HomeMy WebLinkAboutH2OI Response Memo_20210419-DRAFTbw
Date:
April 19, 2021
To:
Robert Wheeler; Monte Reinders, P.E.
Cc:
Kevin Dour, P.E.; Jim Santroch, P.E.
From:
Candice Au-Yeung, P.E.
Project:
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility Construction Project
Project Number:
200-12562-20003
Subject:
Remarks on to H2O Innovations’ Letter in Response to Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
PURPOSE
On April 14, 2021, Jefferson County (County) disseminated the “Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum” (hereafter referred to as technical memorandum) by Tetra Tech
to bidders for the modular MBR equipment of the future Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility, and notified them of the County’s intention to award the bid to Ovivo. The County received
a letter dated April 15, 2021 from H2O Innovations, one of the bidders, seeking to clarify information in their submitted bid and respond to the technical memorandum. This was followed
by an email from Shayan Yaghoubi, Regional Sales Manager for H2O Innovations to Bob Wheeler, Port Hadlock County Project Manager on April 19, 2021 reiterating points made in their April
15, 2021 letter.
Tetra Tech, acting as Engineer on behalf of the County, assessed the comments from H2O Innovations in the April 15, 2021 letter. No new information beyond what was included in the previously
submitted bid will be considered for determining bid award; only clarifications to the information submitted in the bid and suggested corrections to evaluation in the technical memorandum
will be considered. Tetra Tech’s remarks on the comments in the letter are summarized in Table 1 regarding the bid differentiators, and Table 2 regarding the comparative present worth
analysis.
Table 1. H2O Innovation Letter – Bid Differentiator Comments
Bid Differentiators
Report Findings
H2O Innovation’s Response
Tetra Tech Remarks on H2O Innovation’s Response
Weatherization
Not included
Per our proposal (section 5), all the ancillary equipment including permeate/CIP pumps, RAS/WAS pumps, chemical dosing systems, CIP system, PLC and remote IOs are housed in a modified
40 ft container with doors and lights. Process and air scouring blowers are supplied in enclosures designed for outdoor installation. The proposed system is fully weatherized. As section
5.3 of our proposal suggests: unless noted otherwise, design, supply and installation of any and all-weather protection, buildings or sheds of any kind are by others. For this project,
as the proposal suggests, we are providing a fully weatherized system.
Proposed response #1:
H2O Innovation’s response provides clarity on equipment listed as containerized or “housed within a sound enclosure for outdoor installation.” However, weatherization of the headworks
equipment and exposed piping are still not clearly addressed; the submitted bid package does not make the explicit and general statement that the proposed MBR System is a “fully weatherized
system”. Therefore, we can only determine that weatherization provided for the MBR System is not all-inclusive.
Tetra Tech will revise its statement regarding this subject in the bid evaluation technical memorandum to acknowledge the containerized and enclosed equipment.
Proposed response #2:
The submitted bid package does not explicitly state that the proposed MBR System is a “fully weatherized system”. Section 5 also does not indicate that the headworks equipment and exposed
piping (which are not containerized) will be weatherized. Therefore, we can only determine that weatherization provided for the MBR System is not all-inclusive.
Tetra Tech will revise its statement regarding this subject in the bid evaluation technical memorandum to acknowledge the containerized and enclosed equipment.
Tank partitioning for reliability
Not included
Future expansion features 3 bioreactors, providing adequate redundancy. Initial phase could be easily designed with two half grids to accommodate partitioning of the tanks, upon your
request, at minimal cost impact.
Noted. However, this is still a modification that would require an increase in bid price. Without this modification, the proposed MBR System does not meet WAC 173-219 and Washington
State Department of Ecology “Purple Book” requirements for reliability through redundancy and the procurement specification requirements.
Tetra Tech stands by its statement regarding this subject in the bid evaluation technical memorandum, and H2OI remains un-responsive on this requirement.
Installed standby process blowers and pumps
Not included, shelf spare provided
H2OI supplied a shelf spare process blower as part of the specified spare parts This shelf spare blower can be supplied hardwired to comply with the redundancy requirements.
Noted. However, this would be a modification to the proposed MBR System in the bid package. Without this modification, the proposed MBR System does not meet WAC 173-219 and Washington
State Department of Ecology “Purple Book” requirements for reliability through redundancy and the procurement specification requirements.
Tetra Tech stands by its statement regarding this subject in the bid evaluation technical memorandum, and H2OI remains un-responsive on this requirement..
Spare PLC provided
Not included
Per section 5.1 of our proposal (page 46), redundant Allen Bradley ControlLogix PLCs are included in our scope.
This misinterpretation of the bid is noted, and the bid evaluation technical memorandum will be revised accordingly.
ISO 9001 certification of Quality Management Systems
Not in compliance, H2O Innovation has own Quality Management System
H2OI's Quality Management System is compatible to ISO 9001 QMS protocols and practices.
Proposed response #1:
The procurement specifications required the bidder to either submit proof of ISO 9001 certification or provide deviation rationale, as reiterated in
Informational Bulletin #1, Question 2. Of the bids received by the County, at least one was able to provide satisfactory proof of ISO 9001 certification, therefore making this specification
requirement a bid differentiator.
Proposed response #2:
The degree to which alternative quality management systems provided by bidders is equivalent to the ISO 9001 standard was not evaluated. Because the three bids evaluated in the bid evaluation
technical memorandum hold current ISO 9001 certification or have an alternative, this specification requirement is not a true bid differentiator. The bid evaluation technical memorandum
will be revised to acknowledge such.
MBR System Supplier warrants all equipment provided
Not in compliance
Please note that H2OI is providing a fully compliant warranty coverage for all the equipment per specification requirements. All equipment supplied by H2O Innovation is subject to the
24-month mechanical warranty. Membranes and diffusers have a warranty over and above the 24-month period, as described in the proposal, in compliance with the specification. For membranes
and diffusers, H2OI will be held responsible to meet warranty requirements during warranty periods.
H2O Innovation’s response differs from the mechanical warranty description submitted in the bid package. Tetra Tech stands by its statement regarding this subject in the bid evaluation
technical memorandum, , and H2OI remains un-responsive on this requirement..
Table 2. H2O Innovation Letter – Comparative Present Worth Comments
Comment from H2O Innovation
Tetra Tech Remarks on H2O Innovation’s Response
With reference to Table 5 of technical memorandum, the quantity of elements required for our system was 100 which is not correct. Our system includes 25 elements per module, which translates
into 50 elements for both modules. Please adjust present worth of membrane module replacement and total operational present worth value, accordingly.
Proposed response #1:
The H2O Innovation bid package contained conflicting information on the number of membrane elements and total membrane surface area included in the proposed MBR System. The quantity
of 50 total elements is incongruous with multiple criterion and data provided in the bid package, including reported flux rates with one membrane train out of service (as shown on PDF
page 41/212) and the membrane flux rates (PDF page 38/212 and page 193/212) and membrane area as shown in the BioWin model report on (PDF page 207/212).
Per Memstar specification sheet (MUSA-SS-TECH-18006.106) for the SMM-1522 modules, a 25-element module has 5,918 SF of membrane area. For an equalized peak hour flow of 150,000 gpd as
stipulated in the procurement specifications, the operating condition with one membrane train out of service yields a flux rate of 25 gfd, which is above the manufacturer’s allowable
range of 5-18 gfd for these membranes. Thus, 25 elements per module (i.e. train) does not provide the redundancy to satisfy reliability requirements of the WAC 173-219 and Washington
State Department of Ecology “Purple Book”.
Furthermore, PDF page 33/212 suggests that the Memstar 50 Module Skid as opposed to a 25 module skid was proposed in the bid for each membrane train; a total quantity of 100 total elements.
Therefore, Tetra Tech stands by its evaluation of 100 elements for computing comparative operational present worth.
Proposed response #2:
The H2O Innovation bid package contained conflicting information on the number of membrane elements and total membrane surface area included in the proposed MBR System. The quantity
of 50 total elements is incongruous with multiple criterion and data provided in the bid package, including reported flux rates with one membrane train out of service (as shown on PDF
page 41/212) and the membrane flux rates (PDF page 38/212 and page 193/212) and membrane area as shown in the BioWin model report (PDF page 207/212). Tetra Tech stands by its evaluation
of 100 elements for computing comparative operational present worth.
With reference to Table 5 of technical memorandum, the present worth of membrane replacement of Ovivo was presented as $0.00. We believe the NPV shall be based on equal payments to put
aside for future costs. Regardless of membrane warranty period, we believe the annual amount of money to put aside which needs to go into the NPV is the total membrane cost divided
by 20 years for Ovivo. In our experience, facilities set aside annual maintenance budget for future membrane costs. As such, we believe it is representative to include a membrane replacement
at the 20-year mark in the vendor assessment.
The comparative operational present worth presented in the bid evaluation technical memorandum assumed no replacement of membranes at year 20, as the County may transition to newer
equipment and technology at that time.
Tetra Tech stands by its comparative operational present worth values in the bid evaluation technical memorandum.
CONCLUSION
With the evaluation of responses from H2O Innovation’s April 15, 2021 letter to Jefferson County, the Engineer (Tetra Tech) holds to the recommendation that the County pursue negotiations
with Ovivo to be the MBR System Supplier, as the lowest responsible, responsive bidder, and that the County Prosecuting Attorney review the terms, conditions, and warranty terms proposed
by Ovivo.