HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-10 EO&WR Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT
ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS &WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
Board Room
TUESDAY
December 7,2010
11:30 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 Tr)E BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JU-
RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
DISCUSSION ITEMS
3.RECOGNITION OF CCL CONTRACTING,RBF CONSULTING,AND LEE &RO FOR
THEIR OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE IN THE COMPLETION OF THE JAMACHA
PIPELINE PROJECT (RIPPERGER/BUELNA)[5 minutes]
4.AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BLASTCO,INC.FOR THE 657-1 AND
657-2 RESERVOIR EXTERIOR/INTERIOR COATING AND UPGRADES PROJECT
IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $632,500 (CAMERON)[5 minutes]
5.AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO L.H.WOODS &SONS INC.IN THE
AMOUNT OF $379,000 FOR THE DEL RIO ROAD AND GILLISPIE DRIVE
EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTIONS PROJECT (KAY)[5 minutes]
6.APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH AECOM
TECHNICAL SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $176,805 FOR THE
RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWATER WELL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(PEASLEY)[5 minutes]
7.APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH RBF
CONSULTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR THE 36-INCH PIPELINE,SDCWA OTAY FCF NO.14 TO THE
REGULATORY SITE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $101,075
(RIPPERGER)[5 minutes]
8.APPROVE CREDIT CHANGE ORDER NO.3 TO THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT WITH CCL CONTRACTING,INC.FOR THE JAMACHA ROAD 36-INCH
POTABLE WATER PIPELINE AND 12-INCH POTABLE WATER PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF <$1,474,033.22>(RIPPERGER)
[5 minutes]
9.APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A RFP FOR PHASE 2 OF THE RANCHO DEL REY
WELL PROJECT WHICH WILL INCLUDE EQUIPPING THE WELL AND DESIGNING
A WELLHEAD TREATMENT FACILITY (SILVERMAN)[5 minutes]
10.APPROVE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENTS AND VERIFICATION REPORTS,AS
REQUIRED BY SENATE BILLS 610 AND 221,FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE
EIGHT WEST AND OTAY RANCH VILLAGE NINE PROJECTS (KENNEDY)[5
minutes]
11.INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIP PROJECT BUDGETS
(RIPPERGER)[10 minutes]
12.SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE (WATTON)[10 minutes]
13.ADJOURNMENT
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
Jose Lopez,Chair
Gary Croucher
2
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 that would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici-
pate 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 December 3,2010 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the
regular 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 December 3,2010.
3
AGENDA ITEM 3
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:January 5,2011
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
Ron Ripperger~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~
Chief,Engineering
PROJECT I
SUBPROJECT:
P2009-
001103
DIV.
NO.
5
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
GE~
"'-
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General ~ager,
Recognition to the Jamacha
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
Engineering and Operations
Pipeline Construction Team
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
recognize the Jamacha Pipeline Construction Team (Lee &Ro,RBF,and
CCL Contracting)for their hard work and professionalism in the
completion of a successful project (see Exhibit A for project
location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To recognize the Jamacha Pipeline Construction Team for their hard
work and professionalism in the completion of a successful project.
ANALYSIS:
At the September 3,2010,Engineering,Operations and Water Resources
Committee meeting,the Committee recommended that the Board recognize
the Jamacha Pipeline Construction Team for the work done to make the
project successful.Staff has prepared certificates of recognition
for Lee &Ro (Design Engineers),RBF (Construction Manager)and CCL
Contracting (Contractor)to be presented at the January 5,2011 Board
of Directors Meeting.A draft of the Certificate of Recognition
(Exhibit B)is attached to this staff report for the Committee's
review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
SRATEGIC GOAL:
This project fulfills two of the District's Strategic Goals,No.1 -
Community and Governance and No.5 -Potable Water,by maintaining
proactive and productive relationships with the project stakeholders
and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for current and
future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
36-inch PL -FCF 14 to Reg Site\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11 ,Staff Report,CCL,RBF,
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Exhibit A -Location Map
Exhibit B -Draft Certificate of Recognition
2
P2009-001103
ATTACHMENT A
;""'S'lj'B~j'EC'Tjp'RO~j'E'C'~T':""" .
ii Recognition to the Jamacha Pipeline Construction Team
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee reviewed
The Committee
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.
ClPP2009
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SDCWA FCF NO.14 AND
36-INCH JAMACHA PlPEUNE
<tlSi
ItI.I .
i••to.ili~~!~~~~£ii~~~;j~~~~~WlfS!~~
ItI
"I....._---_..._---------------------------_..EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT 13
This certificate is awarded to
CCL CONTRACTING INC.
In recognition of CCL's hard work,
professionalism,expertise,and
outstanding performance in the
completion of the Jamacha Pipeline
Project.
(.jr,,-4·
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Recognition to the Jarnacha Pipeline
Construction Tearn
Project No.:P2009-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
p4~
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
Date I
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its presentation
style.
AGENDA ITEM 4
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:January 5,2011
SUBMITTED BY:Kevin Cameron ~~
Assistant Civil Engineer I
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:
P2505-001103
P2506-001103
DIV.NO.3
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~o~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana~~
Assistant Generale:tnager,Engineering and Operations
Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades
Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to Blastco,Inc.(Blastco)and
authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Blastco
for the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project in an amount not to exceed $632,500 (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 Blastco for the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir
Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades Project in an amount not to
exceed $632,500.
ANALYSIS:
The District's corrosion consultant,Schiff Associates (Schiff),
completed a Corrosion Control Program (CCP)in June 2009 that
addressed 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 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoirs to be re-coated and
updated to current code.The maintenance requirements include
replacing anodes for the cathodic protection system,removing the
existing exterior and interior coatings,and applying a new coating
to the exterior and interior of each reservoir.
In addition to replacing the anodes and re-coating the reservoirs,
structural upgrades are necessary to comply with the American Water
Works Association (AWWA)and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)standards.An internal and external
inspection of each reservoir was completed in August 2008 by Utility
Services Company.The recommended structural upgrades,developed
with input from engineering and operations staff,are as follows:
new exterior ladder,new level indicators,new fall prevention
devices on the interior ladders,additional manways for access,new
anode access ports,new roof vents,new lanyard cables,and
miscellaneous tank penetrations for chlorination and sampling.
These upgrades will ensure compliance with AWWA and OSHA
requirements as well as provide better access for Operations staff
to maintain these facilities.
On October 27,2010,Schiff performed an interior inspection on the
657-1 and 657-2 Reservoirs to assess the condition of the roof
structure,analyze the coating condition,and reveal any changed
conditions from the previous inspections.Schiff's inspection
report found extensive corrosion on the rafters,and a leak in the
elbow of the overflow pipe in the 657-1 Reservoir.These items were
included in the contract documents.
Staff developed the contract documents and the project was
advertised for bid on November 3,2010 on the District's website and
several other publications including the San Diego Union Tribune and
San Diego Daily Transcript.
One (1)addendum was sent out to all bidders and planhouses to
address questions and clarifications to the contract documents
during the bidding period.
Bids were publicly opened on November 30,2010,with the following
results:
2
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID CORRECTED BID
AMOUNT AMOUNT
1 Blastco,Inc.$632,500 -
2 Muehlan Marine,Inc.$633,500 -
3 Western Industrial,Inc.$638,645 $638,780
4 RPI Coating,Inc.$685,000 -
5 Olympus and Associates Inc.*$786,582 -
6 Techno Coatings,Inc.$1,064,700 -
*Bld opened on December 1,2010.
The Engineer's Estimate is $807,000.
Staff reviewed the bids submitted for conformance with the contract
requirements and determined that Blastco was the lowest responsive
and responsible bidder.Blastco holds both a Class A and Class C-33
Contractor's License which expires on Oct.31,2011.Overall,the
reference checks indicated a good performance record on similar
projects.Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by Blastco
is valid.Staff will also verify that B astco's Performance Bond is
valid prior to execution of the contract.
The bid for Olympus and Associates Inc.was delivered to the
District on time,but was not received by the Project Manager prior
to the bid opening.Legal Counsel directed Staff to contact all
bidders and invite them to witness the opening of Olympus'bid on
December 1,2010 at 3:00 p.m at District headquarters.The
contractors elected to have the Project Manager call them with the
bid results rather than attend the second bid opening.
FISCAL IMPACT:#
Funding for the overall projects comes from two CIP projects,P2505,
the 657-1 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades,and
P2506,the 657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades.
The total budget for CIP P2505,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $375,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $375,000.See Attachment B-1 for budget detail.
The total budget for CIP P2506,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $375,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $375,000.See Attachment B-2 for budget detail.
Staff included allowances in the bid sheet list for structural
modifications and cell site equipment relocation for a total amount
of $50,000.
3
Based on a review of the financial budgets,the Project Manager has
determined that each budget is sufficient to support the projects.
Finance has determined that 100%of the funding is available from
the Replacement Fund for both ClP P2505 and P2506.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the Operations Department Mission statement,
"To provide all operations and maintenance services in the highest
possible professional,efficient,safe,and cost effective manner to
all internal and external customers,and to strive to continually
improve the level of service this department provides."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
P:\~'lORKING\Crp £.125(:5 &2506 6:'7-1[.2 Rs.:>srvoir coatlng\St_aff Reports\B['I'l-O~-ll,$t3ff Report,bS-'il£.2 Coacings Bid ..i\\·/ard.doC'
KC/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B-1 -Budget Detail for crp P2505
Attachment B-2 -Budget Detail for crp P2506
Exhibit A -Location Map
4
eilC I ":;CT:
P2505-001103
P2506-001103
ATTACHMENT A
Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee reviewed
The Committee
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.
~I Ie 1I::r;T:
P2505-001103
P2506-001103
ATTACHMENT B-1
Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project
Otay Water District
P2505 -657-1 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoating
Date Updated:November30,2010
Outstanding ProjectedFina/BUdget Committed Expsnditums Commitment&Vendor/Comments
375,000 CostFomcast
Planning
Labor 822 822 -822
Total Planning 822 822 -822
Design
Labor 13,508 13,508 13,508
Service Contracts 143 143 -143 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
38 38 38 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Total Design 13,688 13,688 13,688
Construction
Labor 20,000 519 19,481 20,000
Construction Contract 320,500 -320,500 320,500 Blastco,Inc.
CM Contract 14,990 -14,990 14,990 As-Needed CM
Project Closeout 5,000 -5,000 5,000
Total Construction 360,490 519 359,971 360,490
Grand Total 375,000 15,030 359,971 375,000
P2505-001 '103
P2506-001103
"'....,IEeT:
ATTACHMENT B-2
Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project
Olay Water District
P2506 -657-2 Reservoir IntenorlExterior Coating
Date Updated:November30,2011)
Outs/anding Projec1edFinalBudge!Committed Expenditures Commitmentell Vendor/Comments
375,000 CostForecast
Planning
Labor 569 569 569
Total Planning 569 569 569
Design
Labor 12,933 12,933 12,933
Service Contracts ~43 143 '~43 SAN DiEGO UNION-TRiBUNE LLC
38 38 38 SAN mEGO DAilY TRANSCRIPT
Total Design 13,114 13,114 -13,'114
Construction
Labor 25,000 614 24,386 25,000
Construction Contract 312,000 -312,000 312,000 mastco,Inc.
CM Contract 19,317 -19,317 19,3'17 As-Needed eM
Project Closeout 5,000 5,000 5,000
Total Construction 361,317 14,727 346,590 361,317
Grand Total 375,000 28,410 346,590 375,000
OTAYWATER DISTRICT ,
657-1 (1.0 MG)&657-2 (0.87 MG)RESERVOIRS
EXTERIOR/INTERIOR COATINGS &UPGRADES
SPRING VALLEY,CA CIP #P2505 &P2506
EXHIBIT A
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.
for the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior
Coating and Upgrades Project
Project No.:P2505-001103
P2506-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
Kevin Cameron
Date
QA Reviewer:
Printed Name
W!~~at~1f~/I'
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:~~Ignature
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 5
STAFF REPORT
3
January 5,2011
DIV.
NO.
P2488/
P2489-
001103
MEETING DATE:
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:Engineer
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineerin~anager
Rod posada~~·
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General ~nager,Engineering and Operations
Award a Construction Contract to L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.for
the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive Emergency Interconnections
Project
Regular Board
Daniel Kay O'f-
Associate Civil
SUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to L.H.Woods &Sons Inc.(L.H.Woods)
in the amount of $379,000 for the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive
Emergency Interconnections Project (see Exhibits A &B for project
locations).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into
a construction contract with L.H.Woods for the Del Rio Road and
Gillispie Drive Emergency Interconnection Project in an amount not
to exceed $379,000.
ANALYSIS:
The District has identified an opportunity and a beneficial need for
the construction of two interconnections with Helix Water District
(Helix).
The proposed interconnections are located on Del Rio Road and
Gillispie Drive in Spring Valley.The project will consist of
installing a vault,bi-directional meter,blow-offs,new telemetry,
and new SCADA equipment at each location.The interconnections will
benefit both Helix and the District by allowing water to be
transferred interchangeably between each system in the event of an
emergency situation.In previous outages and emergencies,similar
interconnections have proven to provide increased reliability and
flexibility.
The Board approved an agreement between Helix and the District at
the April 7,2010 Board meeting.Since the interconnections will
benefit both Districts,the agreement states that Helix and the
District will share equally the cost for design,construction,
operation,and maintenance of the facilities.The District is the
lead agency for the planning,design and construction of the
interconnections.
The design for this project was performed in-house by District staff
with an electrical consultant,Engineering Partners,Inc.,providing
the electrical and instrumentation drawings and specifications.
The project was advertised for bid on November 3,2010 on the
District's website and several other publications including the
Union Tribune and San Diego Daily Transcript.
A non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting was held on November 16,2010.A
presentation was given by District staff to explain the project and
discuss any questions or concerns from the contractors.There was
one (1)contractor that attended the meeting and meeting minutes
were published.
Subsequently,one (1)addendum was sent out to all bidders and
planhouses to address questions and clarifications to the contract
documents during the bidding period.Bids were publicly opened on
November 30,2010 with the following results:
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
AMOUNT
l.L.H.Woods &Sons Inc.$379,000.00
2 .Arrieta Construction $428,748.38
The Engineer's Estimate is $192,000.
The evaluation process included reviewing all bids submitted for
conformance to the contract documents.The lowest bidder,L.H.
Woods,submitted a responsible bid and holds a Class A Contractor's
2
license which expires on May 31,2011.References were checked and
L.H.Woods was found to be a highly rated company.Staff has
verified that the bid bond provided by L.H.Woods is valid.Once
L.H.Woods signs the contract,they will furnish the performance
bond.Staff will verify the performance bond before the District
executes the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total budget for eIP P2488,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $150,000.00.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments
and forecast,are $139,036.See Attachment B-1 for budget detail.
The total budget for eIP P2489,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $150,000.00.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments
and forecast,are $136,257.See Attachment B-2 for budget detail.
Including the agreed upon 50%reimbursement from Helix for design
and construction costs,the District's share will be within the
existing FY 2011 budget.Based on a review of the financial budgets,
the Project Manager has determined that each budget is sufficient to
support the project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from the
Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is from the Betterment Fund
for both eIP P2488 and P2489.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner,"as well as the General Manager I s vision,"...prepared for the
future..."by guaranteeing the District will always be able to meet
future water supply obligations and plan,design,and construct new
facilities.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
MriJdS
Generkl Manager
P;\~'lORKING\CIP P2488 Del Rio Rd Interconnection\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,Helix Interconnection,(DK-RR).doc
DK/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B-1 -Budget Detail for crp P2488
Attachment B-2 -Budget Detail for crp P2489
Exhibit A -Location Map for crp 2488
Exhibit B -Location Map for crp 2489
4
C::IIR '~CT:
P2488/P2489-001103
ATTACHMENT A
Award a Construction Contract to L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.
for the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive Emergency
Interconnections
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee reviewed
The Committee
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
OtayWater District
P2488 -Del Rio Road Helix &Otsy Agency Interconnection
Date Updated:November 23,2010
Outstanding ProjllCtBdFinalBudgetCOmmillBdExpendiluff1sCommitment&Cost Vendor/COmments
150,000 FOff1CBSt
Planning
Labor 1,314 1,314 1,314
Tolal Planning 1,314 1,314 -1,314
Design
Labor 36,915 36,915 -36,915
Consultant Contracts 5,950 5,950 ·5,950 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
500 500 -500 STEWART TITLE OF CA INC
2,805 2,805 -2,805 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC,THE
Service Contracts 331 331 ·331 SAN DIEGO UNION·TRIBUNE LLC
Contracted Services 665 665 -665 KIRK PAVING INC
Infrastructure Equipment &Materials 558 558 -558 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO·DPW
Reimbursement by Helix (23,863)-(23,863)(23,863)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Total Design 23,862 47,725 ·47,725
Construction
Labor 20,000 2,149 17,851 20,000
Service Contracts 11,795 11,795 -11,795 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC
Construction Contract 185,925 .185,925 185,925 L.H.WOODS &SONS
Reimbursement by Helix (113,860)-(113,860)(113,860)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Closeout 10,000 .10,000 10,000
Tolal Construction 113,860 13,944 99,916 113,860
GrandTotal 139,038 62,982 76,053 139,036
ATTACHME T B-2
Olay Water District Date Updated:November23.2010
P2489 -Gillespie Drive Helix &OlayAgency Interconnection
OutstandIng ProjectedFlnslBudgetCommittedExpendituresCommitment&Cost V8ndor/Comments
150.000 Forecast
Planning
Labor 189 189 ·189
Regulatory Agency Fees 100 100 ·100 PETIYCASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 289 289 ·289
Design
Labor 33,690 33,690 -33,690
Consultant Contracts 4,200 4,200 ·4,200 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
2,805 2,805 ·2,805 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC.THE
Construction Contracts 6,820 6,820 ·6,820 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Professional Legal Fees 374 374 -374 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Reibursement by Helix (23,945)-(23.945)(23,945)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Total Design 23,945 47,889 -47,889
Construction
Labor 20,000 1,926 18,074 20,000
Service Contracts 972 972 -972 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC
Construction Contract 193,075 -193,075 193,075 L.H.WOODS &SONS
Reibursement by Helix (112,024)(112.024)(112.024)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Closeout 10,000 -10,000 10,000
Total Construction 112,023 2,898 109,125 112,023
Grand Total 138.257 51,078 85,181 138,257
VICINITY MAP
INTERCONNECTION
WIHElIXWD
CAPACITY =800 GPM
DETAIL 1
(OWO DWG 10-1-20,2&.1-20)
(HWO DWG WO 9067)~c."'i~O\S\f'l"''''i~
y..'i;.\.\i-
DETAIL 1
aTAY WATER DISTRICT
DEL RIO ROAD
INTERCONNECTION
WITH HELIX WATER DISTRICT
EXHIBIT A
P2488
DETAIL 1
1
I.L
I
Lj-ll
_1_--,-_1
14"ACP CL200
INTERCat'.lN CTIONWIHE~Wi wCAP~=00 GPM ~DET~1 Q(owoy G 321-1,54-1-1)~
ftWD DWG WO 7321)UJ:::i...J
C)fa
i
I••..
i
I
P2489
I OTAY WATER DISTRICT
I GILLISPIE DRIVE
i INTERCONNECTION
WITH HELIX WATER DISTRICTcl.-----L---------.-.EXHIBIT B
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Su~ect Award a Construction Contract to
L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.for the
Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive
Emergency Interconnections
Project No.:P2488-001103
P2489-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
Signature
Daniel Kay
/2--/2-//0
Date
QA Reviewer:
Printed Name
Llw(4~-----(2I7-·/ro~Date
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 6
STAFF REPORT
2DIV.No.P2434-
001101
January 5,2011
PROJECT No.
MEETING DATE:Regular Board
James Peasley ~f
Engineering Mahager
Rod posad~~~
Chief,Engineering
,-
Manny Magana~~
Assistant Generalc;;nager,Engineering and Operations
Change Order No.1 to the Professional Engineering Services
Contract with AECOM Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors
(Board)approve Change Order No.1 to the existing contract with
AECOM Technical Services,Inc.(AECOM)in an amount not-to-exceed
$176,805 for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development
(RDR Groundwater Well)Project (see Exhibit A for project
location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Change Order No.1 (see Exhibit B)to the existing contract with
AECOM in an amount not-to-exceed $176,805 for the RDR
Groundwater Well Project.
ANALYSIS:
The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater
supply projects by the District has been resurrected in response
to the regional water supply issues that have impacted water
supply conditions,such as the court rulings regarding the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the spiraling retail water
pricing pressures.Local ground water supply projects will
allow for less reliance upon imported water,achieve a level of
independence from regional wholesale water agencies,and
diversify the District's water supply portfolio consistent with
the District's March 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan.
As a result,and in recognition of the need to develop
sufficient alternative water supplies,the District took the
next step towards development of a groundwater production well
at the Rancho del Rey site.The Board awarded a professional
engineering contract to AECOM for the RDR Groundwater Well
Project on January 6,2010 in the amount of $1,561,625.
The purpose of the RDR Groundwater Well Project scope of work is
to firmly establish the feasibility of developing a groundwater
resource production system,including determining sustainable
well yield,groundwater quality,and assessing any limitations
or constraints that may arise.These items were accomplished
with construction and testing of a full-scale production well
and a multiple level monitoring well.
The RDR Groundwater Well Project scope of work accomplished the
following:
•Regulatory and agency coordination,compliance,and
permitting.
•Groundwater well water and brine disposal discharge
analysis.
•Multiple level groundwater monitoring well installation.
•Planning,design,construction,and testing of a production
well .
•Monitoring well and production well completion report.
The primary outcome of the RDR Groundwater Well Project is that
the groundwater well is physically feasible and capable as a
long-term (i.e.,approximately 30 years)production system,with
a maximum sustainable yield of about 700 acre-feet per year.
The approximately 700 acre-feet per year of well yield can be
used as feed water to a reverse osmosis treatment system to
obtain a local potable water resource of about 500 to 600 acre-
feet per year.
2
In response to the community concerns about noise and vibration
levels,the District chose to modify the contract terms to:
1.Limit the days of work and work hours per day during the
drilling and other operations at the project site.
2.Increase sound mitigation measures.
3.Extend the contract duration.
As a result of the reduced work schedule,the duration that the
drilling subcontractor,AECOM,and equipment were on site
increased.These changes resulted in a cost increase of
$302,213.
There were also cost savings that included reduced well casing
size,reduced drill cuttings hauling and disposal,and conductor
casing material type revision.These three items totaled a cost
reduction of $161,700.
In addition,there were other increased costs including labor to
overcome sewer discharge permit obstacles,laboratory analyses
for additional constituents,some new landscaping,and enhanced
site erosion control totaling $36,292.
District staff and AECOM worked with the drilling contractor to
reduce their fees.For example,we were able to obtain a
reduced fee for standby charges related to noise and vibration
issues.AECOM also provided a discount on a portion of their
labor costs.
Combining the increased costs for the drilling,laboratory,and
other expenses along with the reductions,the net increase for
this Change Order is $176,805 or an 11.3%increase over the
::::::a:M:::::act amo~
The total budget for CIP Project P2434,Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well Development,as part of the approved FY 2011
CIP budget,is $4,250,000.Expenditures to date are $2,023,099.
Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments,including this
contract,totals $2,550,223.See Attachment B for budget
detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that,based on the attached
financial analysis,the CIP budget for P2434 will be sufficient
to support the anticipated expenses payable to AECOM,including
the requested change order.
3
It is important to note that the Project Manager has determined
that the budget is not sufficient to cover the second phase of
this CIP,the construction of a reverse osmosis treatment
facility.This anticipated shortfall is being addressed in the
staff report requesting authorization to issue a RFP for design
of the second phase of the Rancho del Rey Well Project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from
the Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The RDR Groundwater Well Development Project supports the
District's Mission statement,"To provide the best quality of
water and wastewater service to the customers of the Otay Water
District,in a professional,effective,and efficient mannerU
and the Otay strategic goal,in planning for infrastructure and
supply to meet current and future potable water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,Change Order NO.1 with
AECOM for RDR Well,(JP-RP).doc
JP/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A Location Map
Exhibit B -Change Order No.1
4
P2434-001101
ATTACHMENT A
Change Order No.1 to the Professional Engineering Services
Contract with AECOM Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.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 8
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2434-001101
Change Order No.1 to the Professional Engineering Services
Contract with AECOM Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
Date Updated:November 29,2010
Budget
4,250,000
Committed Expendl1ures
Outstanding
Comml1ment&
Forecast
ProjectedFinal
Cost Vendor/Comments
.----_.,,-----------
.__.---",-----------------_._-
---------_.~----------
Planning
Labor -308,719 308)19 -"-~8J19
Land --~--326,692~---326,092-----~--.--·----;;3:c26c:-,0"'9::;;2ci-----------------
-PerrlliiS----·125 125 .---f----.125 CITY OF CHULA VISTA·DEPT,OF ..,..--.
Materials 1,348 1,348 '..--'--~--1,348 VARIOUS
--Rental -,----159 ,~-·--159 -.----..,,-------"'-c-;15~9c+---;;P""E:-N::-;H-;-A:-;LL-C;cO;cM~PA.,-;Nc;;Y-;----------1
Construction Costs --~154~----26,i54 ----.~\--26,154 CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,INC,
---p,:Qressional Legal Fees 4,829 4,829 -------------------4,829~ACALDERON&RUIZ LLP-----
Consultant Contracts--19,481 19,481 -'19,481 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC-----
---.--------13,825 13,825 _:--I-=13~825-iViWHCONSTRUCTORSINC
------..----------------1,100 1,100 ----+---1,100 SOUTHWESTERN C-O·'C"L~LE~G~E~------
--~_._--~-_._---_..-~"-_._--_._-~-_..
3,065 3,065 -3,065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL----------------1---~1c"5,-c00~0+--------·15,000 15,000 SEPARATION PROCESSES INC -----
-----,·_--,-,---~-------I---,--,-----~.-----I______..---~-..-.-------.,.-----6,930 6,930 6,930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT --1,561,625 1,231,406 330,219 1,561,625 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC----,--~-_c____---.-,.-----I__---'_=c~_c____I___-.--------------..---Change Order No,1 176,805 176,805 176,805 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC,C,0,#1
Service ContraC"ct:-s----5,100 5,100----5:160-S R BRADLEY &ASSOCIATES INC
,.------186 -~----186 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT -.---
624 624 624 ~ON'TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO ..----
399 399 --_.399 REPROHAUS CORP ------
----------------r----.--.~440 -.------440 URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INC
1------------.-----.-----..-----6 6 -."6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
--------------134 --~-----~-134 COURIEREXPRESS,INC,
1----,-,·----------+~---205 205 ----.----205 USA SIGN CO,-------------~
f-----------'----··--I--~--3°--,2~2~6-+--·-~-""3.226-3,226 -----oLiAurTAsSURANCE LABORATORY
---------------1 7,108 7,108 ~~8 MULTI WATER SYSTEMS-------_..-._-----~"._--_.--_..-
__________________1 1c:',,9~5~5+_----_=1~,9=55---1,955 BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP
5,665 5,665 5,665 EARTH TECH--------.'c-=-=c-=~~~~---.--.----3,344 3,344 3,344 CITY OF CHULA VISTA-.-
16,714 16,714 16,714 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
112 112 -c--112 MONTGOMERY WATSON LABORATORIES
2,500·--2.500~------~~·2,500 ANDREW A.SMITH COMPANY
2,000 2,000 -f---.2,000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
35,200 35,200 -35,200 ALCEM FENCE COMPANY INC,
Regulatory Ag'e-·n-c-y""F-ee-s------I---50 50·--50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
-'---=------=-----=--------'---------1-------_·-
Total Planning 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 I 2,550,223
Grand Total 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
•NOT 10 SCAlI
o DEL REY \\ELL
o
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,
INC
LOT 108
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.89-5
MAP NO.12720
///
(96.11')
(N8TJ7'44"E)
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
CIP P2434
U'ERAL.
EEAQt
...l/IQ.
~Q.
~,:.;:..
N
00~~..
DO•...c£
1!iii
~i~Q.
I
iEgo
1Q
I
I
0ll"or:::,g,.
!,
J!'...I..i~.....:;-
.11.r....!?~~~~
l!t~CIZS<!tL
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.1
PROJECTIITEM:Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
CONTRACTORIVENDOR:AECOM Technical Services,Inc.REF.CIP No.:P2434-001101
APPROVED BY:Board REF.P.O.No:713180 DATE:01-05-11
DESCRIPTION:
There are five items as part of this change order:
1)Increased cost due to shorten work days and hours per day.
2)Increased cost due to permits and analysis required.
3)Decrease in cost due to reduced hauling and disposal fees and other savings.
4)Decrease in cost due to reduced well casing size and conductor casing material change.
5)Increase contract duration by three months.
REASON:
1)The contract terms were modified to accommodate the community concerns about noise and vibration
levels.In order to accommodate the concerns,work days and hours were limited during the operation at
the site.Also,sound mitigation measures were increased.The cost increase for modification to the
contract is $302,213.
2)Other costs,including labor to overcome sewer discharge permit obstacles,constituents'laboratory
analysis,new landscaping,and enhanced site erosion control.The cost increase for these items is
$36,292.
3)A cost savings,which included reduced well casing size,reduced drill cuttings hauling and disposal,and
conductor casing material type revision.These items totaled a cost savings of $161 ,700.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
Revise contract to add $176,805 for a total contract amount of $1 ,738,430.00.
Revise contract to extend contract duration by three months to March 31,2011.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$1,561,625.00
$0.00
$176,805.00
$1,738,430.00
12/31/10
90 days
03/31/11
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTOR/VENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES.IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND
COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
DIV.MGR:_
CONTRACTORIVENDOR:
SIGNATURE:_
NAME:_
STAFF APPROVALS:
PROJ.MGR:Sr Eng (Inti--DATE:_
DATE:_
TITLE:DATE :_CHIEF:_DATE:_
ADDRESS:ASST.GM:_----------------
_______________DISTRICT APPROVAL:
GEN.MANAGER:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONTRACTORNENDOR,0 CHIEF-FINANCE,0 INSPECTION,0 ENGR.SECRETARY,0 PROJECT BINDER
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434\PI,::mnino\Ch,gnop.OrrfArs\C':hrlnnp.OrrlAr#1 rlnr.
CHANGE ORDER LOG
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
Consultant:AECOM Technical Services,Inc.
Project:P2434
Subproject:001101
APPROVED
C.O.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O.
1 $176,805.00 Board Increase due to work days shortened,additional permits and Owneranalysisrequired,and extend completion date.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Total C.O.'s To Date:
Original Contract Amount:
Current Contract Amount:
Change Order Breakdown for the Month:
Month Net C.O.$Limit Authorization
$2,000 Insp
$10,000 PM/Supervisor
$20,000 Manager
$25,000 Chief
$35,000 AGM
$50,000 GM
$176,805.00
$1,561,625.00
$1,738,430.00
11,3%
C.O.%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
AECOM
3995 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach,CA 90810
November 17,2010
Mr.Jim Peasley
Engineering Manager
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,California 91978-2004
SUbject:Rancho del Rey Change Order
Dear Mr.Peasley,
562.420.2933 tel
562.420.2915 fax
We appreciate the opportunity to meet with Mr.Posada and you this week regarding the Rancho del
Rey well.Although there were several challenges to drilling and constructing the production well
and monitoring well,the effort was successful.The wells have and will continue to provide important
information into this valuable local water resource.The production well was completed deeper than
originally planned and demonstrate the viability of producing water from the volcanic rock in addition
to the overlying sediments.This letter explains the change order related to alterations which
occurred during the course of the project.The change order covers the drilling and consulting fees.
The major changes are summarized below:.
Major Cost Increases
•Increased Time -Prior to the commencement ofwork (post-bid)Otay Water District
decided to adjust the anticipated work schedule in an effort to address potential community
relations concerns about noise.The City of Chula Vista allows for work to occur from 7am
to 10pm Monday through Friday and 8am to 10pm on weekends before needing to invoke
more stringent noise actions.The District made the decision to eliminate the weekend work
schedule (except during well construction)and to reduce the number of hours onsite during
the week so that all work would be completed by 7pm.In addition,the District also had
concerns about large delivery vehicles moving around in the parking lot of the ChiidTime
daycare center during peak pick-up and drop-off periods.Accordingly,there were no
deliveries made to the site before 9am or between the hours of 2pm to 6pm.The reduced
work schedule increased the duration the drilling contractor and AECOM were onsite.
This resulted in additional costs for items like:
o Sound mitigation -$142,213
o Labor -$57,000
o Per Diem -$49,000
o Prevailing wage surcharge -$43,000
o Equipment rental (forklift,air-compressor,etc)-$11,000
AECOM
Major Cost Savings
•Casing Size -Following the construction ofthe monitoring well,we were able to evaluate
and thus reduce the casing size of the production well from 18-inches in diameter to 12-
inches.
o This casing reduction resulted in a net savings of $87,000
2
•Waste Disposal -Drill cuttings were originally intended to be disposed of by hauling them
to a non-hazardous waste facility.The District was able to provide an nearby District-owned
property to place the non-hazardous drill cuttings.This eliminated hauling the cuttings to a
disposal site.
o Net savings to the District -$45,800
•Casing Materials -The bid package listed the conductor casing for the well to be stainless
steel.However,because the casing is fully encapsulated in cement,it is well protected
from corrosion.Therefore it was decided to use mild-steel casing for this section.
o Net savings to the District --$28,900
Smaller additions and reductions occurred throughout the project including additional time acquiring
the sewer discharge permit,additional laboratory expenses (increased number of constituents
required for analysis),etc.
We have worked with the drilling contractor to reduce some of their fees.For example,we were
able to obtain a reduced fee for standby issues due to noise issues.In addition,AECOM is
providing a discount on the October invoice as a goodwill gesture.
Combining the increased costs for the drilling,laboratory and other expenses along with the
reductions such as those discussed above,the net requested increase for this change order is
$176,805.
Yours sincerely,
Ronald Sorensen
Program Manager,Sr.Hydrogeologist
ronald.sorensen@aecom.com
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Change Order NO.1 to the Professional
Engineering Services Contract with AECOM
Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho del Rey
GroundwaterWeli Development Project
Project No.:P2434-001101
Document Description:Staff Report for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
~~~-
synature V
James Peasley
Printed Name
~
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
Date
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 7
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:January 5,2011
5DIV.
NO.P2009-
001102
PROJECTI
SUBPROJECT:Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General~nager,Engineering and Operations
Change Order No.2 to the Construction Management Services
Contract with RBF Consulting for the 36-Inch Pipeline,SDCWA
Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
approves Change Order No.2 to the existing contract with RBF
Consulting (RBF)for construction management and inspection services
for the 36-Inch Pipeline,SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory
Site Project in an amount not to exceed $101,075 (see Exhibit A for
proj ect location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Change Order No.2 (see Exhibit B)to the contract with RBF in an
amount not to exceed $101,075.
ANALYSIS:
On January 16,2008,the Board awarded a contract to RBF,to provide
construction management and inspection services.RBF's scope of work
initially included pre-construction support such as constructability
reviews,public relations support,bidding support and construction
management over a 24-month period.RBF's pre-construction efforts
were increased due to the District's replacement of the design
consultant.Based on staff's recommendation,the General Manager
executed Change Order NO.1 on June 15,2010 in the amount of $46,995
to provide funding for the additional scope of work.
After Change Order No.1 was executed,it became necessary to extend
the construction contract duration with CCL due to a variety of
factors including coordination with their subcontractor to perform
additional paving,modifications to the sampling system at the
Regulatory Site Vault 7,and a longer timeframe than anticipated for
flushing and completing bacteriological testing of the new pipeline.
Change Order No.2 documents the concentrated effort that was
required by RBF staff to oversee CCL's final work items and to ensure
the project was completed to the District's satisfaction.The
contract was completed at the end of November and the project is
ready to be accepted.
FISCAL IMPACT,~
-----The total budget for CIP P2009,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,is
$21,000,000.RBF's original contact amount is $1,088,785;with the
approval of Change Order NO.2 their new contract amount will be
$1,236,855.Total CIP expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,including this Change Order,are approximately $19,522,797.
The Project Manager anticipates that,based on the attached financial
analysis,the CIP budget for P2009 will be sufficient to support this
project.See Attachment B for details.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from the
Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund for CIP P2009.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,liTo provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner.II This project fulfills the two of the District's Strategic
Goals,No.1 -Community and Governance and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders,and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
2
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Genera114 W11J
P;\WORKING\CIP P2009 36-inch PL -FCF 14 to Reg Site\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,RBF CO#2,
(RR-RP).doc
RR/RP:jf
Attachments Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Project Location Map
Exhibit B -Change Order No.2
3
P2009-001102
CIID ·1 ._JECT:
ATTACHMENT A
Change Order No.2 to the Construction Management Services
Contract with RBF Consulting for the 36-Inch Pipeline,
SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee reviewed
The Committee
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.
P2009-001102
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECTjpROJi~ci:---'--Change Order No.2 to the Construction Management Services
Contract with RBF for the 36-Inch Pipeline,SDCWA Otay FCF
No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
;
••••••••_••_._._.__••••r _••_•••••••••••••_•••••••••••••.1.•...•.......•.•.....__..•___._._.•__.•
otay WaterDistrict
P2009 •36-lnchPipeline from SDCWAotayFCF No,14 to theRegulatorySIle
Date Updated:November 05,2010
Outstanding Pro}8ctedFinalBudgetCommlltBdExpendituffJSCommitment&Vendor/Commenls
21,000,000 CostFof8CllSf
Planning
Labor 285,782 285,782 285,782
Printing 993 993 -993 OCB REPROGRAPHICS
596 596 -596 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUPINC
Business Meetings 110 110 -110 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
84 84 -84 USBANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 341 341 -341 US POSTMASTER
Professional Legal Fees 5,595 5,595 -5,595 BURKE WILLIAMS&SORENSEN LLP
187,474 187,474 -187,474 GARCIACAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
cnherLegalExpenses 4,948 4,948 -4,948 GARCIACAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
(10,290)(10,290)-(10,290)WooDRUFF,SPRADLIN &SMART
RegUlatory Agency Fees 1,927 1,927 -1,927 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
100 100 -100 US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
ConsultantContracts 1,080,288 1,080,288 1,080,288 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
25,684 25,684 25,684 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
1,100 1,100 -1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE (COC)
Service Contracts 398 398 -398 UNIONTRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCO
957 957 -957 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT
350 350 -350 RYAN BETHKE
705 705 -705 OLLI BROS
Total Planning 1,587,141 1,587,142 -1,587,142
Design
Labor 691,627 691,627 691,627
MileageReimbursement 69 69 -69 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 63 63 63 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 46 46 46 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
215 215 -215 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional LegalFees 67,883 67,883 -67,883 STEPHEN V MCCUEEsa
79,098 79,098 -79,098 GARCIACAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
153 153 -153 RWBECK
cnher Legal Expenses 5,581 5,581 -5,581 GARCIACAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
17,071 17,071 -17,071 RWBECK
1,671 1,671 -1,671 SHELBURNE SHERR COURT
RegulatoryAgency Fees 271 271 -271 COUNTY OF SANDIEGO -DPW
OtherAgency Fees 12,830 12,830 -12,830 crrv OF EL CAJON
Consultant Contracts 99 99 -99 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
2,915 2,915 -2,915 LEE &RO (As-Needed Design)
3,656 3,656 -3,656 RBF (As-Needed Drafting)
1,050 1,050 -1,050 SOUTHlAND TITLE
1,640 1,640 -1,640 CALTRANS
527,826 527,826 -527,826 LEE&ROINC
61,629 61,629 -61,629 C.O.#1
13,440 13,440 ·13,440 SWINERTON MANAGEMENT
4,744 4,744 -4,744 WRA&ASSOCIATES INC
41,513 41,513 ·41,513 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
36,750 36,750 ·36,750 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
4,900 4,900 ·4,900 KEN DAROIS
MiscellaneousContracts 87 87 ·87 SAN DIEGODAILYTRANSCRIPT
93,000 93,000 ·93,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
107,138 101,801 5,337 107,138 HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
28 28 ·28 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
5,700 5,700 -5,700 BELLATERRA HOA
700 700 ·700 SUZETTE C SWANGER
3,000 3,000 ·3,000 RAYMOND KEITH HANNA
229,800 229,800 -229,800 GROSSMONT·CUYAMACA COMMUNITY
Service Contracts 7,500 7,500 -7,500 KEAGY REAL ESTATE
91 91 -91 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
244 244 -244 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCO
349 349 ·349 MCGRAW·HILL COMPANIES
6,912 6,912 ·6,912 REPROHAUS CORP
Special Projects 48 48 -48 SEDONASTAFFINGSERVICES
Total Design 2,031,334 2,025,996 5,337 2,031,334
Construction
Labor 325,000 288,181 36.819 325,000
Mileage Reimbursement 119 119 ·119 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 83 83 ·83 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 150 150 150 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 1,606 1,606 1,606 US POSTMASTER
Printing 2,814 1,139 1,675 2,814 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
141 141 ·141 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Regulatory Agency Fees 17,375 17.375 ·17,375 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
11,641 11.641 11,641 CITY OF ELCAJON
88,279 5.100 83,178 88,279 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Other Agency Fees 1,172 1.172 ·1,172 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
68,725 -68,725 68,725 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
9,625 9,625 ·9,625 CITY OF EL CAJON
ConsultantContracts 1,088,785 1,088,785 ·1,088.785 RBF-CONSULTING (CM)
46,995 46,995 ·46,995 C.O.#1
101,075 77,534 23,541 101,075 C.O.#2
13,128 13,128 ·13,128 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
30,000 29,171 829 30,000 MARSTON+MARSTONINC
52,357 34,865 17,492 52,357 LEE &RO INC (Constr.Phase Services)
252 252 -252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD
Construction Contracts 527,000 527,000 -527,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTYWATER
12,869 12,869 ·12,869 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
27,850 27,850 -27,850 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
13,680,525 12,439,847 1,240,678 13.680,525 CCL CONTRACTING
(243,847)(243,847)·(243,847)C.O.#1
(63,418) (63,418)-(63,418)C.O.#2
(1,474,033).(1,474,033)(1,474.033)C.O.#3
1,485,918 1,233,364 252,554 1,485,918 CALIFORNIA BANK &TRUST
49,901 49,901 -49,901 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DPW
5,998 5,998 -5,998 CLARKSON LAB &SUPPLY INC
.---HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
Professional Legal Fees 83 83 ·83 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Service Contracts 1,311 1.311 ·1,311 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
266 266 -266 MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES
450 450 ·450 REEL 'EM IN INC
252 252 -252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODNEWS
1,769 1.769 ·1,769 MAILMANAGEMENTGROUP INC
121 121 -121 SD DAILYTRANSCRIPT
Infrastructure Equipment &Mat 16,375 1,626 14,750 16,375 MESALABORATORIES INC
Backfill 14,000 14,000 ·14,000 TC CONSTRUCTION INC
Inline Valve 1,609 1,609 ·1,609 FERGUSONWATERWORKS #1082
Total Construction 15,904,322 15,638,114 266,208 15,904,322
Grand Total 19,522,797 19,251,252 271,545 19,522,797
6
@ ~"/ELCAJON·U
\:"-.I C1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
PIPELINE 36-INCH,
SDCWA FCF NO.14 TO REGULATORY SITE
EXHIBIT A
CIPP2009
EXHIBIT B
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY.CA.91978.(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.02
PROJECT/ITEM:Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 36-inch Pipeline from
SDCWA No.14 to Regulatory Site
CONTRACTORNENDOR:RBF Consulting REF.CIP No.:P2009
APPROVED BY:Board REF.P.O.No:707935 DATE:10-Nov-10
DESCRIPTION:
Increase Contract value for additional services per the attached request for contract amendment dated
November 8,2010.
REASON:
Resulting from added scope performed as a result of extending the duration of the construction contract
additional services are necessary to provide required construction management and inspection services to
complete.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
Revise contract to add $101,075.00 for a total contract amount of $1 ,236,855.00.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$1,088,785.00
$1,135,780.00
$101,075.00
$1,236,855.00
01/31/10
No
03/01/11
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTORNENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES.IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND
COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CONTRACTO~RNND~:
SIGNATURE:--~W'Jf-------------
NAME:Way e Papac
TITLE:
STAFF APPROVALS:
PROJ.MGR:_
DIY.MGR:_
Vice Presidenc:...l DATE:1/.-/0-/0 CHIEF:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
ADDRESS:9755 Clairemonl Mesa Blvd ASST.GM :_----------------
_--"S=an;.;..D=i=e9=O,,-.C=A..:..9=.:2;,..;.12=-4=---________DISTRICT APPROVAL:GEN.MANAGER:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONTRACTORNENDOR.0 CHIEF-ENGINEERING.0 CHIEF-FINANCE,0 ENGR. MGR.
o ACCTS PAYABLE.0 INSPECTION,0 PROJ.MGR..0 ENGR.SECRETARY.0 PURCHASING,0 PROJECT BINDER
H:IPDATA\25103069\AdminlcontractIChange Order No.2,doc
CHANGE ORDER LOG
Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 36-
inch Pipeline from SDCWA No.14 to Regulatory Site
Consultant/Contractor RBf Consulting
Project 1P2009
Subproject
APPROVED
C.O.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPEC.O.
1 $46,995.00 GM 611512010 Compensation lorAdditional ServicesduringPre-Construclion O'IInel
2 $101,075.00 Board Compensation fOl Additional Selvicesas parl of consttuction Ownercontract""',,nsion
3 ;
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 i
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Total C.O's To Date:
Original Contract Amount:
Current Contract Amount:
Change Order Breakdown for the Month:
Month Nel C.O.S Limit Authorization
11/10 SO.OO Sl,OOO Insp
55,000 PM/Supervisor
510,000 Manager
515.000 Chief
S20.000 AGM
S50,000 GM
$148,070.00
$1,088,785.00
$1,236,855.00
13.6%
C.O %
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
• • •
CONSULTING
November 8,2010
OlAY WATER DISTRICTR[r"c"'!EO
WiD NOV -9 MilO:55
Otay Water District
Attn:Ron Ripperger,PE,Project Manager
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978
Re:Request for Contract Amendment
Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 36-inch Pipeline from
SDCWA No.14 to Regulatory Site (P-2009)
Dear Mr.Ripperger:
When our contract was issued in February of 2008,it was anticipated that construction operations
would be complete in December of 2009.Due to changes in the engineering firm ofrecord,delays
were encountered resulting in a anticipated construction contract completion date of August 24,
2010 for which Contract Change Order No.1 was issued.Due to Project requirements the actual
construction completion was October 31,2010,and formal administrative close-out shall be
complete by November 30,2010.
Our original negotiated budget for pre-construction support anticipated 7 months of services
encompassing constructability reviews,public relations support and bidding support for a total of
$83,144.00.Resulting from extenuating circumstances surrounding the replacement ofthe original
design firm our pre-construction efforts were increased to a total of 18 months with a total cost of
$272,191.25 resulting in a delta of $189,047.25.
We have worked with District staff throughout the construction process to minimize costs,where
possible,in an effort to mitigate the impacts of the additional pre-construction support.Our Change
Order No.01 compensated us up to and including August 31,2010,however,the Contractor did not
complete the field work until October 31,2010,and there remain continued administrative close-out
activities and a small amount of field work to be completed by the end of November.In order to
complete the remaining activities and recover costs from September 1,2010 through completion
and final deliverables please process a Contract Change Order for the following:
I
I
,
Task 1 -Construction Inspection -James Bassett
Task 2 -Construction Management -Wayne Papac
Task 2 -Construction Management -Douglas Cook
Task 2 -Construction Management -Ellen Buensuceso
Task 3 -ODC's
339 hrs @ $145/hr =$49,155.00
5 hrs @ $180/hr =$900.00
232 hrs @ $160/hr =$37,120.00
132 hrs @ $75/hr =$9,900.00
2 mo @$2,000.00 =$4,000.00===========
$101,075.00
PLANNING •DESIGN •CONSTRUCTION
9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard.San Diego,CA 92124-1324 _858.614.5000 _Fax 858.614.5001
Offices located throughout California,Arizona &Nevada _www.RBF.com
ponIedon r&t.'Yck!d papeI
We respectfully request a contract FINAL amendment to add $101,075.00 to our current contract to
include completion of required services.
Respectfully SUbmitt~__
Wayne Papac r
Vice President /Project Manager
Authorized Officer
CONSULTING
PLANNING •DESIGN •CONSTRUCTION
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Change Order No.2 to the Construction
Management Services Contract with RBF
Consulting for the 36-lnch Pipeline,SDCWA
Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
Project No.:P2009-001102
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting.
Author:br1¥hr tI/UJ!'O
Date /
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
QA Reviewer:~1(/"'10 10
Date I
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:~~o~\~\~\ \0
Signature Date
Rod Posada
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible,and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 8
STAFF REPORT
5DIV.
NO.
P2009-
001103
January 5,2011
PROJECT I
SUBPROJECT:
MEETING DATE:Regular Board
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posad~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafia)il~
Assistant ~;~~~a~Janager,Engineering and Operations
Credit Change Order No.3 to the Construction Contract with
CCL Contracting Inc.for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Projects
APPROVED BY:
(Asst GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBJECT:
SUBMITIED BY:
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
approves Credit Change Order No.3 to the existing construction
contract with CCL Contracting Inc.(CCL)for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch
Potable Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Projects in the amount of <$1,474,033.22>(see Exhibit A for project
location.)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Credit Change Order NO.3 (see Exhibit B)for <$1,474,033.22>to the
construction contract with CCL for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Projects.
ANALYSIS:
At the June 3,2009 Board Meeting,CCL was awarded a construction
contract for the 36-Inch Pipeline Project in the amount of
$16,189,243.Project construction began in July 2009 and was
completed in November 2010.
On January 6,2010 the Board approved Credit Change Order No.1 which
provided for a change in installation methods of the 36-inch pipe
under an existing riparian area within the southeasterly portion of
Cuyamaca College due to differing site conditions.The original Bid
Item No.7 in the contract for P2009 included $936,434 for a
traditional tunnel operation.Change Order No.1 modified this item
to a jack and bore operation for a revised cost of $692,587 resulting
in a net change of <$243,847>.
On July 7,2010 the Board approved Credit Change Order No.2 which
provided for a variety of items including an increase in costs due to
revising the location of airvac assemblies,removal of rocks and
boulders encountered during the jack &bore operation within Cuyamaca
College,and changing the specified spacers within the steel casing
to redwood skids.In addition,the pipeline had to be realigned
during construction due to conflicts with the new 12-inch pipe.This
change order also included deletion of an allowance item for
installation of a sound wall within Cuyamaca College of ($200,000).
The total cost for all the additive items was $136,852.Including
the credit for the sound wall allowance,Credit Change Order No.2
provided a net reimbursement amount to the District of <$63,418.11>.
Credit Change Order No.3 is the final change order for the project
essentially closing out the contract with CCL.This change order
includes twenty-two (22)separate items consisting of one increase
(Item No.21)and twenty-one (21)deductions to the contract amount.
In addition,Credit Change Order No.3 extends the contract duration
by fifty-three (53)days.
Item No.21,valued at $11,575.20,provides for the addition of a
sample pump and associated mechanical and electrical work at Vault
No.7 at the Regulatory Site.The remaining twenty-one (21)items
provide credits for various items such as reduced quantity of rock
removal,dewatering to the storm drain,disposal of Class II
regulated waste,reduced quantity of sewer lateral reconstruction,
and other miscellaneous allowances added to the contract based on an
independent risk analysis.The deductive items also include a credit
back for allowances such as unknown utilities and paving.Exhibit B
provides all the detail for this change.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the overall
pipeline installation.
by <$1,474,033.22>.
project comes from CIP P2009,the 36-Inch
This Credit Change Order reduces the contract
2
The total budget for CIP P2009,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,is
$21,000,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast including this Credit Change Order,are $19,522,797.See
Attachment B for budget detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that,based on the attached financial
analysis,the CIP budget for P2009 will be sufficient to support this
project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from the
Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund for CIP P2009.
SRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner."This project fulfills two of the District's Strategic
Goals,No.1 -Community and Governance and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
General Manager
P:\WORKING\CIP P2009 36-inch PL -FCF 14 to Reg Site\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11 ,Staff Report,CCL CO#3,
(RR-RP).doc
RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Project Location Map
Exhibit B -Credit Change Order No.3
3
P2009-001103
C::111:l I II=('T
ATTACHMENT A
Credit Change Order No.3 to the Construction Contract with
CCL Contracting Inc.for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline
Replacement Projects
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee reviewed
The Committee
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
...
DateUpdated:November 05,2010OIayWaterDistrict
P2OO9 -36-lnchPlpeIine from SDCWAOtlrlFCFNo_14 to the RegulatorySite
...........................!_~..~.
SUSJ"EcTipROJECT:'j Credit Change Order N~:3'-'to theC~~~t~ucti'~~'Contractwith
I CCL Contracting Inc.for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
P2009-00ll03 i Water Pipeline and l2-Inch Potable Water Pipeline
I Replacement Projectsi
,
!..~.
Outstanding ProjeclBdFinalBUdgetCommitfBdExpBndituf9SCommitment&Vendor/Comments
21.000.000 CostForocasl
Planning
Labor 285.782 285.782 285.782
Printing 993 993 -993 OCB REPROGRAPHICS
596 596 -596 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
BusinessMeetings 110 110 -110 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
84 84 84 USBANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 341 341 341 USPOSTMASTER
Professional Legal Fees 5,595 5,595 -5.595 BURKE WILLIAMS &SORENSEN LLP
187,474 187,474 -187,474 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
cnherLegalExpenses 4,948 4,948 -4,948 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
(10,290)(10,290)-(10,290)WOODRUFF,SPRADLIN&SMART
Regulatory Agency Fees 1,927 1,927 1,927 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
100 100 100 US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
Consultant Contracts 1,080,288 1,080,288 1,080,288 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
25,684 25.684 ·25,684 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
1,100 1,100 -1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE(Co"C)
Service Contracts 398 398 -398 UNIONTRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCO
957 957 -957 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
350 350 -350 RYAN BETHKE
705 705 ·705 OLLI BROS
Total Planning 1,587,141 1,587,142 -1.587,142
Design
Labor 691,627 691,627 691,627
Mileage Reimbursement 69 69 -69 PETTYCASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 63 63 -63 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
BusinessMeetings 46 46 -46 PETTYCASH CUSTODIAN
215 215 -215 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional Legal Fees 67,883 67,883 ·67,883 STEPHENV MCCUEESa
79,098 79,098 -79,098 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
153 153 153 RWBECK
cnherLegalExpenses 5,581 5,581 -5,581 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
17,071 17.071 -17.071 RWBECK
1,671 1,671 ·1,671 SHELBURNE-SHERR COURT
Regulatory Agency Fees 271 271 -271 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO-DPW
cnher Agency Fees 12.830 12,830 -12,830 CITY OF EL CAJON
Consultant Contracts 99 99 -99 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
2,915 2,915 -2,915 LEE &RO (As-Needed Design)
3,656 3,656 -3.656 RBF (As-Needed Drafting)
1.050 1.050 -1,050 SOUTHLAND TITLE
1,640 1,640 -1,640 CALTRANS
527,826 527,826 ·527,826 LEE&ROINC
61,629 61.629 -61,629 C.O,#l
13,440 13,440 -13,440 SWINERTON MANAGEMENT
4,744 4,744 -4,744 WRA&ASSOCIATES INC
41,513 41,513 -41,513 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
36,750 36,750 -36,750 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
4,900 4,900 -4,900 KENDAROIS
Miscellaneous Contracts 87 87 -87 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT
93,000 93,000 -93,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTYWATER
107,138 101,801 5,337 107,138 HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
28 28 -28 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
5,700 5,700 -5,700 BELLATERRAHOA
700 700 -700 SUZETIE C SWANGER
3,000 3,000 -3,000 RAYMOND KEITH HANNA
229,800 229,800 -229,800 GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY
Service Contracts 7,500 7,500 -7,500 KEAGY REAL ESTATE
91 91 -91 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
244 244 -244 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCO
349 349 -349 MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES
6,912 6,912 -6,912 REPROHAUS CORP
Special Projects 48 48 -48 SEDONA STAFFING SERVICES
Total Design 2,031,334 2,025,996 5,337 2,031,334
Construction
Labor 325,000 288,181 36,819 325,000
Mileage Reimbursement 119 119 -119 PETIYCASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentais 83 83 -83 PETIYCASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 150 150 -150 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 1,606 1,606 -1,606 US POSTMASTER
Printing 2,814 1,139 1,675 2,814 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
141 141 -141 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Regulatory Agency Fees 17,375 17,375 -17,375 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
11,641 11,641 -11,641 CITY OF EL CAJON
88,279 5,100 83,178 88,279 HELIXWATER DISTRICT
Other Agency Fees 1,172 1,172 -1,172 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
68,725 -68,725 68,725 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
9,625 9,625 -9,625 CITY OF EL CAJON
Consultant Contracts 1,088,785 1,088,785 -1,088,785 RBF CONSULTING (CM)
46,995 46,995 -46,995 C.O.#1
101,075 77,534 23,541 101,075 C.O.#2
13,128 13,128 -13,128 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
30,000 29,171 829 30,000 MARSTON+MARSTONINC
52,357 34,865 17,492 52,357 LEE &RO INC (Constr.Phase Services)
252 252 -252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD
Construction Contracts 527,000 527,000 -527,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTYWATER
12,869 12,869 -12,869 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
27,850 27,850 -27,850 HELIXWATER DISTRICT
13,680,525 12,439,647 1,240,678 13,680,525 CCL CONTRACTING
(243,647)(243,847)-(243,847)C.O.#1
(63,418) (63,418)-(63,418)C.O.#2
(1,474,033)-(1,474,033)(1,474,033)C.O.#3
1,485,918 1,233,364 252,554 1,485,918 CALIFORNIABANK &TRUST
49,901 49,901 -49,901 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DPW
5,998 5,998 -5,998 CLARKSON LAB &SUPPLY INC
----HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
Professional Legal Fees 83 83 -83 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Service Contracts 1,311 1,311 -1,311 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
266 266 -266 MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES
450 450 -450 REEL 'EM IN INC
252 252 -252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODNEWS
1,769 1,769 -1,769 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
121 121 -121 SO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Infrastructure EqUipment&MatE 16,375 1,626 14,750 16,375 MESA LABORATORIES INC
Backfill 14,000 14,000 -14,000 TC CONSTRUCTION INC
InlineValve 1,609 1,609 -1,609 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082
Total Construction 15,904,322 15,638,114 266,208 15,904,322
Grand Total 19,522,797 19,251,252 271,545 19,522,797
'"Mission
Boy
~
'"'"..
>:
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
PIPELINE 36-INCH,
SDCWA FCF NO.14 TO REGULATORY SITE
EXHIBIT A
CIPP2009
REF.CIP No.:P20091 P2038
REF.W.O.No.:DATE:11/03/2010
EXHIBIT B
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATERSPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.0.CHANGE ORDER No.3
PROJECTIITEM:Jamacha Rd 36-lnch Potable Water Pipeline and 12-lnch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Project
CONTRACTORNENDOR:CCl Contracting
APPROVED BY:Board REF.P.O.No:710770
DESCRIPTION:
See attached page 2 of 5 forcontinuation.
REASON:
See attached page 4 of5 for continuation.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
Revise Contract to deduct $1,474,033.22 and add 53 days time for a total Contract amount of
$14,407,944.27 with a Contract Duration of 493 Calendar Days.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACT/P.0.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$
$
$
$
16,189,243.00
15,881,977.49
(1,474,033.22)
14,407,944.27
Aug 4,2010
53 days
Oct 15,2010
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTORNENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES.IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND
COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CONTRACTORNENDOR:
TITLE tfR~::r=
ADDRESS:CCl Contracting
DATE:
::::::Pk;l _
DIV.MGR:_
CHIEF:_
DATE:Mo
DATE:_
DATE:_
1938Don Lee Place,Escondido,CA 92029 ASSISTG.M.:_
DISTRICT APPROVAL:
DATE:_
GEN.MANAGER:DATE:.___
COPIES:0 FILE (Olig.),0 CONTRACTORNENDOR,0 CHIEF.•ENGINEER1NG.,0 ASST CHIEF.·FINANCE 0 ENGR.MGR.o ACCTS PAYABLE 0 INSPECTION 0 PROJ MGR 0 ENGR. SECRETARY 0 PURCHASING
H:\I'DATAI25103069'('M Files\Changes\Changc Orders\CO 03-final -C10S<:OUI.d,)c
Contract /P,O.Change Order NO.3
Description of Work
Description
Item NO.1:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 22,Rock
Removal by $133,332.00 to a new authorized amount of $116,268.00.(Delete
4,166.63 CY at $32 /CY)
Item No,2:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 23,
Dewatering to Sewer System by $40,000.00 to a new authorized amount of
$0.00.(Delete 5,000 LF at $8 /LF)
Item NO.3:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 24,
Dewatering to Storm Drain by $14,364.00 to a new authorized amount of
$12,636.00.(Delete 1,404 LF at $9 /LF)
Item NO.4:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 26,
Unsuitable Soils by $36,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.(Delete
800 CY at $45 /CY)
Item NO.5:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 27,
Regulatory Site Sample Line Allowance by $7,651.24 to a new authorized
amount of $2,348.76.
Item NO.6:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 28,Disposal
of Class I Regulated Waste Material by $25,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 50 TON at $500 / TON)
Item No.7:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 29,Disposal
of Class II Regulated Waste Material by $30,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00,(Delete 100 TON at $300 / TON)
Item NO.8:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 30,Disposal
of Class III Regulated Waste Material by $20,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 200 TON at $100 /TON)
Item NO.9:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 31,Additional
Potholing -Utilities No Shown on Drawings by $98,700.00 to a new authorized
amount of $6,300.00.(Delete 141 EA at $700 /EA)
Item No.10:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 32,
Relocate/Reconstruct Sewer Laterals by $84,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 70 EA at $1,200/EA)
Item No.11:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 33,
Relocate/Reconstruct Water Laterals by $16,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 40 EA at $400 /EA)
Item No.12:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 34,
Relocation of Pipeline Construction Operation by $84,000.00 to a new
authorized amount of $0.00.(Delete 12 EA at $12,000 /EA)
H:IPDATAI251 030691CM FileslChangeslChange OrderslCO 03 -Final -Closeout.doc
Increase
page 2 of 5
Decrease
$133,332,00
$40,000.00
$14,364.00
$36,000.00
$7,651.24
$25,000.00
$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$98,700.00
$84,000.00
$16,000,00
$84,000.00
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Contract /P.O.Change Order No.3
Item No.13:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 35,Utility
Under Crossings Not Identified on the Plans Greater Than 4-inches in
Diameter by $25,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.(Delete 100 EA
at $250/EA)
Item No.14:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 37,Unknown
or Unidentified Utilities Allowance by $291,883.77 to a new authorized amount
of $208,116.23.
Item No.15:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 38,SDCWA
Periodic Shutdowns by $50,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.
(Delete 10 Day at $5,000 /Day)
Item No.16:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 39,Grove
Road Pipeline (Caltrans Portion)Allowance by $50,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.
Item No.17:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 40,Agency
Inspection and Permit Fees Allowance by $162,307.00 to a new authorized
amount of$37,693.00.
Item No.18:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 41,Additional
Mandatory Night Shift Operations by $100,000.00 to a new authorized amount
of$0.00.(Delete 40 Shifts at $2,500 /Shift)
Item No.19:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 42,
Mobilization and Demobilization of Dewatering Water Treatment System
Allowance by $100,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.
Item No.20:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 43,Additional
Paving Allowance by $62,915.88 to a new authorized amount of $37,084.12.
Item No.21:
This Change Order provides for addition of a sample pump and associated
mechanical and electrical work at Vault 7.
Item No.22:
This Change Order provides for reimbursement for District costs of additional
test/flushing water and bacteriological sampling costs pursuant to Section
15041 of the Contract.
$11,575.20
page 3 of 5
$25,000.00
$291,883.77
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$162,307.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$62,915.88
$54,454.53
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
53
Sub Total Amount $11,575.20 $1,485,608.42 53
Total Net Change Order Amount ($1,474,033.22)
Revisions to:BID SCHEDULE
.....
l1pif.........\.i <·i •••Rrigsi \}.lI.D'l()YBt
22 Rock Removal 3,633.37 CY $32.00 $116,268.00
23 Dewatering to Sewer System 0 LF $8.00 $0.00
24 Dewatering to Storm Drain 1,404 LF $9.00 $12,636.00
26 Unsuitable Soils 0 CY $45.00 $0.00
27 RegUlatory Site Sample Line Allowance 1 LS LS $2,348.76
28 Disposal of Class I Regulated Waste Material 0 CY $500.00 $0.00
H:IPDATAI25103069ICM FileslChangeslChange OrderslCO 03 -Final-Closeout.doc
Contract /P.O.Change Order NO.3 page 4 of5
29 Disposal of Class II Regulated Waste Material 0 CY $300.00 $0.00
30 Disposal of Class III Regulated Waste Material 0 CY $100.00 $0.00
31 Additional Potholing -Utilities Not Shown on Drawings 9 EA $700.00 $6,300.00
32 Relocate/Reconstruct Sewer Laterals 0 EA $1,200.00 $0.00
33 Relocate/Reconstruct Water Laterals 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
34 Relocation of Pipeline Construction Operation 0 EA $12,000.00 $0.00
35 Utility Under Crossings Not Identified on the Plans Greater Than 0 EA $250.00 $0.004-inches in Diameter
37 Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance 1 LS LS $208,116.23
38 SDCWA Periodic Shutdowns 0 Day $5,000.00 $0.00
39 Grove Road Pipeline (Caltrans Portion)1 LS LS $0.00
40 Agency Inspection and Permit Fees 1 LS LS $37,693.00
41 Additional Mandatory Night Shift Operations 0 Shifts $2,500.00 $0.00
42 Mobilization and Demobilization of Dewatering Water Treatment 1 LS LS $0.00System
43 Additional Paving 1 LS LS $37,084.12
Reason:
Item No.1:
The Contract Bid Item No.22,Rock Removal,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.2:
The Contract Bid Item No.23,Dewatering to Sewer System,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.3:
The Contract Bid Item No.24,Dewatering to Storm Drain,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.4:
The Contract Bid Item No.26,Unsuitable Soils,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No.5:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.27,Regulatory Site Sample Line Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical
extent in the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item NO.6:
The Contract Bid Item No.28,Disposal of Class I Regulated Waste Material,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.7:
The Contract Bid Item No.29,Disposal of Class II Regulated Waste Material,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item NO.8:
The Contract Bid Item No.30,Disposal of Class III Regulated Waste Material,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No,9:
The Contract Bid Item No.31,Additional Potholing -Utilities Not Shown on Drawings,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.10:
The Contract Bid Item No.32,Relocate/Reconstruct Sewer Laterals,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No,11:
The Contract Bid Item No,33,Relocate/Reconstruct Water Laterals,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
H:IPDATAI25103069ICM FileslChangeslChange OrderslCO 03 -Final-Closeout.doc
Contract /P.O.Change Order NO.3 page 5 of 5
Item No.12:
The Contract Bid Item No.34,Relocation of Pipeline Construction Operation,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.13:
The Contract Bid Item No.35,Utility Under Crossings Not Identified on the Plans Greater Than 4-inches in Diameter,quantity
required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No.14:
The Contract Bid Item No.37,Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the
performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.15:
The Contract Bid Item No.38,SDCWA Periodic Shutdowns,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No.16:
The Contract Bid Item No.39,Grove Road Pipeline (Caltrans Portion)Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent
in the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.17:
The Contract Bid Item No.40,Agency Inspection and Permit Fees Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in
the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.18:
The Contract Bid Item No.41,Additional Mandatory Night Shift Operations,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.19:
The Contract Bid Item No.42,Mobilization and Demobilization of Dewatering Water Treatment System Allowance,was utilized
to the maximum practical extent in the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.20:
The Contract Bid Item No.43,Additional Paving Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the performance of
the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.21:
Incorporation of the Sample Line downstream of the static mixer at Vault 7 installed as part of this project necessitated the
need for an additional sample pump to allow for monitoring of the effectiveness of the new static mixer.This change is
necessary to incorporate the needed additional sample pump and associated piping and electrical modifications at Vault 7.
Item No.22:
The Contractor did not pass bacteriological testing by the second set of tests.Section 15041-3.6 of the Contract states re-
disinfection and re-testing beyond the second set of samples shall be at the Contractor's expense.The District incurred costs
for additional flushing/test water from SDCWA and Helix Water District in addition to charges for additional bacteriological
tests.This change is necessary to allow the District to recover the additional expenditures incurred.
H:\PDATA\25103069\CM Files\Changes\Change Orders\CO 03 -Final -Closeout.doc
CHANGE ORDER LOG
Jamacha Rd 36-inch Potable Water Pipeline and 12-lnch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
CCl Contracting P20091P2038
PO NO.710770
APPROVED
C.O.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O.
1 ($243,847.40)Board 1/6/2010 Differing Site Condition at Tunnel·Change Tunnel to Jack &Differing Site ConditionBoreOperation
Rock Encountered in Jack&Bore,Change Casing Spacer Differing Site Condition
2 ($63,418.11)Board 7/7/2010 Detail,Conflicting Waterline,Change Manway Detail,Rain Days,and Owner Program
Delete Soundwall Allowance Time associated with field Chanae
Modifications to Vault?at the Regulatory Site,Credit for excess Differing SiteCondition
3 ($1,474,033.22)Board test water and bacteriological testing and closeout ofremaining and Owner Program
unsed bid items.Chanae
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
;10
Total C.O.'s To Date:
Original Contract Amount:
Current Contract Amount:
Change Order Breakdown for the Month:
Month Net C.O.$Limit Authorization
11/10 $1,000 Insp
$5,000 PM/Supervisor
$10,000 Manager
$15,000 Chief
$20,000 AGM
$50,000 GM
($1.781,298,73)
$16,189,243.00
$14,407,944.27
-11.0%
C.O.%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Credit Change Order NO.3 to the Construction
Contract with CCl Contracting Inc.for the
Jamacha Road 36-lnch Potable Water Pipeline
and 12-lnch Potable Water Pipeline
Replacement Projects
Project No.:P2009-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
&ure~---
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
11-'$O-to
Date
f(~~O -(IJ
Date
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best oftheir ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible,and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 9
STAFF REPORT
January 5,2011TYPEMEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
Regular Board
Gary Silverman/J?~
Senior Civil ~ineer
MEETING DATE:
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:
P2434-
001101
DIV.
NO.
2,4
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafia~
Assistant General ()pnager,Engineering and Operations
Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
authorize staff to proceed with issuing a RFP for Phase 2 of the
Rancho del Rey Well Project,which would include equipping the well
and designing a wellhead treatment facility (see Exhibit A for
project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for staff to proceed with issuing a
RFP for Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well Project,which would
include equipping the well and designing a wellhead treatment
facility.
ANALYSIS:
In 1997,the District purchased an existing 7-inch well and the
surrounding property on Rancho del Rey Parkway (see Exhibit A)from
the McMillin Company with the intent to develop it as a source of
potable water.A prior study had shown that groundwater in that
location would support long-term pumping of about 390 gpm,but would
require a larger well to achieve that flow.It was also known that
treatment would be required to remove salts and boron,among other
constituents,using reverse osmosis (RO)membranes and perhaps ion
exchange.
In 2000,having received proposals for the design and construction
of an RO treatment facility that far exceeded the allocated budget,
the Board of Directors instructed staff to suspend the project until
such tim~as it became economically viable.
In 2009,given the rising cost of imported water and the District's
interest in securing its own water source for long-term supply
reliability,the project was revisited.Local ground water supply
projects will allow for less reliance upon imported water,achieve a
level of independence from regional wholesale water agencies,and
diversify the District's water supply portfolio consistent with the
District's March 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan.Toward this
end,in January 2010,the Board authorized Phase 1 of the project,
the drilling and development of the Rancho del Rey Well.
A new 12-inch production well was drilled 900-feet through the
groundwater formation and into fractured bedrock below.It was
screened with slotted,wire-wrapped stainless steel in multiple
intervals to maximize production.Testing completed in September
2010,showed the long-term yield of the new well to be 450 gpm,
higher than previous studies had estimated.
Before proceeding with equipping the well and installing wellhead
treatment,staff contracted with Separation Processes,Inc.(SPI),a
well-known membrane treatment firm,to conduct a detailed economic
analysis.The purpose of the study was to confirm that the
annualized unit cost of the new water source was economically
viable.SPI,in their November 2010 study,estimated the unit cost
of water to be $1,510 per acre foot for the alternative that
utilizes a seawater membrane for treating both salts and boron.The
price includes all spent,committed,and projected future capital
expenditures associated with the well project amortized over a 30-
year useful life,plus anticipated annual operations and maintenance
costs during that period.The Executive Summary of the SPI study is
provided as Exhibit B.
When compared with the current imported treated water rate from San
Diego County Water Authority (CWA),and with the knowledge that this
rate will continually increase as Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
and CWA raise their rates,the Rancho del Rey Well project appears
to be economically viable.Exhibit C is a graph that compares the
2
CWA rate,which is projected to increase by about 10 percent per
year each of the next 5 years,to the annualized cost of the Rancho
del Rey Well,which can be expected to increase by about 2 percent
per year over the same 5 year period.The graph shows that the well
becomes the less costly source of water by FY 2014.Therefore,
staff recommends that the Board authorize the issuance of a RFP to
begin Phase 2 of this project.
In conjunction with the economic feasibility study,staff contracted
with a local architect to prepare renderings of the proposed new
treatment facility to show how it would fit on the site and be
compatible with the neighborhood.The renderings were prepared
based on a preliminary footprint layout prepared by SPI.The
renderings and the layout are provided as Exhibit D and will also be
presented via PowerPoint.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total budget for CIP P2434,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $4,250,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $2,550,223.See Attachment B for budget detail.
Based on the $3.5 million Phase 2 capital expenditure estimate in
the SPI Study,the Project Manager has determined that the existing
CIP budget will be insufficient to support the project once it is
better defined through the design process.An anticipated
supplemental funding of approximately $2.0 million will be requested
as part of the FY 2012 CIP budget.
With the shifting of certain CIP's into later years,Finance has
determined that 40%of the funding is available from the Expansion
Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers
of Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner./I This project fulfills the District's Strategic Goals No.1
-Community and Governance,and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
P:\~IORKING\CIP P2434\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,Phase 2 or the Rancho del Rey,(GS-RRJ .doc
GS/RR:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Location Map
Exhibit B -SPI Study Executive Summary
Exhibit C -CWA vs.RDR Well Unit Cost Comparison
Exhibit D -PowerPoint Presentation of Architectural
Renderings and Building Layout
4
P2434-001101
~111:I I -IEeT:
ATTACHMENT A
Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee reviewed
The Committee
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.
P2434-001101
C ICI ,~JECT:
ATTACHMENT B
Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
Date Updated:November 29,2010
Ou/stending ProjectadFina/Budget Commillad Expenditures Commilment&Vendor/Comments
4,250,000 CostForecast
Planning
Labor 308,719 308,719 308,719
Land 326,092 326,092 326,092
Permits 125 125 125 CITY OF CHULAVISTA-DEPT.OF
Materials 1,348 1,348 1,348 VARIOUS
Rental 159 159 159 PENHALL COMPANY
Construction Costs 26,154 26,154 26,154 CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,INC.
Professional Legal Fees 4,829 4,829 4,829 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
ConsultantContracts 19,481 19,481 19,481 JONES &STOKESASSOCIATES INC
13,825 13,825 13,825 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
1,100 1,100 1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
3,065 3,065 3,065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
15,000 15,000 15,000 SEPARATION PROCESSES INC
6,930 6,930 6,930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
1,561,625 330,219 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
._~
1,231,406 1,561,625
Change Order NO.1 176,805 176,805 176,805 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC,C.O.#1
Service Contracts 5,100 5,100 5,100 S R BRADLEY&ASSOCIATES INC
186 186 186 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
624 624 624 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
399 399 399 REPROHAUS CORP
440 440 440 URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INC
6 6 6 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO
134 134 134 COURIER EXPRESS,INC.
205 205 -205 USASIGN CO.
3,226 3,226 -3,226 QUALITY ASSURANCE LABORATORY
7,108 7,108 7,108 MULTIWATER SYSTEMS
1,955 1,955 1,955 BARREn CONSULTING GROUP
5,665 5,665 5,665 EARTH TECH
3,344 3,344 -3,344 CITYOF CHULAVISTA
16,714 16,714 16,714 BOYLE ENGINEERINGCORPORATION
112 112 112 MONTGOMERYWATSON LABORATORIES
2,500 2,500 2,500 ANDREWA.SMITH COMPANY
2,000 2,000 2,000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
35,200 35,200 -35,200 ALCEM FENCECOMPANY INC.
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 -50 PEnY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
GrandTolal 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
o DEL REV ¥fELL
o
CHILD TIME CHILDCARE,
INC
LOT loa
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.89-5
MAP NO.12720
I
NOT 1O~
l
1,....--------------.......~I /
N I
:::.s~~~IiiI~~I-----......------------------------...~OTAY WATER DISTRICT
~RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
2 RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENTJOPP24346:'--....L ..........-..J
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
OTAYWATERDIST leT
RANCHO DEL REY
WELLHEAD TREATMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared By:
Kevin L.Alexander,P.E.
Separation Processes,Inc.
3156 Lionshead Ave.,Suite 2
Carlsbad,CA 92010
(760)400-3660
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Rancho del Rey Wellhead Treatment Facility (Project)will introduce a new potable
water source to the Otay Water District's Central System.This project provides the
District with a local source of water to augment other available sources of water,thereby
increasing water supply reliability and increasing independence from regional wholesale
water agencies.
The original Rancho del Rey Well,drilled in 1991,had an estimated capacity of
approximately 300 gpm and was drilled in a zone of fractured sandstone.The original
well water quality indicated elevated levels of TDS (2,250 mg/l),boron (2.67 mg/l),
chloride (l ,200 mg/l)and turbidity (2 NTU),among others.
Recently,a new well was installed on the same site,and the original well was abandoned.
Initial tests indicate that the new well will have a safe yield of 450 gpm.A water quality
analysis performed on water from the well in September 2010 indicates that the water
quality is similar to the 1991 sample.Concentrations of key constituents include TDS
(2,400 mg/l),boron (2.5 mg/I),chloride (1,100 mg/l),and silica,as Si02 (17 mg/l).
Turbidity was reported at 2.7 NTU and the 15 minute silt density index (SDI)was above
5.It is expected that the turbidity level and SDI will decrease with additional pumping.
The final product water quality from the facility must meet the Federal and State
regulatory limits.The presence of boron in the water,a constituent that is relatively
difficult to treat,drives the treatment process development.
This feasibility study considered various treatment alternatives as indicated in Table ES-
1.Each of the alternatives was developed to a level sufficient to understand the
differences in the overall system configuration and cost to construct,operate and
maintain.
TABLE ES-l-Rancho del Rey Wellhead Treatment Alternatives
Final
Boron Boron Blend
Ion Blend Reduction Stabilization Cone.,Flow,
All.Membrane Exchange Source Method Method mg/I gpm
Low NaOH+
1 Pressure No CWA Blend Blend 0.8 1000
Low NaOH +
2a Pressure Yes CWA IX +Blend Blend 0.5 382
Low NaOH +
2b Pressure Yes DesaI IX Blend 0.6 400
Membrane NaOH +
3a Seawater No CWA +Blend Blend 0.5 300
NaOH+
3b Seawater No Desai Membrane Blend 0.6 400
Page 2
FIGURE ES-l shows schematically three ofthe alternative process designs that were
considered.
FIGURE ES-l-Process Diagrams for Treatment Alternatives
Rancl10 del
RayWell -1/Product Alternative 1
Low Pressure
CWAWater RO
-
Rancho del
Ray Well 1/1 !111!:!!!lll!llr!!!
Product
L I
Low Pressure
RO -Alternative 28
Boron Select
Ion Exchange
Desalinated Seawater
Rancho del
Ray Well ,1/Product Alternative 38
SeawaterRO
Desalinated Seawater
Alternative 1 utilizes a low pressure reverse osmosis (RO)membrane to remove Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS),however,the membrane is not capable of significant boron
removal.Boron removal would be achieved by blending the RO product water with
CWA water from the distribution system,which has a low boron concentration,to
achieve the desired reduction.The blend also provides stabilization for protection from
corrOSIOn.
Alternative 2 utilizes the same low pressure RO membranes to remove TDS and adds an
Ion Exchange (IX)system for removal ofboron.In this alternative,the blend stream for
corrosion stabilization may come from either CWA or from a future desalination facility
in Mexico,which will likely be predominant in the distribution system once on-line.
Page 3
Alternative 3 utilizes seawater membranes with higher salt rejection to remove both TDS
and boron all in one step.This alternative also considers stabilizing for corrosion control
with water from CWA or from the proposed desalination facility.The detailed economic
feasibility study considering both operating and maintenance costs and capital costs to
develop an annualized unit cost ofproducing water from the Rancho del Rey Well.
Table ES-2 shows a breakdown of operations and maintenance costs expressed as an
annual expenditure ($/year),as well as a unit cost ($/AF)for treatment alternatives 1,2B
and 3B.Alternative 3B appears to be the least costly to operate despite the high cost of
power for the high pressure seawater membrane,because it pumps a smaller blend stream
than in Alternative 1 and doesn't have the higher chemical costs associated with the ion
exchange unit in Alternative 2B.
Table ES-2 Operations and Maintenance Costs for Treatment Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 28 Alternative 38
O&M Item $/yr $/AF $/yr $/AF $/yr $/AF
Equipment Power $229,807 $393 $190,622 $326 $227,403 $389
Miscellaneous Enerqy $6,894 $12 $5,719 $10 $6,822 $12
Chemical Costs $10,255 $18 $44,664 $76 $11,001 $19
Concentrate Disposal $67,908 $116 $75,536 $129 $67,908 $116
Operating Labor $83,220 $142 $83,220 $142 $83,220 $142
Maintenance Labor $21,900 $37 $21,900 $37 $21,900 $37
Maintenance Materials $47,461 $81 $47,387 $81 $41,461 $71
Equipment Replacement $17,135 $29 $18,535 $32 $16,670 $28
Miscellaneous $24,229 $41 $24,379 $42 $23,819 $41
Total $508,809 $869 $511,962 $875 $500,204 $855
The estimated capital costs for Alternatives 1,2 and 3 are shown In Table ES-3.The A
and B variations for Alternatives 2 and 3 do not differ from a capital cost perspective,so
only one is shown.The capital costs include the complete system with well pumping,
treatment processes,distribution system pumping,and building to house the facility.The
building is estimated conservatively at 50 ft by 80 ft with a perimeter fence and access
gates,sidewalks and a small parking area in the front of the building.The building
architecture matches the architecture of the adjacent child care facility.Capital costs use
various sources,including budgetary quotations for major equipment and reference data
from similar recent projects in California,Utah,and Arizona.
Once again,Alternative 3 appears to be the least cost alternative from a capital
perspective because it doesn't have the ion exchange unit ofAlternative 2 and the product
water pumping equipment is smaller and,therefore,less expensive.
Page 4
TABLE ES-3 Capital Costs for Treatment Alternatives
Alternative
Item Unit 1 2a or 2b 3a or 3b
Well Pump $82,000 $82,000 $82,000
Sulfuric Acid System $23,000 $23,000 $23,000
TI System $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Cartridge Filter -Included in RO
Train $0 $0 $0
RO Membrane Train $454,000 $454,000 $454,000
CIP System $41,000 $41,000 $41,000
Ion Exchange System $0 $167,000 $0
NaOCI System $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Aqua Ammonia System $23,000 $23,000 $23,000
Blending System $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
NaOH System $22,000 $22,000 $22,000
Finished Water Pumping &Wetwell $321,000 $281,000 $281,000
Installation 15%$153,000 $172,000 $147,000
Mechanical Total $1,174,000 $1,320,000 $1,128,000
Building,4,000 SF $150/SF $600,000 $600,000 $600,000
Subtotal $1,774,000 $1,920,000 $1,728,000
Site Work 7%$124,000 $134,000 $121,000
Building HVAC 3%$53,000 $58,000 $52,000
Plumbing 3%$53,000 $58,000 $52,000
Electrical,I&C 15%$266,000 $288,000 $259,000
Subtotal $2,270,000 $2,458,000 $2,212,000
ContingencY 20%$454,000 $492,000 $442,000
Overhead and Profit 16%$363,000 $393,000 $354,000
Enaineering 15%$341,000 $369,000 $332,000
Total $3,428,000 $3,712,000 $3,340,000
Page 5
Table ES-4 combines the capital and O&M costs and expresses them as an annualized
unit costs in terms ofdollars per acre-foot ($/AF).
TABLE ES-4 Alternative Annualized Unit Costs of Producing Water
from the Rancho del Rey Well
Description Annualized Unit
Costs,$/AF
Alternative l-LP RO with CWA $1,525
Alternative 2B-LP RO with IX &DesaI $1,530
Alternative 3B-HP RO with DesaI $1,510
The unit costs are FY 2011 numbers developed based on a 3D-year useful life of the
facility with a discount rate of 4.5%,chemical costs from vendor quotes and other
facilities,power costs based on $0.11 per kW-hr,labor for operating and maintenance,
and repair and replacement.The facility is assumed to be a base load facility and will
operate 95%ofthe time.
Conclusion
After a thorough review ofthe treatment alternatives,including the capital,operating and
maintenance costs,it is recommended that the Otay Water District consider Alternative
3B as the preferred alternative.It is the least costly,would provide high quality drinking
water over the life ofthe project,and would be relatively easy to operate.
Page 6
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
Ii.~1500
iR-
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
Exhibit C
Projection of CWA vs.RDR Well Unit Cost,$/AF
----~
-'"~
~..--
-~
.//"
/'-----1
i -+-CWA Rate~i II!
i _RDRWell I
~__~____________________J
2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
2014 2015 2016
Exhibit D
Preliminary Site Plan
DWf:TING IHPROVEMENT
IN nus A:<Etl
NOT NAPi"ED
Otay Water District
Rancho Del ReyWeD Head Treatment System
IIII\I\I\II
iI
\24'·itlrDE PR[VATE UTILIn'i AND INGRESS/EGF:ESS
EASEMENT GRANTED TO o~n
PER PARC:::L HAP NO 18510
I~E\JER c~
I\IIII
IIIII
u·..
,
I
\
I
\I\ASPHALT I\I
{CONG.lrAD
\,...1 {;
/\.,I,"''-J l
\
I\I
II
"
N/F
OTAY \VATER IlISTRICT
DilL 'It 97-518037
A.P:".']93-382-43
(A.:::<:I-:..~Ii{"1~/Q;
~111...J..j~
i;.!I
r--I
~..J j0/I".::z~~I,:S f
""C:/
I/,
!
/
/
I
/
II
l!
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
Project No.:P2434-001101
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Report
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Date
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Manager:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 10
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:January 5,2011TYPEMEETING:
SUBMITIED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
Regular Board
Bob Kennedy ~
Associate Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~~
Chief,Engineering
W.O.lG.F.No.:00790-DIV.NO.2
090070/
090076
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM)
SUBJECT:
ngineering and Operations
Approval of Water Supp y Assessment and Verification Reports
(November 2010)for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors
(Board)approve the following Water Supply Assessments and
Verification Reports (WSA&V),as required by Senate Bills 610
and 221 (SB 610 and SB 221):
1.Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report dated November
2010 for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project development
proposal (see Exhibit A for project location),and
2.Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report dated
November 2010 for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
development proposal (see Exhibit B for project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board approval of the November 2010 WSA&V for both the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project,as required by SB 610 and SB 221.
ANALYSIS:
The City of Chula Vista submitted a request for a WSA&V report
to the District pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221.SB 610 and SB
221 require that,upon the request of the city or county,a
water purveyor,such as the District,prepare a water supply
assessment and verification report to be included in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)environmental
documentation.These requests were received by the District on
October 19,2010.
SB 610 requires a city or county to evaluate whether water
supplies will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand
for certain "projects"that are otherwise subject to the
requirement of the CEQA.SB 610 provides its own definition of
"project"in Water Code Section 10912.
SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water
purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water
supplies are planned to be available for certain residential
subdivisions of property prior to approval of the tentative map.
The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed by the
November 2010 WSA&V Reports for both projects.The WSA&V
Reports were prepared by the District in consultation with
Dexter Wilson Engineering,Inc.,the San Diego County Water
Authority (Water Authority),and the City of Chula Vista (City)
Prior to transmittal to the City,the WSA&V Reports must be
approved by the Board of Directors.An additional explanation
of the intent of SB 610 and SB 221 is provided in Exhibit C,the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project WSA&V Report is provided as
Exhibit 0,and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Report is
provided as Exhibit E.
For both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay
Ranch Village 9 Project,the City is the responsible land use
agency that requested the SB 610 and SB 221 water supply
assessment and verification report from the District.The
requests for the WSA&V Reports,in compliance with SB 610 and SB
221 requirements,was made by the City because both projects
meet or exceed one or both of the following SB 610 and SB 221
criteria:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500
dwelling units.
2
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than
1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of
floor space.
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the land
uses specified in SB 610.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent
to,or greater than,the amount of water required by a 500
dwelling unit project.
The proposed development within Village 8 West consists of 2,050
mixed density residential units,retail commercial,a middle
school,an elementary school,a community purpose facility,
parks,and open space.The project surrounds the City of San
Diego's South San Diego Reservoir,which will remain in place.
See Exhibit A for the project location.
The proposed developments within Village 9 Project consists of
4,000 mixed density residential units,retail commercial,an
elementary school,community purpose facilities,parks,and open
space.See Exhibit B for Project Location.
The request for compliance with SB 221 requirements was made by
the City because both projects exceed the SB 221 criteria of a
proposed residential development subdivision of more than 500
dwelling units.
The Village 8 West project and the Village 9 Project are
included within a land use planning document known as the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch
GDP).The County of San Diego and City of Chula vista jointly
prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GDP.Both projects are
located within what is defined as the Otay River Parcel of the
Otay Ranch GDP.Both projects are part of the designated 14
villages and 5 planning areas within the Otay Ranch GDP area.
The Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch GDP on October 28,1993,
which was accompanied by a Program Environmental Impact Report
EIR-90-01 (SCH #89010154).The Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project entitlement
approval are dependent on the City's eventual adoption of their
Sectional Planning Area Plans (SPA).The Land Offer Agreement
between the City and the Otay Land Company,per document
recorded April 24,2008 as document No.2008-0218696,forms the
basis for the SPA entitlement densities and intensities of
development for both projects.
3
Pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221,the WSA&V Reports incorporate by
reference the current Urban Water Management Plans and other
water resources planning documents of the District,the Water
Authority,and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan).The District prepared the WSA&V
Reports in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering,Inc.,
which demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies
are planned for and are intended to be made available over a 20-
year planning horizon under normal supply conditions and in
single and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of
the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project,the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project,and other planned development projects within the
District.
The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project is
881 acre-feet per year.As originally included in the
District's Water Resources Master Plan,dated October 2008 and
approved by the District on February 2010,the projected demand
for this property was 734 acre-feet per year.This is an
increase of 147 acre-feet per year due to the increase in
development intensity.The 2009 WRMP,updated November 2010,
was revised to include this increase in demand.The projected
recycled water demand for the proposed project is approximately
154 acre-feet per year,representing 17 percent of the total
water demand.
The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project is
1,507 acre-feet per year.As originally included in the
District's Water Resources Master Plan,the projected demand for
this property was 1,312 acre-feet per year.This is an increase
of 195 acre-feet per year due to the increase in development
intensity.The 2009 WRMP,updated November 2010,was revised to
include this increase in demand.The projected recycled water
demand for the proposed project is approximately 130 acre-feet
per year,representing 8 percent of the total water demand.
Metropolitan's Integrated Water Resource Plan (IRP)identifies a
mix of resources (imported and local)that,when implemented,
will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands
through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation,
local supplies,State Water Project supplies,Colorado River
supplies,groundwater banking,and water transfers.
Metropolitan's 2010 update to the IRP (2010 IRP Update)includes
a planning buffer supply to mitigate against the risk associated
with implementation of local and imported supply programs.The
planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that
could potentially be developed if other supplies are not
implemented as planned.As part of the implementation of the
4
planning buffer,Metropolitan periodically evaluates supply
development to ensure that the region is not under-or over-
developing supplies.If managed properly,the planning buffer,
along with other alternative supplies,will help to ensure the
Southern California region,including San Diego County,will
have adequate supplies to meet future demands.
The County Water Authority Act,Section 5,Subdivision 11,
states the Water Authority,"as far as practicable,shall
provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of
water to meet their expanding and increasing needs."
The intent of the SB 610 and SB 221 legislation is that the land
use agencies and the water agencies are coordinating their
efforts in planning for new development and thus planning for
sufficient water supplies to meet the needs.
As per the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221,if the water
supply assessment and verification finds that the supply is
sufficient,then the governing body of the water supplier
(District)must approve the water supply assessment and
verification report and deliver it to the lead agency (City)
within 90 days.
Pursuant to SB 610,if the water supply assessment finds overall
supplies are insufficient,the water supplier shall provide to
the lead agency "its plans for acquiring additional water
supplies,setting forth measures that are being undertaken to
acquire and develop those water supplies,"and the water
supplier governing body must approve the assessment and deliver
it to the lead agency within 90 days.If the water supplier
does conclude that additional water supplies are required,the
water supplier should indicate the status or stage of
development of the actions identified in the plans it provides.
Identification of a potential future action in such plans does
not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to proceed
with the action has been made.
Once either of the two actions listed above are accomplished,
the District's SB 610 water supply assessment responsibilities
are complete.
As per the requirements of SB 221,if the water supply
verification finds overall supplies are insufficient -"the lead
agency may bridge any gap from verification's "insufficient"
determination with additional supplies not accounted for by the
water supplier,based on substantial evidence and findings on
record."And the water supplier governing body must approve the
5
verification and deliver it to the lead agency within the 90
days,unless a 30 day extension is granted.In bridging any
sufficiency gap,whether before of after issuance of
verification,the lead agency may coordinate with others to
identify and secure sources of supply.The lead agency may also
place a condition on the tentative map to comply with a water
supply sufficiency requirement.
Once the actions listed above are accomplished the District's SB
221 water supply verification responsibilities are complete.
SB 610 and SB 221 provides that if the SB 610 and SB 221 water
supply assessment and verification report is not received by the
lead agency from the water supplier within the prescribed 90-day
period,and any requested time extension,The lead agency may
seek legal relief,such as writ of mandamus.
Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face
climatological,environmental,legal,and other challenges that
impact water source supply conditions,such as the court ruling
regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues.Challenges
such as these are always present.The regional water supply
agencies,the Water Authority,Metropolitan,and the District
nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient,reliable supplies
to serve the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay
Ranch Village 9 Project.
With the initiation of the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
(SBWRP)recycled water supply on May 18,2007,the District has
reduced the annual take of potable water from the Water
Authority,once used to supplement the recycled water supply
shortfall,in excess of 3,200 acre-feet per year.The District
is also working on several other local water supply projects
that are in various stages of development.The additional
demand from both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the
Otay Ranch Village 9 Project estimate of an additional 342 acre-
feet per year potable water demand is about 11 percent of the
potable water saved with the SBWRP supply start-up.
In addition,several other planned local water supply projects
could provide water to the District.The Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well is expected to provide 500 to 600 acre-feet per
year.The Rosarito Ocean Desalination Project is expected to
provide 24,000 to 50,000 acre-feet per year.The Otay Mesa Lot
7 Groundwater Well is expected to provide 400 to 500 acre-feet
per year.
6
The WSA&V Reports demonstrate that the District,the Water
Authority,and Metropolitan have all developed plans and are
implementing projects,programs,and/or procedures to ensure
that there will be adequate supplies to serve the proposed Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project along with existing and other planned users.In
addition,the supplies necessary to serve the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project along with
existing and other projected future users have been identified
in the WSA&V Reports for the Projects.The actions necessary
and status to develop these supplies have also been documented
in the various planning documents and in the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project WSA&V Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
WSA&V Report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The District has been reimbursed $8,120 for all costs associated
with the preparation of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
WSA&V Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Report.
The reimbursement was accomplished via a $20,000 deposit the
project proponents placed with the District.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The preparation and approval of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Reports
supports the District Mission statement,"To provide the best
quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of the
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner"and the District's Strategic Goal,in planning for
infrastructure and supply to meet current and future potable
water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Approval of a WSA&V Reports for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Projects in form and
content satisfactory to the Board of Directors would allow the
District to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 610 and
221.
7
Otay Ranch Village 8 West &
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Exhibit A Location Map for the Otay Ranch
Village 8 West Project
Exhibit B -Location Map for Otay Ranch Village 9
Project
Exhibit C -Explanation of intent of the SB 610
and SB 221 for the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project
Exhibit 0 -Explanation of intent of the SB 610
and SB 221 for the Otay Ranch Village
9 Project
Exhibit E -Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V
Report
8
ATTACHMENT A
.........................................1 .........................1
!SUBJECT/PROJECT:
D0790-
090070/090076
!Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verificationm.j
i Reports (November 2010)for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.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.
EXHIBIT A
OTAY RANCH -VILLAGE 8 WEST
LOCATION MAP
/
/
/\~I ,-
I/----
/
oZ<-.J
."....
>-in
Ixw/'>-0:o"'-'"0:
u"-«
t~/'>-z«,,-
15u
>-<I-o
Io!(?gr---,.-------------~---...:...-...J
~/'coz
~0:o;::
/'o..'---L :::":":7"':":":=::~:__---~D~07~9~O~-~O::90~O~7~O
EXHIBIT A
."..
"~...
~
"MissiOl1..Boy y:e:L J"i"V1-
"....
'"
EXHIBIT B
\
\
\
D0790-09C070
EXHIBIT C
Background Information
The Otay Water District (District)prepared the November 2010 Water Supply
Assessment and Verification Reports (WSA&V)for both the Otay Ranch Village 8
West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Prpject at the request of the City of Chula
Vista (City).The District received the City's written request for both projects on
October 19,2010.The Otay Land Company,th~developer of the Project,submitted
an entitlement application to the City for both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project.The Owner of both properties is the Homefed
Corporation,a Delaware Corporation and the parent company to the Otay Land
Company,a Delaware Limited Liability Company.
Both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project are
located within the jurisdictions of the District,the San Diego County Water Authority
(Water Authority),and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan).See Exhibit A and B for project locations.To obtain permanent
imported water supply service,land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of
the District,Water Authority,and Metropolitan.
Both the Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project are included
within a land use planning document known as the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch GOP).The County of San Diego
and City of Chula Vista jointly prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GOP.Both
projects are located within what is defined as the Otay River Parcel of the Otay
Ranch GOP.The project is a part of the designated 14 villages and five planning
areas within the Otay Ranch GOP area.Both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project entitlement approval are dependent on the
City's eventual adoption of their Sectional Planning Area Plans (SPA).The Land
Offer Agreement between the City and the Otay Land Company per document
recorded April 24,2008 as document No.2008-0218696 forms the basis for the SPA
entitlement densities and intensities of development for both projects.
The WSA&V Reports were prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson
Engineering,Inc.,the Water Authority,and the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631,
10656,10910,10911,10912,and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB)610 and
Government Code Sections 65867.5,66455.3,and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221.
SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law,effective January 1,2002,intending to
improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use
decisions made by cities and counties.SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of
the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)environmental documentation and
approval process of certain proposed projects.SB 221 requires affirmative written
EXHIBIT C
Background Information
The Otay Water District (District)prepared the November 2010 Water Supply
Assessment and Verification Reports (WSA&V)for both the Otay Ranch Village 8
West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project at the request of the City of Chula
Vista (City).The District received the City's written request for both projects on
October 19,2010.The Otay Land Company,the developer of the Project,submitted
an entitlement application to the City for both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project.The Owner of both properties is the Homefed
Corporation,a Delaware Corporation and the parent company to the Otay Land
Company,a Delaware Limited Liability Company.
Both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project are
located within the jurisdictions of the District,the San Diego County Water Authority
(Water Authority),and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan).See Exhibit A and B for project locations.To obtain permanent
imported water supply service,land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of
the District,Water Authority,and Metropolitan.
Both the Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project are included
within a land use planning document known as the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch GOP).The County of San Diego
and City of Chula Vista jointly prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GOP.Both
projects are located within what is defined as the Otay River Parcel of the Otay
Ranch GOP.The project is a part of the designated 14 villages and five planning
areas within the Otay Ranch GOP area.Both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project entitlement approval are dependent on the
City's eventual adoption of their Sectional Planning Area Plans (SPA).The Land
Offer Agreement between the City and the Otay Land Company per document
recorded April 24,2008 as document No.2008-0218696 forms the basis for the SPA
entitlement densities and intensities of development for both projects.
The WSA&V Reports were prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson
Engineering,Inc.,the Water Authority,and the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631,
10656, 10910,10911, 10912,and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB)610 and
Government Code Sections 65867.5,66455.3,and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221.
SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law,effective January 1,2002,intending to
improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use
decisions made by cities and counties.SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of
the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)environmental documentation and
approval process of certain proposed projects.SB 221 requires affirmative written
verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water
supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivision of property prior to
approval of a Tentative Map.The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed
in the November 2010 WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
the Village 9 Project.
The Otay Ranch Village 8 West proposed development concept for the approximately
320.1 acre project consists of 2,050 mixed density residential units,retail commercial,
a middle school,an elementary school,a community purpose facility,parks,and
open space.The project surrounds the City of San Diego South San Diego
Reservoir which will remain in place.
The Otay Ranch Village 9 Project proposed development concept for the
approximately 323 acre Project consists of 4,000 mixed density residential units,
retail commercial,an elementary school,community purpose facilities,parks,and
opens space.
The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project is 881 acre-feet per
year.This is 147 acre-feet per year higher than the demand estimate in the District's
2009 WRMP.The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project is 1,507
acre-feet per year.This is 195 acre-feet per year higher than the demand estimate in
the 2009 WRMP.The Otay Land Company retained PBS&J to update the 2009
WRMP to include the entitlement densities and intensities of development proposed
for both projects.The District's 2009 WRMP updated November,2010 now includes
the demand estimate for both projects in the District's demand projections that was
forwarded to the Water Authority for inclusion in their UWMP update.
SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista have also confirmed the Land Offer Agreement
that forms the basis for these SPA entitlements was included in the Series 12 update
that has been forwarded to both Metropolitan and the Water Authority for their future
UWMP updates.The Series 12 update was also available to Metropolitan for their
use in preparing the demand projections for their 2010 IRP Update.
The District currently depends on the Water Authority and the Metropolitan for all of
its potable water supplies and regional water resource planning.The District's Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP)relies heavily on the UWMP's and Integrated
Water Resources Plans (IRPs)of the Water Authority and Metropolitan for
documentation of supplies available to meet projected demands.These plans are
developed to manage the uncertainties and variability of multiple supply sources and
demands over the long term through preferred water resources strategy adoption and
resource development target approvals for implementation.
The new uncertainties that are significantly affecting California's water resources
include:
• A Federal Court ruling that sets operational limits on Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta pumping from December to June to protect the Delta smelt.Water
2
agencies are still trying to determine what effect the ruling will have on state
water project deliveries.Actual supply curtailments for Metropolitan are
contingent upon fish distribution,behavioral patterns,weather,Delta flow
conditions,and how water supply reductions are divided between state and
federal projects.
•Extended drought conditions.
These uncertainties have rightly caused concern among Southern California water
supply agencies regarding the validity of the current water supply documentation.
Metropolitan's 2010 IRP acknowledges that significant challenges in some resource
areas will likely require changes in strategies and implementation approaches in
order to reach long-term IRP water supply targets.Significant progress in program
implementation is being realized in most resource areas.However,a further
examination of the uncertainty of State Water Project supplies,among other
uncertainties,will be required to assess the ability of achieving the long-term IRP
targets.
Metropolitan is currently involved in several proceedings concerning Delta operations
to evaluate and address environmental concerns.In addition,at the State level,the
Delta Vision and Bay-Delta Conservation Plan processes are defining long-term
solutions for the Delta.
Neither the Water Authority nor Metropolitan has stated that there is insufficient water
for future planning in Southern California.Each agency is in the process of
reassessing and reallocating their water resources.
Under preferential rights,Metropolitan can allocate water without regard to historic
water purchases or dependence on Metropolitan.Therefore,the Water Authority and
its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on Metropolitan
through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would
not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation.For Fiscal Year 2006 the Water
Authority's preferential right was 16.56%of Metropolitan's supply.
In the Water Authority's 2005 UWMP,they had already planned to reduce reliance on
Metropolitan supplies to 372,922 acre feet per year by 2030,which is a 28%
reduction from the Fiscal Year 2005 Water Authority purchase from Metropolitan.
This reduction is planned to be achieved through diversification of their water supply
portfolio.This reduction would more than compensate for the Metropolitan predicted
reduction in water supply available from the State Water Project,which could be an
overall 2%cutback in Metropolitan total supplies in 2025.
The Water Authority's Drought Management Plan (May 2006)provides the Water
Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to engage when
faced with a shortage of imported water supplies due to prolonged drought
3
conditions.Such actions help avoid or minimize impacts of shortages and ensure an
equitable allocation of supplies throughout the San Diego County region.
The District Board of Directors should acknowledge the ever-present challenge of
balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and
adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during
normal and dry weather conditions.The responsible regional water supply agencies
have,and will continue to adapt,their resource plans and strategies to meet
climatological,environmental,and legal challenges so that they may continue to
provide water supplies to their service areas.The regional water suppliers (Le.,the
Water Authority and Metropolitan),along with the District,fully intend to maintain
sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal,single,
and multiple dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project,along with existing and other
planned development projects within the District's service area.
If the regional water suppliers determine additional water supplies will be required or
in this case,that water supply portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with
the intent to serve the existing and future water needs throughout Southern
California,the agencies must indicate the status or stage of development of actions
identified in the plans they provide.Metropolitan's 2010 IRP Update will then cause
the Water Authority to update its IRP and UWMP,which will then provide the District
with the necessary water supply documentation.Identification of a potential future
action in such plans does not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to
proceed with the action has been made.The District's Board approval of the Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Project WSA&V Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
WSA&V Report does not in any way guarantee water supply to these projects.
Alternatively,if the WSA&V Report is written to state that water supply is or will be
unavailable,the District must include in the assessment,a plan to acquire additional
water supplies.At this time,the District should not state there is insufficient water
supply.
So the best the District can do right now is to state the current water supply situation
clearly,indicating intent to provide supply through reassessment and reallocation by
the regional,as well as,the local water suppliers.In doing so,it is believed that the
Board has met the intent of the SB 610 statute,that the land use agencies and the
water agencies are coordinating their efforts in planning water supplies for new
development.
With District Board approval of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project WSA&V
Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Report,the project proponents
can proceed with the draft EIR CEQA review process and water supply issues will be
addressed in the EIRs,consistent with the WSA&V Report.
4
The District,as well as others,can comment on the draft EIRs with recommendations
that water conservation measures and actions be employed on both projects.
Some recent actions regarding water supply assessments and verification reports by
entities within Southern California are as follows:
•City of San Diego approved water supply assessment reports for both the La
Jolla Crossings Project and the Quarry Falls Project in September 2007.
•Padre Dam Municipal Water District approved a water supply assessment
report for the City of Santee's Fanita Ranch development project in April 2006.
In October 2007 a follow-up letter was prepared stating the current
uncertainties associated with the regional water supply situation.However,
the letter concludes that sufficient water exists over the long run in reliance
upon the assurances,plans,and projections of the regional water suppliers
(Metropolitan and Water Authority).
•The District unanimously approved in July 2007 the Eastern Urban Center
Water Supply and Assessment Report.The Board also approved the Judd
Company Otay Crossings Commerce Park WSA Report on December 5,2007
and the Otay Ranch L.P.Otay Ranch Preserve and Resort project Water
Supply Assessment and Verification Report on February 4,2009.
•The District is working on a water supply assessment report for the City of San
Diego -Tijuana Cross Border Facility.Staff is also working with the City of
San Diego on a WSA for Scenario 3B Otay Mesa Community Plan Update.
The Pio Pico Power Plant on Alta Road within the County of San Diego may
also require a WSA for the temporary use of potable water to serve the power
plant.
Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project,along with existing and other
projected future users,as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies,
have been identified in the water supply planning documents of the District,the Water
Authority,and Metropolitan.
The WSA&V Reports includes,among other information,an identification of existing
water supply entitlements,water rights,water service contracts,or agreements
relevant to the identified water supply needs for each project.The WSA&V Reports
demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned and are
intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon,under normal conditions
and in single-and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of the Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Project,the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project,and the existing and
other planned development projects within the District.
5
Accordingly,after approval of a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project by the District's
Board of Directors,the WSA&V Reports may be used to comply with the
requirements of the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 as follows:
Senate Bill (SB)610 Water Supply Assessment:The District's Board of Directors
approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)Environmental Impact Report (EIR)compliance process for
the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the EIR Compliance process for the
Otay Ranch Village 9 Project as a water supply assessment and verification
report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610.The
City,as lead agency under the CEQA for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
EIR and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project EIR,may cite the approved WSA&V
Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned and intended to be
available to serve the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch
Village 9 Project.
Senate Bill (SB)221 Water Supply Verification:The District's Board of Directors
approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the City's Tentative Map
approval process for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch
Village 9 Project as a water supply verification report,consistent with the
requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221.The City,within their process
of approving the Otay Ranch Village 8 West and Otay Ranch Village 9 Project's
Tentative Maps,may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended
sufficient water supply to serve the Project.
6
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Approval of Water Supply Assessment and
Verification Reports (November 2010)for the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and for the
Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
Project No.:00738-090062
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Signature
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Daniel Kay
\:z\'Z--\'\i)
Date
,2..-/2-//0
Date
Printed Name c
Manager:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
..."'~"",~Z,'i.....-..,..~;s'\.
Water Supply As,sessment &.Verification Reports for
tay Ranch Village 8 West and illage 9 Projects
58 610 &.221 Compl-ance
.-,,\-
OTAY
I.AIIDFILL
2
LOMR l..
OTAY
RS8'WQR
-.-'--:'
I -
Village 9
323 Ac.Total
4,000 Dwelling Units
1,500,000 Sq.Ft.
Retail/Commercial
•
•
f
.--
Village 8 West
320 Ac.Total
2,050 Dwelling Units
300,000 Sq.Ft.
Retail/Commercial
•
•
•
p.
-~-
[J Senate ills 610'an(l 221 became effect·e Ja uar:y 1,
2002-,w·tli the primary intent to improve the linlt between
~----,ater supply C!vailabi itY and Ian use decisions.
S8 610 Water Supply A sessment (WSA):
[J Requires ~ater purveyor to prepare a Water SuRll!¥
Assessment-r'ep,o,rt for inclusion in:land use agency CEQA
docume tation.
[J 58 22:1 Water Supply Verification:
o Requires the water punteyor to prepare wr-tten
~Verification hat sufficie t water supplies are planned to
Be availabte
o The tay Ranch Village 8 West an Village 9 58 610 and 221
Wate upply Assessment and Verificat·on Reports (WSA&V).
o Board approval requ·red for submittal of the WSA&V
Reports to the City of Chula Vista.:
4
'--.,--
V
(Nt:)
y
(Of?
legend·Transect:Zone
T-l:O~n Space Preserve (OP)'--..
T-l :O~n Space Slope (OS)
T-2:Neighborhood Edge (NE)
T-2:Neighbcrhood General (NG)
T-3:Neighborhood Center (NC)
T-4:Town Center (TC)
SD:Park (P)!I.:I
SD:COOlmunity Purpose Fadlity (CPF)·~
,~1...-......SD:Reservoir (R)L......:....-::::.~~__:-=A_M.:;s2'SCP~~/~:/,7-/7f")It:.~:,;..-..,;,~~~====::::::.~
(J
o
T-1:Open Space Preserve (OP)
T-1:Open Space Slope (OS)
T-2:Neighborhood Edge (NE)
T-2:Neighborhood General (NG)
T-3:Urban Neighoorhood (UN)
T-4:Town Center (Te)•
T-5:Urban Center (UC)
SD:Park (P)
SD:Community Purpose Fadlity (CPF)d""·-
SD:University (Uj
legend·Transect:Zone
TM~OSO1lol'o:l,rn'lr""""l1f<"'"",.m~"Icx;.ll1y-<lr'o""'1"'''/""\~'''P<''I'mm 1(>;,,1/I',"'l<1onn",,~I."r>::l'lor:~'ld011"'''10''''ICllU";:>lor.n'~...-.ll~n:fu..",,,,,,,,;u.orn 1!,,1eCI on1M<!jr«toC"lofthe~d¢0''''1'''''lornJuly SANOAG,,~ff <o1><;illPd ¥1:>J1 ont....forK~'11lr"",oo>cnJur~,<tion"'IC"I Col.in<~I;io;lmcf::;"ptr">CI"~lindpl.>r1,,'.....«O"",,,,onI7ltQling\<;Iur..,~lheI:",..xmcnlt».
Tt>e1111<:)1"0,"''''11'1"nd<cm~,...,,,,<~oI'C~dr,o":"'llht:.am...tW"'9'\~nd~ufl<11",ltrOO'<;nSho1<1~
"grrl",.r'lI TlPOOon100mul.1I"'I;d'lli r"'i'''''',m<l;t".,,11 dlol.l<;p"....lP/l~.&r""""'"I''''c-l'lOt
~C~""r•.
In Mdil;O<"IlO work"!'l ,.~h icq,,"""""'[10"",SANDAC .ullIIoIQ<ktd'10'011"",<t>~'oHOl"'e"9"OI:I~'nC~r'lI<l!p""'ido!"l<jnccl'l":Ote~I"I)'~.o<JI";'il,.:>pIynform"tico ntOtl"l.fo<et:lltllS
...---...............ca&1'1,I~N..."brJWjn)
"'o.~~f,~~.....·~)
I,lur",,":tw P~ll 14 l~ontlll.SMI:lAG .t.>/'....d I'"..~(JI1ol1 PI;;r.II,"J """""11<""rr.n.....,!at..I~r1d.!W<>dct'('~!lfro"'...d':)/tn.~1~'1rh/J&:lafG01 'WottgM
.$;lIt :!i<:<,lO 'c9'or,0"19 JUI''''r.:~..."I",.~v-.orlu:d ,..~v-Z050 IllrqIOl1ll Gn;rw-;h(C<jt.':I",rl<>,,,,.~I<>r....Iong.r"""'S'Il !t,r"'U:J>lrcr r",.:~rtt!oru..,ttw XIII ~o'lllll
1.-,:&lnP'Il<7"r'llm,..."r'r.c'!t I'.tXll:l.lto'!T,a~Lgf\fI\erI~'1dO\l'.-pllftl,"O
'ot!U:nor:tlllf~ffor:"II'~I:!I!-"::"""'''inc...rllilhoIi,~W .t!brU.
""".~"CI*"~~I'h'>M"1~"':n~~",,,,,"'!'i"""''''''''''lJ'C"ll
P:3Mm'l.TheforKll'll,nollrl\.~IIl~ap"""'LpUOI"rO'rut""'9r~,~.~r.l"..for«ll'lilIn,...-dt<:\to'-'le.....PJ!O'pl~'un,n Cl...~IC4'l""~nlp.;!tt~mJ.D;j.",on'4<}I1;I'1&1P'-Ojt(l'orl'~nd1oc31
lnPiJI,
n,,,~05C1i>oglCl'14t Gl""",h FO",.:U.1'",,'..tJr Ih~f'r>!,t"l",n<;;l,tV~lopr..(hit;!OS(I R~"lO:d
TrJf"PC'lo:u..-,P\;o.,(~T?/.""'"t,....,11""forrn lrll!<:c",,'oprNnl"~I'll:''';',"01''.r"S1 S\.Oo~in.:lblcr""""..,III~'S"~''''91(srs),~""""""""P<Ylanf ~,I"..,!tTP.I\t"(j'h<!R""J <:nil >lrl\l'ng I'l<lfll'l>
~"",,,",,nr [QHNA)pili'C.rMornl/l !'orl~~f"r.ill ns (~~"j Ie","",,,,,1?~S1~~If"\01 ?QOfl)I"
"d:l~,on,tMfo<<<~trlcrmltio<>w.11bou...,t:>..~lullI'flflur.~t:lI\ial,lorINr~IOI'"
sm"rt Grcill".I1lram".Pr~~m M'::lliUll;:or1 ;=1QP'!~I "'PfO~......,t",,:I """ttl"rtfCUr<'l'
pl'OCY'l,ngmroughoutlh.,og.cn1t...fo;n>Q<t~rr.;>I~w'lh"l1.ppltCl1Dl••'-'luWl""<1r1fg<.Jl.1t"""~'i!:'~~:I~;.Rll',~~.on:::tRHNAfro",SBJli>""';tt>eC.>nfornl~lro",~JOf'C<>mnll\.<',,"",o",n
THEM£TROPOUTAN WATERDlSTRla
OFSOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
DRAFT
_..._......16.......-........,--..--......,.....
•
nt
9
-:-..-
Base on..existing Clocumentation,the WSA&.V
epo 5 de o-nstrate and document that 5·'Icient·
ater sUPR .1.s are Ianned for and are intendeo'to
e acq ·reCl.,-V';,,«'jIil'"..-,;,.~-:~
•The WSA&V"eports document the pl'anned water
supp,ly projects and the actions necessary to
velop the supplies.
•·ate supply for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
and Village 9 Projects,and for existi 9 and tutu e
developments within t e Distri for a 20-year
plan ing horiz.on,under normal nd in single a d
m Iti~le dry years,are planned fo and are
in enCled to,-e made,available..
c~esalination,P'r'oject (24,000-
•Qtay Mesa Lot 7 Groun water Well (300-400 AFY)
5,430
59,799
65,229
65,229
FY 2020
4,684
o
52,349
57,033
57,033,
FY 2015
o
4,040
49,812
49,812
Water AuttroritY SURPly _
Description
Recycled Water SUPPIY",.:=!ii'.ir
Groundwater Supply
Total Required Suppl
Total Projected Demand ~
Actual Demand vs.2005 UWMP
100000
80000
60000
40000
200'00'
0,
--------a-
n -..:::r«2005 UWMP--~
I!I -Actual Demands
-Projected Demands
I I I
F 2005 FY 2010 FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030
11
12
...;
~ctions n essary to develop the identified
water ~su,p~pli'es are documented.
"~l'
The tay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
Village 9 Project WSA&V Reports demonstrate
and document that sufficient water supplies
are planned for and are intended to be
available over the next 20 vears.
ropolitan has updated -ts RP to address
Delta Issues and oth r potential water supply
impacts...
•
•
"
t the ar of Directors approveh'e _________
Senate Bills'~~,a d 221 Water Sup Iy
ssessm :-,.',,'erification Reports dated
November 2010 fo~the Otay Ranch Village 8
est Project and Village 9 Project.
.....
,
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Engineering,Operations,and
Water Resources Committee
MEETING DATE:December 7,2010
DIV.NO.AllCIP.lG.F.NO:
Various
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posad~~
Chief,Engineering
c::::::::--=-...~Manny Magana l"Y~.~
Assistant General~nager,Engineering and Operations
Informational Item -Development of CIP Project BudgetsSUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Finance,Admin,and Communications Committee accept
this Informational Item for review and receives a summary via a
PowerPoint presentation (see Attachment B).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To update the Finance,Admin,and Communications Committee about
the process used to develop CIP project budgets.
ANALYSIS:
This Staff Report was prepared as a response to Board members'
inquiries about how budgets are prepared for CIP projects.
For every CIP project,excluding capital purchases,the budget
development process for each individual CIP starts at the
Planning Phase.The Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP),the Sub
Area Master Plan (SAMP),and Integrated Water Resources Plan
(IRP)identify all the projects to be included in the CIP
budget.At this stage,a very preliminary budget is
established.The next stage in the process is the preparation
of a Preliminary Design Report (PDR)which is developed to set
the framework for design.Staff estimates the project budget,
based on preliminary information about the project scope and
industry construction data for unit costs,e.g.,cost per lineal
foot of pipe or cost per square foot of building.That
information is included in the CIP budget for that fiscal year's
budget cycle.
During the design process,the design engineer produces
estimated construction costs for each CIP project at 30%,60%,
90%,and 100%design milestones.These estimates are more
precise because there is a clearer picture of the size and
configuration of the project and the potential challenges on
issues and impacts,such as environmental,freeway crossings,
major utilities,tunneling,etc.Again,these adjusted numbers
are reviewed and vetted to fine-tune the number in the CIP
budget.During the design phase,larger projects also go
through value engineering and constructability reviews to
further refine the construction cost estimate and total budget.
Staff also includes contingencies in earlier budgets in the
project.Contingencies are used to cover for unidentified items
that occur during the planning,design,and construction phases.
The industry standard for contingencies is 5-10%.
When the project is 100%designed,staff performs a detailed
risk analysis review and potential risks are identified and
incorporated in the bid sheet as allowances.The purpose of
allowances is to control budget,plus provide a mechanism to pay
the contractor in the event a particular bid item is needed.
Samples of allowances are:excavation of hazardous wastes or
rock material,potholing for unknown utilities,crossing of
unknown utilities,etc.The revised construction cost estimate,
with allowances,is incorporated into the CIP project budget in
the next budget cycle.
After the project is bid,the contract is awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder.At this point,with an actual construction
contract amount known,staff again adjusts the CIP budget.If
the lowest bid exceeds the estimated budget,staff would request
a budget adjustment to the Board of Directors at the time of the
contract award.
During construction,the estimated line items are adjusted,
depending on actual conditions encountered in the field.
Allowances mayor may not be used during the construction
2
period.If they are used,a staff report is prepared for Board
consideration.At the end of construction,a final construction
contract budget reconciliation is also prepared for Board
consideration.
To better illustrate the process,staff selected three recent
CIP projects that are at different levels of completion to show
how budgets were adjusted and to reflect changes over time when
construction costs were known.These budgets are compared to
the actual construction costs for each project.Please note
that the costs shown for each phase of a project include staff
time,consultants,and contractor's costs.
1.1296-3 2MG Concrete Reservoir (P2143)
This project was completed in FY 2011.
Budget
FY 2008 %FY 2009 %FY 2010 %FY 2011 %
Planning $244,000 7%$266,000 7%$266,000 7%$276,000 8%
Design $365,000 11%$398,000 11%$398,000 11%$422,000 12%
Construction $2,731,000 82%$2,739,000 75%$2,739,000 75%$2,842,000 80%
Contingency $0 0%$237,000 7%$237,000 7%$0 0%
Total:$3,340,000 100%$3,640,000 100%$3,640,000 100%$3,540,000 100%
Engineer's Estimate
Preliminary
30%
60%
100%
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
$3,000,000
$2,945,000
Seven construction bids:Lowest:
Highest:
Original Construction Contract
Original Contract wlo allowances
Allowances
Total Contract:
Actual Construction Contract Costs
Bid Items Only (Construction Cost)
Change Orders
Credit Change Orders
Allowances
Credit for Allowances
Actual Construction Contract Costs:
3
$2,373,220
$3,399,000
$2,198,220
$175,000
$2,373,220
$2,198,220.00
$65,680.30
($87,067.40)
$175,000.00
($175,000.00)
$2,176,832.90
93%
7%
100%
3%
(4%)
8%
(8%)
2.PL-36-Inch,SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to Regulatory Site (P2009)and
PL-12-Inch,978 Zone,Jamacha,Hidden Mesa,and Chase Upsize and
Replacements (P2038)
The construction of the project was completed in FY 2011.
However,litigation remains before the project can be closed
out.
Budget
FY 2008 %FY 2009 %FY 2010 %FY 2011 %
Planning $1,660,000 8%$1,440,000 6%$2,100,000 9%$1,680,000 7%
Design $1,320,000 7%$1,540,000 7%$2,080,000 8%$2,150/000 9%
Construction $17,070,000 85%$20,854,000 85%$19/763,000 80%$19,557,000 84%
Contingency $40,000 0%$566,000 2%$757,000 3%$0 0%
Total:$20/090,000 100%$24,400,000 100%$24,700,000 100%$23,387,000 100%
Engineer's Estimate
Preliminary (IEC)
30%(IEC)
60%(IEC)
100%(IEC)
100%(Lee &Ro)
Amended (Lee &Ro)
$20,817,901
$25,187,543
$33,347,363
$32,932,034
$22,785,743
$23,125,248
Twelve construction bids:Lowest:
Highest:
$16,189,243
$28,798,380
Original Construction Contract
Original Contract wlo allowances
Allowances
Total Contract:
$14,490,243
$1,699,000
$16,189,243
90%
10%
100%
Actual Construction Contract Costs
Bid Items Only (Construction Cost)
Change Orders
Credit Change Orders
Allowances
Credit for Allowances
Actual Construction Contract Costs:
4
$14,490,243.00
$148,157.09
($521,997.93)
$1,699,000.00
($1,407,457.89)
$14,407,944.27
1%
(4%)
12%
(10%)
3.North District -South District Interconnection System (P2511)
The PDR for this project was completed in FY 2010.The Board
recently awarded the design of this project in Fiscal 2011.This
project is expected to be completed in FY 2015.
Budget
FY 2011 %
Planning $1,300,000 3%
-
Design $3,000,000 8%
Construction $33,000,000 89%
Contingency $0 0%
Total:$37,300,000 100%
To derive an estimated budget for the CIP,staff took industry
costs per lineal foot of pipe and per square feet of pump station.
In addition,the engineering firm who prepared the PDR provided a
preliminary cost analysis that was used in developing the budget.
During design,the budget will be adjusted when more design
information such as alignment,Caltrans crossings,and tunneling
become available.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The CIP supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide the
best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and
efficient manner,"and the District's Strategic Goal,in planning
for infrastructure and supply to meet current and future potable
water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None
Gene al Manager
P:\CIP\Development of Budget for Individual CIP's\Engineering Committee Meeting 12-07-10,Staff Report,Information Item -
Development of elP Project Budgets,(RR-RP).doc
RR/RP:j f
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Presentation
5
C::IIR I
Various
ATTACHMENT A
Informational Item -Development of CIP Project Budgets
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on December 7,2010.
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Informational Item -Development of CIP Project
Budgets
Project No.:Various
Document Description:Staff Report for Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources
Committee Meeting on December 7,2010
Author:104~I z/e.-/to
Signature Date
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
QA Reviewer:si~/y {:J-./2/10
Date
Daniel Kay
Printed Name
Manager:~~~~~n.\t-\LO
Signature Date
Rod Posada
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;
being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting calculated values
and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its presentation style.
ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS A.ND
WATER RESOURCES
COMMITTEE MEETING
DECEMBER 7,2010
DEVELOPMENT OF:CIP PROJECT
BUD:GETS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Project Budget D'evelopmen!t Proce,ss
Planning Preliminary
Budget PDR
Value
Engineering
Construction
Bid and
Contract
Award
-------~--_._-
Project Final BUdget I
Construction Determined
2
I Budget Parameters I
•Budgets are adjusted when nlore precise information is known.
Time span is several years.
•Initial estimates are based on industry construction unit cost.
•There are lots of variables and unknowns that inlpact project
budgets:alignment,utility crossings,freeway crossings,
environmental constraints,tunneling,contan,inated/hazardous
materials,and agency requirements.
•Conting,encies are used to cover unidentified itelTIS during planning,
design,and construction.
•Allowances are incorporated through a risk analysis process and
used to control bUdget.
•The Board gets routinely notified about changes in the CIP budget,
and every time that an authorization exceeds the General Manager's
authority.3
.__._-_._--_._-_---_--.-.-.-
I Sample Projects I
1296-3 2M'G Concrete Reservoir (P2143)
BUDGET
FY 2008
$3,340,000
CONTINGENCY 00/0
FY 2009
$3,640,000
7%
FY 2010
$3,640,000
70/0
FY 2011
$3,540,000
00/0
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES:$2,700,000 -$2,945,000
SEVEN CONSTRUCTION BIDS:$2,373,220 -$3,399,000
ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COSTS
Bid Items Only (Construction Cost)
Change Orders
Credit Change Orders
Allowances
Credit for Allowances
Actual Construction Contract Costs:
$2,198,220.00
$65,680.30 30/0
($87,067.40)(40/0)
$175,000.00 80/0
($175,000.00)(8%)
$2,176,832.90
4
I Sample Projects I
PL-36-lnch,SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to Regulatory Site
(P2009)and PL-12-lnch,978 Zone,Jamacha,Hidden Me,s8,
and Chase U'psize and Replacements (P2038)
BUDGET
CONTINGENCY
FY 2008
$20,090,000
0%
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
$24,400,000 $24,700,000 $23,387,000
2%3%0%
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES:$20,817,901-$23,125,248
TWELVE CONSTRUCTION BIDS:$16,189,243 -$28,798,380
A,CTUAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COSTS
Bid Items Only (Construction Cost)
Change Orders
Credit Change Orders
Allowances
Credit for Allowances
Actual Construction Contract Costs:
$14,490,243.00
$148,157.09
($521,997.93)
$1,699,000.00
($1,407,457.89)
$14,407,944.27
10k
(4%)
12%
(10%)
5
I Sample Projects I
North District -South Distr'ict Interconnection System (P2511)
BUDGET
CONTINGENCY
FY 2011
$37,300,000
00/0
This budget was derived from industry costs per lineal foot of pipe and per
square feet of pump station.
6
('--
enz
o
I-enw
:J
"