HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 04 01 PortHadlock_MBR-RFP_Evaluation_TM-Draft (002)bw update 04_07_21
Date:
March 25, 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 - DRAFT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Jefferson County (County) is planning to constructevaluating 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 will would allow the establishment of
an urban growth area, ensuring economic resiliency of the community. The proposedA POTW and sewer collection system will would treat municipal wastewater to Class A reclaimed water
standards for beneficial reuse through groundwater infiltration. The groundwater infiltration will would recharge Chimacum Creek, which will 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 will 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 treatment facilityPOTW 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 RFP for the MBR system was designed to make sure 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 documents the process for evaluating equipment and selecting an MBR System. It 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 the a responsive
right proposal for MBR System to own and , so the County can proceed with for the final design. The selected MBR System Supplier satisfies all the RFP requirements for provides all
necessary equipment, fabrication drawings, design services listed in the scope of work (included in the request for bids), goods and special services during construction, and follow-up
services after construction. 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).
REQUEST FOR BIDS PROPOSAL PROCESS
The procurement is a competitive cost bid, awarded to the lowest responsible responsive bidder. A request for bids proposals was formulated by revamping the procurement specifications
and supporting documents from a previous MBR procurement bid in 2009. It 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 proposals 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 proposal 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 responsible 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.
Seven bids were received. This memorandum presents the evaluation of the bidders’ packages for completeness, cost, and compliance with the specifications.
BASE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A phased approach is planned for connecting sewer customers to the Port Hadlock Water Reclamation FacilityPOTW, 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 MBR Systemsewer system will be a grinder pump pressure sewer system.
As such, tThe MBR System will need to be designed with the ability to be expanded in future phases. The request for bids proposals requires the proposed MBR Systemsin responsive proposals
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 provided required in the request for bidsproposals. The exact timing
of the phased approach and extent for connecting sewer customers is unknown at this time.
Design flows for responsible proposals were provided in the request for bids proposals 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
BID PROPOSAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MBR SYSTEMS
Bids Proposals 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 costs 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 responsible 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 apparent highest-cost bids, summarized in costs for Bid Item 4, were eliminated from further consideration:
BluBox MBR
Kubota
Schwing Bioset
The three apparent lowest-cost and responsible 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 bids:
Cloacina
Ovivo
H2O Innovation
Cloacina, Ovivo, and H2O Innovation are all responsible bidders because they meet the requirements of RCW 39.04.010 and 39.04.350.
Per RCW 39.04.350:
“Before award of a public works contract, a bidder must meet the following 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 after this section.
Further, RCW 39.04.350 states:
(2) “Before award of a public works contractor, 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 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 for the 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:
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.
Sludge age at a minimum 20 days—Specification Section 464240 Paragraph 2.4.L stipulates that the sludge age shall be a minimum of 20 days. This duration was chosen as a target based
on professional judgement and engineering best practice to ensure system stability. A shorter duration, if the bidder can demonstrate reliable compliance with meeting effluent discharge
limits, may be acceptable; this will be finalized during design. The bids from H2O Innovation and Cloacina meet this minimum duration; the bid from Ovivo suggests that in at least one
operating condition (with one aeration or MBR tank offline), the sludge age will be under 20 days. Accordingly, Ovivo is not a responsive biddder.
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 bidder 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. 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 comes close to being 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
Sludge Age >= 20 days (with 1 aeration tank or MBR basin offline)
In compliance
Not in compliance; 17 days when 1 aeration or MBR tank offline
In compliance
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; 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 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.
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 responsible apparant lowest apparent bidders—H2O Innovation, Ovivo, and Cloacina—were evaluated.
The bid price for Cloacina is the highest of the three bids evaluated and is not a responsive bid for the reasons discussed above. Cloacina, with its highest bid capital cost, also
likely will likely remain the highest capital cost MBR System of the three evaluated after capital cost adjustments. 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, which could significantly increase
its capital cost. In addition, Wwith increase in capital cost due to adjustments to H2O Innovation’s MBR System that would be necessary as a result of its non-responsiveness, it iswill
be less competitive than the Ovivo system based on capital cost.
The bid price for Ovivo is second lowest, and the bid price for Cloacina is the highest of the three bids evaluated. The the MBR System proposed by Ovivo is closer to full compliance
with the procurement specifications and the Purple Book requirements than H2O Innovation or Cloacina, and therefore would require fewer, if any, amendments to its design that would
increase its procurement capital cost. Thus, the capital cost of Ovivo’s proposed MBR System would remain lower than that for Cloacina.
With increase in capital cost due to adjustments to H2O Innovation’s MBR System, it is less competitive than the Ovivo system based on capital cost. Cloacina, with its highest bid capital
cost, will likely remain the highest capital cost MBR System of the three evaluated after capital cost adjustments. Therefore, H2O Innovation and Ovivo are likely to stay the lowest
two capital cost bids of the three evaluated.
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; Ovivo appears
is to be the lowest responsible responsive bidder.
DUE DILIEGENCE REFERENCE CHECK
Following review of the bid packages, a due diligence reference check of Ovivo customers was performed.
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
Attachment 2: Bid Comparison Table
Attachment 3: Comparative Present Worth Analysis