Project accepted in November 2018, and is in the
2 year warranty period.
P2555 Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements Cameron 30 43 (13) 143%935 905 30 97%Project will be closed.
P2561 Res - 711-3 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 50 351 (301) 702%2,450 2,435 15 99%
Construction completed Q3 FY 2020. Project one
year warranty scheduled to complete Q2 FY 2021.
P2562 Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 20 - 20 0%2,900 2,707 193 93%
As part of the larger 870-2 Pump Station project,
the 571-1 Reservoir was placed back into service April 2018.
P2563 Res - 870-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 5 7 (2) 140%1,250 7 1,243 1%
Existing cover/liner material tested to provide better understanding of remaining useful life Q4 FY
2020. Cover/liner replacement construction
scheduled for FY 2023.
P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 125 307 (182) 246%1,200 986 214 82%
More work was completed in FY 2020 than anticipated. Project completed and in the 2 year
warranty period.
P2567 1004-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%965 - 965 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
P2573 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 Zone, Hillsdale Road Beppler 5 - 5 0%2,580 2,572 8 100%Warranty period concluded in Q1 FY 2020. Close out of project at end of fiscal year.
P2574 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda Beppler 230 696 (466) 303%1,785 1,706 79 96%
Final acceptance occurred in Q4 FY 2020; start of
one year warranty.
P2578 PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 Replacement and Expansion) - 14,000 gpm Marchioro - - - 0%13,000 - 13,000 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. Replacement scheduled for FY 2023-2025 to
coincide with development of Villages 4, 8, 9, & 3.
P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%1,050 - 1,050 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
P2594 Large Meter Replacement Carey 60 20 40 33%650 467 183 72%Due to COVID-19, some large meter testing delayed so change-outs delayed until FY 2021.
P2604 AMR Change-Out Carey 1,300 1,340 (40) 103%6,290 5,696 594 91%On target.
P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Beppler 295 52 243 18%475 97 378 20%
Project design completed in Q2 FY 2020, with bidding performed and rejected. Project to be
rebid in FY 2021 with next pipeline project. This
delay resulted in budget underspent.
P2607 Douglas Ave SWA and OWD Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 20 1 19 5%50 4 46 8%
Project being designed by SWA; final design
delayed due to pandemic, now expected before the end of FY 2021 and constructed during FY
2022.
P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus St, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Cameron 225 164 61 73%800 128 672 16%
Project was bid with P2608. Construction began
Q4 FY 2020. Contractor elected to start P2608 before P2609, which resulted in more expenditures
for P2608.
P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Cameron 50 - 50 0%275 22 253 8%Operations is taking the lead on this project.
P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Beppler 25 15 10 60%2,200 34 2,166 2%PDR completed, further design needs to wait until FY 2022 for paving restriction to elapse.
P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Dr/Vista Sierra Dr Beppler 170 98 72 58%3,300 144 3,156 4%
Revisiting alignment alternatives due to additional
considerations during Q4, selection expected in Q1 FY 2021 with final design to begin in Q2. Delay in
moving design forward resulted in budget
underspending.
P2625 PL - 12-inch, 978 Zone, Hidden Mesa Road Beppler 200 142 58 71%2,210 2,197 13 99%
Final acceptance occurred in Q4 FY 2020; start of
one year warranty.
Page 3 of 5 8/13/2020
FISCAL YEAR 2020 4TH QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 6/30/2020)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2020 06/30/20
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2020
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Q4 Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/20 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/20
P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Ave Beppler 300 59 241 20%475 125 350 26%
Project design completed in Q2 FY 2020, with
bidding performed and rejected. Project to be
rebid in FY 2021 with next pipeline project. This delay resulted in budget underspent.
P2631 1485-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%1,055 - 1,055 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
P2653 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Marchioro 200 225 (25) 113%325 55 270 17%
Construction of Phase 1 completed Q4 FY 2020.
Completion of Phase 2 construction scheduled for
FY 2021.
P2655 La Presa Pipeline Improvements Cameron 15 188 (173) 1253%1,750 33 1,717 2%
A portion of this project was expedited to meet the
County's storm drain replacement.
P2656 Regulatory Site Desilting Basin Improvements Beppler 40 7 33 18%150 7 143 5%
Implementation of first alternative delayed due to
pandemic; Operations staff to revisit in Q1 FY
2021.
P2657 1485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%30 - 30 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
P2661 Replacement of Backflow Prevention Devices on Pipeline Interconnections on Otay Mesa Beppler 10 5 5 50%375 5 370 1%
Engineering staff to coordinate with Operations
staff as issues arise.
P2662 Potable Water Meter Change Out Carey - - - 0%1,950 - 1,950 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 60 6 54 10%1,800 25 1,775 1%
Replacement scheduled for FY 2025 since existing
cover/liner testing completed in FY 2020 suggested four to six years remaining life.
R2139 RWCWRF - Filter Troughs Replacement Beppler 1 - 1 0%40 34 6 85%
Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close
out of project at end of fiscal year.
R2143 AMR Change-Out Carey 130 84 46 65%525 333 192 63%Due to COVID-19, work moved to FY 2021.
R2145 RWCWRF - Filter Media and Nozzles Replacement Beppler 1 - 1 0%130 117 13 90%Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close out of project at end of fiscal year.
R2147 RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement Marchioro 10 36 (26) 360%225 222 3 99%Construction completed Q1 FY 2020. Project one year warranty scheduled to complete Q1 FY 2021.
R2148 Large Meter Replacement - Recycled Carey 12 15 (3) 125%58 15 43 26%
Additional irrigation meter measuring elements
needed in FY 2020; will not affect overall budget.
R2151 RWCWRF - Bulk Chlorine Vapor Scrubber System Refurbishment Lintner 1 - 1 0%40 39 1 98%This project is complete and will be closed at the end of the fiscal year.
R2152 Recycled Water Meter Change-Out Carey - - - 0%70 - 70 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.
R2153 Recycled Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 1 - 1 0%50 - 50 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020.
S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Beppler 1,500 1,350 150 90%10,980 10,978 2 100%
Final acceptance occurred in Q4 FY 2020; start of
one year warranty.
S2045 Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation Beppler 20 - 20 0%370 278 92 75%Warranty period concluded in Q1 FY 2020. Close out of project at end of fiscal year.
S2046 RWCWRF - Aeration Panels Replacement Beppler 5 - 5 0%250 250 - 100%
Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close
out of project at end of fiscal year.
S2048 Hillsdale Road Sewer Repairs Beppler 5 - 5 0%720 692 28 96%Warranty period concluded in Q1 FY 2020. Close out of project at end of fiscal year.
S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 40 26 14 65%1,000 64 936 6%
Design services started in FY 2020. Final design
delayed, expected to be completed in FY 2022.
S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 5 - 5 0%820 7 813 1%
No work performed, planning services to be
performed during FY 2021 as time allows.
S2051 RWCWRF - Headworks Improvements Beppler 5 - 5 0%250 246 4 98%
Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close
out of project at end of fiscal year.
S2053 RWCWRF - Sedimentation Basins Weirs Replacement Beppler 1 - 1 0%60 53 7 88%
Warranty period concluded in Q3 FY 2020. Close
out of project at end of fiscal year.
S2054 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%10 - 10 0%No work planned for FY 2020.S2060 Steele Canyon Pump Station Replacement Beppler - - - 0%200 - 200 0%No work planned for FY 2020.
S2066 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%10 - 10 0%No work planned for FY 2020.
S2069 Cottonwood Sewer Pump Station Renovation Beppler 10 20 (10) 200%1,800 20 1,780 1%
Property acquisition and design consultant delayed
due to pandemic impacts on property owner.
Expect to move ahead in early FY 2021. Planning
advanced to enable property acquisition discussions.
S2070 Hidden Mountain Sewer Pump Station Wet Well Renovation Beppler 130 207 (77) 159%215 45 170 21%
Construction substantially completed in Q4 FY
2020; warranty period to begin in Q1 FY 2021.
Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:11,286 10,521 765 93%99,893 58,355 41,538 58%
CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS
P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 439 511 (72) 116%6,000 4,640 1,360 77%
Budget overage of $72K due to Kearny Person late
delivery of FY 19 CP Items #5 & #6. Budgeted in
FY19, received FY20.
P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 203 209 (6) 103%2,250 2,026 224 90%
$6K overage due to unbudgeted labor charged to
CIP for SCAD project.
P2571 Data Center Network Data Storage and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr 100 34 66 34%200 125 75 63%
Project paused because of requested budget going
into Fiscal Year 2021. Project funding was increased and staff will be moving forward with
project.
Page 4 of 5 8/13/2020
FISCAL YEAR 2020 4TH QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 6/30/2020)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2020 06/30/20
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2020
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Q4 Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/20 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/20
P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr - - - 0%130 - 130 0%Project to commence October 2021.
Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:742 754 (12) 102%8,580 6,791 1,789 79%
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS
P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Beppler 1 - 1 0%150 - 150 0%Project under construction; awaiting developer submission for reimbursement.
R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media Beppler 1 - 1 0%365 1 364 0%
Project under construction; awaiting developer
submission for reimbursement.
Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:2 - 2 0%515 1 514 0%
113 GRAND TOTAL 17,222$ 15,032$ 2,190$ 87%163,025$ 84,554$ 78,471$ 52%
Page 5 of 5 8/13/2020
Otay Water District
Capital Improvement Program
Fiscal Year 2020
Fourth Quarter
(through June 30, 2020)
ATTACHMENT C
870-2 Pump Station and 711-3 Reservoir
04/02/2020
Background
The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2020
consists of 113 projects that total $17.2 million.
These projects are broken down into four categories.
1.Capital Facilities $ 5.2 million
2.Replacement/Renewal $11.3 million
3.Capital Purchases $ 0.7 million
4.Developer Reimbursement $ 2.0 thousand
Overall expenditures through the Fourth Quarter of
Fiscal Year 2020 totaled $15.03 million, which is
approximately 87% of the Fiscal Year budget.
2
Fiscal Year 2020
Fourth Quarter Update
($000)
CIP
CAT Description FY 2020
Budget
FY 2020
Expenditures
%
FY 2020
Budget
Spent
Total
Life-to-Date
Budget
Total
Life-to-Date
Expenditures
%
Life-to-Date
Budget
Spent
1 Capital
Facilities $5,192 $3,757 72%$54,037 $19,407 36%
2 Replacement/
Renewal $11,286 $10,521 93%$99,743 $58,355 58%
3 Capital
Purchases $742 $754 102%$8,580 $6,791 79%
4 Developer
Reimbursement $2 $0 0%$515 $1 0%
Total:
$17,222 $15,032 87%$163,025 $84,554 52%
3
Fiscal Year 2020
Fourth Quarter
CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures
4
$13,700,000
5
CIP Projects in Construction
870-2 Pump Station
Replacement Project
(P2083/P2562)
Replacement of existing
870 High Head and
Low Head Pump
Stations.
Remove and Replace
the existing 571-1
Reservoir liner and
cover.
$21.65M Budget
Start: July 2017
Estimated Completion:
August 2020 870-2 Pump Station and 711-3 Reservoir
Division No. 2
Location:
North East corner
of Otay Mesa.
Existing 571-1
Reservoir and High
Head/Low Head
Pump Station site.
6
04/02/2020
CIP Projects in Construction
870-2 Pump Station and Fuel Storage
Facing South
7
870-2 Pump Station Facing North
05/28/2020
05/28/2020
CIP Projects in Construction
Dictionary Hill
Waterline
Replacement (P2608,
P2609, and P2655)
Project includes
replacement of
waterlines in
Coronado Avenue,
Date Street, Birch
Street, and Kempton
Street.
$1.34M Budget
Start: April 2020
Estimated Completion:
October 2020 Coronado Avenue –Trench Shoring
Division No. 3
Location:
Spring Valley
8
05/27/2020
Construction Contract Status
9
FY 2020 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
PROJECT TOTAL %
P2508 Pipeline CP
Improvements - Phase II M-Rae Engineering Inc.$329,500 $347,000 $16,267 4.9%$349,386 $349,386 0.7%100.0%October 2019
P2561
Reservoir 711-3 Floating
Cover and Liner
Replacement
Layfield USA Corporation $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $115,215 5.9%$2,102,535 $2,102,535 5.3%100.0%May 2020
P2565
803-2 Reservoir
Interior/Exterior Coating
& Upgrades
Advanced Industrial
Services Inc.$737,690 $951,690 ($117,080)-15.9%$690,360 $690,360 -27.5%100.0%October 2019
P2574/
P2625
Vista Vereda and Hidden
Mesa Road Water Line
Replacement
Cass-Arrieta Construction $2,718,239 $2,848,364 $283,856 10.4%$3,013,206 $3,013,206 5.8%100.0%June 2020
R2147 RWCWRF Fuel System
Improvements Jauregui & Culver, Inc.$153,092 $158,092 $1,781 1.2%$154,873 $154,873 -2.0%100.0%September 2019
S2024 Campo Road Sewer
Replacement Project
Wier Construction
Corporation $7,623,146 $7,816,646 $666,334 8.7%$8,482,980 $8,482,980 8.5%100.0%June 2020
%
COMPLETE
EST.
COMP.
DATE
NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD*
CURRENT CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
EARNED
TO DATE
CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT
W/ ALLOWANCES
% CHANGE
ORDERS W/
ALLOWANCE
CREDIT**
Construction Contract Status
10
FY 2020 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT
W/ ALLOWANCES
NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD*
CURRENT CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL EARNED
TO DATE
% CHANGE
ORDERS W/
ALLOWANCE
CREDIT**
%
COMPLETE
EST. COMP.
DATEPROJECT TOTAL %
P2619 P1320***
Temporary Lower Otay
Pump Station Redundancy Tharsos, Inc.$1,600,500 $1,647,000 $99,832 6.2%$1,704,133 $629,997 3.5%37.0%September 2020
P2608 P2609 P2655 Dictionary Hill Waterline Replacement -2019 LB Civil Construction, Inc.$1,125,315 $1,345,315 $0 0.0%$1,125,315 $316,325 -16.4%28.1%October 2020
P2653 1200 Pressure Zone
Improvements -Phase 1 Piperin Corporation $145,990 $151,990 ($2,467)-1.7%$149,523 $149,523 -1.6%100.0%July 2020
S2070 Hidden Mountain Sewer Pump Station Wet Well
Renovation
Kay Construction $132,930 $142,940 $0 0.0%$132,930 $132,367 -7.0%99.6%August 2020
P2083 P2562
870-2 Pump Station Replacement/ 571-1
Reservoir Liner and
Cover Replacement
Pacific Hydrotech
Corporation $16,500,900 $16,925,900 $787,165 4.8%$17,672,697 $17,265,345 4.4%97.7%August 2020
TOTALS:$33,014,302 $34,331,937 $1,850,904 5.6%$35,577,938 $33,286,896 3.6%
*NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT
**THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES
***ADDITIONAL SCOPE WAS ADDED TO THIS CONTRACT VIA CHANGE ORDER TO PERFORM FUEL LEAK REMEDIATION AT THE 1485 PUMP STATION
Consultant Contract Status
11
Consultant Contract Status
12
Consultant Contract Status
13
QUESTIONS?
14