HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 04 13 PortHadlock_MBR-RFP_Evaluation_TM-Final_withAppendicesTechnical Memorandum
P:\12562\200-12562-20003\Docs\Reports\2021 04 13 PortHadlock_MBR-
RFP_Evaluation_TM-Final_Clean.docx 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101
Tel 206.883.9300 Fax 206.883.9301 tetratech.com
Date: April 13, 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: Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Jefferson County (County) is evaluating the construction of a publicly owned treatment works facility (POTW)
and sewer collection system serving the Port Hadlock-Irondale community. The Port Hadlock-Irondale
community is currently served completely by septic systems, many of which are aging and unreliable. A POTW
would allow the establishment of an urban growth area, ensuring economic resiliency of the community. A
POTW and sewer collection system would treat municipal wastewater to Class A reclaimed water standards for
beneficial reuse through groundwater infiltration. The groundwater infiltration would recharge Chimacum Creek,
which would be especially beneficial to the health of the creek during low flow periods.
As recommended in the 2021 Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update, the County would like to use a
modular membrane bioreactor (MBR) system (hereafter referred to as MBR System) for treating wastewater to
provide Class A level reclaimed water. The MBR System is modular and scalable, facilitating future expansion,
and would best address existing and future regulatory treatment requirements. The County is moving forward
with design services for the possible new POTW and the sewer collection system. Knowing the MBR System that
would be used is critical to determining the final design of the POTW and the sewer collection system. The
County’s bid procurement document for the MBR System was designed to ensure the County got as much
necessary technical information as possible in a responsive proposal. The MBR System Supplier will be
responsible for the biological treatment design of the plant, and warrant its performance for achieving the effluent
limit requirements set forth by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
This memorandum evaluates bids submitted by seven MBR System Suppliers for compliance with specifications,
capital cost, and comparative present worth. Based on the evaluation, conclusions and recommendations are
provided by the Engineer (Tetra Tech) to the County to choose a responsive bid for an MBR System, so the
County can proceed with the final design. The selected MBR System Supplier satisfies the bid requirements for
all necessary equipment, fabrication drawings, design services listed in the scope of work, goods and special
services during construction, and follow-up services after construction.
REQUEST FOR BIDS PROCESS
The procurement is a competitive cost bid, awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. A request for bids was
formulated by revamping the procurement specifications and supporting documents from a previous MBR
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
2
procurement bid in 2009. The request for bids sets forth performance requirements for a prefabricated MBR
System and its control system, as well as the scope of services expected from the MBR System Supplier. The
request for bids was released on January 11, 2021. Three addenda amending the procurement specifications were
issued, along with five informational bulletins answering questions from bidders. The bid opening was on
February 22, 2021. The bid form items were as follows:
• Bid Item 1: Design Services Work—This bid item shall be a lump sum amount for design and
consulting services through 60%, 90%, and 100% design phases, summarized in Attachment 1 (to the
Request for Bid)—Scope of Work for Design Services.
• Bid Item 2: MBR System Equipment and Services During Construction—This bid item shall be a
lump sum amount for supplied equipment and services per the technical specifications.
• Bid Item 3: Contract Price for Taxes—Sales tax shall be calculated as 9.0% of the sum of Bid Item 1
and Bid Item 2.
• Bid Item 4: Total Contract Price—This bid item shall be taken as the sum of Bid Item 1, Bid Item 2,
and Bid Item 3.
• Bid Item 5: Membrane Subunit Pricing—This bid item shall be for the procurement cost of one
membrane subunit, as defined in Specification Section 00800 “Supplementary Conditions,” Article 1.01.
This cost shall be used as the base price for determining membrane subunit pricing for future replacement
subunits, per Specification Section 464240, Paragraph 1.13 F.
• Bid Item 6: Membrane Service Agreement—This bid item shall be the annual price for the first 5-year
period of the membrane service agreement, per Specification Section 017510.
The lowest responsive bid is intended to be determined by the sum of the following costs:
• Bid Item 1: Design Services Work
• Bid Item 2: MBR System Equipment and Services During Construction
• Bid Item 3: Contract Price for Taxes
• Present worth of operations and maintenance costs including:
Spare parts
Power usage
Chemical usage
Membrane replacement costs (calculated from Bid Item 5: Membrane Subunit Pricing and reported
typical membrane life)
Membrane Service Agreement (calculated from Bid Item 6: Membrane Service Agreement)
In addition to the bid form and other mandatory forms, the bidders were required to provide information as listed
in Worksheet A—Required Information (see Attachment 1 to this memo) to determine whether bids were
responsive. Worksheet A requires bidders to provide responses to and documentation for a set of pass/fail
criteria, quantitative operations and maintenance parameters, and other bid support technical documentation. The
responsive bidders were determined based on completeness of the bidder’s package and compliance with the
procurement specifications.
Comparative present worth costs were calculated by the Engineer from information provided by the bidder in
response to Worksheet A—Required Information and the bid form.
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
3
Seven bids were received. This memorandum presents the evaluation of the bids for completeness, cost, and
compliance with the specifications.
BASE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A phased approach is planned for connecting sewer customers to the Port Hadlock POTW, therefore the initial
(start-up) number of connected sewer customers is anticipated to be much lower than the ultimate number of
connected sewer customers. The sewer system would be a grinder pump pressure sewer system.
The MBR System would need to be designed with the ability to be expanded in future phases. The request for
bids requires the MBR Systems in responsive bids to have the capacity to serve a design flow condition, with
adequate turndown capacity to serve the start-up flow from start-up to design flow conditions, including diurnal
variations up to the anticipated equalized peak flow capacity of 0.150 million gallons per day (mgd) for up to a
12-hour duration. An anticipated future expansion capacity condition, should there be enough customers
connecting to exceed the design flow capacity within the forecasted 20-year planning horizon, was required in the
request for bids. The exact timing of the phased approach and extent for connecting sewer customers is unknown
at this time.
Design flows for responsive bids were provided in the request for bids as shown in Table 1. Design loads were
provided as shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Design Flows
Parameter Start-up Flow Design Flow Future Expansion Capacity
Annual Average flow (mgd)a 0.048 0.070 0.219
Maximum month flow (mgd) 0.061 0.090 0.283
Peak day flow (mgd) 0.075 0.111 0.355
Peak hour flowb, c (mgd) 0.204 0.297 0.923
Equalized peak flowd (mgd) 0.150 0.150 0.450
Peak Hour Flow Temperature (°C) 10 10 10
a. The flow at the end of the first year of operation of the facility is expected to be around 0.048 mgd. The service area is currently
served by septic tanks and will gradually switch over to sewer service over time.
b. Peak hour flow to POTW before any flow equalization.
c. Peak hour flow hydrograph is not available. An assumed hydrograph was used with peak day flow duration of 24 hours and
peak hour duration of 4 hours. This assumed hydrograph was used to calculate equalized peak flow.
d. All equipment shall accommodate the equalized peak flow for up to a 12-hour duration.
Table 2. Design Loads
Units Annual Average Loading at Annual Average Flow Max Month Loading at Annual Average Flow
BOD mg/L 390 490
pounds per day Start-up: 160; Design: 230;
Future Expansion: 670
Start-up: 200; Design: 280;
Future Expansion: 840
FOG mg/L 80 100
TKN mg/L 70 90
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
4
Units Annual Average Loading at Annual Average Flow Max Month Loading at Annual Average Flow
pounds per day Start-up: 30; Design: 40;
Future Expansion: 125
Start-up: 35; Design: 50;
Future Expansion: 150
TSS mg/L 390 490
pH 6 - 8 6 - 8
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 220 220
Temperature °C 10 - 25 10 - 25
The scope of a responsive MBR System described in the request for bids includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
• Equipment for headworks screens
• Tanks containing the MBR System, platforms, and access stairs and walkways
• The biological treatment system consisting of pre-anoxic, aerobic, and post-anoxic basins, MBR basins,
aeration blowers, permeate pumps, air scour blowers, and mixers
• Ultraviolet disinfection system
• Process instrumentation
• Chemical injection systems for membrane cleaning and process control
• MBR System control panel, programmable logic controller, supervisory control and data acquisition
system, motor control panel
• Asset management and computerized maintenance management system.
The request for bids required that a responsive MBR System shall meet reliability requirements of Chapter 173-
219 of the Washington Administrative Code, and Washington State Department of Ecology Reclaimed Water
Facilities Manual (“Purple Book”) (Publication No. 15-10-024, revised February 2019) through redundancy for
Class A reclaimed water, and in order for the MBR System to be permitted by Ecology. No flow bypass or
storage of inadequately treated water would be allowed.
Other systems necessary to complete a functioning water reclamation facility would be supplied by Jefferson
County, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Influent flow equalization storage
• A yard pump station
• Solids handling provisions
• Effluent chlorine residual system (if deemed necessary by Ecology)
• Effluent pumping (if necessary).
Jefferson County also would supply sitework, yard piping, duct banks, power, communication, and utility
connections to the MBR System, as well as a prefabricated office building at the POTW site.
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
5
BID EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MBR SYSTEMS
Bids were received from the following MBR System Suppliers: Cloacina, Ovivo, H2O Innovation, BluBox MBR,
Kubota, Evoqua, and Schwing Bioset.
Bid Price Overview
Table 3 summarizes the bid item prices submitted.
Table 3. Bid Prices Received by Jefferson County
Bidder
Cloacina Ovivo H2O Innovation BluBox MBR Kubota Evoqua Schwing Bioset
Bid Item 1: Contract Price for Design Services 92,754.00 74,200.00 188,985.00 126,000.00 202,000.00 23,000.00 850,000.00
Bid Item 2: Contract Price for MBR System Equipment and Services During Construction
1,629,356.02 1,395,158.00 1,164,671.00 2,555,391.00 3,332,000.00 1,363,057.00 3,454,900.00
Bid Item 3: Contract Price for Taxes 151,429.49 132,242.22 120,029.00 241,326.00 318,060.00 122,675.00 387,441.00
Bid Item 4: Total Contract Price 1,873,539.52 1,601,600.22 1,473,685.00 2,922,717.00 3,852,060.00 1,508,732.00 4,692,341.00
Bid Item 5: Membrane Subunit Pricing 1,761.11 39.00 572.00 23,084.00 130.00 1,322.00 1,975.00
Bid Item 6: Membrane Service Agreement (annual price)
18,982.13 18,743.00 20,239.00 31,526.00 35,400.00 42,613.00 453,000.00
Selection for Detailed Evaluation
The County performed an initial due diligence check of each bid to ensure adequate completeness for
determination of responsive bidders. One bid omitted a substantial number of mandatory forms that were to be
included with the bid, and was therefore disqualified from further consideration:
• Evoqua
Because this is a competitive price bid, the highest-cost bids, summarized in costs for Bid Item 4, were eliminated
from further consideration:
• BluBox MBR
• Kubota
• Schwing Bioset
The three lowest-cost bids were advanced for further evaluation of present worth cost and compliance with the
procurement specifications and requirements to determine whether the bids are responsible and responsive:
• Cloacina
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
6
• Ovivo
• H2O Innovation
Per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 39.04.350 (1): “Before award of a public works contract, a bidder
must meet the [listed] responsibility criteria to be considered a responsible bidder and qualified to be awarded a
public works project.” Several specific required items ((a) through (g)) are listed.
Furthermore, RCW 39.04.350 (2) states: “Before award of a public works contract, a bidder shall submit to the
contracting agency a signed statement in accordance with chapter 5.50 RCW verifying under penalty of perjury
that the bidder is in compliance with the responsible bidder criteria requirement of subsection (1)(g) of this
section. A contracting agency may award a contract in reasonable reliance upon such a sworn statement.”
Before award of this contract by Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, the recommended contractor
(in this case the MBR System Supplier) for award will provide to Jefferson County the documents, information,
and proof that they comply with all the requirements of RCW 39.04.350. Only with these documents will a bidder
be determined to be responsible and an award be finalized.
Technical Evaluation
The bid packages from Cloacina, Ovivo, and H2O Innovation were reviewed with special attention to the
information submitted with Worksheet A—Required Information. Many of the questions in Worksheet A
reinforce key requirements of the procurement specifications. The procurement specifications were written to
outline performance requirements and general expectations for what processes the responsive MBR System is
expected to include, but not to dictate means and methods or to prescribe how the MBR System shall be
assembled. Attachment 2—Bid Comparison Table provides a summary of this evaluation.
Comparative Present Worth Analysis
The information submitted with Worksheet A—Required Information and the bid form were used by the
Engineer to calculate a comparative present worth for each of the bid packages from Cloacina, Ovivo, and H2O
Innovation. The comparative present worth analysis is intended to verify whether there are operational and capital
cost differentiators, including exclusions of major items that impact capital cost, between the three bids. The
tabulation of this analysis can be found in Attachment 3—Comparative Present Worth Analysis.
The comparative present worth analysis was evaluated over the period of 20 years. No salvage value was
assumed, and no membrane replacement costs were accounted for in year 20. Constants and other assumptions
used for the calculation are summarized in Attachment 3.
Capital Cost and Bid Differentiators
The bid capital cost for each bid in the comparative present worth analysis was taken as the total of Bid Item 1:
Design Services Work, Bid Item 2: MBR System Equipment and Services During Construction, and Bid
Item 3: Taxes for the respective bids.
Upon technical evaluation of the bids, the following items are differentiators noted between the bids. These
differentiators are deficiencies or informalities taken to the procurement specifications that can increase the MBR
System’s capital cost should they be amended:
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
7
• Weatherization—Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.4.A.3 stipulates that weatherization shall be
provided for freeze protection to prevent damage to equipment, and if necessary, to meet process
performance requirements. Protection of equipment is paramount to ensuring system reliability per the
Purple Book requirements. Ensuring compliance with process performance requirements is essential to
meeting Ecology effluent permit limits. The bid from H2O Innovation explicitly does not include
weatherization. Accordingly, H2O Innovation is not a responsive bidder.
• Tank portioning for reliability—Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.4.A.4 stipulates that the
MBR System shall meet the reliability requirements of the Purple Book through redundancy. Partitioning
to create multiple basins for the same process can help ensure that with a unit out of service, the MBR
System can still meet performance requirements. The bid from H2O Innovation does not include a tank
partitioning or other operational scheme to satisfy the Purple Book requirements. Accordingly, H2O
Innovation is not a responsive bidder.
• Installed standby process blowers and pumps—Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.4.A.4
stipulates that the MBR System shall meet the reliability requirements of the Purple Book through
redundancy. A shelf spare for critical process equipment such as process blowers and pumps may be
insufficient to provide reliability per the Purple Book. The bid from H2O Innovation does not include key
hardwired spare equipment. Accordingly, H2O Innovation is not a responsive bidder.
• Spare PLC provided—Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.7 stipulates redundant PLCs are to be
provided, with automatic fail-over. This redundancy is for meeting Purple Book reliability requirements.
The bid from Ovivo provides a spare PLC, albeit not hardwired; bids from H2O Innovation and Cloacina
do not include a spare PLC. Accordingly, H2O Innovation and Cloacina are not responsive bidders.
• ISO 9001 manufacturing facility certification for MBR System—Worksheet A requests proof of the
bidder’s ISO 9001 certification for the MBR System Supplier’s and membrane manufacturer’s quality
management systems, applicable to design, manufacturing, supply, installation, and servicing. The bid
package from Ovivo included proof of certification to comply with this requirement; H2O Innovation and
Cloacina claimed exception for certification of their design, manufacturing, installation, and servicing and
provided proof of their respective quality management system procedures, but did provide proof of
certification for their respective membrane manufacturers. Accordingly, H2O Innovation and Cloacina
are not responsive bidders.
• Rescreening system—Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.4.E.2 stipulates that there shall be
rescreening of solids from the MBR basin. It does not appear that the bid from Cloacina includes a solids
rescreening system. Accordingly, Cloacina is not a responsive bidder.
• Design for peak hour flow up to 0.150 mgd—In Addendum #3 to Specification Section 464240
Paragraph 2.3.A, the equalized peak hour flow to be assumed for bids is 0.150 mgd. The bids from H2O
Innovation and Ovivo acknowledge design to this peak flow; the bid from Cloacina is for a design that
handles up to only 0.111 mgd. Cloacina also did not acknowledge Addendum #3 in the bid paperwork.
Accordingly, Cloacina is not a responsive bidder.
• MBR System Supplier warrants all equipment in their scope of supply—Specification Section
464240 Paragraph 1.13.A stipulates that equipment warranties shall be issued by and be the responsibility
of the MBR System Supplier. The bid from H2O Innovation explicitly states that equipment not
manufactured by H2O Innovation will not be warranted by H2O Innovation; such an arrangement bears
the risk of having shortened equipment warranty periods passed down to the County if the equipment had
been stored or otherwise held by the MBR System Supplier for a period of time before distribution to the
County. Accordingly, H2O Innovation is not a responsive bidder.
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
8
Table 4 summarizes the comparison of bid capital costs and differentiators. More information is in Attachment 3.
To preserve integrity of the bids, the Engineer did not speculate on the cost adjustments required to bring each bid
into compliance with the procurement specifications and, thus, make them responsive bids, nor were bidders
contacted to provide cost adjustments after all bid prices were made public. As a result of our analysis, only
Ovivo meets the responsive elements of a responsive bidder.
Table 4. Bid Capital Cost Comparison and Bid Differentiators
Item H2O Innovation Ovivo Cloacina
Capital Costs
Bid Item 1: Design Services Work $188,985.00 $74,200.00 $92,754.00
Bid Item 2: MBR System Equipment and Services During Construction $1,164,671.00 $1,395,158.00 $1,629,356.02
Bid Item 3: Taxes $120,029.00 $132,242.22 $151,429.49
Bid Capital Cost Total $1,473,685.00 $1,601,600.22 $1,873,539.52
Bid Differentiators
Weatherization Not included Included Included
Tank partitioning for reliability Not included Included Included
Installed standby process blowers and
pumps
Not included; shelf spare
provided
Included Appears to be included
Spare PLC provided Not included Included as shelf spare,
not hardwired
Not included
ISO 9001 certification of Quality
Management Systems
Not in compliance; H2O
Innovation has own Quality
Management System
In compliance Not in compliance; Cloacina
has own Quality
Management System
Rescreening System Included Included Not included
Design for peak hour flow up to 0.150
mgd
In compliance In compliance Not in compliance
MBR System Supplier warrants all
equipment provided
Not in compliance In compliance In compliance
Yellow cells indicate lack of compliance with procurement specifications
Operational Present Worth
The comparative operational present worth was assessed, assuming operation at the design flow condition with no
expansion for the 20-year evaluation period. Some of the operational costs, although requested from the bidders,
were not included in the comparative present worth analysis: upon inspection of the three bid packages, the
assumptions and conditions for which these costs were derived are too disparate for comparison. Moreover, the
present worth cost for these items is very likely not a differentiator between the three bids. The operational costs
not included are the following:
• Equipment and membrane spare parts—The scope for which these items were reported varied
between the bidders, which made for incomplete comparison. For instance, one bidder included
replacement for control relays while the others did not, and one bidder did not include costs for motor
rebuild.
• Equipment replacement—Equipment replacement costs were not requested from the bidders, but one of
the bids evaluated submitted this information.
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
9
• Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) chemical addition, chemical costs—It is unclear whether all three bidders
evaluated the need for sodium hydroxide addition for pH adjustment. Additionally, the conditions for
which the biological processes were simulated in the data submitted with the bids varied, and it is unclear
how these conditions affect the quantity of sodium hydroxide needed. It is assumed that this is not a
differentiator because the biological processes and conditions would be the same between the three bids.
• MicroC (carbon) chemical addition, chemical costs—For the same reasons as for sodium hydroxide, it
is assumed that this is not a differentiator because the biological processes and conditions would be the
same between the three bids.
• Reported labor hours to operate—The level of detail for which this information was reported varied
between the bidders, which made for incomplete comparison.
The following items are included in the comparative operational present worth:
• Power
• Sodium hypochlorite (NaHOCl) chemical addition, chemical costs
• Citric acid chemical addition, chemical costs
• Membrane module replacement
• Membrane service agreement
Table 5 provides a summary of the comparative operational present worth. More information is in Attachment 3.
Table 5. Comparative Operational Present Worth for Design Flow Condition
Chemicals Service Comparative
Power NaHOCl 12% Citric Acid 50% Membrane Module Replacement Agreement (Bid Item 6) Operational Present Worth
H2O Innovation
Quantity 175,000 185 15 100
Unit kwh/yr gal/yr gal/yr modules @ yr 10
$/yr $17,675.00 $164.65 $64.33 $20,239.00
Present Worth $262,959.37 $2,449.58 $957.09 $42,562.17 $301,105.21 $610,033.42
Ovivo
Quantity 124,554 162.5 17.8 0
Unit kwh/yr gal/yr gal/yr modules @ yr 20
$/yr $12,579.95 $186.18 $76.34 $18,743.00
Present Worth $187,157.95 $2,769.89 $1,135.75 0 $278,848.51 $469,912.10
Cloacina
Quantity 507,423 461.2 380.4 52
Unit kwh/yr gal/yr gal/yr modules @ yr 10
$/yr $51,249.72 $410.47 $1,631.45 $18,982.13
Present Worth $762,466.47 $6,106.73 $24,271.79 $68,142.42 $282,406.16 $1,143,393.57
Total Comparative Present Worth
The total comparative present worth is taken to be sum of the bid capital cost (with no adjustments) in Table 4 and
the comparative operational present worth in Table 5, and shown in Table 6.
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
10
Table 6. Total Comparative Present Worth
Item H2O Innovation Ovivo Cloacina
Bid Capital Cost $1,473,685.00 $1,601,600.22 $1,873,539.52
Comparative Operational Present Worth $610,033.42 $469,912.10 $1,143,393.57
Total Comparative Present Worth $2,083,718.42 $2,071,512.32 $3,016,933.09
NEGOTIATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This evaluation does not address the exceptions in detail that each vendor took to the terms and conditions
specified in the request for bids. The County Prosecuting Attorney should review the exceptions and determine if
this affects the eligibility of the bidders.
CONCLUSIONS
The bid packages for the three apparent lowest bidders—H2O Innovation, Ovivo, and Cloacina—were evaluated.
The bid price for Cloacina is the highest of the three bids evaluated and the bid is not responsive for the reasons
discussed above. Cloacina, with its highest baseline bid capital cost and operational costs, will also likely remain
the highest capital cost MBR System of the three bids evaluated after any capital cost adjustments (including
providing a spare PLC, obtaining ISO 9001 certification, including a rescreening system, and redesign of the
system to handle peak hour flow up to 0.150 mgd) to meet the procurement specifications. Accordingly, the
Cloacina bid was eliminated.
H2O Innovation has the lowest bid capital cost; however, the MBR System proposed has notable deficiencies
from the procurement specifications and is not a responsive bid. The MBR System provided in H2O Innovation’s
bid is not compliant with Purple Book standards and would not be permitted by Ecology without amendments to
the design (including provision of weatherization, tank portioning, installed standby blowers and pumps,
providing a spare PLC), which could significantly increase its capital cost. With increase in capital cost due to
adjustments to H2O Innovation’s MBR System necessary as a result of its non-responsiveness, it will be less
competitive than the Ovivo system based on capital cost.
The bid price for Ovivo is second lowest, though the present worth analysis shows Ovivo as the lowest cost.
Furthermore, the MBR System proposed by Ovivo is in compliance with the procurement specifications and the
Purple Book requirements, whereas H2O Innovation and Cloacina are not.
Based on the comparative operational present worth, Ovivo’s MBR System is the lowest cost to maintain and
operate over the 20-year evaluation period for the design flow condition, compared to H2O Innovation and
Cloacina, as shown in Table 6. The lowest total comparative present worth evaluated was for Ovivo, followed by
H2O Innovation, and then Cloacina; therefore, Ovivo is the lowest responsive bidder.
DUE DILIEGENCE REFERENCE CHECK
Following review of the bid packages, a due diligence reference check of Ovivo customers was performed.
Attempts via telephone call and email were made to reach out to three current customers of Ovivo (herein referred
to as Customers A, B, and C) to discuss qualitative questions regarding user experience of Ovivo’s silicon carbide
flat plate membranes, actual versus design performance and influent conditions exerienced, comparison of design
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
11
parameters between those of the reference facility and those for the Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility, and
ease of working with Ovivo to resolve warranty issues and troubleshoot problems.
As of the writing of this memorandum, the Engineer has received the information summarized in Table 7:
Table 7. Summary Table of Reference Check
Point made by Customer Significance for Port Hadlock’s POTW
Have generally had no issues with meeting design effluent parameters except for total phosphorus without the need for adding a coagulant
Port Hadlock’s POTW will have no effluent phosphorus
constraint, therefore this would not be an issue
Customer C had some programming issues at startup which
caused fouling of the membranes, which required very labor
and time intensive manual cleaning of the membranes. Ovivo sent technicians to clean the modules and correct the
issue, and Customer C has had no issues since
This was an aberrant circumstance, but the significance of this
finding is that manual cleaning may eventually be needed, and it
is very labor and time intensive
Influent alkalinity for references varies from 150-300 mg/L. The plant pH maintains a high 6 to low 7 pH. No chemical addition for pH control has been required at this point
Their range of influent alkalinity includes the assumed influent
alkalinity of 220 mg/L (as CaCO3) for Port Hadlock’s POTW. This
provides an example of a facility operating under similar influent
alkalinity conditions without requiring chemical addition for pH
adjustment
The Ovivo Aerostrip aeration system performs as intended. However, they are mounted to the floor of the preaeration basins, requiring complete draining of the
basin, and manual cleaning
This may be an operating condition for other aeration systems as
well
Rate of responsiveness from Ovivo to address issues has been varied, but the issue has gotten resolved eventually Ovivo has provided support reliably, albeit timing and urgency of
response has varied
Customer C’s warranty claims for performance of the silicon
carbide membrane system has been contingent on Customer C maintaining a microorganism food-to-mass ratio of 0.06-0.1. The treatment facility requires chemical addition (carbon source) only by substances approved by Ovivo to get up to this ratio, which is adding significant
chemical cost
It is unclear whether this would be an issue for the Port Hadlock
POTW. This is an issue that will need special attention during
detailed design of the MBR for Port Hadlock’s POTW
There is a significant amount of extra paperwork not required by the EPA and for regulatory reporting that is required by Ovivo to maintain warranty. As soon as a “warranty” issue comes up, these documents will be
requested
From the varied nature of bid responses to the question of labor
hours to operate a modular MBR System, it is unclear whether
this is the same case for other manufacturers
Ovivo can dial in the plant at any time and regularly get reports on plant activity. If the plant falls out of range on these reports any of these events could be “warranty”
voidable
It is unclear the degree to which this is the same case for other
manufacturers
Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum
12
Point made by Customer Significance for Port Hadlock’s POTW
Concluding points of the conversation:
• Having had experience with polymeric membranes,
Customer C highly recommends silicon carbide (ceramic) membranes as the superior alternative
• Generally have no issues with meeting effluent limits
• Overall the discharge (turbidity) of the plant looks
very good
• There are extra costs incurred with chemical addition including potentially food sources, coagulants, and chemicals used to clean the membranes
• There will also be extra paperwork over what is needed for regulatory compliance required by
Ovivo to maintain warranty
• This is affirmation that ceramic membranes are a good
choice
• Effluent quality limits are met fairly consistently
• Special attention during design will need to be paid to
allow system flexibility to potentially require lower
requirements for chemical addition for process control
and maintenance
• Training provided by the MBR System Supplier will
need to include emphasis on paperwork required by
the operator and its implication on warranties
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Engineer recommends 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.
ATTACHMENT 1: WORKSHEET A – QUALIFICATIONS
WORKSHEET
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 1 of 7
WORKSHEET A – REQUIRED INFORMATION
The information required in this Worksheet A is required to be submitted with the Bid. Bidders shall
submit information in a format that is easy to comprehend for the Owner and Engineer. Organize
responses in a binder or other format that is tabbed or indexed according to the numbering system
used in this Worksheet A in order to make it clear which responses apply to each of the following
questions. Failure to submit the information requested in Worksheet A will result in the Bid being
considered Non Responsive.
1.01 PASS/FAIL CRITERIA
A. EXPERIENCE CRITERIA #1: All membrane units and subunits furnished shall be new and
unused and shall be the standard products of a Membrane Manufacturer having a minimum 5
years manufacturing the proposed membrane subunit. The Bidder shall document and
provide with their Bid the following:
1. Proof of minimum 5 years manufacturing: List number of years and location of
manufacturing facilities; or,
2. Provide deviation rationale if not able to meet this requirement
B. EXPERIENCE CRITERIA #2: Bidder shall have a minimum 5-year history furnishing at least
fifteen (15) full scope MBR Package Plant Systems in the USA. The Bidder shall document and
provide the following with their Bid:
1. Proof of providing support, service, and applicable inventory: Provide attachment
detailing how you meet this requirement; or
2. Provide deviation rationale if not able to meet this requirement
C. EXPERIENCE CRITERIA #3: Bidder shall have supplied at least ten (10) operational plants of the
current package plant model proposed. The Bidder shall document and provide the following
with their Bid:
1. Date first commercially introduced.
2. Total number of the model supplied.
3. Specific information and photos of at least ten (10) operational plants, including the
following information:
No. Installation Name City State Design Flow Commission Date Scope of Supply
1
2
etc
4. Provide deviation rationale if not able to meet this requirement
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 2 of 7
D. ISO 9001 CERTIFICATION: To show evidence of being able to provide the quality of equipment
and services described in this specification, the MBR System Supplier shall submit with their
Bid, their quality system ISO 9001 certification. The company identification and quality
procedures shall indicate for the MBR System Supplier that the Quality Management System is
applicable to design, manufacturing, supply, installation, and servicing of wastewater and
water treatment plants, associated equipment and systems, and for the Membrane
Manufacturer the Quality Management System is applicable to the manufacturing of
membrane material and equipment. The quality system shall be audited by a third-party
independent inspector. Certification shall remain in effect throughout 1 year past the
commissioning of the project. The Bidder shall provide with their bid the following:
1. Proof of quality system ISO 9001 certification: Provide current certification; or
2. Provide deviation rationale if not able to meet this requirement
E. BONDING CAPACITY: Have an aggregate bonding capacity of at least $20,000,000. The bidder
shall provide with their bid the following:
1. Proof of bonding capacity: Provide Bond certification letter
F. SYSTEM SUPPORT CAPACITY: Demonstrate the following: sufficient inventory to support the
membrane market; ability to provide ancillary membrane support and mounting equipment,
pipe and support fabrication, equipment warehouse and staging of project equipment; and
the team members necessary to support and service the MBR system both remotely and
through in-field efforts, including for plant start-up coordination, mechanical checkout,
operator training, and troubleshooting of membrane systems. The Bidder shall document and
provide the following with their Bid:
1. Proof of providing support, service, and applicable inventory: Provide attachment on how
you meet this requirement and include: organizational chart with personnel names, titles,
contact information, years of experience with MBR system supply and servicing; location
of personnel and inventory; or
2. Provide deviation rationale if not able to meet this requirement
G. WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE: General Equipment, System Performance, and
Membrane Subunit warranties are specified in Specification 464240 Membrane Bioreactor
Equipment Section 1.13. See that section for detailed Warranty information. The Bidder shall
provide the following with their bid:
1. Provide evidence that Bidder can meet the requirements for these warranties; or
2. Provide any exceptions or clarifications to the warranty type and duration, and rationale if
not able to meet this requirement.
H. MEMBRANE PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND MANDATORY PROCESS AND MBR REDUNDANCY
REQUIREMENT: The Bidder shall submit an explanatory statement of the MBR System
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 3 of 7
treatment process. The Bidder shall also certify and include an explanatory statement that the
MBR System design meets the reliability requirements described in Specification Section
464240 Paragraphs 2.4.A.4, 2.4.B.1, and 2.4.C.1, and Section 400100 Paragraph 2.7, which
includes the following: reliability through redundancy for Class A reclaimed water with no flow
bypass nor storage of inadequately treated water; 100% of max month flow system
performance requirements listed in Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.3, with the
largest aerobic zone or MBR zone out of service indefinitely.
I. MANDATORY ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: The Bidder’s proposed asset management
program shall meet qualification criteria as described in Specification Section 464240 Section
2.4.Z. The Bidder shall provide the following with their Bid:
1. Certification that the Asset Management Tool will perform as described in Specification
Section 464240 Section 2.4.Z.
2. A product brochure and a link to a video to visually show the program.
3. The following information:
a. Name of Asset Management Program
b. Programming Provider Company
c. Provider Address
d. Provider Contact Name
e. Provider Contact Phone
f. Provider Contact email
g. The Software utilized
h. Whether interactive PDFs are utilized: (Yes/No)
4. Certification that the following asset management modules include the following
(references are to the paragraph in Specification Section 464240):
a. Status of Asset (2.4.Z.5.a)
b. Asset Import (2.4.Z.5.b)
c. Asset Location (2.4.Z.5.c)
d. Asset Life Expectancy (2.4.Z.5.d)
e. Critical Asset Identification (2.4.Z.5.e)
f. Asset Documentation (2.4.Z.5.f)
g. RFQ for Parts (2.4.Z.5.g)
h. Asset Knowledge Management (2.4.Z.5.g)
i. Support Contact (2.4.Z.5.h)
j. Maintenance Management (2.4.Z.5.i)
k. Maintenance Scheduling (2.4.Z.5.j)
l. Real-Time Data Monitoring (2.4.Z.5.k)
m. Alert Management (2.4.Z.5.l)
1.02 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PARAMETERS
A. The Bidder shall include a statement that indicates the minimum influent flow and water
quality parameters (including but not limited to BOD, TKN, TSS, pH, alkalinity, temperature
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 4 of 7
range) that will be necessary to operate the MBR System and meet water effluent water
quality requirements. The Bidder shall include a minimum inflow and wastewater strength
that will be necessary in order to operate the entire treatment system from influent through
to infiltration bed disposal.
B. Provide information for the following:
1. Total MBR System tank volume (cu. ft.)
2. MBR System footprint:
a. Overall footprint envelope (sq. ft.) – Footprint includes all equipment supplied, not
limited to tanks, equipment skids, access platforms, and chemical system and
maintenance envelopes
b. Equipment slab area (sq. ft.)
c. Building slab area (sq. ft.), if applicable
3. Total interconnecting pipe (ft)
4. Total interconnecting electrical (wiring) (ft)
5. Membrane sludged weight (lbs) – Maximum weight of membrane subunits when lifted.
6. Lifting height (feet-inches)
7. Headworks
a. Maximum grit level (inches)
b. Fine screen perforation size
8. Maximum influent FOG concentration
9. Membrane chlorine lifetime PPM hours (ppm-hour)
10. Membrane flux at 10° C with one membrane unit offline, at max month flow (per
Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.3.A).
11. Surface porosity (%)
12. Membrane subunit shelf life (years)
13. Total air scour (SCFM)
14. Chemical degradation (yes/no) – Whether the membrane degrade with chemical use.
15. Maintenance clean and backwash
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 5 of 7
a. Can the membranes be backwashed (yes/no)
b. Is maintenance clean fully automated or semi-automated
16. Physical damage or fatigue (yes/no) – can membranes be damaged physically from foreign
objects or fatigued from extended operation
17. Method of sludge recovery from tank dewatering (e.g. pressure washing, machine
washing, manual rake/scraping)
18. MLSS operating range (mg/L)
19. Design sludge age
20. Labor
a. Provide annual plant operation labor hours (hours)
b. Provide annual sampling and testing labor hours (hours) for regulatory testing
c. Provide annual sampling and testing labor hours (hours) needed for process control
(supplemental to regulatory testing)
d. Provide labor hours (hours) for maintenance, and maintenance intervals
e. Provide description of activities considered in operation, sampling and testing, and
maintenance labor hours
21. Provide the following information to be used by the Engineer to calculate the comparative
operating expense over a 20-year period at Design Flow per Specification Section 464240
“Membrane Bioreactor Equipment”, Paragraph 2.3 A.:
a. Spare parts
i Provide annual cost of spare parts for operating at Design Flow
ii Provide description of typical spare parts that may be needed each year
b. Provide annual power (kWh) at Design Flow
c. Chemical usage
i Provide annual chemical usage cost at Design Flow
ii Provide list of chemical(s), annual quantity, unit cost(s)
d. Replacement membrane subunits
i Total number of membrane subunits
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 6 of 7
ii Provide expected membrane life (years); i.e. replacement interval
iii Provide justification (for example, performance in existing MBR Systems) of
expected membrane life
iv Provide technical specifications of membrane subunits
1.03 OTHER BID SUPPORT TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION
A. List of named equipment/material manufacturers
B. General Electrical Work
1. Provide drawings showing all external electrical, control and communications connection
points (dimensioned) for the assembled modular treatment system.
2. Identify for each connection/interconnecting point the electrical characteristics including
voltage, phase, frequency, current draw, signal level, wiring / cable type and field
termination provisions made during manufacture.
3. Preliminary Process and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs)
C. Instrumentation and Control Systems
1. Provide drawings showing all separately shipped components and assemblies along with
field connection required for site installation. Drawing shall show the location of each
connection along with the electrical characteristics and wiring configuration of each
connection/interconnections required by the site installation Contractor.
D. Membrane Bioreactor System
1. Preliminary process flow diagram, initial design phase
2. Preliminary process flow diagram, future expansion phase(s)
a. Expansion to the initial design phase can be drawn on the same process flow diagram
as for the initial design phase, with clear delineation of each phase
E. Preliminary mechanical layout drawings, outlining dimensions of all equipment provided
within the Bidder’s scope of supply.
1. Preliminary mechanical layout drawings shall show system dimensions, weights, lifting
heights, and locations of lifting lugs/points of Membrane Subunits (dry and wet with
sludge), and other major equipment including but not limited to blowers, screens, and UV
units, sufficient for Owner to determine lifting requirements to provide for operations and
maintenance activities.
F. Preliminary calculations for the design of the biological treatment system.
FORM 00400(A) - WORKSHEET A Page 7 of 7
G. Ultraviolet light disinfection unit California State Water Board Title 22 approval
documentation
H. Names and license numbers of Registered Architect (if applicable) and Professional Engineers
licensed to practice in the State of Washington who will provide their seals on the final
calculations, drawings, and biological treatment system design.
I. Warranty information, detailing membrane design fluxes for all seasonal flow conditions.
J. System start-up and test procedures
END OF SECTION
ATTACHMENT 2: BID COMPARISON TABLE
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
1 of 11
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility
MBR Equipment Procurement
Proposal Comparison Table 4/13/21
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
1.01 Pass/Fail Criteria
A. Experience Criteria 1: All
membrane units and subunits
furnished shall be new and unused
and shall be the standard products
of a Membrane Manufacturer
having a minimum 5 years
manufacturing the proposed
membrane subunit. The Bidder shall
document and provide proof or
deviation rationale.
Suez
Hollow fiber polymeric membranes
ZeeWeed 500
ZeeWeed since 1990 (Zenon), has since
sold product line to Suez. Manufactured in
Hungary.
29/86, 44-
45
Memstar
Hollow-fiber PVDF membranes
3G-TIPS was launched in 2012.
H2O Innovations has manufacturing
facilities in Quebec, Minnesota, and Vista
(CA); skid mounted systems
manufactured in Quebec and Minnesota.
20/212 Ovivo
Flat plate silicon carbide ceramic
membranes
Product group inception in 2001. Current
membrane manufacturing facilities in
Denmark and Hutto, TX. Will be opening a
membrane manufacturing facility near
Austin, TX – anticipated by late 2022.
4/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
B. Experience Criteria 2: Bidder shall
have a minimum 5-year history
furnishing at least fifteen (15) full
scope MBR Package Plant Systems in
the USA. The Bidder shall document
and provide proof of providing
support, service, and applicable
inventory or deviation rationale.
MEMPAC series MBRs since 2009. Stock all
sensory instrumentation and most major
equipment replacement parts in
warehouse in CA. Expedited parts
agreement with vendors.
Hero Support Services, after-care support
program has ticketing/portal program.
29/86 Attached list of projects in US and Canada
over the past 10 years.
Project manager will be assigned to
project during design and construction.
Has maintained excellent relationships
with vendors. Has in-house service and
commissioning support team.
20/212,
25-
28/212,
78-94/212
Have sold >150 MBR package plant
systems, since 2003.
Has engineering, technical support,
fabrication, and controls teams in-house,
as well as management of the membrane
manufacturing.
6/162,
12-
14/162
Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
C. Experience Criteria 3: Bidder shall
have supplied at least ten (10)
operational plants of the current
package plant model proposed. The
Bidder shall document and provide
the information on projects with
their bid.
MEMPAC series MBRs since August 2009.
Has close to 50 models of MEMPAC family
in the “marketplace”.
One WA project in the 10 examples
provided: in Tri-Cities for private
development.
29-33/86 H2O Innovations designs and fabricates
custom package plants for each client.
20/212,
78-97/212
microBlox commercially available starting
in 2012. Have 50 units in operation.
7/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
D. ISO 9001 Certification: the MBR
System Supplier shall submit with
their Bid, their quality system ISO
9001 certification. The company
identification and quality
procedures shall indicate for the
MBR System Supplier that the
Quality Management System is
applicable to design, manufacturing,
supply, installation, and servicing of
wastewater and water treatment
plants, associated equipment and
systems, and for the Membrane
Manufacturer the Quality
Suez manufacturing facility for membranes
is ISO9001 certified.
Exception taken by Cloacina. Cloacina has
their own 200+ point QA/QC/QMS system
and can provide more information if
requested.
42/86,
47/86
Manufacturing facility for Memstar
membranes is ISO9001 and ISO14001
certified.
Exception taken by H2O Innovation. H2O
Innovation has QMS similar to ISO
certifications, including audits.
20/212 Complies for Austin, Salt Lake City, and
Round Rock fabrication facilities.
Proposal states that this is applicable to
design, manufacturing, supply,
installation, and servicing of treatment
plants, associated equipment, and
systems.
10/162 Cloacina – exception
H2O Innovation –
exception
Ovivo - comply
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
2 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
Management System is applicable to
the manufacturing of membrane
material and equipment. The quality
system shall be audited by a third-
party independent inspector.
Certification shall remain in effect
throughout 1 year past the
commissioning of the project.
E. Bonding capacity: Have an
aggregate bonding capacity of at
least $20,000,000.
Bonded $5M, with aggregate backlog of
approximately $25M.
48/86 Single bond requests by surety for H2O
Innovations up to $5M, up to aggregate
$30M.
21/212 $15M for single bond, $75M aggregate. 11/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
F. System support capacity:
Demonstrate sufficient inventory to
support the membrane market;
ability to provide ancillary
membrane support and mounting
equipment, pipe and support
fabrication, equipment warehouse
and staging of project equipment;
and the team members necessary to
support and service the MBR system
both remotely and through in-field
efforts, including for plant start-up
coordination, mechanical checkout,
operator training, and
troubleshooting of membrane
systems. The Bidder shall provide
the following with their Bid:
1. Proof of providing support,
service, and applicable
inventory; organizational chart
with personnel names, titles,
contact information, years of
experience with MBR system
supply and servicing; location of
personnel and inventory; or
2. Provide deviation rationale if not
able to meet this requirement
Suez stocks membranes, cassettes,
hardware, accessories in excess of anything
necessary for complete and total
replacement of Pt. Hadlock project.
Cloacina has partnered with Suez before,
and Suez support staff is available to
Cloacina. Cloacina has its own 24/7
support service for existing customers, with
min. 2 full-time post-production staff
available at any given time.
Cloacina maintains remote SCADA
connection to all its systems. All customers
enrolled into Cloacina’s subsidiary support
program which offers portal access to
interactive troubleshooting guides, O&M
library, and videos. Hero Services Ticketing
Program also provides tracking of service
requests, warranty claims, operational
assistance.
37/86 Schematic org chart provided, along with
several resumes of key staff. Has 24/7 on-
call support hotline for emergencies. For
non-emergencies there is support staff
during business hours.
On-site support costs (for performance
testing) not included in cost proposal. On
page 29/212 of proposal, there is per day
rate and charges for such services.
Per Spec 464240 3.4.A.2, expected there
to be 2 site visits, for 4 working days.
Assuming one person, 4 days, two trips, 4
nights x $200, 6 days x $100 =
4*($1250/day/person) + 4*1.15
markup*($200/night lodging) + 6*1.15
markup*($100/day incidentals) + 2*1.15
markup*($500/round trip flight) = $7760
However, as stated in page 53/212, the
following are provided in the cost
proposal:
Four (4) day site visit by an H2O
trained installation specialist delivery
inspection and installation
assistance, in one (1) trip
Four (4) day site visit by an H2O
trained installation specialist for
clean water testing and functional
testing, in two (2) trips
22-29/212 Org chart provided, and description of
engineering, technical support, controls,
fabrication, and manufacturing teams at
company facilities.
12/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
3 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
Thirty (30) day site visit by an H2O
trained installation specialist for
commissioning and startup, in two
(2) trips
G. Warranty and guarantee
compliance: General Equipment,
System Performance, and
Membrane Subunit warranties are
specified in Specification 464240
Membrane Bioreactor Equipment
Section 1.13. Bidder shall provide
evidence of meeting these
warranties and provide any
exceptions or clarifications with
their bid.
No exceptions taken. However, design in
proposal does not reflect treatment
capacity for peak flows equalized to 0.150
mgd, as established in Addendum 3, and
assumes equalization only to peak day flow
of 0.111 mgd.
49-50/86 H2O Innovation provided proposed
warranty with bid.
A major mechanical warranty exception
to Specification Section 464240 Section
1.13 B.1: “this warranty does not extend
to equipment, parts, or components
manufactured by a third party into which
the equipment is incorporated”.
29/212 Ovivo provided list of exceptions to the
warranty and the following:
General equipment – 24 months
Fine bubble diffuser – 60 months
MBR system performance – 12
months
Membrane diffuser clogging – 12
months
Membrane plate – 12 years (4 flat/8
prorated)
14/162,
78-
89/162
Cloacina – not in
compliance and missed
Addendum 3; have not
designed for handling
up to peak equalized
flow of 0.150 mgd.
H2O Innovation –
proposed boilerplate
warranty. Will not
warrant equipment
manufactured by
others, which is not in
compliance with
procurement
specification.
Ovivo – proposed list of
exceptions; will need to
be further reviewed
H. Membrane process description
and mandatory process and MBR
redundancy requirement: The
Bidder shall submit an explanatory
statement of the MBR System
treatment process. The Bidder shall
also certify and include an
explanatory statement that the MBR
System design meets the reliability
requirements described in
Specification Section 464240
Paragraphs 2.4.A.4, 2.4.B.1, and
2.4.C.1, and Section 400100
Paragraph 2.7, which includes the
following: reliability through
redundancy for Class A reclaimed
water with no flow bypass nor
storage of inadequately treated
water; 100% of max month flow
system performance requirements
listed in Specification Section
Proposal acknowledges WAC 173-219-350
Reliability Requirements.
Headworks: 2 fine screens, unclear if
fully redundant
Pre-anoxic basin(s): have 1 basin
Aerobic basin(s): have 3 basins,
unclear if there is operating scheme to
allow fully compliant operation with
one out of service indefinitely
Post-anoxic basin(s): have 2 basins,
volumes not redundant
MBR basin(s): have full redundancy
UV disinfection: has 2 UV units,
capacity of each is unknown
Mixers: no shelf spares
Blowers, pumps: unclear if there are
hardwired spares; no shelf spares, but
rebuild kits included
Controls: no spare PLC provided
33/86,
48/86
“Two trains are provided on the
membranes so that the system can
operate with one train offline. A spare
process blower is supplied as part of the
spare parts, ensuring that the aerobic
system can continue to operate in the
event of an aerobic blower failure.”
Headworks: 2 fine screens
(redundant), with grease trap
Pre-anoxic basin(s): have 1 basin
Aerobic basin(s): have 1 basin
Post-anoxic basin(s): have 1 basin
MBR basin(s): have full redundancy
UV disinfection: has redundancy
with 2 units
Mixers: shelf spare provided
Blowers, pumps: shelf spares and
rebuild kits included, but does not
have hardwired redundancy
Controls: no spare PLC provided
31-35/212 Page 4/162:
464249 2.4 A.B.1
The aerobic zones shall meet 100% of
MMF system performance requirements
with one tank out of service indefinitely.
“Our design verified by our BioWin
modeling provided with this proposal
shows MMF goals accomplished with 1
aerobic tank offline indefinitely.
microBLOX is set up to easily bypass 1
basin keeping the others online.”
464249 2.4.C.1
The Membrane zones shall meet 100% of
MMF system performance requirements
Indefinitely
“Our design verified by our BioWin
modeling provided with this proposal
shows MMF goals accomplished with 1
4/162,
15/162,
115/162
Cloacina – redundancy
in MBR basin volume,
but have not
demonstrated
operating scheme to
allow fully compliant
operation with largest
unit out of service. No
hardwired PLC
provided.
H2O Innovation –
redundancy in MBR
basin volume, but have
not demonstrated
operating scheme to
allow fully compliant
operation with largest
unit out of service. No
hardwired PLC
provided.
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
4 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
464240 Paragraph 2.3, with the
largest aerobic zone or MBR zone
out of service indefinitely.
membrane tank offline indefinitely.
microBLOX is set up to easily bypass 1
basin keeping the others online.”
Page 15/162:
System sized such that either one aeration
tank or one membrane tank can be taken
offline indefinitely, and still run at MMF.
3 pre-aeration tanks in parallel, sized such
that two are adequate to provide enough
oxygen contribution needed for MMF
flow.
2 membrane tanks in parallel. Each
membrane tank has hydraulic capacity to
run at MMF with the other tank out of
service indefinitely. All pre-aeration tanks
would need to be online to make up for
oxygen contribution lost.
Headworks: 1 coarse screen, 2 duty
and 1 standby fine screens
Pre-anoxic basin(s): have 1 basin
Aerobic basin(s): have 3 basins; have
demonstrated that can run plant at
MMF with 1 basin offline
Post-anoxic basin(s): have 1 basin
MBR basin(s): have full redundancy
UV disinfection: has redundancy with
2 UV trains
Mixers: shelf spare provided
Blowers, pumps: hardwired spares
provided
Controls: shelf spare PLC provided
Ovivo – closest of the
evaluated bids to full
compliance, and
submitted simulation
results for having one
aeration basin or one
MBR basin out of
service and handling
MMF. Spare PLC
provided as a shelf
spare, but not
hardwired.
I. Asset Management Program ZOHO Creator, program created by
Cloacina.
Cloacina will build module to fit the needs
of the project.
34/86 eMaint, program by Fluke/H2O
Innovation
35/212,
131-
146/212
WaterExpert, program by inCTRL
Solutions/Ovivo
16/162 Cloacina – generally
compliant; details
would be determined
during design
H2O Innovation –
generally compliant;
details would be
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
5 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
determined during
design
Ovivo – generally
compliant; details
would be determined
during design
1.02 Operations and Maintenance Parameters
A. Min influent flow and WQ
parameters (BOD, TKN, TSSS, pH,
ALK, temp) to operate plant.
A. The Bidder shall include a
statement that indicates the
minimum influent flow and water
quality parameters (including but
not limited to BOD, TKN, TSS, pH,
alkalinity, temperature range) that
will be necessary to operate the
MBR System and meet water
effluent water quality requirements.
The Bidder shall include a minimum
inflow and wastewater strength that
will be necessary in order to operate
the entire treatment system from
influent through to infiltration bed
disposal.
Minimum influent flow condition copied
from conditions in procurement
specification.
60/86 Minimum influent flow condition copied
from conditions in procurement
specification.
Noted that min flows for design load are
33,000 gpd; if flow or loads are under,
supplemental carbon would need to be
added to aerobic tank.
36-37/212 Turndown capability comes from rotary
lobe pumps, basin bypass flexibility
because of redundancy. During startup
flows, one membrane basin could be
taken offline and membrane plates in the
unused basin can be stored dry.
Provided two minimum start-up flow
scenarios of 0.024 mgd and anticipated
start-up flow of 0.048 mgd as stated in
specification, with one membrane basin
offline.
20/162 Cloacina – designed for
turndown to
accommodate startup
flow in procurement
specifications.
H2O Innovation –
designed for turndown
to accommodate
startup flow in
procurement
specifications.
Ovivo – designed for
turndown to
accommodate startup
flow in procurement
specifications, along
with alternate scenario
of even less flow.
B.1 Total MBR System Tank Vol Pre-anoxic basin: 1364 gal
Aerobic basin (total of 3): 12081*3 = 36243
gal
Post-anoxic basin (total of 2): 12081*2 =
24162 gal
MBR basin (total of 2): 4077*2 = 8154 gal
Membrane area: 11100 SF (duty); 11100 SF
(spare)
34/86,
57/86,
66/86
Pre-anoxic basin: 18500 gal
Aerobic basin: 34500 gal
Post-anoxic basin: 8000 gal
MBR basin (total of 2): 8000 gal
Membrane area: 11836 SF (duty); 11836
SF spare
38/212 Pre-anoxic basin: 3389 gal
Aerobic basin (total of 3): 6901*3 = 20703
gal
Post-anoxic basin (total of 2): 3907 + 6161
= 10068 gal
MBR basin (total of 2): 3588*2 = 7176 gal
Membrane area: 2860 SF (duty); 2860 SF
(spare)
21/162
Cloacina – unclear if
have capacity to
operate for
redundancy/reliability
if aeration basin out of
service.
H2O Innovation –
unclear if have capacity
to operate for
redundancy/reliability
if aeration basin out of
service.
Ovivo – demonstrated
ability to operate with
one aeration basin or
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
6 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
one MBR basin out of
service.
B.2.a MBR System Footprint (all
equipment supplied including tanks,
skids, platforms, chemical system,
maintenance envelope)
1710 SF 34/86 40’x50’ = 2000 SF initial phase
93’x50’ for future expansion phase
38-39/212
54’-6” x 31’-8” = 1729 SF
21/162
Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.2.b Equipment slab area 2058 SF 34/86 40’x50’ = 2000 SF initial phase
93’x50’ for future expansion phase
38-39/212
1729 SF 22/162 Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.2.c Building slab area Not appliable; no building supplied. 34/86 Not appliable; no building supplied. 38-39/212 Not appliable; no building supplied. 22/162 Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.3 Total interconnecting pipe 100 ft 35/86 Did not provide value; from figure, looks
like 10 ft for interconnecting pipes
between steel tanks. Proposal states that
piping within equipment container is
provided by bidder.
40/212 64 ft 22/162 Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.4 Total interconnecting wiring 16 ft pre-wired harnesses 35/86 On site electrical work consists of
connecting junction or remote IO panels
to MCP and power panel in the container.
40/212 COMM 24 VDC; 2-wire, 14 AWG: 6 LF
COMM 24 VDC; 2-wire, 14 AWG: 6 LF
480 VAC; 3-wire, 12 AWG: 6 LF
COMM 24 VDC; 2-wire, 14 AWG: 12 LF
Total 30 LF of interconnecting wire.
23/162 Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.5 Membrane sludged weight 4000 lb 35/86 3000 lb. Shipping weight 1280 lb. 40/212 2140 lb 23/162 Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.6 Lifting height 17’ 35/86 11.5’ tank height + 8’ lift height over top
of membrane wall = 19.5’ total lifting
height, plus hook height for crane
40/212 9’-10” to the lifting hook + approx. 3’ to
get to platform = 12’-10”
23/162 Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.7.a Headworks Max grit level <2 inches 35/86 No answer provided Not
applicable
“Grit removal is not required for Ovivo
coarse and fine screens…influent grit
concentrations shall be reduced to less
than 5 mg/L, measured by standard
methods”
23/162,
43/162
Not applicable – for
comparison only.
B.7.b Fine screen perforation size 2 mm 35/86 2mm, no bypass. Grease trap will be
provided as part of headworks.
41/212 5mm coarse screen, followed by two 2mm
duty and one 2mm spare fine screens
23/162,
115/162
Cloacina – have 2 fine
screens, unclear if
redundant of each
other.
H2O Innovation –
redundant (2) fine
screens.
Ovivo – 1 coarse
screen; 2 duty, 1
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
7 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
standby (2) fine
screens.
B.8 Max influent FOG 150 mg/L 35/86 Max influent FOG to headworks not
provided.
Max FOG to membranes 50 mg/L if
animal/vegetable oil; 3 mg/L if mineral
oil-based FOG.
41/212 100 mg/L
SiC membranes can be cleaned at pH of 13
after major FOG event.
23/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.9 membrane chlorine lifetime
PPM hours
500,000 PPM-hr 35/86 1,000,000 PPM-hr 41/212 5,000,000 PPM-hr
Chlorine degradation is related to
supporting material of membrane, rather
than SiC membrane itself.
24/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.10 Membrane flux at 10 C with
one membrane unit offline, MMF
8.1 gfd 35/86 10.5 gfd 41/212 Conflicting information provided: 18.0 gfd
or 31.4 gfd
24/162,
82/162
Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.11 Surface porosity Did not provide answer. 35/86 Nominal pore size is 0.04 micron.
Memstar modules have high porosity at
70-80%, and high membrane
permeability.
41/212 48% 24/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.12 Membrane subunit shelf life Indefinite with proper storage 35/86 “Extended periods of time” if stored
properly
41/212 Indefinite; can be stored dry 24/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.13 Total air scour 230 SCFM 35/86 50 SCFM per train 41/212 140 SCFM per membrane basin; 280 SCFM
with both membrane basins online
24/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.14 Chemical degradation No 35/86 Membranes are resistant to some
chemicals and are affected by others.
41/212 No, for any chemical use and
concentration typical for municipal
WWTP, including accidental overdose of
chemicals.
24/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.15.a Maintenance clean and
backwash – can membranes be
backwashed
Yes 35/86 Yes 41/212 Yes 25/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
B.15.b Maintenance clean and
backwash – Is maintenance clean
fully or semi-automated
Yes 35/86 Yes; Have automated chemically
enhanced backpulse weekly, and semi-
automated clean in place quarterly.
41/212 Yes, fully automated maintenance clean.
For certain conditions, could also add low
doses of chemical to backwash cycles.
25/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
B.16 Physical damage for fatigued
from foreign objects/fatigued from
extended operation.
Yes by foreign objects.
Fatigued from extended operation – yes.
Provided explanation that this is no
35/86 Yes; membranes protected by fine
screening and rescreening to minimize
risk of foreign objects and sharp object
intrusion into MBR.
41/212 No, SiC membranes not prone to physical
damage from foreign objects or fatigued
from extended aeration.
26/162
Not applicable – for
comparison.
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
8 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
different from other membranes including
ceramic membranes, which have sealant to
composite headers.
Also states that Cloacina is the only mfr
that provides triple redundant safeguard
against accidental hand/programmatic
membrane damage due to over-pressuring.
Did not answer question on fatigue.
B.17 Method of sludge recovery
from tank dewatering
Automatic desludging button, which
activates several valves
35/86 Can be hosed at low pressure or
physically cleaned through additional
aeration and physical agitation of fibers.
Membrane aeration system designed to
provide adequate aeration to prevent
excess sludging of fibers during normal
operation.
42/212 In situ backwash with air scour, or if that is
inadequate, modules can be pulled from
basin and pressure-washed.
27/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.18 MLSS operating range 6000-9000 mg/L 35/86 7,000-8,000 mg/L 42/212 8,500-16,507 mg/L depending on the
operating conditions.
29/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
B.19 Design sludge age
(specification minimum is 20 days)
33-42 days 35/86 22 days 42/212 17 (with one aeration basin or one MBR
basin offline) - 24 days (all units online)
29/162 Cloacina – comply with
all units online; did not
supply parameter for
one MBR or aeration
unit offline
H2O Innovation –
comply with all units
online; did not supply
parameter for one
MBR or aeration unit
offline
Ovivo – in operating
scenario with one MBR
or aeration unit offline,
does not comply, with
17 days. However,
scenario with all units
online, does comply
B.20 Annual labor hours See comparative present worth analysis
B.21.a Spare parts See comparative present worth analysis
B.21.b Annual power usage (at
Design Flow condition)
See comparative present worth analysis
B.21.c Annual chemical usage (at
Design Flow condition)
See comparative present worth analysis
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
9 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
21.d.ii Replacement membrane
subunits – expected membrane life,
replacement interval
Example projects have membrane
replacement at 10-16 years.
44-45/86 Expected membrane life 10 years 167/212 Membrane life estimated at 20+ years. 36/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
1.03 Other Bid Support Documentation
A. List of equipment manufacturers Manufacturers and quantity provided 54/86 Manufacturers and quantity provided 8/212,
43/212
Manufacturers provided, quantity unclear 39/162,
33/162
Not applicable – for
comparison.
B. Electrical drawings, showing
connection/interconnection point
characteristics (e.g. voltage, phase,
frequency, currency draw, signal
level, wiring/cable time, field
termination provisions)
General information on interconnection
points provided; example drawings,
including information on typical
instrumentation, provided from a similar
project.
57/86 Example P&IDs provided showing typical
instrumentation, but no information on
controls. No information provided on
interconnection point.
151-
164/212
Illustration provided of where power is to
be connected (under PLC on skid). 480
VAC, 3 ph, 60 Hz, 200 Amp.
40/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
C. I&C drawings, showing separately
shipped components and assemblies
along with field connections. Show
location of each connection
General information on interconnection
points provided; example drawings,
including information on typical
instrumentation, provided from a similar
project.
57/86 Instrumentation diagram provided, but
no information on control in diagram; no
PLC shown in drawings. No clear
indication of where connections are.
151-
164/212
Equipment and instrumentation factory
pre-wired other than electrical feed
connection. There will need to be a low-
voltage communications wire connection
to DO probe on supplemental tank.
41/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
D.1 Preliminary PFD, Design Flow PFD provided 58/86 PFD provided 150/212 PFD provided 98/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
D.2 Preliminary PFD, Future
Expansion
No future expansion PFD provided No future expansion PFD provided Future expansion PFD provided 98/162 Cloacina – did not
provide plan
H2O Innovation – did
not provide plan
Ovivo – provided plan
E. Mechanical layout drawings Layout drawing provided 57/86 Schematic illustration with general
dimensions provided.
39/212 Layout drawing provided 99/162 Not applicable – for
comparison.
F Prelim calcs for biological
treatment system
Attached. Equalized peak flow to peak day
0.111 mgd, not 0.150 mgd.
60-67/86 Attached. 169-
212/212
Attached. 42/162 Cloacina – comply, did
attach calculations, but
did not equalize to
peak flow in
Addendum 3.
H2O Innovation –
comply, provided
simulation results but
not in much detail.
Ovivo – comply,
provided calculations
and proof of various
operating scenarios.
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
10 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
G. UV system CA State Water Board
Title 22 approval
Aquionics Proline PQ IL 400 UV System,
which is Title 22 approved
36/86 Aquionics. Note that additional
information could be requested.
48/212 NeoTech finalizing Title 22 conditional
acceptance. If conditional acceptance is
not finalized, Aquionics will be used
instead.
With NeoTech UV, Ovivo plans to put in
two UV rows with 3 units in series. With
one unit out of service, would reduce
treatment output capacity.
47/162 Cloacina – comply
H2O Innovation –
comply
Ovivo – comply
H. Names, license numbers of
registered PEs
List of names provided and license numbers 36/86 No specific names provided, but
statement that they will be stamped by
an engineer registered to practice in
Washington State
48/212 One name provided, and license number 47/162 Not applicable
I. Warranty information, detailing
membrane design fluxes for all
seasonal flow conditions
No additional information provided. Warranted flux values not explicitly
listed; proposed warranty text provided
in proposal.
29/212 Attached. 78-
89/162
Any deviations to
warranty in
specifications will need
to be further
evaluated.
J. System start-up and test
procedures
Not provided. Instructions would be provided to
Contractor. H2O Innovation would
provide representative to site to provide
technical assistance for installation prior
to clean water testing and system
startup.
48/212 Attached. 90-
96/162
Cloacina – information
missing.
H2O Innovation –
information missing
Ovivo – some deviation
from specification.
Other items of note Exceptions taken:
Will not do permeability testing of
each membrane module, but would
provide testing data for related
batches (page 19/212).
Proposed payment terms that are
negotiable, but heavily loads
payments before County would
receive equipment (page 18/212).
Other exclusions:
On-site support costs for
performance testing are not
included in cost proposal; daily and
per diem rate schedule provided
(page 29/212)
Design, supply and installation of
any and all weather protection,
Not applicable.
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation
11 of 11
Worksheet A question Cloacina H2O Innovation Ovivo Compliance with
procurement
specification/remarks
Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page Response summary PDF page
buildings or sheds of any kind (page
54/212)
ATTACHMENT 3: COMPARATIVE PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation FacilityMBR Equipment Bid EvaluationPort Hadlock Water Reclamation Facility ‐ MBR Equipment Procurement Comparative Present Worth Analysis 4/13/2021Row ItemH2O InnovationProposal Page ReferenceOvivoProposal Page ReferenceCloacinaProposal Page Reference1 Bid Item 1: Design Services Work188,985.00$ Page 11/21274,200.00$ Page 50/16292,754.00$ Page 9/862Bid Item 2: MBR System Equipment and Services During Construction1,164,671.00$ Page 11/2121,395,158.00$ Page 50/1621,629,356.02$ Page 9/863 Bid Item 3: Taxes120,029.00$ Page 11/212132,242.22$ Page 50/162151,429.49$ Page 9/864 Select major capital cost items:5 WeatherizationNot includedPage 52/212IncludedPage 4/162Included6 Tank partitioning for reliabilityNot includedPage 38/212IncludedPage 15/162IncludedPage 34/86, 57/86, 66/867Installed standby process blowers and pumpsNot included; shelf spare providedPage 50/212IncludedPage 97/162Appears to be includedPage 54/868 Spare PLC providedNot includedIncluded as shelf spare, not hardwiredPage 70/162Not included9ISO 9001 certification of Quality Management SystemsNot in compliance; H2O Innovation has own QMSPage 20/212In compliancePage 10/162Not in compliance; Cloacina has own QMSPage 42/86, 47/8610 Rescreening SystemIncludedPage 35‐36/212IncludedPage 4/162Not included11Design for peak hour flow up to 0.150 mgdIn complianceIn complianceNot in compliance12MBR System Supplier warrants all equipment providedjNot in complianceIn compliance In compliance13Bid Capital Cost1,473,685.00$ Page 11/2121,601,600.22$ Page 50/162$1,873,539.52Page 9/86Item (for Design Flow Condition)Quantity Unit $/yrPresent Worth, $Quantity Unit $/yrPresent Worth, $Quantity Unit $/yrPresent Worth, $14 Equipment and membrane spare partsa,b$4,005.00 $59,584.29Page 166/212$6,737.57 $100,238.08Page 33‐34/162$3,175.00 $47,235.98Page 86/8615 Equipment replacementcNo data provided No data provided $62,316.16 $927,107.10Page 86/8616 Powerd175,000 kwh/yr $17,675.00 $262,959.37Page 166/212124,554 kwh/yr $12,579.95 $187,157.95Page 34/162507,423 kwh/yr $51,249.72 $762,466.47Page 86/8617 Chemicalse18 NaHOCl 12%185 gal/yr $164.65 $2,449.58Page 166/212162.5 gal/yr $186.18$2,769.89Page 34/162461.2 gal/yr $410.47 $6,106.73Page 86/8619 Citric Acid 50%15 gal/yr $64.33 $957.09Page 166/21217.8 gal/yr $76.34$1,135.75Page 34/162380.4gal/yr $1,631.45 $24,271.79Page 86/8620 NaOHf0 gal/yr $0.00Page 167/2127300 gal/yr $17,351.40 $258,145.02Page 35/1620 gal/yr $0.0021 MicroC (carbon)f1277.5 gal/yr $4,471.25 $66,520.91Page 167/2120 gal/yr $0.00Page 35/1620 gal/yr $0.0022 Membrane module replacementg100 modules @ yr 10 $42,562.17Page 167/2120 modules @ yr 20 $0.00Page 36/16252 modules @ yr 10 $68,142.4223 Reported labor hours to operateh<1 FTE yrPage 42/2125110 hr/yrPage 29/162864 hr/yrPage 86/8624 Service Agreement (Bid Item 6)$20,239.00$301,105.21Page 12/212$18,743.00$278,848.51Page 51/162$18,982.13 $282,406.16Page 10/8625Comparative Operational Present Worth (sum of rows 16, 18, 19, 22, and 24 )$610,033.42$469,912.10 $1,143,393.5726Total Comparative Present Worth $2,083,718.42 $2,071,512.32 $3,016,933.09Notes:gAll membrane module replacements assumed to occur at the expected end of life (10 years for H2O Innovation and Cloacina; 20 years for Ovivo); replacements at year 20 not accounted for, assuming end of life of all equipment.hLabor hours reported in evaluated bids varied in level of detail; the assumption is made that this cost will be approximately the same for all three proposals and not a differentiator, therefore this is not included in the comparative present worth.iTarget minumum sludge age of 20 days based on engineering best practice; a shorter sludge age can be acceptable if bidder can demonstrate meeting effluent requirements and design and operating requirements.jEquipment warranties not provided to the County through the MBR System Supplier would require the County to reconcile any warranty claims directly with the equipment manufactuer; inherent risk of shortened warranty periods passed down to the County.fNaOH and MicroC costs not included in comparative present worth; the three proposals evaluated modeled biological processes under differing conditions. Because the biological processes are the same, this is considered a non‐differentiator and highly dependent on operating conditions.aSpare parts cost lists provided by each bidder varied in level of detail; the assumption is made that this cost will be approximately the same for all three proposals and not a differentiator, therefore this is not included in the comparative present worth.bSpare parts cost provided by Ovivo given as a 20‐year total cost. Annual cost shown is the 20‐year total cost divided by 20.cCloacina provided equipment replacement cost, whereas H2O Innovation and Ovivo did not. Value shown here for completeness, but not included in comparative present worth.dH2O Innovation provided no calculation detail of annual projected power usage; Ovivo calculated power use for only when duty units are operating; Cloacina appears to have calculated power use assuming all duty and standby units are on for the same number of hours.eNaHOCl and Citric Acid are used for membrane cleaning; NaOH is used for pH control of treatment process; MicroC is a proprietary glycerin‐based carbohydrate used as a carbon source for biological processes.1 of 2
Port Hadlock Water Reclamation FacilityMBR Equipment Bid EvaluationAssumptions for Comparative Present Worth Calculation(P/F, i=3%,n=10)=F/(1/(1+i)^n) 0.7441(P/A,i=3%,m=20)=14.88i, discount rate3%discount rate in 2021 Facility Plann, membrane replacement year10m, present worth evaluation period20Power, $/KWH0.101unit cost in 2021 Facility PlanNaHOCl 12%, $/gal$0.89unit cost in 2021 Facility PlanCitric Acid 50%, $/gal$4.29unit cost in Ovivo proposal; lower than unit cost in Cloacina proposalNaOH, $/gal$2.38unit cost in Ovivo proposal; similar to unit cost in Cloacina proposalMicroC 2000, $/gal$3.50budgetary unit cost quote from EOSi on 3/18/21H2OI membrane module, $/ea$572Page 11/212H2OI total number of modules100Page 33/212; two 50‐module skidsOvivo membrane module, $/ea$39Page 50/162Ovivo total number of modules3520Page 36/162; two membrane trains, 1760 plates/trainCloacina membrane module, $/ea$1,761.11Page 9/86Cloacina total number of modules52Page 52/86, each cassette has 11,100 SF membrane area; per ZeeWeed500D module factsheet, there is 40 SF membrane suface area per module2 of 2