Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 04 14 PortHadlock_MBR-RFB_Evaluation_TM-Final (002)Technical Memorandum P:\12562\200-12562-20003\Docs\Reports\2021 04 14 PortHadlock_MBR- RFP_Evaluation_TM-Final.docx 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101 Tel 206.883.9300 Fax 206.883.9301 tetratech.com Date: April 14, 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 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. 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 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. 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: • 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 Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum 7 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 partitioning 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. Table 4 summarizes the comparison of bid capital costs and differentiators. 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 Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum 8 adjustments after all bid prices were made public. As a result of the 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. • 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 Modular MBR Equipment Bid Evaluation Technical Memorandum 9 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. 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 capital cost for Ovivo is second lowest, though the present worth analysis shows Ovivo as the lowest comparative present worth 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 POTW, 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.