Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase ...govme.cityoftacoma.org/download/rfp/rfpvolI.pdf · Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Design-Build

City of Tacoma i May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project

Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III

Design-Build Project Volume I

Table of Contents

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Introduction........................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose of this Solicitation.............................................................. 3 1.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................... 4 1.4 Maximum Allowable Design-Build Prices ........................................ 5 1.5 Organization of this RFP ................................................................. 5

SECTION 2 - GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Overview of Tacoma’s Sewer and Wastewater Treatment

System ............................................................................................ 7 2.2 Central Treatment Plant .................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Background .......................................................................... 7 2.2.2 General Site Plan and Datum Information............................ 8 2.2.3 Facilities Plan ....................................................................... 8 2.2.4 Geotechnical/Hydrogeologic Information............................ 10 2.2.5 Studies Conducted for this Project, including Phase

I Environmental Site Assessment....................................... 12 2.2.6 Other Available Reports and Materials ............................... 13 2.2.7 Reliance on City-Provided Information and Other

Select Issues Affecting Proposal Preparation..................... 13 2.2.8 Proposer Due Diligence and Investigation.......................... 14 2.2.9 Energy Management .......................................................... 15

2.3 Definitions ..................................................................................... 15

SECTION 3 - FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND UPGRADES 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 23 3.2 Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities .................................. 23 3.3 Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities .................................. 28 3.4 Repair and Replacement Work ..................................................... 29

SECTION 4 - DESIGN-BUILD PROCESS 4.1 Purpose and Scope....................................................................... 31 4.2 Mandatory Contract Requirements ............................................... 31

4.2.1 Project Guarantor ............................................................... 32 4.2.2 Limits on Termination Damages......................................... 32

4.3 Requirements for Proposing Changes to the Design-Build Contract and Schedules................................................................ 33

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

City of Tacoma ii May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project

4.4 Periods of Work and Key Milestones ............................................ 33 4.4.1 Development Period (Agreement Date to

Construction Commencement Date) .................................. 34 4.4.2 Construction Period (Construction Commencement

Date to Final Completion Date) .......................................... 34 4.4.3 Performance Warranty Period (Final Completion

Date to Performance Warranty Termination Date) ............. 37 4.4.4 Equipment and Materials Warranties ................................. 37

4.5 Payment Provisions ...................................................................... 38 4.5.1 Payment for Development Work......................................... 38 4.5.2 Project Allowance Items ..................................................... 38 4.5.3 Other Items Included in Fixed Design-Build

Price/Payment for Construction Work ................................ 39 4.5.4 Operations Optimization Assistance................................... 40

4.6 Incentives...................................................................................... 40 4.7 Liquidated Damages ..................................................................... 40 4.8 Security ......................................................................................... 40

4.8.1 Payment and Performance Bonds...................................... 40 4.8.2 Letter of Credit.................................................................... 40 4.8.3 Insurance............................................................................ 41

4.9 Ownership and Financing ............................................................. 41 4.10 Select Contract Requirements ...................................................... 41

4.10.1 Business License and Taxes.............................................. 41 4.10.2 Delegation Agreement........................................................ 41 4.10.3 MWBE, SBRA, Apprenticeship, and Non-

Discrimination Requirements.............................................. 42 4.10.4 Prevailing Wages ............................................................... 42 4.10.5 Forum for Disputes............................................................. 43 4.10.6 Compliance with Regulations and SRF Loan

Conditions .......................................................................... 43

SECTION 5 - PROCUREMENT PROCESS 5.1 Procurement Process and Project Implementation

Schedule ....................................................................................... 45 5.2 Proposer Meetings ........................................................................ 46 5.3 City Contact – Interpretations, Questions, and Requests for

Clarification ................................................................................... 47 5.4 Site Access During Proposal Preparation ..................................... 47 5.5 Communication Protocol ............................................................... 48 5.6 Proposal Evaluation and Selection................................................ 48

5.6.1 Evaluation Process Overview............................................. 48 5.6.2 Evaluation Criteria .............................................................. 49 5.6.3 Interviews ........................................................................... 54 5.6.4 Reference Checks.............................................................. 54 5.6.5 City Requests for Clarification or Resubmissions............... 54 5.6.6 Contract Negotiation........................................................... 54

5.7 Other Procurement Requirements ................................................ 55


City of Tacoma iii May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project

5.7.1 Honorarium......................................................................... 55 5.7.2 Work for Hire ...................................................................... 56 5.7.3 Information Disclosure to Third Parties .............................. 56 5.7.4 City Rights .......................................................................... 57 5.7.5 Protests .............................................................................. 58 5.7.6 Code of Ethics .................................................................... 60 5.7.7 Conflict of Interest .............................................................. 60

SECTION 6 - PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 6.1 General Requirements .................................................................. 61 6.2 Format Requirements ................................................................... 62 6.3 Proposal Contents......................................................................... 64

SECTION 7 - PROPOSAL FORMS

APPENDICES A - Ecology Communication Protocol and Tacoma Building and

Land Use Services (BLUS) Communication Protocol B - Site Access Request Form C - Communication Protocol

TABLES Table 5-1 Procurement Schedule................................................................... 45

FIGURES Figure 1 - General Locations of Facility Improvements .................................. 25 Figure 2 - Key Milestones and Time Periods.................................................. 35

This page intentionally left blank for printing purposes

City of Tacoma 1 May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project

Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III

Design-Build Project

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Volume I

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION This document is a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the City of Tacoma (the “City”) Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III, Design-Build Project (“Project”). It is being issued to the four respondents that were short-listed (“Short-Listed Teams” or “Teams”) based on the outcome of an evaluation of Statements of Qualifications (“SOQs”), submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) issued by the City.

The short-listed Proposers are, in alphabetical order:

CH2M Hill/Mortenson Joint Venture

Earth Tech

MWH

RCI/Black & Veatch Joint Venture

This RFP is the second phase of a two-phase procurement process being conducted in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.10, Alternative Public Works Contracting Procedures (the “Act”). Pursuant to the Act, the City held a public hearing on its recommendation to use a Design-Build project delivery method on July 8, 2003. On July 15, 2003, the City Council authorized use of the Design-Build process and authorized the Public Works Department to evaluate and recommend a Design-Build team. The first phase of the procurement process consisted of the issuance of the RFQ, the receipt of SOQs, and the selection of the Short-Listed Teams.

This RFP solicits Proposals primarily to:

1. Permit, design, build, startup, and acceptance test for new, upgraded, and expanded treatment and in-plant conveyance (pumping, piping, and open-channel flow) facilities at the City’s Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (“Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities”);



2. Permit, design, and build certain new or expanded support facilities, such as maintenance, work area, and expanded biosolids processing areas (“Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities”);

3. Perform repair and replacement work at certain existing facilities (“Repair and Replacement Work”); and

4. Provide a performance warranty for the new Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment Process and, at City's option, Operations Optimization Assistance for a period following the completion of construction.

The term “Upgrade and Expansion Facilities” includes both Principal and Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities. These terms are used hereinafter and in the Schedules where it is appropriate for the purpose of describing the extent of work involved.

This RFP invites Short-Listed Teams to submit responses to this RFP (“Proposals”) describing in detail the technical, business and financial aspects of the plan by which each proposes to meet the requirements of the Project. Qualifications of Teams that submit Proposals, especially as they relate to the ability of teams to successfully deliver the Project, will be considered as part of the Proposal evaluation, (see Section 5.6 of Volume I of this RFP). Accordingly, teams are also requested to provide certain information supplementing the qualifications information provided in their SOQs (see Section 6.3 of Volume I of this RFP).

By submitting a Proposal, a Proposer agrees, if selected for negotiations, to enter into good faith negotiations, and upon mutual agreement as to the final terms and conditions following negotiations, to enter into a design-build contract, substantially in the form included in Volumes II and III of this RFP (the “Draft Design-Build Contract”), including all provisions identified as mandatory in Section 4.2 of Volume I of this RFP. The criteria by which the City will evaluate and rank Proposals to determine the Proposer with which the City will initiate negotiations are set forth in Section 5.6.6 of Volume I of this RFP. Should the City determine that the negotiations are unsuccessful; the City reserves the right to suspend negotiations and initiate negotiations with the next highest ranked Proposer.

Proposals must be submitted and received by the City at the following location, date, and time:

Eric Johnson, P.E. City of Tacoma Environmental Services Science and Engineering Division Central Treatment Plant 2201 Portland Avenue Tacoma WA, 98421-2711 August 20, 2004 3:00 PM



All Proposals shall be submitted in sealed packages and in accordance with the requirements of Section 6 of Volume I of this RFP. Price proposals shall be submitted in separate sealed envelopes. To the extent permitted by law, the City intends to keep Proposals confidential until after the Design-Build Contract is executed.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS SOLICITATION By delivering the Project using a Design-Build (“DB”) process, the City hopes to benefit from the knowledge and experience of the selected designer and constructor (“Project Delivery Team”) to obtain a high-value and high-quality Project at a reasonable cost. The City believes the success of the Project depends greatly on the experience and quality of the Project Delivery Team and its staff that will design and build the Project facilities.

The City has identified six overall goals, in the following general order of priority, for the Design-Build delivery process:

1. Effective Design-Build Project Delivery Team. First and foremost, the City wishes to engage a reputable, experienced, knowledgeable and capable Project Delivery Team with the desire and ability to work effectively together, and with the City, to deliver a Project that meets the City’s needs.

2. Quality. A high-quality facility that incorporates sound engineering design, high-quality materials and equipment, and superior workmanship is a very important consideration for the City. The City’s concept of quality also encompasses durability, ease and cost of operation and maintenance, and efficiency with an emphasis on life-cycle costs. The City believes that involvement of the City’s Plant Maintenance, Operations, and Engineering staff during design and construction as well as a well thought-out DB Quality Management Program will be critical to assuring that this overall objective is met. Proposers are specifically encouraged to carefully review the quality provisions of Schedules 6, 7, and 10 in preparing their Proposals.

3. Single Point of Responsibility. The Design-Build Contract requires a single point of responsibility for all obligations of the Project Delivery Team. Consistent with this approach, the City expects the selected Project Delivery Team to assume certain risks, including demonstration through Acceptance Testing and modeling that the plant meets certain hydraulic and treatment performance standards. Where a Proposer does not have sufficient financial strength to fulfill all of the obligations of the Project, the City requires a Project Guarantor. If Co-guarantors are proposed where a Proposer is a joint venture, each Guarantor shall be jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations of the Proposer.

4. Value. The City expects that the Design-Build process will deliver a completed Project at a lower cost than would be possible under a typical



Design-Bid-Build process for a project of comparable scope and quality and/or will provide greater value (i.e., higher quality, more features).

5. Ingenuity. The City encourages ingenuity in both design and construction of the Upgrade and Expansion Facilities. Major areas where the City hopes to benefit from Proposer ingenuity and innovation include but are not limited to:

Construction sequencing that incorporates requirements for ongoing plant operations;

Upgrade and Expansion Facility layout;

Modification and adaptation of existing facilities for other facility functions;

Design features resulting in operations and maintenance cost efficiencies and superior performance above the minimum requirements specified in this RFP; and

Approaches to address energy use at the upgraded CTP and to reduce life cycle energy costs, especially addressing peak energy requirements and potential demand charges “Energy Management Alternative Proposal”.

6. Project Schedule. The City seeks to receive a delivered Project in an overall duration equal to or less than would normally be required for a Design-Bid-Build Project.

Notwithstanding the City’s rights described in Section 5.7.4 of Volume I of this RFP, the City intends to select a knowledgeable and experienced team (“Selected Proposer”) that the City deems best qualified to meet the City’s Project and risk objectives and that provides acceptable pricing, financial strength, and assurances with which to initiate negotiations.

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City is implementing the upgrade and expansion of the Central Treatment Plant to meet a number of Project objectives:

To upgrade the Central Treatment Plant’s capacity to provide increased hydraulic and treatment capacity for a 20-year planning period.

To help address sanitary sewer overflows (“SSOs”) at the plant and in the upstream conveyance system during heavy rainfall events.

To expand, improve, and rehabilitate various areas of the plant with high-quality facilities and equipment.



To provide the flexibility to expand its service area.

To provide for better energy management at the CTP.

1.4 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DESIGN-BUILD PRICES In accordance with RCW 39.10.051, the City has developed two Maximum Allowable Design-Build Prices for the Project – one for the Base Proposal, which assumes a new substation will be needed to meet upgraded CTP demands, the costs of which will be paid directly to Tacoma Power by the City; and one that includes the Energy Management Alternative Proposal (which would eliminate the need for the currently planned substation). (The Maximum Allowable Design-Build Prices are intended to have the same meaning as the Maximum Allowable Construction Cost as that term is used in RCW 39.10.051.) Except for the costs for Operations Optimization Assistance, which will be contracted for under a separate Professional Services Agreement, and “City Option Items,” which the City may or may not include in the final Project Scope depending on available budget, Proposers should note that the Maximum Allowable Design-Build Prices for the Project include all costs for a Proposer to perform the Contract Services including the City’s estimate for the Project Allowance Items described in this RFP.

The Maximum Allowable Design-Build Prices are:

$68 million for the Base Proposal (with the costs for the new substation, which will be paid directly by the City and excluded from the Maximum Allowable Design-Build Price).

$79 million for the Energy Management Alternative Proposal, with energy management features such as use of digester gas, co-generation, peak shaving, gas or diesel driven pumps, etc., included in the Maximum Allowable Design-Build Price.

As required by RCW 39.10.051, Proposals whose Fixed Design-Build Price exceed the applicable Maximum Allowable Design-Build Prices will not be considered.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS RFP This RFP is organized into three volumes:

Volume I – RFP Front End describes the reasons for using Design-Build project delivery; provides background information related to the Project and Central Treatment Plant Site; describes the general scope of Project facility improvements; highlights key provisions of the draft Design-Build Contract; describes the overall procurement process; sets forth Proposal evaluation factors and their relative weights; defines Proposal submittal requirements; and describes the honorarium to be paid to responsive Proposers who are not awarded the contract. Proposal Forms and RFP Appendices are also



included in Volume I. Except for information contained in the completed forms, Volume I will not become part of the executed Design-Build Contract.

Volume II – Draft Design-Build Contract sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the City desires to implement the Project with the Proposer selected pursuant to Section 5.6 of Volume I of this RFP.

Volume III – Schedules to the Design-Build Contract sets forth, among other things, the technical and certain business/financial requirements for the Project.

Proposers should note that, throughout Volumes II and III, notes exist in reference to specific areas within the documents where information from the Selected Proposer's Proposal will be inserted. These insertions will be completed in the finalization of the Design-Build Contract.


SECTION 2 - GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 OVERVIEW OF TACOMA’S SEWER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM The Tacoma Public Works Environmental Services Division’s Wastewater Utility serves a total equivalent population (residential and commercial) of approximately 258,000. The Utility projects the equivalent population of its existing service area will increase to approximately 330,000 by the year 2020.

The Wastewater Utility conveys wastewater from the greater Tacoma area through a network of approximately 700 miles of sewer pipe and 45 pump stations. Flows are conveyed to two wastewater treatment facilities, the Central Treatment Plant (“CTP”) and the North End Treatment Plant. Flows from a smaller, third service area in western Tacoma are conveyed to Pierce County’s Chambers Creek treatment plant. The CTP treats over 80 percent of the average dry weather flow generated within the Utility’s three separate service areas.

2.2 CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT

2.2.1 BACKGROUND The CTP is located within the City of Tacoma just off of Portland Avenue and adjacent to the Puyallup River. The CTP was originally constructed in 1952, and provided primary treatment for flows collected within its combined storm and sanitary collection system. Due to excessive hydraulic loading, Tacoma began a storm/sanitary separation program in the late 1950s, which allowed the City to defer expanding the CTP until 1963. Additional improvements to the primary plant occurred between 1979 and 1982.

The CTP was upgraded to a biological secondary treatment facility in 1989 with the completion of a high-purity oxygen-activated sludge treatment system. As a result of this expansion, treated effluent from the CTP was no longer discharged to the Puyallup River and instead was subsequently discharged to the deep waters of Commencement Bay via a 15,650-foot overland pipeline and deep marine outfall and diffuser. The CTP currently has a permitted maximum month capacity (average flow for the maximum month) of 38 mgd and a permitted peak hydraulic capacity of 78 mgd. The City has recently received a new wastewater NPDES permit from the Department of Ecology. This new permit includes information regarding the proposed upgrades at the CTP subsequent to Ecology’s approval of the March 2002 Facilities Plan. This permit is included in Schedule 24, listed in Schedule 1, Exhibit 1-1, and is available on the City’s website

Secondary treatment at the CTP currently has a hydraulic capacity of 88 mgd, while the existing primary treatment system has a current hydraulic capacity of about 103 mgd due to flow restrictions in the channels just upstream of the existing grit removal facilities and downstream of the existing Influent Pump Station.



2.2.2 GENERAL SITE PLAN AND DATUM INFORMATION General Site Plan Drawings for the existing CTP property show the general location of known existing facilities and features located within the property limits (see Schedule 1, Drawings 1A through 1H). The General Site Plan Drawings were prepared based on a 1990 aerial photograph and updated through field surveys performed in 2003. The General Site Plan Drawings include site boundaries, above-ground facilities including buildings and treatment structures, parking areas, other paved areas, and fences. Information on underground utilities located outside of structures or utilidors is also depicted and is based on located and field survey investigations performed in 2003 or are approximate locations, as noted on the drawings.

Proposers should also be aware that information shown on the General Site Plan Drawings outside the fence line of the CTP property has not been surveyed. The selected Project Delivery Team shall be responsible for conducting any additional surveys, as needed to define requirements on property located outside of the fence line as well as within the fence line to the extent information of greater accuracy or precision is required for design and construction.

Proposers should also be aware that various reports and topographic mapping prepared for the Project and other historical documents may be based on different datum information (see Schedule 1). Most documents prior to July 1, 1990 are based on the “Old City Datum.” Since 1990, documents have been prepared based on the “New City Datum”, which is equivalent to NGVD 29. In addition, the horizontal datum is based on NAD 83/91 State Plane Coordinates Washington South Zone US Foot. The elevation for the New City Datum is 14.0 feet lower than the “Old City Datum.” Thus, the conversion to New City Datum is done by subtracting 14.0 from the Old City Datum. The conversion to Old City Datum is done by adding 14.0 to the New City Datum. Proposers are responsible for verifying any datums in these previous documents and in their work.

2.2.3 FACILITIES PLAN The CTP is being expanded pursuant to the March 2002 Facilities Plan (“2002 Facilities Plan”). The Facilities Plan was prepared to satisfy the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (“Ecology’s”) requirement that a plan for improvements to maintain adequate capacity be developed when CTP flows reach 85 percent of the plant’s permitted capacity for three consecutive months. While the CTP is permitted to treat a maximum average month wet weather flow of 38 mgd, the maximum three-month average daily flow to the CTP has been recorded as high as 40.2 mgd. Therefore, the 85 percent regulatory threshold was exceeded.

In addition to fulfilling the above-mentioned regulatory requirement, the improvements described in the Facilities Plan are also intended to address SSOs, which are currently caused, in part, by a lack of hydraulic capacity at the CTP during peak wet weather flows.



The Facilities Plan estimated that the current peak flow to the CTP is 110 mgd based on historical flow data and estimated SSO volumes that occurred during several peak wet weather events experienced in the 1990s. The CTP upgrade’s hydraulic capacity of 150 mgd (including redundancy) as identified in the Facilities Plan was based on this estimated peak flow plus future growth in existing service areas and in new service areas through 2020.

The Facilities Plan recommends a variety of major and minor improvements. An important element of the Facilities Plan is the concept of providing a separate process train (parallel to the existing primary and secondary processes) for treatment of peak wet weather flows. These treated flows would then be recombined with effluent from the existing secondary process. The combined flows would then be discharged via the existing outfall. This concept will directly address the current problem of SSOs.

The Facilities Plan demonstrated through stress testing data that the existing secondary treatment process has a treatment capacity of up to 60 mgd as compared to the current permitted treatment capacity of 38 mgd. In addition, the Facilities Plan provides for increasing the current permitted peak hydraulic capacity.

The Facilities Plan, which includes pilot test results for peak wet weather flow treatment, received provisional approval from Ecology in March 2002. The “provisional” nature of the approval is due solely to the requirement for reporting periodic test results from the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System, after it is installed, as a condition of the CTP’s new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. (The blended effluent must meet requirements of the City’s NPDES permit.) The term “provisional” in this specific instance should not be construed to imply that another “final” approval of the existing Facilities Plan is planned by Ecology. As described in this RFP, certain amendments to the existing Facilities Plan will likely be required, but this has nothing to do with the current “provisional” approval of the Facilities Plan.

It is the desire of the City to allow Proposers to use their creativity to propose cost-effective technical approaches that will satisfy or exceed the technical requirements in this RFP and that will be acceptable to Ecology. The March 2002 Facilities Plan approved by Ecology is based on certain processes, configurations, and components, including a peak wet weather flow treatment process. However, it is not the intent of the City to limit the specific peak wet weather flow treatment process to the one described in the Facilities Plan. Accordingly, Proposers may propose the peak wet weather flow treatment process that Ecology approved as part of the Facilities Plan, or any other peak wet weather flow treatment process that meets the requirements of this RFP. In either case, Proposers shall base their Proposals on the performance specifications and other minimum technical requirements set forth in this RFP. If a peak wet weather flow treatment process other than that contained in the March 2002 Facilities Plan is proposed, the Proposer should be aware that Ecology may require Facilities Plan amendment (and approval) for the proposed process.

A Proposer may also propose a fundamentally different approach to treating peak wet weather flows than that described in the Facilities Plan (i.e., something other than a



separate peak wet weather flow treatment process train) provided the Proposer can demonstrate that such an approach will meet discharge requirements of the City's NPDES permit. Further guidance on how to view the draft technical requirements for the Project is also provided in Sections 4.3 and 6.3 of Volume I of this RFP.

The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, will also be responsible for obtaining all Facilities Plan Amendment(s) required as a result of any modifications to the Facilities Plan included in the selected Proposal. In addition, the Selected Proposer will be responsible for obtaining Ecology approval of a Facilities Plan Amendment reflecting the City’s decisions to:

change its disinfection process from chlorine gas to an alternative disinfectant;

size pipes and other conveyance facilities to 200 mgd (this only refers to the fact that the physical size of some conveyance items will be larger than called out in the approved Facilities Plan to accommodate future expansion; other improvements required to achieve the expanded capacity as well as permitting the expanded capacity will occur in a future phase); and

other changes from the Facilities Plan incorporated into the Project Requirements.

Initial City discussions with Ecology indicate that Ecology will require a minimum of 60 days review time for material amendments, such as treatment process changes, to the 2002 Facilities Plan. Ecology has indicated to the City that less time will be needed for minor changes such as a slight location change of structures or equipment that were specifically identified in the Facilities Plan. Notwithstanding the above, in formulating their development and construction critical path schedules, Proposers shall do all necessary diligence and communicate with Ecology regarding submittal requirements and review times.

The City has reached an agreement with Ecology on a detailed process for Proposer communication with Ecology to discuss design concepts and the implications of those concepts for obtaining Facilities Plan Amendment approval during Proposal preparation. This process is described in Appendix A of Volume I of this RFP.

Proposers should also note that, as part of the amendment process, the Selected Proposer will be required to comply with Ecology State Environmental Review Process (“SERP”) requirements set forth in WAC 173-98-100 for those modifications. The City complied with SERP requirements for the 2002 Facilities Plan by preparing a SEPA checklist and environmental report, which are available on the City’s website.

2.2.4 GEOTECHNICAL/HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION Schedule 1, Section 1.2.3 lists geotechnical reports (available on the City's website) that contain information about subsurface conditions at the CTP site. Proposers are cautioned to carefully review the documents listed in Schedule 1 when preparing their



Proposals especially with respect to geotechnical conditions and pile driving experience on past phases of work at the CTP.

The City has also performed geotechnical site investigations specifically for this Project and obtained input from short-listed firms on the Project geotechnical exploration program prior to conducting these field investigations. Specific field investigations included:

Explorations in the areas and to the depths shown in Schedule 1, Figure 1-3.

A groundwater pump test in the area shown in the Facilities Plan for the new Influent Pump Station.

The report describing the results of these investigations (Geotechnical Data Report, Central Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III, Tacoma Shannon & Wilson, Inc. April 2004) is described in Section 1.4.5 of Schedule 1 and listed in Schedule 1, Exhibit 1-1. It is also posted on the City's website. This report also includes the results of laboratory classification tests on samples from the exploration.

Proposers should be aware that the report generally makes no effort to interpret the results of the field explorations or pump test. Interpretation of the data collected shall solely be the responsibility of Proposers. The Geotechnical Data Report does, however, provide specific guidance on certain seismic design criteria, on which Proposers can rely in developing their Proposals including the following information:

Peak ground acceleration and response spectrum plot.

Assessments of liquefaction potential including the thickness of the liquefaction layer and the residual strength of the layer in the liquefied state.

Acceptable vertical and lateral movement of structures during a seismic event, including the estimated magnitude of lateral spreading toward the Puyallup River due to liquefaction of cohesionless soils and the settlement associated with liquefaction.

The need to provide for mitigation of liquefaction and its associated lateral spreading and settlement.

This information was used by the City to develop specific seismic design criteria as described in Schedule 6, Section 6.9.

Proposers shall base their proposed Fixed Design-Build Price on information included in the Geotechnical Data Report (Shannon & Wilson, April 2004) and on data included in past geotechnical reports on the CTP Site. Proposers shall also provide detailed descriptions of the information and assumptions used to price their dewatering and foundations work as well as a description of the follow-up geotechnical investigations



and analyses that they would conduct to confirm these assumptions if they were to be selected for contract negotiations. The Selected Proposer will be allowed to conduct such investigations and analyses during contract negotiations. Prior to contract execution, the City will negotiate equitable adjustments to the Selected Proposer's proposed Fixed Design-Build Price based on the findings of such investigations and analyses provided they can be shown to materially differ from the assumptions stated in the Selected Proposer's Proposal. The City will pay 50 percent of the cost of these additional investigations and analyses up to a maximum of $50,000 payment by the City. The City has included this arrangement to help Proposers base their Fixed Design-Build Price on a baseline of information, knowing that there is a process in place to allow equitable price adjustments, if warranted, following selection and prior to contract execution as specifically described above. Following execution of the Design-Build Contract, the Company will be responsible for all geotechnical conditions except as set forth in Article III, Section 3.4 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

2.2.5 STUDIES CONDUCTED FOR THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Proposers should note that Project planning has progressed since the Facilities Plan was issued, and that specific details provided in that document and in other planning documents may not reflect the City’s current intent with regard to some components of the Project. The City’s intent with regard to the Project is reflected in this RFP. In addition, Proposers can rely on information in the Geotechnical Data Report (Shannon & Wilson, April 2004), in the Phase I Site Assessment (Brown & Caldwell, April 2004), and in the Central Treatment Plant Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey (EHC, October 2003) in preparing their Proposals as specifically directed in this RFP. Other reports and technical memoranda conducted for this Project are provided for information purposes only. Studies and work conducted by the City subsequent to the Facilities Plan are identified in Schedule 1, Section 1.2.2 and will be available for review on the CTP Project website.

As further described in Schedule 1, Section 1.2.2.5, Proposers should note that the Phase I Site Assessment and groundwater testing for the Geotechnical Data Report resulted in some samples exceeding Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) criteria for industrial sites. The City has notified the State Department of Ecology and Tacoma – Pierce County Health Department of these exceedences and will be developing a plan to address them over the next several months.

Proposers are to price their Proposals to include soils testing as required by Ecology, the jurisdictional health department, and Proposer-selected appropriately permitted landfill for accepting contaminated soils. Proposers are to further price their Proposals assuming soils requiring off site disposal can be disposed of as clean fill. Should testing by the Selected Proposer, as reviewed by the City, indicate disposal as contaminated soil is required, the City will pay the incremental difference based on the unit price provided in Proposal Form 8B.



Proposers are to price their Proposals assuming groundwater will be discharged, with any pretreatment required by City of Tacoma ordinance, to the sanitary sewer system and not to the storm water system.

2.2.6 OTHER AVAILABLE REPORTS AND MATERIALS In addition to the reports and documents specifically identified in Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5, above, the City is providing Proposers with access to other technical reports and plant design and construction drawings, which are also listed in Schedule 1, Exhibit 1-1. Through the Design-Build procurement process, the City seeks ingenuity in Project concepts, design, and construction. Thus, for the purposes of this RFP, these other documents should be used for informational purposes only. These documents may be out of date and do not necessarily represent existing site conditions. In addition, they do not necessarily encompass the specific features or requirements that will be included in the Project, nor are they intended to mandate specific concepts and design detail. The requirements for the Project are those detailed in this RFP and in specific sections of other documents specifically cited in this RFP.

2.2.7 RELIANCE ON CITY-PROVIDED INFORMATION AND OTHER SELECT ISSUES AFFECTING PROPOSAL PREPARATION

Proposers shall completely familiarize themselves with the requirements of the draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules in preparing their Proposals and with other supplemental information being provided by the City. Notwithstanding this requirement and other issues identified elsewhere in this RFP, the City wishes to alert Proposers to certain issues that may affect their Proposals:

1. Quality is significantly important to the City as described by the requirements of Schedules 6, 7, and 10. In their Proposals, Proposers should recognize City expectations for high quality materials, equipment, installation, superior workmanship, and value from a life cycle perspective, as well as the costs of developing and implementing the DB Quality Management Program and Plan described in Schedule 10.

2. Major components of the Project will be designed under the International Building Code (IBC-03) rather than the Uniform Building Code. Certain provisions in IBC-03 represent a change in current practice for the City’s Building and Land Use Services (“BLUS”) Division. (For example, IBC-03 requires that existing buildings be brought up to code if a remodel or expansion increases structural loads by more than 5 percent or decreases the capacity by more than 5 percent. The City has arranged for Proposers to meet with BLUS staff during Proposal preparation to discuss building code related issues. (See Appendix A).

3. Drawings of existing facilities may contain errors or be incomplete, and are not in AutoCAD format (See Schedule 1, Section 1.3). The City is asking that Project Record Drawings be made in fully-functional AutoCAD format wherever major changes to existing structures are made and for all new structures. This specifically includes any drawings required for building permit approval, all



instrumentation and controls drawings, and all electrical interconnection and panel drawings as further described in Schedule 12, Section 12.5.4.

4. The City is requiring Proposers to take all necessary measures to avoid overstressing existing pipe and equipment.

5. The City is requiring that Proposers provide for use of new equipment in their Proposals, except for a few select pieces of equipment where the City is taking the condition risk and with respect to which, the Proposer will have the option of replacing or utilizing. While the City is generally requiring that Proposers base their Proposals on the cost of providing new equipment except as provided above, the City has outlined a process where the Selected Project Delivery Team can propose rehabilitation of other equipment after Contract execution subject to certain requirements, including City approval, as described in Schedule 6, Section 6.8.4.

6. The City is asking that Proposers provide a plan showing how their proposed treatment facilities and pump stations could be physically expanded in the future as described in Section 6.3 of Volume I of this RFP.

7. As stated above, drawings of existing facilities may be incomplete or contain errors. In general, the City is taking the risk for any inaccuracies of as-built drawings related to underground elements and above-ground elements which could not have been verified by the Proposer without excavation, cutting through equipment or structures, draining or removing materials from equipment or structures, or unreasonably materially interfering with the operations of the CTP. Proposers shall, however, include the cost of verifying as-built drawings for design in their Proposals.

2.2.8 PROPOSER DUE DILIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION Proposers should satisfy themselves, by personal investigation and any other means they deem necessary, as to the conditions affecting the proposed services and the cost thereof. Proposers are solely responsible for conducting their own independent research and due diligence for the preparation of Proposals, negotiation of the final Design-Build Contract, and subsequent delivery of the Contract Services.

Except as specifically noted otherwise in Article III, Section 3.7(A)(2) of the Draft Design-Build Contract, information derived from any part of this RFP or from the City or its advisors shall not relieve the Selected Proposer from any risk associated with providing Contract Services and meeting the requirements of this RFP. Again, except as specifically noted otherwise in Article III, Section 3.7(A)(2) of the Draft Design-Build Contract, the City and its advisors are not responsible for the completeness or accuracy of any information presented in this RFP or otherwise distributed as made available during this procurement process. Proposers are, therefore, strongly encouraged to make all inspections and review all available and relevant information, prior to submittal of their Proposal, which are necessary in their judgment in order to undertake this responsibility.



2.2.9 ENERGY MANAGEMENT Electricity to the CTP is currently supplied by the Tacoma Power Utility (Tacoma Power) from a substation located near the CTP Site. The capacity of the existing substation is currently sufficient to meet the current electrical demand of the CTP, which is estimated at about 5 to 6 MW. Currently, digester gas is flared or used to fire boilers, and there are no co-generation facilities at the CTP.

The Facilities Plan envisioned continued reliance on Tacoma Power for all electrical power needs at the upgraded CTP; however, expansion of the CTP and, in particular increasing the pumping capacity, is estimated to increase the CTP’s peak electrical demand to about 15 to 16 MW. This would result in a very large demand charge and would require construction of a new substation at a cost of roughly $4 million.

Maintaining peak electrical demand of the upgraded CTP at about current levels could eliminate the need for a new substation and potentially provide significant long-term economic benefit to the City because future rates to be paid will include a substantial demand charge even though peak power demand will occur infrequently. Smaller reductions in peak electrical demand of the upgraded CTP might not eliminate the need for a new substation because Tacoma Power reports that higher CTP demands could result in power quality problems for its other customers. Any demand increase at the CTP to 8 MW or greater would require a new substation according to Tacoma Power.

2.3 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this RFP, the following words and terms shall have the meanings set forth below. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, all capitalized terms in this document refer to defined terms in this section of the RFP.

“Acceptable Influent” has the meaning set forth in Schedule 4, Table 4-6.

“Acceptance” means demonstration by the Selected Proposer awarded the Contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Design-Build Contract that the Acceptance Tests have been done, the Acceptance Standards have been achieved, and the other Acceptance Date Conditions set forth in Article VII, Section 7.4 of the Draft Design-Build Contract have been achieved.

“Acceptance Date” means the date on which Acceptance of the Design-Build Improvements occurs or is deemed to occur under Article VII of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Acceptance Standards” means the standards for Acceptance that must be achieved as set forth in Schedule 4 and Schedule 11.

“Acceptance Test” or “Acceptance Testing” means the test, plans, and procedures set forth in Schedule 11 and further detailed in the Company’s Acceptance Test Plan developed by the Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, to be conducted upon Substantial Completion to demonstrate Acceptance.



“Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities” means those new, upgraded, and expanded facilities that will not be subject to the Acceptance Test.

“Base Proposal” means that portion of the Proposal detailing the Proposer’s plan to permit, design, construct, acceptance test, and provide a Performance Warranty and equipment warranties for the Project assuming a new substation will be developed to meet upgraded CTP energy demands.

“Best and Final Offers” or “Best and Final Proposals” means Proposals submitted in response to this RFP and as modified in response to any requests for resubmittal, information, or clarification issued by the City subsequent to receiving Proposals.

“BLUS” means the Tacoma Building and Land Use Services Division.

“Bypass” means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.

“Central Treatment Plant” or “Central Wastewater Treatment Plant” or “CTP” means the existing treatment facility owned and operated by the City of Tacoma and located at 2201 Portland Avenue, Tacoma, Washington 98421.

“Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Design-Build Project” or “Project” means all work and services included with the scope of the Design-Build Contract.

“CFR” means “Code of Federal Regulations.”

“Change in Law” has the meaning set forth in the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Change Order” has the meaning set forth in the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“City” means The City of Tacoma, Washington, a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington.

“City Option Items” mean those items which may be included in the Design-Build Contract at the City’s sole discretion and for which the City has provided an allowance or Proposers shall provide proposed Fixed Prices. City Option Items include: 1) the Plant Maintenance Building expansion; 2) extended warranties; 3) duct bank extension to secondary area of the CTP; 4) 5 mgd conveyance from Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment to the oxygenation tanks; 5) 118 mgd conveyance from Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment to the oxygenation tanks; 6) various Final Settling Tank Repairs (except concrete); and 7) new roofs at various areas of the plant.

"Company" means the Selected Proposer that executes the Design-Build Contract.

“Construction Commencement Date” means the first date on which all of the Construction Commencement Date Conditions shall be satisfied or waived, as agreed to in writing by the parties pursuant to Article IV, Section 4.3 of the Draft



Design-Build Contract and the Notice to Proceed with construction of the Design-Build Improvements is issued.

“Construction Commencement Date Conditions” has the meaning specified in Article IV, Section 4.3 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Construction Period” means the period from and including the Construction Commencement Date to the Final Completion Date.

“Construction Period Price Escalation Index” has the meaning set forth in Schedule 16, Section 16.2.

“Construction Period Work” means all work required to be conducted during the Construction Period, including but not limited to successful completion of the Acceptance Testing, preparation of the electronic O&M Manual and other plans, and completion of staff training.

“Consumer Price Index” or “CPIU” or “CPI” means the consumer price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington, Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (1982-1984=100), as prepared by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Contract Date” means the date that the Design-Build Contract has been executed and delivered by the City and the Company.

“Contract Services” means the “Design-Build Work” plus the “Warranty Work.”

“DB” or “Design-Build” means design, build, pass acceptance tests, turn over to the City for operations, and provide the Performance Warranty and other warranties.

“Date of Construction Price Escalation” means the date that the Fixed Construction Period Price begins to escalate in accordance with Schedule 16.

“Department” means the Public Works Department, a government agency of the City of Tacoma.

“Department of Ecology” or "Ecology" means the Washington State Department of Ecology.

“Design-Build Price” means the Project price as defined in Article VIII, Section 8.2(A) of the Draft Design-Build Contract. The Design-Build Price includes: 1) the Fixed Design-Build Price including the Fixed Development Price and the Fixed Construction Period Price (which includes the Project Allowance); and 2) Fixed Design-Build Price Adjustments.

“Design-Build Work” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.



“Development Period” means the period from and including the Contract Date to the Construction Commencement Date.

“Development Period Work” means everything required to be furnished and done for and related to the Project by the Company pursuant to the Draft Design-Build Contract during the Development Period.

“Draft Design-Build Contract” means the Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules attached as Volumes II and III of this RFP.

“EIS” means an Environmental Impact Statement as required under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) regulations and the City’s SEPA ordinance.

“Energy Management Alternative Proposal” means the Proposer’s plan to permit, design, construct, acceptance test, and provide a Performance Warranty and equipment warranties for the Project incorporating energy management features such that a new substation will not be required.

“Engineering Report” means a document which thoroughly examines the engineering and administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report shall contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130.

“EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

"Facilities Plan" means the plan for the improvement of the CTP which was approved by the Department of Ecology in March, 2002; as such plan may be amended and approved in accordance with the requirements of applicable law.

“Final Completion” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract and includes the requirements set forth in Article VII, Section 7.8 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Fixed Construction Period Price” means the amount to be proposed by the Proposer on Proposal Form 7C and 7D as compensation for the Construction Period Work.

“Fixed Design-Build Price” means the amount to be proposed by the Proposer on Proposal Form 7A as compensation for the Design-Build Period Work, which amount shall be equal to the sum of the Fixed Construction Period Price and the Fixed Development Price.

"Fixed Design-Build Price Adjustments" has the meaning specified in Article VIII, Section 8.2(C) of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Fixed Development Price” means the amount to be proposed by the Proposer on Proposal Form 7B as compensation for Development Work.



"General Site Plan Drawings” means Drawings 1A through 1H in Schedule 1, which show the existence and location of underground utilities, which locations Proposers may rely on for pricing their Proposals.

“Government Approvals" has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Guarantor” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

"Guarantee Agreement” or “Guaranty" has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Honorarium” means a payment of $100,000, after execution of the Design-Build Contract, to each Proposer that the City deems has submitted a responsive Proposal or has negotiated in good faith if selected but was not awarded the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Mandatory Contract Requirements” means the requirements identified in Section 4.2 of Volume I of this RFP.

“Material and Equipment Warranties” has the meaning set forth in Article IX, Section 9.3 of the Draft Design-Build Contract and may include those extended warranty items identified in Proposal Form 8C.

“Maximum Allowable Design-Build Price” has the meaning set forth in Section 1.4 of Volume I of this RFP.

“Non-Design Influent” means the influent that is not Acceptable Influent.

“Notice to Proceed” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Operation and Maintenance Manual” or “O&M Manual” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract and in Schedule 9, Section 9.1.3.

"Operations Optimization Assistance" means services provided through Professional Service Contract during the Performance Warranty Period and as described in Section 4.5.4 of Volume I of this RFP.

“Peak Wet Weather Flow Event” means influent flow in excess of 75 mgd resulting from a storm event.

“Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System” means a treatment system, meeting the applicable performance standards in Schedule 4 and applicable minimum design requirements in Schedule 6, for treating peak wet weather flows separately from the current primary and secondary treatment process at the Central Treatment Plant.



“Performance Warranty” has the meaning set forth in Article IX of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Performance Warranty Period” means the period during which the Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, warrants the hydraulic and treatment performance of the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment Process as set forth in Article IX, Section 9.1(A) of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities” means those new, upgraded, and expanded facilities that will be subject to the Performance Standards and Acceptance Testing, or that are essential for the operation of those facilities subject to the Acceptance Test.

“Project” means the Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project Phase III and all Contract Services required to implement the Project.

“Project Allowance” has the meaning described in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Project Allowance Items” or “Allowance Items” means those elements of work for which a Fixed Price for construction will be negotiated by the City and the Selected Proposer subsequent to completion of design for those elements. Project Allowance Items include: 1) instrumentation and control system expansion including remote I/O drops to the existing secondary end of the plant; 2) modifications to the Operations Control Center; 3) electronic O&M manual; 4) yard water/spray water system modifications; 5) Interpretive Center; 6) improved site lighting; and 7) concrete repairs to the Primary and Final Settling Tanks. Permitting and design work for the Project Allowance Items shall be included in the Proposer’s Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price (i.e., outside of the corresponding allowance amounts provided on Proposal Forms 7C and 7D).

“Project Delivery Team” means the firm awarded the Draft Design-Build Contract including all subconsultants and subcontractors.

“Project Site” means the real property located in the City of Tacoma and generally referred to as the Central Treatment Plant site and any other off-site areas used on a temporary basis by the Company during construction and defined by the limits of Construction Work and any interconnecting roads and temporary storage stockpile and worker parking areas, as more particularly described in Schedules 1 and 8 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Proposal” means the document submitted in response to this RFP detailing the Proposer’s plan to permit, design, construct, acceptance test, and provide a Performance Warranty and equipment warranties for the Project.

“Proposal Submission Date” means the date and time on which the Proposal is required to be submitted to the City by the Proposer, as stated in Section 1 of Volume I of the RFP.



“Proposer” means the entity (including any corporation, joint venture, partnership, or other business entity) short-listed subsequent to the SOQ evaluation and submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP.

“RCW” means Revised Code of Washington.

“RFP” means this “Request for Proposals for Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Design-Build Project” dated May 5, 2004, and amendments thereto.

“RFQ” or “Request for Qualifications” means the document soliciting qualifications for the Project issued by the City on August 12, 2003.

“Repair and Replacement Work” means work described in Schedule 7 to the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“Scheduled Acceptance Date” means the day which is [NUMBER OF DAYS PROPOSED ON PROPOSAL FORM 10B] consecutive calendar days following the Scheduled Construction Commencement Date.

"Scheduled Construction Commencement Date" means the day which is [NUMBER OF DAYS PROPOSED ON PROPOSAL FORM 10A] consecutive calendar days following the Contract Date.

“Schedules” means the schedules to the Draft Design-Build Contract included in Volume III of this RFP.

“Selected Proposer” means the Proposer selected to enter into negotiations pursuant to RCW Ch. 39.10.

“Selection Process” means the process described by the City in the RFQ and RFP in accordance with RCW Ch. 39.10.

“SRF Requirements” means requirements imposed upon the City that are defined in the SRF Loan Agreement, which are to be passed through to the Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract.

“State” means the State of Washington.

“Simulated Peak Wet Weather Flow Event” means the influent directed to the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System created by internal recycling of flow or other means and having the characteristics defined in Schedule 4, Table 4-6.

"Substantial Completion" has the meaning specified in Article VII, Section 7.2 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“TMC” means the Tacoma Municipal Code.



“Team” means the firms, including joint ventures, subconsultants, and subcontractors, that submitted Statements of Qualifications in response to the RFQ and were subsequently short-listed by the City.

“Uncontrollable Circumstances” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

“WAC” means the Washington Administrative Code.

"Warranty Work” has the meaning set forth in Article I, Section 1.1 and Article IX, Section 9.9 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.


SECTION 3 - FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND UPGRADES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the RFP generally describes the scope of the facility improvements. As discussed in Section 1.1 of Volume I of this RFP, three general categories of improvements have been defined in this RFP and in the Schedules to the Draft Design-Build Contract, including:

1. Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities

2. Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities

3. Repair and Rehabilitation Work

The following sections summarize the facilities and improvements included in each category. Proposers should refer to Schedules 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for a more detailed description of the improvements and their construction requirements. Figure 1 illustrates the general locations of the work and affected facilities.

3.2 PRINCIPAL UPGRADE AND EXPANSION FACILITIES The Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities include all new, upgraded, or expanded treatment and in-plant hydraulic facilities and systems (as well as the associated systems and facilities essential to operate and monitor them) that will be subject to the Performance Standards (Schedule 4) and Acceptance Testing (Schedule 11). The purposes of these facilities are briefly described below:

Expanded and Enhanced Screening Capability. This work is intended to expand the CTP's screening capacity to 150 mgd with any one screen out of service.

Expanded Influent Pumping Capability. This work is intended to expand the CTP's influent pumping capacity to at least 150 mgd with the largest pump out of service.

Expanded and Enhanced Grit Removal Capability. This work is intended to provide expanded grit removal treatment capacity of at least 150 mgd and the capability to hydraulically pass at least 200 mgd through the grit removal process without bypass or overflows.

Expanded Conveyance in Various Areas of the Plant. The City has determined that the existing sewer system upstream or the CTP has the physical capacity to deliver about 200 mgd to the plant. Considering this capacity and future phases of upgrades to the CTP, the Project includes



expanding headworks conveyance (pipelines, channels, and force mains) to 200 mgd and conveyance in other areas of the plant to match the potential future treatment capacity of the plant.

Flow Splitting Capability and Enhanced Flow Routing in Various Areas of the Plant. This work includes, but is not limited to, providing new flow splitting facility(ies) and all necessary conveyance, valving, gates, and other equipment downstream of grit removal to allow for at least 118 mgd to be directed to the current primary treatment system and up to 125 mgd to be directed to Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment. CTP inflows less than 75 mgd must also be able to be diverted to Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment. This also includes replacement of the existing gates immediately upstream of primary treatment.

Peak Wet Weather Flow (“PWWF”) Treatment. This work is intended to provide the capability to treat peak wet weather flows of at least 75 mgd while meeting the hydraulic and treatment Performance Standards defined in Schedule 4. To provide operating flexibility, a minimum of two peak wet weather treatment tanks are to be provided. The work also includes conveyance from PWWF Treatment to the Effluent Pump Station(s) capable of hydraulically passing an instantaneous flow of at least 125 mgd and recycle piping required for startup operations and to meet the requirements of Schedule 6. This work also includes providing the means to convey PWWF treatment waste to the plant’s solids digestion system. Proposers should note that the City is requesting fixed price proposals for City Option Items for providing the means to convey 5 mgd or 118 mgd of PWWF effluent to the head of the existing secondary system (oxygenation tanks).

Expanded Effluent Pumping Capability. This work is intended to expand the effluent pumping capacity to at least 150 mgd with the largest pump out of service. This work also includes forcemain conveyance to the Commencement Bay Outfall capable of passing at least 200 mgd. This work also includes providing a physical means of preventing exceedance of the existing Commencement Bay Outfall pressure limitation until future outfall improvements are completed.

New Plant-Wide Disinfection System (No Chlorine Gas). This work includes, but is not limited to, decommissioning and replacing the existing chlorine gas disinfection system with new disinfection system(s) that does not use chlorine gas. Disinfection is to be provided at several locations throughout the plant as defined in Schedules 4 and 6.

Heat Exchanger and Related Solids System Upgrades. This work includes, but is not limited to expanding capacity of the existing solids-to-solids and water-to solids heat exchangers to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 and 6.




Boiler/Heating System Upgrade. This work includes, but is not limited to, replacing the existing CTP boilers, water-to-water heat exchanger, and distribution lines to meet the requirements of Schedules 4 and 6.

Protected Water System Modifications. This work includes, but is not limited to, replacing the existing protected water system pumps and either installing a new tank or upgrading existing Anaerobic Digester 1 or 2 to serve as a permanent water tank. This work also includes modifications to existing piping and providing new piping as needed to meet the requirements of Schedules 4 and 6.

Instrument Air to New and Expanded Areas. This work includes, but is not limited to, providing new compressors, piping, and equipment to supply instrument air to new and upgraded facilities to meet the requirements of Schedule 6.

Yard Water/Spray Water Modifications. This work includes, but is not limited to, replacement of existing pumps/piping to provide greater capacity. Proposers should note that these modifications are budgeted as a Project Allowance Item with a final Fixed Price to be negotiated following design as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.18. Permitting, design work, and updating existing drawings as needed to reflect current conditions are to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of Volume I of this RFP.

Instrumentation and Controls. This work includes, but is not limited to, providing instrumentation and control capability, integrated with the City’s existing distributed control system, at new and expanded facilities as described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.1.9. This work also includes providing a new fiber optic cable to the secondary treatment area of the plant, terminating in new remote I/O racks.

Proposers should note that purchase, installation, and testing of I&C equipment and programming and computer equipment requirements as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.19 are to be budgeted as a Project Allowance Item with a final Fixed Price to be negotiated following design Permitting, design work, and new I&C system drawings are to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of Volume I of this RFP.

Operations Control Center Modifications. This work includes modifying the existing Operations and Control Building to accommodate new controls and to provide more efficient work space. Proposers should note that this work is budgeted as a Project Allowance Item with a final Fixed Price to be negotiated following design as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.20. Permitting, design work, and updating existing drawings as needed



are to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of Volume I of this RFP.

Electrical System Upgrades. This work includes upgrading the existing electrical distribution system to meet increased loads at the plant and to serve new facilities and equipment and as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.21. This work also includes installing automated switchgear to allow the plant to automatically switch from one electrical feed to the other feed during a power outage. This work also includes all coordination necessary with Tacoma Power such that Acceptance Testing and all other activities requiring upgraded power supply will be scheduled to coincide with the completion of the power supply upgrade (new substation). (Payment for the work by Tacoma Power will be made directly by the City.) Proposers should note that the City is asking for a proposed Fixed Price to extend the electrical duct bank to the secondary end of the plant as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.21 (City Option Item).

Energy Management Improvements (Energy Management Alternative Proposal). This work includes work identified above as modified to be compatible with energy improvements and also includes proposed project elements that would use alternative energy supplies (such as fossil fuel driven pumps), energy efficiency improvements, cogeneration, use of digester gas, and other measures to reduce increased electrical peak demand.

3.3 ANCILLARY UPGRADE AND EXPANSION FACILITIES Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities include new or expanded facilities that will be checked or tested to verify completion and operability but that will not be subject to the Acceptance Tests or covered by the Performance Warranty. These facilities and improvements are briefly described below:

TAGRO Expansion. This work includes, but is not limited to, expanding the existing TAGRO Canopy to provide increased covered and uncovered concrete slab areas for mixing and storage of TAGRO products and admixtures; constructing a slab for storing TAGRO products; and remodeling the Gardener’s Facility Building to provide a TAGRO administrative office space as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.5.2.

Septage Receiving. This work includes, but is not limited to, a new drive-through septage receiving facility capable of handling one septage hauling truck and as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.5.3.

Solids Receiving Station. This work includes, but is not limited to, providing a new drive-through truck unloading area, solids-storage tank, and pump station to accept up to 100,000 gallons per day (8-hour operation) of solids from other wastewater treatment plants and deliver the solids to the aerobic digesters or to the solids-storage tank as further defined in Schedule 6,



Section 6.5.4. The Proposer may elect to construct a new solids storage tank meeting the requirements of Schedule 6 or to upgrade existing Anaerobic Digester 1 or 2 to serve as a permanent solids-storage tank.

Scale Facility(ies). This work includes providing truck scale(s) to allow weighing of deliveries of TAGRO amendments, septage deliveries, solids deliveries, disinfectant deliveries, and other deliveries to the CTP as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.5.5.

Plant Maintenance Building Expansion. This work includes, but is not limited to, expanding the existing Plant Maintenance Building and providing additional mezzanine space to provide for new lunchroom, locker room, and other facilities as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.5.6. Proposers should note that this is a City Option Item and may be included in the Project Scope at the City’s discretion.

Improved Site Lighting. This work includes, but is not limited to, providing yard lighting throughout the upgraded and expansion areas as well as additional lighting around the site perimeter and at entrance gates for security purposes. Proposers should note that this work is budgeted as a Project Allowance Item with a final Fixed Price to be negotiated following design. Permitting and design work, are to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of Volume I of this RFP.

Interpretive Center. This work includes, but is not limited to, remodeling/expanding existing facilities or constructing a new facility to provide an interpretive center/tour meeting area as further described in Schedule 6, Section 6.5.7. This work also includes providing viewing window(s) for the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment process and other displays, working models, or pilot facilities as proposed by the Proposer. Proposers should note that this work is budgeted as a Project Allowance Item with a final Fixed Price to be negotiated following design. Permitting and design work are to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price (i.e., outside of the corresponding allowance amount provided on Proposal Forms 7C and 7D) as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of this RFP.

3.4 REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT WORK As discussed above, the City has identified miscellaneous repair and replacement work at the CTP as described in Schedule 7. Proposers should note that some of the repair and replacement work is included as Project Allowance Items or City Option Items, which may be included in the Project Scope at this City’s discretion. Repair and replacement work specifically includes:

Concrete repairs (crack repair, embedment removal, spall and reinforcement repair, surface repairs etc.) at Principle Upgrade and Expansion Facilities where existing facilities continue to be used after the upgrade.



Concrete repairs at Primary and Final Settling Tanks (Project Allowance Item)

New roofs at certain buildings (City Option Item)

Additional Final Settling Tank Repairs (City Option Item)

Anaerobic Digester Repairs


SECTION 4 - DESIGN-BUILD PROCESS 4.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The information contained in Volumes II and III of this RFP (“Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules”) constitutes the City’s anticipated requirements for permitting, designing, building, startup and testing, and providing related services for the Project. Proposals must describe the Proposer’s plan and demonstrate that it has the resources to provide the facilities and services called for in the Design-Build Contract and Schedules.

The Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules constitute the risk allocation, responsibilities, and obligations sought by the City, as modified in response to comments from short-listed firms and findings of the City’s technical investigations. Proposers shall note that the City will not make material changes to the mandatory requirements identified in Section 4.2 of Volume I of this RFP.

Certain Schedules in Volume III will require proposal-specific information to properly complete the particular Schedule. Proposers should be aware that, if selected, information submitted in their Proposal will be included in the Schedules to the Design-Build Contract. Proposal-specific information that may become part of the Design-Build Contract and Schedules includes, but is not limited to:

Drawings and specifications;

Construction Requirements;

Transition and Acceptance Testing;

CPM Schedule;

Key Personnel;

Equipment Lists;

Initial Draft Project DB Quality Management Plan; and

Affirmative Action Plan.

The Design-Build Contract will also include other information from the Selected Proposer’s Proposal including information from Proposal Forms.

4.2 MANDATORY CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS While, in general, a Proposer may suggest modifications to the Draft Design-Build Contract (as set forth in Section 4.3 of Volume I of this RFP) and may base its pricing on the contract as if it included the modifications the Proposer made in its Proposal,



certain provisions of the Draft Design-Build Contract will be mandatory as set forth in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of Volume I of this RFP. Proposers that take material exceptions to these provisions will not be considered responsive and will not be entitled to the Honorarium. In addition to the mandatory provisions set forth in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of Volume I of this RFP, provisions that are required by law, such as compliance with federal affirmative action requirements, will be mandatory although Proposers may comment on the form of those provisions where the law allows for the form to be varied.

4.2.1 PROJECT GUARANTOR Where the proposed contracting party does not have sufficient financial strength to fulfill all of the financial obligations of the Project, including but not limited to permitting, designing, building, demonstrating performance, and providing required assurances for the Project, the City requires a third-party Project Guarantor. The City requires a single Guarantor or, where co-Guarantors are proposed, the City requires that co-Guarantors agree to be jointly and severally liable for all obligations of the contracting party.

The Project Guarantor may be a parent company or a sufficiently capitalized third party. However, if a sole-purpose subsidiary is created as the contracting party, the parent company shall be the Project Guarantor. A subsidiary with limited capitalization and without the full parent company guarantee will not be allowed as the contracting party.

4.2.2 LIMITS ON TERMINATION DAMAGES The Design-Build Contract, in Article XI, Section 11.2, sets a limit on contracting party liability for termination damages in the amount of 90 percent of the Fixed Design-Build Price. No contractual limit is set for other forms of liability (except for delay damages), and the following shall not reduce the termination liability limit:

Any design or construction overruns or losses sustained by the Company, the Guarantor, or any other party in connection with the Design-Build Contract, the Guaranty, or any other agreement relating to the Project;

Any claims, losses, and liabilities to third parties;

Any fines, penalties, or other amounts paid to any Governmental Body;

Any indemnity payments made to the City; and

Any liquidated damages or other non-performance damages paid to the City or incurred prior to the date of termination.

This limit on termination damages is a mandatory requirement of the Project. Proposals that incorporate reductions in the limit or other material changes to Article XI, Section 11.2 of the Draft Design-Build Contract will be considered non-responsive to this RFP. Proposers may propose an increase in the limit to liability on Proposal Form 9.



Proposers should note that the limitation on termination damages provided herein is not intended to be a liquidated damage that the Selected Proposer would be required to pay in the event of a termination by the City due to a Selected Proposer Event of Default. This limitation on termination damages provision is intended to benefit the Company by placing an artificial cap on the amount of damages that a judge presiding over a termination claim could award to the City. Proposer should further note the City's Waiver of Consequential, punitive and similar damages, set forth in Article XII, Section 12.4 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

4.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT AND SCHEDULES

If a Proposer believes that significant benefits to the City, such as improved quality or better value, would result from a different allocation of risks, modifications to the Project concept, or modifications to the language of the Draft Design-Build Contract, the Proposer may propose exceptions or modifications to the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules except with respect to the mandatory provisions discussed in Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of Volume I of this RFP. The City’s preference for the submittal of the written comments is by means of a neat, handwritten markup of the draft Design-Build Contract (including the Schedules), for minor changes. Any comments that cannot be neatly marked on the draft Design-Build Contract (including the Schedules), including any complete replacement paragraphs, shall be included on separate typed sheets as riders.

Proposers are advised that the extent and nature of proposed changes will be considered in the City’s evaluation of proposals. Substantial changes to the business arrangement presented in the Draft Design-Build Contract may result in less favorable evaluations.

Notwithstanding the above, Proposers should generally note that certain technical requirements stated in Schedule 6 are intended to illustrate the level of quality, durability, or operability that the City wishes to achieve but are not necessarily intended to be mandatory. Further guidance with respect to how Proposers should view specific provisions of Schedule 6 and Proposer flexibility to propose alternative language to achieve the City's objectives is included in requirements of Proposal Contents in various subsections of Section 6.3 of Volume I of this RFP.

4.4 PERIODS OF WORK AND KEY MILESTONES The Draft Design-Build Contract defines three principal periods of time: the Development Period; the Construction Period including passing the Acceptance Test; and the Performance Warranty Period. Obligations of the Selected Proposer with whom the City negotiates a contract and the City are different in each of these periods of time. Figure 2 illustrates how these periods of time relate to payment provisions in the Draft Design-Build Contract.



4.4.1 DEVELOPMENT PERIOD (AGREEMENT DATE TO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT DATE) The execution of the Design-Build Contract (i.e., “Contract Date”) between the Company and the City is anticipated to occur by February 2005. Between the Contract Date and the Construction Commencement Date, both the Company and the City will perform activities in order to satisfy the Construction Commencement Date Conditions set forth in Article IV, Section 4.3 of the Draft Design-Build Contract. Work by the Contractor during this period is referred to as Development Work. The Development Period closes once all Construction Commencement Date Conditions by the City and the Contractor are completed or waived by the City, and the documentation required by the Design-Build Contract is completed or waived by the City. The City will formalize satisfaction or waiver of all Development Period Conditions by both parties through issuance of a Notice to Proceed.

One major element of the Construction Commencement Date Conditions is the requirement that the Design-Build Contractor to obtain certain permits and approvals required to start construction. The Design-Build Contract incorporates the concept of a Development Period in order to reduce the risk of paying for certain construction-related work (i.e., pre-purchase of equipment or construction mobilization) prior to having certain critical permits and approvals in place (i.e., environmental permits or approval of a Facilities Plan Amendment(s)).

4.4.2 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT DATE TO FINAL COMPLETION DATE)

The Construction Period will commence on the Construction Commencement Date and end on the Final Completion Date. The Construction Period incorporates substantial completion, startup, and testing of individual components, satisfactory completion of the Acceptance Test, completion of “punch-list items,” completion of the Project Operations and Maintenance Manual, completion of staff training, and submission of a Declaration of Construction required by WAC 173-240-090 and 095.

Acceptance will occur once the Selected Proposer, if awarded the Contract, has successfully completed the Acceptance Tests and documented compliance with the performance standards as set forth in Schedules 11 and 4, respectively, and once the Selected Proposer has attained certain other conditions contained in the Design-Build Contract. The City recognizes that a Peak Wet Weather Flow Event and other conditions necessary to test the hydraulic capacity of certain facilities may not occur or exist during the Acceptance Tests. Therefore, the Selected Proposer will be allowed to simulate peak wet weather flow conditions, utilize hydraulic modeling, and other such methods to demonstrate performance, as provided for in Schedule 11. Further guidance on City expectations for Acceptance Testing is also provided in Section 6.3 of Volume I of this RFP.



Insert Figure 2




4.4.3 PERFORMANCE WARRANTY PERIOD (FINAL COMPLETION DATE TO PERFORMANCE WARRANTY TERMINATION DATE)

The City recognizes that wet weather conditions necessary to test the improvements at their full capacity may not occur during the Acceptance Tests. Accordingly, the Design-Build Contract calls for a Performance Warranty at a minimum covering the hydraulic and treatment performance of the Peak Wet Weather Flow System. The Performance Warranty Period will extend to the Performance Warranty Termination Date (for two years following the Final Completion Date). If, during that period of time, the City experiences a Peak Wet Weather Event, it will operate the improvements in a manner to confirm performance consistent with the process described in Schedule 11, Section 11.5 with oversight and observation by Company staff assigned to provide optimization assistance as described below. If the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System does not meet the Performance Standards, the Company shall make all repairs and improvements at its sole cost in order to demonstrate that the facility can meet such standards. Provisions for Company input and oversight to City operations during the Performance Warranty Period are set forth in Schedule 11, Section 11.5.

As stated above, the City recognizes that wet weather conditions necessary to test all hydraulic and treatment improvements at peak flows may not occur during the Acceptance Tests. Considering the level of assurance provided by their proposed Acceptance Test procedures, Proposers may also choose to extend the Performance Warranty to other Project elements in addition to the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment system. Proposers should mark up Article IX, Sections 9.1 and 9.6 of the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedule 11 to reflect proposed changes to Draft Design-Build Contract call-back obligations, performance warranty requirements, and acceptance testing, accordingly.

As a separate cost item (Proposal Form 8A), the City is also requesting Operations Optimization Assistance during the Performance Warranty Period. This work will be authorized under a separate Professional Services Agreement. A form of the Professional Services Agreement is included in Schedule 25. Proposers should assume this will entail having the requirement of one full-time staff person on-site for two years to assist with the Distributed Control System, and the new/modified instrumentation and controls, refinements to the electronic O&M manual, and optimization of the improvements including Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment operations.

4.4.4 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS WARRANTIES During the Performance Warranty Period, the Company will be required to repair malfunctioning equipment or non-conforming elements of the Design-Build Improvements. The City anticipates that manufacturers' warranties for equipment and materials will commence when equipment units are put into service (subsequent to completion of required startup and commissioning). This is likely to occur on a staggered basis. While not specifically required, a Proposer may include equipment



and material warranties that extend through or beyond the two-year Performance Warranty Period and end on a single date.

In addition, extended warranties on some major new equipment and certain materials may be required. Pieces of equipment and materials potentially subject to the extended warranties are identified in Proposal Form 8C, which also asks for prices for the extended warranties. These extended warranties may be included in the Design-Build Contract (Schedule 21) and added to the final Fixed Design-Build Price at the City’s option prior to Contract execution. The City will make a determination on extended warranties prior to Contract execution.

4.5 PAYMENT PROVISIONS

4.5.1 PAYMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT WORK Development work is to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price but is to be identified as a separate Fixed Development Price on Proposal Form 7B. Consistent with the terms of the Draft Design-Build Contract, the City will pay for Development Work on a milestone basis. In the event that the contract is terminated for convenience by the City during the Development Period, the Company will be reimbursed for actual expenditures up to the Fixed Development Price with proper cost substantiation.

Proposers shall use Proposal Form 10A to indicate a not-to-exceed amount for proposed major milestones associated with activities related to achieving the Construction Date Conditions. Some design work associated with Project Allowance Items may be included in the Development Work and paid for as part of the Fixed Development Price.

Proposers should note that they can not rely on the accuracy of City as-built drawings for design and, therefore, their Fixed Development Price and Fixed Construction Period Price shall include the cost of verifying all as-built information necessary to support their design. (See Sections 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of Volume I of this RFP.)

While Proposers are responsible for setting milestones and corresponding percentage payments, they shall assign a minimum of 30 percent of the Fixed Development Price to receiving an approved Facilities Plan amendment covering the change in disinfection system and any other changes in treatment process/hydraulic capacity, or major process/hydraulic equipment from those identified in the approved Facilities Plan. In addition, Proposers shall assign a minimum of 5 percent of the Fixed Development Period Price to satisfaction of all of the Company’s obligations associated with Construction Date Conditions.

4.5.2 PROJECT ALLOWANCE ITEMS Proposers should note that the City has identified certain elements of work as Project Allowance Items. These elements include:

Instrumentation and Controls System Expansion;

Operations Control Center Modifications;



Electronic O&M Manual;

Yard Water/Spray Water Modifications;

Improved Site Lighting;

Interpretive Center; and

Primary and Final Settling Tank Concrete Repairs.

The City has included an Allowance amount on Proposal Form 7C and 7D for the Project Allowance Items. However, as stated above, the permitting, design work, and Record Drawings updates for these items is to be included in the proposed Fixed Development Price. Proposers should note that more extensive City involvement in review and decision making during the design process is required for these Allowance Items as described in Schedules 6 and 12.

Once the design work for Project Allowance Items is completed, the City and Selected Proposer will negotiate a fixed price for the Items and the Fixed Design-Build Price will be adjusted accordingly. The City retains the right to issue Project Allowance Item work for bid if the City fails to successfully negotiate a Fixed Price or Guaranteed Maximum Price with the Company for that work and put into use the Proposer’s design for such purposes.

4.5.3 OTHER ITEMS INCLUDED IN FIXED DESIGN-BUILD PRICE/PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK

All Development Period Work and Construction Work, including successful completion of design, permitting, and construction work and passing of the Acceptance Tests, the Performance Warranty, and other items defined in the Draft Design-Build Contract, are to be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price. (Operations Optimization Assistance will be paid through a separate Professional Services Agreement.) Unlike Development Work, payment for Construction Work will be based on the City’s estimate of percent complete, considering both pay request information submitted by the Selected Proposer, the Selected Proposer’s Schedule of Values, and the City’s independent verification. Proposers shall assign a minimum of 5 percent of the Fixed Design-Build Price to the successful completion of the Acceptance Test. Retainage will be withheld by the City per the requirements of Article VIII, Section 8.5(D) of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

For the purposes of developing Proposals, Proposers should note that their Fixed Design-Build Price shall be held firm (i.e., not subject to escalation) provided that Notice to Proceed is given on or before the Scheduled Construction Commencement Date. If the Notice to Proceed extends beyond that date due to City fault or Uncontrollable Circumstances, then the Fixed Design-Build Price will escalate using the escalation index defined in Schedule 16, Section 16.2.



4.5.4 OPERATIONS OPTIMIZATION ASSISTANCE This work will include providing assistance as described in Section 4.4.3 of Volume I of this RFP and shall be provided in a separate cost item in Proposal Form 8A. Proposers should note that this work will be at the discretion of the City and will be contracted for through a separate Professional Services Agreement, a form of which is attached as Schedule 25.

4.6 INCENTIVES Due to the City’s project delivery objectives stated in Section 1.2 of Volume I of this RFP, the City expects Proposers to be motivated to deliver a high overall level of project management, superior construction quality, performance, and workmanship and to price this level of effort into their proposals.

In addition, the City desires to provide additional incentives to the Selected Proposer’s individual project management staff and labor work force by implementing a project specific incentive program. Proposers should note that Article VIII, Section 8.11 of the Draft Design-Build Contract includes $350,000 as a required line item of the Fixed Design-Build Price for these incentives. The City's intent is to work collaboratively with the Selected Proposer to define a project-specific incentive program that enhances project management, superior construction quality, performance, and workmanship. Proposers shall outline their suggested program in their Proposals as further defined in Section 6.3 of this RFP.

4.7 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Liquidated damages provisions are included in the Draft Design-Build Contract. A specific process involving notices of non-compliance and associated liquidated damages is included for miscellaneous minor contract violations in Article VI, Section 6.3(G) of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

4.8 SECURITY

4.8.1 PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BONDS The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Contract, will be required to provide and maintain performance and payment bonds through successful startup, commissioning, Acceptance, and Final Completion, and a reduced performance bond during the Performance Warranty Period. The value of the performance bond during the Performance Warranty Period shall be $7 million.

4.8.2 LETTER OF CREDIT A Letter of Credit will only be required if at some point after the Contract Date, the Selected Proposer's or Guarantor's financial strength materially declines as set forth in Article XIV, Section 14.1 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.



4.8.3 INSURANCE The Selected Proposer will be required to provide insurance satisfying the requirements of Schedule 18. Insurance is to be included in the Proposer’s Fixed Design-Build Price but costs are to be listed separately in Proposal Form 9.

4.9 OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING The City will provide the financing for the Project through loans from the State Revolving Fund, revenue bonds, and/or cash reserves. The City will own the Project.

The City has executed an agreement with Ecology for up to $52 million in loans from the State Revolving Fund (“SRF”) loan program. As part of the 2003/2004 funding cycle the City has received authorization for a first installment of $6 million. The remaining balance of the loan amount ($46 million) will likely be authorized in future annual funding cycles as the Project progresses.

The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Contract, will be required to comply with any requirements of the SRF program, including but not limited to those identified in RCW Ch. 90.50A; WAC Ch. 173-98; Washington State Department of Ecology’s “Water Quality Financial Assistance Programs for Fiscal Year 2003 – Volume One: Guidelines, Volume Two: Appendices, and Volume Three: Laws and Rules” (December 2001); and Ecology’s loan agreements with the City, which are included in Schedule 20.

4.10 SELECT CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

4.10.1 BUSINESS LICENSE AND TAXES The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Contract, at its own expense, shall obtain and keep in force any and all necessary licenses and permits and shall obtain a business license under Tacoma Municipal Code Section 6.69.010. Proposers are to include all state and local sales tax in their price proposals. The City will be pursuing possible sales tax exemptions for the Project; however, Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 6.68 provides that all transactions with the City of Tacoma, wherever consummated, are subject to the City of Tacoma’s Business and Occupation Tax. It is the responsibility of the Selected Proposer ultimately awarded the Design-Build Contract to register with the City of Tacoma’s Department of Tax and License, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA 98402-3768, telephone 253-591-5252.

4.10.2 DELEGATION AGREEMENT The City has negotiated an agreement with Ecology that formally delegates certain design review activities that Ecology would otherwise perform from Ecology to the City of Tacoma Department of Public Works as authorized by RCW 90.48.110(2). The delegated activities include review of engineering reports, design packages (plans and specifications), and O&M manuals. Such review is a condition of utilizing SRF loan funds in conjunction with the Design-Build alternative contracting process. In performing these activities, the City, in its governmental capacity, will review the specified reports and materials for conformance with the Facilities Plan, as amended,



and Ecology standards, solely on behalf of Ecology. The City may use the services of outside consultants to assist in review activities. In no way shall such City review be construed as acceptance of the reviewed materials under the Design-Build Contract, nor shall it relieve the selected Design-Build Contractor from its obligations to meet performance and other requirements of the Design-Build Contract.

The City’s review under the Delegation Agreement is limited to engineering reports, plans and specifications, and operation and maintenance manuals, as defined in Chapter 173-240 WAC. Under the Delegation Agreement, Ecology retains full authority over general sewer plans, facilities plans, and any amendments thereto. A copy of the Delegation Agreement is included as Attachment 10 of the SRF Loan Agreement, which is included as Schedule 20.

4.10.3 MWBE, SBRA, APPRENTICESHIP, AND NON-DISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS Because a significant portion of the funds for the Project are federal funds originating from the State Revolving Fund, the City will impose goals for the use of minority- and women-owned businesses, and for Small Businesses in Rural Areas, in lieu of other City programs.

Included among the conditions attached to the Project as a result of the SRF loan are requirements that the City solicit and recruit to the maximum extent possible certified minority-owned (“MBE”) and women-owned (“WBE”) businesses, and Small Businesses in Rural Areas (“SBRA”) in its contracts and purchases. The SRF loan requirements related to women- and minority-owned businesses and SBRAs that will be passed through to the Design-Build Contractor are defined in Schedule 19. No contract award or rejection will be made based upon achievement or non-achievement of the goals; however, the Proposer’s plan for achieving these goals will be evaluated as part of the Proposal evaluation.

The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, also will be required, at its expense, to provide on-the-job training or use of City residents meeting the requirements of Schedule 19.

In accordance with State Law (RCW 35.22.650), all Proposers must also complete and submit a Personnel Inventory Form (Proposal Form 2) with their Proposals.

As required by RCW 35.22.650, the Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, and all subcontractors shall comply with the Affirmative Action requirements set forth in Article XV, Section 15.6 of the Draft Design-Build Contract.

4.10.4 PREVAILING WAGES State prevailing wages are required to be paid on all applicable work for this Project in accordance with RCW Ch. 39.12 or 29 CFR Part 5, whichever is greater. The Selected Proposer shall be responsible for obtaining the applicable prevailing wage information as of the Contract Date from the State Department of Labor and Industries.



4.10.5 FORUM FOR DISPUTES The Proposer agrees, by submitting a Proposal under this RFP, that Pierce County, Washington, shall be the venue of any mediation, arbitration, or lawsuit arising out of the RFQ, this RFP, and also any contract that may be awarded pursuant to the RFQ or RFP. Washington law shall govern the resolution of any such disputes.

4.10.6 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS AND SRF LOAN CONDITIONS Short-Listed Teams that propose in response to the RFP agree to abide by all laws, rules, and regulations promulgated by the United States of America and the State of Washington, or any agencies or subdivisions thereof, specifically including WISHA and OSHA regulations and all state industrial insurance requirements. A Proposer, if awarded the Contract, shall be solely responsible for all violations of the law from any cause in connection with work performed under the Design-Build Contract.

The City’s SRF Loan Agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology has a number of other requirements that Proposers must agree to comply with if selected. These include, but are not limited to:

Third-Party Beneficiary. The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, shall agree to name the Department of Ecology as an express third-party beneficiary, with full rights as such.

State Assistance Acknowledgement. The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, must place the Department of Ecology logo on all signs and documents.

Copyrights and Patents. The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, agrees that if any copyrightable materials are produced or patentable property invented, the Department of Ecology and EPA retain a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover, or otherwise use the material(s) or property and to authorize others to use the same for federal, state, or local government purposes.

Credit and Use of Ecology Property. The Selected Proposer, if awarded the Design-Build Contract, agrees to give appropriate credit to Ecology when using or publishing information of Ecology; presenting papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by Ecology; or when using logos, reports, maps, or other data in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc.



SECTION 5 - PROCUREMENT PROCESS 5.1 PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The City of Tacoma is undertaking this procurement process under the authority granted in RCW Ch. 39.10. An assumed summary schedule of the upcoming major activities associated with this procurement process is presented below. This procurement schedule is based on the City of Tacoma’s current intent to execute a Design-Build Contract by February 2005.

Table 5-1 Procurement Schedule

Date Activity

May 5, 2004 Issue RFP (Proposed Design-Build Contract to be issued concurrently or shortly thereafter)

June 2–3, 2004 First set of individual Proposer meetings

June 30–July 1, 2004 Second set of individual Proposer meetings

June – October 2004 Reference checking/Reference facility site visits by City

July 23, 2004 Final day of submission of Proposer questions

August 20, 2004 Proposal Submittal Date

September 2004 Initial Evaluation of Proposals and possibly issue Request for Information

September – October 2004 Interviews

October – November 2004 Evaluation Committee Recommendation to Director of Public Works

November 2004 Start Negotiations with Most Advantageous Proposer

January 2005 Negotiations complete

February 2005 (1) City Council Approval Followed by Execution of Design-Build Contract

(1) Will depend on negotiation

The City of Tacoma reserves the right to modify any or all of the above dates.



5.2 PROPOSER MEETINGS The City will hold two sets of round-table discussions with individual Proposer teams during the Proposal preparation period. These meetings will not be mandatory. Meetings will be three hours and will be scheduled during the time periods stated below.

Meeting No. 1 - CH2M Hill/Mortenson JV - June 2, 2004 (9:00 AM -12:00 PM) Meeting No. 1 - EarthTech - June 2, 2004 (1:00 PM - 4:00 PM) Meeting No. 1 - MWH - June 3, 2004 (9:00 AM - 12:00 PM) Meeting No. 1 - RCI/B&V JV - June 3, 2004 (1:00 PM - 4:00 PM)

Meeting No. 2 - CH2M Hill/Mortenson JV - June 30, 2004 (9:00 AM -12:00 PM) Meeting No. 2 - EarthTech - June 30, 2004 (1:00 PM - 4:00 PM) Meeting No. 2 - MWH - July 1, 2004 (9:00 AM - 12:00 PM) Meeting No. 2 - RCI/B&V JV - July 1, 2004 (1:00 PM - 4:00 PM)

These meetings will be an opportunity for Proposer teams to meet with the members of the City's project team consisting of representatives from the Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering Divisions as well as City consultants. The objective is for proposing teams to have an opportunity to discuss the intent of the technical requirements of the RFP and clarify any technical issues, and at the Proposer's option, to present the general basis of their Proposal. The City will not discuss or provide feedback with respect to a proposal. The purpose of any such presentation would be for the City to determine whether the Proposers understand the City's objectives and requirements and whether to issue a clarifying addendum to the RFP.

It is not the City's intent to engage in discussions and or negotiations of the contract provisions or selection process as detailed in the RFP. These meetings are not considered part of the formal evaluation process of the RFP, but instead are simply designed to help teams with the preparation of their Proposals. The agenda of the meetings will be the responsibility of each individual team.

To help ensure the private nature of these meetings, the City will not distribute meeting minutes. It is not the City's intent to disclose information regarding individual teams' proposals; however, teams should note that if any technical clarifications are requested during these meetings and the City deems that its response could result in a material advantage to that particular team, the City will issue an appropriate addendum to the RFP so all teams are aware of the technical clarification. Proposing teams should also note that the City will not be able to engage in discussions that could be considered as "coaching" of a particular team. Proposers should anticipate that the City will not be able to give verbal approvals of specific proposal concepts, besides clarifying the RFP requirements that these concepts will be evaluated against during the proposal evaluation period.



5.3 CITY CONTACT – INTERPRETATIONS, QUESTIONS, AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION

Proposers may submit questions and clarification requests up to July 23, 2004. Such questions and requests must be made in writing. Any responses provided by the City of Tacoma to questions and clarification requests will be made in writing, and will be distributed to all Proposers, without identification of the source of the question. Oral interpretations (or clarifications) of the meaning of any part of the RFP will not be binding.

Questions or clarification requests should be addressed to:

Eric Johnson, P.E. Project Manager City of Tacoma Public Works Department Environmental Services/Science and Engineering Division 2201 Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98421-2711 Phone: 253-502-2106 Fax: 253-502-2107 E-Mail: [email protected]

Proposers shall refrain from initiating contact with City representatives other than Mr. Johnson, for the purpose of obtaining information for use in preparation of Proposals. Proposers shall request approval from Mr. Johnson to contact other City employees for information. Any unauthorized contact with other City representatives regarding the Project may be grounds for disqualification from the procurement process. Discussions with other CTP staff are permitted with prior approval from Mr. Johnson. Disqualified Proposers will not be entitled to an Honorarium. All Proposers shall comply with the Communication Protocol discussed in Section 5.5 of Volume I of this RFP.

The Project Manager is the official point of contact for the City of Tacoma for this procurement. All communication between the Proposer and the City of Tacoma upon receipt of this RFP shall be with the Project Manager. Any other communication will be considered unofficial and non-binding on the City of Tacoma. Proposers may rely only on written statements issued by the Project Manager. Oral statements may not be relied on for any purpose.

5.4 SITE ACCESS DURING PROPOSAL PREPARATION The City of Tacoma recognizes that Proposers may need access to the Central Treatment Plant property during the Proposal preparation period. Proposers may only access the Central Treatment Plant property after obtaining written authorization from the City of Tacoma. In order to receive authorization for access, Proposers must complete a Site Access Request Form (Appendix B to this RFP and also in an executable form on the Project website) and submit it to Eric Johnson at least one week

mailto:[email protected]



prior to needed site access (at least two weeks for any geotechnical work or work involving site disturbance), by email or at the address noted within this RFP.

The City of Tacoma will attempt to process requests and provide written approval on the Site Access Request Form in a timely manner.

The City of Tacoma will have the right to be present during any Proposer site visits. Proposers will be required to define the areas they wish to access and describe methods to be implemented to limit the use to the requested area. Check-in at the Operations Control Center and proof of insurance (for geotechnical explorations and other activities depending on risk) will be required upon entering the Central Treatment Plant, as will check-out at the Operations Control Center upon exiting. During site visits, all individuals will need to wear City issued Visitor Identification Tags – which will be issued upon check in. Site visits involving inspection of electrical and chlorine equipment will require a City escort. To enable the City to schedule appropriate staff for escorting, the Proposer must specifically note, on all Site Access Request Forms, the window of time during the site visit that access to electrical and chlorine equipment is desired.

5.5 COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL The City has established a Communication Protocol to assure that all interested parties have equal access to information on the Project. In addition, the protocol is intended to assure that all proposals and related information regarding the selection process are kept confidential. All interested parties are requested to review and manage their communications in a manner consistent with the Communications Protocol included in Appendix C to this RFP.

5.6 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION

5.6.1 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW In the evaluation of the Proposals (Base Proposals and Energy Management Alternative Proposals), the City of Tacoma will consider the information submitted in response to the RFP with respect to the evaluation criteria (factors) set forth in the RFP. The result of the evaluation will be a recommendation for the Proposer with which to initiate negotiations.

A Design-Build Evaluation Committee (“Evaluation Committee”), appointed by the Director of Public Works, will evaluate the responses to this RFP. The Committee will be composed of persons with expertise in fields such as Capital Project Management, Wastewater Treatment Facilities Development, Operations and Maintenance, Design-Build Contracting, Financial Analysis, Permitting, Engineering, and Construction. The Committee will include individuals from the City of Tacoma Environmental Services Division and other City departments. Technical, legal, and financial consultants and others may serve as advisors to the Committee, but will not be voting members of the Evaluation Committee.



For the purpose of evaluating Proposals, the evaluation criteria will be given the following weights:

Technical Approach and Qualifications 60 Points Total

Technical Qualifications and Experience

Technical Feasibility and Reliability

Approach to Maximize Quality, Durability, and Workmanship

Technical Enhancements

Construction Approach and Sequencing

Operations and Maintenance Considerations

Integration of Team Throughout Project

Ability to Deliver the Project

Other Technical Considerations

Business/Financial Approach and Qualifications 40 Points Total

Financial Qualifications

Fixed Design-Build Price and Operations/Maintenance/Repair and Replacement Cost Implications

Risk Assumption (including modifications to the Design-Build Contract) and Financial Assurances

Affirmative Action Requirements

Other Business/Financial Considerations

5.6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA Overall Proposals (Base Proposals and Energy Management Alternative Proposals), will be evaluated based on the Proposer’s ability to meet the performance requirements of this RFP and the Draft Design-Build Contract, including Schedules. The City will compare all Base and Energy Management Alternative Proposals (8 total - 2 from each team) in developing its ranking of Proposals.

Proposers should note that technical and financial qualifications and experience will be reconsidered as part of the Proposal evaluation process. In this consideration of qualifications and experience, the City will pay particular attention to how well the



qualifications and experience support the Proposer Team’s ability to deliver the specific Project concepts and approach that they propose.

This re-evaluation will also allow for changes and enhancements to teams to be considered in the selection process. Proposers are reminded that any substitution of a significant team member (firm or individual) from those described in Statements of Qualifications requires approval by the City. However, City approval is not required for strengthening of Teams by adding personnel or subcontractors prior to submitting an RFP. Proposers will not be required to completely resubmit qualifications information but will be required to submit the information outlined in Section 6.3 of Volume I of this RFP.

Criteria that will be used in the evaluation of the Proposals will include, but may not be limited to:

Technical Approach and Qualifications The City will consider each of the following for the Base Proposal and, where applicable, for the Energy Management Alternative Proposal:

Technical Qualifications and Experience. This criterion evaluates the Team’s ability to successfully and seamlessly undertake the Project by reviewing the technical qualifications and experience of the contracting party, principal subcontractors, and key individual team members with respect to the specific scope that each will perform. Specific items included in this criterion were defined in the Request for Qualifications and include, but are not limited to:

Firm and individuals’ Design-Build/Design-Build-Operate experience;

Firm and individuals’ engineering, permitting, and design experience;

Construction experience, including experience with retrofits; and

Startup, testing, O&M manual preparation, and training experience.

The City will specifically emphasize:

Experience of construction firm(s), the proposed project manager, and the proposed construction manager on Design-Build or Design-Build-Operate projects for wastewater treatment plant retrofits of similar size and complexity to this Project;

History of construction claims and change orders; and

Demonstrated ability to coordinate with plant operating staff during design and construction of similar retrofit projects that must maintain plant operations during construction.



The City and the Evaluation Committee reserve the right to conduct an independent investigation of a Team’s technical qualifications by contacting project references (including actual site visits), accessing public information, or contacting independent parties. Additional information may be requested during the evaluation of technical qualifications.

Technical Feasibility and Reliability. This criterion includes issues such as the feasibility and reliability of the proposed peak wet weather treatment process and other Project facilities and equipment, including power supply and facilities using alternative fuels, as applicable; demonstrated ability of the design to meet codes and standards; the flexibility and soundness of the proposed design; the ability of the design to function well under current and future operating conditions defined in Schedule 6; the approach to avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts; the inclusion of adequate redundancy features; and the expected operating life.

Approach to Maximize Quality, Durability, and Workmanship. This criterion includes such issues as overall quality of proposed materials, equipment, workmanship, and the overall facility; proposed quality plans and inspection programs; and integration of new/expanded features with the overall facility including effective use of space, access, parking, and architecture.

Technical Enhancements. This criterion includes an assessment of whether and how Proposals exceed minimum requirements laid out in the RFP or other enhancements included in or suggested by Proposers. It will also include an assessment of the extent and nature of modifications or exceptions to the technical scope of the City’s proposed Design-Build Contract.

Construction Approach and Sequencing. This criterion includes issues such as construction sequencing; proposals for interfacing with plant operations during construction; maintenance of plant operations; the need for temporary facilities and operations; risks of unscheduled shutdowns of plant operations; expected number and type of requests for scheduled partial shutdowns of plant operations; safety records/safety and accident prevention programs; and requirements for construction laydown areas.

Operations and Maintenance Considerations. This criterion includes such issues as integration with operations staff during the design process; plan for maintenance of plant operation during construction; startup and acceptance testing approach; expected ease of operations and maintenance, including, as applicable, operations and maintenance of facilities proposed to reduce peak energy demand; interim and final operations plans; O&M manual approach; equipment efficiency; and attention to equipment access, equipment repair laydown areas, and removal.



Integration of Team Throughout the Project. This criterion includes an assessment of how well key project management, permitting, design, construction, and commissioning/operations staff and firms will be integrated through all phases of the Project.

Ability to Deliver the Project. This criterion includes issues such as the ability to meet the City’s Design-Build objectives; the proposed approach for managing and coordinating substation development by Tacoma Power (if applicable); the proposed permitting approach, including air permitting as applicable for the Energy Management Alternative Proposal; the City’s assessment of the ability of the Proposal to obtain Ecology approval, the proposed schedule and ability to meet time requirements, and previous experience the proposed Team has had delivering similar projects together as a team. This criterion also includes an assessment of the recent, current, and projected workloads of the firm and individuals.

Other Technical Considerations.

Business/Financial Approach and Qualifications The City will consider each of the following for the Base Proposal and, where applicable, for the Energy Management Alternative Proposal:

Financial Qualifications. This criterion evaluates the Proposers’ and their Guarantors’ financial strength specifically to determine if it is sufficient to successfully undertake and guarantee successful completion of the Project.

Fixed Design-Build Price, Life Cycle Energy Costs, and Other O&M Cost Impacts. This criterion considers the proposed Fixed Development Period and Fixed Construction Period Price for both the Base and Energy Management Alternative Proposals. It also considers the extent to which the Project, as proposed for the Base Proposal and Energy Management Alternative Proposal, will affect the City’s long-term operations and maintenance costs for the CTP. Proposers should note that the City will take into consideration any additional or reduced long-term City costs (i.e., the operational life-cycle costs for specific equipment or systems) that may result from a specific Proposal.

Specifically, Proposals will be evaluated based on three cost factors:

1. Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price: to design, permit, build and achieve full commercial operation in accordance with the Design-Build Contract. The Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price for the Base and Energy Management Alternative Proposals will be determined from Proposal Form 7A of each Proposal.

2. Life Cycle Energy Cost Analysis: For the Base Proposal, the City will evaluate Life Cycle Cost considering the cost, expressed as a net



present value of: 1) facilities included in the proposed Fixed Design-Build Price; 2) estimated cost of the new substation; and 3) the estimated electricity costs (average energy and demand charges) over the analysis (life cycle) period. Electricity cost will be based on electric consumption provided on Proposal Form 8D.

For the Energy Management Alternative Proposal, the City will evaluate Life Cycle Cost considering the cost, expressed as a net present value of: 1) facilities included in the proposed Fixed Design-Build Price for the Energy Management Alternative Proposal; 2) estimated costs of alternative fuels over the analysis (life cycle) period; and 3) the estimated electricity costs (energy and demand charges) over the analysis period. Electricity cost will be based on electric consumption provided on Proposal Form 8D.

The following assumptions will be included in City’s Net Present Value analysis:

20-year operations period

Construction cost of the new substation of $4.0 million (Jan. 2005 dollars)

Projected plant annual energy and peak demand consumption by energy source (from Proposal Form 8D)

Annual discount rate of 5.0 percent (nominal)

Tacoma Power electricity rates currently in effect and projected future rates

Delivered cost of natural gas based on PSE rates currently in effect and projected future rates

Annual City interest rate of 5.0 percent (nominal)

Annual inflation rate of 2.2 percent

The City shall at its sole discretion conduct sensitivity analyses to test the cost effectiveness of Proposals under different assumptions, such as different escalation rates for power.

3. Other O&M Cost Implications. The City will also evaluate each Proposal (Base and Energy Management Alternative Proposals) with respect to how the proposed design will affect annual operations and maintenance costs, chemical costs, and major maintenance, repair, and replacement costs. The O&M cost impacts will be determined by the City for certain treatment processes or major equipment items based



on information provided by Proposers on Proposal Form 8D plus other information identified by the City during review of Proposals.

Risk Assumption and Financial Assurances. This criterion includes an assessment of the proposed risk assumption, including proposed modifications to the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules, any enhancements or limitations placed on the Guaranty, and other financial assurances provided by the Proposer and/or proposed third-party Guarantor, including the ability to provide performance and payment bonds for the Project.

Affirmative Action Requirements. This criterion considers the proposed approach to meeting the MWBE and SBRA requirements generally described in Section 4.10.3 of Volume I of this RFP and in Schedule 19.

5.6.3 INTERVIEWS At its sole discretion, the Evaluation Committee may hold interviews during the evaluation and selection process.

5.6.4 REFERENCE CHECKS The Evaluation Committee will verify experience and qualifications, including verification of quality on past projects, through interviews and, possibly, site visits to proposed reference facilities. Proposers shall clearly identify any new project staff, firms, and reference projects which have been added since submission of their SOQs. The City may choose to conduct a portion of the reference checks and site visits during the Proposal Preparation Period. The City will provide pre-notice of these activities. Qualifications of firms and individuals may be verified in this manner. In addition, the City retains the right to interview and/or visit facilities that have not been listed as references but where Proposer Team members, including specific individuals, have worked.

5.6.5 CITY REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION OR RESUBMISSIONS At its sole discretion, the Evaluation Committee may ask written questions of Proposers, seek written clarifications, conduct in-person or telephone discussions on Proposals with Proposers, and solicit updated Proposals during the evaluation and selection process.

5.6.6 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION The City of Tacoma has developed this RFP using a two-stage process in which Proposers were asked to comment on a Proposer Review Draft RFP prior to formal issuance of the RFP. The City expects this two-stage process to substantially reduce the need for extensive post-selection negotiations.

The Evaluation Committee will evaluate, score, and then recommend a ranking of Proposer(s) to the Public Works Director based upon the criteria, weighting, and



process set forth in this RFP. If a decision to proceed is made based on this recommendation, the City will enter into negotiations with the Selected Proposer to finalize the Draft Design-Build Contract. The City will retain the right to suspend or cancel negotiations with the highest-ranked Proposer and proceed to negotiations with the next highest-ranked Proposer at its sole discretion. All negotiations will be conducted in compliance with RCW Ch. 39.10. If and when negotiations are successfully completed with the Selected Proposer, the City’s Draft Design-Build Contract will be modified to reflect the outcome of the negotiations. The modified Design-Build Contract and the recommendation to execute the Contract with the Selected Proposer will then be submitted to the City Council for approval. Following City Council approval, the City and the Selected Proposer will execute the Design-Build Contract.

If a Change in Law occurs between the Proposal Submission Date and the Contract Date, and such change requires a change to the Selected Proposer’s Proposal, such change must be addressed during negotiations. Failure of the Selected Proposer to address such changes in law prior to contract execution shall effectively waive the Selected Proposer's right to relief for such change. In the event the Selected Proposer notifies the City of such change in law, but an agreement cannot be reached on the change in law during negotiations, the City has the right to suspend negotiations with the Selected Proposer and enter into negotiations with another Proposer or seek revised Proposals from one or all of the Proposers not selected for negotiations. Proposers should note that adoption of the International Building Code by the City of Tacoma shall not be considered a Change in Law.

5.7 OTHER PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

5.7.1 HONORARIUM The City of Tacoma accepts no liability for the costs and expenses incurred by Proposers in attending the Proposer meetings, responding to this RFP or a request for revised proposals, if issued, responding to clarification requests and requests for information, attending potential interviews, and subsequent negotiations. In addition, if a Proposer performs pilot testing or subsurface investigations as part of the Proposal preparation activities, these costs shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Proposer. Each Proposer that enters into the procurement process shall prepare the required materials and submittals at its own expense and with the express understanding that it cannot make any claims whatsoever for reimbursement from the City of Tacoma for the costs and expenses associated with the process, except as specifically provided herein.

In accordance with RCW Ch. 39.10, the City of Tacoma will pay an honorarium in the amount of $100,000 to each firm submitting a Proposal who, in the sole opinion of the City, is responsive to the RFP, proceeds in good faith, and is not awarded the Design-Build Contract. The honorarium shall be paid within 60 days after execution of the Design-Build Contract with the Selected Proposer. While the City fully expects to proceed with the Project, in the event that it decides not to do so, the City will pay the honorarium to each firm submitting a responsive proposal that has acted in good faith



within 60 days of any decision not to proceed with the Project. Acceptance of the honorarium shall constitute a waiver of rights by the Proposer to challenge the City’s evaluation and selection process and award decision.

In the event that negotiations are terminated by the City, the City will pay an honorarium in the amount of $100,000 to the Proposer with whom it terminates negotiations provided the Selected Proposer negotiated in good faith.

5.7.2 WORK FOR HIRE Regardless of whether the City of Tacoma awards a contract, the Proposals submitted pursuant to the RFP, including the data, information, concepts, and ideas contained therein, shall be “works made for hire,” and the City of Tacoma shall have the right to use the Proposals for the municipal purposes of the City of Tacoma in any manner or combination it so elects, without notice to or the consent of the Proposer(s). Such “municipal purposes” do not include the publication, distribution, or sale of such proposals to third parties not employed by or under contract to the City of Tacoma, except in connection with requests for Proposals to perform construction work or design, or consulting services on behalf of the City of Tacoma. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City of Tacoma agrees that any use of such Proposal(s) by the City of Tacoma without the Proposer’s verification or adaptation for the specific purpose intended shall be at the sole risk of the City of Tacoma.

Except as otherwise provided in the RFQ and this RFP, the Proposer may establish claim to copyright any data first produced in the preparation of the Proposal. When such claim to copyright is made, the Proposer shall affix the applicable copyright notice to the data when the data are delivered to the City. For data other than computer software, the Proposer grants to the City, Ecology, and others acting on their behalf, at no cost, a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to use such data solely for the municipal purposes of the City or the agency purposes of Ecology. For computer software, the Proposer grants, at no cost, a nonexclusive, irrevocable license for all such computer software to the City, Ecology, and others acting on their behalf, to use, reproduce, and prepare derivative works, by or on behalf of the City or Ecology.

5.7.3 INFORMATION DISCLOSURE TO THIRD PARTIES All Proposals received in response to this RFP will become the property of the City and will not be returned. Although it is the City’s intent, to the extent permitted by law, to keep all Proposals confidential until execution of the Design-Build Contract, the City may be required to publicly disclose any Proposals and materials submitted by Proposers to third parties.

The City acknowledges that some information provided by Proposers may be considered proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, RCW 42.17, or the Washington Trade Secrets Act, RCW 19.108. If a Proposer believes that portions of its response are proprietary, confidential, or exempt from disclosure to third parties, the Proposer must clearly label the specific portions sought to be kept confidential and specify the exemption that the Proposer is relying



upon. Marking all or substantially all of a response as confidential may result in the response being considered non-responsive by the City. In the event that the City receives a request for public records to which part or all of a Proposer’s response is responsive, the City will promptly provide the Proposer notice of the request so that it may seek at its own expense a protective order to preserve the confidentiality of the requested materials.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Proposers recognize and agree that the City will not be responsible or liable in any way for any losses that the Respondent may suffer from the disclosure of information or materials to third parties.

5.7.4 CITY RIGHTS This RFP constitutes an invitation to Proposers to submit Proposals to the City of Tacoma. The City reserves, holds without limitation, and may exercise, at its sole discretion, the following rights and conditions with regard to this procurement process. By responding to this RFP, Proposers acknowledge and consent to the following City rights and conditions:

1. To terminate the procurement process or decide not to award a contract as a result thereof by written notice to the Proposers for any reason whatsoever.

2. To waive any defect, technicality, or any other minor informality or irregularity in any Proposal, or any other response from Proposers.

3. To make major changes or alterations to the schedule for any events associated with this procurement process upon notice to the Proposers. Minor modifications may be made without notice to Proposers.

4. To eliminate any Proposer that submits an incomplete or inadequate response, or is not responsive to the requirements of this RFP, or is otherwise deemed to be unqualified during any stage of the procurement process.

5. To conduct clarification discussions, at any time, with one or more Proposer, with the understanding that any such discussions would remain confidential with respect to other Proposers.

6. To amend the Contract Services, at any time, to omit services therein or to include services not currently contemplated therein.

7. Without prior notice, to supplement, amend, or otherwise modify this RFP, or otherwise request additional information.

8. In the event the City receives questions concerning this RFP from Proposers prior to the deadline for response, the City reserves the right



to provide such questions, and the City’s responses, if any, to all Proposers.

9. Neither the City, its Elected Officials, staff, agents, employees, representatives, nor consultants will be liable for any claims or damages resulting from any aspect of this procurement process.

10. To visit and examine any of the facilities referenced in the Proposals and to observe and investigate the operations of such facilities, as well as other facilities not referenced in the Proposals.

11. To conduct investigations with respect to the qualifications and experience of each Proposer included in its Proposal and to request additional evidence to support any such information.

12. To take any action affecting the RFP process or the Project that is determined to be in the City’s best interests.

13. To request clarifications, information, and/or revised proposals from one or more Proposers.

14. To determine the Selected Proposer with whom to negotiate, in accordance with RCW Ch. 39.10.

15. To discontinue negotiations with the Selected Proposer and commence negotiations with another Proposer as allowed by RCW Ch. 39.10.

16. To select and enter into a Design-Build Contract with one Proposer whose Proposal best satisfies the interests of the City and is most responsive in the judgment of the City to the requirements of this RFP.

5.7.5 PROTESTS This section describes appeals or protests of two types of decisions. First, appeals of the City’s determination that a prospective bidder is not qualified may be appealed in accordance with Tacoma Municipal Code Section 1.06.253. Second, protests of contract award, or of rejection of bids or proposals, are governed by Tacoma Municipal Code Section 1.06.257.

The City acknowledges that the City’s decision to short-list proposers constitutes a preliminary determination that the proposer teams are qualified. The process for protesting a determination that a prospective proposer is not qualified is included, however, in the unlikely event that new or updated information causes the City to reevaluate a proposer and determine that the proposer is not qualified.

Qualification Challenges For the City’s determination that a prospective bidder is not qualified, appeals are to be taken to the City Manager or to the City Council within five business days. An appeal to



the City Manager will be determined within two business days. A denial of an appeal to the City Manager may be further appealed to the City Council within two business days of the City Manager’s denial, and shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The City Council’s decision may be appealed to the Pierce County Superior Court within five business days.

Contract Award or Proposal Rejection Challenges A protest of any proposed contract award must be made to the City’s Board of Contracts and Awards before the matter can be protested to the Tacoma City Council. Protests must be made within two business days after notice is given of the bid award or rejection, and failure to immediately appeal shall result in a waiver of further protest rights.

Protest or Appeal Procedures Proposers protesting or appealing this procurement shall follow the procedures described below. Protests that do not follow these procedures will not be considered. This protest procedure constitutes the sole administrative remedy available to Proposers under this procurement.

All protests or appeals must be in writing and signed by the protesting or appealing party or an authorized agent. The protest or appeal must state the grounds for the protest or appeal with specific facts and complete statements of the action(s) being challenged. A description of the relief or corrective action being requested should also be included. All protests or appeals, whether directed to the City Manager, the City Council, or the Board of Contracts and Awards, shall be considered timely made if delivered to Eric Johnson within the required time period. Contact information is provided in Section 5.3, above. Delivery may be made by hand delivery or by facsimile, provided that the facsimile machine prints a confirmation of successful transmission.

Protests or appeals will be rejected as without merit if they address issues specifically including, but not limited to: 1) an evaluator’s professional judgment on the quality of a Proposal; or 2) the City of Tacoma’s assessment of its own and/or other agencies’ needs or requirements.

Upon timely and proper receipt of a protest or appeal, a protest review will be held by the appropriate official or body of the City of Tacoma. The City of Tacoma will consider the record and all available facts and make every effort to issue a decision within five business days of receipt of the protest or appeal, or within five business days of a hearing if a hearing is held before the City Council. If additional time is required, the protesting or appealing party will be notified.

In the event a protest or appeal may affect the interest of another Proposer which submitted a Proposal, such Proposer will be given an opportunity to submit its views and any relevant information on the protest to Eric Johnson. Contact information is provided in Section 5.3, above.



5.7.6 CODE OF ETHICS By submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP, the Proposer understands that, if selected, it agrees to comply with the City’s Code of Ethics contained in Chapter 1.46 of the Tacoma Municipal Code. The Proposer further understands and agrees that, if selected, any violation of the City’s Code of Ethics shall constitute a breach of the Contract subjecting the Contract to termination at the City’s option.

5.7.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST No officer, employee, or agent of the City, nor any member of the immediate family of any such officer, employee, or agent as defined by City ordinance, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in the Design-Build Contract or in the proceeds of the SRF Loan from Ecology, either in fact or in appearance. The Design-Build Contractor must comply with all federal, state, and city conflict of interest laws, statutes, and regulations.

The Proposer represents that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the program to which the Design-Build Contract will pertain, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services and obligations there under. The Proposer further will be required to covenant that, in performance of the Design-Build Contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed.


SECTION 6 - PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

6.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The required work for the Project is generally outlined in Section 3 of Volume I of this RFP and further described within the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules (RFP Volumes II and III, respectively). Proposers should rely on the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules for a full understanding of the work. Proposals must include a detailed presentation, in graphic and written form, that clearly provides the Proposer’s approach for fulfilling the required work.

An original and 17 copies of the Proposal must be delivered to:

Eric Johnson, P.E. City of Tacoma Environmental Services / Science and Engineering Division 2201 Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98421-2711

Proposals must be received by 3:00 PM., Friday, August 20th, 2004, and shall be identified as:

Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Design-Build Project Proposal

Proposals that are received after the time mentioned may not be considered, and any Proposals so received after the scheduled closing time may be returned to the Proposer unopened.

Proposals may be sent in by mail or turned in personally; however, if sent by mail, the responsibility for their delivery on time to the Purchasing Office is wholly upon the Proposer. Faxed or e-mailed responses will not be accepted.

Each Proposal submittal package shall be completely sealed and properly addressed with the name of the Proposer and Proposal Name marked on the exterior of the package and on the cover of each copy of the Proposal. The original and all 17 copies shall be individually coil-bound. Price proposals (Proposal Forms 7A through 7D, 8A through 8D, 9, and 10A through 10B) shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope contained within the sealed proposal submittal packages.

The City wishes to minimize the receipt of extraneous and unnecessary information. Therefore, Proposals must be as concise as possible while still demonstrating the Proposer’s ability to provide the requested services. Sales brochures are not desired unless directly related to the response and referenced in the text.



Proposals shall be produced on recycled paper containing the highest level of post-consumer and recycled content that is available. At a minimum, paper with 10 percent post-consumer and 50 percent recycled content shall be used. Whenever possible, all materials shall be published on paper that is unbleached or has not been treated with chlorine gas and/or hypochlorite.

Any and all City responses to requests for information and supplemental instructions will be made in the form of written addenda that will be sent to all recipients of the RFP, and will become part of the RFP. Receipt of all addenda shall be acknowledged by Proposers in Proposal Form 1.

Proposals must be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the firm that will be the Contracting Party or by another officer with the authority to commit the Contracting Party. Unsigned Proposals may be rejected.

6.2 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS Narrative pages should generally be 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, although 11 by 17 inch pages may be used for summary and comparison information. Section and subsection headings shall be provided and font size shall be selected to facilitate reproduction and review.

Proposers shall provide the appropriate information in accordance with the content and format requirements set forth in this RFP. Proposals shall incorporate graphics (i.e., process flow diagrams and drawings) as necessary to clearly present each Proposal option. Proposals must be separated by tabs into the following sections and subsections:

Transmittal Letter and Attachments

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Technical Proposal

2.1 Overall Project Concept

2.2 Treatment System Improvements

2.3 System Hydraulics

2.4 Monitoring Systems

2.5 TAGRO Facilities and Solids and Septage Receiving Facilities

2.6 Building Remodels and Expansions

2.7 Site/Civil Work

2.8 Structural Work



2.9 Architectural Work

2.10 Other Systems

2.11 Electrical Systems and Power Supply

2.12 Energy Management Approach

2.13 Instrumentation and Controls System and Operation Control Center Upgrade

2.14 Odor and Noise Control Measures

2.15 Repair and Rehabilitation Work

2.16 Permits and Approvals

2.17 Environmental Protection and Mitigation

2.18 Construction Approach including Sequencing

2.19 Maintenance of Plant Operations Plan

2.20 Transition Plan, Acceptance Testing, Performance Standards, and Interim Operations Plan

2.21 O&M Manual, Final Operations Plan, and Operator and Maintenance Staff Training

2.22 Performance Warranty and Operations Optimization Assistance

2.23 Proposed Enhancements

2.24 Drawings and Diagrams

2.25 Equipment and Systems Lists

3.0 Management Proposal

3.1 Project Implementation Approach

3.2 Project Schedule

3.3 DB Quality Management Plan

3.4 City Coordination and Communications Plan

3.5 WMBE, SBRA, and Apprenticeships Programs

4.0 Business/Financial Proposal

4.1 Overview



4.2 Fixed Design-Build Price and Drawdown Schedule

4.3 Surety Requirements

4.4 Markup of the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules

5.0 Proposal Forms

6.0 Updated Experience and Financial and Technical Qualification Information

7.0 Appendices

Failure of a Proposer to organize the information as required by this RFP may result in the City, at its sole discretion, deeming the Proposal unresponsive to the requirements of the RFP. Proposers may reduce the repetition of identical information within several sections of the Proposal by making the appropriate cross-references to other sections of their Proposal. Appendices for certain technical information such as drawings, charts, forms, and tables, may be used to facilitate Proposal preparation.

6.3 PROPOSAL CONTENTS Proposers must provide the appropriate information in accordance with the content and format requirements set forth in each of the following Proposal sections.

Transmittal Letter and Attachments

The Proposal shall include a transmittal letter and the transmittal letter attachments as represented in Proposal Form 1. The transmittal letter shall contain the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the Proposed Contracting Party and the principal contact person. The transmittal letter shall also include a listing of companies that are part of the team and identify the Project Guarantor if different from the Proposed Contracting Party.

Tab 1 Proposal Section 1.0 – Executive Summary

Proposers shall submit an Executive Summary detailing the key aspects of their Base and Energy Management Alternative Proposals. This section shall include a clear statement of the Proposer’s understanding of the RFP, identify the major Project participants and their respective roles on the Project, briefly describe the Proposal, and summarize how the proposed services and team meet the requirements of the RFP and Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules. This section shall also identify material exceptions taken to the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules as well as any enhancements included in the Proposal.

The Executive Summary shall not exceed 15 typed pages and shall be accompanied by a figure showing the team organizational structure. No pricing information should be included in the Executive Summary.



Tab 2 Proposal Section 2.0 – Technical Proposal

Section 2.0 of the Proposal shall present the technical aspects of the Proposer’s plan to design and build and provide related services for the Project. All Proposal subsections, except Proposal Subsection 2.12, shall address the Base Proposal. Proposal Subsection 2.12 shall address all technical aspects of the Energy Management Alternative Proposal to the extent they differ from the Base Proposal.

Proposers shall provide a description of the Project facility components as well as the information necessary to convey a clear understanding of the Project.

Draft Schedules to the Draft Design-Build Contract outline Project performance standards and other technical requirements. The Technical Proposal shall be in sufficient detail to allow the City to evaluate the Proposer’s ability to comply with the performance standards and other technical requirements outlined the draft Schedules and Design-Build Contract. Proposers should note that certain technical specifications included in Schedule 6 are intended to convey the quality, durability, and/or operability of equipment and construction materials and are not meant to be mandatory requirements. The following discussions provide specific guidance to Proposers related to certain Schedule 6 requirements, especially those for Proposal Subsections 2.2 - Treatment System Improvements, 2.8 - Structural Work, and 2.25 - Equipment and Systems Lists.

Some of the Schedules anticipate that additional information will be incorporated based on the Selected Proposal. To facilitate this, technical information shall be provided in a format that can be easily incorporated into the Schedules in order to finalize the Draft Design-Build Contract. This information shall also meet the minimum requirements established in the Contract Schedules. Where draft plans are indicated as attachments to the Schedules, Proposers shall submit such draft plans in sufficient detail to convey the Proposer's approach and allow it to be evaluated by the City. Outline format, provided it conveys sufficient information, is acceptable.

Proposal Subsection 2.1 – Overall Project Concept

This subsection of the Technical Proposal shall describe the following three components of Project work:

Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities

Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities

Repair and Rehabilitation Work

All major components of the Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities shall be briefly described, including those identified as Project Allowance Items. The location of major components and interconnecting piping must be identified. This subsection shall also include a discussion of the overall hydraulic/treatment/monitoring system that will be in



place at the Central Treatment Plant after the improvements are operational, and how the overall system would be operated to meet the Performance Standards, with specific emphasis on Schedules 4, 6, 7, and 11.

All major components of the Ancillary Upgrade and Expansion Facilities and their locations shall also be briefly described. In this subsection, Proposers shall also describe their overall approach for implementing the Repair and Replacement Work described in Schedule 7.

This section shall include a separate discussion generally describing the proposed approach for the City Option Items.

This subsection shall also briefly describe construction sequencing and how the Proposer will coordinate with City staff during construction in order to maintain plant operations. Any planned plant shutdowns shall be identified. Whether or not any areas outside of the Central Treatment Plant property shall be used during construction shall be stated in this subsection.

A minimum of three drawings must be included with this subsection to illustrate:

Limits of construction, including any temporary material stockpile areas, office areas, interconnecting roads, and temporary changes to existing areas at the Central Treatment Plant such as road or parking area relocations;

The location and relationship of Central Treatment Plant facilities and support areas once the Project is completed; and

A Plan showing the Proposer's concept for future expansion of the Influent Pump Station, Screens, Effluent Pump Station, Grit Removal, and Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment Facilities, as well as the space required.

A list of codes and design standards to be used must be provided if different from those listed in Schedule 6, Section 6.3.

Proposal Subsection 2.2 – Treatment System Improvements

Proposals must describe proposed wastewater treatment processes in sufficient detail for the City to review the proposed design and its reliability. Detailed information on the following systems and components must be provided:

Screening;

Grit Removal;

Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment;



Disinfection;

Chemical Storage Areas;

Other unit processes consistent with Schedule 4 and included in the proposed treatment process must also be described in this subsection.

The rationale underlying the proposed treatment system, including the relationship between the size and configuration of major components, shall be discussed, and key design parameters shall be identified for each component. The integration of the new//expanded treatment facilities with the Central Treatment Plant’s existing treatment processes shall also be described.

Proposers should note that the selection and combination of treatment processes and equipment, with the exception of processes and equipment explicitly disallowed or required in Schedule 6, are at the sole discretion of the Proposer. (See Proposal Subsection 2.25 for further guidance regarding required equipment.)

Within this subsection, Proposers shall also discuss:

How the proposed design will meet Schedule 4 and 6 requirements.

How additional future treatment/hydraulic expansion would be accomplished with the proposed design concept. This discussion shall identify space provided for future expansion of various facilities, special provisions for expansion such as piping, electrical, and instrumentation and controls provisions and a summary description of the construction work required to accomplish such an expansion.

The Proposer’s experience with design, construction, and operation of these components and systems.

How the proposed Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Treatment System varies from or is in conformance with the treatment process and pilot testing described in the City’s approved Facilities Plan. To the extent that the proposed treatment system varies from the one described in the approved Facilities Plan, the Proposal shall discuss the proposed approach, including appropriate calculations, for meeting the system performance described in the approved Facilities Plan and in the Central Treatment Plant’s NPDES discharge permit. If a Proposer believes that its proposed system will require pilot testing prior to Ecology approval, its Proposal must describe the extent and schedule of the pilot testing required.

How the proposed PWWF Treatment Process will operate during ramp-up, including provisions for recirculating flow. Proposed shutdown and startup (after extended shutdown) procedures and requirements shall be discussed. Proposers shall also describe chemical additions and the Proposed concept



for solids handling from the process. Proposers must recognize that, if selected, they will be solely responsible for meeting Ecology requirements for the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System as required in Schedule 3. If, after the Contract Date, the system must be modified to satisfy Ecology requirements or to satisfy any other requirements set forth in Schedules 4 and 6, the City will not be liable for any increased costs to the Selected Proposer unless such requirements are the result of a change in law.

For the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System, any information regarding treatment capabilities for flows above 76 mgd as provided on Proposal Form 14.

A description of how the new disinfection system will interconnect with existing components of the CTP and discussion of specific actions proposed for decommissioning the existing chlorine system.

A description of how the upgraded and expanded treatment facility will function under the operating conditions described in Schedules 2, 4, and 6.

Proposal Subsection 2.3 – System Hydraulics

Schedules 4 and 6 define the hydraulic conditions for the Project under normal, peak wet weather, and various emergency operating conditions. Proposers must describe major hydraulic components of the Project in this Subsection of their Proposals and their approach to meeting the hydraulic conditions set forth in those Schedules. Major hydraulic components that must be discussed shall, at a minimum, include:

Modifications upstream of Screens;

Screens;

Conveyance piping between Screens and Influent Pump Station(s);

Influent Pump Station(s);

Piping or channels from Influent Pump Station to Grit Removal Facilities;

Grit Removal;

Flow Splitting;

Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment Facility(ies) including recirculation;

Effluent Pump Station(s);

Other Interconnecting Piping and Valves; and

Bypass Provisions and other emergency flow management provisions for power/equipment failure



Proposals shall include a flow and head analysis under the ranges of inflow to the Central Treatment Plant described in Schedules 2 and 4. For the various inflow conditions, this analysis must include flow and velocity in pipelines and hydraulic profiles through the Central Treatment Plant.

For all expected operational, maintenance, and emergency circumstances, Proposals shall address at a minimum:

Hydraulic profiles;

The pumping capacity and operating range (volume and head) of the pump stations;

Piping sizes, materials, hydraulic capacity, and velocity/flow/head for various operating scenarios (Redundancy and reuse of existing piping shall also be described in this subsection.);

Valving sizes, hydraulic capacity, operating ranges, and head loss;

Provisions for emergency operations, such as bypass piping; and

Transient analyses to demonstrate operation of flow splitting, during high rates of change in flow rates, and for effluent pumping to the Commencement Bay Outfall.

This section shall describe, in detail, the Proposer's approach to meeting the provisions of Schedule 6, Sections 6.5.2 and 6.5.10.

This section must also discuss Proposer’s understanding of the requirements for physical modeling of influent and effluent pump stations.

This subsection shall also include a separate discussion of the proposed approach to implementing applicable City Option Items (i.e. 5 mgd and 118 mgd conveyance from Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment to the head of the oxygenation tanks).

Proposal Subsection 2.4 – Monitoring Systems

Proposals must describe their proposed additions to the Central Treatment Plant’s monitoring systems in order to meet the requirements of Schedule 5. This subsection shall also include a plan describing monitoring during construction, including responsibility for obtaining and reporting data.



Proposal Subsection 2.5 – TAGRO Facilities, and Solids and Septage Receiving Facilities

Proposals shall describe improvements to the biosolids receiving and handling facilities, including:

Expanded TAGRO Facilities;

New solids receiving station;

New septage receiving station; and

New scale facility(ies)

For each of these facilities, proposals shall describe the location, size, and layout of the facility and the proposed concept for meeting Schedule 6 requirements.

Proposal Subsection 2.6 – Building Remodels and Expansions

Proposals must provide a description of building remodel and expansions. At a minimum, the Proposal shall address:

Expanded Plant Maintenance Building (City Option Item); and

Interpretive Center (Project Allowance Item).

Descriptions shall identify the function, size of the expanded facilities, their assumed occupancy, furnishings to be provided, lighting, floor coverings, wall coverings, doors, windows, and all other appurtenances.

Proposal Subsection 2.7 – Site/Civil Work

A Construction Site Plan(s) and Final Site Plan(s) showing completed facilities shall be included in the Proposal. The Final Site Plan(s) shall include all new and expanded facilities; final parking and traffic circulation; landscaped areas; and permanent storm water infiltration, treatment, and detention facilities.

Proposals shall also include drawings showing how areas disturbed during construction will be restored following the completion of construction including landscaping. The Final Site Plan and related drawings shall be accompanied by a narrative that addresses the proposed approach for site development, primarily addressing any permanent changes in site drainage, access and traffic circulation, and parking.

Proposals shall also contain a separate Conceptual Drainage Plan showing existing and proposed flow control, water quality, and conveyance systems for the upgraded CTP, including approximate sizes, existing and proposed peak flows rates and



proximity to natural discharge locations as applicable. Proposals shall include sufficient calculations to demonstrate that the proposed permanent stormwater management system includes sufficient capacity and treatment capability to meet the requirements set forth in Schedule 6, including compliance with the City's NPDES Stormwater General permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPP Plan”).

Proposal Subsection 2.8 – Structural Work

Schedule 6, Section 6.9 describes suggested minimum structural requirements, including requirements for foundations and addressing geotechnical conditions, structural materials such as concrete and compliance with seismic codes, for the Project. Proposals shall include a discussion of the approach to the design of the structural aspects of the Project, including foundation systems, and structural floor, wall, and roof systems proposed for all new and modified buildings, tanks, pump stations, and other structures. Methods to address expansion or remodeling of existing structures and the structural issues identified in Schedule 1, Section 1.2.2.2 and Schedule 6, Section 6.9 shall also be identified.

Proposers should include assumptions, the basis of such assumptions, and pricing information related to assumed subsurface conditions. Following selection, the Selected Proposer will be required to undertake further geotechnical testing in accordance with Section 2.2.4 of Volume I of this RFP. Conditions determined from such testing that differ materially from the Proposers stated reasonable assumptions shall entitle the Proposer to an adjustment to its Fixed Construction Price. The Company shall describe the additional subsurface testing that it would require if it is selected and the cost of such testing.

Proposals shall describe their approach and experience with applying IBC 03 to similar projects.

Proposers should note that the minimum requirements included in Schedule 6, Section 6.9, are intended to convey the City’s objectives for the Project, including the objective of having highly durable, crack-resistant concrete in wetted areas in addition to concrete that meets strength requirements. Proposers may propose alternative minimum requirements by markup to the appropriate sections of Schedule 6, Section 6.9, provided that they also include performance information, including published information and operating information from other similar plants, demonstrating that the alternative minimum requirements will achieve the City’s objectives.

This subsection shall address, in detail, foundation conditions, approaches to seismic design, foundation design, settlement of adjacent structures and similar issues. Proposers shall provide detailed descriptions of the information and assumptions used to price their dewatering and foundations work as well as a description of the follow-up geotechnical investigations and analyses that they would conduct to confirm these assumptions if they were to be selected for contract negotiations.



Proposal Subsection 2.9 – Architectural Work

Proposers shall describe their proposed architectural concepts including visible portions of all structures and the interior of all occupied and unoccupied space. Appropriate plan views and elevations must be provided, and specific architectural treatments must be identified. Building exterior and interior dimensions, materials of construction, and exterior finishes shall also be described. Where applicable, Proposals must indicate measures provided to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Proposal Subsection 2.10 – Other Systems

Proposals shall fully describe all building services and other systems required by Schedule 6.

Building services must include:

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning;

Electrical Power and Lighting;

Plumbing;

Sanitary Facilities;

Potable Water Supply;

Fire Protection;

Telephone System (including coordination with City system); and

Utility Connections.

Other systems include:

Monitoring/Recording System for Septage and Solids Haulers;

Heat Exchanger and Related Solids System Upgrades;

Boiler / Heating System Upgrades;

Instrument Air to New and Expanded Areas;

Protected Water Modifications; and

Yard Water/Spray Water Upgrades (Project Allowance Item).



Proposals shall supplement discussions of building service systems with system schematic drawings, where appropriate, to illustrate proposed systems.

Proposal Subsection 2.11 – Electrical Systems and Power Supply

Proposals must describe all major systems and electrical equipment. This section must include descriptions of:

Approach to coordination and management of work by Tacoma Power for new substation to the extent applicable;

Interconnection with substation to the extent applicable;

Installation of dual power feeds to the new Influent Pump Station area;

All power distribution transformers;

Lightning protection system;

Motor control centers;

Electrical equipment rooms;

Protective relays and circuitry;

Uninterruptible power supply systems; and

Improved Site Lighting (Project Allowance Item).

For each major component, Proposals must include, at a minimum, the number of units, location, horsepower, voltage rating, motor classification, and rate of power usage. Proposals must provide a detailed electrical one-line diagram.

This subsection shall also include a separate discussion of the proposed approach to extending the dual electrical duct bank from the Influent Pump Station to the secondary end of the plant (City Option Item).

Proposal Subsection 2.12 – Energy Management Approach

The City has an interest in potentially modifying the 2002 Facility Plan concept for the expanded CTP to reduce peak electrical demand, avoid the need for a new substation, and better manage overall plant energy use. Potential approaches could include:

Plant-wide use of energy efficient equipment and systems;

Reducing electrical demand to within the megawatt capacity of the existing substation and correcting power quality problems in order to thereby eliminate the need for a new substation;



Use of natural and/or digester gas and/or diesel engines to drive individual pumping units;

Cogeneration; and

Other.

The City is requesting that Proposers provide a separately priced Energy Management Alternative Proposal to these issues. This Proposal shall describe all technical, permitting, facilities, and energy use to the extent that they vary from the Base Proposal.

Proposal Subsection 2.13 – Instrumentation and Controls System and Operations Control Center Modifications

These are Project Allowance Items. Proposers should describe their proposed approach to working with the City to conduct all engineering studies and design work for the I&C system and Operations Control Center upgrade (see Schedule 6, Sections 6.4.19 and 6.4.20).

Proposal Subsection 2.14 – Odor and Noise Control Measures

Proposers shall describe their approach to odor control design, their odor control criteria, the proposed number, type and location of odor control systems, and their procedures for demonstrating the performance of these systems. This section of the Proposal shall also address proposed noise control measures as described in Schedule 6, Section 6.8.16.

Proposal Subsection 2.15 – Repair and Replacement Work

Proposers must describe, in detail, their approach to completing the repair and replacement work summarized in described in Schedule 7, including:

Concrete repairs at existing facilities that will continue to be used after the upgrade;

Concrete repairs at Primary and Final Settling Tanks (Project Allowance Item);

New roofing (City Option Item);

Other Improvements at Final Settling Tanks (City Option Item); and

Anaerobic Digester Repairs.



Proposal Subsection 2.16 – Permits and Approvals

Proposers must describe their plan to obtain the required permits, approvals, Facilities Plan amendment(s), or other authorizations needed to construct the Project. The plan should be based on the Permits and Approvals identified in Schedule 3, except for those specifically identified as the responsibility of the City. Proposals must also identify any permits listed in Schedule 3 that they believe will not be required due to the specific nature of their Proposal, as well as any permits not listed in Schedule 3 that will be required due to the specific nature of their Proposal. Proposals must state where coordination or assistance from either the City or others in obtaining such approvals is required.

Proposals must state the name of the applicable permit or approval, the estimated time required to obtain each permit or approval, and any other parties that must assist in obtaining them. Proposals must also identify issues that could delay issuance of permits beyond the time frames identified in Proposals and strategies for managing any such delays.

A detailed discussion of the Proposer's approach to obtaining an amended Facilities Plan, including a summary table of anticipated amendment items, shall be included.

Proposers must include a narrative describing how their Proposal varies from the Project described in the Project SEPA Environmental Checklist, especially with respect to differences in the proposed project concept relative to that described in the checklist, differences in the degree and type of expected impacts, differences in proposed mitigation, and potential need for supplemental environmental review.

Proposal Subsection 2.17 – Environmental Protection and Mitigation

Proposals must describe in sufficient detail the Proposer’s environmental protection and mitigation measures. Proposals must address:

Fugitive Dust During Construction, especially with respect to off-site impacts.

Noise Impacts during Construction.

Traffic during Construction. Proposals shall describe their proposed access to the Central Treatment Plant property during construction, estimated average and peak-day construction traffic, and the probable amount of material to be hauled off-site for disposal. Measures to help assure traffic safety, both on and off-site, shall be identified. Measures to help reduce the impacts on the CTP staff pedestrian and vehicular flow/access, including staff parking, associated with utility business at the CTP Site.



Cultural Resources. Proposals shall also describe how they would respond in the event cultural resources are encountered during construction (No cultural resources survey has been conducted because the CTP Site is highly developed).

Surface Water Management. Proposals must describe permanent drainage and surface water detention and treatment facilities including size, location, and discharge locations. This discussion may cross-reference information in Proposal Subsection 2.7, Site Work/Civil Engineering.

Other Impacts Not Identified in Project SEPA Checklist.

The relationship of environmental protection and mitigation plans to the Proposal must be described.

Proposal Subsection 2.18 – Construction Approach Including Sequencing

a. Construction Site Plans. The Proposal must include plan drawing(s) for the Construction Site. The Construction Site Plan(s) must identify the limits of work, including clearing of existing on-site landscaping or natural vegetation; all permanent and temporary on-site structures, facilities, and utilities; staging and letdown areas; temporary and permanent stockpiles; temporary traffic circulation; parking areas; grading; site drainage during construction; temporary stormwater control and treatment facilities; landscaping, including any measures to protect Catalpa bignoniodes trees; and buffers.

b. Site Development Approach. The Construction Sites Plan(s) shall be accompanied by a narrative that addresses the proposed approach for site development. This narrative must address construction laydown areas, proposed access and worker parking, clearing limits and methods, temporary stockpiles, earth movement, cut and fill balance, proposals for use/disposal of excess excavated material, temporary stormwater infiltration, treatment, and detention facilities.

c. Management of Construction Water. This subsection shall also include a detailed discussion of the management of water during construction, including temporary erosion and sedimentation control, construction dewatering, treatment and discharge/disposal. Proposers should note that assurance of the proper management of stormwater and dewatering water are high priorities for the City. Proposals should, therefore, include sufficient calculations to demonstrate that the proposed temporary management systems for this water include sufficient capacity and treatment capability to meet the requirements set forth in Schedules 6 and 8.

d. Construction Sequencing. This subsection shall include detailed discussions of the Proposer’s plans for construction sequencing and coordination with City Operations.



Proposal Subsection 2.19 – Maintenance of Plant Operation Plan

This subsection of the Proposal shall include an initial Maintenance of Plant Operation Plan meeting the requirements of Schedule 8, Section 8.3.1. This discussion shall specifically identify any required shutdowns or bypassing of City facilities including the capacity remaining on-line during the bypass as well as the season and minimum time of the bypass or shutdown. The Selected Proposer’s proposed plan will become part of the Design-Build Contract.

Proposal Subsection 2.20 – Transition Plan, Acceptance Testing, Performance Standards, and Interim Operations Plan

a. Transition Plan. The City understands that there are components of the Project that may become operational at different times or in a sequential fashion. Therefore, this subsection shall also include a detailed discussion of the Proposer’s Plan for transitioning and integrating Project components back into the normal operation of the CTP, including the Proposer's plan and schedule for turning equipment/systems over to the City. This section shall describe in detail the Proposer’s plan for transitioning between Company and City operation during the Transition (see Schedule 11, Section 11.3). A preliminary Transition Plan, meeting the requirements of Schedule 11, Section 11.2 and detailed Transition Schedule shall be included in this subsection.

b. Acceptance Testing and Performance Standards. The City will operate the facility during the Acceptance Test. Proposers must describe their approach to complying with the Acceptance Test requirements set forth in Schedule 11, Section 11.4 and in particular how they propose to supervise/oversee City operations during this period. A preliminary Acceptance Test Plan shall be provided. The Proposal shall also describe how the proposed testing approach will verify compliance with the Performance Standardsincluded in Schedule 4. The Proposal shall specifically address the Proposer’s approach to simulating a Peak Wet Weather Flow Event and/or other means such as hydraulic modeling for demonstrating system hydraulic performance within the constraints of the current Commencement Bay Outfall and other facility and system limitations. The limitations of any proposed modeling and any proposed modifications to the Performance Warranty resulting from those limitations shall also be discussed.

c. Interim Operations Plan. This subsection shall describe how the overall CTP will be operated during the Transition and Acceptance Tests. It shall specifically identify any approvals required, such as short-term exceptions to the City’s NPDES permit, required for Acceptance Testing.

Proposal Subsection 2.21 – O&M Manual, Final Operations Plan, and Operator and Maintenance Staff Training

a. O&M Manual. This is a Project Allowance Item. This subsection shall include the proposed approach to development of an electronic O&M Manual meeting the requirements of Schedule 9, Section 9.1.3. Proposers should note that they may be



asked to provide a demonstration of their electronic O&M Manual development capabilities at the Proposal interviews. Proposers should also note that the City may elect to have the electronic O&M Manual work extended to the entire plant. Such work would be via a contract amendment and conducted during the Performance Warranty Period.

b. Final Operations Plan. This subsection shall include an Operations Strategy to show how the proposed Principal Upgrade and Expansion Facilities will be integrated with overall Central Treatment Plant operations. Special consideration must be given to the following factors:

Reduction of SSOs;

Normal, peak wet weather, and emergency operations;

Compliance and process control monitoring;

Ease of operation and maintenance;

Odor control; and

Daily, weekly, seasonal, and annual performance optimization to achieve quantity and quality performance, and cost control.

A plan for transitioning to full-plant operation shall also be included in this subsection of the Proposal.

c. Operator and Maintenance Staff Training. This subsection shall include the proposed overall approach to training, the number and types of training sessions, and other forms of operator support.

Proposal Subsection 2.22 – Performance Warranty and Operations Optimization Assistance

This section shall describe the Proposer’s approach to meeting Performance Warranty requirements and list specific services to be provided during the Performance Warranty Period. Proposed requirements for City operation during any Peak Wet Weather Flow events that occur during this period shall also be described.

The Performance Warranty provisions are intended to complement the assurances provided by Acceptance Testing. At a minimum, the Performance Warranty shall cover the hydraulic and treatment performance of the Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System. To the extent the Proposer cannot expect to confidently test and demonstrate performance during the Acceptance Test, the Proposer shall extend the Performance Warranty to other Project components. (See Schedule 11, Section 11.5) and mark up call back, performance warranty, and other provisions of the Draft Contract (Article IX, Sections 9.1 and 9.9) and Schedules accordingly.



Proposers should also provide a detailed description of the work and services they propose to include for Operations Optimizations Assistance and how they propose working with City staff when providing this assistance. Proposers should note that this work will be contracted for through a separate Professional Services Agreement, a form of which is attached as Schedule 25.

Proposal Subsection 2.23 – Proposed Enhancements

Proposed Project features and services that exceed the requirements of the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules shall be described in this section.

Proposal Subsection 2.24 – Drawings and Diagrams

As a minimum, Proposals must include the drawings listed below.

Site Construction Plans

Final Site Plan and Sections

Traffic Flow (may be included in Site Plans)

On-site and off-site parking and staging area drawing

On-site and off-site office trailer and equipment trailer locations

Drawings and schematics related to dewatering and care of water quality during construction

Hydraulic Profiles

Process Diagrams

Drawings of existing and proposed monitoring stations

Pump Station Modification or Relocation Plans and Details

Structural Plan and Section Drawings

Grit Removal Facility Plans

PWWF Treatment Plans

Disinfection Diagrams

Electrical One-line Diagram

Site Power Distribution Plans



Fire Protection System

Cathodic Protection System

Site Drainage Plans (Stormwater Control and Treatment)

Site Utilities Plans, including sanitary sewage, fire protection, and utility water

Architectural Plans, Elevations, and Renderings

Landscape Plans

Communication Systems Schematics

Control System Block Diagrams

Other drawings to be submitted as needed to fully describe Proposals

Proposal Subsection 2.25 – Equipment and Systems Lists

Proposal Form 11 shall be filled out for, at a minimum, the following equipment. Equipment and System lists shall also be provided for the Energy Management Alternative Proposal where equipment or systems varies from those included in the Base Proposal.

Proposers shall not propose disallowed equipment identified in Schedule 6, Section 6.8.3. The following additional guidance is provided regarding minimum requirements for systems and equipment:

Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment: Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for the specific Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment process and equipment proposed. The process proposed will become a mandatory requirement in the final Schedule 6.

Grit System: Proposers should note that the City has determined that aerated grit removal will be a mandatory technical requirement. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for the specific grit removal process and design concept proposed. The specific grit removal process proposed will become a mandatory requirement in the final Schedule 6.

Screens – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.9 specifies ¼-inch Mahr bar screens. Proposers should be aware that the City has determined that these screens will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. The City also recognizes that different screens may be required to meet requirements for the selected Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment process. Proposers may, as applicable, propose an alternative screen



and/or two-stage screening to meet the requirements of their selected Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment process, provided that their proposed screen(s) can be demonstrated to meet the City’s quality, durability, reliability, and operability objectives. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for their proposed screen(s). If selected, the proposed screen(s) will become mandatory requirements of Schedule 6. No “or equal” substitution will be provided for in the final Schedule 6.

Influent Pumps – Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for influent pumps. As described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.7, reuse of existing influent pumps is acceptable, provided that certain repairs are made and provided the reused pumps are compatible with the Proposer’s hydraulic design. If proposing reuse of the existing pumps, Proposal Form 11 shall be filled out for those pumps.

For new pumps, Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.2 lists the pump manufacturers that City has determined would be acceptable in this application. Proposers may propose up to three of these using Proposal Form 11. If selected, the proposed pump types (plus existing pumps as applicable) will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Grit Pumps – Proposers should note that the City has selected Wemco and Fairbanks Morse grit pumps and included them in Schedule 6.8.5.3. Only Wemco and Fairbanks Morse grit pumps will be identified in the final Schedule 6.

Effluent Pumps – Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for effluent pumps. As described in Schedule 6, Section 6.4.11, reuse of existing effluent pumps is acceptable, provided that certain inspections and repairs are made and provided the reused pumps are compatible with the Proposer’s design concept. If proposing reuse of the existing pumps, Proposal Form 11 shall be filled out for those pumps. For new pumps, Proposers may elect to propose up to three different makes/models of pumps that they believe will meet the City’s quality, durability, reliability, and operability objectives. If selected, these pump types (plus existing pumps as applicable) will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Wet Well Sump Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.5 lists lists Hydromatic, Fairbanks Morse, and Ebara as acceptable pumps in this application. Only these pumps will be identified in the final Schedule 6.

Digester Recirculation Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.6 requires Wemco Type C pumps. These will be required in the final Schedule 6.

Thickened Solids Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.7 lists Moyno and Seepex as acceptable manufacturers. The City has determined that these



pumps will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers may propose up to three manufacturers using Proposal Form 11, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Raw Primary Solids Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.8 lists Gorman Rupp and Komline Sanderson. The City has determined that these pumps will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers may propose up to three manufacturers using Proposal Form 11, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment Waste Solids Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.9 lists Moyno and Seepex as acceptable manufacturers. The City has determined that these pumps will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers may propose up to three manufacturers using Proposal Form 11, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Solids Receiving Station Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.10 lists Moyno and Seepex as acceptable manufacturers. The City has determined that these pumps will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers may propose up to three manufacturers using Proposal Form 11, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Containment Area Sump Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.5.15 lists ABS and Hydromatic as acceptable pumps in this application. The City has determined that these pumps will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers may propose up to three manufacturers using Proposal Form 11, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Other Pumps – Schedule 6, Section 6.8 does not specify specific pumps for the protected water system, yard water/spray water applications, disinfection system, or chemical feed systems. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for up to three pumps in each application, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Gates and Gate Operators – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.7 identifies acceptable slide, sluice, and flap gates and gate operators. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for each gate/operator application consistent with those identified in Schedule 6.

Flow Meters – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.8 identifies ABB Magmaster as the only acceptable flow meter for force main applications. Gravity flow meters are also allowed in certain other applications. . Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for each proposed flow meter application. (Up to three



types of gravity meters may be proposed for each suitable application). Proposed flow meters will be included in the final Schedule 6, except that no change to the specified magmeters will be considered.

Heat Exchangers – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.13 identifies Alpha-Laval as the only acceptable spiral heat exchanger and this requirement will be included in the final Schedule 6. Schedule 6, Section 6.8.13 does not specify specific manufacturers for shell and tube or concentric tube applications. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for each heat exchanger application. Up to three types of shell and tube or concentric tube heat exchangers may be proposed in suitable applications, and they will become part of the final Schedule 6 requirements.

Magnetic Eddy Current Drives – Schedule 6, Section 6.10.1.7 identifies MagnaDrive Corporation or Cyote Electronics Inc. as acceptable manufacturers. The City has determined that they will meet the City’s expectations for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers may propose up to three manufacturers using Proposal Form 11, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Cranes – Schedule 6, Section 6.8.17 identifies Wright Crane as an acceptable manufacturer. The City has determined that Wright Crane will beet the City’s objectives for quality, durability, reliability, and operability. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for up to three crane manufactures which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Other Equipment – Schedule 6, Section 6.8 does not specify specific manufacturers or technologies for conveyors, scales, boilers, or odor control systems. Proposers shall fill out Proposal Form 11 for up to three in each application, which will be included in the final Schedule 6.

Tab 3 Proposal Section 3 – Management Proposal

Proposal Subsection 3.1 – Project Implementation Approach

Proposers shall describe their internal team communications plan, and their approach to Project partnering with all Project stakeholders to assure Project quality and performance. A preliminary Company/City Communications Plan meeting the requirements of Schedule 13, Section 13.2 shall be provided. Points of contact, frequency, and methods of communication shall be discussed. A detailed Project organization chart shall be provided. This section shall also discuss any employee or subcontractor incentive programs.

Proposal Subsection 3.2 – Project Schedules

Proposers shall include project schedules (a Project Construction Schedule and a Development Work Schedule) that present the major activities necessary to implement



their Proposal in order to meet the requirements of Schedule 14. The schedules should commence with the Contract Date and identify major milestones. The schedules must clearly distinguish between pre- and post- Notice to Proceed activities. The guaranteed maximum construction period must be provided in this section.

As discussed in Section 2 of Volume I of this RFP, the City has entered into a delegation agreement with Ecology. Proposers shall discuss the length of review that they have assumed for the City in its role as Ecology delegate and in its review capacity as Owner, as described in Schedule 12, Section 12.4.

Proposal Subsection 3.3 – DB Quality Management Plan

Proposers shall describe their preliminary quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC”) plan for all phases of the project, including permitting, design, construction, and startup and testing.

Minimum requirements for the DB Quality Management Plan are set forth in Schedule 10. In preparing this section, Proposers should discuss their overall quality program, including quality control and assurance, with respect to the quality objectives and superior workmanship established by the City. These objectives include:

Defining quality level goals and expectations, and developing and implementing procedures to insure that quality is an integral consideration in each and every task.

Including aesthetics and superior workmanship in quality objectives along with the ability of the Project to meet performance requirements.

Maintaining the overall responsibility for quality with the Company.

Integrating construction contractors into the design process and designers (engineers and architects) into the construction process.

Independently verifying workmanship, materials, and quality control procedures.

Establishing effective QC/QA programs, including adequate resources dedicated exclusively to the program’s implementation. Design and construction QC/QA staff shall be independent of production staff and empowered to enforce the program’s objectives, define quality expectations, independently verify quality, and investigate the causes of poor quality work. Use of, or even partial reliance on, the monitored organization’s production staff to implement construction QC/QA program activities shall not be allowed due to conflicts of interest and time.

Inspecting work in progress rather than at completion of work components.



When problems are encountered, focusing on correcting the systems that led to the problem rather than simply on its repair.

Providing continuous training and ongoing communication with subcontractors.

Providing continuous communication with the City regarding quality issues and project changes.

Proposal Subsection 3.4 – City Coordination and Communication Plan

This section shall describe, in detail, the Proposer’s approach to communicating and coordinating with the City’s Operations and Maintenance staff as well as the City’s on-site project management staff during each Project phase. The Company’s internal Communication Plan and an initial draft of the Company’s proposed plan for communication with the City (see Schedule 13) shall be provided.

Proposal Subsection 3.5 – WMBE, SBRA, and Apprenticeship Programs

Proposers must state in their Proposal that they understand that the requirements of Schedule 19 will be made a part of the Design-Build Contract. To this end, the Proposers shall demonstrate how they will comply with Schedule 19 requirements. This subsection must describe the following:

Programs to assure non-discrimination in employment and services of the Proposer and principal subcontractors;

Affirmative efforts to use women and minority-owned business enterprises and rural small businesses; and

Implementation plan for compliance with other ordinances and requirements described in Schedule 19.

Proposers must also state that they understand the requirements of the apprenticeship program described in Schedule 19.

Tab 4 Proposal Section 4.0 – Business/Financial Proposal

This section must present the business and financial aspects of the Proposal. Proposers shall submit sufficient information so that the City can evaluate the Proposer’s ability to satisfy the conditions of the Design-Build Contract.

Proposal Subsection 4.1 – Overview

The Company shall provide a summary of its overall business arrangement describing how the proposed facilities and services (including quality), proposed Fixed Design-



Build Price, and any enhancements or exceptions to the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules provide value to the City.

Proposal Subsection 4.2 – Fixed Design-Build Prices and Drawdown Schedules

This section shall describe the elements of the Fixed Design-Build Price and shall reference Proposal Forms 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10A, and 10B. It must demonstrate that the Proposer understands that the Fixed Design-Build Price is full payment for the Project (except for certain contingency items and Operations Optimization Assistance) including all costs for the Development Period, the Construction Period, and the Warranty Period, including but not limited to environmental review, permitting, design, construction, startup, testing, warranties, and all administrative costs, including all taxes and fees. It must also demonstrate that the Fixed Design-Build Price includes costs for Allowance Items and that downward adjustments may be made based on final negotiation of Fixed Prices for those Allowance Items.

A cumulative maximum drawdown schedule is required for the Construction Period, respectively, and shall be provided by reference to Proposal Form 10B. Proposers shall state their understanding that payment by the City shall not exceed the cumulative maximums shown (except for construction index adjustments provided for in Schedule 16).

This section shall include demonstration of how proposed facilities, equipment, and processes have been selected to minimize life-cycle cost. Supporting data shall be provided by reference to Proposal Form 8D.

Proposal Subsection 4.3 – Surety Requirements

Proposals must include an acknowledgement of intent of surety to issue the required bonds for the Construction Period in an amount equal to the Fixed Construction Period Price. The surety company must be qualified and licensed to do business in the State of Washington.

Proposal Subsection 4.4 – Markup of the Draft Design-Build Contract and Schedules

Proposers shall include their markup as an Appendix to their Proposal per the specific requirements of Section 4.3 of Volume I of this RFP.

Tab 5 Proposal Forms

To be deemed responsive to this RFP, Proposers must provide the requested information and complete in detail all Proposal Forms provided in Section 7. All Proposal Forms must be included in this section of Proposals.



Tab 6 Updated Experience and Technical and Financial Qualification Information

Proposers shall update their qualifications information as needed to reflect enhancements to their proposed team. In addition, Proposers must submit the following information, which will be considered when evaluating qualifications:

Commitment of Key Employees (Proposal Form 12).

Full updated financial statements on all major team members, including the general contractor, and Guarantor and Proposal Form 13.

Contingent liabilities, bankruptcies, and litigation.

Brief qualification summaries of Proposed team members (individuals or firms), if changes have been made since submitting the SOQ (for changes only), cross-referenced to resumes. Summaries shall include:

a description of their proposed Project role;

length of time practicing in profession;

familiarity with wastewater treatment design, construction, and facility operations; and

experience on Design-Build or Design-Build-Operate projects; and experience relevant to their proposed role on the Project.

Updated general company information and team structure, if changes have been made since submitting the SOQ, including an updated firm-level Project organization chart. Other updated company and team structure information shall include, if applicable:

Names of partners, officers, and stockholders (where applicable) who own five percent or more of the shares.

The Proposal shall describe the proposed contracting party’s proposed contractual relationships with all major partners and subcontractors for each phase of the Project (e.g., design/permitting, construction, startup, and acceptance.)

Updated team Design-Build/Design-Build-Operate experience, if changes have been made since submitting the SOQ (for changes only), for the following:

Team experience using Design-Build or Design-Build-Operate delivery for large-scale utility facilities such as wastewater treatment and water treatment facilities;



Team experience implementing Design-Build or Design-Build-Operate project delivery for retrofitting facilities that must remain in operation during construction; and

Team experience conducting design in a Design-Build or Design-Build-Operate environment.

Other experience as determined relevant by Proposer.

Updated engineering, permitting, and design team experience, if changes have been made since submitting the SOQ (for changes only), for the following:

Team experience with the engineering and design of large wastewater treatment facilities. The information should describe experience with plant design and construction engineering as reflected on completed projects, familiarity with wastewater treatment unit processes, and understanding the interrelationship between design and operation of wastewater treatment facilities.

Team experience with the engineering and design of expansions and retrofits of large wastewater treatment facilities, including the ability to design expansions that can be constructed with minimal disruptions to normal operations.

Team experience for the engineering and design of key components, including hydraulic analyses; process design; and design of pump stations and conveyance facilities, peak wet weather flow treatment facilities, instrumentation and control systems, and solids handling and soil amendment production facilities.

Team experience complying with Washington State Department of Ecology regulations for wastewater treatment plants, including preparation of Facilities Plans and Facilities Plan Amendments, NPDES permitting requirements, and the Ecology permitting and Facilities Plan approval processes.

Team experience obtaining and complying with other permits that may be required for delivery of the Project including Corps of Engineers permitting, shoreline permitting, dewatering discharge permitting, air permitting, and obtaining building/construction permits within the City of Tacoma.

Updated construction team experience including experience with retrofits, if changes have been made since submitting the SOQ (for changes only), for the following:



Team experience with construction management and construction of large-scale utility facilities such as wastewater and water treatment facilities.

Team experience with construction retrofits at large-scale utility facilities such as wastewater and drinking water facilities.

Team experience with construction sequencing, construction management, and construction at wastewater and water treatment facilities that must remain in operation during construction.

Team experience with construction management and construction of key components, including concrete and steel treatment structures, pump stations and conveyance facilities, peak wet weather flow treatment facilities, instrumentation and control systems, and solids handling and soil amendment production facilities.

Safety record of the proposed contracting party and constructor on projects of similar size over the last five years.

Description of Accident Prevention Program.

Updated team experience and qualifications relating to startup, testing, O&M manual preparation and training experience, if changes have been made since submitting the SOQ (for changes only), for the following:

Team experience with operating or consulting on the operation of wastewater treatment facilities similar in size and processes used at the CTP Project.

Team experience working with owner’s operations and maintenance staff during implementation of Design-Build or Design-Build-Operate projects, including experience with coordinating transition and construction staging with plant operators.

Team experience with startup, commissioning, and acceptance testing, including at expansions and retrofits of existing wastewater or water treatment facilities.

Team experience preparing operating plans and O&M manuals (electronic and traditional hard copy), and with training operations staff.

Team experience with effluent quality and flow monitoring, and reporting for compliance with NPDES permit requirements.

Information on Claims and Change Orders as required by Proposal Form 15.



SECTION 7 - PROPOSAL FORMS


City of Tacoma May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Proposal Form A Design-Build Project Sheet 1 of 1

CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE AND EXPANSION PHASE III DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT

Proposal Form A Checklist of Forms

Proposal Form A – Checklist of Forms Proposal Form 1 – Transmittal Letter and Three Attachments Proposal Form 2 – Personnel Inventory Form Proposal Form 3 – Non-Collusion Affidavit Proposal Form 4 – Participating Entities – Group List Proposal Form 5 – Participating Entities – Individual Descriptions Proposal Form 6 – Statement of Guarantor Ownership Proposal Form 7A – Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price - Base Proposal and

Energy Management Alternative Proposal Proposal Form 7B – Fixed Development Price Breakdown - Base Proposal and

Energy Management Alternative Proposal Proposal Form 7C – Proposed Fixed Construction Period Price Breakdown - Base

Proposal Proposal Form 7D – Proposed Fixed Construction Period Price Breakdown -

Energy Management Alternative Proposal Form 8A – Fixed Design-Build Prices for City Option Items and Proposed

Price for Operations Optimization Assistance Proposal Form 8B – Cost Substantiation Rate Sheets Proposal Form 8C – Extended Equipment and Materials Warranty Prices Proposal Form 8D – O&M Cost Factors Proposal Form 9 – Insurance and Bonds Proposal Form 10A – Development Period Milestone Payment Schedule Proposal Form 10B – Maximum Cumulative Construction Drawdown Schedule Proposal Form 11 – Specifications of Major Equipment/Systems Proposal Form 12 – Key Project Staff Proposal Form 13 – Financial Resources Data Proposal Form 14 – Anticipated Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment for Non-Design

Influent Proposal Form 15 – Change Order History

City of Tacoma May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III RFP Proposal Form 1 Design-Build Project Sheet 1 of 6


Proposal Form 1 Transmittal Letter and Three Attachments

(To be typed on Proposer’s Letterhead)

[Date] Eric Johnson, P.E. City of Tacoma Environmental Services Science and Engineering Division 2201 Portland Avenue Tacoma WA, 98421-2711 Re: Proposal for City of Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion

Phase III ______________________________ (the “Proposer”) hereby submits its Proposal in response to the Request for Proposals for the Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III (“RFP”) issued by the City of Tacoma (the “City”) on [Date], as amended. As a duly authorized representative of the Proposer, I hereby certify, represent, and warrant, on behalf of the Proposer team, as follows in connection with the Proposal:

1. The Proposer acknowledges receipt of the RFP and the following addenda:

No. Date

2. The submittal of the Proposal has been duly authorized by, and in all

respects is binding upon, the Proposer. Attachment 1 to this Transmittal Letter is a Certificate of Authorization which evidences my authority to submit the Proposal and bind the Proposer.

3. The Proposer has completely reviewed and understands and agrees to

be bound by the requirements of the RFP. 4. The Proposer’s obligations that will be contained in the Design-Build

Contract will be guaranteed irrevocably, absolutely, and unconditionally by ___________________________, as evidenced by the Guarantor


Acknowledgment certificate submitted as Attachment 2 to this Transmittal Letter. The Guarantor Certificate of Authorization submitted as Attachment 3 to this Transmittal Letter evidences the individual’s authority to submit the Guarantor Acknowledgment certificate and bind the Guarantor.

5. All information and statements contained in the Proposal are current,

correct, and complete, and are made with full knowledge that the City will rely on such information and statements in determining whether the Proposer will proceed to the next phase of the procurement.

6. The Proposal has been prepared and is submitted without collusion,

fraud, or any other action taken in restraint of free and open competition for the services contemplated by the RFP.

7. Neither the Proposer, the Guarantor, nor any Proposer team member is

currently suspended or debarred from doing business with any governmental entity.

8. The Proposer has reviewed all of the engagements and pending

engagements of the Proposer and the Guarantor, and no potential exists for any conflict of interest or unfair advantage.

9. No person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit the

award of the Design-Build Contract under an arrangement for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingency fee, or on any other success fee basis, except bona fide employees of the Proposer or the Guarantor.

10. The principal contact person who will serve as the interface between the

City and the Proposer for all communications is:

NAME: TITLE: ADDRESS: PHONE FAX: E-MAIL:

11. The key technical and legal representatives available to provide timely

response to written inquiries submitted, and to attend meetings requested by the City, are:

Technical Representative:



Legal Representative:


Name of Proposer Name of Designated Signatory Signature Title

_______________________ (Notary Public) State of County of On this day of , 2004, before me appeared , personally known to me to be the person described in and who executed this and acknowledged that (she/he) signed the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein described. In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year last written above. Notary Public in and for the State of ____________ (seal) (Name printed) Residing at ________________________________


Attachment 1

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION*

I, ____________________, a resident of _____________________ in the State of ______________________, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the Clerk/Secretary of _________________________________, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of _______________________; that I have custody of the records of the corporation; and that as of the date of this certification, ___________________ holds the title of ___________________ of the corporation, and is authorized to execute and deliver in the name and on behalf of the corporation the Proposal submitted by the corporation in response to the Request for Proposals for the Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III, issued by the City of Tacoma, Washington on May 5, 2004, as amended; and all documents, letters, certificates and other instruments which have been executed by such officer on behalf of the corporation in connection therewith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of the corporation this ____________________ day of __________, 2004. (Affix Seal Here)

___________________________________ Clerk/Secretary

* Note: Separate certifications shall be submitted if more than one corporate officer has executed documents as part of the Proposal. Proposers shall make appropriate conforming modifications to this Certificate in the event that the signatory’s address is outside of the United States.


Attachment 2

GUARANTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT CERTIFICATE*

(to be typed on Guarantor’s Letterhead)

_____________________________ (the “Proposer”) has submitted

herewith a Proposal in response to the City of Tacoma, Washington’s May 5, 2004 Request for Proposal for the City of Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III, as amended (the “RFP”) pursuant to which it is seeking to be qualified by the City to provide the contract services described in the RFP.

The Guarantor hereby certifies that it will irrevocably, absolutely, and unconditionally guarantee pursuant to a Guaranty Agreement the performance of all of the Proposer’s obligations under the Design-Build Contract to be issued with the City’s RFP, in the event the Proposer is selected for execution of the Design-Build Contract by the City.

Name of Guarantor

Name of Authorized Signatory

Signature

Title

* Note: If more than one Guarantor is proposed, each firm shall be jointly and severally obligated and shall independently provide an executed copy of this Guarantor Acknowledgment. If a Guarantor is a joint venture, each firm in the joint venture shall be jointly and severally obligated and shall independently provide an executed copy of this Guarantor Acknowledgment.


Attachment 3

GUARANTOR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION*

I, ___________________, a resident of ____________________ in the

State of ________________, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the Clerk/Secretary of ______________________, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of _____________; that I have custody of the records of the corporation; and that as of the date of this certification, ___________________ holds the title of ___________________ of the corporation, and is authorized to execute and deliver in the name and on behalf of the corporation the Guarantor Acknowledgment submitted by the corporation as part of __________________ (the “Proposer’s”) response to the Request for Proposals for the Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III, issued by the City of Tacoma, Washington on May 5, 2004, as amended; and all documents, letters, certificates and other instruments which have been executed by such officer on behalf of the corporation in connection therewith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of the corporation this _____________ day of _______________, 2004.

(Affix Seal Here) ____________________________________ (Clerk/Secretary)

* Note: If more than one Guarantor is proposed, each firm shall be jointly and severally obligated and shall independently provide an executed copy of this Guarantor Acknowledgment. If a Guarantor is a joint venture, each firm in the joint venture shall be jointly and severally obligated and shall independently provide an executed copy of this Guarantor Acknowledgment.



Proposal Form 2 Personnel Inventory Form The Personnel Inventory Form (PIF) is a required form, please submit with Proposal documents. This form should be completed and signed by a responsible official of the Company.

Company Name ______________________________ Date ______________

Street Address/City/State/Zip _________________________ ______________

Telephone ___________________________________ Fax _______________

Job Categories

Total Employees

Non Minority

Total Minorities Black Asian

American Indian Hispanic

M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

1.Officials & Managers

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

TOTALS

___________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Signature of Responsible Official Print or Type Name of Responsible Official

Comments:

________________________________________________________________


INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING

PERSONNEL INVENTORY FORM 1. "Heading" the company name and address should reflect the unit actually doing business with the City of Tacoma. If this address is different from that of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer that administers the EEO programs of the company, the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer's address should be noted in the "Comments" section at the bottom of the form. "Telephone" should contain the area code, telephone number and extension (if any) for the Equal Employment Officer or the responsible official.

2. "Job Categories" at the extreme left hand column of the form specifying "Job Categories" lists "Officials & Managers." You are to list in addition to Officials & Managers any appropriate job titles such as Sales Workers, Office/Clerical, Professionals, Technical, etc., as they apply to your own company.

3. The "M" and "F" headings at the top of each column refer to "Male" and "Female."

4. The "Total Employees" column should list the total number of male employees under "M" and the total female number of female employees under "F" for each job category listed. They should be listed in a similar manner in the "Total" category at the bottom of the form. The "Total Employees" column should include all those employees listed under "Non-Minority" and "Total Minorities." "Non-Minority" should include all employees not listed in the minority columns.

5. "Total Minorities" should include all employees listed under the "Black," "Asian," "American Indian," and "Hispanic" columns. These columns should include only employees who are members of that particular minority group. Designation and definitions of ethnic/national origin status follow the instructions and definitions of the Federal EEO-1 Form of the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

6. "Totals" this line should reflect the total of all lines in each of the above columns.

7. The signature of your company's designated responsible official or similar official responsible for equal employment opportunity must appear in the designated space at the bottom of the form. Please PRINT OR TYPE the person's name on the top line across from the signature. This is required since some signatures are difficult to read.

8. "Comments" this section is to be used as needed for explanations to under utilization rate or lack of turnover, proposed expansion or reduction of staff or any other pertinent information you believe will help clarify or explain the data presented on the form. If you need additional space, please explain on a separate sheet of paper.

9. If you need assistance or have any questions regarding the completion of this form, please call the City of Tacoma Contract Compliance Office at (253) 591-5825.



Proposal Form 3 Non-Collusion Affidavit STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PIERCE ) ________________________________________being first (NAME) duly sworn, under oath says that as________________________________________ (TITLE) of ____________________________________________________________________, (FIRM) the bid above submitted is a genuine and not a sham or collusive bid, or made in the interest or on behalf of any person not therein named; and further says that the said proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any proposer on the above work or supplies to put in a sham bid, or any other person or corporation to refrain from bidding; and that said proposer has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure an advantage over any other proposer or proposers. SIGN HERE______________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________________ day of _____________, 2004. (seal) __________________________________________ __________________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of_______________________ residing at __________________________________.



Proposal Form 4 Participating Entities – Group List All entities that will be significant participants in providing the contract services (the “Participating Entities”) are identified below. Such entities shall include, as applicable, (1) the Company (which may be a new company formed for the sole purpose of executing and performing the Design-Build Contract); (2) the entity that will design the Facility; (3) the entity that will construct the Facility; (4) the Guarantor; and (5) any other significant participant or subcontractor. (1) The Company: ________________________________________________________________ (2) Design Entity: ________________________________________________________________ (3) Construction Entity: ________________________________________________________________ (4) Guarantor: ________________________________________________________________ (5) Other: ________________________________________________________________ Include a copy of Proposal Form 5 for each entity listed above. Each member of a joint venture should be listed separately.

______________________________ Name of Respondent ______________________________ Name of Authorized Signatory ______________________________ Signature ______________________________ Title



Proposal Form 5 Participating Entities(1) – Individual Descriptions (Complete Proposal Form 5 for each Participating Entity)

Entity Name:

____________________________________________________

Type of Entity:

____________________________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Names of partners, officers and stockholders who own 10 percent or more of the shares: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Note: 1. Company and any JV members or parent firms Form of Business (Corporation, Partnership, Joint Venture,

Other): .


Form of Business (Corporation, Partnership, Joint Venture, Other):

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

State formed in (or to be formed in):

_________________________________________________

Contact Person(s):

_________________________________________________

Voice Telephone Number:

_________________________________________________

Fax Telephone Number:

_________________________________________________

E-Mail Address:

_________________________________________________

Role(s) (e.g., Company, Guarantor): _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Attach a brief summary of the services and responsibilities of each Participating Entity, limited to one page or less in length for each entity.



Proposal Form 6 Statement of Guarantor Ownership The Proposer shall set forth the names and addresses of all stockholders in the corporation who own ten percent or more of its stock of any class, or all partners in the partnership who own ten percent or greater interest therein; if none, the Proposer must state “none.” If one or more such stockholder or partner is itself a corporation or partnership, the stockholders owning ten percent or more of that corporation’s stock, or the individual partners owning ten percent or greater interest in that partnership shall also be listed; if none, the Proposer must state “none.” This disclosure shall be continued until names and addresses of every individual stockholder and individual partner exceeding the ten percent ownership criteria of each corporation or partnership listed has been identified.

NAME ADDRESS

Signature of Proposer Date

Name of Proposer (Print or Type)

Title

City of Tacoma May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III RFP Proposal Form 7A Design-Build Project Sheet 1 of 1


Proposal Form 7A(1) Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price – Base Proposal and Energy Management Alternative Proposal Base Proposal

Proposed Fixed Development Price (from Proposal Form 7B) $

Proposed Fixed Construction Period Price (from Proposal Form 7C) $

Project-Specific Incentive(2) $ 350,000 Total Fixed Design-Build Price $

Energy Management Alternative Proposal

Proposed Fixed Development Price (from Proposal Form 7B) $

Proposed Fixed Construction Period Price (from Proposal Form 7D) $

Project-Specific Incentive(2) $ 350,000 Total Fixed Design-Build Price $

(1) Include form in separate sealed price proposal

(2) Per Article VIII, Section 8.11 of the Draft Design-Build Contract

City of Tacoma May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III RFP Proposal Form 7B Design-Build Project Sheet 1 of 1


Proposal Form 7B(1) Fixed Development Price Breakdown – Base Proposal and Energy Management Alternative Proposal

Base

Proposal

Energy Management Alternative Proposal

Planning $ $

Verification of As-Builts $ $

Engineering and Design Costs $ $

Facility Plan Amendment(s) $ $

Other Permitting $ $

Inspections and Studies (2) $ $

Administrative $ $

Insurance $ $

Other (specify): $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

TOTAL FIXED DEVELOPMENT PRICES $ $ (1)Include form in separate sealed price proposal (2) See Schedule 6, Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4.

City of Tacoma May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III RFP Proposal Form 7C Design-Build Project Sheet 1 of 4


Proposal Form 7C(1)(2) Proposed Fixed Construction Period Price Breakdown – Base Proposal

Category Item Cost

Design and Permitting During Construction $ Site Work Site Preparation and Mobilization $ Landscaping/Restoration $ Roads, Parking, Utilities, Fencing, Gates, etc. $ Construction Materials $ Demolition and Disposal(3) $ Disposal of Excavated Material(4) $ Excavation/Shoring $ Dewatering/Drainage(5) $ Foundations(6) $ Temporary Buildings and Staff Relocations $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Treatment Process/Hydraulic Features Screening Facilities $ Conveyance to Influent Pump Station(s) $ Influent Pump Stations(s) $ Grit Removal Facilities $ Flow Splitting $ Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System

including recycle $ Effluent Pump Station(s) $ Disinfection System $


Category Item Cost

Other Conveyance $ Sampling and Monitoring Systems $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Other Systems and Facilities Plant Maintenance Building $ TAGRO Facilities(7) $ Septage Receiving $ Solids Receiving $ Protected Water $ Duct Bank (Substation to IPS) $ Heat Exchanger Addition $ Upgrade Thickened Sludge Pipes and Pumps $ Digester Recirculation Pumps $ Boiler System $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Electrical/Emergency Power Systems Automated Switching $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $


Category Item Cost

$ $ $ Subtotal $ Transition Planning/ Startup/Commissioning/Acceptance Testing Transition Planning $ Startup and Commissioning $ Acceptance Testing $ Staff Training $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Project Allowance Items I&C System(8) $ 2,700,000 Operations Control Center Modifications $ 100,000 Electronic O&M Manual $ 500,000 Interpretive Center $ 250,000 Yard Water/Spray Water Modification $ 300,000 Improved Site Lighting $ 200,000 Concrete Repairs at Primary and Final Settling

Tanks(9) $ 1,700,000 Subtotal $ 5,750,000 Other Direct and Indirect Costs Administrative $ Insurance (During Construction) $ Record Drawings $ Performance and Payment Bonds (During

Construction) $ Performance Bond ($7M during Performance

Warranty Period) $ Performance Warranty $


Category Item Cost

Other (specify) $ Subtotal $ Total Proposed

Fixed Construction Period Price $

(1) Include form in separate sealed price proposal. This price breakdown is to help in the City's evaluation of price

proposals and will not become a part of the Final Contract. (2) The Fixed Construction Period Price shall include all costs, except for those identified for Development Period Work

and City Option Items. The Fixed Construction Period Price shall remain in effect through the Scheduled Construction Commencement Date. Thereafter, the Fixed Design-Build Price shall escalate in accordance with Schedule 16 up until Construction Notice to Proceed, provided any delays are due to City fault or Uncontrollable Circumstances.

(3) Covers all demolition and disposal. Price for disposal of asbestos-containing material and lead-base paint shall be consistent with requirements of Schedule 8, Section 8.6.10.

(4) Price for disposal of excavated material as clean fill consistent with Section 2.2.5 of RFP Volume I and Schedule 8. Price shall include cost of soils testing for contamination.

(5) Pricing shall assume dewatering water must be disposed to sanitary sewer with any pretreatment required by City ordinance. Dewatering activities shall be timed to occur when sufficient treatment capacity is available at the CTP Treatment (after any required pretreatments) will not be charged back to the Company.

(6) Shall include costs of stabilizing adjacent structures. (7) Demolition and excavation costs for existing lagoon shall be based on profile information provided in Schedule 1,

Section 1.5.12. (8) See Schedule 6. (9) See Schedule 7.

[Note: This Price breakdown is to help in the City's evaluation of Proposals and will not become a part of the Final Contract.]

City of Tacoma May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III RFP Proposal Form 7D Design-Build Project Sheet 1 of 4


Proposal Form 7D(1)(2) Proposed Fixed Construction Period Price Breakdown – Energy Management Alternative

Category Item Cost

Design and Permitting During Construction $ Site Work Site Preparation and Mobilization $ Landscaping/Restoration $ Roads, Parking, Utilities, Fencing, Gates, etc. $ Construction Materials $ Demolition and Disposal(3) $ Disposal of Excavated Material(4) $ Excavation/Shoring $ Dewatering/Drainage(5) $ Foundations(6) $ Temporary Buildings and Staff Relocations $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Treatment Process/Hydraulic Features Screening Facilities $ Conveyance to Influent Pump Station(s) $ Influent Pump Stations(s) $ Grit Removal Facilities $ Flow Splitting $ Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment System

including recycle $ Effluent Pump Station(s) $ Disinfection System $


Category Item Cost

Other Conveyance $ Sampling and Monitoring Systems $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Other Systems and Facilities Plant Maintenance Building $ TAGRO Facilities(7) $ Septage Receiving $ Solids Receiving $ Protected Water $ Duct Bank (Substation to IPS) $ Heat Exchanger Addition $ Upgrade Thickened Sludge Pipes and Pumps $ Digester Recirculation Pumps $ Boiler System $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Electrical/Emergency Power Systems Automated Switching $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $


Category Item Cost

$ $ $ Subtotal $ Transition Planning/ Startup/Commissioning/Acceptance Testing Transition Planning $ Startup and Commissioning $ Acceptance Testing $ Staff Training $ Other (Specify): $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ Project Allowance Items I&C System(8) $ 2,700,000 Operations Control Center Modifications $ 100,000 Electronic O&M Manual $ 500,000 Interpretive Center $ 250,000 Yard Water/Spray Water Modification $ 300,000 Improved Site Lighting $ 200,000 Concrete Repairs at Primary and Final Settling

Tanks(9) $ 1,700,000 Subtotal $ 5,750,000 Other Direct and Indirect Costs Administrative $ Insurance (During Construction) $ Record Drawings $ Performance and Payment Bonds (During

Construction) $ Performance Bond ($7M during Performance

Warranty Period) $ Performance Warranty $


Category Item Cost

Other (specify) $ Subtotal $ Total Proposed

Fixed Construction Period Price $

(1) Include form in separate sealed price proposal. This price breakdown is to help in the City's evaluation of price proposals and will not become a part of the Final Contract.

(2) The Fixed Construction Period Price shall include all costs, except for those identified for Development Period Work and City Option Items. The Fixed Construction Period Price shall remain in effect through the Scheduled Construction Commencement Date. Thereafter, the Fixed Design-Build Price shall escalate in accordance with Schedule 16 up until Construction Notice to Proceed, provided any delays are due to City fault or Uncontrollable Circumstances.

(3) Covers all demolition and disposal. Price for disposal of asbestos-containing material and lead-base paint shall be consistent with requirements of Schedule 8, Section 8.6.10.

(4) Price for disposal of excavated material as clean fill consistent with Section 2.2.5 of RFP Volume I and Schedule 8. Price shall include cost of soils testing for contamination.

(5) Pricing shall assume dewatering water must be disposed to sanitary sewer with any pretreatment required by City ordinance. Dewatering activities shall be timed to occur when sufficient treatment capacity is available at the CTP Treatment (after any required pretreatments) will not be charged back to the Company.

(6) Shall include costs of stabilizing adjacent structures. (7) Demolition and excavation costs for existing lagoon shall be based on profile information provided in Schedule 1,

Section 1.5.12. (8) See Schedule 6. (9) See Schedule 7.

[Note: This Price breakdown is to help in the City's evaluation of Proposals and will not become a part of the Final Contract.]



Proposal Form 8A(1) Fixed Design-Build Prices for City Option Items and Proposed Price for Operations Optimization Assistance

Item Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price

(all-inclusive)

1. Plant Maintenance Building Upgrade $

2. 5 mgd line from PWWF to Head of Secondaries $

3. 118 mgd line from PWWF to Head of Secondaries $

4. Ductbank extension from Influent Pump Station to Secondary Treatment Operations Building $

5. Other Final Settling Tank Repairs(2) $ 6. Membrane Roofs(3) $ 7. Extended Warranties(4) $ (1) Include form in separate sealed price proposal. (2) Includes sweep arm assembly refurbishment, channel coating, walkway modification, and refurbishment of steel

perimeter baffle. See Schedule 7, Sections 7.5. (3) See Schedule 7, Section 7.6. (4) From Proposal Form 8C.

Item Proposed Fixed Design-Build Price (all-inclusive)

Operations Optimization Assistance $



Proposal Form 8B(1) Cost Substantiation Rate Sheets TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Staff Cost

Project Manager $ Per hour all inclusive Project Engineer $ Per hour all inclusive Process Engineer $ Per hour all inclusive Discipline Engineer $ Per hour all inclusive CAD/Technician $ Per hour all inclusive Clerical $ Per hour all inclusive

Reimbursable Costs Subcontractors (first tier only) $ Cost plus Mark-up Lodging and Meals $ At Cost Travel $ At Cost

Mark-up % As proposed CONSTRUCTION LABOR

Vice President $ Per hour all inclusive Field Manager $ Per hour all inclusive Superintendent $ Per hour all inclusive Field Engineer $ Per hour all inclusive Estimator $ Per hour all inclusive Scheduler $ Per hour all inclusive Secretary $ Per hour all inclusive

Reimbursable Costs Craft Labor $ Cost of prevailing wage plus

[%proposed] Overhead and Profit Material $ Cost plus 10% Rental Equipment $ 100% Associated Equipment Dealers Subcontract $ Cost plus [% proposed] Other Incremental Cost for Contaminated Soils $ Per___________________ Disposal (1) Include form in separate sealed price proposal.



Proposal Form 8C(1)(2)(3) Extended Equipment and Materials Warranty Prices

Amount Extension

1. Medium Voltage VFDs $______________ 3 years

$______________ 5 years

2. Single Membrane Roofs $______________ 8 years

TOTAL

$______________

$______________

18 years

Notes: (1) Include form in separate sealed price proposal. (2) Warranty prices are for extensions beyond two-year warranties required by Draft Design-Build Contract. (3) Warranty prices are in 2004 dollars.



Proposal Form 8D O&M Cost Factors Energy Item Base Alternative Energy Management

Alternative

Plant Electricity Consumption(1)

at current average annual flow(2)

MW MW

at 40 mgd MW MW

at 80 mgd MW MW

at 150 mgd MW MW

at 200 mgd MW MW

Peak Instantaneous Demand (all major equipment in operation)

MW MW

Other Fuels(3) Diesel

At current average annual flow(2)

— Gallons/hr

at 40 mgd — Gallons/hr




Natural Gas

At current average annual flow(2)

— Cubic feet/hr

at 40 mgd — Cubic feet/hr




Other:

PWWF Chemical Usage - List Chemicals lb/mg lb/mg

lb/mg lb/mg

lb/mg lb/mg


Major Equipment Systems O&M(4)

(Other than electricity - List Equipment System) Major Equipment/Systems

Unique O&M Cost Saving Feature(s)

Estimated Annual O&M

Savings

Basis for Estimated O&M Savings

Note: 1 Electricity consumption shall be based on current plant electricity use data, Proposer estimates of the requirements

for the expanded CTP, and Proposer Guarantees for energy efficiency for specific equipment. 2. Estimates of current electricity consumption shall be based on information contained in CTP electricity use records. 3. Other fuels include fuel required for operation of the Energy Management Alternative Proposal. 4. Information provided for major equipment shall be limited to special/unique features of the proposal equipment that

would result in O&M savings to the Owner. Major equipment/systems includes: Screens Influent and Effluent Pumps Peak Wet Weather Flow Equipment Plant-wide Boiler and Heating System Disinfection



Proposal Form 9 Insurance and Bonds

Builder’s Risk Insurance (1) $

Professional Liability Insurance (2) $

Other Insurance(2) $ /yr

____________________________________ $ /yr

____________________________________ $ /yr

____________________________________ $ /yr

Performance Bond (in amount of Fixed Construction Period Price), through Final Acceptance (3) $ /yr

Payment Bond $ /yr

Performance Bond ($7 Million) for Performance Warranty Period $ /yr

Notes: (1) Insurance required is specified in Schedule 18 of Volume III of the RFP. Insurance costs listed shall be for the entire Construction Period and through Final Acceptance. Builder’s Risk Insurance shall be included in the Fixed Design-Build Price (Proposal Form 7B). (2) Insurance required is specified in Schedule 18 of Volume III of the RFP. Insurance cost listed should be for the Development Period, Construction Period, through Final Completion and the Performance Warranty Period. (3) Costs for the Performance Bond. Estimated amounts shall be in 2004 dollars.



Proposal Form 10A Development Period Milestone Payment Schedule

MILESTONES

VALUE

% OF FIXED DEVELOPMENT PRICE


MILESTONES

VALUE

% OF FIXED DEVELOPMENT PRICE

Successful Completion of Construction Date Conditions (Notice to Proceed Date) (1)

TOTAL FIXED DEVELOPMENT PRICE (2) $

MAXIMUM GUARANTEED DAYS FROM

CONTRACT DATE TO SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT DATE

Calendar Days (1) Shall be no less than 5% of the Fixed Development Period Price. (2) Approved Facility Plan Amendment shall be no less than 30% of the Fixed Development Period Price and should be separately

listed as a specific milestone.



Proposal Form 10B Maximum Cumulative Construction Drawdown Schedule

MAJOR MILESTONES

MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE AMOUNT (1) (2)

% OF FIXED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD PRICE

Time From Notice to Proceed

Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Month 4

Month 5

Month 6

Month 7

Month 8

Month 9


MAJOR MILESTONES



Month 10

Month 11

Month 12

Month 13

Month 14

Month 15

Month 16

Month 17

Month 18

Month 19

Month 20

Month 21

Month 22


MAJOR MILESTONES



Month 23

Month 24

Month 25 Continue as Needed

Acceptance (3) Successful Completion of Acceptance Test (Acceptance Date)

Final Completion

TOTAL FIXED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD PRICE $ 100%

MAXIMUM GUARANTEED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD FROM NOTICE TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION TO FINAL COMPLETION

calendar days

(1) Inclusive of retainage. (2) Includes all costs for Construction Work and Performance Warranty Work. (3) Minimum of 5% of Fixed Construction Period Price shall be assigned to successful completion of Acceptance Tests.



Proposal Form 11 Specifications of Major Equipment/Systems (1)

(Copy and complete this form for all major equipment/systems; attach additional pages if necessary)

General Information Proposer-Specific Information

Name of Equipment/System

Manufacturer

Identification/Model No.

Number of Units

Design/Operational Parameters(2)

Proposer-Specific Information(3)

Capacity

Size/Dimensions

Power Requirements/Voltage


Materials of Construction(4)

Proposer-Specific Information(5)

Other Features

Notes: (1) Proposer shall duplicate this form for all major equipment and systems required. Refer to

Proposal Subsection 2.25, Equipment and Systems Lists, in Section 6.3 of the RFP for a description of equipment and systems for which this form shall be completed.

(2) Proposer shall include all additional parameters regarding the Design/Operational requirements that are applicable to the given system and/or equipment. This shall include items such as flow rates, ratios, or other appropriate measurements.

(3) Proposer-specific information shall include the appropriate measurements and units (i.e., gpm, volts, sf, etc).

(4) Proposer shall identify each major component of the equipment and system (i.e., tank walls, casings, enclosures, cores, etc.).

(5) Proposer shall identify the corresponding material of the listed component (i.e., concrete, type of metal, etc.).



Proposal Form 12 Key Project Staff

(Copy and complete this form for key project staff members; attach additional pages if necessary)

General Information

Name:

Firm:

Title:

Year employed by firm: years

Total Professional Experience years

Professional Registration and Licenses (type/state/year):

Professional Affiliations and Publications:

Education:

CTP Upgrade Project-specific Information

Title/Assignment:

Description of Role/Responsibilities:


Percent Time Commitment

Development Period:(1)

Permitting % Design %

Construction Period:

Permitting % Design %

Construction: % on job Startup and Testing:

%

Construction: % on site Acceptance Test %

Relevant Project Experience: Project:

Location:

Current Status:

Date of Involvement:

from

through

[Repeat as Necessary]

Description of Specific Roles and Responsibilities Most Relevant to CTP Project:


[Repeat as Necessary]

Contact Persons for References: [Repeat as necessary]

Name:

Title:

Address:

Project:

Phone:

Fax:

[Duplicate As Needed] Note: (1) Availability indicates the amount of time (in percent) that the staff person would be

available to work on the project during the permitting, design, construction, startup and testing, and operations phases of the Project. Indicate by “N/A” where the individual is not proposed to be involved in a particular phase of the Project



Proposal Form 13 Financial Resources Data Guarantor (or Company if it is providing required financial security) Name: ____________________________________________________ Project Role: _______________________________________________

2001 2002 2003

A Operating Revenues

B Operating Expense (not including Depreciation and Amortization )

C Depreciation and Amortization

D Operating Income (A – B – C)

E Net Income

F Total Assets

G Current Assets

H Total Liabilities

I Current Liabilities

J Net Worth (Equity) (F – H)

K Market Price per Share (as of 12/31)

L No. of Outstanding Shares (as of 12/31)



Optional Proposal Form 14 Anticipated Peak Wet Weather Flow Treatment(1) for Non-Design Influent

I. At Higher Flows > 75 – 100 mgd % BOD5 Removal Rate % TSS Removal Rate 100 – 125 mgd % BOD5 Removal Rate

% TSS Removal Rate II. At Concentrations Higher than Defined for

Acceptable Influent in Schedule 4

___________mg/L Concentration Range of BOD5 % BOD5 Removal Rate

___________ mg/L Concentration Range of TSS % TSS Removal Rate

III. Discussion – Provide Anecdotal and other information to support the estimates provided above. The City is interested in being able to operate the PWWF at higher overflow rates than those included in Proposer's Guaranteed Performance. This form asks for Proposer's to provide expected performance levels for a range of PWWF influent rates and also to identify performance at influent concentrations higher than identified in Schedule 4. These expected rates are not Performance Guaranteed nor will they be a required operating scheme included in the Acceptance Test.

(1) Proposer may modify form to suit proposed process



Optional Proposal Form 15 Change Order History Project and Contact(1) Change

Order (%) Claims Explanation

Notes: 1. Proposers shall list Project Name, Owner, and Owner contact name and phone number. The Owner contact should be an

individual with knowledge of the change order and claims for this Project. 2. Include all change orders, both Owner initiated and contractor initiated. 3. List the history of claims on the Project including final resolution.


APPENDIX A Ecology Communication Protocol

and Tacoma Building and Land Use Services (BLUS)

Communication Protocol


City of Tacoma A-1 May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project Appendix A


Volume I Appendix A

City of Tacoma

Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Design-Build Project

Protocol for Proposer Communications

with the Washington State Department of Ecology The following protocol shall be followed by Proposers when communicating with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on matters related to the Central Treatment Plant and related permitting/regulatory matters Ecology has agreed to act as a resource for the Proposers to gauge the level of risk

that may or may not be associated with various technical components of their Proposals that may be considered changes to the Facilities Plan and would thus require an amendment approval.

Ecology will not provide formal review and comment on Proposer project documents and Proposers are requested not to submit such documents to Ecology either before, after, or during meetings.

Ecology will meet with each team up to two times during their Proposal preparation. Each meeting should not be longer than 1.5 hours. Proposers should schedule these meetings directly with Glen Pieritz at 360.407.6275 or [email protected] at least three weeks in advance of their desired meeting date.

Proposers should not contact Ecology related to their Proposals except during these scheduled meetings


City of Tacoma A-2 May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project Appendix A


Volume I Appendix A

City of Tacoma

Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Design-Build Project

Protocol for Proposer Communications

with the City of Tacoma, Building and Land Use Services Division (BLUS) The following protocol shall be followed by Proposers when communicating with the City of Tacoma, Building and Land Use Services Division (BLUS) on matters related to the Central Treatment Plant and related building permitting/regulatory matters BLUS has agreed to act as a resource for the Proposers to discuss building permits

and IBC-03 requirements. BLUS will not provide formal review and comment on Proposer project documents;

however, Proposers are requested to submit questions to BLUS at least two weeks before scheduled meetings.

BLUS will meet with each team up to two times during their Proposal preparation. Proposers should schedule these meetings directly with Cap Pearson P.E., S.E. at 253.591.5019 or [email protected] at least three weeks in advance of their meeting date.

Proposers should not contact BLUS related to their Proposals except during these scheduled meetings

APPENDIX B SITE ACCESS REQUEST FORM



Volume I Appendix B

Revised 11/03

City of Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project SITE ACCESS REQUEST FORM Team: Individuals: Dates: Areas for which access is requested (also list purpose): Special Requests: Electrical Inspection? yes no Chlorine Inspection? yes no Approval Date *All individuals must carry a copy of the approved request at all times while on site. *All individuals must physically check in at the Central Treatment Plant Operations control

center, (591-5595) upon arriving at the site. *All individuals must also check out at the same location prior to leaving the site.


APPENDIX C COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL


City of Tacoma C-1 May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project Appendix C

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS VOLUME I

APPENDIX C

COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

CITY OF TACOMA CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE AND EXPANSION PHASE III

DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT Project Communication Objectives The City of Tacoma is proposing to implement the expansion of the Central Treatment Plant (CTP) using the Design-Build alternative delivery method. Due to the magnitude of this Project, the City anticipates significant interest from multiple entities across the nation. Because of the large number of individuals involved in this Project, the City intends to take every measure to ensure that accurate and consistent information is distributed regarding all aspects of the Project. The City also wants to conduct all Project communications in a manner that encourages market interest in the Project and facilitates participation by interested firms. Furthermore, the City is committed to use a fair and open process to identify and hire the firm or firms to design and construct the expansion of the CTP. Specifically, the City is committed to:

achieving the fair and accurate distribution of relevant information to interested parties;

avoiding “insider” information and the appearance thereof; providing regular informational updates about the Project; and providing prompt, thorough and accurate responses to parties with

questions or concerns. The City requires that the following guidelines be followed by firms and individuals who have an interest in the Project and may wish to participate in the procurement process: 1. No contact with elected officials: The City requests that participating firms

not attempt to contact the City’s elected officials or representatives of their offices about this Project.

City of Tacoma C-2 May 5, 2004 Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Request for Proposals Vol. I Design-Build Project Appendix C

2. Elected officials will refer any and all inquiries related to this Project to

the City’s Project Manager: Eric Johnson, PE City of Tacoma Public Works Department Environmental Services / Science and Engineering Division 2201 Portland Ave. Tacoma, WA 98421-2711 Phone: 253-502-2106 Fax: 253-502-2107 E-Mail: [email protected]

3. Public Outreach: The City requests that participating firms not engage in outreach efforts to the local community residents, businesses or organizations during the SOQ and RFQ phases.


Documents

Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase ...govme.cityoftacoma.org/download/rfp/rfpvolI.pdf · Tacoma Central Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Phase III Design-Build