The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 01-09-92 ~ Centra'- ~ontra Costa Sanitar}'-"1istrict ~d~,,)k BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 9, 1992 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR c. SUBJECT DATE December 23, 1991 ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARY REORGANIZATION 1 22 (FORMERLY THE K&M INVESTMENTS PROPERTY AND THE RMC LONEST AR PROPERTY) TYPE OF ACTION COMPLETE ANNEXATION OF DA 1 22 SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Dept.lConstruction Division ISSUE: A resolution by the District's Board of Directors must be adopted to finalize District Annexation 122. BACKGROUND: The District made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the detachment of the subject territory from the Mt. View Sanitary District and its concurrent annexation to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). During its regular December 11, 1 991, meeting, LAFCO considered and approved our request and amended this District's sphere of influence (S.O.I.) to include the subject territory. LAFCO designated CCCSD to be the conducting authority and authorized this District to conduct the annexation proceedings without notice and hearing because the territory is uninhabited. LAFCO has determined that the project (proposed reorganization and S.O.I. revision) is categorically exempt (Class 20) from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has reviewed LAFCO's determination and concurs with their findings. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with LAFCO's finding that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and order the completion of District Boundary Reorganization No. 122. INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. /1)( JSM If# .- RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION III 1302A-9/85 0 H .-.------...-...--------r---.-...... --.---- I .. ..---.-.-------.---.-----.....-...----...-...- " '% ~ \.t- IMHOFF ----- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TREATMENT PLANT PROPERTY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 122 PACHECO AREA ----------r - -- -------~;--.. ~ Centra .;g~~~ g~~~R~~~~a~; listrict PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 9, 1992 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR d. SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 92-1 (DANVlllE) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT DATE December 23, 1991 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Dept.lConstruction Division Parcel No. Area Owner/Address Parcel No. & Acreage Remarks lead Agency 92-1 Danville (78C6) Robert H. Falk POBox 432 Danville CA 94526 Future Subdivision 7566 consisting of six single family lots. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Town of Danville. Town of Danville RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 92-1 to be included in a future formal annexation. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATIN~rT.lDIV. ~, 0/ JSM r 1302A-9/B5 D H -~----_._"-'_.__._"------,-----'.-' '-"-'.'.." _...... .....,.....................-.......--.-----------...------ -"'- ~ ~-t\~!'tj!1W1;11;1;t ...., ...'; ~ '~ ~" ",. to ,:~:':. · '.g 'f' ~ ~ ~"t..;i!llIIIJllu ~~: :,/" ,,( ~~~ 7 \. ~)~ ~ ,. ~ 78 _7J-,,'~' ,.- - ~ 76 / ~'';;0' ~lJ ...... ! 'on,~' /'\J , ' i~,~r-- . ~~~'"I :"''':. ,'. H~" ..,'~ ~ ~ r 79 80 f ~ '\fl.. SU LO A RANC 0 EL J 101 I ,\ ,"Tit . , 48104e : 5400", 272 uOIlP;1 SUB 6C .... '., 2294e / '-" .4C " ~: 4C VICTOR'AN LN r IIOAC ( .\ , , .' ~""z 72 ~ -, 272 AC n,- - eo :I~ A _J[,t :Y~j A .. A \ ~ .:: ". 1.0 At c c \,-50AC '~ o \1 f--j' I I I Io,~ .. / <': ~~ ~ ", 53 .~ ~ R5~ N C H 0 5~('':':'''-::':' " iL :.:..:..:.:.~~..:...;.. !~~; '~')~~ ........\~ .... - --- -__1_.1"00'&": - - - - ~~.~ ~ r\ r. TIMPANOQ()S_r~ ~ ~ ~ R " ".... " .. 1"---.",,' ~\ "l.k' [(; ! 88~ - -O~C ~_ I '004C '004e ~ ,~. __ --~il~/ 5 r ....... ,~" I s::.:....::.::.~....:::...,..::::.:..~::.:..:.::..::.~::::.:.....: &4f4~~l~~Bijiiii'~iMlj! '~, 'j, \"'B~"-J:~' WA#.h :::::::: 2 me 9He 33 ~~~~:",:::>< t~~t:h "::::'::1)" \ J/ · 5j,~ ... "\ --l' I ., 'i:?::::::::: I06A \~L , ____I ~ lIlAC tt:t 'l\ t :::::::::::::: 41SI!t{iii!l!!!!! ~ \_ ~~'""_. ::;~;;;~;~;;;; tf}:::;::.:.'. '.. ,..J'\iri@/' '~ SUB - 5196 I '" ~-- 'j: II:. El ......1' ~II :..' IIII oJ (. f". /)'" "0 ~ SUB ~~:? 7 5 ~ ~ -~ \"\ \\" 79 0: I Q ~r \\ ~ 43 .. .. 0: : 71 T5 ~,~:!::,~~~,~~;:~ ' / / 13 ......... \? 7 ,..~(:'~ F ~r 6'c90 .9.> "c 93 ::-- . ..11 7 ~ :;17 ~!I /1 ~ l-- II IS ./0 1----"', 18 ~ )~ 70L' ~/ ~. ~i .!2,r--T^\\59 ~ I~ ~ l 6J J~p-\ ~II YJAjc;,~c;\~-l.Q .J, IO~ v ' 't" 14 15 z ~".. , ~ Z4 . ~ -, 'to to ..0 II U r- 4 ~ IJ!i 9 : . ..J,,, 8 ~ ~ 21 , ,J _'lf/, c, I. ~. , ...A~ \_ 10 ,. 11 :5 ; f r -" _"'~ It". z; 2T ., / '0== . .. - .. --- "*r-. .. sLJ BI Ilzl.....' 9 D L"'IIl! J~ JII~ 8 15 SUE ~ .,) 4t(4OO f 1'.1_ IySIO(~r ,,( .il J:~-i ~.. '~ " " ." .,' , "'~...., . :, ...o~ ~. ., ...... '" Co,:;:' '\ <' ~ o 'i" ~ '\..~ "(;0 q,~ 3 A...~ 35 2 13 ~7 i 5 I ..~t 0 /$ ~ ,+ /-. 37 ir" ..~ B l' C l(/ .1Y B A .. ""''-.. PROPOSED ANNEXATION P.A.92-1 . --------,------ ~ C~. .Iral Contra Costa Sanitc...j District , BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OFJanuary 9, 1992 PAGE 1 OF 17 NO. 4. BIDS AND AWARDS a. SUBJECT DATE CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS BY D'ARCY & HARTY CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., D. W. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND RANGER PIPELINES, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE MT. DIABLO SLlPLlNING PROJECT, DP 4535B, CONSIDER AWARD AS TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION OF $159 000 SUBMITTED BY .. INITIATING DEPT.IDIV. Tad J. Pilecki Senior Engineer January 3, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION RESPONSIVENESS HEARIN AUTHORIZE AWARD AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION Engineering Department! Infrastructure Division ISSUE: On December 10, 1991, bids for the construction of District Project No. 4535B, Mt. Diablo Siphon Sliplining Project, were opened. Staff has initially concluded that the bids of the three apparent low bidders are nonresponsive and has recommended a hearing on this issue. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the opening of bids. Board of Directors' authorization is required for Capital Improvement Program contingency allocations for amounts greater than $25,000. BACKGROUND: The existing 36-inch Main Interceptor No.1, which passes through the heart of downtown Walnut Creek, has insufficient capacity to convey current peak wet- weather flows from the San Ramon Valley. To address the capacity limitation, the District has constructed the Walnut Creek Downtown Bypass (Bypass), which will convey the flow from the San Ramon Valley Interceptor around downtown Walnut Creek and connect to the existing and future A-Lines. As originally envisioned, the Bypass was only to be used to divert high wet-weather flow from the existing Main Trunk NO.1 at Rudgear Road. The new sewer has not been activated to date. Recent analysis by staff of flow routing in the Walnut Creek area has indicated that a revised flow routing scheme in this area that involves year round operation of the Bypass would have several desirable benefits. These benefits include greater operational flexibility and reduced maintenance expenditures, the elimination of several capacity restrictions, and the deferral of several large capacity expansion projects. To accomplish year round operation of the Bypass, it is necessary to reduce the size of one of the two 42-inch siphon barrels at Mt. Diablo Boulevard to sustain adequate cleansing velocity during periods of low flow. This project consists of sliplining approximately 380 linear feet of existing 42-inch diameter siphon pipe with a 24-inch diameter liner pipe at Mt. Diablo Boulevard in Walnut Creek (Attachment 1). The slipliner will be a temporary facility, which is expected to be operational for approximately seven years at which time flows will have increased to the point where the slipliner is no longer needed and, thus, will be removed. Plans and specifications for the project were prepared by James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. (JMM); the engineer's estimate for construction is $80,000. The project was REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED F R BOARD ACTION KLA ~ fjff3 1302A-7/91 TJP JSM RAB . --,-----.---.-------.----.-,-. ...---.------.....---.-.--. _...-- .. SUBJECT CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS BY 0' ARCY & HARTY CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., D. W. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND RANGER PIPELINES, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE MT. DIABLO SLlPLlNING PROJECT, DP 4535B, CONSIDER AWARD AS TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION OF $159,000 ......................................"... .............."..........."....... .-. ...................................................................................,.... .....III.,II.lfI......BAm.&.m..... PAGE DATE 2 OF 17 January 3, 1992 advertised on November 20 and 26, 1991. Seven sealed bids ranging from $43,000 to $105,700 were received and publicly opened on December 10, 1991. A summary of the bids received is shown in Attachment 2. The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial review of the bids. It was found that the three apparent low bidders (D'Arcy & Harty Construction Co. Inc., D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc., and Ranger Pipelines, Inc.) all listed a pipe material not in conformance with the bid request documents. The design consultant, JMM, has evaluated the pipe product listed by the apparent three low bidders and has concluded that the product does not meet the specifications, which require the pipe to have special characteristics based on the specific application and constraints. The specifications require a product with special characteristics which include resistance to kinking, resistance to slow crack growth, and ability to tolerate high pull loads for long periods of time, all of which are deemed necessary for the installation and ultimate removal of the slip liner. JMM has concluded that the variance between the product listed in the apparent low bidders' proposals and the pipe specifications is material. Staff concurs with JMM's evaluation. Staff plans to present the essential issues to the Board in a brief presentation during the responsiveness hearing. Bid proposals may be rejected by the Board of Directors as nonresponsive if there are any variances from the bid request documents, which are determined by the Board to be material variances. The Board of Directors has the following three options to consider: 1. Determine that the pipe product set forth by the three apparent low bidders does constitute a material variance, declare the bid of D' arcy & Harty Construction Co. Inc., D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc., and Ranger Pipelines, Inc. to be nonresponsive, and award the contract to Mountain Cascade, as the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid, or 2. Determine that this pipe product does not constitute a material variance and that any variance did not unfairly prejudice the other bidders, declare the bid of D' arcy & Harty Construction Co. Inc. to be responsive and award the construction contract to D'arcy and Harty Construction Co. Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid, or 3. Reject all bids. 13028-7/91 SUBJECT CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS BY D'ARCY & HARTY CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., D. W. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND RANGER PIPELINES, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE MT. DIABLO SLlPLlNING PROJECT, DP 4535B, CONSIDER AWARD AS TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION OF $159,000 ...................- ....-... .--......................",.......... ......................................,.....................................-...,.,.. ....BIB.,mlll......ml.m.EJ.II..... PAGE 3 OF 17 DATE Uanuary 3, 1992 Prior to considering what action to take, it is appropriate, although not required, for the Board to conduct a responsiveness hearing to receive information from interested parties. The five lowest bidders have been informed of the award and hearing process and of staff's recommendation. The three apparent low bidders have been invited to submit to staff written materials concerning the responsiveness issue. If the Board determines that the bids of the three apparent low bidders are nonresponsive, staff has evaluated the remaining bids and determined that the fourth low bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc. of San Ramon, is the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid. If the Board decides to reject all of the bids, the Engineering Department will conduct a new bid for this project. The total project budget for this project is $159,000, as shown in Attachment 3. The concept of year-round operation of the Bypass was developed as a result of several on-going projects; and, therefore, this project was not anticipated in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Budget. Staff is recommending a contingency allocation to fund the project. Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 18.2, since it involves minor alterations to an existing sewerage facility with negligible or no expansion of capacity. The Board of Directors' approval of this project will constitute a finding of agreement with this determination unless otherwise indicated. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Conduct a responsiveness hearing on the bid proposals submitted by D' arcy & Harty Construction Co. Inc., D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc., and Ranger Pipelines, Inc. 2. Reject the bids of D'arcy & Harty Construction Co. Inc., D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc., and Ranger Pipelines, Inc., as being nonresponsive. 3. Authorize award of contract in the amount of $ 71,4 77 to Mountain Cascade as the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid. 4. Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to allocate $159,000 from the Collection System Contingency Account. 13028-7/91 > -~ 1 w u.. to- <( ... Zr >< en ... I z 0 G~ f 0 OJ :c .... ~ 0- W tc en ..J z t- U W ., 0 a: Q. " Z - Z - .J Q. - .J 0 'z Z CD ~ ~ 0 II) ~- w -I :z: C") II) a: a.. Q. ~ f'" a: - <( 0 Q. OJ 0 C z .J 0 CD ::I: c( 0- - I- en C z>< Ww ::I: . ~..J () t- 1-0- Z :::E a:~ ~O C\I <() ~ o -- .u 0_ u:: ~iS - c~ D~ u_ '1.e "0 Cln . CJ .. ~ :E i I -------,--- PROJECT NO. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District SUMMARY DF B"-J& Attachment 2 Mt. Diablo Siphon Sliplining Project 4535B DATE December 10, 1991 ENGR. EST. $ 80,000 LOCA TI ON Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Walnut Creek - J~L .j BIDDER (Name, telephone & address) BID PRle. DIArcy & Harty Construction Co~ 415) 586-4000 $ 43,000 1 425 Monterey Boulevard, SanIf~ancisco, CA 94127 - D.W. Young Construction Co., (510) 837-0724 $ 2 ~~BeAaf Engin3eEinH ConO'. Inc. 94526 62,725 - own an ou try rlve - 3 Ranger Pipelines ( 415 ) 822-3700 $ P.O. Box 24109, San Francisco, CA 94124 64,270 --- Mountain Cascade ( 510) 736-8370 $ 4 P.O. Box 116, San Ramon, CA 94583 94583 71 ,477 EMSCO of San Francisco ( 510) 562-5454 $ 5 82,228 9009 Railroad Avenue. Oakland. CA 94603 ~ Performance t1echani ca 1, I nc. ( 510) 432-4080 $ 6 P.O. Box 1516, 630 West Tenth Street 94565 87 ,471 Pittsbura CA .] Sarott.Construction Co. e 510) 672-7220 $ 105,700 "3!33 ~organ Territory Road 94517 ~ L I. Lf'\ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ , . ( ) $ ( ) $ .. BIDS OPENED BY Joyce t~urphy DATE 10/10/91 SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 250"'/" -----------..-.r-----...------...--..---.... .. ATTACHMENT 3 MT. DIABLO SIPHON SLlPLlNING PROJECT DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4535B POST-BID. PRECONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PERCENT OF ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COSTS 1 Construction Contract $71,477 2 Contingency (at 20 percent) 14,523 SUBTOTAL $ 86.000 100 3 Force Account Management/Administration $ 4,000 Inspection 9,500 Collection System Operations Dept. 500 Legal 500 Engineering 2,000 Consultant (James M. Montgomery) 8,000 SUBTOTAL $ 24.500 28.5 4 Miscellaneous Permit $ 1,000 Community Relations 1,500 As-Builts 1,000 SUBTOTAL $ 3.500 4.1 5 Prebid Expenditures $ 45,000 52.3 6 TOTAL PROJECT COST $159,000 184.9 7 Funds Previously Allocated 1 0 8 Total Allocation of Funds Required to $159,000 Complete Project 'Design funds were allocated under the Near Court Project. Serving the World's Environmental Needs T e!ephone (510) 933-2250 355 Ler:r,or: Lar-:e \/'/a1r,u: Creek C:a'ifornI394598 "..... James M, Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc, December 16, 1991 . Central Contra Costa Sanitation District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Tad Pilecki Subject: Bid Award Assistance for Project 4535B Dear Mr. Pilecki: File No. 1804.0240/3.1.2 In response to your request, we have prepared the following letter to assist the District during the bid award process for the Mount Diablo Slip-lining project (4535B). PROJECT BACKGROUND Seven contractors have submitted bids ranging in cost from $ 43,000 to $ 105,700 as shown below: TABLE 1 BID SUMMARY Contractor Bid Amount Pipe Manufacturer Darcy & Harty DW Young Inc. Ranger Pipeline Mountain Cascade EMSCO Performance Mechanical Sarrott Con st. Co. $ 43,000 $ 62, 725 $ 64,270 $ 71,477 $ 82,228 $ 87,471 $ 105,700 Polaris Polaris Polaris Drisco Drisco Drisco . Drisco Engineer's Estimate: $ 80,000 ---,---..--.---...----....----..-----...... Mr. Pilecki -2- December 16, 1991 HDPE PIPE COMPARISON . Three contractors, which have the lowest bids, propose using Polaris High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) for the project. James M. Montgomery Engineers, Inc. (JMM) is not aware that Polaris has manufactured a pipe that meets the pipe material specifications included in the Contract Documents. Table 2 compares material qualities between three pipe products and the specifications written for the Mount Diablo Slip-lining Projects. Two of the pipe materials are manufactured by Driscopipe and the other pipe material is manufactured by Polaris. The comparison shows that only Drisco 8600 meets the material standards as specified in the Contract Documents. The critical requirement is the cell classification and corresponding Melt Index. Drisco 1000 and Polaris pipe do not have an ASTM cell classification that meet the requirements of the pipe material specifications. The pipe material specification requires that the pipe used in this project have a cell classification of 355434C. Both Drisco 1000 and Polaris pipe have cell classifications of 345434C. The difference between the two cell classifications is noted by the second digit in the cell classification, which refers to the Melt Index. Pipe material is assigned a Melt Index number based upon the results from an ASTM standard testing procedure (D-1238). The testing procedure measures "the rate of extrusion of molten resins through a die of a specified length and diameter under prescribed conditions of temperature, load, and piston position in the barrel as the time measurement is being made." ASTM defines the significance of this test method as being "particularly useful for quality control tests on thermoplastics." Materials that have a lower Melt Index indicate a more uniform and homogeneous material with a generally higher molecular weight. Please note in Table 2 that the Melt Index for Drisco 1000 and Polaris pipe is greater than the value shown for Drisco 8600, which indicates Drisco 8600 has superior quality. The benefits of this superior quality for the subject application are discussed below. BENEFITS OF THE SPECIFIED PIPE The benefits of cell classification 355434C as it directly relate to the Mount Diablo Slip-lining Project are as follows: · Resistance to kinking. In the process of going around corners, the pipe is compressed on the inside of the comers and stretched on the outside of the comers. This strain also induces slight ovality in the pipe producing positive and negative bending moments internal to the wall of the pipe, which causes strain to occur. Materials having cell classification of 355434C are more tolerant and resistant to these mechanical deformations. · Resistance to slow crack growth. When a slit, scratch, or gouge are imposed on a mechanically deformed pipe, the concentration of the imposed stress at the tips of the "notch" can produce very intensified stresses at that tip point. Material having cell classification of 355434C reduces the stress intensification to below a critical value and stop the crack propagation. This is due the properties of the material (molecular weight, morphology, intermolecular order), which blunts the tip of the crack by fillibrating across the notch tip with HDPE molecular "fingers. " ... -,--------.-.--.----------------.-.....-----------..-..----.--------- Mr. Pilecki -3- December 16, 1991 · Resistance to axial creep-strain due to timed duration of pull loads. Material having a cell classification of 355434C is more elastic where lower molecular weight HOPE's are more visco-elastic. This means the 355434C material can tolerate high pull loads for a longer time and yet fully recover axial and radial strain imposed by the insertion process. . SUMMARY The Mount Diablo Slip-lining project has special requirements and site constraints that require material with superior quality than the pipe material utilized for conventional applications. The material selection was conservative due to the following conditions: · The polyethylene pipe follows a curve having a 40 foot radius at the installation pit · The pipe is finally installed into an invened siphon with changes in horizontal direction and vertical alignment. · The pipe is pulled out of the siphon after a period of 5 to 10 years in use. Therefore, we recommend that a pipe cell classification of 355434C be used for the pipe for the Mount Diablo Slip-lining Project as shown in the Contract Documents. Please call me if you have any questions. Very trol yyours, ~~ Vice-President lap Serving the World's Environmental Needs Teleohone (510) 933-2250 355 Lennon Lane Walnut Creek, California 94598 ....... James M, Montgomery Consulting Engineers. Inc. December 16, 1991 . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Tad Pilecki Subject: Mt Diablo Slip-Lining Project (4535B) Dear Mr. Pilecki: File No. 1804.024013.1.2 This letter is a supplement to om letter dated December 16, 1991 to Tad Pilecki-CCCSD from Art Hamid-JMM regarding the Mt. Diablo Slip-Lining Project. We would like to clarify our recommendation on suitable pipe material for the subject project. The specified AS1M D-3350 cell classification 355434C is necessary to meet the project conditions discussed in our December 16, 1991 letter. Based on information available to JMM at this time, Drisco 8600 is the only pipe I product commercially available that meets the cell classification requirement Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ~:::i~W {".- Vice President lap D. W. YOU:\ G CONSTRUCTION CO.. I:\'C. GE!'B9lAL ENGINEERI~G COJ\TRACTOR December 3 I , 199 I Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff PI. Martinez, CA. 94553-4392 Attn: Tad J. Pilecki Ref: Mt. Diablo Siphon Sliplining Project-#4535B The CCCSD Engineering staff is recommending that the three low bidders on the above referenced project be considered as non-responsive and therefore their bids rejected. This is due to their listing a polyethylene pipe supplier whose product staff deems not to meet the specifications. Their decision is based upon the second number of the "cell classification" for PE pipe, the "melt index", which addresses the workability of the raw resin material during production of the polyethylene pipe. According to ASTM DI238-89, "This method is particularly useful for quality control tests on thermoplastics. This test method serves to indicate the uniformity of the flow rate of the polymer as made by an individual process and, in this case, may be indicative of uniformity of other properties. However, uniformity of flow rate among various polymers as made by various processes does not, in the absence of other tests, indicate uniformity of other properties." Nowhere in any of the ASTM literature is the relationship between end product "toughness" and the melt index discussed. In fact the only place this relationship is discussed is in the Driscopipe 8600 sales brochure. In a discussion with Buddy Harris of Phillips Driscopipe on 12-31-91, the question of "toughness" of the pipe was discussed. I asked him to compare Driscopipe 8600 vs. Driscopipel000(which is classified as an equal to the Polaris Duratuff pipe the three low bidders have submitted). He explained that the best way to check the toughness of polyethylene piping is to check the Environmental Stress Crack Resistance(ESCR) for each type of pipe. ASTM D-1693 states that for condition C the pipe be tested for 192 hours and show no more than 20% failure. Both 8600 and 1000 show no failures after 192 hours. Any statement of hours beyond 192 is irrelevant in the eyes of the specification. Mr. Harris felt that for installation into the siphon at a constant temperature and neutral state under no pressure that the 140 To'r.\ & Col'''TRY DRlH, SUTE A DA'\'\lllE, CAUFOR.'\lA 94526 <SI0l837-0-24 . (510) 83'-0-83 FAX ......-------.--,---------.--.--..----. II! 1000 product would work just fine and that "l00's of miles of Driscopipe 1000 has already been installed for the same type of application. n As a final question to Mr. Harris I asked if any other companies produced a product with the same cell classification as the Driscopipe 8600. He answered "no, oot to my knowledge. n This statement would lead me to believe that the District had, in fact, written a specification which asked for a singular, specific product with no alternate, Driscopipe 8600. Our supplier, P+F Distributors, attempted to clarify the question as to an alternate prior to the bid. CCCSD refused to issue an addendum to clear up the matter. In making our case for the product we have proposed to use we in fact substantiate the validity of the apparent low bidder's proposal. In our opinion, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder should be awarded the project. The pipe proposed meets the letter and intent of the specifications with regard to all valid criteria. To base your decision on melt index alone is . wrong and unsubstantiated by any documentation other than. Driscopipe literature. In addition to the technical matters at issue here we also have the subject of cost. Our analysis of the two suppliers' proposals indicates a difference of approximately $8,200.00, ie, the quote from Maskell-Robbins for Driscopipe 8600 is $8,200.00 higher than that of P+F Distributors for Polaris Duratuff. Technical issues aside... How will the District justify to the rate payers a $28,477.00 increase in contract value between the low and fourth bidder for an $8,200.00 difference in the cost of the pipe? We enclose product data from various manufacturers all of which we feel will meet the intent of the specifications. Perhaps, when you reject their products as being non-responsive it would be benificial for all concerned to know the specific reasons behind the decision. I'm sure the individual manufacturers would be most interested in the logic utilized. Sincerely, D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc. ()ffrVl- Jim Falk PI:oject Engineer ---,------.--- ~ 1 \\OUNTAIN CASCADE INC. Po. Box 116 San Ramon, CA 94583 (510) 736-8370 [pJf!rr;~oW'~~ JAN 2 1992 CCCSD ,......""'fl'l...-.....~''''t"' "'l.l- ....~_,..._ January 2, 1992 Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, Ca. 94553-4392 Re: Mt. Diablo Siphon Sliplining project-#4535B Gentlemen; As you are aware, the controversy of single source materials for the above referenced project was widely known to all bidders prior to the bid opening. It is the responsibility of the bidders to conform their bid to the specification such that the engineers design parameters and goals can be met. Acceptance of deviations from design specifications prior to bid opening places the District in the unenviable position to decide "does the District have a specification or not?". If a bidder chooses not to follow the specifications at bid time, this should be an indication as to his intention to follow said specifications during the course of the project. Is acceptance of this course of action in the best interest of the District? The District staff's decision to let the specification prevail is a sound and ethical one; as is awarding the project to "the lowest responsible/responsive bidder". Sincerely, MO.U.....NTAIN C.A:C~, INC. #-~A/~ Peter M. Wiebens Project Engineer /pw D' Ailev & HARTY CoNSTRUCfION Co.. INC. 425 MONTEREY BLvo. SAN FRANasco. CA 94127 (415) 586-4000 January 3, 1991 Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez CA 94553 -4392 Attention: Mr. Tad J. Pilecki Gentlemen: Enclosed please find specifications on Phillips Driscopipe as listed in our bid for 'Mount Diablo Sliplining project, No 4535B. You will find that these specifications will justify Phillips Driscopipe as an equal or superior product to the one listed in the contract documents. I hope that these specifications will meet with your approval. ~ 511 Tunnel Ave. San Francisco. California 94134 (415) 467-4630 P.O. Box 282076 San Francisco. California 94128-2076 FAX (415) 467-1010 ~ -t><J- ~ ---:-r--r- ~ ~ p e F Distributors January 3, 1992 D'Arcy & Harty 425 Monterey San Francisco CA 94127 Attention: Mr. Mike D'Arcy Dear Mr. D'Arcy: Enclosed please find literature supporting our claim that Polaris Pipe Company's Duratuff polyethylene PE 3408 piping system is equal to or better than Driscopipe 8600 as manufactured by Phillips Driscopipe. I have enclosed two copies of Driscopipe literature relating to 8600 material, Driscopipe literature relating to Driscopipe 1000 material, Polaris Pipe Co. literature relating to Duratuff material, Plexco literature relating to Plexco pipe, Driscopipe literature relating to Driscopipe 5100 material and a report produced by DuPont, Canada on the Driscopipe 8600 material. As you review the literature, some important points arise. In one piece of literature from Phillips dated 1981, the 8600 material is called an ultra-high molecular weight, high density polyethylene pipe. In a second piece of literature from Phillips dated 1988, the 8600 material is call a very-high molecular weight, high density polyethylene pipe. It would seem that Phillips has changed either their labeling of the product, or the product itself. You will notice that in both pieces of literature on Phillips Driscopipe 8600 material, the SDR rating given for 65 psi is SDR 25.3. The SDR rating given for 65 psi in the Polaris and Plexeo literature is SDR 26. This proves that Polaris and Plexco polyethylene pipe can provide the same pressure rating as the Driscopipe 8600 material with a lighter SDR rating. In fact, if you examine the Driscopipe 1000 literature, you will find that Driscopipe 1000 will also provide 65 psi with a SDR 26. Driscopipe 1000 material will provide the same pressure rating as Driscopipe 8600 with a lighter SDR rating than the 8600 material. If you compare Driscopipe 8600 to Polaris Duratuff on the basis of typical physical properties, you will find that Polaris Duratuff will exceed Driscopipe on Elongation at Break per ASTM D 638. This shows that during the pulling of the liner pipe, Polaris Duratuff will give an extra measure of safety in the amount of pull force allowed. In addition, you will find that Polaris Duratuff will give a greater Flexural Modulus per ASTM D 3350 and a greater Modulus of Elasticity per ASTM D 638. This will allow you flex the pipe more with Duratuff and give you an extra measure of safety when inserting. Los Angeles Offlce-357 E. Arrow Hwy.. #208 San Dimas. California 91773 Phone 714-599-1996 FAX 714-592-3257 .. - 511 Tunnel Ave. San Francisco, California 94134 (415) 467-4630 P.O. Box 282076 San Francisco, California 94128-2076 FAX (415) 467-1010 ~ -t><1- ~ --:-r---J- ~ 11 p e F Distributors D'Arcy & Harty 1/3/92 Page 2 In the Driscopipe 5100 literature I have highlighted two statements made by Phillips Driscopipe. 'The melt index of the resin is an indication of the molecular weight of the resin and serves as a tool of identification and as a measure of relative ease of processabiliry of the resin." The following paragraph states: "Neither the Melt Index value nor the numerical value for molecular weight of a UHMWHDPE pipe resin can be directly correlated to performance characteristics of the finished pipe." This means that the Melt Index value has no bearing on the performance of the pipe, it is only an indication to the manufacturer of the pipe of procedures required for extrusion in plant. It is also an indication to the fusion technician of what procedures to use to properly fuse the polyethylene pipe. The paper prepared by DuPont, Canada examines some of the characteristics of Driscopipe 8600 material, as well as some of the marketing strategies utilized by Phillips to sell the 8600 material. It seems that the 8600 polyethylene material is a by-product of Phillips Petroleum refinement process and is a material which is very difficult and expensive to extrude as pipe. Phillips Petroleum has tried to give the impression that the 8600 material is a superior resin, when in fact, it is quite ordinary. In conclusion, Phillips Driscopipe 8600 material provides no product which is superior to Polaris Duratuff, Plexco or Phillips Driscopipe 1000. Sincerely, ~e~~<~ Los Angeles Office-357 E. Arrow Hwy., #208 San Dimas, California 91773 Phone 714-599-1996 FAX 714-592-3257 PAGE 1 OF 4 NO. 5. SOLID WASTE a. SUBJECT DATE RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP TYPE OF ACTION RECEIVE REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ANAL YSES SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. have submitted applications for rate adjustments effective January 1992. The rate applications and District staff analyses will be reviewed at a Board workshop on January 9, 1992, and will be the subject of a public hearing, on January 30, 1992. BACKGROUND: The District initiated a change to the rate-setting period from a fiscal year to a calendar year basis. Revision to the franchise agreements to reflect the change in the rate-setting period was executed by each of the three franchised refuse collectors. Rate applications were requested for implementation effective January 1, 1992 to convert to a calendar year rate-setting period, and in anticipation of an imminent transfer station fee increase. Applications for rate adjustments effective January 1, 1992 have been submitted by two of the three franchised refuse collectors: Valley Waste Management has submitted an application which reflects a 2.18 percent rate decrease; and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. has requested a 21.26 percent rate increase. Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal did not submit a rate application. Both rate applications and the staff analysis of the Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service rate application have previously been distributed to the Board of Directors. The staff analysis of the Valley Waste Management rate application is provided with this Position Paper. Copies of these documents have also been provided to the affected cities of Orinda and Lafayette and towns of Danville and Moraga with requests that City and Town Council comments be provided for the Board's consideration at the January 30, 1992 public hearing. The documentation for this rate-setting decision is being presented in the Position Paper and staff analyses. The Position Paper contains an overview of the rate-setting procedure. The staff analyses of the rate applications filed by the two refuse collectors are contained in two separately-bound documents. The specific rate-setting decisions and staff recommendations are contained in these separate documents. RATE-SETTING PROCEDURE The rate-setting procedure is based on the new method of calculating the increase in refuse collection rates, which was approved during the 1990-1991 rate-setting process, and includes the following components: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. ~ 4.- I 'd~~ 1302A-7/91 WNF PM SUBJECT RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VAllEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP ................................................................................... Illllllll~illililiillilll!il PAGE DATE 2 OF 4 January 3, 1992 Profit Calculation Because of the limitations inherent in the use of the Operating Ratio method of determining allowable profit, a new method was implemented during the 1990-1991 rate-setting process. Under the new method, the refuse collector's profit before taxes, and after subtracting the Capital Use Charge, for the last six years was analyzed. The profit figures for the six years were adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to current values, and a profit per customer per year was determined. An arithmetic mean of the profit per customer for four years, after rejecting the high and low years, was used to compute the allowable profit; the initial profit per customer so determined was $11.87. The initial profit per customer is incremented by the Consumer Price Index for succ!:leding rate-setting periods. Modification Factors The net profit per customer may be modified by two indices which consider quality of service and cost of service. In the last rate-setting process, the modiJication factors were assigned the following values: Quality of Service set at 1.00; Cost of Service set at 1.00. Caoital Use Charge An amount was included in the collection rates for the use of capital. This amount was calculated by multiplying an interest rate times the depreciated value of the refuse collector's Net Tangible Fixed Assets (NTFA). The NTFA is computed on the basis of the original acquisition cost to avoid write-ups in values resulting from changes in franchise ownership being passed on to the rate-paying public. The average yield for 2-Year Treasury Notes was used as the interest rate. Exoense Adjustments Since expenses are passed-through directly under both the previous and the new rate-setting methodology, staff has used long-standing Board guidance in determining certain expenses which are appropriate for inclusion in the rate analysis. The Board will want to consider certain claimed expense components of each rate application, which have been identified in the staff analysis. Revenue and Exoense Balancina Account Given the uncertainties inherent in operating a business in as volatile a field as solid waste, extreme precision in the franchisees' ability to operate exactly on budget cannot be expected. In past years, budgetary surpluses have been retained by the franchisees. In fiscal year 1989- 13028-7/91 I SUBJECT RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP 1:1:1111111118:111:1111111111 PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE January 3, 1992 1990, the franchisees requested, and received, augmentation of their rates to cover a mid- year disposal fee increase. The earlier. rate-setting approach did not provide any incentive for cost cutting. It was the position of the District that it was appropriate to permit the franchisees to keep the results of cost efficiencies during any given rate year as a way of encouraging the franchisee to be more efficient. Under the new approach, effective cost cutting will result in increased profits. Also,tight budgeting can be expected to result in occasional revenue short fall which should be passed along to the ratepayer as long as the costs were legitimately incurred in the course of a well-managed business. For these reasons, as discussed during last year's rate-setting process, a Balancing Account has been included in the staff analysis. During calendar year 1991, both franchisees managed a modest surplus which will be used to offset the calendar year 1992 revenue requirement. Uniform Rates As a way of rewarding ratepayers who reduced their solid waste production, as well as reflecting the increasing proportion of the collection rates which are related to disposal expense, the Board elected to phase-in a uniform rate schedule beginning with the 1990-1991 fiscal year. In response to public input, the Board selected a three year phase-in period. Barring direction from the Board to the contrary, the staff will adjust the 1992 residential rates to conform to the third and final phase-in year, where the rate for each can for a multi-can residential customer will be the same. In the course of the current rate-setting procedure, the following issues will be considered: Closure and Post-Closure Cost Assessment The County's closure and post-closure cost assessment program is described in the staff analysis. No provision has been made for closure costs in either rate analysis, although the effect of closure costs on the rate adjustment calculation is separately presented. It is recommended that the Board consider this issue when, and if, the County levies a closure cost assessment. Transfer Station Fee Adiustment The Acme Interim Transfer Station fee was last increased on December 9, 1991. No provision has been made for a fee adjustment which may be made when another transfer station fee application is filed by March 1, 1992, pursuant to a recommendation by the 13028-7/91 '--------~_r----._.__._-_o,.._--~.-'"--.---.-.---~..~.-.__...._-,--"---^._--,._,_.~-_..__..._._---_._-~_..,._~--.-..-----,--..--......---...---.-,..,...-.-..~".-.~.-- SUBJECT RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP 1:118111111111:::1:1111111111 PAGE DATE 4 OF 4 January 3, 1992 County Solid Waste Manager. It is recommended that the Board permit a mid-year collection rate adjustment in the event of a mid-year transfer station fee adjustment. Mini-can Service Valley Waste Management implemented a 20-gallon mini-can service in the City of Walnut Creek at the behest of the Walnut Creek City Council effective January 1, 1991. The refuse collector indicates that 3 percent of the city's residential customers changed to the mini-can service. A number of requests for this service was received by the District from residents in the unincorporated areas of Walnut Creek following implementation of the mini-can service in the city. A proposal for implementing automated residential collection service in the Valley Waste Management Service area, including the unincorporated areas of Walnut Creek, will be considered by the Board during the current rate-setting process. If implemented, a reduction in collection rates will be realized by residents, as the automated service is phased-in during 1992. In addition, the current rate-setting will be based on the final year of the three-year phase-in to uniform can rates, and will likely result in a lowered rate for single-can customers of Valley Waste Management. Residents in the unincorporated areas of Walnut Creek receiving single can service will likely realize an immediate reduction in collection rate as of January 1, 1992, and a further reduction when automated service is provided during 1992. Therefore, some measure of rate relief will have been provided, and consideration of the need for a mini-can service could appropriately await completion of the conversion to the automated service. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the staff analyses of the rate applications submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.; provide staff with comments and guidance regarding the two common issues of closure and post-closure cost assessment and disposal expense, and issues unique to the two refuse collection firms, which are described in their respective staff analysis. ADS/PosPap #2/StaffAna.PP2 13028-7/91 ---"-T.-.----..---..-"-------~---~-.. ..~----,--"--_.---,--,--. ..-,.-~-.-----,~,-,-..,....-.-.--..,.,~- ..----.-..---.-.....- ~ CJlllral Contra Costa SanitQI y District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 4 BOARD MEETING OF January 9, 1992 NO. 6. ENGINEERING a. POSITION PAPER SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS, INC. FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR, DP 4717 DATE January 3, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Tad J. Pilecki Senior Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Infrastructure Division ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute professional services agreements in amounts greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: At the September 4, 1991, Board Meeting, the Board passed a resolution certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project was legally adequate. The Board also passed a resolution approving the project. The 30-day legal challenge period for the Final EIR for the project has passed without any challenges. The District needs to proceed with the design and construction of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor. The purpose of constructing the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor is to minimize the potential for sewer overflows in Pleasant Hill and Pacheco during wet weather events. The proposed Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, to be constructed in phases between the years 1993 and 1997, would extend approximately 6 miles through Pleasant Hill and Pacheco to the District's wastewater treatment plant. The final alignment for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor will be the subject of a future Board meeting. Facilities planning has been completed for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project; the predesign for the project has also been completed. Design of the project is the next step. It is proposed that this project proceeds at this time. During the Predesign Phase, staff conducted a formal competitive consultant selection process for the project which included a Request for Proposal, evaluation of proposals, and formal interviews of three bay area consulting firms. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. (JMM) was selected for the project based on their project team qualifications, experience in large sewer projects and their performance on the design of the San Ramon Valley Interceptor Project. Based on JMM's good performance during the predesign effort, staff recommends that JMM be retained to complete detailed design. 1302A-7/91 TJP JSM RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATI~IV. W '}1 f)!fI SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS, INC. FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR, DP 4717 POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 DATE January 3, 1992 OF 4 A proposed agreement has been negotiated with JMM for the final design of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor with a cost ceiling of $1,125,150. Additionally, staff has negotiated a cost ceiling of $127,050 for the design of the overflow junction structure at the treatment plant and a wet weather bypass pipeline to convey excess flows to the storage basins. Construction of the overflow junction structure has been incorporated into the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project to reduce the potential for construction conflict with the Headworks Facilities Expansion Project contractor. The major scope of work elements and a cost breakdown are presented in Attachment 2. The construction cost for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project is estimated at $20,000,000. The total project cost for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project is $29,700,000. This includes the EIR effort, predesign, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction contract, contingency, and construction management services. During the EIR process, the Pleasant Hill City Council, Pleasant Hill Parks and Recreation District, and a number of citizens requested that a reclaimed water line be constructed as a part of the District project. Since the conveyance and distribution of reclaimed water is under the purview of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), a letter has been sent to the CCWD encouraging its participation in Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's project (Attachment 1). Staff has negotiated a cost ceiling of $125,000 with JMM for the design of the reclaimed water line. It is proposed that the design effort on the reclaimed water line proceed directly if CCWD makes a decision to fund the design. The preliminary construction cost estimate for the reclaimed water line, if built concurrently with the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project, is $2,000,000 with a total project cost of approximately $2,600,000. If built separately, the total project cost for the reclaimed water line would be between $4,500,000 and $5,000,000. The Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project is described in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Budget starting on Page CS-8. CEOA consideration for the interceptor has been addressed in the EIR. If the reclaimed water line is incorporated into the project, additional CEOA documentation will be required. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a cost reimbursement agreement with a cost ceiling of $1,377,200 with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. for final design of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor. 1302B-7/91 ~'f~ Central Contra Costa~~~rY,P, , . ' ':'-. %~~~~~;""._"'" '-"~: ,;,."". :-':"~,~.~ '..... ,-'-~ f1(JCPI.. GL Il~ aM,-,;:; IfDtlrMlIJUI CIJIIIIfIIIIr II>>mIIIII:f .,....... JUYrZ E.1ISIfIY ~"*l1IIIricI ~~cso Imhof! Pi' . _CL. ~1JrtinL':' ATTACHMENT 1 :i'l] 'I November 13, 1991 Mr. Ed Seegmiller General Manager Contra Costa Water District P.O. Box H20 Concord, CA 94524 Dear Ed: RECLAIMED WATER Central San has completed a series of public meetings and public hearings on our proposed new large sewer line that will serve Pleasant Hill. We received many oral and written comments suggesting that we should install a reclaimed water line at the same time the new sewer line was installed. At this time we plan to install the sewer line in 3 or 4 years. As you know, installation to the lines at one time not only minimizes the disruption of the community, but also provides significant cost savings. Jim Kelly of my staff has discussed this matter with Dave Requa of your staff on several occasions. Jim has informed me and Dave Requa that the total cost of the large reclaimed water line that would form the backbone of the reclaimed water system could be installed at about one- half of the cost of installing it separately. Furthermore, the cost of the design could be reduced by about 50 percent. We are currently negotiating a design contract with James M. Montgomery to design the Pleasant Hill sewer. We are quickly reaching a crossroad where Central San needs to know if CCWD intends to proceed with water reclamation and intends to participate in the design of the reclaimed water iine. I think a combined project is a unique opportunity to not only save money, but to have an extraordinary public acceptance while cementing the improved relationship between our districts. Please let me know if there is anything that Central San can do to help ensure your participation in this project. . Si?,' ~"(;j~ Roger J/DOI~ General Manager-Chief Engineer RJD/JMK/ls /l-1tt: ( I:c(.. J k/ (( 'f {i).......... ~_, ____.________-,-_M_______.____. ATTACHMENT 2 DETAILED CONSULTANT BUDGET FOR THE FINAL DESIGN FOR THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR PROJECT. DISTRICT PROJECT 4717 Basic Design Services . James M. Montgomery Engineers $523.350. Special Services James M. Montgomery Engineers . . . . . . Survey/Right-of Way Assistance Permit Acquisition Assistance Coordination with Other Agencies Value Engineering Detailed Construction Cost Estimate Assistance During Bidding 27.600. 50.000. 16.600. 24.600. 20.000. 30.100. Subcontracts . Geotechnical Woodward-Clyde Consultants 283.000. . Pavement Consultant Testing Engineers. Inc. 28.200. . Traffic Consultant Abrams Associates 32.300. . Arbor Consultant Treescapes. Inc. 34.900. . External Corrosion Consultant Villalobos and Associates 31.000. Other Direct Costs 1 &6 23.500. Subtotal - Pleasant Hill Design $1.125.150. Detailed Design for Overflow Junction Structure and Bypass Piping at Treatment Plant $127.050. Reclaimed Water Line 125.000 Total of All Services $1.377 ,200. 1 Other Direct Costs include printing, equipment usage, reproduction services, mileage, postage, etc. ED/PP/Phinter.TJP TJP/kg January 3, 1992 -,----