The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21.b. Committee Minutes-Engineering & Operations 08-17-2021 Page 1 of 17 Item 21.b. CENTRALSAN jdf A- hom CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT September 2, 2021 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARYOF THE DISTRICT SUBJECT: AUGUST 17, 2021 - ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE - MEMBER LAURITZEN AND PRESIDENT PILECKI (ALTERNATE) Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of 08-17-21 meeting 2. (Handout) Presentation from meeting September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 174 of 199 Page 2 of 17 CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 9A553-A392 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TADJPI ECK TAD J PILECKI CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA President VID R.SANITARY DISTRICT °A Prresidesid wILLIAem ent Pro Tem ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS BARBARA D.HOCKETT COMMITTEE MARIAH N.LAURITZEN MICHAEL R.MCGILL MINUTES PHONE: (925)228-9500 FAX.- (925)372-0192 Tuesday, August 17, 2021 www.centralsan.org 11:00 a.m. (All attendees participated via videoconference) Committee: Member Mariah Lauritzen Member Tad Pilecki (alternate for Chair D. Williams) Staff. Roger S. Bailey, General Manager Kenton L. Alm, District Counsel Katie Young, Secretary of the District Philip Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager Edgar Lopez, Capital Projects Division Manager Thomas Brightbill, Senior Engineer (left during Item 4.a.) Nathan Hodges, Senior Engineer Amelia Berumen, Assistant to the Secretary of the District 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-that allowed attendance by Board Members, District staff, and the public to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, or both. The agenda included instructions for options in which the public could participate in the meeting. September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 175 of 199 Page 3 of 17 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes August 17, 2021 Page 2 2. Call Meeting to Order Member Lauritzen called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. 3. Public Comments No public comments. Member Lauritzen indicated the meeting would need to end by Noon. 4. Agenda Items a.* Review draft Position Paper to award a construction contract in the amount of$179,841,000 to Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (Kiewit), the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Solids Handling Facility Improvements, District Project 7348; and authorize the General Manager to: • Amend four existing professional services agreements to increase the overall cost ceiling threshold with: 1) Black & Veatch Corporation (B&V); 2) MWH Constructors, Inc.; 3) Aresine Engineering (Aresine); and 4) Carollo Engineers, Inc., as stipulated within; • Execute two professional services agreements for engineering support during construction with: 1) HDR, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1 million; and 2) Degenkolb Engineers in an amount not to exceed $650,000; and • Include a contingency up to 15-percent for the project Mr. Petit reviewed a modified presentation than was included with the agenda materials (attached). He continued with an in-depth recap from prior Committee project updates of the various project components, stages, and the overall multiple project complexities throughout the design and bidding phases. Of particular note for this discussion, the four-year construction duration in order to keep the facility functioning during the work has been a complexity. Bid Period Challenges: During the multiple pre-bid meetings, prequalified contractors started to wane as the project was considered risky with numerous electrical elements and schedule challenges. One of the nine addenda had an extensive array of electrical components to provide clarification of details not identified in the original bid documents, as well has widespread temporary power requirements. Of the seven prequalified general contractors, three bid, and, of the eight electrical subcontractors, only two September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 176 of 199 Page 4 of 17 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes August 17, 2021 Page 3 participated. There was a large cost difference between the three bids received. With regard to the electrical addendum, Aresine was used to assist with the electrical review of the B&V design. Aresine's continued services, as well as other listed consultants, are a part of staff's pending recommendation for the Board to authorize cost ceiling increases to some existing agreements and execution of other new agreements. It was noted that material price increases were another issue, and the aforementioned four-year construction duration was reflected in the pricing as well. Cost Estimate Budget Escalations: On slide 7, Mr. Petit discussed the cost estimate progression over the last five fiscal years. Mr. Bailey stated this is a very important project and noted this slide demonstrates the uncertainty with the budgeted figures and clearly shows outstanding escalations. He shared a viewpoint of some issues that need to be resolved, including: • Cost from inception to date; nearly$200 million more, a fundamental issue; • What is the best solution to treat solids now; • Given where the cost is at $261.3 million, what is the optimal solution for handling solids; • Explore the bid to determine if there are opportunities for value engineering and concurrently look at opportunities for handling solids in a comprehensive way, • Consider the handling of solids over a period of time and some tasks that need to be done in the next twenty years; and • Should staff look at an opportunity to do an ultimate solution now with the cost currently faced than it originally envisioned. With that shared, Mr. Bailey stated staff was not asking for a recommendation today but to consider authorizing the General Manager to enter into an arrangement with Kiewit with conditions to explore these options discussed. From a Board Member's perspective, Member Pilecki stated it is difficult to put one's hands around this project's latest development. He recommended it would be helpful to include a column to show what the construction cost was rather than the total project cost during these periods. Additionally, the project scope changed over time as well. For example, in FY 2017-18 the project cost was about $60 million, but did not September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 177 of 199 Page 5 of 17 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes August 17, 2021 Page 4 include relocation of an electrical room. Member Pilecki further suggested it would be helpful to add a column of major components of the projects, starting in FY 2017-18 forward, to show what may have caused the increase in cost over the fiscal years and components that were not always part of a defined scope of work. Post Bid/Pre-Construction Estimate: (shown on slide 8 and Attachment 4) Several topics were discussed, the main items summarized below: • Mr. Petit clarified for Member Pilecki that the procured items are within the general contractor bid cost on line 1.a. The contractor would buy the pre-procured equipment (centrifuges, cake pumps, and wet scrubbers) and install. To further clarify, Mr. Petit stated the $496,000 expense, shown in section 3 of the table, was for shop drawings and other work for that equipment. The District is not obligated to purchase the equipment should the project be canceled or all bids rejected. Member Pilecki stated this dynamic was not clear in the draft Position Paper; staff will address in the final Position Paper. • Staff recommends a 15% project contingency. Many factors were discussed for this proposed threshold, including: o Project has a lot of risk associated with sequencing and electrical; o There is a lot to field verify with the contractor; reducing risk during the field verification may help reduce cost to all parties involved, including rate payers; o Project is higher than estimated, o Air permit threshold for furnace air limits reaching 50% of original cost, adjusted for inflation, would require operation under new multiple hearth furnace limits and add additional project cost and air pollution control equipment. Mr. Lopez cautioned that staff does not yet know the furnace limit possibility and has not yet looked at the schedule of values with Kiewit. Staff is looking at other alternatives and will not know until under contract and under review. Member Pilecki stated these factors shared need to be highlighted at the upcoming special Board workshop and the contingency amount needs a more detailed justification in the final Position Paper. • Line item 1.e., the Emergency Sludge Loading Facility was originally included in the project budget but was later removed and made its own project. It was noted the improved facility would not September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 178 of 199 Page 6 of 17 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes August 17, 2021 Page 5 be eligible for State Revolving Fund (SRF) reimbursement. • Section 2.b., Consultants. In short, the construction management services shown would be for the four-year construction duration. There was discussion about the continued use of the design consultant, B&V, for additional engineering services during construction. It was clarified that B&V is the designer of record and would be liable should something go astray. Staff has built a suitable engineering support team with the consultants and disciplines proposed in this section. Value Engineerinq and a two-phase Notice to Proceed (NTP): Mr. Petit discussed the consideration to value engineer the project to confirm its approach, milestones and sequencing, and sludge hauling. He noted that if some risk and elements could be reduced, staff would report its findings after the task conclusion and could go to the Board with an NTP for construction and potentially lower the numbers significantly. Member Pilecki questioned the two-stage NTP proposal. He highlighted a comment in the draft Position Paper that the bid period could not be further extended because supplier and vendors needed to have contracts validated, otherwise, there would be additional costs incurred. However, if the Board were to move forward with staff's proposal, it would take several months. Lastly, if the project does not move forward, he asked about all the costs tied into the subcontractors, suppliers, etc. Mr. Petit stated staff met with Kiewit and they also liked the value engineering concept. However, the project would need to be awarded to Kiewit and an immediate change order executed to include that step. Moreover, such evaluation may not need all of the bid bond and other construction type details. After the value engineering is completed, all parties would have a better definition of the job and whether any cost had changed. Kiewit would be compensated for their time on a predetermined fee schedule. Mr. Alm stated these contract specifications were developed by B&V that used a national standard specifications model and incorporated different provisions within. These specifications included helpful specific language to address current circumstances, but the contract cannot be changed or negotiated before award. He cited specific sections within the General Conditions of the bid documents, including Section 8.10.B, Termination for Convenience, and Section 9.08, which has significant detail about the value engineering proposal. September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 179 of 199 Page 7 of 17 Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes August 17, 2021 Page 6 Discussion continued about the detail within these specifications to provide clear direction for termination for convenience and five different alternatives that could properly justify such action. The value of engineering section includes how to evaluate proposals and costs. Compared to typical District specifications, these documents provide a lot of helpful information on how to proceed with such an approach that is not typically taken and makes this option possible. Moving forward, Mr. Petit mentioned that good headway has been made with the SRF financing loan; two signatures are pending. The project financing will be addressed at the special workshop scheduled on August 26 with the Board. Due to time constraints, the discussion ceased at this point. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the information and provided input to staff. 5. Announcements Due to time constraints, there were no announcements. 6. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items Due to time constraints, there was no discussion. 7. Future Scheduled Meetings Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. 8. Adjournment— at 12:00 p.m. *Attachment September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 180 of 199 Page 8 of 17 (Handout) Updated, as presented A. SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT PROJECT 7348 PROJECT STATUS = Engineering &Operations Committee August 17, 2021 Jean-Marc Petit, P.E. Director of Engineering and Technical Services Edgar J. Lopez, P.E. Capital Projects Division Manager `` Revised I 1 AGENDA • Why are we doing this project? • Project Description and Background • Comprehensive Master Plan (2017) • In Current FY 21-22 CIB and 10-Yr CIP: • Solids Phase 1:Improvements to the Solids Handling Facilities DP-7348 • Steam System Improvements • Replace Co-Gen system • In Future CIP beyond 10-Yr: • Solids Phase 2:Add two Anaerobic Digesters with Digester Gas CO-Gen • Solids Phase 3:Add two additional Anaerobic Digesters and a Fluidized bed incinerator(And abandon existing MHFs) • Big Issues to discuss are: • 1)what is best path forward and, • 2) much higher cost for the proposed project. • What are the Alternatives? � z 2 1 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 181 of 199 Page 9 of 17 SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (SOLIDS PROJECT PHASE 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Completed related rte°el cts Emergency Sludge w Loadout Emergency exterior stairways -� Digester demolition EXISTING SLUDGE MULTIPLE AIR POLLUTION ASH HANDLING ELECTRICAL CENTRIFUGE SOLIDS DIGESTER BLENDING/ HEARTH CONTROL AND LOADOUT SYSTEMS DEWATERING CONDITIONING DEMOLITION STORAGE FURNACES SYSTEM BUILDING SEISMIC RETROFIT 3 3 SOLIDS PROJECT IS VERY COMPLEX AND RENOVATES AN OPERATING FACILITY WITH ALL THE SOLIDS AND POWER ELEMENTS OF THE �! TREATMENT PLANT AV r i^ II II I i I . 4 2 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 182 of 199 Page 10 of 17 PRE-QUALIFIED GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTORS General Contractors: Electrical Subcontractors: • Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. • Blocka Construction, Inc. • Flatiron West, Inc. • Con J. Franke Electric, Inc. • Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. • Contra Costa Electric, Inc. (Kiewit) • Helix Electric, Inc. • C. Overaa&Co. • Mass Electric Construction Company • Shimmick Construction Company, . San Joaquin Electric, Inc. Inc. • Walsh Construction • Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. • W. M. Lyles Co. • Sprig Electric Co. Bidders s BID SUMMARY Bid Opening: June 16,2021,2:30 PM Engineer's Estimate: $130,000,000-$140,000,000 No. Bidder Total Bid 1 Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. $179,841,000 2 W _Lyles Co_ $206,856,000 3 Flatiron West Inc_ $216,293,989 Subcontractor Lists Subcontractor Work Description Contractor 1 Industrial Furnace company Incinerator Sub Pacific Steel Group Rebar F.D.Thomas,Inc. Coati rkiInting Synagro-WWT Inc. Sludge Dewatering Mass Electric Construction Co. Electrical(Labor only) Contractor Blocka Construction,Inc. Electrical Intlustrial Furnace Company Incinerator Improvements WC Maloney Demolition Allied Steel Misc.Metals1Strui Steel Synagro—WWT Inc. Temporary Sludge Dewatering Pacific Steel Group Rebar F.D.Thomas,Inc. PaintingiViDoating Blocka Construction,Inc_ HVAC Contractor 3 Blocka Construction,Inc_ Eleducalfli Pacific Steel Group Rebar Intlustrial Furnace Company Incinerator Improvements Synagro—WWT Inc_ Temporary Sludge Dewatering Redwood Painting Paiutings]Ccatmgs t; 6 CENTRALSAN 6 3 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 183 of 199 Page 11 of 17 REVIEW PROJECT COST ESTIMATE PROGRESSION AND INCREASES Fiscal Year CIB Budget Comments FY 17-18 $ 66,439,000 Master Plan FY 18-19 $ 82100 000 30%Design FY 19-20 $ 93 376,000 50%Design FY 20-21 $ 1211,234,000 90%Design FY 21-22 $ 183,984,000 100%estimate FY 21-22 CIB Project Approved Budget Revised in bideriod $ 213,984,000 U dated Burin biddin ate261, Post Bid Esti nate ttt Current Estimate m Nhm 1 1 7 7 POST BID/PRE-CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE No. Item Description Amorint8 %Conatruorlon Cost 1 CON$TRUCTION a.ConsVrclJm Cnr&W 5179,841,000 b.Project Canlingency at 15%(CM Included) S27,000,11DO C.Pwmks(Air Tesdng Incruaeu) $1,000,000 d.Hazardous Cainplia roe[restiig included] S700,000 e.ESLF Coriatruction Completed(NotSRF Eligible) 52.886.000 SUBTOTAL-CONSTRUCTION 5211907000 100`%, 2- CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT a.Dorm Farces -Engi nearing staff(PM,RE,Safety,etc.) 56,000,000 -Operations Support-incl ud ing Mairdenanca $5,000,000 b.Consultants MWH:Canstrucoon Ma nagem ent Services $12,000,000 -Ha[2rdom Material Consulting 5300.00D -Existing Electrical Suppun(Aresine&Cerullo) 52,000,000 -S&V(ESDC) 59,000,000 H DR(E$K) 51,000,000 -Degeeaalb(ESDC) 5850,000 -Furnace Support(BD) 5850,000 -As-neede6 Sennas,Trwo-Party Revs .nk=.VE 52 300.000 SUBTOTAL-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEM ENT 534.100.000 16 1'%. 3- PREBID EXPENDITURES a.Engineering -Dlstrkt Stitt Tlme(Ergr.And Opewons) 53,900,000 -BBV $9,6N 000 -MWH 51,100,000 -Omer Consullaris 5720, ODD -Erau,pme nt Selection Procure mem 5996,000 -Regulatory Parmits S50,OW SUBTOTAL-PREBID EXPENDITURES $15.866.000 754i 4. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 5201,979,000 8 CENTRALSAN 8 4 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 184 of 199 Page 12 of 17 FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2021 -22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET Budget-to- FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Future FYs Total Date $1,000,000 $- $- $- $1,000,000 12,090,000 - - - 12,090,000 Construction 6,894,000 21,000,000 45,000,000 98,000,000 170,894,000 ® $19,984,000 $21,000,000 $45,000,000 $98,000,000 $183,894,000 Central San has applied for a SRF Loan for up to$173.1 M 9 WIRT-72TV"M PROJECT FINANCING • FY 2021-22 Budget:............ $ 183.9 M • Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 261.4 M • Variance: ($ 77.5 M) Proposed Financing of Project Gap: (To be addressed on August 26, 2021 at Special Board Workshop) Options: • Reduce CIP for next four FYs by$5 M per year or$20 M • Debt finance$57 M with either additional SRF and or Bond Financing • SRF Loan for up to$173.1 M • Closeout savings on projects CENTRAL SAN 10 5 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 185 of 199 Page 13 of 17 PRICE INCREASES AND DIFFERENCES • Since 2017, Scope of work has not changed • Reasons for increased costs: • Seismic walls and Implication on Construction Sequencing • Project Construction Constraints and milestones • Temporary Facilities such as Electrical • MHF Shut Down for 12 months and additional 6 months-$19 M • Deferred Design: Pipe and Electrical Conduits Supports and routing • Temporary Shoring Design for Seismic Walls • Ash system and metal building • Existing Electrical Systems issues • Electrical on critical path • 1,460 Days or over 4 years of Construction • Limited bidders–electrical and temporary sludge hauling • Bid Market Impacts • Global Supply Disruption during COVID-19 CENTRALSAN TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE • Bids opened on June 16, 2021 �' I • Total State Revolving Fund (SRF)Funding Estimate-$173 million(M) ; r • SRF: • Final Agreement will be executed after bid opening and award of project • Anticipated Award: September 2,2021 • Initial Notice to Proceed(NTP)for Project and contract review:estimated November 2021 I - " • NTP for Construction:estimated March 2022 • Construction Period: 1,460 days — -- — -- — • Construction Complete:estimated April 1,2026 12 CENTRAL SAN 12 6 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 186 of 199 Page 14 of 17 ALTERNATIVES • Alternative 1:Award the Contract Award the project to Kiewit but proceed with a two-step NTP. Evaluate and review project sequencing,milestones,costs,and more ways to reduce risks for the contractor and Central San.Staff will report back prior to issuing a NTP for construction. Recommended. • Alternative 2:Reiect Bids Not Recommended. • A)Rebid the Proiect:Staff would conform all the addenda with the contract documents,evaluate and incorporate more ways to reduce risks to the contractor and rebid within 6-9 months. • B)Rebid within Approved Budget:Staff could repackage and rebid the project to proceed within the$183.9 M budget and add a future project(s)to complete the remainder of the scope. • C)Consider Design-Build Proiect Delivery:Staff could evaluate alternative delivery to complete the project using design-build and use the existing Solids Project's bid documents as the basis. 13 CENTRAL SAN 13 ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) • Alternative 2:Reject Bids(Continued) • D.)Repackage Proiect in Multiple Phases:Staff could split and implement the Solids Project scope into multiple phases.This would include rebidding in various smaller projects which could be implemented in either two or up to six phases and take more years to complete. • Alternative 3:Evaluate an Alternative Long-term Solids Handling Approach including Anaerobic Digestions with all new Solids Facilities:Staff recommends re-evaluating the long-term solids handling from current operations based on furnaces,ash disposal and steam recovery to including or changing to anaerobic digestions based on the higher costs of the Solids Project.Recommended. 14 CENTRALSAN 14 7 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 187 of 199 Page 15 of 17 RE-EVALUATE LONG-TERM PATH FOR SOLIDS HANDLING AT CENTRAL SAN Alternative 1:Award based Alternative 3: Re-Evaluate on Contractor Design Assist Long-Term Solids Handling and reduce risk after VE Refurbish All New Project: Multiple --Anaerobic Hearth Digestion and Furnaces, 7 Biogas Co-Gen. continue with Abandon Steam. Steam and Convert to all Co-Gen with ` Electric Blowers Natural Gas Evaluate both = _ paths before NTP for construction 15 CENTRALSAN 15 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Bid and Award NTP-1:Solids Handling Phase 1 Optimization VE with Kiewit Board decision on Alternative Path for Long-Term -Solids Handling NTP-2:for Construction Construction Alternative Long-Term Solids Handling Alternatives Evaluation Aw BEE July 2021 July 2022 July 2023 July2024 July 2025 July 2026 Q L-. —ward:February 22,2021—September 2,2021 NTP-1:Solids Handling Contract review with Kiewit and Engineering:October 2021—Feb.2022 Q Alternative Long-Term Solids Handling Alternatives Evaluation:September 2021—Feb.2022 Update Board in Feb.2020 and request approval for construction Q NTP-2:Proceed with Kiewit for Solids Handling Phase 1 Construction:March 2022 Construction Phase:March 1,2022—February 28,2026(1,460 Days) l r 16 CENTRAL SAN 16 8 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 188 of 199 Page 16 of 17 PROJECT SUPPORT NEEDED • Construction Management: MWH Constructors, Inc. • Engineering Services During Construction: • Black & Veatch: Civil, Mechanical, HVAC, Electrical Instrumentation and Control Engineering (EAC) • HDR, Inc.: Architectural, Structural, and As-Needed • Degenkolb: Seismic Design • Aresine Engineering: Assist Capital Projects with Review of Electrical and Controls Items and Questions • (TBD): Furnace and Air Pollution Control • Others: Central San will be using As-Needed Engineering 17 CENTRALSAN 17 RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION 1. Conditional award of a construction contract in the amount of $179,841,000 to Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, for the construction of the Solids Handling Facility Improvements, District Project 7348. 2. Authorize the General Manager to amend the following agreements: a) MWH Constructors, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $12.0 million, increasing the cost ceiling to $13.1 million for construction management services. b) Black&Veatch at a cost not to exceed $4.0 million, increasing the cost ceiling to$13.6 million for engineering support during construction. c) Aresine Engineering at a cost not to exceed $1.1 million, increasing the cost ceiling to $1.7 million for electrical engineering support. d) Carollo Engineers, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $900,000, increasing the cost ceiling to $2.2 million for electrical field support. (continued) `l 18 CENTRALSAN 18 9 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 189 of 199 Page 17 of 17 RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION (CONTINUED) 3. Authorize the General Manager to execute the following new agreements for engineering support during construction: a) HDR, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $1.0 million. b) Degenkolb Engineers at a cost not to exceed $650,000. 4. Authorize the General Manager to execute Contract Documents subject to SRF funding, submittal requirements, and include up to a 15-percent project contingency. ` 19 CENTRALSAN 19 QUESTIONS? r zo CENTRAL SAN20 10 September 2, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 190 of 199