HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-01 AGENDA BACKUP
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 3.a. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK
Subject: ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE ORINDA TRUNK SEWER
URGENT REPAIR, DISTRICT PROJECT 5530, IN ORINDA, AND
AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Submitted By:
Tom Godsey, Associate Engineer
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Capital Projects
~~
tJ-Jh
W. Brennan
OtJ-
A. Farrell
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Orinda Trunk Sewer Urgent Repair
(District Project 5530) in Orinda, and the work is now ready for acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the Orinda Trunk Sewer Urgent Repair
Project, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None related to this action.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable. Filing the Notice of Completion is
advisable under the California Civil Code Section 3093.
BACKGROUND: The District began a trunk and interceptor sewer TV inspection program
in February of this year to evaluate corrosion problems in District concrete pipe. The 30-
inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) carrying the sewer flow from the Lower
Orinda Pumping Station force main was one of the first sewers inspected in the program.
The TV inspection revealed extensive corrosion throughout the sewer with a serious
localized problem downstream of the junction structure. The sidewall of the sewer was
corroded completely through, and a void was clearly visible through the corrosion failure.
Collection System Operations Department staff responded immediately and cordoned off
the paving above the corroded sewer.
This project involved excavating and replacing approximately 46 feet of the 30-inch RCP
with 30-inch polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe-lined RCP and installing one trunk manhole.
Plans and specifications were prepared by District staff.
6/28/01
CPD-GL-
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: June 21, 2001
Subject:
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE ORINDA TRUNK SEWER
URGENT REPAIR, DISTRICT PROJECT 5530, IN ORINDA, AND
AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Concurrently with the replacement of the worst section of sewer, staff, with the
assistance of Villalobos and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc., evaluated the condition
of the junction structure. General corrosion was discovered throughout the junction
structure with a structural failure in one spot. The structural failure was repaired. The
entire structure will be lined at a future date.
On April 19, 2001, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the award of a contract for
the construction of the project to McGuire and Hester Construction Company. The Notice
to Proceed was issued on May 16, 2001. The work was completed on June 6, 2001.
Additional costs of $32,000 were incurred with the addition of the Junction Structure
repair and the discovery of a 24-inch diameter water main conflicting with the sewer
trench. The project was constructed at night for the convenience of citizens, and it was
completed without complaint. The remaining items of work consist of minor punchlist
items which do not affect the project acceptance.
The total authorized budget for the project is $136,000. The additional cost of $32,000
may cause the authorized budget to be exceeded requiring an allocation form the
Collection System Program Contingency Account. The budget includes the cost of
engineering design, District forces, testing services, geotechnical services, and contractor
services. An accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of
project closeout. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Accept the contract work for the Orinda Trunk Sewer
Urgent Repair Project, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
Page 2 of 2
I :\Design\Position Papers\5 530\5 530Acceptance. wpd
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 3.b. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS
Subject: CONFIRM AND LEVY FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FOREST LANE
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1, DISTRICT PROJECT 5405
Submitted By:
Curtis W. Swanson, Division Manager
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services Division
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
f\~J::n"n ~
ISSUE: Work has been completed on the Forest Lane Contractual Assessment District No.
99-1 (CAD No. 99-1), and the final assessments can be established and levied.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution confirming and levying final assessments and
authorizing a Notice of Assessment to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder
for the Forest Lane CAD No. 99-1, District Project 5405.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action will allow the District to be reimbursed for project costs
totaling $62,915.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors ordered improvements for the Forest Lane CAD
No. 99-1 at its meeting held on February 3, 2000. The area is shown is Exhibit A. The
work to install the improvements has been completed, and the final costs are known. The
final costs are shown in Exhibit B.
Based on these final costs, the final assessments for each property have been determined
and appear as Exhibit C, Assessments Roll. The assessment would be $12,583 (prepaid)
or $1,729.30 per year (1 O-year payments). The Board is requested to confirm and levy
these final assessments and to authorize a Notice of Assessment to be recorded. A
resolution has been prepared, which, if adopted, will confirm and levy assessments and
authorize the recording of the Notice. This resolution is included as Exhibit D.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution confirming and levying final
assessments and authorizing a Notice of Assessment to be recorded in the office of the
County Recorder for the Forest Lane CAD No. 99-1, District Project 5405.
6/28/01
U:\CAD\Forest Lane\Forestlane5405. wpd
Page 1 of 6
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
t
.....0....,
CD
*
~
Central Contra Costa
~ Sanitary District
cO
<>
o
<>
'"
~
.;.,
'"
PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND
ASSESSMENT NUMBERS
FOREST LANE CAD NO. 99-1
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5405
ALAMO
o
I
160
I
80
FEET
I PROPOSED
CAD AREA
EXISTING
SEWER
PROPOSED
8" CAD SEWER
MANHOLE
ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
PARTICIPANT
NON-PARTICIPANT
Exhibit
A
Page 2 of 6
EXHIBIT B
FOREST LANE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
C.A.D. NO. 99-1; FIVE PARCELS
FINAL COST REPORT
June 18, 2001
UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY IUNITS COST AMOUNT
Construction
8-inch sewer 474 LF $70 $33,180
Standard Manhole 2 EA $ 3,000 $ 6,000
4-inch lateral for 5 homes @ 1 25 LF $50 $6,250
25 feet each
Slurry Seal 16,500 sf 0.36 $5,940
Construction Subtotal $51,370
Contingency 0 0
Total Construction Cost $51,370
Private Engineering
Survey and Design 1 lump sum $4,000
Material Testing 1 lump sum 811
Other Agency Fees 1 lump sum 2,284
Engineering Design 1 lump sum 0
Contingency
Total Private Engineering $7,095
Cost
District Services
Plan Review 1 lump sum 800
Construction Inspection 1 lump sum 2,150
Administrative Charges 1 lump sum 1.500
Total District Costs 4.450
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION + $62,915
PRIV A TE ENGINEERING + DISTRICT)
RESERVE FUND - 5% OF CONSTRUCTION COST 3,085
TOTAL PROJECT COST $66,000
6/28/01
U:\CAD\Forest Lane\Forestlane5405. wpd
Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT C
FOREST LANE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
C.A.D. NO. 99-1
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
June 18, 2001
T AX ROLL
ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT
ASSESSMENT PARCEL (10-YR EQUAL PREPAID
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PA YMENTSH 1) AMOUNT(2)
1 201-082-002 $1,729.30 $12,583
2 201-082-003 $1,729.30 $12,583
3 201-082-004 $1,729.30 $12,583
4 201-082-006 $1,729.30 $12,583
5 201-082-007 $1,729.30 $12,583
(1) Interest rate for annual assessments is 6.48%.
(2) Does not include reserve fund.
6/28/01
U:\CAD\Forest Lane\Forestlane5405.wpd
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING FINAL ASSESSMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING RECORDING
FOREST LANE
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves:
This Board has taken a series of actions preliminary to establishing final assessments
for the Forest Lane Contractual Assessment District No. 99-1, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, Contra Costa County, California, and now makes the following findings
and orders:
1. The Board adopted its Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 99-027) to order
the improvement described therein under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911, and
directed Curtis W. Swanson, Principal Engineer, to prepare the report required by Section
5989.22 of the Streets and Highways Code.
2. Pursuant to Resolution No. 99-028, the Board approved a map showing the
boundaries of the land benefitted by the proposed improvement. A copy of the boundary
map was filed in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Contra Costa on the
11 th day of March 1 999, on page 24 in Book 64 of Maps of Assessment and Community
Facilities Districts.
The improvement is generally described as follows:
Construction and installation of approximately 474 linear feet of sanitary sewer line,
together with appurtenant work and facilities located along Forest Lane and Hartford Road
in Alamo, California.
3. The Board established February 3, 2000, as the date for a public hearing to create
the Forest Lane Contractual Assessment District No. 99-1.
4. The owners of record were provided ballots 45 days before the hearing on which
owners could indicate approval of or opposition to the imposition of assessments.
5. The Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on February 3, 2000, pursuant
to Section 5898.26 of the Streets and Highways Code and gave every person present an
opportunity to comment on and object to the proposed Contractual Assessment Program,
the improvement and the extent of the Assessment District.
6. The Board found that no written protests against the proposed improvement were
made by owners representing more than one half of the area of the land to be assessed
for the improvement. All of the owners of record voted to approve the imposition of
assessments.
7. The Board approved the Engineer's Report and each component part of it,
including each exhibit incorporated by reference in the report, one of which was a table
of estimated assessments.
6/28/01
U:\CAD\Forest Lane\Forestlane5405. wpd
Page 5 of 6
8. The Board found that the Engineer's Report, fairly and properly apportioned the
cost of the improvement to each parcel of land in the Assessment District in compliance
with the Agreement between the owners and District and in proportion to the special
benefits derived by each parcel, in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the
improvement. A draft version of the Agreement, within which the owners voluntarily and
unanimously agreed to the imposition of an assessment, was attached as an exhibit to the
Engineer's Report and was incorporated by reference.
9. Lastly, the Board ordered the improvement described In paragraph 2 and as
detailed in the Engineer's Report.
10. The work on the improvement has been completed pursuant to a private
agreement entered into by the owners, and was accepted on February 15, 2000. The
final costs for the improvement have been determined; the final assessments for each
property have been determined; and a Notice of Assessment will be sent to each property
owner after the Board confirms the final assessments.
11. The final assessments for each property appear on the Assessment Roll. The
Board hereby confirms and levies each individual final assessment as stated in the
Assessment Roll.
12. Payment of all or any part of such final assessments may be made at the office
of the Controller, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez,
California 94553. The deadline for receipt of such payment by the Controller is the close
of business on July 31, 2001. Thereafter, unpaid assessments will be payable in yearly
installments of principal and interest at 6.48 percent compounded annually over a period
of ten (1 0) years.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 2001, by the Board of Directors of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES:
Members:
NOES:
Members:
ABSENT:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenton L. Aim,
District Counsel
6/28/01
U:\CAD\Forest Lane\Forestlane5405.wpd
Page 6 of 6
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 3.e. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS
Subject: CONFIRM AND LEVY FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE GROTHMAN
LANE/ALHAMBRA WAY CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-4, DISTRICT
PROJECT 5426
Submitted By:
Curtis W. Swanson, Division Manager
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services Division
~
C. Swanson
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~
ISSUE: Work has been completed on the Grothman Lane/Alhambra Way Cont actual
Assessment District No. 98-4 (CAD No. 98-4), and the final assessments can be
established and levied.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution confirming and levying final assessments and
authorizing a Notice of Assessment to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder
for the Grothman Lane/Alhambra Way CAD No. 98-4, District Project 5426.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action will allow the District to be reimbursed for project costs
totaling $156,890.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors ordered improvements for the Grothman
Lane/Alhambra Way CAD No. 98-4 at its meeting held on March 16, 2000. The area is
shown is Exhibit A. The work to install the improvements has been completed, and the
final costs are known. The final costs are shown in Exhibit B. Based on these final costs,
the final assessments for each property have been determined and appear as Exhibit C,
Assessments Roll. For Grothman Lane properties, the assessment would be $10,867.50
(prepaid) or $1,493.54 per year (1 O-year payments). For Alhambra Way properties, the
assessment would be $9,992.86 (prepaid) or $1,373.34 per year (1 O-year payments).
The Board is requested to confirm and levy these final assessments and to authorize a
Notice of Assessment to be recorded. A resolution has been prepared, which, if adopted,
will confirm and levy assessments and authorize the recording of the Notice. This
resolution is included as Exhibit D.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution confirming and levying final
assessments and authorizing a Notice of Assessment to be recorded in the office of the
County Recorder for the Grothman Lane/Alhambra Way CAD No. 98-4, District Project
5426.
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\G rothmanAlhambra 542 6. wpd
Page 1 of 8
o
I
1\
~ "f
~
~
N
,
200
FEET
! I · EXIST. CAD AREA
% r--. PROPOSED CAD AREA
en
..,
8 .......... PLANNED CAD SEWER
,-
Co
o
~
~
o
<>
<>
,-
If>
a.
o
E
U
a.
If>
~ Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
o GROTH MAN LANE PARTICIPANT
b.. ALHAMBRA WAY PARTICIPANT
+
<D
ALHAMBRA WAY NON-PARTlCIPANT
MAP
ASSESSMENT NUMBER
Exhibit
PROPOSED BOUNDARY & ASSESSMENT NUMBERS FOR
GROTHMAN LN I ALHAMBRA WAY AREA CAD NO. 98-4
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5426
A
!!Q
a.
<>
o
<>
'"
~
......
'"
Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT B
GROTHMAN LANE/ALHAMBRA WAY
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAD NO. 98-4; FIFTEEN PARCELS
FINAL COST REPORT - June 18, 2001
ITEM QUANTITY /UNITS UNIT COST AMOUNT
Construction
8-inch sewer DIP 400 LF $70 $28,000
8-inch sewer PVC 1036 LF $60 $62,160
Standard Manhole 7 EA $2,000 $14,000
4-inch lateral for 15 homes 381 LF $50 $19,050
@ 25 feet each
Paving $1 $8,000
Construction Subtotal $131,210
Contingency 0 0
Total Construction Cost $131,210
Private Enaineerina
Survey and Design 1 lump sum $12,000
Easement Acquisition 1 lump sum $1,500
Material Testing 1 lump sum included
Other Agency Fees 1 lump sum $4,500
Engineering Design 1 lump sum 0
Contingency
Total Private Engineering Cost $18,000
District Services
Plan Review 1 lump sum $2,355
Construction Inspection 1 lump sum $3,825
Administrative Charges 1 lump sum $1. 500
Total District Costs $7.680
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION + $156,890
PRIVATE ENGINEERING + DISTRICT)
RESERVE FUND - 5% OF CONSTRUCTION COST $7,110
TOTAL PROJECT COST $164,000
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\GrothmanAlhambra5426. wpd
Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT B (Continued)
GROTHMANLANESEGMENT
GROTHMAN LANE/ALHAMBRA WAY
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAD NO. 98-4; EIGHT PARCELS
FINAL COST REPORT - June 18, 2001
ITEM QUANTITY /UNITS UNIT COST AMOUNT
Construction
8-inch sewer DIP 400 LF $70 $28,000
8-inch sewer PVC 320 LF $60 $19,200
Standard Manhole 4 EA $2,000 $ 8,000
4-inch lateral for 8 homes 203 LF $50 $10,150
Overlay LS $8,000
Construction Subtotal $73,350
Contingency 0 0
Total Construction Cost $73,350
Private Enaineerina
Survey and Design 1 lump sum $6,000
Easement Acquisition 1 lump sum $1 ,500
Material Testing 1 lump sum included
Other Agency Fees 1 lump sum $2,250
Engineering Design 0
Contingency
Total Private Engineering Cost $9,750
District Services
Plan Review 1 lump sum $1, 177
Construction Inspection 1 lump sum $1,913
Administrative Charges 1 lump sum $750
Total District Costs $3.840
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION + $86,940
PRIV A TE ENGINEERING + DISTRICT)
RESERVE FUND - 5% OF CONSTRUCTION COST $4,060
TOTAL PROJECT COST $91,000
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\G rothmanAlhambra 542 6. wpd
Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT B (Continued)
ALHAMBRA WAY SEGMENT
GROTHMAN LANE/ALHAMBRA WAY
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAD NO. 98-4; SEVEN PARCELS
FINAL COST REPORT - June 18, 2001
UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY /UNITS COST AMOUNT
Construction
8-inch sewer PVC 71 6 LF $60 $42,960
Standard Manhole 3 EA $2,000 $6,000
4-inch lateral for 7 homes 178 LF $50 $8,900
Construction Subtotal $57,860
Contingency 0 0
Total Construction Cost $57,860
Private Enaineerina
Survey and Design 1 lump sum $6,000
Material Testing 1 lump sum included
Other Agency Fees 1 lump sum $2,250
Engineering Design 1 lump sum 0
Contingency
Total Private Engineering Cost $8,250
District Services
Plan Review 1 lump sum $1,178
Construction Inspection 1 lump sum $1,912
Administrative Charges 1 lump sum $750
Total District Costs $3.840
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION + $69,950
PRIVATE ENGINEERING + DISTRICT)
RESERVE FUND - 5% OF CONSTRUCTION COST $3,050
TOTAL PROJECT COST $73,000
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\G rothmanAlham bra 542 6. wpd
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT C
GROTHMAN LANE/ALHAMBRA WAY
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAD NO. 98-4
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
TAX ROLL
ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT
ASSESSMENT PARCEL (10-YR EQUAL PREPAID
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAYMENTS)(1 ) AMOUNT(2)
1 162-242-008 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
2 162-242-009 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
3 162-242-010 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
4 162-242-011 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
5 162-242-012 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
6 162-242-013 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
7 162-242-018 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
8 162-242-019 $1,493.54 $10,867.50
9 162-242-020 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
10 162-242-021 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
1 1 162-242-022 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
12 162-242-023 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
13 162-242-024 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
14 162-242-035 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
15 162-243-002 $1,373.34 $9,992.86
(1) Interest rate for annual assessments is 6.48 %.
(2) Does not include reserve fund.
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera \G rothmanAlhambra5426. wpd
Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING FINAL ASSESSMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING RECORDING
GROTHMAN LANE/ALHAMBRA WAY
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-4
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves:
This Board has taken a series of actions preliminary to establishing final assessments
for the Grothman Lane/Alhambra Way Contractual Assessment District No. 98-4, Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District, Contra Costa County, California, and now makes the
following findings and orders:
1. The Board adopted its Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 98-153) to order
the improvement described therein under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911, and
directed Curtis W. Swanson, Principal Engineer, to prepare the report required by Section
5989.22 of the Streets and Highways Code.
2. Pursuant to Resolution No. 98-154, the Board approved a map showing the
boundaries of the land benefitted by the proposed improvement. A copy of the boundary
map was filed in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Contra Costa on the
1 st day of December 1998, on page 29 in Book 63 of Maps of Assessment and
Community Facilities Districts.
The improvement is generally described as follows:
Construction and installation of approximately 1 ,436 linear feet of sanitary sewer line,
together with appurtenant work and facilities located along Grothman Lane/Alhambra Way
in Martinez, California.
3. The Board established March 16, 2000 as the date for a public hearing to create
the Grothman Lane/Alhambra Way Contractual Assessment District No. 98-4.
4. The owners of record were provided ballots 45 days before the hearing on which
owners could indicate approval of or opposition to the imposition of assessments.
5. The Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on March 16, 2000 pursuant
to Section 5898.26 of the Streets and Highways Code and gave every person present an
opportunity to comment on and object to the proposed Contractual Assessment Program,
the improvement and the extent of the Assessment District.
6. The Board found that no written protests against the proposed improvement
were made by owners representing more than one half of the area of the land to be
assessed for the improvement. All of the owners of record voted to approve the
imposition of assessments.
7. The Board approved the Engineer's Report and each component part of it,
including each exhibit incorporated by reference in the report, one of which was a table
of estimated assessments.
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera \G rothmanAlhambra 542 6. wpd
Page 7 of 8
8. The Board found that the Engineer's Report, fairly and properly apportioned the
cost of the improvement to each parcel of land in the Assessment District in compliance
with the Agreement between the owners and District and in proportion to the special
benefits derived by each parcel, in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the
improvement. A draft version of the Agreement, within which the owners voluntarily and
unanimously agreed to the imposition of an assessment, was attached as an exhibit to the
Engineer's Report and was incorporated by reference.
9. Lastly, the Board ordered the improvement described In paragraph 2 and as
detailed in the Engineer's Report.
10. The work on the improvement has been completed pursuant to a private
agreement entered into by the owners, and was accepted on July 30, 2000. The final
costs for the improvement have been determined; the final assessments for each property
have been determined; and a Notice of Assessment will be sent to each property owner
after the Board confirms the final assessments.
11. The final assessments for each property appear on the Assessment Roll. The
Board hereby confirms and levies each individual final assessment as stated in the
Assessment Roll.
12. Payment of all or any part of such final assessments may be made at the office
of the Controller, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez,
California 94553. The deadline for receipt of such payment by the Controller is the close
of business on July 31,2001. Thereafter, unpaid assessments will be payable in yearly
installments of principal and interest at 6.48 percent compounded annually over a period
of ten (1 0) years.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 2001, by the Board of Directors of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES:
Members:
NOES:
Members:
ABSENT:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenton L. Aim,
District Counsel
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\G rothmanAlhambra 5426. wpd
Page 8 of 8
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 3.d. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS
Subject: CONFIRM AND LEVY FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MUIR LANE
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-2, DISTRICT PROJECT 5442
Submitted By:
Curtis W. Swanson, Division Manager
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services Division
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
'" ~':n'oc
0DcK
A. Farrell
ISSUE: Work has been completed on the Muir Lane Contractual Assessment Distric
99-2 (CAD No. 99-2), and the final assessments can be established and levied.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution confirming and levying final assessments and
authorizing a Notice of Assessment to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder
for the Muir Lane CAD No. 99-2, District Project 5442.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action will allow the District to be reimbursed for project costs
totaling $146,129.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors ordered improvements for the Muir Lane CAD No.
99-2 at its meeting held on April 6, 2000. The area is shown in Exhibit A. The work to
install the improvements has been completed, and the final costs are known. The final
costs are shown in Exhibit B. Based on these final costs, the final assessments for each
property have been determined and appear as Exhibit C, Assessment Roll. The assessment
for most of the CAD properties would be $13,130 (prepaid) or $1,832.66 per year (1 0-
year payments). The Board is requested to confirm and levy these final assessments and
to authorize a Notice of Assessment to be recorded. A resolution has been prepared,
which, if adopted, will confirm and levy assessments and authorize the recording of the
Notice. This resolution is included as Exhibit D.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution confirming and levying final
assessments and authorizing a Notice of Assessment to be recorded in the office of the
County Recorder for the Muir Lane CAD No. 99-2, District Project 5442.
6/28/01
U: \PPr\Bertera \Muirlane5442. wpd
Page 1 of 7
c:
)
l
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
I PROPOSED
CAD AREA
EXISTING
SEWER
~
c:
~
E
'"
c..
o
~
=
o
<>
<>
'"
en
o
E
U
c..
en
~ Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
o
.
80
160
,
........... PLANNED
CAD SEWER
'1' ASSESSMENT
\V NUMBER
* PARTICIPANT
b.. NON-PARTICIPANT
FEET
<D
.
00
<>
o
<>
'"
~
.;.,
'"
PROPOSED BOUNDARY & ASSESSMENT
NUMBERS FOR MUIR LANE
CAD NO. 99-2
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5442
Exhibit
A
Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT B
MUIR LANE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAD NO. 99-2; TWELVE PARCELS
FINAL COST REPORT - JUNE 18, 2001
ITEM QUANTITY /UNITS UNIT COST AMOUNT
Construction
8-inch sewer - Camille 460 LF $69 $ 31 ,740
8-inch sewer - Muir 800 LF $49 $39,200
Standard Manhole 6 EA $2,400 $14,400
4-inch lateral for 13 homes 1 LF $1 ,000 $13,000
@ 20 feet each
Paving - Muir Lane LS $25,205
Slurry Seal 10,582 0.47 $4,974
Construction Subtotal $128,519
Contingency 0 0
Total Construction Cost $128,519
Private Enaineerina
Survey and Design 1 lump sum $7,210
Material Testing 1 lump sum $1,805
Other Agency Fees 1 lump sum $1515
Engineering Design 1 lump sum 0
Contingency
Total Private Engineering Cost $10,530
District Services
Plan Review 1 lump sum $2,067
Construction Inspection 1 lump sum $3,513
Administrative Charges 1 lump sum $1.500
Total District Costs $7.080
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION + $146,129
PRIV A TE ENGINEERING + DISTRICT)
RESERVE FUND - 5% OF CONSTRUCTION COST $6,871
TOTAL PROJECT COST $153,000
6/28/01
U: \PPr\Bertera\Muirlane 5442. wpd
Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT C
MUIR LANE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAD NO. 99-2
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
TAX ROLL
ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT
ASSESSMENT PARCEL (10-YR EQUAL PREPAID
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAYMENTS) (1) AMOUNT (2)
1 1 98-1 60-030 $1,832.66 $13,130
2 1 98-1 60-029 $1,832.66 $13,130
3 198-160-027 $1,832.66 $13,130
4 198-160-025 $1,832.66 $13,130
5 198-1 60-024 $1,832.66 $13,130
6 1 98-1 60-023 $1,832.66 $13,130
7 1 98-1 60-022 $1,832.66 $13,130
8 1 98-1 60-021 $1,832.66 $13,130
9 198-160-020 $1,832.66 $13,130
10 198-160-017 $237.28 $1,700(3)
1 1 198-106-026 $1,832.66 $13,130
12 198-160-018 $1,832.66 $13,130
(1) Interest rate for annual assessments is 6.82%.
(2) Does not include reserve fund.
(3) By agreement amongst the project participants, Assessment Parcel No. 10 will
pay a lump sum of $1,700 of the project cost.
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\Muirlane5442. wpd
Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT 0
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING FINAL ASSESSMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING RECORDING
MUIR LANE
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-2
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves:
This Board has taken a series of actions preliminary to establishing final assessments
for the Muir Lane Contractual Assessment District No. 99-2, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, Contra Costa County, California, and now makes the following findings
and orders:
1. The Board adopted its Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 99-115) to order
the improvement described therein under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911, and
directed Curtis W. Swanson, Principal Engineer, to prepare the report required by Section
5989.22 of the Streets and Highways Code.
2. Pursuant to Resolution No. 99-116, the Board approved a map showing the
boundaries of the land benefitted by the proposed improvement. A copy of the boundary
map was filed in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Contra Costa on the
24th day of January, 2001, on page 19 in Book 68 of Maps of Assessment and
Community Facilities Districts.
The improvement is generally described as follows:
Construction and installation of approximately 1,260 linear feet of sanitary sewer
line, together with appurtenant work and facilities located along Muir Lane and
Camille Avenue in Alamo, California.
3. The Board established April 6, 2000, as the date for a public hearing to create the
Muir Lane Contractual Assessment District No. 99-2.
4. The owners of record were provided ballots 45 days before the hearing on which
owners could indicate approval of or opposition to the imposition of assessments.
5. The Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on April 6, 2000, pursuant to
Section 5898.26 of the Streets and Highways Code and gave every person present an
opportunity to comment on and object to the proposed Contractual Assessment Program,
the improvement and the extent of the Assessment District.
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\Muirlane 5442. wpd
Page 5 of 7
6. The Board found that no written protests against the proposed improvement were
made by owners representing more than one half of the area of the land to be assessed
for the improvement. All of the owners of record voted to approve the imposition of
assessments.
7. The Board approved the Engineer's Report and each component part of it,
including each exhibit incorporated by reference in the report, one of which was a table
of estimated assessments.
8. The Board found that the Engineer's Report, fairly and properly apportioned the
cost of the improvement to each parcel of land in the Assessment District in compliance
with the Agreement between the owners and District and in proportion to the special
benefits derived by each parcel, in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the
improvement. A draft version of the Agreement, within which the owners voluntarily and
unanimously agreed to the imposition of an assessment, was attached as an exhibit to the
Engineer's Report and was incorporated by reference.
9. Lastly, the Board ordered the improvement described in paragraph 2 and as
detailed in the Engineer's Report.
10. The work on the improvement has been completed pursuant to a private
agreement entered into by the owners, and was accepted on June 22, 2001. The final
costs for the improvement have been determined; the final assessments for each property
have been determined; and a Notice of Assessment will be sent to each property owner
after the Board confirms the final assessments.
11. The final assessments for each property appear on the Assessment Roll. The
Board hereby confirms and levies each individual final assessment as stated in the
Assessment Roll.
12. Payment of all or any part of such final assessments may be made at the office
of the Controller, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez,
California 94553. The deadline for receipt of such payment by the Controller is the close
of business on July 31, 2001 Thereafter, unpaid assessments will be payable in yearly
installments of principal and interest at 6.82 percent compounded annually over a period
of ten (1 0) years.
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\Muirlane 5442. wpd
Page 6 of 7
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 2001, by the Board of Directors of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES:
Members:
NOES:
Members:
ABSENT:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenton L. Aim,
District Counsel
6/28/01
U :\PPr\Bertera\Muirlane5442. wpd
Page 7 of 7
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 3.e. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ESTABLISH HEARING DATE
Subject: ESTABLISH JULY 19, 2001, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEARS (FY) 2001-02/2002-03 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET/2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IISAN RAMON
ADDENDUM."
Submitted By:
John J. Mercurio,
Management Analyst
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services Division
J. Mercurio
R. Schmidt
~:c
~-~
ISSUE: The District's draft Fiscal Years 2001-02/2002-03 Capital Improve
Budget/2001 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIB/CIP) has been approved
adopted by the Board. Because of changed conditions related to San Ramon
Dougherty Valley , several capital projects are being accelerated and modified. An
addendum to the CIB/CIP is required. A date for a public hearing to receive comments on
the addendum document should be established.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish July 19, 2001, as the date for a public hearing to receive
comments on the draft IISan Ramon Addendum."
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None related to this action.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: Shortly after the Board approved the FY 2001-02/2002-03 CIB on May
24, 2001, a settlement was reached with the City of San Ramon which allowed several
projects related to Dougherty Valley development to proceed. Revised project information
called the IISan Ramon Addendum" will allow new schedules and cost estimates to be
incorporated into the CIB document.
On May 24, 2001, the Board of Directors approved the draft Capital Improvement
Budget/Capital Improvement Plan. On June 21, 2001, the CIB/CIP was adopted as part
of the District Budget. The San Ramon addendum will incorporate the revised project
information into the adopted CIB/CIP.
6/27/01
U: \PPR\S M\PU BLI C H EARCI BADDEN. WPD
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: ESTABLISH JULY 19, 2001, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEARS (FY) 2001-02/2002-03 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET/2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN "SAN RAMON
ADDENDUM. "
It is appropriate to receive comments in a formal public hearing prior to consideration of
the "San Ramon Addendum" for approval. This public hearing has been tentatively
scheduled for the Board's regular meeting on July 19, 2001. A staff presentation will be
made at that time
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Establish July 19, 2001, as the date for a public
hearing to receive comments on the draft "San Ramon Addendum."
6/27/01
U: \PPR\SM\PU BLI CH EARC I BAD D EN. WPD
Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa S~.litary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.:
3.f. CONSENT CALENDAR
TyP6 of Action: CONFIRM PUBLICATION
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PUBLICATION OF DISTRICT ORDINANCE
NO. 217 RETITLING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.12 OF THE DISTRICT CODE AND
ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF CAPACITY FEES, RATES AND CHARGES
Submitted By:
Joyce E. Murphy
Secretary of the District
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Administrative Department
~
ISSUE: Section 6490 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California provides
that District ordinances shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation
within the District, and provides that an Order of the Board of Directors of the District to
the effect that the ordinance has been published shall constitute conclusive evidence that
publication has been properly made.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution confirming the publication of District Ordinance
No. 21 7.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None related to this issue.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Establishes presumption that the ordinance was
correctly published and therefore would be deemed procedurally valid by a court.
BACKGROUND: District Ordinance No. 217 which was adopted by the Board at the
meeting of May 24, 2001, and which retitles and amends Chapter 6.12 of the District
Code and adopts a Schedule of Capacity Fees, Rates and Charges, was published in the
Contra Costa Times on June 1, 2001. Proof of publication is attached.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution confirming the publication of
District Ordinance No. 217.
6/19/01
S:\ADMIN\MURPHY\Resolutions\POSITION PAPER.CONF PUB.wpd
Page 1 of 3
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at
2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County
of Contra Costa, 94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of October
22, 1934. Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 1
all in the year of 2001
I certify (or declare) under penalty of pe~ury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Contra Costa Times
PO Box 4147
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published)
ORDINANCE NO. 2171
AN ORDINANCE OF
lliE CENTRAL CONTRA ;
COSTA SANITARY .
DISTRICT TO RETIT\.E
AND AMEND CHAPTER
6.12 OF lliE DISTRICT
CODE AND ADoPT
A SCHEDULE OF
RAfeAf~S1:~~ES
WHEREASbe substantlai
study has en conducted
regafdlng the Impacts 01
~~~~e~th~tu~e ~~~&gf.;
service area on exlstlllll
District serllices and faeUr-
ties, along with an analysis
g:m~e~ '~fs[~rd'fa~1I3:;
and serllices required Of
appropriate to serve new
users and current users
~~n~~e ~~I~~~~~~
h~~ti:1 ~~ ~ed r:I~~~
ship between the added
burden Imposed by such
new users and current us-
ers who change the use 01
their connected buildings
gr ~ti::li~~~Jh~~re~
District services and faclll.
ties occasioned by this
added burden; and
WHEREAS, these studiee
were undertaken by the
District staff and culminat.
ed in documents that are
part of the public record, to
wit: the "Fiscal Years
1999-2000 and 2000-2001
Capital I~ment Bud-
get & 1999 Capital 1m
p,rovement Plan", the
~~~I1lj:;~I~en~I~~
and Policy WOrkshop,Jam>
ary 2~ 2001," and the
"Staff Hepar! on Proposed
~~\o/ ~~~~~ ~~
2001; and
WHEREAS, it Is reasonable
and nece5l!BlY that all us-
ers of the Dlsb1ct's waste-
water and household haz.
ardous waste collection,
treatment, recycling, reuse
and disposal servICes anc
facilities, including thOSE
tem~rary users served un-
der Special Discharge Per.
mlts, contribute their ap-
propriate portion of thE
funding for such Dlstricl
serllices and facilities; and
WHEREAS, a public meel
ings for District steff to In
fonnally discuss the I1ro
~~~ ~c,acl~tere%t:
customers were held or
NJril 24 and May 1, 2001 , il
the District Board of Dirac
tors Meeting Room: and
WHEREASl a properly no
ticed . pu!) ic heMng re
gardlng the proposea Ca
~%ns ::sehel~~
10, 2001, and proper notici
was also given of the awl
ability of the documen1l
note<! above for public In
Spl39t1on and review prior b
said public hearing; 8nd
WHEREAS, amendment G
Chapter 6.12 of the Distric
Code Is required to provld
the enabling authcirity to
the District to Implemer
Ithe proposed Capacity FBi
Program;
NOW THEREFORE, th
Board of Directors of th
Central Contra Costa San
~~~trlct does ordain a
Section -; .
t""':)
.;, .....,
Chapter 6.12 of the District
Code Is hereb~ retitied
~~cJ.%e~~d ~~;
forth In full In Exhibit "A" to
this Ordinance, which ex-
~b:'I~=~~ncg,Ts":~
ence.
.Sectlon 2.
This Ordinance shall be a
B1s~~ ....~~~n~f~~~
lished once In the Contra
Costa limes, a newspaper
of general circulation Within
the District, and shall be ef-
fective upon the eighth day
~~~~~~Ubllcation.
Effective as of July 9. 2001,
Capacitv Fees shall be
charged in accordance
with the amended prov!-
~~c~f~~ ~e\ 1.,oJt,~
Exhibit "A" to this Ordi-
nance, and said fees shall
be at such rates for such
~le'1g~~s i~f ~:rs s~36~
6.12.090 Schedule of Ca-
Bf,~~e:e~s'sa~atbk=
6.12.
r~~~NgA~16'g ~
the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District on the 24th
~~f M:tt'e~()(I1, by the
AYES:~embers:
Boneysteele, Lucey, Mene-
slni,.Il1eledly, Hockett
NO"S: Members ,
None .
ABSENT: Members
None
A
li"resld;nt of the Board of
Directors
Central Contra Coste Sanl-
t;vy District
CoiJnty of Contra Costa,
State of California
~"?l'e EOt~rpB~t
central~tra Costa Sani-
t;vy District
~~~f ~~i~ Costa,
I, APPROVED as to form:
/si-
II Counsel for the District
SUMMARY OF
EXHIBrT"AIt
! ~~W~
I PROGRAM OF THE
I DISTRICT CODE
I ~~t:~'~rt~ .::~,~~
I ~ed=i~~a~h ~~
user, by payment of a Ca-
fn~g~r ~~':~O~~f :'I:~i1t
Ing or facllitv on thalr prop-
eny to the District's sewer
~~mc":'ti~~~~~~
~=nf ~aJ~: ~~~:
:rr:ntlnof 3:e~~:ti~ u~
District assets. The com-
~ete text of Chapter 6.12
a~~~ t-ee ~~r:r~:
office of the District Secre-
tary. 5019 Imhoff Place,
Martinez, California 94553.
The folloWIng Is a summary
~~t"'prOved code pro-
11 The tenn, "Qape,clty
Fees" is used, rather than
the current tenn, "capital
impr'9\lement fees," to be
consistent with Govern-
ment Code language con-
cerning fees !of equarozing
investment In current as-
sets as between current
and new users.
2) A number of new "find-
Ings are Included In Section
6.12.010 to document the
substantive reasons for the
Board to estebllsh the Ca-
pacltv Fee Program and
the Board's lnae~ndent
! ~~i"rJ:;~mth1s e=~
.&
from the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA).
3h Each section of the
ae~~BJd~~~cI~e~ll~
~f~ fb~e a~~~~~~ an~
the program, including:
- New definitions for "busi-
ness owner" and "parcel
owner"
- Describing the appropri-
ate use of Capacity Fee
revenues.
- Adding the requirement
that a seplilrBte IMng space
be phySically separable
from the primary residence
to be cor\sk:lerea and "ad-
ditional unit."
- Specifyll1g how ClipacllX
Fees for "shall buildingS,
that is, buildings with fin-
Ishad exteriors and unfin-
Ished Interiors, will be cal-
culated.
- Allo\l\o;ng a customer to
Initially P!ly conventional
Capacity Fees and receive
a connection pannlt while a
"special stuc:ty" is conduct-
ed by staff to ver1fy the ap-
prqpi1ate final fee.
- Adding fonnulas for the
Capacity Use Charije Rate
and Current Year Capacity
Use ~e for businesses
eligible for payment of Ca-
pacity Fees Oller a 15 year
oerlod under the Capacity
Use Charge Program.
- Adding User Groups: EF-
Large FitnesS/Athletic
Clu5s, and LA-Residence
~t~~l~m ~~~~oc~
capacity fee RUE factors
for each zone (gravity and
pumping).
41 A revised Schedule of
Capaclty Fees, Rates and
Charges to be effective on
July 9, 2001, is adopted in-
creasIng the Gravity Zone
Fee to $3 360 per Residen-
tial Unit Equivalent ("RUE),
and the PumP!ld Zone Fee
to $4,070 per RUE.
Leaal CCT 2215
Puollsh June 1. 2001
Page 2 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PUBLICATION OF
DISTRICT ORDINANCE NO. 217
RETITLING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.12 OF THE DISTRICT CODE AND
ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF CAPACITY FEES, RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, Section 6490 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California
provides that District ordinances shall be published once in a newspaper of general
circulation within the District, and provides that an Order of the Board of Directors of the
District to the effect that the Ordinance has been published shall constitute conclusive
evidence that publication has been properly made.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District as follows:
THAT District Ordinance No. 217 which was adopted on May 24, 2001, and which
retitles and amends Chapter 6.12 of the District Code and adopts a Schedule of Capacity
Fees, Rates and Charges, has been properly published once since its adoption in a
newspaper of general circulation within Contra Costa County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of
Directors this 5th day of July, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra
Costa, State of California
Approved as to Form:
Kenton l. Aim
District Counsel
Page 3 of 3
S:\ADMIN\MURPHY\Resolutions\CONF .PUB. wpd
PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON
ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2001-1
SUGGESTED AGENDA
JULY 5, 2001
I. Request staff report
II. Public Hearing
A. State Purposes of Public Hearing
1 . Announce Tabulation of Ballots
2. Consider Testimony on Resolution of Intention and Engineer's Report
B. Open Public Hearing
C. Request Staff to Announce Results of Ballots
D. Receive Public Comments
E. Request Staff Response as Appropriate
F. Close Public Hearing
III. Board Deliberation Leading to:
. Adoption of Three Resolutions
. Authorization to Execute an Agreement
. Authorization to Allocate Funds
U:\CAD\Entrada Verde\hearin -1 .wpd
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 4.a. HEARINGS
Type of Action: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
Subject: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT A RESOLUTION OVERRULING
PROTESTS; ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 4; ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT; AND
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ENTRADA VERDE PARCEL OWNERS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 2001-1.
Submitted By:
Curtis Swanson, Division Manager
Initiating Dept ./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
C. Swanson
~
~~
ISSUE: A public hearing must be conducted to consider objections and inquiries re rding
the proposed assessment, the Resolution of Intention, the Engineer's Report, annexation,
and any other comments regarding Entrada Verde Contractual Assessment District No.
2001-1 (CAD No. 2001-1),
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and consider approval of Entrada Verde
CAD 2001-1.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The estimated total project cost is $231,445. The District has
authorized $1,000,000 for CADs in 2001-02. This would be the first CAD to be
approved in 2001-2002. There is $768,555 available for other CADs.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS:
1 . Continue the public hearing to receive additional public comment or allow additional
deliberation.
2. Withhold or delay approval of the project.
BACKGROUND: A group of 22 parcel owners on Entrada Verde in Alamo have requested
that the District form a contractual assessment district for the purpose of financing and
constructing a public sewer system that will benefit their properties. The Entrada Verde
CAD meets all of the criteria for formation of a contractual assessment district. The Board
of Directors adopted a Resolution of Intention to form a contractual assessment district
on February 15, 2001. The proposed sewer includes approximately 1,200 linear feet of
8-inch sewer main, one trunk manhole and four standard manholes that will serve the
6/25/01
U: \CAD\Entrada Verde \PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 1 of 1 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT A RESOLUTION OVERRULING
PROTESTS; ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 4; ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT; AND
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ENTRADA VERDE PARCEL OWNERS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 2001-1.
proponents' 22 existing properties, 21 of which have existing homes presently relying on
septic tanks. One property is a vacant lot. A map showing the proposed boundary and
the proposed sewer location is presented as Attachment A.
On February 15, 2001, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution directing the
preparation of a report for a Contractual Assessment District known as Entrada Verde
CAD No. 2001-1. A report has been prepared, and assessments have been estimated.
(The Engineer's Report is being provided to the Board under separate coveL) On May 10,
the Board of Directors set a public hearing for June 21, 2001. The public hearing was
continued to July 5, 2001. Since assessments are proposed to be levied on properties,
the procedural requirements of Proposition 218 do apply. Compliance with these
requirements has been included in the documents and actions proposed for Board
consideration. In order to continue the process for Entrada Verda CAD No. 2001-1, the
following actions are necessary:
1. Conduct a public hearing to:
a. announce the tabulation of ballots submitted by owners of each
affected parcel indicating approval or opposition to the proposed
assessment;
b. consider public testimony on the Resolution of Intention and the
Engineer's Report; and
c. consider public testimony related to annexation of the affected
parcels to the District.
2. If, at the close of the hearing, the Board finds that protests and ballot
opposition are insufficient, the following resolutions may be considered and
adopted:
a. Resolution overruling protests of improvement (Exhibit B).
6/25/01
U :\CAD\Entrada V erde\PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 2 of 1 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT A RESOLUTION OVERRULING
PROTESTS; ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 4; ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT; AND
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ENTRADA VERDE PARCEL OWNERS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 2001-1.
b. Resolution confirming compliance with California Constitution,
Article XIIID, Section 4 (Exhibit C).
c. Resolution approving the Engineer's Report, assessments, and
ordering improvement (Exhibit D).
The hearing also serves as a public hearing for annexation purposes as required by
LAFCO.
An agreement between the owners and the District is needed to establish the rights and
obligations of both parties. District Counsel has prepared such an agreement in which the
owners agree to:
. assessments being placed on their property tax bills;
· pay the assessments;
. accept total responsibility for the design and construction of the sanitary
sewer extension;
. require the contractor who is selected by the owners to maintain certain
insurance coverage;
. accept total responsibility for the costs associated with the sanitary sewer
extension, including interest for District financing; and
. have the sanitary sewer extension constructed in accordance with District
standards.
The District will:
· finance the costs of the sanitary sewer extension;
. accept the work of the contractor, provided the work is done in accordance
with District standards;
· place assessments on owners' tax bills;
. record as liens on the participants' properties the obligation of each
participant to pay assessments; and
6/25/01
U:\CAD\EntradaVerde\PubHear.PP.wpd Page 3 of 12
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT A RESOLUTION OVERRULING
PROTESTS; ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 4; ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT; AND
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ENTRADA VERDE PARCEL OWNERS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 2001-1.
· be reimbursed in full by receiving payments, including interest, for the total
amount financed from owners over a ten-year period.
The agreement has been executed by all 22 affected parcel owners. It is appropriate,
therefore, to authorize the General Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the
District.
The estimated cost of the Entrada Verde CAD No. 2001-1 is $ 231 ,445. A summary of
project costs is shown in Exhibit E. Funding for the CAD Program is included in the 2000-
01-02 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). The District has authorized $1,000,000 for
CAD projects during Fiscal Year 2001-02. This is the first CAD to be considered for
approval in 2001-02. If approved, there is $768,555 available for other CADs.
Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 5.2{b){3), since it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. This certainty is based on the District's past
experience with numerous similar sewer construction projects, the developed nature of
the project environment, and the limited service area of the project (no potential for
growth inducement). Approval of the Engineer's Report will establish the Board of
Directors' independent finding that this project is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: If a majority protest is not filed and if less than a
majority of returned ballots from affected parcel owners oppose the assessment, staff
recommends that the Board of Directors take the following actions:
. Conduct public hearing
. Adopt a resolution overruling protests.
6/25/01
U :\CAD\EntradaVerde\PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 4 of 1 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT A RESOLUTION OVERRULING
PROTESTS; ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 4; ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT; AND
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ENTRADA VERDE PARCEL OWNERS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 2001-1.
. Adopt a resolution confirming compliance with California Constitution, Article XIIID,
Section 4.
. Adopt a resolution approving the Engineer's Report, assessments, and ordering
improvement.
. Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with the Entrade Verde
owners.
6/25/01
U: \CAD\Entrada V erde\PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 5 of 1 2
/' /' /' ./' //'
/' /' ./' //
/'/' /.{~~/'/' /;;/
/.<:lv'V~ //
/~.% roro~ /:;/
/' /
/' //
//
//
//
//
//
/
\
\
\
\
- ~- --
\
'-'
/
I
c:
'"
."
.8
"0
....
'"
'"
'"
..-
c:
<l>
E
-5
2
"0
..-
....
'"
'"
'"
-;;;
i:;'
"0
u
..-
.:,;,
~~
~
o
I
100
FEET
I
I POTENTIAL
CAD AREA
LOCATION MAP
200
.......
........
EXISTING 111111111111 PLANNED * LIKELY
SEWER CAD SEWER PARTICIPANTS
+ LIKELY NON-
PARTICIPANT
APPROVED
CAD 2000-1
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
'"
....
co
o
5
o
("'oJ
Z
::>
..,
.;.,
("'oJ
Attachment
PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF
ENTRADA VERDE
CAD NO. 2001-1
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5534
A
Page 6 of 1 2
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS
ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2001-1
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves:
On July 5, 2001, the Board of Directors held a public hearing on the Resolution of
Intention and the Engineer's Report on the proposed improvement in Entrada Verde
Contractual Assessment District No. 2001-1.
At or before the time set for hearing, certain interested persons made or may have
made protests or objections to the proposed improvement, the extent of the Contractual
Assessment District, or the proposed assessment.
The Board hereby overrules each of these protests, written or oral.
The Board finds that the protest against the proposed improvement (including all
written protests not withdrawn in writing before the conclusion of the protest hearing) is
made by the owners of less than one half of the area of the land to be assessed for the
improvement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 2001, by the Board of Directors of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenton L. Aim,
District Counsel
6/25/01
U :\CAD\EntradaVerde\PubHear .PP. wpd
Page 7 of 1 2
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 4
ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2001-1
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves:
1. The Board set 2 p.m. on July 5, 2001, at the Meeting Room of the Board of
Directors, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California, as the time and place for a public
hearing pursuant to California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 4.
2. Pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution, as amended by
Proposition 218, commonly known as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," notice of the
proposed assessment was provided to all owners of affected parcels within the District,
which notice contained a ballot whereby each owner could indicate support or opposition
to the proposed assessment.
3. At the time and place for which notice was given, the Board of Directors
conducted a public hearing, pursuant to California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 4,
and gave every person present an opportunity to comment on and object to the amount
of the proposed assessment.
4. The Board finds that less than a majority of parcel owners who returned
ballots, weighted by financial obligation, opposed the proposed assessment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 2001, by the Board of Directors of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenton L. Aim,
District Counsel
6/25/01
U :\CAD\EntradaVerde\PubHear .PP. wpd
Page 8 of 1 2
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT
AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
ENTRADA VERDE CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2001-1
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves:
This Board has taken a series of actions preliminary to ordering the improvement in
the Entrada Verde Contractual Assessment District No. 2001-1, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, Contra Costa County, California, and now makes the following findings
and orders:
1. The Board adopted a map showing the boundaries of the land benefitted by
the proposed improvement. A copy of the boundary map was filed in the office of the
County Recorder of the County of Contra Costa in the Book of Maps of Assessment and
Community Facilities Districts.
2. The Board adopted its Resolution of Intention to order the improvement
described therein under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911, and directed Curtis W.
Swanson, Environmental Services Division Manager, as the Engineer of Work for the
Assessment District, to prepare the report required by Section 5989.22 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
The improvement is generally described as follows:
Construction and installation of approximately 1,220 linear
feet of sanitary sewer line, together with appurtenant work
and facilities located at Entrada Verde in Alamo, California.
3. The Board called a hearing of protests on the Entrada Verde Contractual
Assessment District No. 2001-1. Notice of the hearing was given by publication, by
street posting, and by mailing to affected parcel owners, all according to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1911. Affidavits of publication, posting, and mailing were filed with
the Secretary of the District.
4. At the time and place for which notice was given, the Board of Directors
conducted a public hearing pursuant to Section 5898.26 of the Streets and Highways
Code, which included a summary of the Engineer's Report and gave every person present
an opportunity to comment on and object to the proposed Contractual Assessment
Program improvement and the extent of the Assessment District.
6/25/01
U :\CAD\Entrada V erde\PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 9 of 1 2
5. The Board further finds that written protests against the proposed
improvement have not been made by owners representing more than one half of the area
of the land to be assessed for the improvement.
6. The documents and events described in paragraphs 1 to 4, inclusive, are
stated here in tabular form, with their dates and, where appropriate, their numbers. All
documents are now on file with the District except as otherwise noted.
Document or Event
Date
Number
or Action
a. Resolution of Intention
b. Resolution Approving Boundary Map
c. Boundary Map Filed with County Recorder
d. Certificate of Mailing Notice of Improvement
e. Certificate of Posting Notice of Improvement
f. Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Improvement
2/15/01
2/15/01
3/1/01
6/11/01
6/12/01
Pending
2001-036
2001-037
Filed
Filed
Filed
7. The Board approves the Engineer's Report and each component part of it,
including each exhibit incorporated by reference in the report.
8. The Board finds that the Engineer of Work, in the Engineer's Report has fairly
and properly apportioned the cost of the improvement to each parcel of land in the
Assessment District in compliance with the agreement between the owners and in
proportion to the special benefits derived by each parcel, in relationship to the entirety of
the capital cost of the improvement. The Board hereby confirms and levies each individual
assessment as stated in the Engineer's Report.
9. The Board orders the improvement described in paragraph 2 and as detailed
in the Engineer's Report.
10. According to Section 10603 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Board
designates the District Controller to collect and receive payment of the assessments.
11 . The Board independently finds that this project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 5.2{b){3),
since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question
may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. This certainty is based on the
District's past experience with numerous similar sewer construction projects, the
developed nature of the project environment, and the limited service area of the project
(no potential for growth inducement).
6/25/01
U :\CAD\EntradaVerde\PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 10 of 1 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of June, 2001, by the Board of Directors of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES:
Members:
NOES:
Members:
ABSENT:
Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenton L. Aim,
District Counsel
6/25/01
U :\CAD\Entrada V erde\PubHear. PP. wpd
Page 11 of 1 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
ENTRADA VERDE CAD NO. 2001-1
Construction
Engineering
District Services
TOTAL
6/25/01
U :\CAD\EntradaVerde\PubHear. PP. wpd
$215,500
9,000
6,945
$231,445
EXHIBIT E
Page 1 2 of 1 2
e
0>
'"
-'
o
8
<>
'"
'"
3
i
E
:::
Of
..
..
o
<>
<>
,.,.
..
Q.
o
ji
U
Q.
..
,.,.
:.<
- --- ,/ / /
-_/ / //
- /'~~/' //
/ ~<-<r;~/ /://
,,~,'..~ / /
/' c..'O~ / /'
/' ,,-/
/ //
//
//
/'",/
//
,-/
~/
MAP
o
,
100
200
I
FEET
APPROVED
CAD 2000-1
EXISTING
SEWER
""""""" PLANNED * LIKELY
CAD SEWER PARTICIPANTS
CD ASSESSMENT + LIKELY NON-
NUMBER PARTICIPANT
......11
........
I
t POTENTIAL
CAD AREA
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Attachment
PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF
ENTRADA VERDE
CAD NO. 2001-1
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5534
F
lX)
<>
52
8
'"
~
::"
0>
'"
Entrada Verde CAD 2001-1
Alamo
. 23 properties; 22 participants
. 22 developed parcels; 1 undeveloped parcel
. Meets current CAD Program criteria
. 1 ,220 feet of sewer; 5 manholes
. Project Cost - $231,445
. Participant cost
22 Participants
$10,520 upfront or
$ 1,465/year
1 9 Participants
$11 ,234 upfront or
$ 1,564/year
_ ^ _ _,."_..~_>_,...__._..__. ~..__ ,. . "_ . ___"_"_"_.""_"'_"___'__"'_"'~"'''''''_''~__'''_'_.__.________.____._..----.--.__ ._~~_._'.___m.__....._._..__.~___
HEARING TO DETERMINATE RESPONSIVENESS OF
MOUNTAIN CASCADE'S BID ON THE
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT (DP 5902)
SUGGESTED AGENDA
July 5, 2001
1 . Request Staff Report
Staff report will be made by Curt Swanson, Envir. Sers. Div. Mgr. and
Program Manager for the design of the D.V. Tunnel and Trunk Sewer
Project
* Describe project and nature of work
* Outline bid procedure and accepted bids
* Describe protest and nature of protest
* Review submitted bid documents from parties
* Review staff analysis and procedure
* Note saving in lowest responsible bid of $1 million
* Outline decision that Board may make
2. Review of Hearing format and rules by Board President
* Each presenter will introduce his/her self and any other party present
for the Hearing
* Each party will be limited to approximately 15 minutes in their
presentation
* Each party will make their presentation uninterrupted, and without
questions from any other party
* Each party will have 5 minutes for closing comments and rebuttal at
the end of the comment period
* District staff and Counsel will make final comments
3. Hearing
A. Open Hearing.
B. Receive comments:
(1) Affholder, Inc. (Protester and apparent 2nd low bidder).
Outline of protest and why bid should be awarded to the 2nd
bidder as the lowest responsive bidder
(2) Mountain Cascade, Inc. (Apparent low bidder).
Why they, as the low bidder, should be considered responsive
(3) Staff analysis and recommendation
Staff comments will be made by Curt Swanson -
* Analysis of staff research into issues
* Interpretation of bid documents and requirements of
future submittals
* Analysis of experience
* Discussion of experience by Dave Young of Woodward
Clyde/ URS
Legal comment by District Counsel, Kent Aim on legal basis for
Board decision process
(4) Closing comments and rebuttal by Affholder, Mountain Cascade,
and staff.
District Counsel to outline basic issues for Board consideration
C. Close Hearing
D. Board may request to enter into "Closed Session" if there is threat of
litigation or appeal in court
4. Discussion
General Manager to open discussion of issues
Time limit of project with Settlement Agreement
Difficult issue for Board
Experience is just one factor Board should consider
The intent of the bid process is to level the playing field
The specifications for the tunneling advantaged neither party,
review of the bids indicates the same tunneling costs
The Board must also consider the lowest bidder if responsive,
not the most responsive bidder
The award of any contract is contingent upon the financial
agreement between the District and the developers
5. Board decision of responsiveness
6. Return to regular Agenda to consider Award of Contract.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, Ca 94553 (925) 228-9500 . www.centralsan.org
FAX: (925) 228-4624
CHARLES IV BATTS
General Manager
KENTON L. ALM
Counsel for the District
(925) 938-1430
July 2, 2001
JOYCE E. MURPHY
Secretary of the District
Board of Directors
Contra Costa Centra Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Board Members:
As you are aware from reading your Board books, there is a bid protest on the Dougherty
Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer, Project No. 5902. The low bidder was Mountain
Cascade, Inc.. The second low bidder, Affholder, Inc. is questioning the responsiveness
of Mountain Cascade and has submitted a protest. The position paper in your Board book
explains some of the background. Staff requested documentation from both Mountain
Cascade, Inc. and Affholder, Inc. to allow us to evaluate the merits of the protest. This
information is included herein for your review. Staff is continuing their review of the
material and will be forwarding a staff recommendation under separate cover. Due to the
critical nature of the schedule on this project, we must keep this matter on the July 5,
2001 agenda. This is necessitating getting you information in several packages. We
apologize for this inconvenience and will be providing a detailed staff presentation on July
5th to answer any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Ann E. Farrell
Director of Engineering
AF/jb
U :\Admin\Dougherty200 1 \DVletter. wpd
{1} Recycled Paper
McKenna & Cuneo, L1.P.
Washington, D.C.
Attorneys at Law
Denver
San Diego
444 South Flower Street . Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
213-688-1000 . Fax: 213-243-6330
www.mckennacuneo.com
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Brussels
June 28, 2001
Richard B. Oliver
213-243-6169
richard_oliver@mckennacuneo.com
District Board
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94533
Attn: Mr. Henry Thom
Project Manager
Re: Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer Project
(DP 5902); Bid Protest of Affho Ide r, Inc. -
Board Presentation 7/5/01
Dear Mr. Thom:
On behalf of Affholder, Inc. ('~ffholder'? we submit the
following comments concerning the above-referenced protest in
response to your June 22, 2001 letter. Affholder is a subsidiary of
Insituform Technologies, Inc., with a local office at 5100 E. Second
Street, Benicia, CA 94510. On June 21, 2001, Affholder filed a timely
bid protest with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (the
"District'?, challenging any contract award to Mountain Cascade,
Inc. ("Mountain Cascade'? for the Dougherty Valley Tunnel and
Trunk Sewer Project (DP 5902). Mountain Cascade submitted the
lowest bid price of $12,274,260. Affholder submitted the next lowest
bid of $13,274,000. The DistricCs estimate for this project is
$15,000,000. As the next lowest bidder in this acquisition, Affholder
qualifies as an interested party to file this protest.
17098129.1
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Supplemental Position Paper
I Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001 I No.: 6..
Type of Action: Responsiveness/Responsibility Hearing and Authorize Award
Subject: Consider Responsiveness of Mountain Cascade, Inc.' s Bid, Aflholder's Bid Protest, and
Consider Award of the Construction Contract for the Dougherty Tunnel and Trunk Sewer Project,
District Project No. 5902.
Submitted By:
C. Swanson and
Initiating Dept/Div.:
Engineering and Legal
K. AIm, District Counsel
C. Swanson
cV\...,
K.Alm
ISSUE: This dispute arises from a Bid Protest filed by Aflholder, Inc. ("Aflholder") resulting
from Mountain Cascade, Inc. ("Mountain Cascade") having submitted the apparent lowest bid for
the Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer Project, District Project No. 5902 ("Project").
Aflholder is the apparent second lowest bidder. Aflholder claims that, Mountain Cascade's
subcontractor on the conventional tunneling portion of the Project, Walter C.Smith, does not meet
"the District imposed mandatory experience requirements" for the Project. Hence, Aftholder
contends that Mountain Cascade should not be awarded the Project Contract and it should receive
the award as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the hearing on the responsiveness and responsibility of
Mountain Cascade's bid, consider the information presented and award the bid to lowest responsive
and responsible bidder to be determined in accordance with the principals set forth herein.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: The Board has the following three options to consider:
1. Declare the bid of Mountain Cascade, Inc. to be responsive and award the construction
contract to Mountain Cascade, Inc., as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; or
Doc # 252746
Page lof8
2. Declare the bid of Mountain Cascade, Inc. to be non-responsive, or declare Mountain
Cascade, Inc. to not be a responsible contract or for purposes of this bid, and award the
construction contract to Afiholder, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder; or
3. Reject all bids. (This may not be a viable option, due to time constraints.)
RELEVANT F ACTUAL.-BACKGROUND: Plans and specifications for the project were prepared
by Brown and Caldwell (B&C), URS Corporation (URS) and District staff; the Engineer's Estimate
for the construction was $15,000,000. The project was advertised on May 18 and 24,2001. Four
(4) bids, ranging from $12,274,620 to $14,104,439 were received and publicly opened on June 20,
2001. The apparent lowest responsible bidder is Mountain Cascade, Inc., at $12,274,620 having
listed Nada Pacific as the microtunneling subcontractor and Walter .C. Smith as the conventional
tunnel subcontractor. The apparent second lowest bidder is Affholder at $13,274,000 having listed
Kinsel Industries, Inc. as the microtunneling subcontractor and McGuire and Hester for the open-cut
end sewer construction.
Shortly after the bid opening, Afiho1der notified the District (by letter previously provided to the
Board) that it was protesting the bid of Mountain Cascade, alleging that the bid was non-responsive
due the failure of Mountain Cascade's subcontractor for the conventional tunneling portion not
meeting the experiential requirements set forth in the specifications. Aflholder has provided a letter
brief and additional information to the District dated June 28, 2001, which was prepared by Richard
B. Oliver of McKenna & Cuneo. That document sets forth contentions that Mountain Cascade's bid
must be rejected as being both non-responsive and on the basis that Mountain Cascade is not a
responsible contract or for this contract based on their bid proposal. Aflholder contends that Walter
C. Smith does not meet the experiential requirements set forth in the bid specifications because none
of Smith's experience includes: (1) A single tunnel 2000 feet long and 6 feet in diameter; (2)
tunneling in similar ground conditions; and (3) tunneling with similar support systems. Aftholder
contends that Smith's superintendent does not meet the required experience criteria, including 5
years of "recent on-the-job supervision experience on similar projects." Aflholder further contends
that Mountain Cascade is not a responsible bidder on this project because Mountain Cascade does
not meet the responsibility criteria established in the specifications. Aflholder suggests that the same
basic issues raised with regard to responsiveness would also disqualify Mountain Cascade's bid
because Mountain Cascade should not be deemed a "responsible bidder" under the circumstances
presented.
Doc # 252746
Page 2 of8
Not surprisingly, Mountain Cascade has submitted a response to this protest prepared by John W.
Busby, II, Esq. which contends that Mountain Cascade's bid is responsive and that bid must be
awarded to Mountain Cascade as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Mountain Cascade
contends that it has met all of the experiential criteria set forth in the bid and that Walter C. Smith
is "qualified" to provide the conventional tunneling services required for the project. Whereas,
Afibolder contends that the bid specifications require that the tunneling contractor must have
completed at least one project of 2000 feet in length and 6 feet in diameter, Mountain Cascade
suggests the specification only requires that the tunneling contractor have completed one or more
projects totaling 2000 feet in length with diameter of 6 feet or greater. Mountain Cascade has
provided documentation demonstrating that Walter C. Smith has completed a number of tunnels as
appropriate diameter with a cumulative total length far exceeding the 2000 foot minimum
requirement. Mountain Cascade has further provided additional information on the project manager
and other project team members, contending that the project team has ample experience to meet the
specifications and to properly carryout the intended conventional tunneling portion of the Project.
Mountain Cascade has provided a substantial list of projects completed for the District, and a
complete list of the tunneling projects undertaken by Walter C. Smith.
Mountain Cascade's stated position is that substantial language within the specifications provides
that the bid should be evaluated "in part" based on the specific experience listed and in part on a
review of the contractor's bid in its entirety. Mountain Cascade contends that the District meet and
evaluate all aspects of the contractors' qualifications prior to rejecting a bid as non-responsive or as
a non-responsible bidder, Mountain Cascade concludes such an analysis will result in an award to
itself.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: An award of a competitively bid contract is within the sound discretion
ofa public entity. (Rubino v. Lolli (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1062.) The decision whether to
award the contract will only be overturned if there is evidence the public entity's actions "were
arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or inconsistent with proper procedure."
(Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.AppAth 897, 903.)
The California Public Contract Code makes it clear that the purpose of the public contracts bidding
process is to protect "the public from misuse of state funds," "[t]o provide all qualified bidders with
a fair opportunity to enter the bidding process, thereby stimulating competition in a manner
Doc # 252746
Page 3 of8
conducive to sound state fiscal practices," and "[t]o eliminate favoritism, fraud, and corruption in
the awarding of state contracts." (CAL. PUB. CaNT. CODE ~ 10300.) California courts have closely
analyzed public contract disputes and have required strict compliance with bidding requirements.
These courts have set aside public contracts even in the absence of fraud, corruption, or adverse
effect on the bidding process, when the deviation from the bidding requirements facilitated
corruption or extravagance, or made it likely the amount of bids or the response of the bidders was
likely to be affected. (See Valley Crest Landscape. Inc. v. CitvCouncil (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432
(bid mistake gave bidder the opportunity to have backed out of the contract that other bidders did
not have); Konica Business Machines U.S.A.. Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 449 (lowest bidder's machines did not comply with contract requirements; thereby
giving lowest bidder an advantage other bidders did not have).)
Nevertheless, California courts realize that legal conjecture does not always apply to the real world.
Thus, bid deviation "considerations must be evaluated from a practical rather than a hypothetical
standpoint, with reference to the factual circumstances of the case. They must also be viewed in
light of the public interest, rather than the private interest of a disappointed bidder. 'It certainly
would amount to a disservice to the public if a losing bidder were to be permitted to comb through
the bid proposal or license application of the low bidder after the fact, [and] cancel the low bid on
minor technicalities, with the hope of securing acceptance of his, a higher bid. Such construction
would be adverse to the best interests of the public and contrary to public policy.'" (Ghilotti
Construction, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at 908-909 quoting Judson Pacific-Mumhy Corp. v. Durkee
(1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 377,383.) The California Attorney General has stated that "[a] basic rule
of competitive bidding is that bids must conform to specifications, and that if a bid does not so
conform, it may not be accepted. [Citations.] However, it is further well established that a bid
which substantially conforms to a call for bids may, though it is not strictly responsive, be accepted
if the variance cannot have affected the amount of the bid or given a bidder an advantage or benefit
not allowed other bidders or, in other words, if the variance is inconsequential. [Citations.]" (47
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 129, 130 (1966); see also MCM Construction. Inc. v. City and County of San
Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.AppAth 359, 369.)
The critical evaluation here is whether the alleged deviation of the Mountain Cascade bid was
material enough to have given Mountain Cascade an advantage not afforded other bidders.
"Whether in any given case a bid varies substantially or only inconsequentially from the call for bids
Doc # 252746
Page 4 of8
is a question of fact." (47 Ops. Cal.Atty. Gen., supra, at 131.) The bid protestor has the burden of
producing evidence to support its allegation that the bid variance caused an unfair competitive
advantage. (See Ghilotti Construction, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at 907.) Mere supposition by a
protestor, without more, cannot result in the contested bid being rejected. (See Ghilotti Construction,
supra, 45 Cal.AppAth at 912, fu. 6 (a claim of "potential" competitive advantage will not invalidate
a bid, a protestor must show "actual" advantage).)
In Affholder's June 28, 2001 letter to the Board, Affholder's attorney, Richard Oliver of the
McKenna & Cuneo law firm, cited to several unpublished federal General Accounting Office
("GAO") decisions in support of its argument that Mountain Cascade is not a "responsible bidder"
and its bid was not "responsive."! First, the federal GAD decisions are not binding in California.
Second, several of the cases cited are unpublished and California courts do not permit citation to
unpublished cases. Third, several of the decisions are not consistent with California law and the
facts at issue.
With regard to the five GAD decisions cited by Affholder in support of its argument Mountain
Cascade's bid is not responsive, none of the decisions are applicable, since here, unlike the cases
cited by Afffholder, there is no evidence that Mountain Cascade will not perform the contract as
required.
With regard to the six GAD decisions cited by Affholder to support its argument Mountain Cascade
is not a responsible bidder, none of the decisions are binding in this situation, since they apply a
more restrictive standard than that applied by California courts. For example, in Haughton Elevator
Division. Reliance Electric Co. (1976) 55 Comp.Gen. 1051, 1055-56, the GAD speculated that
[i]f an IFB [invitation for bids] were to require 5 years of relevant experience as a
prerequisite to an affirmative determination of responsibility, but an award was made
to a firm with less than that experience level, or its equivalent, participants with the
specified experience may have been prejudiced in that had they realized that the
competition would include firms with less experience and thus perhaps lower
overhead, etc., those firms may have refrained from bidding or bid lower in an
attempt to secure the award. Moreover, other :firms which did not participate because
of the experience requirements might also have been prejudiced.
1 To clarity the distinction between the two terms: "A bidder is responsible if it can perform the contract as promised.
(Tavlor Bus Service. Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Education (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1331, 1341.) A bid is responsive if
it promises to do what the bidding instructions require (Id.)" (MCM Construction. Inc. v. City and County of San
Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 368.)
Doc # 252746
Page 5 of8
Although this statement may have application in a GAO appeal setting, statement is in direct contrast
to the Ghilotti court ruling. Ghilotti held that it will not allow hypothetical allegations to suffice for
the requirement that the protestor present evidence of unfair competitive advantag~.
Finally, California courts have long held that it will not allow bidder responsibility requirements to
become convoluted into superiority contests between bidders. A public contract must be bid to the
bidder with the lowest monetary bid, unless that bidder is found not to be responsible. (City of
Imdewood-L.A. County Civic Center Auth. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 867.) Thus,
"[a]lthough public bodies have discretion to determine which bidders are responsible, they may not,
if they determine more than one bidder is responsible, make the award on the basis of relative
superiority." (Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1362, 1369.) Even if the
Board were to find Aftholder to have superior qualifications, the Board can not award to Aflholder
unless Mountain Cascade is found to be not qualified.
FACTUAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
The Board is reminded that any analysis and conclusions offered herein are tentative and the decision
of the Board must be based on the complete record after the hearing has been concluded.
The primary focus of the protest lodged by Aflholder relates to the portion of the bid forms (part III,
Section 5(e)) which has been attached as Exhibit "A". The submittal of Mountain Cascade
concerning of Section 5( e) are attached as Exhibit "B". A review of Section 5( e) reveals that it was
intended that noncompliance with this Section "may" lead to a determination of a bid being non-
responsive. It further states that the responsiveness evaluation will be based "in part" on the
information to be provided below, thus indicating that the District Board can take into account the
totality of the bid in evaluating responsiveness. A separate reference in the Notice to Contractors
requesting bid proposals states: "The District Board of Directors reserves the right to reject any or
all bids for the work and waive any non-material irregularities in the bid received." Part II,
Instruction to Bidders, Section 15 (Bid Opening and Award of Contract) the specification state that:
"The right is reserved, as the interest of the District may require, to reject any or all bids and to
waive any non-material irregularities in the bid received." Therefore, the District Board has
discretion to find a bid responsive even if there is a non-material irregularity.
Doc # 252746
Page 6 of 8
Staff suggests that the intent of Section (e) (Exhibit A) was that the contractor should have at least
one prior project of 2000 feet in length of tunneling with a diameter of 60 inches or greater.
However, the staff concedes in its review of the information provided by both Affholder and
Mountain Cascade that the specific language used in the Section (e) could be interpreted to allow
the totaling of multiple projects to meet that criteria. Staff believes that the potential ambiguity
exists in the language and that the bid proposal should be evaluated in light of that possible
interpretation and not immediately eliminated as non-responsive. To the extent that the Board agrees
that this language is subject to more than one interpretation, then the Board may fmd that Mountain
Cascade's bid is at least minimally responsive as to the specific criteria of Section (e).
In evaluating the additional issues raised by Aftholder, staffhas reviewed the documentation
provided by Afiholder and Mountain Cascade, as well as conducted an additional review of the bid
proposal and obtained opinions from independent experts. (More detailed information with regard
to this analysis and the opinions of the experts will be provided at the hearing.) First, staff's review
and the information provided by the experts suggests that a tunneling contractor which has
substantial experience on shorter tunnels (such as 500 to 1000 feet) of similar or greater diameter
should be able to successfully complete a tunnel project of 2000 feet or more. According to the
review, there is little difference in construction technique between a tunnel of 500 feet in length and
that of a tunnel of several thousand feet in length. Secondly, the staff concludes that the requirement
that prior tunneling experience be "in similar ground conditions" is generally met by information
provided by Walter C. Smith. The experts indicate that there is nothing particularly unique or
different about this tunnel project. The specifications do indicate that gassy and squeezing ground
conditions may be encountered; however, this does not make this project distinct from many other
tunneling projects of the variety successfully completed by Walter C. Smith. Potential gassy and
squeezing ground conditions are commonly encountered in tunneling operations within California.
A similar conclusion has been reached by staffwith regard to the issue concerning Walter C. Smith's
experience with the "support system" required for this project. Our conclusion is that the required
support system is not unique although it may require heavier duty components than frequently used.
Nonetheless, the technique for installation of the support system is much the same. No matter which
contractor is selected, that contractor will have to provide support system submittals for approval
by the District's tunnel consultant. The support system will have to meet the job specifications or
it will not be authorized.
Doc # 252746
Page 7 of8
Staff reiterates that these conclusions are tentative and final conclusions and the decision of the
Board must be based on this information, as well as all additional information provided at the
hearing. The tentative recommendation of this staff is that the proposal of Mountain Cascade is
responsive in that any variations from the bid specifications are non-material and may be waived by
the Board. Staff, therefore tentatively recommends that the award be made to Mountain Cascade,
as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
Doc # 252746
Page 8 of8
C
t-
-
a:I
-
:z:
=-=
IU
e. The undersigned Bidder submits below a statement describing work the Bidder has completed within the last
five (5) years which is similar in character to that anticipated in the proposed project. A listing of
three (3) jobs is preferable. It is the intent of the District to evaluate the responsiveness of the
Contractor's bid in part based on whether the bid and information set forth below reflect substantial
experience in successful completion of work of the nature and magnitude of this project. To meet the
experience requirement for the proposed project, the Bidder shall have completed one or more projects
involving 1,000 feet of 24-inch diameter or larger sewer using open-cut pipeline construction, 500 feet
or more of 12-inch to 30-inch diameter sewer using microtunneling pipeline construction in similar ground
conditions, and 2,000 feet or more of tunneling a 6-foot diameter or larger tunnel in similar ground
conditions. The microtunneling and tunneling portions of the requirement may be met by using
subcontractors meeting these minimum requirements. If a subcontractor is used, the bidder shall submit
a statement describing work similar to that required for the Bidder. Failure to complete this section
may result in the bid being rejected as non-responsive.
PERFORMED FOR
PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION CONTRACT AGENCY CURRENT TELEPHONE YEAR
OF QUALIFIED EXPERIENCE AMOUNT CONTACT NUMBER PERFORMED
SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION PERSON
1.
2.
3.
i
Signed:
Bidder
Date
DP#5902-PART 111-13
._.--~_._--
a:a
I-
-
a:I
-
:z:
><
.....
e.
The undersigned Bidder submits below a statement describing work the Bidder has completed within the last
five (5) years which is similar in character to that anticipated in the proposed project. A listing of
three (3) jobs is preferable. It is the intent of the District to evaluate the responsiveness of the
Contractor's bid in part based on whether the bid and information set forth below reflect substantial
experience in successful completion of work of the nature and magnitude of this project. To meet the
experience requirement for the proposed project, the Bidder shall have completed one or more projects
involving 1,000 feet of 24-inch diameter or larger sewer using open-cut pipeline construction, 500 feet
or more of 12-inch to 30-inch diameter sewer using microtunneling pipeline construction in similar ground
conditions, and 2,000 feet or more of tunneling a 6-foot diameter or larger tunnel in similar ground
conditions. The microtunneling and tunneling portions of the requirement may be met by using
subcontractors meeting these minimum requirements. If a subcontractor is used, the bidder shall submit
a statement describing work similar to that required for the Bidder. Failure to complete this section
may result in the bid being rejected as non-responsive.
\
PERFORMED FOR
PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION CONTRACT AGENCY CURRENT TELEPHONE YEAR
OF QUALIFIED EXPERIENCE AMOUNT CONTACT NUMBER PERFORMED
SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION PERSON
1. '5~ 4 P'7 ~ cA.-4-~
2.
3. ;
Signed:
Bidder
~.ZO'OI
Date
DP#5902-PART 111-13
'\\OUNTAIN CASCADE INC.
P.O. Box 5050
Livermore. CA 94551
(925) 373-8370 FAX (925) 373-Q940
SEWERLlNE PROJECTS
Nov 98 - Feb 00 City of Stockton
25 Navy Drive, Stockton, 96206 Phone (209) 937-8781
Owners Representative: Robert Granberg
Southern Industrial Trunk Sewer
19,673' of 8" - 84" up to 25' Deep
Design Engineer: Montogomery-Watson
Project Value: 11.6 Million
Aug 98 - Mar 99 South Placer Municipal Utility District
PO Box 45, Loomis, CA 95650 Phone (916) 652-5877
Owners Representative: Richard Stein
Roseville Trunk Sewer Upgrade, Roseville CA
6289' of 42" VCP. 1750' of 24" VCP. 360' of 48" Bore up to 22.5' Deep
Design Engineer: The Spink Corp
Project Value: 2.7 Million
Aug 97 - Jan 99 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone (925) 228-9500
Owners Representative: Henry Thorn
South Orinda Sewer Improvement, Orinda CA
8245' of 36" microtunning, 5,680' of 6",8" 10", 15" & 21" up to 40' Deep
Design Engineer: CCCSD
Project Value: 11.3 Million
Jul 94 - Jul 95 Eastbay Municipal Utility District
375 11th Street, Oakland, CA 94607 Phone (510) 825-3000
Owners Representative: AI Weitz
North Interceptor Relocation, EmeryvilJe CA
2,500' of 72" & 84" up to 30' Deep
Design Engineer: EBMUD
Project Value: 14.6 Million
\\OUNTAiN CASCADE INC.
P.O. Box 5050
Uvermore. CA 9455i
(925)373-8370 FAX(925)3734J940
WATERLINE PROJECTS over 5-MILES IN LENGTH'
Jul 98 - Jul 99 Eastbay Municipal Utility District
375 11th Street, Oakland, CA 94607 Phone (510) 825-3000
Owners Representative: Jim Sanders
Mokelulmne #3 Aqueduct Rehabilitation, Stockton CA
61,000' of 84" rehab
Design Engineer: EBMUD
Project Value: 16.2 Million
May 95 - Jan 96 San Juan Water District
9935 Auburn-Folsom Road, Granite Bay, CA 95746 Phone (916) 791-0115
Owners Representative: Jim English
Cooperative Transmission Main, Sacramento/Folsom CA
49,000' of 36" through 78"
Design Engineers: Boyle Engineering
Project Value: 20 Million
May 94 - May 95 Central Coast Water Authority
255 Industrial Way, Buellton, CA 93427 Phone (805) 688-2292
Owners Representative: Bruce Burnsworth
Mission Hills Santa Ynez Aqueduct Extention, Lompoc CA
126,600' of 36" - 39"
Design Engineers: Montgomery Watson & Bookkman-Edmonston
Project Value: 18.3 Million
July 93 - May 94 Zone 7 Water Agency
5997 Parkside Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588
Owners Representative: Dennis Gambs
Vineyard Pipeline, Pleasanton CA
37,000' of 36"
Design Engineers: Zone 7 Water Agency
Project Value: 8 Million
Phone (510) 484-2600
Aug 92 - June 93 Modesto Irrigation District
1231 11th Street, Modesto, CA 95352
Owners Representative: Allen Short
Domestic Water Project, Transmission Pipeline
92,175' of 24" - 60"
Design Engineers: Black & Veatch
Project Value: 22 Million
Phone (209) 526-7373
L
c:
...J
lJ) I
.
C\J :I 0
CJ ,.. W
GI I
~ Dougherty Valley Tunne. Trunk Sewer '< 0
..
:J: 1-1
CCCSD '1l
r 1-1
. N
II
ProjecI1 Prc:pct 2 Project 3 .
., U1
c-
..,... II ~
"',)let...... o.cnpllon: SpeGfa6an 5050 Un & Mark West PIPIt,.. ,.. "tl
Brad.,., kllen;eplar. P"- t & 2 ~
CJ Dixon Landing Road & 1-880 Marte. Wesl c,... en.llna 0
Penlteldl Creek CtaelIngI &Ira Rou Creel Calin; ~Cre.kCnJMing 0
...s-
O)
0 MilpitH, CllbrdrJ ana R-. CIIIlfamil SIUIIneIIIo. c.Momll
.,
J
..n Type bCII JIIon ~,"",ftt AkkMlllft 81"", ..lBM AIIkenr81 SUry MOM Lowt CIaIed ,.. EPB 111M
N
0) .....'" "'11IftIIiC Akk8mIn Pipe Jaing A1....1i1n ~ J8dciIG W..... PIpe JIcIdna
g a.....r: WSSP, SD"SSP &0- SSP, ..- SSP 120" IDACP (142" 00)
x LangIh: 4t~F.I, 4D5-Fe11 ,....... leo-Feel 865-Feet (Single DrIvt)
<I: ~..I_ C......: Sendy SII. Bay abI, TIdII bag a.,wy Stnd. RIVIr baIb1t Sandy CIIy
LL. UI
0......... 11...... (*-It: tQ.f=... 1()..FeIt 2O-FeIt UI
S
ShIft DIpIII: 3O-Fell 3lJ-r:.t 35-FII' ~
-
ConnI' IN 1IWtI.: tI03.18O "',670 '1."0,IDJ ..
~ F1nll.... 1983,. .....795 11._'- I
LLl
Q DwdGn tit I...... ...11: 2 Wanthl 2 ManIt. 3 ManIII
<J:
(.;) DIll: F*-Y -1IIR'h '01 OaIoblr - NIMII'r1W '00 MIy -~.. '00
UJ
<I:
c..:> t...
:z: Pr'cIjMlt OWnw: PacifIC a.. I EJIGIriG CaIIlpeny City ~ Sen. Roll SCRS!) c
- ::I
<J: ...... ......-: (92&) t74-tCM6 (101) 581-5300 (9tl) 875-11512 .
N
- 0
- Mdn .....n. J_ RDzgeOt2U H~I I08UI KI~
-5 PteJMt .......: ,
D
0 ~
x::
x:: CIIenI<<I....... Contnclar: P8df1C <<3816 Elldric; ~ Utu1IIIin c.c..dl. Inc. Mau"'* C..... Inc. -
c... (t25) 114-11046 (125) 37W370 ..
(Y) P.... N_er: (925) 313-8311 t
(Y) PNjIct ...........: Aulljll H8IIngs RegerWlll-.on Rager Wlllmlcln '1l
-- II:
C\J
Q
l..LJ
:%
-
0 "
0 .
N 0
I .
C)
C\J 0' . o.J .. YIIIeW TIIIIIIIlA Ttd ..... cccso N
I ....
= I/aIII to)
:::>
-, "tl
0
N
W
t:
QI ...j
.. I
('I'") ::J 0
...
0 W
IlIlI
0..: Dougherty Valley Tunnel Trunk Sewer 'C I
.. 0
% I-l
CCCSD '11
r- I-l
.. N
1II
.
Project 4 Project 5 Project . ., U1
L.
. ~
...
loll iJ
PNfed ..."'. & o..crtplian: PIrIIIII OIlIII sewer. PhI.. III SFIA Conlnlcl No. 58011 Ncd1lr111ap1ar Aeb:ation ....
0
C) Plqlct "".17-17 U.... fWoc8tlon. Ph8Ie VI SD-200 0
~
OJ
C) Tudunn Riv.r CroMinG H~ 101 Craaing EmwyvIe, CArnie
('r)
.. - Modesto. C&l1fam1B "bM. Cellfarn.
."
m &c....n IIIIhId: AkMnNn 8Qfty MTBM MIr8rrMn CIoJed_18M AkIfannIn 0GIId... TIM
g W8IfIIII"" ~ .....11 PIpe J8c1dng Wed... Pipe Jai1g
:x: De.." : eo-IORCP (18'" (0) ...... IlRCP (101- (0) 84- IDRCP (101. (0)
<I: ........: 8Q(H='eeI (SIngle Olive) 585 feel (SIn'" DIM) 1100.F... (MuII\1II DIMS)
LL- Ul
floItguI DIM: 4IJO.FMf' Ul
I
"'Ic~ SII1d, RMIr baIorn _Mud Illy Mud N
..
....
CoIdrUt .... ......: 1350.000 S521.5OO 1440.000 .
.,
CenIrMt'" PI1ce: "'&,000 1111,000 $440.000 w
...
LLJ
Q c.nbIl D...... d ....:
<I:
(.;) DwIIon MAca,....:
~
(.;) L
:z DIIJIIIon ...... UII.I: 1 Marl'" 2 ManIw 2 MontI'" c
--. ::J
<x: OMIt MIn:Il 'II June '81 "'96 .
1\:1
fo:; 0
.
0
.J ....... 0..: CIy rJ MDdllIa City I CcKnr ~ S8n Franca EaII Bay M,,*lpel UII.y Dillrtct -
z::
:E:: .............: (208) 5TT-6482 (415) 11M-&315 (510) 217.1124
c...
....... .. la.r: RClblJIt 8nII ..... .... -. w.Jtz ..
M ..
M it
--
N
-
Q ca....,..... ContncIDr: MIukIIM)arf~ Canat. Co.. Inc. SIIIcy I Wllteck, Inc. MounIIIn c.c... Inc.
UJ ...........: (558) 252-4800 (415) 2IS. 7!570 (925) 31MITD
:3
..- PNjIcI....ar: Kim Bllllel AllDeIt Clementi R. WI.....
0 ."
0 ..
C\J lQ
, ..
<:::) to)
C\J
:.!:: Ot .~WIIr 1'lnlIl' T,....... 0CC8D -
to)
::::I erJDO'I
-, iJ
,
0
w
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 6.a. BIDS AND AWARDS
Type of Action: RESPONSIVENESS HEARING / AUTHORIZE AWARD AND AUTHORIZE
AGREEMENTS
Subject: CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC.'S BID, AND
CONSIDER AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE CONSULTING
AGREEMENTS WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL, URS CORPORATION, EPC/UNDERGROUND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND SOHA ENGINEERS FOR THE DOUGHERTY TUNNEL
AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902
Submitted By:
H. Thom, Senior Engineer
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Ser
ISSUE: On June 20, 2001, sealed bids were received and opened for construction of the
Dougherty Tunnel and Trunk Project, District Project (DP) No. 5902 ("Project"). The Board
of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject all bids within 50 days of the
opening of bids. Authorization of the Board is required for the General Manager to execute
professional services agreements in amounts greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a responsiveness hearing on the bid submitted by Mountain
Cascade, Inc. Authorize award of a construction contract in the amount of the Project
(DP 5902) to the lowest responsive bidder contingent upon a fully-executed financing
agreement with Windemere BLC and funding of the escrow account. Authorize consulting
agreements with Brown and Caldwell, URS Corporation, EPC/Underground Construction
Managers and SOHA Engineers contingent upon the execution of the financing agreement
and funding of the escrow account.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If the Project is awarded to Mountain Cascade, Inc., the estimated
Project costs are approximately $19,238,000, including design, bid price, contingency,
and construction management. The estimated total Project costs are approximately
$20,388,000 if Affholder, Inc. is awarded the project. All costs will be reimbursed by
Windemere BLC, developer in the Dougherty Valley.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: The Board has the following three options to
consider:
1. Declare the bid of Mountain Cascade, Inc. to be responsive and award the
construction contract to Mountain Cascade, Inc., as the lowest responsive bidder;
or
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\DOUGHNW5902PPR. WPD
Page 1 of 1 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC.'S BID, AND
CONSIDER AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE
CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL, URS CORPORATION,
EPC/UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND SOHA ENGINEERS FOR THE
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902
2. Declare the bid of Mountain Cascade, Inc. to be non-responsive, and award the
construction contract to Affholder, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder; or
3. Reject all bids (not recommended due to time constraints).
BACKGROUND: In June 1997 the District annexed the eastern half of the Dougherty
Valley in southern Contra Costa County. Developments proposed for this valley include
approximately 11,000 homes on the former Gale and Gumpert Ranch properties. Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District was identified in Contra Costa County's 1996 Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Windemere - Phase I and Gale Ranch - Phase
II as the preferred provider of sewer service to this southern area of Contra Costa County.
The District's approved plan for providing wastewater service to the Dougherty Valley and
tributary properties is to collect and convey wastewater by gravity sewers to the southern
end of the Valley. At the southern end of the Valley the wastewater would enter a 4800
foot long gravity tunnel that will travel underneath the Dougherty hills west to the
intersection of Alcosta Boulevard and Estero Drive. At this point, the tunnel would make
a transition to a 24" diameter trunk sewer that will travel along Estero and Mangos Drives
to the San Ramon Pumping Station. The trunk sewer is approximately 3,300 feet long.
From the San Ramon Pumping Station the waste would be pumped north through parallel
2-mile long force mains and then flow by gravity sewers to the District Treatment Plant
in Martinez. (See Attachment A for map).
Construction of the Project was delayed for more than two years because of various
litigation, including litigation between the District and the City of San Ramon over the
issuance of an encroachment permit. The Court ruled in the District's favor and the City
appealed. The litigation was resolved by a negotiated settlement agreement which
includes a severe time constraint for the construction of the Project. The City issued an
encroachment permit for the Project on June 18, 2001. Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, the trunk sewer portion of the Project is to be completed on an accelerated
time schedule by the end of December 2001.
Expansion of the San Ramon Pumping Station, from its present capacity of 4.8 million
gallons per day (mgd) to the ultimate peak wet weather capacity of 16.0 mgd, and
construction of a new force main and interceptor sewer (San Ramon Valley Interceptor,
Phase 3) will be needed as wet weather flows from South San Ramon, the Dougherty
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\DOUGHNW5902PPR. WPD
Page 2 of 1 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC.'S BID, AND
CONSIDER AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE
CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL, URS CORPORATION,
EPC/UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND SOHA ENGINEERS FOR THE
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902
Valley, and other tributary properties increase over time. These projects will be
constructed separately, although also within an accelerated time frame.
Plans and specifications for the Project were prepared by Brown and Caldwell (B&C), URS
Corporation (URS) and District staff; the Engineer's Estimate for the construction was
$15,000,000. The Project was advertised on May 18 and 24, 2001. Four (4) bids,
ranging from$12,274,620 to, $14,104,439 were received and publicly opened on June
20, 2001. A summary of the bids is presented in Attachment 1. The apparent lowest
responsible bidder is Mountain Cascade, Inc., with Nada Pacific as the microtunneling
subcontractor and W.C. Smith as the tunnel subcontractor, and the bid amount of
$12,274,620.
The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial review of the bid
submitted by Mountain Cascade, Inc. The bid documents require the tunnel subcontractor
to have completed one or more projects involving 2,000 feet or more of tunneling a 6-foot
diameter or larger tunnel in similar ground conditions. Mountain Cascade's tunnel
subcontractor, W.C. Smith Inc., has completed one or more projects with a minimum
tunnel diameter of 6 feet aggregating a tunneling distance of well over 10,000 feet.
However, none of those individual projects has a length of 2,000 feet by itself. The
second lowest bidder, Affholder, Inc. submitted a bid protest on this issue (Attachment
2) claiming Mountain Cascade's bid is therefore non-responsive.
Prior to considering resolution of this dispute, it is appropriate for the Board to conduct a
hearing on the issue of responsiveness and the protest in order to receive information from
the interested parties. Both Mountain Cascade Inc. and Affholder, Inc. representatives
have been informed of the hearing process and possible award decision by the Board of
Directors (Attachment 3). The two bidders will be submitting supplemental documentation
prior to the scheduled hearing. A staff recommendation along with subsequent
documentation will be presented during the hearing. (This information was received too
late to be evaluated and incorporated into this document.)
Bid proposals may be rejected by the Board if there are variances from the Contract
Documents that are determined by the Board to give a bidder an unfair competitive
advantage or otherwise defeat the goals of the public bidding process. A material
variance could be based on the patent failure to comply with the bid specifications or, if,
upon evaluation of the subcontractor's experience and resources, there is significant doubt
that the subcontractor would be able to successfully complete the project.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\DOUGHNW5902PPR. WPD
Page 3 of 1 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC.'S BID, AND
CONSIDER AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE
CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL, URS CORPORATION,
EPC/UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND SOHA ENGINEERS FOR THE
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902
The Board has the following three options:
1. Declare the bid of Mountain Cascade Inc. to be responsive, and award the
construction contract to Mountain Cascade Inc., as the lowest responsive bidder;
or
2. Declare the bid of Mountain Cascade Inc. to be non-responsive, and award the
construction contract to Affholder, Inc., as the lowest responsive bidder; or
3. Reject all bids (this is not recommended due to time constraints).
If the Board determines that the bid of Mountain Cascade, Inc. is responsive, the
construction contract should be awarded to Mountain Cascade, Inc. The funds required
to complete the project, as shown in Attachment 5, are $16,978,000. The total project
cost is anticipated to be $19,238,000.
Construction of the Dougherty Tunnel and Trunk sewer project, is included in the 2001-
2003 Capital Improvement Budget on pages CS-53 through CS-56. Staff has conducted
a cash flow analysis and concluded that adequate funds are available for this project.
Under an agreement with the developers of the Dougherty Valley, Windemere BLC will
reimburse the District for construction costs associated with the tunnel and trunk sewer.
To receive reimbursement for costs associated with the construction, the District must
enter into a financing agreement with Windemere BLC. The award of the construction
contract should be contingent upon execution of the financing agreement with Windemere
BLC and funding of an escrow account required under the agreement. The financing
agreement is the subject of a separate Position Paper at this Board meeting.
Construction management, contract administration, inspection, and field office clerical will
be performed by District staff, B&C, EPC/Underground Construction Managers
(EPC/UCM), and temporary clerical employees. Office engineering services, including shop
drawing review will be provided by B&C and URS. B&C and URS were selected to provide
design services based on a formal proposal and selection process. Because of satisfactory
performance and knowledge of the project, B&C and URS are recommended to provide
office engineering service for this phase of the project. B&C was also selected to provide
resident engineering and pipeline inspection services based on a formal proposal and
selection process. EPC/UCM was selected to provide specialty tunnel inspection services
6/29/01
U:\PPR\SM\DOUGHNW5902PPR. WPD
Page 4 of 1 3
POSITION PAPER
Board MfHlting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC.'S BID, AND
CONSIDER AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE
CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL, URS CORPORATION,
EPC/UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND SOHA ENGINEERS FOR THE
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902
based on a formal proposal and selection process. Professional Services Agreements in
the amount of $850,000, $150,000 and $430,000 have been negotiated with B&C,
URS, and EPC/UCM respectively.
Staff has also negotiated a cost reimbursement agreement with SOHA Engineers in the
amount of $60,000 to perform a preconstruction damage assessment of the houses along
the construction route. SOHA performed satisfactorily on the preconstruction damage
assessment for the San Ramon Valley Interceptor and Pleasant Hill Interceptor, Phase 4
Projects.
The environmental impacts of construction and operation of the tunnel and trunk sewer
facilities were addressed in Contra Costa County's 1996 Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report, Windemere - Phase I and Gale Ranch - Phase II (SCH# 96012003). The
District's Board of Directors reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during it
deliberations regarding annexation of the Windemere property in June 1997 and
established its independent finding that the environmental impacts of providing
wastewater utility service can be reduced to less than significant levels through
implementation of the mitigation measures required of the project by Contra Costa
County.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Conduct a responsiveness hearing on the bid submitted
by Mountain Cascade, Inc. Authorize award of a construction contract in the amount of
the Project (DP 5902) to the lowest responsive bidder contingent upon a fully-executed
financing agreement with Windemere BLC and funding of the escrow account. Authorize
consulting agreements with Brown and Caldwell, URS Corporation, EPC/Underground
Construction Managers and SOHA Engineers contingent upon the execution of the
financing agreement and funding of the escrow account.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\DOUG HNW5902PPR. WPD
Page 5 of 1 3
~ Ml L-t I I 111 Iz. Ut. 1j::f::1 J..:J-.1 . T\jJ ~ -\
r t2rA ~Ud~ H-I '-{--} t:J:11 ~ - =
~CJ..J) ;>xv A" ~d ~ -c r- ~~ =
j x<< ~x 5\,)..J 3{ 1-- t7r\ =
J:'8:~~~~W~~ q ~I;::: t: a'.' .;
~ ~~~ ~.~ ~~,.=~~'9LE " . ..........."/';_
K> ~ SHAPf.U
INDUSTRIES ....
;iQ6.,250-004
---, ...., .-I 18 ...., ,) . ../' '.. /'
:j f=~ ~ ~ ~ fi I .' /..... J
t ~~~~~~ ~-~'::\';~1\1 ~/ R~I//" . /;;i;?;f:J: '.. ............~.
- ~ I ;J... r\....J1 \4::. -~ R'OO~ . ....\ / L . ...
..... r I ~ 0 - . HOMEOWNER'S ...... ". .; /
3 +- i Il H I 1. ~ iL5zi ASS~~'.4T10N', --...,)\ /:,/ i
_ ,... I ..LJ..-.f=iAl ~: OPEN....~.~AC~,.,; .' /' /' '.
~~ ~ _LIIIT III" s't-j\--Lrt7 TTI2~''';'''''\:'''':~~ ( ........ /.</./../ .... ...... ...1.f~.~~~ks..-
..< I 1'- \....J+.J.:..r'H=1 leT \ '" .../ // .,' . /2 .20;:250-008 ..'
_ r ~ i ";) V"",-I~/I\?:;::,?'I;; // ,'PRO"()~lD'" !
-i~i:.~-- u__~_ ) -"=--'~ J;;<?!;01~~~~ik,.'/
212-030-008 . :.....1
'\ ;/~r .
------on------------ - ~-;.('/..:/.
........
~
!~
.
===
'=-
.,.::=:
h
l:d
o
m
,..
:II
3:
,.
:II
",
....
~
0't'<l
.,,<t>
."
E.B.U.u,D.
2Q6.,25~7
~
...~
~
"-
If
.'t'
,(:1 /
.:! Q
o ""
C) ""
i'
. II I
o
I
1000
I
)
/I;
/
FEET
~
i:i>
<>
o
<>
'"
~
..,
J.,
'"
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
...~
Attachment
PROPOSED DOUGHERTY VALLEY
TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER ALIGNMENT
A
Page 6 of 13
ATTACHMENT 1
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
SUMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT: Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk DATE June 20. 2001 - 2 p.m.
LOCATION San Ramon ENGR. EST. $15.000.000
No. BIDDER BID PRICE
(Name & address)
1 Mountain Cascade Inc. $ 12,274,620
P.O. Box 5050
Livermore, CA 94551
2 Affholder, Inc. $ 13,274,000
17988 Edison Ave.
Chesterfield, Missouri 63005
3 Super Excavators, Inc. $ 14,077,260
N59 W14601 Bobolink Ave.
Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
4 Ranger Pipelines, Inc. $ 14,104,439
1296 Armstrong Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94124
$
$
$
$
$
$
BIDS OPENED BY DATE 06/20/01 SHEET NO. -1-0F ..L
Page 7 of 13
ATTACHMENT 2
II AFFHOLDER
INCORPORATED
17988 Edison Ave.
P.O. Box 1026 (63006-1026)
Chesterfield, MO 63005-3700
Office: (636) 532-2622 · Fax: (636) 537-2533
Tunnel Contractor
June 21, 2001
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Curt Swanson
Environmental Services Division Manager
Re: Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer
District Project 5902
Protest of Qualification of Subcontractor Bidder
Dear Mr. Swanson:
We are writing this as a formal protest to the bid of, and any award to, Mountain Cascade, Inc. due to
their submission of Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. as the subcontractor to complete the tunnel
excavation for the above referenced contract as submitted by Mountain Cascade, Incorporated.
Under Part III, SECTION 5.e Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. was required to submit its qualifications
with regard to completing "a listing of three jobs preferable" that are similar in nature to the Dougherty
Valley Tunnel, together with certain other requirements.
To our knowledge and based on our investigation, Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. has not completed any
projects over the past five years that are similar in nature to the Dougherty Valley Tunnel, nor has it
completed any tunnel of "2000 feet in length and 6 feet in diameter over the past five years" or in the
company's history.
As per PART II, Instruction to Bidders, Item 15, paragraph 1, we request the information submitted with
the Mountain Cascade, Incorporated bid with regard to the qualifications of Walter C. Smith Company,
Inc. be submitted to our office, at the above address, as soon as possible.
.
~
Page 8 of 13
ATTACHMENT 2
II
Page 2
June 21, 2001
Mr. Curt Swanson
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District should reject the Mountain Cascade, Incorporated bid as non-
responsive due to the "lack of successful experience in performing work of similar nature and magnitude"
of the proposed tunneling subcontractor Walter C. Smith Company, Inc.
Respect
AFFH
Pc: Henry Thorn, Senior Engineer, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Munawar Husain, Associate Engineer, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Page 9 df 13
ATTACHMENT 3
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, Ca 94553 (925) 228-9500 . www.centralsan.org
FAX: (925) 228-4624
June 22, 2001
CHARLES IV. BA 1TS
Gelleral Mallager
Mr. Jerome P. Shaw
Affholder Incorporated
17988 Edison Avenue
P.O. Box 1026 (63006-1026)
Chesterfield, MO 63005-3700
KENTON L. AUf
Coullsel for the District
(915) 938-/.130
JOKE E. MURPHY
Secre/tlry of the District
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley Tunnel And Trunk Sewer Project (DP 5902)
Bid Protest - Board Presentation 7/5/01
Dear Mr. Shaw,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter to the District dated June, 21, 2001.
As discussed with Mr Bob Stier of your office on June 22, 2001, the tentative date of
award of the bid is July 5, 2001, protest pending at that time. The Board Meeting for the
award starts at 2:00 p.m., in the District's Board Room at 5019, Imhoff Place, Martinez.
You have the right to make a presentation to the Board, or have your legal representative
to present your case.
We are requesting that the presentation, if you wish to make one, be limited to 15
minutes. Please advise us in advance if more time is needed. Please also let us know in
advance who will be making the presentation.
~
.
""
All written 3documentation that you plan to present to the Board must be received in my
office by end of business on Wednesday, June 27, 2001. We strongly urge that you
include all detail information for your presentation in the package.
If you need further information, please call me at (925) 229-7334.
Sincerely yours, A
//
~ ,{~
Henry Thom . I
Project manager
HT:jb
cc: Mr. Mike Hester, McGuire & Hester Inc.
Page 10 of 13
@ Recycled Paper
U :\PPr\Bertera\affholderprotest. wpd
ATTACHMENT 3
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
June 22, 2001
FAX: (925) 228-4624
CHARLES If/. BAITS
G~ncr(ll Afmmgcr
Mr. Mike Fuller
Mountain Cascade, Inc.
P.O. Box 5050
Livermore, CA 94551
KENTON L. ALM
Counsel for the Districr
(925) 938-1430
JOKE E. MURPH!'
Secretary of the District
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley Tunnel And Trunk Sewer Project (DP 5902)
Bid Protest - Board Presentation 7/5/01
Dear Mr.Fuller,
As discussed, Affholder Inc., has made a formal protest of your bid on the Dougherty
Project. A copy of the protest was faxed to your office yesterday. Also as discussed, the
tentative date of award of the bid is July 5, 2001, protest pending at that time. The Board
Meeting for the award and the protest starts at 2:00 p.m., in the District's Board Room
at 5019, Imhoff Place, Martinez. You have the right to make a presentation to the Board,
or have your legal representative to present your case.
We are requesting that the presentation, if you wish to make one, be limited to 15
minutes. Please advise us in advance if more time is needed. Please also let us know in
advance who will be making the presentation.
All written documentation that you plan to present to the Board must be received in my
office by end of business on Wednesday, June 27, 2001. We strongly urge that you
include all detail information for your presentation in the package.
If you need further information, please call me at (925) 229-7334.
Sincerely yours,
~? 7/
I /~
Henry ThO:?
Project manager
HT:jb
cc: Michael DeBenedetto, W.C. Smith, Inc.
Page 11 of 13
U :\PPr\Bertera\protestltrtomtn. wpd
@ Recycled Paper
ATTACHMENT 4
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902
POST -BID PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
IIfM DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENT OF
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION
COST
1. Construction
* Contract - Mountain Cascade, Inc 12,274,620
* Contract Contingency at 1 5 percent 1,841,380
* Incentive For Early Completion 150,000
Subtotal 14,266,000 100.0
2. Construction Management
* Project management 263,000
* Contract Administration 128,000
Subtotal 391,000 2.7
3. Consultant Contracts
* Design Support, Resident Engineer, 850,000
Inspectors (Brown & Caldwell)
* Geotechnical, structural, vibration 150,000
(URS)
* Tunnel Specialist Inspector 430,000
(EPC / UCM)
* Precon Damage Assessment 60,000
{SOHAl
* Material Testing (Kleinfelder) 50,000
* Surveyor 30,000
* Odor (Brown & Caldwell) 25,000
* Noise / Vibration (Wilson, Ihrig, Inc) 25,000
* Misc. Consultants (Traffic, 20,000
Arborist,etc )
Subtotal 1,640,000 11.5
Page 1 2 of 1 3
ATTACHMENT 4
1IEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENT OF
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION
COST
4. Miscellaneous
* Community Liaison 150,000
* Public Relations Misc 53,000
* District Survey 1 0,000
* Legal 50,000
* Dispute Review Board 50,000
* CSO/POD 40,000
* City Inspector / Permit 100,000
* Outside Inspection (County, etc.) 30,000
* Engineering Supports 10,000
* Field Office Secretary 50,000
* Field Office/Vehicle- Lease/Utilities 60,000
* Field Office Support Misc 22,000
* Right-of-way, Staging Area 25,000
Subtotal 650,000 4.5
5. Contingency at 15 percent, 402,000 2.8
Items 2 thru 4
6. Preconstruction Expenditure 1,889,000 13.2
7. Total Project Cost Estimate 19,238,000 134.9
8. Less Funds Authorized To date (2,260,000)
9. Total Allocation of Funds to Complete
Project 16,978,000
Page 1 3 of 1 3
DOUGHERTY VALLEY
TUNNEL & TRUNK SEWER
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
July 5, 2001
BID RESULTS
DOUGHERTY TUNNEL & TRUNK SEWER PROJECT
Bidder
Mountain Cascade, Inc.
Affholder, Inc.
Super Excavators, Inc.
Ranger Pipelines, Inc.
Bid Amount
$ 12,274,620
$ 13,274,000
$ 14,077,260
$ 14,104,439
Engineer's Estimate
$ 15,000,000
MOUNTAIN CASCADE BID
PROPOSAL
. Mountain Cascade is prime contractor.
· 2 Subcontractors
Walter C. Smith as Tunneling
Subcontractor
NADA Pacific as Microtunneling
Subcontractor
. Mountain Cascade and Subcontractors
have California "A" Licenses
. Adequate Bonding Capacity
. Established Contractors
Mountain Cascade - 19 years
Walter C. Smith - 54 years
NADA Pacific - 9 years
_.__~_____~_.__._._____~~_.___,_.__....._._.__"__.___._.,_._____..__.,_.._.,........ ..'u_.~,___...,_____._,.___.__._,.__.."..._.u~..___,._"__"'___.'_'___"___'___"'~'________+_--"-__'_'______~"-.-.-..--.---......
AFFHOLDER PROTEST
. Mountain Cascade Bid is Not
Responsive
- Tunneling subcontractor does
not meet experience
qualifications.
-
W. C. Smith has not
completed a single tunnel
2,000 feet long or more,
6 feet or greater in diameter,
similar to the Dougherty
Valley Tunnel.
__"... ,__..._._.__.__..____.__._....._..-_._".__,,_.._.".____._.___~'____'_'._.,__._'_'"____'" ..........,_._._._........_....,.._.".....__.".____..__... ....__m__."..,._..._,._._..._._,,__~._,_.__~_..._______.____"~_..,',..__~._.____,,.._._,._.____""_...___.____'_...-.. ---.--.----------------'--
\ -----'
1/
)/
\
"
..- ./
'\
'-
-' -, /
. '__I '--....... //
...... /":Y-
---- / /
" // /~
";'....1/'
// /
/<# // -~\
/ -/ '.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / .-'
/ /,
// // :
/ /
/tt /~,___/
/ ttC/
/ /~
/ / '
// /.:.--
/ /'-
, "... "
"" (".,--,,/'
-/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /tt
/' ,/
// /
/ . /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SHAPELL
INOOSTRIES
206-2Sll-OO(
---.-- -__~.I
/
I
; //
L/
,/'
/'
&
SHAPELL
INDUST1II ES
106-251>-408
,lll~s..U!l<L.U.j...LL..L.;J.lJJQ!LL!J. ;
~ ------~------------
f
',.,-",/
~ / ' .,;
P.G.&. E
SUBSTATION
212--mo-ooa
......
......
: ",/
......
</1''''
...
.......
......
---_/
o
III
...
~
)0
~
------~------------~-
~'1-<l>
"
~
~
E.8.II.lJ.D.
106-250-007
'6)
~e.
'.
:;;
o
I
1000
I
)
.IV
/
i:
I
~
=!If
...
'"
FEET
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Attachment
~
ESTERO DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
DOUGHERTY VALLEY
TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER PROJECT
1
.'
'.
.;L
;:",
800
600
01
~I~
019
.Ct:
~I~
I
~~
-------tli
fAST PORTN. I
I
.. 700
w
w
...
700 >-
Preliminary Tunnel Profile
\oJ
\oJ
...
APPROXIMATE EXISTING
GROUND SURrACE
Z 600
600 Z
Z
o
.. ~
C
>
w
oJ
w 400
Tor
ALCOST A 8L VO
Z
o
500 ..
-<
>
\
,
I
I
-,--'
I
I
I
\oJ
..J
s . 0.73' (t)
at
400 w
JOe
JOO
PROFILE.
HORIZ. SCALE: ,". 1000'
VERT. SCALE: ,.. 200'
Ii
)1
~..,.. i
I 11 . t I
K_ R.II ,
l11li. IIMIlT """ _ llIaulllll CIl
O'MeTal " 1lII IIOllUCIJl, III IIIIll .
t'_
II NtIT
1a;I~~1EH TYPlColt HOR.;E~:~ TUNNEL SECTION
UI'I _In
taU.UUll
~_,u.
T1_ allilU..
AI llIau''''
l11li. R'I ITlP'
1111"'_1 _IE
... '101 11'''' HO DlWl
PYC T~ UN.'"
IAS1M eK. Ct....S IV)
_IE -.tING
kAl. su 1<<)11 I:
FOOT aOCl
W_ 11lU ..11
... FUlL I'lllllCTlII
TI.vI UN''''
,,- "I.
lUM
!
1 ~ .
!
mmmrn TYPIColt CIRCUlAA TUNNEL SECTION
lE1JIElIIEllIB NOT 10 sc.u
sTln 'uas ANO &.AGeiNG
INITI"''''''''''I
plMCAST tONtMTI stCKNT
UllllA&. Sl.PflCIlT
SOIL CONDITIONS ALONG
TUNNEL ALIGNMENT
. Claystone, Siltstone and
Sandstone
. Classified as extremely weak or
very weak rock
. Squeezing ground and gassy
conditions
. Tunnel construction methods
- Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)
- Road Header
- Steel rib and timber or
precast concrete rings for
temporary support
PROJECT EXPERIENCE STATEMENT
The Bidder shall have completed one
or more projects involving:
. 1,000 feet of 24-inch or larger
sewer using open cut construction;
. 500 feet or more of 12-inch to 30-
inch sewer using microtunneling
pipeline construction in similar
ground conditions; and
. 2,000 feet or more of tunneling a
6-foot diameter or larger tunnel in
similar ground conditions.
.,.,__ .________,__,____....___.______.___.__~_____.M__'_"_._._._.._.".... .,"".__....... ._.._....__...,~"..,.,,_...._....__._.._.____.__..____M_._u____,.._.~.....___._,~~_____.._____,__.__. __._.._...,____,_.,.~_,,,...______.~__"__"__,__._,.~.__._,__u____.___._._~__.~___..__.m_'____
PROJECT EXPERIENCE STATEMENT
( continued)
It is the intent of the District to
evaluate the responsiveness of the
Contractor's bid in part based on
whether the bid and information set
forth below reflect substantial
experience in successful completion
of work of the nature and magnitude
of this project.
BID REVIEW PROCESS
· Staff conducted a technical and
commercial review of bids.
· Tunneling experience with Mountain
Cascade bid lists 6 projects totaling
4,100 feet; longest project is 1,100 ft.
· All other aspects of Mountain Cascade
bid and all aspects of Affholder bid are
in order.
· Affholder filed protest because
Mountain Cascade bid did not list a
single tunnel project with length of
2,000 feet or more.
· In case of protest, it is appropriate for
Board to conduct a responsiveness
hearing.
· Staff recommendation and Board
decision follows hearing.
BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD
· Contract to be awarded to
the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder, price and
other factors considered,
provided the bid is
reasonable, and in best
interests of the District to
accept it.
· District reserves right to
reject any or all bids and to
waive any non-material
irregularities in the bids
received.
BOARD DECISION ALTERNATIVES
· Deny protest by Affholder.
Declare Mountain Cascade bid
to be responsive. Award
contract to Mountain Cascade,
Inc.
· Uphold protest by Affholder.
Declare Mountain Cascade bid
to be non-responsive. Award
contract to Affholder, Inc.
· Reject all bids.
Good Afternoon,
My name is Richard Oliver, I am a partner with the law firm, McKenna &
Cuneo and I represent Affholder, Inc. in this proceeding. On behalf of Affholder,
Inc. we want to thank the District Board for granting us this opportunity to present
our protest.
Our position in this protest is simple. Mountain Cascade and its tunneling
subcontractor, Walter C. Smith Company, Inc., did not submit a responsive bid
for this project and their bid must be rejected. A responsive bid must, on its face,
(Le. on the four corners of the bid only) meet all of the solicitation's requirements.
Their bid does not meet the solicitation's experience requirements. These
requirements are not ambiguous and they are clearly material. Thus, Mountain
Cascade's bid must be rejected as nonresponsive.
Mountain Cascade's bid does not meet the solicitation's express
experience requirements. For example, within the last five years, they have not
dug a 6-foot or larger diameter tunnel for a distance of at least 2,000 feet in
similar ground conditions. The solicitation mandates "[t]o meet the experience
requirement for the proposed project, the Bidder shall have completed one or
more projects involving 1,000 feet of 24-inch diameter or larger sewer using
open-cut pipeline construction, 500 feet or more 12-inch to 3D-inch diameter
sewer using microtunneling pipeline construction in similar ground conditions,
and 2,000 feet or more of tunneling a 6-foot diameter or larger tunnel in similar
ground conditions."
We believe and your staff agreed before the submission of bids that this
experience requirement mandates that the tunneling subcontractor have
excavated a large diameter tunnel of at least 2000 feet. On page seven, the
Supplemental Position Paper prepared by Mr. Aim and Mr. Swanson states that
the intent of the staff in drafting this solicitation requirement was that the
17098539.1
contractor should have at least one prior project of 2000 feet in length of large
diameter tunneling. It states: "[s}taff suggests that the intent of Section (e)
(Exhibit A) was the contractor should have at least one prior project of 2000 feet
in length of tunneling with a diameter of 60 inches (sic) or greater." This is
consistent with Affholder's understanding of the experience requirement.
Walter Smith's lack of the required tunneling experience is demonstrated
by the experience that Mountain Cascade listed for Walter Smith in its bid. Their
bid listed six projects, but three of these six projects were not at least six feet in
diameter. Thus, Mountain Cascade's bid demonstrates that in the last five years,
Walter Smith Company has only dug three large diameter tunnels. These three
tunnels had lengths of 585,655, and 1100 feet. For the 1100-foot excavation
however, Smith made multiple drives, the longest of which was 400 feet. These
three tunnels total only 2340 feet and the longest single drive is 655 feet.
Smith's failure to meet the experience requirement of the solicitation is also
acknowledged by the response of Mountain Cascade's counsel in this
proceeding. In this June 27, 2001 letter, Mountain Cascade makes no claim that
Smith meets the requirement of constructing a tunnel of 2000 feet. That failure is
an admission that Walter Smith Company does not meet the requirement. Of
course, pursuant to the solicitation, the company that is actually doing the
tunneling work must have the required experience.
In his comments, counsel for Mountain Cascade claims that nothing in the
specification requires the contractor or subcontractor to have completed any
single tunnel 2,000 feet in length and six feet in diameter over the past five years.
His comments, however, provide no explanation for this startling conclusion.
Mountain Cascade's counsel has apparently argued to the District's counsel that
the solicitation's experience requirements are ambiguous and can be satisfied by
adding up the various lengths of the large diameter tunnels that Smith has
-2-
constructed to meet the 2000-foot requirement. This position, however, is
contrary to a reasonable interpretation of this solicitation paragraph. This section
is not ambiguous.
I have already noted that the staff intended that the contractor have
excavated at least one large diameter tunnel of at least 2000 feet in length. The
Supplemental Paper suggests .that the staff is now concerned that the
requirement may be ambiguous. For this requirement to be ambiguous, Mountain
Cascade's interpretation of this requirement must be a reasonable interpretation.
One fundamental rule of contract interpretation is that a contract must be
interpreted in accordance with its clear language. A second fundamental rule of
contract interpretation is that it must be interpreted to give meaning to all of its
terms. If we look at this entire paragraph, we will see that the interpretation
proposed by Mountain Cascade is not reasonable or consistent with this entire
paragraph.
Let us review the words of Subparagraph E. The first sentence requires
the bidder to submit a statement "describing work the Bidder has completed
within the last five years which is similar in character to that anticipated in the
proposed project." The solicitation paragraph then states that "[a] listing of three
jobs is preferable." Three jobs are probably necessary to demonstrate a
company's experience in the three types of construction required for this project:
open cut construction, microtunneling and large diameter tunneling.
The solicitation states that "[i]t is the intent of the District to evaluate the
responsiveness of the Contractor's bid, in part based upon whether the bid and
information set forth below reflect substantial experience in successful
completion of work of the nature and maanitude of this project. This is the first
reason that a combining interpretation is not reasonable. "Nature and magnitude"
-3-
is an important phase. A 655 foot tunnel is simply not the same magnitude as a
4600-foot tunnel.
Then the paragraph states "[t]o meet the experience requirement for the
proposed project, the Bidder shall have completed one or more projects
involving 1 000 feet of 24 inch diameter or larger sewer using open-cut pipeline
construction, 500 feet or more of 12-inch to 30-inch diameter sewer using
microtunneling pipeline construction in similar ground conditions, and 2000 feet
or more of tunneling 6-foot diameter or larger tunnel in similar ground conditions."
(Emphasis added) Note that the word used for the 2000 feet requirement is
tunnel, and not tunnels. Therefore, the required 2000 feet of tunneling
experience must be accomplished in one tunnel.
The paragraph then states that"... [t]unneling portions of the requirements
may be met by using subcontractors meetina the minimum reauirements."
Finally, it states that "... [t]ailure to complete this section may result in the bid
being rejected as nonresponsive. As I will mention later the "may" language only
allows the Board to accept a bid that substantially conforms to the requirement.
It is also important for the Board not to be diverted by Mountain Cascade's
argument from the remainder of the solicitation's experience requirements.
Mountain Cascade's counsel letter focuses on trying to avoid the 2000-foot of
large diameter pipe experience requirement. This letter fails even to address the
fact that Smith has not performed this tunnel work in similar ground conditions.
These ground conditions include gassy conditions where there is a risk of
encountering Methane gas, which is highly explosive. Second, the anticipated
ground conditions also include squeezy ground, which greatly hampers
construction. Third, the anticipated ground conditions include a severe rock load
of eight times the normal rock load, which will severely challenge the support
structure for the tunnel. As indicated in Mountain Cascade's bid, in the last five
-4-
years, Smith has not dug in similar ground conditions and has not dug tunnels
with the necessary kind of support.
The Supplemental Position Paper incorrectly disregards Walter Smith's
failure to meet the solicitation's requirement for experience in similar ground
conditions. Although gassy conditions and squeezing ground conditions are not
unique to this project, there is no evidence in Mountain Cascade's bid that Walter
Smith has encountered either of those conditions in the last five years in
excavating its three large diameter tunnels.
Robert Stier now explains that: 1) the length of the tunnel excavation does
matter with regard to a contractor's experience in excavation tunnels; 2) the
significance of Cal OSHA's classification of the Dougherty Tunnel as a gassy
tunnel; 3) the ground conditions as described in the Geotechnical Interpretive
Report are unlike the conditions the tunneling industry has seen in this area; and
4) Affholder has completed projects of the magnitude of the Dougherty Valley
Tunnel. The notes of his comments are incorporated here as Attachment A.
Concerning the required support system, it is clear from Mountain
Cascade's bid that it has had no experience with that type of support system in
the last five years. Walter Smith has only had experience with pipe jacking, a
system which is wholly inadequate where the rock load is anticipated to be eight
times the normal load. The Supplemental Position Paper attempts to gloss over
Smith's total lack of experience by asserting that any support system design
would have to be approved by the District's tunnel consultant. The design of the
support system, however, is only one of many reasons that the solicitation
required this experience. Indeed, that experience will be much more important in
monitoring the strength of the support system during tunnel construction to
identify the development of dangerous load conditions and knowing how to
respond if such conditions do occur. The Supplemental Paper incorrectly fails to
-5-
enforce the solicitation's requirement that the contractor have experience
constructing large diameter tunnels in similar ground conditions.
Finally, Mountain Cascade's letter does not address the lack of required
experience for its proposed superintendent. He also does not have the project
experience required by the solicitation. For each of these failures to meet the
solicitation's experience requirements, Mountain Cascade's bid is nonresponsive.
The Board cannot accept Mountain Cascade's nonresponsive bid. As the
Supplemental Position Paper notes, the California Attorney General has stated
that" a basic rule of competitive bidding is that bids must conform to
specifications, and if a bid does not so conform, it may not be accepted. In
accordance with the California caselaw that is cited in our letter and the caselaw
cited in the Supplemental Position Paper, there are only two exceptions to the
rule that a bid that does not meet the solicitation requirements must be rejected
as nonresponsive. The first is that a solicitation requirement may be waived only
when that requirement is not material; when there is a minor irregularity. In this
case, these experience requirements are highly material for what is a difficult and
dangerous tunneling project. These are not minor technicalities that we found by
combing through Mountain Cascade's bid. These are the fundamental
experience requirements that the District expressly put in this solicitation to
ensure that it would have an experienced, capable tunneling contractor to
perform this work safely and effectively.
As noted in the Supplemental Position Paper, the second exception is that
a bid that substantially conforms to the requirement may be accepted if the other
bidders are not prejudiced. Mountain Cascade's bid, however, does not
substantially conform. Mountain Cascade and Smith failed to meet these
experience requirements by a wide margin. Please note that the 2000-foot
experience requirement for large diameter tunnels is less than half of what is
-6-
required for the work on this project of 4600 feet. However, the longest
experience that Smith has is 655 feet, or less than one seventh the length of this
project. Moreover, Smith has not demonstrated any experience with the extreme
ground conditions that would be encountered in this project. Smith also has no
experience in the last five years with the support structure required for this work.
Smith's superintendent does not have the required experience. Thus, what
Mountain Cascade's counsel urges is not a waiver of minor requirements; this
would be a total disregard for these important experience requirements.
Moreover, Mountain Cascade will receive a major competitive advantage
and the other bidders will be prejudiced if the District allows Mountain Cascade to
use a tunneling subcontractor that does not meet the solicitation's experience
requirements. We understand that Mountain Cascade included the experience
sheets for several tunneling subcontractors with its bid. It eventually chose
Walter Smith, probably because they were the cheapest. Mountain Cascade
obtained a substantial price advantage by using this unqualified tunneling
subcontractor, to the prejudice of the other bidders who proposed qualified
subcontractors.
Smith's lack of experience is not helped by its subsequent hiring of a
consultant, Mr. Clough. As a legal matter, we note that this consultant is not
mentioned in the bid and should not be considered in these proceedings. In any
event, the consultant will not be at the work site everyday. He teaches two
classes each semester at Stanford. His lack of attendance is particularly
important. We understand that the recent, fatal accident at Dulles Airport
occurred when the consultant was not present.
Even if the District could legally award the contract to Mountain Cascade,
the potential cost savings suggested by its lower contract price is clearly not
worth the risk. Walter Smith, the tunneling contractor proposed by Mountain
-7-
Cascade, has not operated in anywhere near similar ground conditions. The
anticipated conditions for this project are dangerous and difficult. Nor has Smith
met the minimum footage of tunneling. It is as if you are finding that someone
who had built a few houses is qualified to build a 20-story high-rise. In the last
five years, Affholder has excavated more than fifty times as much large diameter
tunnel as Walter C. Smith Construction. That is relevant because of the limited
working experience of Walter Smith's current crew.
I also must note for you that if the District ignores the experience
requirement and award the contract to Mountain Cascade and if, God forbid,
there should be an accident at the tunnel work, the District will be legally very
vulnerable. The plaintiff's counsel in some subsequent lawsuit will be very
pleased to find out that this District Board ignored the minimum experience
requirement contained in the solicitation and selected an inexperienced
contractor who did not meet those qualifications.
For all of these reasons, this Board must reject the bid of Mountain
Cascade and award the contract for this project to Affholder, Inc.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this protest.
-8-
ATTACHMENT "A"
Magnitude of the Dougherty Valley Tunnel
. Length does matter with regard to experience in the excavation of tunnels.
o CalOSHA has stated that when excavating tunnels greater then
4000 feet in length, additional requirements must be met for the
protection of the employees underground.
· Refuge chambers
· Additional fire protection equipment
· Employee safety areas that are out of the way of the muck
haulage equipment are required
o Additional requirements for haulage equipment must be utilized to
keep productivity at a proper rate.
· Switches, and two to three trains will need to be used to keep
productivity at an average required to complete the project on
time.
. CalOSHA has classified the Dougherty Tunnel as a "Gassy" tunnel. This
means that there is a good chance of encountering methane gas, which
could cause an explosion while working in the tunnel.
o Affholder has completed three major tunnel contracts in California.
None of these tunnels have been classified as "gassy"
o Special requirements need to be met to work in a tunnel that is
classified as gassy.
· Special Lighting and light line must be used that meets Class
I, Division II Electrical Requirements.
· Special Ventilation equipment meeting Class I, Division I
Electrical Requirements with the ability to increase the
ventilation from 200 feet of air per minute to 300 feet of air per
minute within the tunnel must be used. Standard Ventilation
Systems are Class I, Division II and must move 60 feet of air
per minute.
· Special tools that are non-sparking need to be used so that an
explosion cannot occur when gas is encountered.
· Spoil haulage equipment must have special starters so that an
explosion will not occur when the locomotives are started.
. The Geotechnical Design Baseline Report indicated that rock loads that
are eight times the standard loads could be encountered within the tunnel
excavation. This means that heavier then normal steel ribs and wood
lagging supports are required to withstand the loads that will be reacting
against the supports. The Baseline Report also indicated that Squeezing
Rock would be encountered while excavating the tunnel.
. Ground Conditions as describe in the Geotechnical Interpretive Report
(GIR) are nothing like the tunneling industry has seen in this area.
o The tunneling contractor that is excavating the tunnel should have
installed a similar support system within the past five years. The
tunnel contractor that is awarded this contract should have installed
a steel tunnel rib with wood lagging support system or a precast
concrete segment support system within the last five years.
o Rock Loads of almost 12,000 Ibs may react on the tunnel support
system. Rock can point load a tunnel support system, where as it is
more difficult for soft ground to point load a tunnel support system.
· A team of knowledgeable underground miners and laborers
must be present during working hours to ensure the support
system does not fail. They will be checking for movement of
the support systems not just at the locations required by the
design engineer but at any points they believe to be taking a
heavy load.
· A knowledgeable tunnel superintendent must be on site to
make the proper decisions with regard to a support system
that is being overstressed. Should you make the spacing of
the supports closer?
· If rock conditions are encountered as described in the
Geotechnical Design Baseline Report, the contractor must
know what to look for to see if the tunnel supports are taking a
heavy load. The tunnel contractor must know how to react to
a support system that may be failing. If the contractor has not
installed these support systems 8 to 10 worker may be
trapped from a collapse.
o Walter C. Smith has not installed a ring beam and lagging tunnel in
the past five years.
o Squeezing rock may cause the tunnel-boring machine to become
stuck and unable to move forward.
· As indicated in the contract specification 02300 Tunneling "the
contractor must be prepared to work around the clock to
prevent the tunnel boring machine from becoming stuck."
. Experienced TBM operators with years of experience are
required since they know when the TBM is reacting differently
to squeezing ground conditions.
Affholder has completed projects of the magnitude of the Dougherty Valley
Tunnel.
o Hilltop Interceptor Contract H-3 had to be evacuated five times
during the tunnel excavation due to methane gas. A Superintendent
has to have the experience and respect for methane gas in tunnels
that are "gassy". This tunnellike the Dougherty Valley tunnel
reached depths of over 230 vertical feet.
o Coldwater Creek Outfall Phase I had tremendous rock loads
imposed on the support system. The Clay filled cavities that were
encountered caused heavy rock loads to point load the ring beam
and lagging tunnel support system. Steps had to be taken to protect
workers and keep the tunnel from collapsing.
o Bradshaw Interceptor Section 5 was tunneled from one portal
10,200 feet using steel ribs and wood lagging for supports through
cemented sands. CalOSHA required special conditions due to the
length of tunnel and support system installed.
o Folsom Interceptor Section 2b was completed using steel ribs and
steel lagging for support of mixed face conditions including rock,
boulders and sands and gravel.
Walter C. Smith Contracting, Inc. has only completed tunnels of the diameter
required in experience requirement statement.
URS
Memorandum
Date: July 5, 2001
To: Curt Swanson
From: David Young, Project Manager ~~
Sheldon Coudray, Senior Consultant '5 C ~ .j)g.
Subject: Evaluation of Bidders Qualifications for
Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer, D.P. 5902
This memorandum summarizes our professional opinion regarding Walter C. Smith's fulfillment of
experience-based bidding requirements. It has been prepared in response to a bid protest filed on behalf
of Affholder, Inc. We believe we are qualified to provide such opinion because Mr. Young is tunnel
specialist with 13 years of tunnel experience, and the project manager responsible for the design of the
Tunnel. Mr. Coudray is a senior consultant with URS who has over 40 years of experience, much of it
tunnel construction in California. Mr. Coudray's resume is attached to this memo for reference.
The experience statement included in the bidding requirements for the project requires that: ''the bidder
has completed within the last five (5) years [projects] which are similar in character to that anticipated
in the proposed project," and that "the bidder shall have completed one or more projects involving
... .... and 2,000 feet or more of tunneling a 6-foot diameter or larger tunnel in similar ground
conditions. "
These qualification requirements for "similar in character", "length and size" and "similar ground
conditions" are discussed separately below:
Similar in Character - The Dougherty Valley Tunnel will be excavated by a specialized tunneling
machine in a geologic formation known as the Orinda Formation. This Formation is on the border
between rock and soil in terms of strength. The strength of the samples from the Orinda Formation is
anticipated to be similar to stiff and hard clays, and to extremely weak rock. W.C. Smith shows
experience with excavating tunnels using specialized tunneling machines in ground with similar
strength.
Len2th and Size - In support of their bid and in response to the bid protest, W.C. Smith indicate they
have successfully completed 7,279 lineal feet of various tunneling projects ranging in size from 72
inches in diameter to 156 inches in diameter. The longest tunnel is about 1,100 feet. While no single
tunnel is of a length greater than or equal to 2,000 feet, there is no technical difference between
construction of a tunnel that is 1, 100 feet and one that is 2,000 feet.
Similar Ground Conditions -In Affholder's protest documents, methane gas, "extreme" rock loads and
squeezing ground are mentioned as project specific concerns. W. C. Smith has experience with gassy
tunnel conditions. Their vice president and operations manager is a certified CaVOSHA gas tester.
Thus W.C. Smith's experience in similar gassy tunnels is documented. CaUOSHA will also have an
active role in enhancing the safety of the work. Equipment requirements for gassy tunnels are
established and regulated by CaVOSHA. All equipment used in the tunnel will be specially designed
for the gassy envirorunent, and CaUOSHA will make tunnel inspections to aid in enforcement of safety
requirements.
A:\Ietter for dougherty bid onaIysis-julyS.doc 7/5101
URS
Page 2 of2
Ground loads specified for the Dougherty tunnel are based on anticipated squeezing loads and swelling
pressures. Squeezing loads are anticipated based on an evaluation of the relationship between
overburden pressure at tunnel depth and the strength of the rock. Based on a similar evaluation of
overburden pressure and ground strength, it is very likely that many of the projects listed by W.C. Smith
also encountered squeezing conditions. For example, tunnel projects in Bay mud often encounter
squeezing conditions due primarily to the low strength of the Bay mud. The high ground loads
specified for this project will dictate the use of closely spaced or continuous tunnel supports. However,
there is not anticipated to be a substantial difference in skill and workmanship necessary to install these
supports compared to a tunnel with lower loads. The difference may only be in the spacing between
supports.
Conclusion
In support of their bid protest, Afiholder suggest shortcomings in level of experience ofW.C. Smith's
personnel and experience with temporary tunnel support systems. The bidding requirements do not
include specific qualifications requirements for the tunnel contractor's personnel, nor for experience
with temporary tunnel support systems. Nevertheless, W.C. Smith has access to expertise in these areas
through use of consultants and new hires. W.e. Smith proposes to use Russell G. Clough who shows
substantial tunnel experience on his resume. It is our professional opinion that W.C. Smith meets the
qualifications requirements for bidding, with respect to character of the work, cummulative length of
tunnel constructed, and similar ground. Further evaluations of personnel qualifications, and
construction methods will be addressed post-award through the shop drawing review process.
Attachment
Resume of Sheldon Coudray
/
~lIeldoD V. Coudray
Senior Consultant
AREAS OF EXPERTISB
. Tunnels, Dams
. Construction
Engineering
. Cost Estimating and
Engineering
. Construction
Consulting
. Expert Witness
EDUCATION
Rutgers University,
Newark College of
Engineering: B.S., Civil
Engineering, 1950
Rhodes Institute of
Technology, New York
City, New York: A. A.,
Science and Mathematics,
1946
REGISTRATION
Certified Cost Engineer,
1968 (CCE 02423)
Certified Professional
Estimator, 1985 (CPE
CED 1.4)
Licensed General
Engineering Contractor,
1975 (#310955)
PROFESSIONAL
HISTORY
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, Senior
Consultant, 1990-date
Independent Construction
Consultant, 1985-1990
Various Contractors,
Consulting Engineering
Woodward-CIyde Q
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENt"E
Mr. Coudray specializes in construction management services
to water resources projects, including dams and tunnels, large
civil projects, such as highways and railroad construction, and
sewage and water treatment plant facilities. He has extensive
experience in the construction industry throughout the United
States.
His experience spans 40 years in field engineering, supervision,
and management, in addition to office positions involving
project administration and estimating. Mr. Coudray's area of
expertise include construction engineering, planning, feasibility
studies, scheduling, cost control, value engineering, and
professional estimating.
Mr. Coudray has served in an advisory capacity in his areas of
expertise on many projects. At present he is on an Advisory
Panel for the design of the Richmond Transport Tunnel, a
wastewater tunnel in San Francisco, and he is a member of the
Technical Evaluation Board established by the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California. He recently provided
technical input and review comments as a special consultant
for feasibility studies, preliminary design, and construction cost
estimates on the proposed Los Vaqueros Project (including a
diversion tunnel) for the Contra Costa County Water District.
Other projects on which Mr. Coudray has been involved as a
construction consultant to various design teams regarding
feasibility, planning, and cost information include:
. Dams and Related Construction
Oroville Dam and tunnels, Oroville, California
Union Geothermal Dam and tunnel, Big Sulphur Springs,
California
High Tongue River Dam and tunne~ Decker, Montana
- Warm Springs Dam, Hea1dsburg, California
Lake Stafford Dam, Novato, California
- Main & Saddle Dams and tunne~ South Fork Project,
Elko, Nevada
- Long Valley Dam, L.A. Dept. of Water and Power, Los
Angeles, California
- Saw Pit Dam, L.A. Dept. of Public Works, Los Angeles,
Y:'-mar1<el\RESUMES\Olhef 0lIiceslCoudraylcoudray.docl27 -OCT.99IOAK I
SbeldoD I. Coudray
Senior Consultant
Firms and Owners, 1950-
1985
AFFIUA TIONS
American Association of
Cost Engineers
American Society of
Professional Estimators
Society of American
Military Engineers
Structural Engineers
Association of Northern
California
Society of American Value
Engineers
Order of the Engineer
California
- Los Angeles River Greenbelt Project (mcluding tunnel),
Los Angeles, California
- Los Vaqueros Dam and tunneL Contra Costa County,
California
- Eastside Reservoir Project (including tunnel), Southern
California Municipal Water District
· Hazardous WastelRemedial Action Plans
- Advanced Micro Devices, Sunnyvale, California
- Confidential Client, East Palo Alto, California
- USMC Training Center, Bridgeport, California
- USN Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
- Intersil Manufacturing Facility, Cupertino, California
· Earthquake Studies/Earth Slides
- Inverness Slide Reconstruction Study, Marin County,
California
- Seismic Studies by Base Isolation, USN Post Graduate
School, Monterey, California
- Seismic Strengthening Alternatives for:
IBM, Sunnyvale, California
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California
University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles,
California
Vesper Hospital Earthslide, Oakland, California
Lauralwood Slide, San Mateo, California
· Other Projects
- Via Gavota Ocean Seawall, Aptos, California
- Sea Wall Repairs, Naval Air Station, Alameda,
California
- Value Engineering Study, Navy Support Facility,
Diego Garcia, B 10-P065
- Union Oil Refinery Industrial Waste Collection System,
including Ocean Outfall
- Geothermal Exploration & Environmental Impact
Woodward-CIyde Q
Y:'-mar1<etIRESUMES\Olhef 0IIicesICoudraylcoudray.docI27.QCT.99IOAK 2
/
Sbeldon V. Coudray
Senior Consultant
Report, Hilo, Hawaii
Mr. Coudray has also been engaged as a consultant and an
expert witness in litigation cases involving construction
disputes. These have included:
· Expert WitnesslLegal Advice
Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water District vs. Techite
Pipe
Placer County Water District vs. Contractors & Surety
Guerneville Sanitary Collection System, Sonoma
County vs. Engineer, Contractor & Surety
Rossmoor Reconstruction Project, Rossmoor vs.
Developer, Builder & Surety
Mr. Coudray was involved in the identified management
capacity on the following recent projects.
· Resident Engineer for construction of Goodwin Tunnel at
Knights Ferry, California. This 14-foot-diameter, 3-mile-
long water tunnel taps into an existing reservoir on the
Stanislaus River, behind Goodwin Dam. The tunnel was
mined with both a tunnel boring machine and conventional
drill and blast mining due to wide variation in the
subsurface geologic conditions.
· Project Manager and Senior Engineer for construction of
EI Camino Del Cerro Landfill, Pima County, Arizona.
On numerous other projects Mr. Coudray served in various
active management capacities. A sample listing of those
projects is provided below, each starting with Mr. Coudray's
role.
· Project engineer on the Western Pacific Railroad
Relocation Project, Oroville Dam, in Northern California.
This 30-mile railroad relocation project included
approximately 4-miles of rock tunneling, 19 overpass
bridges, and numerous utility relocations.
· Project engineer on the Conway Summit Project in
Bridgeport, California. The major relocation of a portion
of Highway 395 involved a massive earth moving project
which included the drilling and blasting of approximately
6.5 million cubic yards of rock and related construction.
. Project superintendent on numerous sewage and water
WoocJward.CIyde Q Y:'-mar1<el\RESUMES\OIher 0lIicesICoudray\coudray.docl27-OCT -99IOAK 3
;"
/
SbeldoD V. Coudray
Senior Consultant
treatment plant construction projects. Prepared bid
estimates to obtain the projects. Then as Project
Superintendent, supervised the construction in the field.
The projects were for the California cities of Vallejo,
Crockett, Rodeo, San Pablo, Brisbane, Union City and San
Luis Obispo.
· Project engineer on the second span of the Carquinez
Bridge in Crockett, California; in charge of the
construction of the offshore deep water caissons. This
involved fabrication and assembly in drydock, towing,
berthing and landing procedures prior to the construction
of the super-structure.
· Project engineer on the Bowery Bay Project, a sub-
aqueous compressed air tunnel under the East River
between Long Island City and Manhattan, New York.
This difficult, mixed-face tunnel was driven by alternating
between a jumbo drill and a soft ground shield.
· Project superintendent on a coal-fired power plant in
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. In full charge of the total project
including bringing in 1.5 miles of railroad spur to service
the completed plant.
· Project engineer on the lower Miami Valley Master
Sanitary Collection and Treatment Facilities covering both
Campbell and Kenton Counties in Northern Kentucky.
This multi-million dollar project took 4 years to construct,
involving 24 miles of collector lines, including 15 miles of
tunnels for the most part driven through the clay formation
by the compressed air method, as well as numerous lift
stations; pumping plants all ending at a master treatment
plant in Bromley, Kentucky.
· Project engineer on the Ohio River Flood Wall Project.
Constructed under the direction ofthe U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers at the intersection of the Licking and Ohio
Rivers in Newport, Kentucky.
· Chief estimator for a major West Coast designlbuild firm
specializing in the design and construction of industrial,
chemical and petrochemical facilities.
· Cost estimator for the Getty Museum drainage tunnel in
Los Angeles, California, which is in soft rock, 1,200-foot-
long, 14 feet in diameter.
· Cost estimator and constructability reviewer for the
Woodward-CIyde " Y:'-mar1<el\RESUME~ OIfices\Couclraylcoudray.docI27-OCT.99IOAK 4
I
SbeldoD I. Coudray
Senior Consultant
Mission Tunnel Rehabilitation Project in Santa Barbara,
California. Repair portions of 19,000-foot-Iong, 6-foot-
diameter tunnel.
Woodward-CIyde ..
Y:Unar1<el\RESUMES\Olhef Offiees\Coudraylcoudray.d0c\27 -OCT.99\OAK 5
TUNNEL EXPERIENCE STATEMENT
IN BID PROPOSAL
. 2,000 feet of 6 foot or larger diameter
tunnel in similar ground conditions.
. Intent was that this be 2,000
continuous feet.
. Mountain Cascade interpreted
experience to be a cumulative 2,000
feet.
. Because of this ambiguity, staff and
District consultants reviewed Walter C.
Smith experience.
. Technical consultants were Mike
Kobler of UCM and Dave Young and
Sheldon Coudray of URS Corporation.
REVIEW OF WALTER C. SMITH
EXPERIENCE
· Completed approximately 32,000 feet
of tunnels with diameter 6 feet or
larger during last 20 years.
. Completed approximately 7,300 feet
of tunnels with diameter 6 feet or
larger during last 5 years.
· Longest single tunnel was 1,115 feet
during last 5 years.
. Completed tunnel projects in ground
conditions similar to Dougherty
Tunnel Project.
. Walter C. Smith has sufficient
experience to construct Dougherty
Tunnel Project.
. ____._____"__.____._______________~_..__.,_,,~._'t--,-.-_". ___.0___.________.._...........".....----/-.-___,_
TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
METHODS, EQUIPMENT, AND
PERSONNEL
. Technical specifications of contract
documents specify construction
methods, materials, equipment, and
personnel for tunnel construction.
. This information was not required as
part of the bid proposal.
. Consequently, this information is not an
issue to be considered during Bid
Award.
. Contractor to provide information
within 30 days of Notice to Proceed.
. District reviews, comments, and
accepts as part of "Shop Drawing"
submittal review process.
____________.'._,_.__._"__..' ____,..._._.__,~..___._..__.____.__.,_____.__~___..__.___.__.~.___..__._,_._."__,_._,_.__._____~____________--...-__..___._._._,.____"_...._,_,.,"..,_.".__--l---~,._.._
STAFF RECOMMENTATIONS
· Deny protest filed by Affholder,
Inc.
· Award construction contract to
Mountain Cascade, Inc.
· Award be contingent upon approval
and signature of Win.demere
financing agreement under Board
Agenda Item 8.a.
· Authorize consulting agreements
with
- Brown & Caldwell
- URS Corporation
- EPC / Underground
Construction Managers
- SOHA Engineers
MICHAEL KOBLER
Michael Kobler has over 20 years of experience in
tunneling and underground construction as
construction manager, resident engineer, cost
estimator scheduler and consultant. He has worked
on a variety of project types such as soft ground
and hard rock tunnels and shafts, underground
stations and powerhouses and tunnel remediation.
His extensive tunneling equipment experience
includes NATM, cut and cover, tunnel boring
machines, earth pressure balance machines, soft
ground diggers, and drill and blast. He has
experience in all aspects of construction
management, including constructability evaluation,
documentation of job progress, processing progress
payments, negotiation of change orders and
contract administration.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 20
YEARS OF TUNNEllUNDERGROUND
EXPERIENCE: 20
EDUCATION
· B.S. Mining Engineering with Management
Option, Montana School of Mines
REGISTRATIONS
· Licensed Blaster, California
PUBLICA nONS
· "Lake Merced Transport- Tunneling
Through a Differing Site Condition ", MJ.
Robison, M.B. Kobler, J. Cheung, and J. Chia,
Proceedings of the 1993 Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference.
· "Tunnel Planning in Urban Areas" MJ.
Robison, G.S. Brierley ,and M.H. Kobler
Proceedings of 1 (jh Annual Canadian '
Tunneling Conference 1992.
AFFILIA TIONS/CERTIFICA TIONS
· Co-Chairman "Ground Modifications ", Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling ConferenceJ999.
· Co-Chairman "Shafts and Raises ", Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference 1997.
ucm, inc.
Construction Manager
Inland Feeder Project, San Bernardino, CA
Mr. Kobler is Construction Manager for the design
and construction phases of the Inland Feeder
Project which consist of 90,000 linear feet of 14-
foot diameter finished tunnel. Mr. Kobler provided
an evaluation of designs, costs and construction
means and methods throughout the design phase.
During construction, Mr. Kobler is providing
construction management services.
Tunnel Monitor
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los
Angeles, CA
Mr. Kobler is serving as an independent tunnel
monitor to insure compliance with environmental
constraints regarding groundwater, seasonal springs
and blasting on the Hollywood Hills tunnel
segment. His duties included reviewing pre-and
post-excavation grouting procedures, and
groundwater monitoring.
Technical Advisor
The Islais Creek Transport Contract D, San
Francisco, CA
Mr. Kobler provided construction support for 920
linear feet of30-foot wide transport/storage box
sewer, 490 linear feet of 42-foot wide
transport/storage box sewer with overflow weir
structure and 820 linear feet of 96-inch diameter
reinforced concrete pipe.
Resident Construction Manager
Richmond Transport Tunnel, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Kobler reviewed preliminary contract plans and
specifications for constructability. He was
responsible for managing the Richmond Transport
Tunnel which consisted of 10,200 linear feet of 14-
foot diameter waste water storage tunnel, an
underground overflow system tying into an existing
outfall tunnel and a 10- foot diameter connector. He
supervised a staff of 15 professionals that managed
the construction associated with the connector
tunnels overflow system and ancillary work.
Resident Construction Manager
Lake Merced Transport, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Kobler provided construction management
services during the construction of 8,500 linear feet
of 14-foot diameter combined sewer and
MICHAEL KOBLER
PAGE 2
RESUME
ucm, inc.
storm water overflow tunnel for the City and County
of San Francisco's Clean Water Program (CWP).
Responsible for construction management, contract
administration, project engineering and inspection.
Coordinated construction activities with adjacent
CWP projects and interfaced with adjacent third
parties.
Assistant Project Manager
Yacambu-Quibor Irrigation Project, Venezuela
This project consisted of2-kilometers of inclined
tunnel, excavated using drill and blast and
road headers methods through squeezing ground
which was supported by rock bolts, shotcrete and
steel sets. The project utilizedNA TM principals.
The project also included rehabilitation of 500-
meters of rock tunnel in squeezing ground. Duties
included supervision of mining crews, preparation
of submittals, field engineering, labor and contract
negotiations and contract administration.
Project Superintendent
WMATA Contract F4
Anacosta River Crossing, Washington D.C.
This project consisted of twin 2,500 linear feet of
17-foot diameter single pass tunnels driven through
saturated sands and gravels with an earth pressure
balance machine. Mr. Kobler was responsible for
all aspects of construction in the field, including
labor, equipment, material, production and safety.
Project Engineer
WMATA Contract F3A
M Street Tunnels, Washington D.C.
This project consisted of twin 2,200 linear feet of
17-foot diameter single pass tunnels driven with an
earth pressure balance machine equipped with rock
cutters. Mr. Kobler was responsible for preparation
of bid estimates, mobilization, construction
schedules and submittals.
Manager-International Purchasing, Senior
Estimator and Superintendent
Torno America, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Kobler was responsible for source
development, vendor selection, negotiation of
contracts, acquisitions, supplier delivery,
performance and compliance. As Senior Estimator,
prepared complete cost estimates for heavy
construction bids throughout the United States,
including hydroelectric, underground tunnels and
MICHAEL KOBLER
PAGE3
RESUME
ucm. inc.
stations, cut and cover, earth moving and pipeline
projects. Mr. Kobler was also Superintendent
responsible for construction of Phase I of the La
Grange Tunnel in Modesto, CA.
Cost and Schedule Engineer
Harrison Western Corporation, Denver, CO
Mr. Kobler was responsible for monitoring job
costs, progress and construction engineering
support for various tunnel projects.
Superintendent
Traven Boa Project, Dominican Republic
This project consisted of 1,000 linear feet drainage
adits, 30-feet in diameter, 3,OOO-feet of diversion
tunnel, portals and concrete structures. The adit and
diversion tunnels were driven using drill and blast
and roadheaders with support provided by rock
bolts and shotcrete. Mr. Kobler's duties included
supervision of the tunnel crews during mobilization,
tunnel excavation and final lining.
SELECTED CONSULTING POSITIONS
Sonoma County Water Agency
Evaluation of tunneling options for water
collection.
Rio Saavedra-Moran Tunnel
Safege Montgomery
Evaluation of differing site conditions for a claim.
Dougherty Valley Tunnel
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Performed peer review of preliminary and final
design.
Hollywood Water Quality Improvement Project
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Performed peer review of design.
Northside Storage Tunnel
Montgomery Watson Australia
Provided consulting on tunnel issues related to
subaquous river crossing.
South Bay Ocean Outfall
Sverdrup/Kaiser
Provided consultation regarding perfonnance of
EPB
ucm, inc.
MICHAEL KOBLER
PAGE 4
RESUME
Taipei Metro
Morrison Knudsen
Performed evaluation of grouting option and EPB
machine.
2nd Street Tunnel
Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers
Performed constructability review.
Ml Motorway
Jacobs Associates
Provided cost estimate.
Sunnyvale Sewer Improvements
City & County of San Francisco
Performed preliminary feasibility study and cost
estimate.
Richmond Transport Facilities
City & County of San Francisco
Performed constructability review.
Eagle Mountain Seismic Retrofit
Metropolitan District of Southern California
Performed evaluation of differing site conditions
claim.
Islais Creek Tunnel
Jacobs Associates
Provided evaluation of construction means and
methods.
Wine Cave Expansion
Robert Sinskey Vineyards
Performed construction oversight.
MTA
Universal Studios
Performed evaluation of settlement/ground response
to tunneling.
Spring Mountain Winery
Nordby Wine Caves
Performed evaluation of ground conditions.
Lake Matthews Intake and Outtake Structure
Jacobs Associates
Provided review of construction means and
methods.
UCffi, mc.
MICHAEL KOBLER
PAGES
RESUME
Narragansett Bay eso
Jacobs Associates
Performed 30% constructability review.
Inland Feeder Project
Jacobs Associates
Performed evaluation of portal selections and
provided feasibility study and cost estimates.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 8.a. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
WINDEMERE BlC lAND COMPANY llC FOR CONSTRUCTION FINANCING OF THE
DOUGHERTY VAllEY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER (DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902)
Submitted By:
Jarred Miyamoto-Mills
Principal Engineer
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
K. Aim
C. Swanson
aus:,1
~
~v
J. Miyamoto-Mills
Vly~
ISSUE: The District's August 3, 1998, agreement ("initial agreement") with the
Dougherty Valley developers for planning, design, property rights acquisition and
construction of the Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer requires that the District
and the developer is designated as "installer" execute a financing arrangement for
construction of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with
Windemere BlC land Company llC ("Windemere BlC") for construction financing of the
Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer (District Project No. 5902).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Post-bid Preconstruction Cost Estimate for the project
including all planning, predesign, design, property rights acquisition, construction, contract
administration, construction management, inspection, testing, consultation, a fifteen
percent contingency allowance, and other incidental costs is $19,238,000 assuming that
the construction contract is awarded to Mountain Cascade, Inc. (see Attachment 1). Of
this amount, Windemere BlC has reimbursed the District $1,630,333 for project costs,
and reimbursement fees collected from connectors in the Lawrence Road area for the
project total $421,400 through May 2001. The proposed agreement requires that
Windemere BlC, prior to award of the construction contract, place the remainder
($17,186,267 based on award of the construction contract to Mountain Cascade; if the
construction contract is awarded to Affholder, this figure will be revised in accordance
with Affholder's bid) in an escrow account on which the District can draw to pay project
costs as they are incurred. The funds will come from the proceeds of assessment district
bonds for Dougherty Valley infrastructure sponsored by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). This arrangement will ensure that current and future CCCSD
6/29/01
U :\PPR\J B\ConstructionFinanPPR. wpd
Page 1 of 6
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
WINDEMERE BlC lAND COMPANY llC FOR CONSTRUCTION FINANCING OF THE
DOUGHERTY VAllEY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER (DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902)
customers will have no financial responsibility for project costs, as was contemplated in
the initial agreement.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Several alternative payment security approaches
were considered by District staff and Windemere BlC including a payment bond,
irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of escrow account or cash deposit.
BACKGROUND: On September 4, 1997, the Board of Directors approved the Specific
Facilities Plan for Wastewater Utility Service to Dougherty Valley and Tributary Properties,
and determined that construction of a new gravity tunnel and trunk sewer between the
valley and CCCSD's existing San Ramon Pumping Station is the most appropriate means
for extending service to the area. The General Development Standards established by the
Board's approval of the Specific Facilities Plan require that 1) the District design and
construct the tunnel and trunk sewer due to the special nature of the work and the critical
reliability criteria for the facilities, and 2) the planning, design, construction, and property
rights acquisition for the project be financed by the developers without financial risk to
CCCSD's current or future customers.
An initial agreement between the District and the developers covering the planning, design
and property rights acquisition for the project was executed on August 3, 1998. Through
May 2001, approximately $1.63 million has been spent by the District and reimbursed by
Windemere BlC under the terms of the initial agreement. Another item on today's agenda
recommends that the Board award a construction contract for the project contingent on
execution of the proposed construction financing agreement. The initial agreement with
the developers required that a financing arrangement for the construction stage be
executed prior to District's commitment of resources to construction.
District Counsel and staff have negotiated an agreement with Windemere BlC for payment
of the project's construction, contract administration, construction management,
inspection, testing, consultation, and other incidental costs plus a fifteen percent
contingency allowance. The total amount of these costs is estimated to be $17,607,667.
The recommended agreement includes the following terms and conditions:
. The District will publically bid, contract for, and oversee the construction of the
project.
6/29/01
U: \PPR\J B\ConstructionFinanPPR. wpd
Page 2 of 6
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
WINDEMERE BLC LAND COMPANY LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION FINANCING OF THE
DOUGHERTY VALLEY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER (DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902)
. The District will use its own staff and qualified consulting firms to manage the
work, will administer the construction and consulting contracts, and make progress
payments to contractors and consultants.
. The District will acquire property rights needed for the project.
. Windemere BLC will be regularly informed of project status and their
representatives will be included in project team meetings.
. The work products and facilities constructed will be the property of the District.
. The District will cooperate with Windemere BLC to provide limited temporary sewer
service to homes that connect prior to the completion of the project. Windemere
BLC will pay all design, construction, operations and maintenance costs of the
temporary facilities.
. Windemere BLC will place $17,186,267 (based on award of the construction
contract to Mountain Cascade) in an escrow account on which the District can
draw for reimbursement of one hundred percent of project costs as they are
incurred. If the construction contract is awarded to Affholder, this figure will be
revised in accordance with Affholder's bid.
. The District will deposit the total amount of reimbursement fees collected from
Lawrence Road area connectors for the project ($421 ,400) in the escrow account.
. Windemere BLC will place additional amounts in the escrow account if the total
cost estimated for completion of the project should exceed the amount remaining
in the account at any time.
. Windemere BLC indemnifies the District from claims, demands, liabilities, damages,
losses, penalties, costs, charges and expenses (including attorney's fees) that may
be incurred as a consequence of the project.
. The District will proceed immediately and diligently with the work.
6/29/01
U :\PPR\J B\ConstructionFinanPPR. wpd
Page 3 of 6
--"..,_._,--,~..,.__.__._,,_.--_..._---_._--_._'".._--_._~-_._-----,-------,,--_.,,_.._.~-_._----..--- .--.-,.----.------.-.,..-...--.-
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
WINDEMERE BLC LAND COMPANY LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION FINANCING OF THE
DOUGHERTY VALLEY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER (DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902)
. The agreement is binding on any successors to Windemere BLC should the property
be sold or otherwise transferred to a different party. The District's approval is
required prior to assignment of the agreement.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute the
proposed agreement with Windemere BLC Land Company LLC (IIWindemere BLCII) for
construction financing of the Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer (District Project
No. 5902).
6/29/01
U :\PPR\JB\ConstructionFinanPPR. wpd
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer
CCCSD Project No. 5902
Post-Bid Preconstruction Cost Estimate
1. Construction
. Contract - Mountain Cascade, Inc. $12,274,620'
. Contingency @ 15% 1,841,380
. Incentive for Early Completion 150.000
Subtotal: $14,266,000
2. Construction Management
. Project Management 263,000
. Contract Administration 128.000
Subtotal: 391,000
3. Consultant Contracts
. Engineering and Inspection 850,000
. Geotechnical/Structural Engineering 150,000
. Tunnel Specialty Inspection 430,000
. Preconstruction Damage Assessment 60,000
. Materials Testing 50,000
. Surveying 30,000
. Air Quality Monitoring 25,000
. Noise/Vibration Monitoring 25,000
. Miscellaneous (Traffic, Safety, Arboristl 20.000
Subtotal: 1,640,000
4. Miscellaneous
. Community Liaison 150,000
. Public Relations 53,000
. District Surveying 1 0,000
. Legal 50,000
6/29/01
U :\PPR\J B\ConstructionFinanPPR. wpd
Page 5 of 6
____,_..._______.'"m^_~_._'".___..__~._'"....,____,.."..___' ._ ,._...,_.___._~___~__._m_____'________'~___________.
ATTACHMENT 1 (contim.led)
Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer
CCCSD Project No. 5902
Post-Bid Preconstruction Cost Estimate
5. Miscellaneous (continued)
6.
7.
8.
8.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dispute Review Board
District Operations Departments
City of San Ramon Inspection
County Inspection
District Engineering Support
Field Office Secretary
Field Office/Vehicle - Lease & Utilities
Field Office Support
Right of Way (Staging Area)
50,000
40,000
100,000
30,000
1 0,000
50,000
60,000
22,000
25.000
Subtotal:
650,000
Public Bid Process (Estimated Costs for June 2001):
225,000
Subtotal - Items 2 thru 5:
2,906,000
Contingency - Items 2 thru 5 @ 15 %:
435,667
Pre-Bid Expenditures (thru May 2001):
1,630,333
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
$19,238,000
9. Less Windemere BlC reimbursements thru May 2001:
(1,630,333)
10. Amount needed to complete project:
17,607,667
(421,400)
11 . less amount from Reimbursement Account:
12. Required amount for Windemere BlC to
requisition from ABAG Bonds:
$17,186,267
'For purposes of this calculation, the bid amount of Mountain Cascade has been
assumed. If the award is made to Affholder, this figure and the contingency will be
modified in accordance with the amount of the Affholder bid.
6/29/01
U: \PPR\J B\ConstructionFinanPPR. wpd
Page 6 of 6
"~"."_.__ ~___.~_.__."_..___._...~._.__.,___.._..,__.__."____~__.___"__._______.__._~_____."'.____.___"~---~..----.~---'-m.... <._
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
and WINDEMERE BLC LAND COMPANY LLC
FOR CONSTRUCTION FINANCING OF THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY
TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER (DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902)
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of July, 2001, by and between
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ("CCCSD"), a California special district, and Windemere
BLC Land Company LLC ("Windemere"), a California limited liability company.
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, Windemere is the owner of certain land in an area known as
Dougherty Valley in Contra Costa County, California shown schematically in Exhibit A
attached hereto ("Windemere Property") upon which Windemere has processed entitlements for
the construction of major residential and commercial development projects; and
B. WHEREAS, Shapell Industries of Northern California, a California corporation
and a division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, ("Shapell") is the owner of
certain land in an area known as Dougherty Valley in Contra Costa County, California also
shown schematically in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Shapell Property") upon which Shapell has
processed entitlements for the construction of major residential and commercial development
projects; and
C. WHEREAS, Windemere Ranch Partners ("WRP"), Windemere's predecessor
whose rights and obligations have been assumed by Windemere, along with Shapell, and
CCCSD previously entered into an agreement for the planning, design, property rights
acquisition, and construction of tunnel and trunk sewers dated August 3, 1998 ("Initial Financing
Agreement"); and
D. WHEREAS, Windemere will be the Installer, as that term is described and used
in the Initial Financing Agreement; and
Page 1 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
E. WHEREAS, the Initial Financing Agreement contemplates certain tunnel and
trunk sewer improvements to provide wastewater utility service to the Windemere Property,
Shapell Property, and other properties (collectively "Properties"); and
F. WHEREAS, as set forth in the Initial Financing Agreement, Windemere, as
Installer, is liable for all of the costs associated with the construction of the Dougherty Valley
Tunnel and Trunk Sewer (District Project No. 5902) ("Project"); and
G. WHEREAS, planning and design of the Project are complete, and the costs
thereof have been incurred and have been, or will be, invoiced and fully reimbursed to CCCSD
by Windemere under the terms of the Initial Financing Agreement; and
H. WHEREAS, Windemere has obtained financing through issuance of certain land-
based bonds issued by the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG Bonds"); and
I. WHEREAS, the funds from the ABAG Bonds are now available to finance the
construction of the Project; and
J. WHEREAS, the Initial Financing Agreement contemplates and the parties desire
an agreement setting forth the manner and method of payments for construction of the Project,
and all other rights, duties, liabilities, and schedules related thereto, which agreement shall
present no financial responsibility to current and future CCCSD customers for the cost of the
Project; and
K. WHEREAS, Shapell has been afforded a reasonable right of review of this
Agreement for protection of its rights under the Initial Financing Agreement, as was
contemplated in said Initial Financing Agreement, and has indicated that this Agreement
adequately protects such rights of Shapell.
NOW, THEREFORE, CCCSD and Windemere agree that this Agreement states the
responsibilities and activities regarding financing and construction of the Project serving the
Properties, all as set forth herein.
Page 2 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
_..__.__~_~,_.._.._________._..._._.______.___._.._.._m_......___,_"" _ .
.. . .__.._._.___"__.___..______,_,.,~___..__._'_.._~...______.__...._....,.__"__.->____...___._ -'-l._--'-~- --_._._..._..,~..
AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 1.
Definitions.
1.1. "ABAG Bonds" or "Bond" or "Bonds" means the bonds designated "Limited
Obligation Improvement Bonds, Association of Bay Area Governments, Windemere Ranch
Assessment District 1999-1, Series 1999."
1.2. "Bond Documents" means those documents related to the issuance and repayment
of the ABAG Bonds.
1.3. "Claims" means any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, costs,
charges, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) that any Indemnified Person may incur or be
subject to.
1.4. "Contract for Construction" means the prIme construction contract and
incorporated contract documents executed after award to the lowest responsible bidder submitted
during the Public Bid Process for the construction of the Project, including bid addenda and
change orders.
1.5. "Indemnified Person" means CCCSD and each of its officers, directors,
employees, attorneys, and agents.
1.6. "Initial Financing Agreement" means the August 3, 1998 agreement between
Shapell, WRP, and CCCSD for the planning, design, property rights acquisition, and
construction of tunnel and trunk sewers.
1.7. "Project" means the entire scope of work set forth in the District project
documents that include those facilities between and including the east portal of the tunnel and the
and the wet well junction structure at CCCSD's Larwin Pumping Station in San Ramon, known
as the Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer, District Project No. 5902, as set forth in Plans
and Specifications dated May 16, 2001, including modification thereto as required during the bid
period and construction of the Project.
Page 3 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
_._,__~_,_,.,_",____,___'_"""k_'__'___"_'_'___'_____.__._._.._._._______.....____._______..__.
1.8. "Properties" collectively means the Shapell Property, the Windemere Property,
and the other properties to be served by the Project.
1.9. "Public Bid Process" means the statutorily mandated public bid process required
for Sanitary District projects, as defined in California Public Contracts Code ~ 20800.
1.10. "Reimbursement Account" means that deposit account held by CCCSD and
funded by the reimbursement fee collected from certain property owners whose properties do not
lie within the Dougherty Valley development area, but who will eventually connect their
properties to public sewers that will be tributary to the Project.
1.11. "Shapell Property" means those certain lands owned by Shapell in an area known
as the Dougherty Valley in Contra Costa County, California shown schematically in Exhibit A.
1.12. "Trunk Sewer Connection" means the trunk sewer (including a bridge or culvert
and roadway embankment crossing Alamo Creek) between the east portal of the tunnel and the
Windemere Property.
1.13. "Windemere Property" means those certain lands owned by Windemere in an area
known as the Dougherty Valley in Contra Costa County, California shown schematically in
Exhibit A.
ARTICLE 2.
Responsibilities of CCCSD.
2.1. Contract for Construction. CCCSD will solicit proposals and, following
approval by Windemere, will execute the Contract for Construction in accordance with the
Public Bid Process to implement the Project. As a party to the Contract for Construction,
CCCSD assumes all management responsibilities thereto. The Contract for Construction shall
contain a provision that entitles the contractor to earn an incentive fee in the event the Estero-
Mangos trunk sewer portion of the Project is completed in advance of the milestone completion
date in an amount of $5,000 per day of early completion, up to a total of thirty (30) days for a
maximum incentive fee of$150,000.
Page 4 of18
Doc # 252129v.6
-- -----..-.---..-------------------..--------.----...---_._.,-_.._----~,-_._-"._---,-~.._-,-~----'_.__._'"._-.._,--"._-~--------_._--,_._------_._.'--.-------
The Contract for Construction shall contain a provIsIon whereby the contractor
indemnifies, protects, defends, and holds Windemere, Brookfield Bay Area Holdings LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Brookfield"), Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership
("Centex"), LEN-OBS Windemere, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("LEN-OBS"),
and Shapell harmless from and against any claim, loss, damage, cost, or expense (including,
without limitation, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and other costs) arising out of or in
connection with the Contract for Construction. The Contract for Construction shall require the
contractor and, through it, any applicable subcontractors, to retain policies of insurance
consistent with the types and amounts customarily required by CCCSD in such construction
contracts. The Contract for Construction shall require the general contractor and, through it, any
applicable subcontractors, to name Windemere, Brookfield, Centex, LEN-OBS, and Shapell as
additional insureds with respect to such insurance policies and a copy of the insurance certificate
shall be forwarded to Windemere, Brookfield, Centex, and LEN-OBS. The Contract. for
Construction shall further require the contractor, any applicable subcontractors and the insurers
of each to provide Windemere and Shapell with thirty (30) days notice of any lapse, termination,
non-renewal, material modification or amendment, or cancellation of any said insurance policies.
2.2. Project Management. CCCSD will assign a project manager, consultant
engineering staff, and other personnel to provide daily inspections, direction, administration, and
review of work on the Project under the Contract for Construction. CCCSD will keep
Windemere and Shapell informed of the status of work on the Project under the Contract for
Construction and invite representatives of Windemere and Shapell to weekly construction
meetings addressing the Project. CCCSD will manage the Project prudently and will promptly
notify Windemere of proposed changes to the Contract for Construction work plan, time
schedule, or budget, when the value of the proposed change is greater than $250,000.00.
CCCSD will provide full consideration to the interests of Windemere and Shapell; however,
CCCSD will retain complete discretion for implementing any proposed changes.
2.3. Property Rights Acquisition. CCCSD covenants and agrees that CCCSD has
acquired or shall acquire all property rights required for construction and operation of the
Project (including, but not limited to, the Trunk Sewer Connection), including all easements or
Page 5 of 18
Doc # 2.52129v.6
~___~__________,~,~'M_.____'_'""'_'_____"_~__'_""___.__._....___.._._.__,._,__._.,,_._~..________._._____._.---t-----.-.,..,. .....-.._~_._-------
other consents needed from Shapell. Upon written request from Wind em ere and Shapell,
CCCSD shall provide documentation of such property rights.
2.4. Derivative Interests, Materials, and Information from Project. All rights,
titles, royalties, and interests to all work products of CCCSD or its consultants resulting from
their performance under this Agreement, including easements and fee title to real property
acquired, drawings and specifications, data, reports, estimates, opinions, recommendations,
summaries, software, systems, networks, and other such information, interests, and materials as
may be accumulated by CCCSD or its consultants in performing work under this Agreement,
whether complete or in progress, shall be vested in CCCSD; provided, however, that CCCSD
shall deliver to Windemere and Shapell copies of plans and other documentation as may be
requested by Windemere and Shapell in connection with its tie-ins of the Trunk Sewer
Connection to the Project.
2.5. Temporary Utility Service. In the event Windemere is ready to obtain
occupancy permits for residential units on the Property, including model home units and the fire
station, prior to the scheduled or actual completion date of the Project, CCCSD shall use its best
efforts, to cooperate with Windemere, to provide alternate waste water utility service for such
units on a temporary basis until the Project is completed. Windemere is responsible for all costs
associated with provision of the temporary utility service, including design and construction
costs for any such alternative service.
ARTICLE 3.
Windemere Responsible for All Costs of Construction.
3.1. Costs. As further set forth in this Agreement, Windemere shall be responsible for
all costs of construction of the Project. These costs may include but shall not be limited to all
costs reasonably incurred for staff, consultants, and attorneys in connection with the following:
3.1.1. The Public Bid Process, including reasonable amounts for preparing bid
solicitation and addenda, reviewing bids, and selection of the lowest responsible bid;
3.1.2. Obtaining all permits or licenses, including preparation of documents or
applications;
Page 6 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
.__ ^_~______.~__<..__"__._,_"_._...________._..._.__._____._______.____.,_~~__,_.._.__"".____'___....__.__.__"_____.,.~~_.____-r~~___._".
3.1.3. Preparation of the Contract for Construction;
3.1.4. Acquisition of any supplemental property rights required for carrying out
the Project;
3.1.5. All construction management, supervision, consultation, and inspection of
the Project, including, but not limited to, field offices, office supplies and equipment, and vehicle
charges;
3.1.6. All amounts due, either directly or indirectly, because of any delay,
default, termination, or other similar cause resulting from the Contract for Construction; and
3.1.7. Carrying costs on any amount due from Windemere and not provided for
by the initial deposit to the Escrow Account at the average interest rate paid by the State of
California Local Agency Investment Fund for the month prior to the particular period to which
the payment of additional funds is required.
3.2. Escrow Account. Windemere shall make a requisition to the Bond Trustee for a
net lump sum amount of $17,186,267.00, which the parties anticipate will cover all of the costs
associated with the Project. (See Exhibit B) This lump sum amount shall equal one hundred
percent (100%) of the sum of (a) the lump sum bid price of the Contract for Construction; (b) a
fifteen percent (15%) construction contract contingency; (c) the amount of $2,681,000.00 as the
estimate for contract administration, attorneys fees, inspection, consulting, testing, permits,
construction management, and other incidental costs; (d) the amount of $225,000.00 as the
estimate for the Public Bid Process; and (e) a fifteen percent (15%) contingency for the estimated
amounts in (c) and (d). The total of (a) through (d) above shall be reduced by the amount on
deposit in the existing CCCSD Dougherty Tunnel and Trunk Reimbursement Account No. 1-
0000-226.59-02 ("Reimbursement Account"). Windemere will then deposit the net lump sum
amount into Escrow Account NO.1 B5~700 at Well s Fargo Bank established to pay for
all of the costs associated with the Project ("Escrow Account"). Windemere and CCCSD shall
provide escrow instructions that provide for CCCSD to have the unfettered right to draw against
the Escrow Account funds, in its sole discretion, for payment of all costs set forth in Paragraph
3.1. Once the Project is complete, all money and earned interest remaining in the Escrow
Page 7 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
_.__~,___"_,,_,,__^,_,.._~____,_,,,^____"'h__'_"~ _. __ _.~___.._~,_______._~_.,"___.__.,_._+._..__...-.--_."._. -_..,~------.__..-~~-,---
Account, if any, shall be released to Windemere. All monies deposited into the Escrow Account
shall only be used for payment of costs set forth in Paragraph 3.1 and no other purpose, and
proper construction accounting procedures will be used to provide backup documentation for all
payments made therefrom.
3.3. Cost Overruns. If, at any time, CCCSD, in its sole discretion, reasonably
determines that the total cost of completion of the Contract for Construction and other work the
costs for which Windemere is responsible under this Agreement may exceed the amount of
money in the Escrow Account, CCCSD and Wind em ere shall negotiate the means by which
Windemere will place an additional amount of money into the Escrow Account. Windemere's
placement of additional funds into the Escrow Account shall not create, shift, or aSSIgn any
financial responsibility to CCCSD or its current or future customers.
3.4. Reimbursement Account. All funds on deposit in the Reimbursement Account at
time of funding of the Escrow Account shall be deposited therein and any additional funds
accumulating in said Reimbursement Account during the construction of the Project shall also be
periodically deposited therein.
3.5. Other Fees. Windemere agrees to pay capacity fees as may be set by CCCSD for
new construction within the Windemere Property. Windemere also agrees to pay as a capacity
fee surcharge, its proportionate share of the costs associated with advancing or accelerating the
construction of improvements to the Larwin Pumping Station and construction of a new force
main, as is provided for in the settlement agreement in the litigation known as Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District v. City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.
COO-02560. CCCSD currently estimates these costs to be approximately $2 million to $3
million. In addition, Windemere agrees to pay all plan review fees, annexation fees, inspection
fees, and other fees and charges applicable to developments as required by CCCSD pursuant to
lawfully adopted resolutions and/or ordinances.
ARTICLE 4.
Obligations Absolute.
4.1. Strict Performance. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the
obligations of Windemere under this Agreement shall be unconditional and irrevocable, and shall
Page 8 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
-~_._,-_._----~_..._---~,-~---""-_.._~"._._."-~,.,-_.-._._-----_.~.,---_.__._--,_.~-"-~._.."_.,~-
be paid or performed strictly in accordance with the terms of this Agreement without regard for
any of the following circumstances:
4.1.1. Any lack of validity or challenge to the Bond Documents or the proceeds
therefrom;
4.1.2. Any nonapplication or misapplication of Bond proceeds;
4.1.3. Any lack of validity or enforceability of the Initial Financing Agreement;
4.1.4. The existence of any Claim, set-off, or other right that Windemere may
have at any time against the Bond Trustee, any beneficiary of Bond proceeds, Shapell, the City
of San Ramon, the South San Ramon Neighborhood Association, or other governmental entity
or citizens group;
4.1.5. Any action of a governmental agency, other than CCCSD, which may
affect the development of the Windemere Property;
4.1.6. Insufficient revenue, credit, capital, or other means of meeting the
payment obligations contained herein;
4.1.7. Any contractor's Claim made against any party to this Agreement;
4.1.8. Any claim against the Contractor, a subcontractor, Windemere, or CCCSD
made by a governmental agency, or other action taken by a governmental agency that affects the
cost or progress of the work under the Contract for Construction;
4.1.9. Any disputes or Claims between Windemere and CCCSD, but only during
the time the dispute or Claim is unresolved. Windemere must continue to meet its obligations
under this Agreement during the pendancy of any such dispute or Claim.
ARTICLE 5.
Indemnification.
5.1. Scope of Indemnity. In addition to any other amounts payable to CCCSD under
this Agreement, Windemere hereby agrees to release, protect, indemnify, pay, and save CCCSD
Page 9 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
- -~._-_.,._--------~-...,-_._..."._.,_..._._..__.._..-..~-_.__.._.,--,._--,._.._~._._.._...,--_._,--~._-------_.---~---,---_._-_._------.------
and each of its officers, directors, employees, attorneys, and agents (each an "Indemnified
Person") harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses,
penalties, costs, charges, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) that any Indemnified Person
may incur or be subject to (collectively "Claims") as a consequence, direct or indirect, of (i) the
Public Bid Process or Contract of Construction; (ii) costs arising for any reason from change
orders to the Contract for Construction; (iii) failure to pay any amount due under the Contract for
Construction; (iv) the breach by Windemere of any representation, warranty, covenant, term, or
condition in, or the occurrence of any default by Windemere under, this Agreement or any of the
Bond Documents, including all fees or expenses resulting from the settlement or defense of any
claims or liabilities arising as a result of any such breach or default; (v) any delay or termination
of the Contract for Construction; (vi) the use of proceeds of the ABAG Bonds or any drawing
therefrom; or (vii) the involvement of any Indemnified Person in any legal suit, investigation,
proceeding, inquiry, or action as a consequence, direct or indirect, of the issuance of the ABAG
Bonds, or a default under this Agreement by Windemere.
5.2. Notification and Defense of Indemnified Claim. Promptly after receipt by an
Indemnified Person of notice of the commencement of any action in respect of which indemnity
may be sought against Windemere under this Article 6, such Indemnified Person shall notify
Windemere in writing of the commencement thereof, and, subject to the provisions hereinafter
stated, Windemere shall assume the defense of such action (including the employment of
counsel, who shall be satisfactory to the Indemnified Person, but at Windemere's expense)
insofar as such action shall relate to any alleged liability in respect of which indemnification may
be sought from Windemere.
5.3. Separate Counsel. An Indemnified Person shall have the right to employ
separate counsel in any such action and to participate in the defense thereof, provided that the
fees and expenses of such counsel shall be at the expense of such Indemnified Person.
ARTICLE 6. Representations and Warranties of Developer.
6.1. Windemere. Windemere warrants and represents .to and covenants with CCCSD
as follows:
Page 10 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
,_,~"""",,,_,__,.~.,_,,_"____"'.__" m'_____.,___._____.~___~_____.__.._._____._.._"_..__._~..----._.-._,..,..--..,--
6.1.1. Organization; Powers. Windemere is validly existing and in good
standing under the laws of the State of California, with the power and authority to carry on
business as presently conducted, including, without limitation, the authority and ability to
perform its obligations under this Agreement.
6.1.2. Corporate Authority. The execution, delivery, and performance by
Windemere of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action, and this
Agreement constitutes legal, valid, and binding obligations enforceable in accordance with their
terms, notwithstanding that enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, moratorium, or other similar laws generally affecting creditors' rights, by general
equitable principles that may limit the right to obtain equitable remedies and by provisions of
applicable California law.
6.1.3. Litigation. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation
at law or in equity before or by any court, public board, or body pending against or affecting
Windemere, or their properties, assets, or operations (a) wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling,
or finding could have a materially adverse affect upon: (i) the transactions contemplated by, or
the validity of, this Agreement; or (ii) Windemere's property, assets, operations, or condition,
financial or otherwise, or its ability to perform its obligations in respect of this Agreement; or (b)
which in any way contests the existence, organization, or powers of the Windemere or the titles
of the officers of Wind em ere to their respective offices.
6.1.4. Preservation of Existence. For the life of this Agreement, Windemere
covenants to preserve and maintain its existence as an entity duly organized, validly existing, and
in good standing in the State of California, and its rights, franchises, and privileges that are
material to the conduct of its business and to the performance of its obligations under this
Agreement and that it will not dissolve; provided, however, that Windemere may cease to
maintain its existence only if such occurs subsequent to an assignment of this Agreement
approved by CCCSD pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 8.8 herein.
6.2. CCCSD. CCCSD warrants and represents to Windemere as follows:
Page 11 of18
Doc # 252129v.6
6.2.1. Organization: Powers. CCCSD has the power and authority to carry on
its activities as presently conducted, including, without limitation, the authority and ability to
perform its obligations under this Agreement.
6.2.2. Corporate Authority. The execution, delivery, and performance by
CCCSD of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action, and this Agreement
constitutes legal, valid, and binding obligations enforceable in accordance with their terms,
notwithstanding that enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization,
moratorium, or other similar laws generally affecting creditors' rights, by general equitable
principles that may limit the right to obtain equitable remedies and by provisions of applicable
California law.
6.2.3. Litigation. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation
at law or in equity before or by any court, public board, or body pending against or affecting
CCCSD, or their properties, assets, or operations (a) wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling, or
finding could have a materially adverse affect upon: (i) the transactions contemplated by, or the
validity of, this Agreement; or (ii) CCCSD's property, assets, operations, or condition, financial
or otherwise, or its ability to perform its obligations in respect of this Agreement; or (b) which in
any way contests the existence, organization, or powers of CCCSD or the authority of officials of
CCCSD to bind CCCSD.
ARTICLE 7.
Default and Termination.
7.1. Default and Cure. Any failure by a party to perform any term or provision of
this Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following
written notice of such failure from the party to whom performance is due (unless such period is
extended by written mutual consent), shall constitute a default under this Agreement. Any notice
given pursuant to the preceding sentence shall specify the nature of the alleged failure, and,
where appropriate, the manner in which such alleged failure may satisfactorily be cured. Upon
receipt of any notice of default, the parties to this Agreement shall immediately meet and confer
in order to make a good faith effort to allow for any default to be cured prior to the expiration of
the cure period. If the alleged failure is cured, then no default shall exist and the noticing party
Page 12 of 18
Doc # 2S2129v.6
_...._...__.__~_______~___^___~..,_~__.".___._.____._'_..____.~__~_,_.._,.~+__._____~______.~'_.._..__.,_~_._...____.~.----t"'---- -_....._._~--,---_."-
shall take no further action. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a default shall exist under this
Agreement and the non-defaulting party may exercise any of the remedies available to it under
law or equity, which remedies the parties acknowledge shall include a right to terminate this
Agreement. The provision of notice and opportunity to cure shall be a prerequisite to the
enforcement or correction of any default. On termination, CCCSD shall receive from
Windemere payment for all amounts due and not previously paid to CCCSD for work completed
or in progress in accordance with the Agreement prior to such date of termination, including
payment for construction claims arising out of the work, and for any costs incidental to such
termination, including any claims or penalties arising from the early termination of the Contract
for Construction. Furthermore, Windemere shall be required to satisfy any outstanding
obligations under this Agreement, which include all potential costs or indemnified occurrences
listed in Paragraphs 3.1 and 5.1. Windemere shall not be entitled to any refund of payment
made to CCCSD if termination occurs, unless or until all costs, claims, and liabilities are
resolved and paid. Windemere shall be entitled to interest on excess funds held in the Escrow
Account at the current rate being paid by the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund,
to the extent those funds are withheld in bad faith or beyond the time that it is reasonable to
withhold same to ensure payment of all outstanding costs, including known contingent liabilities
for which Windemere is liable.
ARTICLE 8.
Miscellaneous Provisions.
8.1. Time Is of the Essence. The parties hereto agree that time is of the essence in
completing the obligations set forth in this Agreement and to immediately proceed diligently
with their respective duties as set forth herein so that the contemplated Project shall be
satisfactorily completed in the shortest reasonable amount of time.
8.2. Completion of Agreement. After completion of the Project, and satisfaction of
all outstanding Claims, final payments, and other obligations under this Agreement, this
Agreement shall terminate without further action from the parties.
8.3. Payment Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute as to whether an
obligation is payable, Windemere and CCCSD agree to submit such dispute to binding
Page 13 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
_._---~---~.,~-_._'---".,----_.._-_._-_...._-~._._"_..-~-----_.__._--"'
__________~____.,._.__,_._____._._.~'__..""__4_'_--.,---~.---......-...--.- --
arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association for resolution.
8.4. Attorneys' Fees. The prevailing party in any arbitration or lawsuit brought to
interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement, or in any claims whether in contract, tort, or
otherwise, arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement or its performance, shall be entitled
to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees from the other party or parties, and the court or
arbitrator shall award such attorneys' fees as an element of costs. For purposes of this provision,
"prevailing party" shall include a party that dismisses an action for recovery hereunder in
exchange for payment ofthe sum allegedly due, performance of covenants allegedly breached, or
consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action or proceeding. "Prevailing
party" shall not include a party who refuses an offer of compromise presented in writing at least
ten (10) days before trial or arbitration of the matter, and who fails to receive an award more
favorable than the terms and conditions set forth in the offer of compromise, either in the amount
of damages awarded or in the type of relief granted.
8.5. Initial Financing Agreement. The parties agree that the Initial Financing
Agreement remains in full force and effect and that this Agreement does not modify, but rather
clarifies, the terms of the Initial Financing Agreement.
8.6. Entire Agreement; Modification. Except as may be provided in the Initial
Financing Agreement, this Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between
the parties with respect to the matters covered hereby. Except as may be provided in the Initial
Financing Agreement, any prior or contemporaneous understanding or agreement between the
parties that may be interpreted to be in conflict with the terms stated herein are specifically
abrogated by this Agreement, and, in the case of any conflict with the Initial Financing
Agreement, the terms of that agreement still govern. No oral understanding or agreement not
incorporated herein will be binding on any of the parties hereto. No alteration or variation of the
terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties to be
bound by the alteration or variation. No presumption or rule that ambiguities be construed
against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.
8.7. No Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon strict performance of any of the
Page 14 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
____~_."_.~__,,_____.__._.._.__U_h.~_.._._.__m____"_._._m._'___'_"_'_~"_____'__"~____'_'~_~_'_'_.'____'_'~'._-......----~-~-----.--........--.,--.-,..-..--..".~-----'-->_.-_.._"
provisions of this Agreement by the other parties, or the failure of a party to exercise its rights
upon the default of the other parties, shall not constitute a waiver of the party's right to insist and
demand strict compliance thereafter by the other parties with the terms of this Agreement.
8.8. Successors and Assigns. The benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Windemere' s interests in
the Property, whether as a result of voluntary or involuntary assignment or actions. This
Agreement may not be voluntarily assigned, in whole or in part, by Windemere without the prior
written consent of CCCSD, which consent shall not be unreasonably delayed. Additionally,
Windemere shall provide evidence to CCCSD that any other assignee has been informed of the
obligations under this Agreement. In connection with any such voluntary assignment, CCCSD
may require that the assignor and the assignee promptly provide all material information and
documentation requested, including financials. CCCSD may reasonably condition its consent on
the provision of adequate financial guarantees by the proposed assignee and on any other factor
that CCCSD reasonably deems relevant under the circumstances. As a condition of CCCSD's
approval of any proposed assignment of this Agreement, the assignor or proposed assignee shall
pay to CCCSD, prior to the effective date of the assignment, all amounts then actually due and
not previously paid to CCCSD for work completed or in progress under the terms of this
Agreement, as well as paying for all reasonable costs for review of the assignment.
8.9. Good Faith. Each party agrees in good faith to perform as set forth herein.
8.10. Relationship of the Parties. The parties entering into this Agreement do not
intend to create any agency, partnership, joint venture, trust, or other relationship with duties or
incidents different from those of parties to an arm's-length contract.
8.11. Notices. All notices to any of the parties by another party shall be made in
writing and delivered or mailed to such party/parties at their respective addresses as follows, or
to other such address as the parties may designate, and said notices shall be deemed to have been
made when delivered or five (5) days after mailing.
Page 15 of18
Doc # 2S2129v.6
-_._,----"-_.~--_._--,,...._,-_.,~._-~-----"_._.__.,----,-------,~_._,....._._-~-,._-~..__..-._---_..._.......--,...-.--~---~_._-----~..
To CCCSD:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553
Attention: Curt Swanson, Environmental Services Division Manager
With a copy to:
Kenton L. AIm, Esq.
Sellar, Hazard, McNeely, AIm & Manning
1111 Civic Drive, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, California 94596
To Windemere:
Lennar Communities
3130 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 310
San Ramon, California 94583
Attention: Pete Petersen
With a copy to:
R. Clark Morrison, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450
Walnut Creek, California 94596
8.12. Survival of Provisions. Notwithstanding the expiration or earlier termination of
this Agreement, Windemere's obligations pursuant to Paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, and 8.4
shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
8.13. Section Headings; Recitals. The section headings in this Agreement are only for
the purpose of reference and shall in no way define or interpret any provision hereof The parties
acknowledge and agree that the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
8.14. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of California. Any actions brought to enforce any provisions
of this Agreement shall be brought in Contra Costa County.
8.15. Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be recorded with the
Contra Costa County Recorder.
Page 160f18
Doc # 252129v.6
._--,-_._--"-,.__._--~_.__._--"-~~---_._---'~-'-'_.,~.-------~
8.16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in as many counterparts as may
be necessary or convenient, and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of
which, when so executed, shall be deemed an original, and all such counterparts shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
8.17. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date set forth in
the initial paragraph.
Attest -if~ /7, J-QOI
By:
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DIST
Dated: ..JVL." I T J t. 00 I
WINDEMERE BLC LAND COMPANY
By: LEN-OBS Windemere, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
Member
By:
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
a California corporation
Managing Member
~~~
Dated: ~o ~ ':i . 'l. 00 I
By:
Pete Petersen,
Vice President
Page 17 of 18
Doc # 2S2129v.6
SELLAR, HAZARD, MCNEELY, ALM & MANNING
Dated:
By:
Kenton L. AIm, Esq.
Attorneys for CENTRAL CONTRA
COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Dated:
By:
John P. Doorlay, Esq.
Attorneys for WINDEMERE BLC LAND
CaMP ANY, LLC.
Page 18 of 18
Doc # 252129v.6
"'___._.,._._._____~_'_~'_____._.,_." __,_~..,.~,._~________,_~,___~_"_______._'___.,_.__.,__.._._____._______t_------ ---
cc
BOUNDARY OF AREA TRIBUTARY TO TUNNEL
'"
o
ol1
..
~ Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
o
o
N
~
....
o
N
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
AND WINDEMERE. BlC LAND COMPANY llC FOR
CONSTRUCTION ANANCING OF THE DOUGHERTY
VALLEY TUNNEL AND TRUNK SEWER
(DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5902)
EXHIBIT
A
/
EXHIBIT B
Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer
CCCSD Project No. 5902
Post-Bid Preconstruction Cost Estimate
1. Construction
. Contract - Mountain Cascade, Inc. $12,274,620
. Contingency @ 15% 1,841,380
. Incentive for Early Completion 150.000
Subtotal: $14,266,000
2. Construction Management
. Project Management 263,000
. Contract Administration 128.000
Subtotal: 391,000
3. Consultant Contracts
. Engineering and Inspection 850,000
. Geotechnical/Structural Engineering 150,000
. Tunnel Specialty Inspection 430,000
. Preconstruction Damage Assessment 60,000
. Materials Testing 50,000
. Surveying 30,000
. Air Quality Monitoring 25,000
. NoiseNibration Monitoring 25,000
. Miscellaneous (Traffic, Safety, Arborist) 20.000
Subtotal: 1,640,000
4. Miscellaneous
. Community Liaison 150,000
. Public Relations 53,000
. District Surveying 10,000
. Legal 50,000
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B (continued)
Dougherty Valley Tunnel and Trunk Sewer
CCCSD Project No. 5902
Post-Bid Preconstruction Cost Estimate
5. Miscellaneous (continued)
. Dispute Review Board 50,000
. District Operations Departments 40,000
. City of San Ramon Inspection 100,000
. County Inspection 30,000
. District Engineering Support 10,000
. Field Office Secretary 50,000
. Field OfficeNehicle - Lease & Utilities 60,000
. Field Office Support 22,000
. Right of Way (Staging Area) 25.000
Subtotal: 650,000
6. Public Bid Process (Estimated Costs for June 2001): 225,000
7. Subtotal - Items 2 thru 5: 2,906,000
8. Contingency - Items 2 thru 5 @ 15 %: 435,667
8. Pre-Bid Expenditures (thru May 2001): 1,630,333
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE: $19,238,000
9. less Windemere BlC reimbursements thru May 2001: (1,630,333)
10. Amount needed to complete project: 17,607,667
11. less amount from Reimbursement Account: (421,400)
12. Required amount for Windemere BlC to
requisition from ABAG Bonds: $17,186,267
Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.:
8.b. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: INFORMATIONAL
Subject: ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE MARTINEZ EAST SIDE
TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (D.P. 4950)
Submitted By:
Henry Thom, Senior Engineer
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~~
#r
H. Thorn
B. Brennan
o~
ISSUE: All work has been completed on the Martinez East Side Trunk Sewer
Improvements Project (D.P. 4950) and this project can now be closed out.
RECOMMENDATION: Close out the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This close out will result in $1,128,000 being returned to the
Collection System Program. Attachment 1 shows the project expenditures by category.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: The Martinez East Side Trunk Sewer Improvements Project is a joint
project between the District and the City of Martinez (City). The District's portion of the
project replaced approximately 17,000 feet of sewer in downtown Martinez with new
sewers ranging from 8 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The contractor, McGuire And
Hester of Oakland, commenced work on July 20, 1998. All contract work was completed
and accepted by the Board on July 15, 1999.
McGuire And Hester's construction contract amount was $5,429,808. There were 17
change orders issued for the total amount of $108,971. The total contract amount paid
to McGuire And Hester was $5,538,779.
The City's portion of the joint project included roadway improvements and approximately
3,500 feet of new sewer ranging from 6 inches to 15 inches in diameter along Pacheco
Boulevard. The City's contractor, Bay City Paving and Grading, Inc., commenced work
in January 1998 and the work was accepted by the City on October 18, 2000. The final
contract cost was $2,945,040 including the District's share of $426,490 (which also
includes $13,800 for change orders).
6/27/01
U :\PPR\srn\MTZEastSideCO. wpd
Page 1 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE MARTINEZ EAST SIDE
TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (D.P. 4950)
In October 1999, the City's contractor filed a claim for $766,588 and later increased to
$974,088. The claim was settled in March 2001 and the District's portion of those funds
are included in the total project expenditures.
The District's total budget for the two joint projects was $9,068,000 which included a
higher contingency than the typical projects because of unknown potential problems due
to microtunneling in bay mud conditions in addition to the potential of encountering
contaminated materials due to the proximity to the refineries. The project was completed
without those problems. The total completed project cost including the claim settlement
is $7,940,000, which is approximately 13 percent less than the budget. Staff is closing
out the project which will result in $1,128,000 being returned to the Collection System
Program.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION This item is presented to the Board of Directors for
information. No action is necessary.
6/27/01
U :\PPR\sm\MTZEastSideCO. wpd
Page 2 of 3
--'-....--..----.--.--.------..--__._____.____________..,.___.~__..______,W"__._,_,.~"__..__,__~~_._____.____'__.._._____~-_-.__- _~____'___ ~
ATTACHMENT 1
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
MARTINEZ EAST SIDE TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (DP4950)
ACTIVITY
COST
Total Budget
Construction Contracts (District's and City's sewer portion)
Change Orders (includes claim settlement)
Change Orders % of Construction
Total Construction Amount
$9,068,000
$5,842,498
$ 352,771
6%
$6,195,269
$1,744,731
28%
$7,940,000
$1,128,000
Eng, Design, CM, Admin
Eng, Design, CM, Admin - % of Construction
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES
TOTAL RETURN TO COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
CLOSE OUT OF CAPITAL
,J~ IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
!I :11l]1111111-:I:!.
..... ............................
~~~'1~~::;:::;:::;:::::::::::~~::~:::::::::~~:::~::::::~::::::::::::::::::;::;::;::::;::;:;:;:;:::;:::;::::;:;:;:::::::;::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::'.::::;::.:-:::::
t~1i~~~ ~~~lt~tttf
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
JULY 5, 2001
WHEN DO PROJECTS COME TO
THE BOARD?
~'<<<<-:<<<<-'''''''"<<-:-:->>:-:9:<<':-:->>:':':':'X-:-:-:':-:':':':':':':':':':':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:-:-:.;"':.'.:.:-:".".:-:'"
Construction Projects
. Capital Improvement Budget
. Consultant Agreement for Design (>$50,000)
. Award Construction Contract
. Construction Change Orders (>$50,000)
. Contract Acceptance
. Project Close Out
All Other Projects
. Capital Improvement Budget
. Consultant Agreement if >$50,000
. Project Close Out
WHAT INFORMATION IS
PRESENTED AT CLOSE OUT?
.. >>>>>>:<~"*:.:.:-:-:<<<<.:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:-:.:.::-:-:-:.:'
Pre-1996 +
-
. Individual position papers
. Project specific details
Post 1996
. "Gang" position paper twice yearly
. Total expenditures vs. budget information
only ..
ATTACHMENT 1
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BUDGET (OVERRUNS)
6116 Selector Odor Control $200,000 $204,796 ($4,796)
6148 Sludge Tank Roof Rehabilitation $25,000 $2,970 $22,030
7193 Furnace Air Inlet Improvements $994,000 $713,496 $280,504
7178 Cyanide Control Assessment $570,567 $585,423 ($14,856)
8160 Disaster Command Center $80,000 $67,625 $12,375
Program Totals $1,789,567 $1,574,310 $282,882
COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BUDGET (OVERRUNS)
5167 Orinda Tunnel Inspection $25,000 $0 $25,000
5299 Alhambra Way CAD 98-1 $99,000 $83,140 $15,860
5307 Charles Hill Cir CAD 98-2 $373,000 $307,995 $65,005
5405 Forest Lane CAD 99-1 $67,000 $58,465 $8,535
5059 WS 44 Creek Crossing Stability $90,000 $72,394 $17,606
ProQram Totals $654,000 $521,994 $132,006
ATTACHMENT 1 ( cont.)
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BUDGET (OVERRUNS)
8178 Year 2000 Compliancy $100,000 $74,086 $25,914
8182 Intranet Development $110,000 $66,525 $43,4 75
8193 Inspection Office Relocation $10,000 $10,000 $0
9027 Radio Communications $63,000 $48,775 $14,225
Improvements
9912 Post Close-Out 8058 $6,000 $4,992 $1 ,008
8160 Disaster Command Center $80,000 $67,625 $12,375
Proaram Totals $369,000 $272,003 $96,997
RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE
NO.
Pro ram Totals
AUTHORIZED
BUDGET
$88,000
$88,000
EXPENDITURES
7163 Recycled Water - Industrial
$87,447
$87,447
UNDERRUN
(OVERRUNS)
$553
$553
PROPOSED CLOSE OUT PROCEDURE
FOR FUTURE
.~m>>>>:<<<<<<.:-:'>>:':-:-:->>:-:<':'X':-:-:-:':'X':':':':':':':':':':':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:-:.:.:.:-:-:.:-:-:.....................
. "Gang'/ close out position paper twice yearly for
projects less than $1 million dollars.
. Detailed cost information on all construction
projects.
Example: Furnace Air Inlet Improvements
. Separate position paper for close out of projects
greater than $1 million dollars.
Example: Martinez East Side Trunk Sewer
Improvement Project
Change Orders - 3 Total
Change Orders as a % of Construction
Total Construction Amount
Construction Engineering and
Management/Contract Administration
Construction Engineering and
Management/Contract Administration as a
% of Construction
2%
ers
ese
ous
der
s to
s to
tant
the
ATTACHMENT 2 (cont)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
. The Furnace Air Inlet Improvements Project, DP 7193, provided new air inlet damp
and controls for each of District's two sewage sludge incinerators. Th
improvements were the result of recommendations from an employee Continu
Improvement Team. The sewage sludge incinerator modifications completed un
this project have increased operating stability and given the operators more option
minimize opacity excursions. These modifications have also provided a mean
reduce cyanide formation in the sewage sludge incinerators, which may be impor
because of the pending reduction of effluent cyanide concentration limit in
District's new NPDES permit.
ACTIVITY FOR DP 7193
ITEM
$524,500
$10,586
Construction Contract Amount
$535,086
$178,367
33%
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES
$713 453
ATTACHMENT 1
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
MARTINEZ EAST SIDE TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (DP 4950)
ACTIVITY COST
Total Budget $9,068,000
Construction Contracts (District's and City's sewer portion) $ 5,842,498
Change Orders (includes claim settlement) $ 352,771
Change Orders % of construction 6%
Total Construction Amount $6,195,269
Eng, Design, CM, Admin $1,744,731
Eng, Design, CM, Admin - % of construction 28%
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $7,940,000
TOTAL RETURN TO COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM $1,128,000
BOARD INPUT
:~Q~:~m::QQQc:QOQ:<<<-'''''''"(o:->>:-:-:-:''''-:-:':':-:-:->>:-:':':':':':':':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.::::-:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:..
. Does proposed revised close out
procedure meet Board's needs?
. Is proposed level of detail on costs for
construction projects adequate?
. Should Board presentations be made on
cost details for projects >$1 million?
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 8. c. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: INFORMATIONAL
Subject: ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF 16 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
Submitted By:
John Mercurio, Management Analyst
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
J. Mercurio
A. Farrell
R. Schmidt
'ft: ~W"
CMK
ISSUE: Work has been completed on 16 capital improvement projects. The financial
results are reported to the Board prior to closing the projects' accounts.
RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board of Directors for information
only. No action is necessary.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: As a result of the close out of these 16 projects, $512,438 is
being returned to the Sewer Construction Fund.
Al TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: No alternatives have been prepared. This is an
informational position paper.
BACKGROUND: These 16 capital improvement projects have been completed and staff
is closing out the project accounts. Below is a summary of the authorized budgets and
expenditures for the 16 projects by program. Attachment 1 summarizes the authorized
budgets and expenditures for each individual project. Attachment 2 contains a brief
project summary for each project and a detailed cost breakdown for the single
construction project, DP 7193 - Furnace Air Inlet Improvements Project.
Program Authorized Budget Expenditures Underrun
(Overruns)
Treatment Plant $1,789,567 $1,506,685 $282,882
Collection System $654,000 $521,994 $132,006
General Improvements $369,000 $272,003 $96,997
Recycled Water $88,000 $87,447 $553
Totals $2,900,567 $2,388,129 $512,438
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.wPD
Page 1 of 11
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF 16 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
The total authorized budget for the 16 projects is $2,900,567. Total project expenditures
are $2,388,129. A net underrun of $512,438 (18% of the total authorized budgets) will
result in $282,882 being returned to the Treatment Plant Program, $132,006 being
returned to the Collection System Program, $96,997 being returned to the General
Improvements Program, and $553 being returned to the Recycled Water Program.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: No action is necessary.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.WPD
Page 2 of 11
ATTACHMENT 1
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BU DG ET (OVERRUNS)
6116 Selector Odor Control $200,000 $204,796 ($4,796)
6148 Sludge Tank Roof Rehabilitation $25,000 $2,970 $22,030
7193 Furnace Air Inlet Improvements $994,000 $713,496 $280,504
7178 Cyanide Control Assessment $570,567 $585,423 ($14,856)
8160 Disaster Command Center $80,000 $67,625 $12,375
Program Totals $1,789,567 $1,574,310 $282,882
COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BU DG ET (OVERRUNS)
5167 Orinda Tunnel Inspection $25,000 $0 $25,000
5299 Alhambra Way CAD 98-1 $99,000 $83,140 $15,860
5307 Charles Hill Cir CAD 98-2 $373,000 $307,995 $65,005
5405 Forest Lane CAD 99-1 $67,000 $58,465 $8,535
5059 WS 44 Creek Crossing Stability $90,000 $72,394 $17,606
Program Totals $654,000 $521,994 $132,006
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.wPD Page 3 of 11
---.....-.-..-.-----.-----------..--..--.----...---..-.-,----.-..-'- -~.- "_.<---'...__._--,--_._--,.~--"_..,._...,._._."._._.
ATTACHMENT 1 ( cant.)
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BUDGET (OVERRUNS)
8178 Year 2000 Compliancy $100,000 $74,086 $25,914
8182 Intranet Development $110,000 $66,525 $43,475
8193 Inspection Office Relocation $10,000 $10,000 $0
9027 Radio Communications $63,000 $48,775 $14,225
Improvements
9912 Post Close-Out 8058 $6,000 $4,992 $1 ,008
8160 Disaster Command Center $80,000 $67,625 $12,375
Program Totals $369,000 $272,003 $96,997
RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
DISTRICT
PROJECT PROJECT TITLE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES UNDERRUN
NO. BUDGET (OVERRUNS)
7163 Recycled Water - Industrial $88,000 $87,447 $553
Program Totals $88,000 $87,447 $553
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.wPD
Page 4 of 11
_ ._.._._..._'"~_....~_____ .__________._.__~..~_...~_,.._.....""_.____~."..._.~_.._..___.._~_,_.._.___.._,__..__.._._......._. ___.____,___..___~_,~__"..___,_.~..,"___,.____....... _,_,__,___",___~_____~"'_"___'_'_"""1__'_____ --- ......--.-------.---.--
ATTACHMENT 2
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
. The Selector Odor Control Demonstration project, DP 6116, added fabric covers over
the Selector Channel at the north end of the Aeration Basins, and to the entrance areas
of the four basins. Odor control equipment was then installed to dilute and distribute
an odor control chemical, in mist form, to the space between the covers and the water
below. In addition, the Selector mixer motor wiring was replaced to ensure reliable
mixer operation. This project demonstrated the feasibility of a simpler methodology
for odor control in certain types of applications.
. Sludge Tank Roof Rehabilitation, DP 6148, involved the two sludge
blending/thickening tank roof structures. Last inspected in 1987, the inspection at
that time revealed significant coating deterioration and corresponding structural steel
corrosion. Repairs were made during the Sludge Dewatering project. Funds for this
project were allocated in anticipation of additional work identified during the inspection
that was coordinated with the tank cleaning work in the fall of 2000. The inspection
at that time revealed that the coating was intact, the structure was in good condition
and that there was no need for any additional work at this time.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJ MCLOSEOUTOF 1 5CIPSREV2. WPD
Page 5 of 11
ATTACHMENT 2 (cont)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
. The Furnace Air Inlet Improvements Project, DP 7193, provided new air inlet dampers
and controls for each of District's two sewage sludge incinerators. These
improvements were the result of recommendations from an employee Continuous
Improvement Team. The sewage sludge incinerator modifications completed under
this project have increased operating stability and given the operators more options to
minimize opacity excursions. These modifications have also provided a means to
reduce cyanide formation in the sewage sludge incinerators, which may be important
because of the pending reduction of effluent cyanide concentration limit in the
District's new NPDES permit.
ACTIVITY FOR DP 7193 ITEM
Construction Contract Amount $524,500
Change Orders - 3 Total $10,586
Change Orders as a % of Construction 2%
Total Construction Amount $535,086
Construction Engineering and
Management/Contract Administration $178,367
Construction Engineering and
Management/Contract Administration as a 33%
% of Construction
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $713,453
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.WPD
Page 6 of 11
ATTACHMENT 2 (cant)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
. The Cyanide Control Assessment Project, DP 7178, identified the sources of cyanide
in the final effluent and assessed possible methods to mitigate these sources as
required in CCCSD's 1995 NPDES permit. Extensive sampling and analysis showed
that the scrubber water from the sewage sludge incinerators was the primary source
of cyanide in the final effluent. Experimentation on the sewage sludge incinerators
operation indicated that cyanide could possibly be controlled by modifying the sewage
sludge incinerator air inlets and altering the operational procedures. The Furnace Air
Inlet Improvements Project, DP 7193, completed the modifications to the sewage
sludge incinerator air inlets. After the modifications were complete, full-scale testing
showed the operation of the sewage sludge incinerators had improved, but that
cyanide control was too variable to insure cyanide compliance with a 10 ug/I discharge
standard (our current permit limit is 25 ug/I). Additionally, the RWQCB recently has
determined that our new cyanide permit limit would be 1 ug/1. Concurrently, several
rounds of discussions with the Regional Water Quality Control Board over the past two
years have resulted in a decision to develop a site-specific objective for cyanide in San
Francisco Bay which will develop a new water quality objective, and new permit limit
for cyanide. With this decision, the RWQCB will keep CCCSD's new NPDES permit
cyanide limit at a level which the district has a high probability of meeting without
further work on the sewage sludge incinerators.
6/28/01
U :\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOFl 5CIPSREV2. WPD
Page 7 of 11
--" '"__,__,_____.~~__~,_,_.._____._....,,_,,~__,____'u___,_.__." _"_'_'___'_'___'~"'_"__'_.'__._'__"____'_'~"__~'_'____.____.____,___.,__..___".,__....~,,__,____."_____.._.....______.. _~_'"'_~"..... "___'~""'_".__',_
ATTACHMENT 2 (cant.)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
. The purpose of the Orinda Tunnel Inspection, DP 5167, was to determine the extent
of corrosion damage in the tunnel due to hydrogen sulfide. The TV inspection showed
the tunnel to be in good condition. The expenditures associated with this inspection
were ultimately charged to the District's Collection System Corrosion Evaluation
project, DP 4988.
. The following three projects were created to finance Contractual Assessment Districts
(CADs). Their purpose was to assist property owners in extending public sewers into
an area serviced by septic tanks. There were 27 participants in these three CADs:
· Alhambra Way CAD 98-1, DP 5299
· Charles Hill Cir CAD 98-2, DP 5307
· Forest Lane CAD 99-1, DP 5405
. The existing sewer serving watershed 44 (North Concord) has experienced gradually
undermining of its crossing of Walnut Creek just north of State Route 4 during major
rain events. WS 44 Creek Crossing Stability, DP 5059, involved placing an engineered
riprap support system along the length of the sewer crossing to protect it in place.
6/28/01
U :\PPR\SM\JJ MCLOSEOUTOF 1 5CIPSREV2. WPD
Page 8 of 11
'---~~-----_"~--_.._-^----------_._._,---,-_.._.,,"----'---'--"'~----""--""'-"-'-'----'--"-"-'---"---'--'--'--~---""---'--'-"----'-'-'---'----
ATTACHMENT 2 (cant.)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
. Year 2000 Compliancy project, DP 8178, replaced computer hardware and software
that were not Year 2000 compliant. The MIS and District staff worked together to
analyze, document, and resolve possible Y2K problems within the District. During that
time, over 7,000 District suppliers and vendors were contacted requesting Y2K
compliancy information. Testing, upgrades and/or replacements were made on the
District's financial and maintenance systems, network servers and components,
desktop PCs and software, along with telephone and voice mail systems.
. Intranet Development project, DP 8182, implemented the District's Intranet services.
The Online Total Information System (OTIS) was developed to provide District-wide
information to computer users by integrating the District's various informational
database systems. Through the Intranet Committee, systems such as OTIS, the
Geographical Data Integration, Plant Information and Document Imaging systems are
being developed. Project funds were used to implement the OTIS server, upgrade the
AS/400 operating system for data integration, and acquire additional development and
web-enabled software. Future development will be funded through the Information
Technology Development Capital Project and other capital projects.
. Inspection Office Relocation, DP 8193, created workstations on the first floor of the
HOB for the five-person Construction Inspection Section. This group previously shared
one smaller office and used the first floor lunch room for additional work space.
. Radio Communications Improvements Project, DP 9027, was to replace/upgrade
CCCSD's low land radio system with the Nextel units. Also there was an experiment
to install Vehicle Tracking hardware and software on District vehicles. The system
worked well but the vendor abandoned the technology.
. The Post Close-Out 8058 project, DP 9912, was a close-out project for the Computer
Aided Mapping/Drafting System (AM/CADD) project, DP 8058. District Project 8058
was used to implement a Computer Aided Mapping/Drafting (AM/CADD)System.
Funds were used to purchase CAD workstations and CAD software; system
implementation, database design and programming services; initial systems
administration, training for the Engineering Technicians, and sewer map data
conversion. The primary purpose for the AM/CADD system was to produce the
District's sewer system maps in digital format to streamline production and increase
legibility. These goals have been accomplished. Another application was to
incorporate database data to produce specialized maps of the collection system using
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis. A number of rigorous analyses have
been conducted using the system including historical overflow maps, a corrosion
study, the small pipe capacity study, and for determining priority locations for
collection system renovations among others. The AM/CADD system has also been
used for many applications beyond the scope that was initially envisioned. In-house
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.wPD
Page 9 of 11
ATTACHMENT 2 (cent.)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
design and drafting of many large and small sewer renovation jobs including
Lakewood, South Orinda, Martinez, and Lafayette, and the annual Rossmoor manhole
replacement were done on the system. Literally thousands of position paper maps,
easements, and special purpose maps have been produced on the system. Products
have been created in support of all Departments at the District. Many applications are
in development including the Electrical/lnstrumentation As-Is conversion, the
Underground Piping Information system, and the Geographic Data Integration (GO!)
program. The majority of accurate maps the Board has seen over the last 10 years
were produced on the AM/CADD system.
. The Disaster Command Center project, DP 8160 was started in 1993 to create an
incident command center to be used in the event of an emergency. The center is
designed to be compliant with both EPA and OSHA guidelines. Further development
may be pursued in the future under a new project.
6/28/01
U :\PPR\SM\JJ MCLOSEOUTOF 1 5CIPSREV2. WPD
Page 1 0 of 11
ATTACHMENT 2 (cant.)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
. The Recycled Water - Industrial project, DP 7163, provided the preliminary planning
effort needed to investigate potential technologies for the removal of nutrients
(ammonia and phosphorous) from the secondary effluent to provide recycled water to
industrial customers. Pilot studies were conducted utilizing a managed aquatic
system, and, literature searches were conducted to create a technological basis to
recommend the preparation of a Facility Plan and Business Plan for a full scale 5 MGD
industrial recycled water project. Additionally, the CCCSD/CCWD Industrial recycled
water RWOCB operating permit was updated and reviewed.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\JJMCLOSEOUTOF15CIPSREV2.wPD
Page 11 of 11
-_..,-------~._.._,._,--~--,._.._~--"----"--"--..'.._."-"...,..__.._,._..__."._-"..-_..._~----'------~'-"'"'..,--'"-_.__.__.".._---,..._.__.._~._'~_.__..__.._....-"_.,-~..._._.,._._-,_._-_.,-- --._,...~--
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.: 8.d. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH
MICHAEL WILLIS ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE CONTINUATION OF DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY, DISTRICT PROJECT 8191.
Submitted By:
Jade Sullivan, Assistant Engineer
Initiating Dept./Div.:
Engineering/Environmental S
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~~ -~
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to execute
professional service agreements or agreement revisions for amounts greater that $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute Revision No.2 to
Agreement No. 021087AV with MWA for an additional $26,330 for additional work under
the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Agreement No. 021087 A V for the design services with
Michael Willis Architects (MWA) will be increased by $26,330 bringing the total of this
agreement to $76,000.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Under the original design agreement, MWA was to
provide design services for the Multipurpose Facility project change order. MWA has
performed additional services and incurred additional costs related to performing scope
items beyond the intent of the original scope of services.
BACKGROUND: On August 29, 2000, District staff approved an agreement with MWA
to provide design services for the District Training Center (District Project 81 91 ). District
staff planned to negotiate a change order to the existing Laboratory Improvements Project
(District Project 7172) with the contractor, Arntz Builders, to construct a District Training
Center, now the Multipurpose Facility, in the location of the existing laboratory. The
change order documents were prepared with the conceptual approval of the District Space
Planning Committee. The project was renamed the District Multipurpose Facility. The
original agreement with MWA, including Revision No.1, is for $49,670. During the final
design, the following additional services were provided by MWA to complete the change
order documents:
6/28/01
U:\PPr\McGowen\MW Adesign. wpd
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board M88ting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH
MICHAEL WILLIS ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE CONTINUATION OF DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY, DISTRICT PROJECT B191.
· an additional cost estimates was prepared;
· a structural assessment and design of the roofing system and new partition
walls were performed;
· additional architectural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical design services
were provided.
On February 21, 2001, staff submitted the change order design documents to Artnz
Builders and requested an itemized quotation for changes above the existing project
contract sum. District staff with Michael Willis Architects negotiated design changes for
the proposed change order to bring construction cost closer to the Capital Budget
estimate. Staff has now negotiated a change order with Artnz Builders for the
Multipurpose Facility and is bringing this to the Board in a separate Position Paper. These
additional design costs resulted in a savings in project expenses.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute Revision
No.2 to Agreement No. 021 087AV with MWA for an additional $26,330 which would
result in a total cost for work under this agreement of $76,000.
6/28/01
U:\PPr\McGowen\MW Adesign. wpd
Page 2 of 2
NUL TIPURPOSE FACILITY
BOARD PRESENTA TION
;m:;:;:r*~;:;~;:;:::~=~~:::;~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::;::::::::::::::::;:;:;::
2001
JULY 5,
MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY
OPPORTUNITIES VS. CONSTRAINTS
~,<<<<-,":-'''''':->>.'':->>:':':':':-:-:-:':-:':-:':':-:'~':'~~'~':':':':':':' .:.:. .:.~.~.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
ty vacated July
Plan exists for demolition and clean-up
work, basic carpet and painting.
pportunities
>> Existing Laboratory Facili
2001.
>>
ty.
Opportunity is now to do more extensive
renovation and create Multipurpose Facili
>>
MUL TIPURPOSE FACILITY
OPPORTUNITIES VS. CONSTRAINTS cont.
I U J I III II !! 11 J Jill J 111111111 U I; III 0 II; IIIII C; lUlU ;;; ~I ~ ~I:; ~ ~:: ~;: :: :: >>:<<0:-:':-"":':-:-:-:-:-:':':-:':':':':':-:':':':':-:':':':-:':':':':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':0:';':':':':';':':':':';';':':-:-:-:<<':-'-":':: ::-::-:. -,:-:-:-:
Constraints
>> Just passed significant multi-year rate
.
Increase.
>> Future O&M cost uncertainties.
>> Future capital expenditure needs.
LABORA TOt1Y REMODEL PER
ARNTZ EXISTING CONTRACT
NEW EXIT DOOR ~
NEW WALL
STORAGE
ROOM
140 SF
N~W.....()PEN
AR,t;.AMsETI~G .&
TRAINING ROOM
2350 SF
MEN'S
RESTROOM
WOMEN'S
RESTROOM
AVAILABLE
OFFICE
160 SF
~
NORTH
MUL TI-~ JRPOSE FACILITY
EXISTING RAMP ACCESS
TOTAL FACILITY AREA:
2700 SQ. FT
MAIN
AUDIO/VISUAL
MEETING ROOM #1
ROOM 100
(Capacity 64)
960 Sq. Ft.
--
STORAGE
ENTRYWAY
EXISTING
WOMEN'S
RESTROOM
-
EXISTING
MEN'S
RESTROOM
MEETING ROOM #2
ROOM 101
(Capacity 52)
785 Sq. Ft.
-
STORAGE
AND
OFACE
CORRIDOR
~
NORTH
WHY NOW?
IMPLEMENTATION AS A CHANGE ORDER
SAVES MONEY. . . .
$ 15/000
$ 15/000
$ 20/000
$ 50/000
$100/000
Estimated Savings
Mobil ization
Bid Documents
lition
Prepare Formal
Bid and Award
Additional Demo
mplementation would cost $100,000 more.
.
I
Future
MUL TIPURPOSE FACILITY
gCONSTRUCTION COST BREAKDOWN
....
'....
:~:::iF:-: I lUll III ! lJJllm Ilummmll umammummcmmmm:mem:::*:-:-.'X.....':-.-.:.:-:->>x.;.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:-:-:.:. ..................................................................-...-...,-.-............
............................. ,....... ....
e:redit for work in Lab Project -$ 50,000
Acoustical 21,000
HVAC 71,000
Electrical/Wiring 85,000
Carpentry / Structural 55,000
Finish Work 88,000
Total Construction Cost $370,000
IS CHANGE ORDER QUOTE A
GOOD VALUE?
Multipurpose Facility
2,700 square feet @$370,000
Approximately $140jft.2
Laboratory Facility
8,700 square feet @ $4,300,000
Approximately $500jft.2
.
2
$ 180jft.
$150
.
.
Typical East Bay Office Building
.
2
$200jft.
$120
.
.
Oakland
s College,
ill
M
.
2
$ 195jft.
$115
.
.
UC Berkeley
.
IS NOW.
BASIC QUESTION...
DO WE NEED THIS FACILITY?
~:::lF SO, THE TIME TO CONSTRUCT
~pproximat~'iy "$'20~'O()'O""'p~~~~';~~ti ng outside
facilities for training and recruitment testing.
.
District-wide
High turnover has increased need for
training and recruitment.
.
not
Numerous large meetings held in the Board Room,
conducive to informal meetings.
.
Specia
Opportunities to host functions for CWEA,
Districts, etc. not available.
.
renovation In
Current Laboratory contract includes some
this area...work to be done in August.
.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
~ ~ ~ ~ Q,: :~ OQ: Q: m..:. H a ~ ..>>>>:<<<<->>:<<.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.;.:.:.: .;.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.:-:.:.; .:.:.;.:.:.: .:. .
Authorize change order and build Multipurpose
Facility?
.
Postpone project and do demolition and
renovation currently included in Laboratory
Improvements Project?
.
ty?
Competitively bid Multipurpose Facili
.
Request additional information and bring back
to Board (decision needed July 19 or August. 9)7
.
MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN
<<<<<<-",.,.,,:->>:<<:.:-:-:-:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
.:~11:~::i Preconstruction Expenditures
MWA Agreement
MWA Additional Design Costs
District Staff Costs
Subtotal
. Construction Expenditures
Construction Change Order
Contingency (150/0 Construction)
Construction Support (MWA)
Construction Management
Subtotal
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 49,670
$26,330*
.$ 21,330
$ 97,330
$320,000
$ 48,670
$ 20,000
na
$388,670
$486,000
*
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.:
8.e.
ENGINEERING
Typa of Action: AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $320,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER TO ARNTZ BUILDERS, ON THE
LABORATORY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (DP 7172) AND AUTHORIZE
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL WILLIS AND ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS FOR THE MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY, DISTRICT PROJECT 8191.
Submitted By:
Jade Sullivan, Assistant Engineer
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Ser
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~~~
c. Swanson
-(J9lr:
A. F ell
ISSUE: Authorization of the Board of Directors is required for the General Mana
execute a construction change order in an amount greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a $320,000 construction
contract change order to Arntz Builders on the Laboratory Improvements Project- and a
revision to the existing construction services agreement with MWA for the Laboratory
Improvements Project for $20,000 to provide construction services during the
construction of the change order.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The additional funds needed for the project are $178,000.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: The Board may wish to consider the following:
· Authorize the change order on the Laboratory Improvements Project (District
Project 7172) for a District Multipurpose Facility based on the Needs Assessment
(Attachment 1).
· Not authorize the change order and direct staff to competitively bid this project.
· Postpone the project.
BACKGROUND: On August 29, 2000, District staff approved an agreement with Michael
Willis Architects (MWA) to provide design services in the preparation of the District
Training Center (District Project 8191) change order documents and specifications. During
the process, the array of needs identified led to a renaming of the project to District
Multipurpose Facility. The plans for this facility were prepared with the conceptual
assistance of the District Space Planning Committee involving all areas of the District.
These documents entail the construction of a multipurpose facility in the existing
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\CHGORDERNWPPR. WPD
Page 1 of 8
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $320,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER TO ARNTZ BUILDERS, ON THE
LABORATORY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (DP 7172) AND AUTHORIZE A
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL WILLIS AND ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS FOR THE MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY, DISTRICT PROJECT 8191.
laboratory space to meet various District needs. The work defined in the change order
would include additional HV AC improvements, structural and electrical improvements, data
cabling, subfloor replacement, an operable sliding room partition, a kitchen, and preparing
the facility for the installation of a centrally control audiovisual system.
On February 21, 2001, staff submitted the change order design documents to Artnz
Builders and a request for an itemized quotation for the design changes in the existing
contract for the proposed change order. After receiving Board input, District staff has
negotiated a reduced change order cost of $320,000 to the existing Laboratory
Improvements Project (District Project 7172) to construct a Multipurpose Facility. The
change order would incorporate the existing construction contract work in this area with
the proposed change order for the Multipurpose Facility.
The present work under contract as part of the Laboratory Improvement Project entails
the removal of old casework and lab equipment, and provides basic carpet, painting,
ceiling tiles, and lights to provide a single room space. While providing a large indoor area,
this space would not be suitable for all the needs identified. For this reason staff
recommends proceeding with the change order for the Multipurpose Facility. However, if
the Board chooses to rebid this project, the District would incur the additional costs of
approximately $100,000 for design changes, bidding the project, contractor mobilization,
and reworking the existing laboratory space reconditioned under the present construction
contract.
District staff would provide construction management and inspection services as part of
the existing work under the Laboratory Improvements Project. Michael Willis Architects
(MWA) would provide construction support services. MWA prepared the plans and
specifications for change order and also provided architectural design and construction
services for the Laboratory Improvements Project. Because of their knowledge of the
project, MWA is recommended to provide office engineering services for the construction
phase of the project. A Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $20,000 has
been negotiated with MWA.
The funds needed to complete this Multipurpose Facility, as shown in Attachment 1, are
$409,000. The design and construction of this project are included in the 1999 - 2000
and the 2000 - 2001 Capital Improvement Budget Addendum presented to the Board last
year.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\CHG ORDERNWPPR. WPD
Page 2 of 8
POSITION PAPER
Board M88ting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $320,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER TO ARNTZ BUILDERS, ON THE
LABORATORY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (DP 7172) AND AUTHORIZE A
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL WILLIS AND ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS FOR THE MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY, DISTRICT PROJECT 8191.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a $320,000
construction contract change order to Arntz Builders on the Laboratory Improvements
Project- and a revision to the existing construction services agreement with MWA for the
Laboratory Improvements Project for $20,000 to provide construction services during the
construction of the change order.
6/28/01
U:\PPR\SM\CHGORDERNWPPR. WPD
Page 3 of 8
ATTACHMENT 1
MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY
CHANGE ORDER ADDITION
PERCENT OF
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION
ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
1. Change Order Negotiated
. Change Order to Construction $320,000
Contract
. Contingency at 15 percent $48,670
Subtotal $368,670 100.0
2. Construction Management (In-House)
. Construction Support Services, $20,000 5.4
MWA
. Construction na
Management/Inspection
3. Preconstruction Expenditures
. Planning and Design
- MW A Agreement $49,670
- Force Account $21,330
. Additional Design, MWA $26,330
Subtotal $97,330 26.4
4. Total Project Cost Estimate $486,000 131.8
5. Funds Authorized to Date $77,000
6. Total Allocation of Funds to Complete $409,000
Project
* Included in Laboratory Improvements Project.
U:\PPR\Bertera\changeorderl. wpd
Page 4 of 8
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
June 28, 2001
FROM:
TO: HONORABLE B
VIA: CHARLES W.
SUBJECT: NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
The District's Space Planning Task Force has been meeting for the past eight months to
review the needs for additional or remodeled areas within the District. After reviewing
present and future needs, it appears the District has sufficient office space on the
premises for the foreseeable future. As part of the space analysis, employees and staff
were asked about their needs for additional usable space with the goals of being both cost
efficient improvements and increasing workforce productive. The results of the survey
indicated that the most recognized need at the District is for a room that would allow
events, training, or meetings that could accommodate larger groups.
District Training Needs
Since the District's laboratory is being relocated, the "old" lab space seemed an ideal
choice to consider to meet this need. The space is centrally located, large enough to
accommodate large groups, and requires no major structural modifications. The District
is currently unable to host outside groups, hold large meetings, to conduct tests during
recruitments, to provide public education events, or to conduct in-house training for
groups of more than twenty people.
Such training events have been held off-site or in the Board Room when available. For an
event requiring the Plant, CSOD or Headquarters Office Building personnel to meet, the
District must find a larger space off-site. The District has no suitable facilities for catered
events, nor is there a room outfitted with permanent set up for major training exercises.
Computer training is primarily done off-site due to a lack of network wiring and computer
facilities. District-wide training is usually done in groups of twenty, which means
instructors provide extended sessions instead of a more cost-effective three or four.
District staff spends a considerable amount of time and funds locating and renting
facilities throughout the service area for larger-scale activities.
U:\PPR\SM\CHGORDERNW.wPD Page 5 of 8
Recommendation
District management would recommend to the Board to remodel the existing laboratory
space as a multipurpose room. This space, as detailed in the attachment, will provide an
area for seminars, training sessions, presentations, conferences, District Disaster Control
Center, tour briefings and forums for the public and District staff.
Project Options
One option reviewed by staff would be to postpone this project until the financial
resources of the District improve. However, due to the laboratory relocation in July 2001,
the District would save considerable funds by acting at the present time. Funds are
available in the Laboratory Project to remove equipment, and clean and paint the basic
space. These funds would be incorporated into the Multi-Purpose Room construction. The
contractor is presently on-site and available now, and this would eliminate contractor
mobilization costs and project startup expenses. The District contract management staff
is also available.
A second option, postponing the project for future construction, would require rebidding
the project, tearing up the floors and carpets installed as part of the Laboratory Project (or
receiving a modest credit from the contractor), possible redesign to reconfigure the HV AC
system, installation of new wiring and computer cable, and possible seismic structural
upgrades. The project would have to bid, and an extensive bid package put together. A
new contractor would have to mobilize and start work with no prior knowledge of the
building.
Cost Feasibility
While it is not possible to estimate these expenses exactly, considerable savings would
be achieved by using the change order process with the onsite contractor. The cost of
the additional construction work could be legally done in this manner. The estimated cost
of the construction change order which has been negotiated with the contractor is
$320,000. This construction cost is about $190 per square foot, which includes
modification of the heating and air-conditioning system, computer and data cable
installation, additional structural bracing, and the addition of a sliding partition wall to
separate the space for multiple uses in addition to normal remodeling expenses.
District management, advised by the Space Planning Task Force, recommends the Board
consider making the existing laboratory a usable space for multiple purposes as outlined
above.
U:\PPR\SM\CHG ORDERNW. WPD
Page 6 of 8
ATTACHMENT
MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY USE POTENTIAL:
.
Inter-agency Meetings
Public Meetings
Board Workshops
Open Houses
Public Outreach for District Programs
Public Information Tour Orientations
Schools
Scouts
Service Clubs
Professional Associations
Foreign Visitors
Public Education Programs
Project Meeting/Public Information Sessions
Emergency Services Center
Training (for example)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. District-wide
Problem Solving
Team Building
Conflict Resolution
Customer Service
2. Safety
CPR
Respirator
First Aid
Safety Orientations
3. MIS
Computer Software--Beg, Intermediate, Advanced
Excel
Access
Word
Groupwise
Powerpoint
4. Human Resources
Performance Appraisal
Harassment/Diversity
Employee Orientations
Manager/Supervisor Topics, i.e., FMLA, Progressive Discipline
U;\PPR\SM\CHGORDERNW. WPD
Page 7 of 8
5. Plant Operations Department
Certification Testing
Operation and Maintenance System Training
Divisional meetings
.
Testing (currently renting rooms at local schools and Centre Concord for
nights and weekends)
Interviews
CWEA Professional Development Seminars
Staff functions
United Way
Safety or Employee Recognition Events
Retirement Functions
Receptions
Department-wide Meetings
Supervisors' Forum
Strategic Planning/Continuous Improvement Meetings and Events
Community Resource Space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
U:\PPR\SM\CHGORDERNW.WPD Page 8 of 8
(;entral Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Type of Action: DIRECT STAFF
No.: 9.a. TREATMENT PLANT
Subject: DIRECT STAFF REGARDING THE EXEMPTION OF DISTRICT FACILITIES FROM
INCLUSION IN ROTATING OUTAGE BLOCKS BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY
Submitted By:
James L Belcher
Initiating Dept./Div. :
POD/Plant Maintenance
RECO~BOARD ACTION,
ISSUE: District facilities are not categorically exempt from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company's (PG&E) rotating outage block (ROB) program. To preserve the District's
options, staff has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for
exemptions for 23 District facilities. Should staff continue to pursue the exemption
process? This is a Board-level decision.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to pursue the exemption of District facilities from
inclusion in PG&E's ROB program.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no immediate impacts if all facilities are exempt.
Moderate impacts to expedite pumping station reliability projects for non-exempt facilities.
Significant impacts if discharge permit violations (spills) occur as a result of power
outages.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Retract some or all submitted petitions and do not
pursue exemption status. Participate in the ROB program.
BACKGROUND: PG&E has notified the District that the treatment plant, as well as all
District pumping stations, are included in the rotating outage block program. An
exemption to this status requires the District to petition the CPUC for approval. The PG&E
ROB program provides state-wide systematic load reduction when electrical demand
exceeds a safe reserve. Rotating outage blocks are numbered from 1 to 14 with block
50 assigned to exempt facilities. Currently, all but three pumping stations are in block 50
due only to their location. This block designation could be changed at any time. The
treatment plant, powered from an industrial transmission line, was included in the ROB
program on June 12, 2001.
6/28/01
G :\Belcher\RotatingOut.J LB. wpd
Page 1 of ~.
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: DIRECT STAFF REGARDING THE EXEMPTION OF DISTRICT FACILITIES FROM
INCLUSION IN ROTATING OUTAGE BLOCKS BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY
The California Public Utilities Commission provided a process that allowed all non-
residential customers to petition for exemption status. Petitions needed to be submitted
prior to June 1, 2001 to be considered valid. To preserve the District's options, staff
submitted petitions for 22 District facilities and the treatment plant in a timely manner.
The petitioners will be notified by August 2, 2001 of the results.
The Board of Directors' has the option, at this time, to:
1 . Withdraw all exemption petitions
2. Withdraw some exemption petitions
3. Await the decision of the California Public Utilities Commission
As a result of Year 2000 (Y2K) preparations, and because of the Board's support of
District facilities for wet weather reliability, many of the affected facilities have back-up
power generation. When all equipment is operational, the treatment plant has ample on-
site power generated from the Cogeneration System and the standby power generators.
Attachment 1 shows the status of the affected facilities. The ROB assignment, status of
on-site power generation capability, and dry weather holding capacity for each facility is
shown. All but nine of the pumping stations have on-site, back-up generators sized for
full operation with appropriate automatic start, load, and switching equipment. The
pumping stations have loss-of-power indication with the current telemetry system. These
generator systems are maintained, inspected, and load-tested frequently.
The reliability of District facilities is compromised during every occurrence of a power loss.
Not withstanding the high level of attention Pumping Station Operators give to their on-
site power generation systems, each and every power outage exposes the District to a
potential permit violation. A permit violation would occur when equipment or switching
systems fail to respond correctly. Each power outage will require a near perfect switch
to back-up power operation. Standard operating procedure for Pumping Station
operations is to inspect the affected pumping station during every power outage.
Multiple outages at the same time will require additional Pumping Station Operator
support.
6/28/01
G :\Belc her\RotatingO ut.J LB. wpd
Page 2 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: DIRECT STAFF REGARDING THE EXEMPTION OF DISTRICT FACILITIES FROM
INCLUSION IN ROTATING OUTAGE BLOCKS BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY
Staff advises the Board that the prudent course of action is to continue the exemption
petition process. A second decision point will occur subsequent to the CPUC's, August 2,
2001, decision on the District's exemption request petitions.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff to pursue an exemption of District
facilities from inclusion in PG&E's rotating outage block program.
6/28/01
G: \Belcher\RotatingO ut.J LB. wpd
Page 3 of 4
-0
OJ
I.C
(I)
+>-
o * Installation scheduled for summer 2001
-t)
+>-
CURRENT ON-SITE MAXIMUM HRS
DISTRICT FACILITY ROB GENERATION W/O POWER
TREATMENT PLANT 06 Q Yes
1 ACACIA PUMPING STATION 03 L Yes 2
2 WEST BRANCH PUMPING STATION 07 D *No 2
3 MALTBY PUMPING STATION 12 L Yes 3
4 FAIRVIEW PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 1.5
5 MARTINEZ PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 1
6 BUCHANNAN NORTH PUMPING STATION 50 No 4
7 BUCHANNAN SOUTH PUMPING STATION 50 No <0.5
8 MORAGA PUMPING STATION 50 Yes <0.5
9 SAN RAMON PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 0.25-0.5
10 BATES BLVD PUMPING STATION 50 No 0.5
11 VIA ROBLES PUMPING STATION 50 No Static bypass N/A
12 ORINDA CROSSROADS PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 0.5
13 FLUSHCLEAN PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 1
14 LOWER ORINDA PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 0.5
15 LAWRENCE ROAD NORTH PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 2
16 LAWRENCE ROAD SOUTH PUMPING STATION 50 Yes 8
17 CONCORD INDUSTRIAL PARK PUMPING STATIO 50 Yes 1
18 BATES AVE PUMPING STATION 50 No Static bypass N/A
19 CONCORD NORTH METER STATION 50 No N/A
20 CL YDE PUMPING STATION 50 No 1
21 SLEEPY HOLLOW PUMPING STATION NA No 2
22 WAGNER RANCH PUMPING STATION NA No 2
I
I
District Facilities Not
Exempt
Must Petition CPUC F
Treatment Plant and
Pumping Stations C
Included
Treatment
Standby
Power
Load Shed
1
Thirteen Facilities
Have On-Site P
Nine Facilities He
Mobile Connecti
2. Await Decision cI
August 2, 200
Impact: No Imm .
1. Withdraw Part or
Impact: Expedite Pu
Reliability Projects
2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
No.:
IO.a. HUMAN RESOURCES
Type of Action: HUMAN RESOURCES
Subject: DIRECT STAFF TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF AN ARBITRATOR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISTRICT'S GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Submitted By.
CATHRYN R. FREITAS, HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGER
REWEWED AND RECO~D FOR BOARD ACTION:
fd(it
C. Freitas G. Davis
Initiating Dept./Div.:
Administrative/Human Resources
ISSUE: When a grievance has been appealed to the Board level, the Board must empl a
neutral third party to hear the matter and recommend action to the Board in accordance with
the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) Between the District and the C.C.C.S.D.
Employees' Association, Public Employees' Union, Local One, Article III, Section 2.5.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to secure the services of an arbitrator in accordance with
the District's grievance appeal procedures.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The District and Union share the cost of the arbitrator and court
reporter for grievances. An estimated cost of these services is $2000.
AL lERNA llVES/CONSIDERA liONS: None.
BACKGROUND: The Union maintains that a document with Union signatures is required as
part of meeting and conferring on a subject. In the case of the job classification descriptions
which were modified with employee input and subsequently adopted by the Board in January,
2001, the Union believes they have a right to again meet and confer on the changes to the
descriptions because they never officially signed a document agreeing to the changes. The
changes were met and conferred upon in Fall, 1999 and implemented as part of the negotiated
results of the salary survey for Union positions in Spring, 2000.
In matters that are appealed to the Board, the M.O.U. reads as follows:
liThe Board shall employ a neutral third party to hear the matter and recommend action
to the Board. The District and the Union shall equally share the cost. ...The Board may
adopt, reject, or modify the recommendation of the appointed neutral third party. The
decision of the Board is the final action of the District."
6/27/01
C:\WPDocs\rolley. favalgrvppr.wpd
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2001
Subject: DIRECT STAFF TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF AN ARBITRATOR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISTRICTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize staff to secure the services of an arbitrator in
accordance with the District's grievance appeal procedures.
6/27/01
C:\WPDocs\rolley.favalgrvppr.wpcI
Page 2 of 2