HomeMy WebLinkAbout21.b. Committee Minutes-Engineering & Operations 08-04-20 Page 1 of 10
Item 21.b.
CENTRALSAN
jdf A- hom
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
August 20, 2020
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARYOF THE DISTRICT
SUBJECT: AUGUST4, 2020 - ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE - CHAIR
NEJEDLYAND MEMBER PILECKI
Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. E&O Committee Minutes 08-04-20
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 183 of 200
Page 2 of 10
CENTRAL SAN
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 9AS53-4392
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA MICHAEL R.MCGILL
President
SANITARY DISTRICT TAD JPHECKI
President Pro Tem
ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
PAUL CAUSEY
COMMITTEE H.
JAMES A.NEJEDLY
DAVID R, WILLIAMS
MINUTES PHONE: (925)228-9500
FAX.- (925)372-0192
www.centralsan.org
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
2:00 p.m.
21d Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California
(All attendees participated via videoconference)
Committee:
Chair Jim Nejedly
Member Tad Pilecki
Staff.
Roger S. Bailey, General Manager (arrived during Item 4.a. and left during Item 4.b.)
Kenton L. Alm, District Counsel
Katie Young, Secretary of the District
Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services
Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager
Edgar Lopez, Capital Projects Division Manager
Neil Meyer, Plant Maintenance Division Manager (left after Item 4.a.)
Dan Frost, Senior Engineer (left after Item 4.d.)
Nitin Goel, Senior Engineer (left during Item 4.e.)
Nathan Hodges, Senior Engineer (arrived during Item 4.b. and left during Item 5.a.)
Sasha Mestetsky, Senior Engineer
Craig Mizutani, Senior Engineer (left after Item 4.c.)
Clint Shima, Senior Engineer (left after Item 4.a.)
Justin Waples, Associate Engineer (left after Item 4.d.)
Amelia Berumen, Senior Administrative Technician (participated at the meeting location)
1. Notice
This meeting was held in accordance with the Brown Act as in effect under the State
Emergency Services Act, the Governor's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-
19, and the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, that
allowed attendance by Board Members, District staff, and the public to participate and
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 184 of 200
Page 3 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 2
conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, or both. The agenda
included instructions for options in which the public could participate in the meeting.
2. Call Meeting to Order
Chair Nejedly called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
3. Public Comments — No public comments.
4. Items for Committee Recommendation to Board
a. Review draft Position Paper to adopt Resolution No. 2020- making
findings and authorizing the General Manager to extend the existing sole-
source, long-term services contract with Solar Turbines, Inc. for
maintenance of the Cogeneration Gas Turbine System for a period of five
years, ending August 31, 2025, at an estimated cost of
$1,200,000, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 3400(c)(3) and
District Purchasing Procedures Manual Section 5.3.15
Mr. Shima presented a thorough overview of the cogeneration system
(cogen) and the successful services provided by Solar Turbines, Inc. over
the past five years. He offered that the better the cogen runs, the better
Central San performs operationally. Moreover, when the cogen has failed,
the vendor has been very responsive, arriving on site right away to remedy
the situation.
As it pertains to a question of what would happen should Central San not do
an engine overhaul, and no additional work were performed, Mr. Shima
stated that Central San would receive an overhaul after the contract term, or
it could switch to a Beneficial Use Services Contract at no charge. Mr.
Shima added that the recommended replacement of the system is at the
three-to-four-year mark, which would fall within the timeframe of the
proposed extension. Mr. Meyer further clarified that based on historical
figures, staff anticipates a replacement/overhaul in approximately three
years, highlighting the cogen currently has over 6,100 hours of use. The
proper operation of this system is critical, and the vendor has been a
valuable resource.
Member Pilecki suggested that staff be brief and trim the Position Paper of
extraneous information and remove the statement regarding the overhaul
credit. He opined that these services are a necessity and that the Board is
already well versed on the topic.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval with suggested
changes to the Position Paper as noted above.
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 185 of 200
Page 4 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 3
b. Review draft Position Paper to authorize the General Manager to execute a
technical consulting services agreement with Hoffman Southwest
Corporation in an amount not to exceed $865,000 to provide inspection
services for the Large Diameter Pipeline Inspection Program - Phase 1,
District Project 8443; and find that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Ms. Gemmell provided a brief introduction to the program. She highlighted
that the draft Position Paper mentions the proposed inspections as a pilot
program, meaning that the agreement is intended to test current
technologies to identify the best means to conduct inspections going
forward. She noted that the base cost of the inspections is around $455,000
and that staff is negotiating the price for pipe cleaning since as-needed
services may be necessary. Lastly, at the request of Collection System
Operations Division Manager Paul Seitz, she shared that he has been very
supportive of this project.
Mr. Waples continued with the presentation included in the agenda
materials. He reiterated staff's current work to finalize the scope and fee,
stating the contract will not exceed the engineer's estimate of$865,000.
The presentation included examples of some past inspections. For instance,
on slide 5, two different segments of pipe were shown that used closed-
circuit television technology (CCTV) — the current practice used for small
diameter pipe inspections— with each showing exposed aggregate. With
newer laser technology (diagrams to the right of the images), the bottom
image showed more extensive corrosion compared to the other. This
example illustrates that CCTV inspection alone does not provide all the
needed information for planning future projects.
Mr. Waples addressed the following questions or concerns posed by
Member Pilecki:
1. The ability to inspect and obtain meaningful results is important
according to Member Pilecki. Staff indicted that Central San had not
used MSl (multi-sensor technology) before; Member Pilecki asked who
has. Mr. Waples shared a listing of utilities on slide 19 starting program
trial inspections, with the caveat that several agencies he spoke with
used MSl post-disaster(e.g., sinkholes). The early implementers have
been agencies that experienced catastrophes; it was afterward that they
followed up with inspection programs using MSI.
2. As it relates to a question of inspection size limitations, Mr. Waples
stated that other than using the correct equipment for the pipe diameter,
he did not believe there was a size limitation.
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 186 of 200
Page 5 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 4
3. Member Pilecki noted there had been issues in the past with sonic
caliper technology, such as depicting corrosion in the pipe soffit or
gypsum material buildup on the pipe (soft concrete). He asked if the MSI
technology could get past soft materials to the hard concrete. Mr. Waples
indicated that the technology looks at the surface it is upon and it likely
would not differentiate between the materials; he indicated he would
followup.
In conclusion, Member Pilecki opined that this technology is unproven and
he was concerned about entering into a high-dollar contract with an outcome
that may not work. With that in mind, he suggested that staff proceed with
the inspection of the first 650 feet (39-inch diameter) to be sure that
meaningful information is gleaned from the investigations. If the information
is not of beneficial use, he would not want any further funds spent on the
Danville line (the identified test line). To that end, he requested the Position
Paper be revised to allow the effort to stop if it does not work as anticipated,
and added that staff should only proceed to the next step if meaningful
information is received, to which Chair Nejedly agreed.
Ms. Gemmell and Mr. Waples stated that staff would clarify the initial
inspection work in the Position Paper. They also explained that the
proposers were clear that staff could pull the project after 650 feet, with the
expectation that there would be a pause to evaluate the data received.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval with the addition
of clarifying language to the Position Paper identified above.
C. Review draft Position Paper to award a construction contract in the amount
of $26,584,000 to C. Overaa & Company, the lowest responsive bidder for
the Filter Plant and Clearwell Improvements, Phase 1A, District Project
7361; find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and authorize the General Manager to: 1) amend an
existing agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. in an amount not
to exceed $1,300,000 for engineering services during construction, and 2)
execute a professional engineering services agreement in an amount not to
exceed $2,100,000 with MWH Constructors, Inc. for construction
management services
Mr. Petit stated that staff contacted C. Overaa & Company post bid opening.
The contractor confirmed its bid price and said they were comfortable
proceeding with the project. Staff recommended adding two alternative bid
items to the contract award (improvements to Filter No. 3 and the Applied
Water Pump Station [AWPSj), which are within budget.
Member Pilecki stated that he was comfortable with the bid price and with
the $750,000 additive bid item for the AWPS; however, given his
unsuccessful experience of filter rehabilitation with prior consultants, he was
unsure about awarding the filter rehabilitation portion. With that said, he
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 187 of 200
Page 6 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 5
stated that if Chair Nejedly had no objection on the matter, he would then
also support that item.
Additionally, Member Pilecki opined that the contingency listed in the Post-
Bid/Preconstruction Cost Estimate (Attachment 3) was too high, asserting
that a project of this size, with many new components vs. rehabilitation,
should warrant a 7.5% contingency rather than the 10% listed.
Chair Nejedly indicated he had no issues or concerns to note. The
Committee concurred on Board approval with a 7.5% contingency.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval with a decrease
in contract contingency to 7.5%.
d. Review draft Position Paper to authorize the General Manager to execute a
five-year agreement in an amount not to exceed $180,000 with Denali Water
Solutions, LLC, for maintenance solids hauling, treatment, and disposal
services; include an additional $500,000 cost ceiling for as-needed
emergency services; and find that the agreement is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Mr. Lopez provided background on the selection of Denali Water Solutions,
LLC and staff's intent of listing two separate costs associated with the
agreement rather than a lump-sum cost ceiling. The intent was to express
that the only guarantee of this agreement is for the maintenance hauling at
$180,000 over the five-year term. Staff intends to exercise each silo in the
Emergency Sludge Loadout Facility and this agreement will ensure disposal
at a suitable and available location(s). The emergency hauling has a cost
ceiling of$500,000 which is based on an estimate of the cost to haul for one
month.
Mr. Lopez also stated that staff remains in discussion with Synagro for back-
up contracting purposes. Staff anticipates that for longer-term hauling, such
as for the upcoming Solids Handling Facility Improvements Project (Solids
Project), the services of a second vendor would likely be needed. Mr. Lopez
stated that staff has worked hard to ensure these services are the most
cost-effective for Central San. Mr. Lopez added that these services were
discussed with, and are supported by, the Regulatory and Operations
divisions.
The Committee had questions pertaining to staff's review of the proposed
fees and why Keller Canyon Landfill was not listed as one of the planned
disposal sites. Mr. Lopez assured the Committee that the fees were carefully
reviewed. Additionally, he shared that Keller Canyon Landfill was listed in
the Request for Proposal as a potential site for the proposers to consider;
however, it was left to the proposer to make their own contact with disposal
sites to acquire the particular information needed to complete their proposal.
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 188 of 200
Page 7 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 6
Member Pilecki stated that he strongly concurred with staff that with the
Solids Project construction, a second hauling contract should be sought.
Mr. Petit stated that staff will continue their discussions with Synagro to be a
second hauler for the Solids Project.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval.
e. Review draft Position Paper to authorize the General Manager to amend two
existing professional engineering services agreements with: 1) Black & Veatch
Corporation (B&V) in an amount not to exceed $1,050,000 for design and bid
period services; and 2) MWH Constructors, Inc. (MWH) in an amount not to
exceed $450,000 for constructability review, bid and records verification
support for the Solids Handling Facility Improvements, District Project 7348
Mr. Petit provided an in-depth background overview of the B&V agreement
history and their performance on the Solids Project to date. The weight of
the discussion focused on this particular area of the draft Position Paper.
The background information provided details on the incompleteness of the
30%, 50%, and 90% Design submittals received. Of note, in those
submittals, each showed little electrical, instrumentation, and controls (EIC)
progress.
Staff began taking necessary measures, beginning with the 30% Design
submittal, by monitoring invoices and advised that payment would be made
upon actual percentage completion. With the 50% Design deliverable and a
lack of progress with the EIC, correspondence was sent to B&V requesting a
better design plan and improved contract management, also directing them
to not spend more than awarded. Mr. Petit opined that B&V had the
resources, time, and budget to finish the job at that point.
When the 90% Design was received in November 2019, staff did an
exhaustive review of that design submittal and also requested MWH to
complete a thorough design review from a contractor's perspective. Staff
provided extensive comments to B&V on the 90% submittal, and in which
the level of progress on the EIC remained deficient. It was noted that both
MWH and the subconsultants have performed well, and that MWH's review
provided staff with valuable, further insight on design problems.
Staff believes that part of the issue has been a lack of consistent B&V
project management and design `ownership'. To date, five different
principals have been in charge, which creates numerous complications. The
same was also experienced with the electrical design leads. Mr. Petit
described some of the electrical design problems and lack of information,
especially from a contractor's point of view to bid and construct.
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 189 of 200
Page 8 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 7
Mr. Petit provided further background of issues encountered and advised
that staff has repeatedly requested B&V to provide more typical design
detail.
Agreement Amendment and Alternatives:
Mr. Petit provided a history of several amendment claims submitted by B&V
that began in February 2019. That request was for more than one million
dollars in extra work to be billed. All but three items totaling $200,000 were
rejected by staff. It was believed at that time that the matter was resolved. As
of January 2020, B&V had used the full contract amount. In February 2020,
staff received another request for additional budget in the amount of
$2.4 million. B&V has stated that they would not finish the job without an
increased contract budget. Staff formally rejected the $2.4 million claim in
May 2020.
Since last April, staff has been withholding progress payments invoiced by
B&V to ensure the progress payments match the actual earned value on the
percentage of completeness of the deliverables.
Mr. Petit stated that District Counsel has been very involved with this matter.
On July 31, 2020, staff sent B&V a settlement offer. B&V replied that
additional funds would be needed beyond that offer. Staff amended the final
settlement, which outlines a payment schedule and clear expectations
regarding the quality and level of details to be in the final design set of
drawings and specifications. Shortly before the start of this meeting, B&V
emailed an affirmation of their agreement to the latest amendment
settlement terms. Mr. Petit stated that staff will follow-up with signatory
acceptance.
Staff has offered other alternatives in the draft Position Paper; however, it
recommends moving forward with the contract amendment in order to finish
the project design and prepare for bid.
Mr. Alm discussed his concern about change orders and how they could
increase the price and push out the completion date. He stated his direction
to staff was to technically layout what the District wants and the expectations
for completion to achieve a finished document. He opined that there are few
good alternatives at this time.
Mr. Petit replied that the alternatives provided in the draft Position Paper
included the option to end the B&V contract agreement and move to a
design/build (DIB) method. However, that could pose its own set of
challenges. Opportunities are limited, but, he noted that other alternatives
can be considered if needed.
Mr. Alm agreed with Mr. Petit's statement, adding that although he does not
have DIB experience per se, he knows the concept and the current law
associated and that there are a lot of details in that alternative. Therefore, a
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 190 of 200
Page 9 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 8
lot of thought would need to go into that decision. He said he believes that is
where staff is now, offering a last opportunity to salvage the B&V contract
and prepare for bid in the fall. Fortunately, B&V has expressed agreement to
a settlement. While this has been a tremendous amount of work for himself
and staff, this immediate solution is considered more advantageous and
expeditious than the other alternatives.
Moving Forward:
Before going to bid, staff intends to conduct another constructability review,
ensure State Revolving Funds application documents are ready for
submission, and take another look at the construction sequencing with the
assistance of MWH. Mr. Petit emphasized that the sequencing needs to be
planned properly so that contractors can also appropriately bid.
Furthermore, Mr. Petit stated that staff has requested ArcSine Engineering -
the subconsultant on the Pumping Station Upgrades-Phase 1 Project and
who also has an as-needed electrical engineering support contract with
Central San - conduct a QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control) review of
the 95% Design electrical plans and provide B&V with any noted issues so
they can be resolved prior to bid or addressed via addendum. Staff's goal is
to have the final design as complete as possible, with comprehensive and
firm contract documents ready to advertise by mid- to late October.
Mr. Lopez added that the design process has been complicated. Technical
and plant staff, and many others, have worked diligently for the project's
success, doing what they can to prevent a large construction claim.
After further discussion, the Committee expressed its understanding of the
situation and concurred that the project needs to be completed. Member
Pilecki stated he thought the summary was very detailed and to the point.
He also opined that at this stage, the District needs B&V to finish the design.
It was advised that other options might need to be discussed about
subsequent agreement revisions.
In conclusion, the Committee recommended Board approval, with the caveat
that staff either revise the Financial Impacts section to remove the estimated
future costs detail or remove the fourth paragraph in its entirety.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval with revisions to
the Financial Impacts of the Position Paper as noted above.
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 191 of 200
Page 10 of 10
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 9
5. Other Items
a. Receive Capital Projects Division Quarterly Report (April to June) on capital
projects, active consultant contracts, change order log, and schedule of bids
and awards
Mr. Lopez responded to a question from Member Pilecki regarding four
zero-dollar figures in the "Remainder to Contract"column of the
Construction Commitments Report, stating those four projects have been
accepted and are being closed. It is meant to represent there is no further
activity and is not a reflection that the projects are out of funds. With that
explanation, Member Pilecki requested that staff instead state "complete"or
"finished"in both this and the UPCCAA Construction Contract Commitments
reports.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update and provided input to staff.
6. Announcements
a. Ms. Young stated that staff has requested the scheduling of an additional
August Committee meeting and that she sent the Committee an email
before this meeting regarding their availability.
b. In continuation, Mr. Petit briefly outlined the topics staff would like to present
at the added meeting, including an update to the B&V settlement agreement
(discussed in Item 4.e.) and a project update for a sewer creek crossing in
the Via Ferrari area of Lafayette. An alternative bid item for this crossing had
been bid earlier in the year under a sewer renovation project; however, the
bids received were too high and it was recommended to rebid the work to
acquire better pricing. Staff plans to complete construction this year.
7. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items
a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any
other future agenda items
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list.
8. Future Scheduled Meetings
Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
As mentioned in Item 6, an additional August meeting is pending.
9. Adjournment— at 3:41 p.m.
August 20, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 192 of 200