mprwa regular meeting agenda packet 04-11-13.pdf

7/28/2019 MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 04-11-13.PDF

1/100

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, April 11, 2013

Council ChambersFew Memorial Hall

Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS

PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on anysubject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any personor group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing theAuthority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contactthe sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. February 14, 2013

2. March 14, 2013

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report From The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and TheMonterey Peninsula Water Management District Regarding The Ground WaterReplenishment Project (Israel, Stoldt)

a. Review Scopes of Work for Feasibility and CEQA Analysis

4. Receive Report Regarding The Status of the Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterManagement District Back Up Projects (Stoldt)

5. Receive Report and Provide Direction on Second Governance Committee Meeting(Burnett)

a. Cal Am Request for Qualifications for Design Build Firms Desalination Plant

6. Review and Provide Direction on Public Outreach Budget for FY 2013 -2014 (Reichmuth)

7. Receive Update Report from Cal Am Regarding Compliance with Conditions for AuthoritySupport of Cal Am Desal Project (Bowie)

8. Receive Update and Provide Direction for California Public Utilities Commission TestimonyHearing for Application (A-12-01-019)


2/100

Thursday, April 11, 2013

2

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all ofits services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay

Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of theAuthority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend ameeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/100

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, February 14, 2013CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER

FEW MEMORIAL HALLMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alternate Talmage, Della Sala

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala Called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.



Director Pendergrass reported on the unanimous approval of the Governance Agreement bythe Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. All aspects were unanimous and mirroredthe Authority approval except for the item related to Surcharge 2. President Della Sala reportedthat the Monterey County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the agreement andreported Cal Am is still reviewing the document but might have edits in the near future. DirectorRubio requested that the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) be fully flushed out for thepublic and requested the TAC explore the project to ensure all parties understand it on thesame level. The Authority unanimously approved this request and directed the TAC to take up

the item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda. Nelson Vegarequested that the Authority not overlook the Salinas River as a source of water and consider apetition to the State Water Resources Board about wasting a resource that could be betterutilized. Tom Rowley requested that the Authority lobby to ensure all Land Use jurisdictions bedirectly represented on the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board. He thankedthe Authority for adopting the position statement to move forward and for including an alternatewater source as source water is a critical issue. Sue McCloud requested that the Authority take

another look at the format the agenda materials are distributed in. With no further requests tospeak, President Della Sala closed public comment.


4/100

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, February 14, 2013

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, February 14, 20132

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. January 10, 2013 Special MeetingAction: Approved

On a motion, and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water

Authority approved the minutes of January 10, 2013.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Talmage,Della Sala

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED:

0 DIRECTORS: None

2. January 24, 2013 Regular Meeting

Action: Approved

On a motion, and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterAuthority approved the minutes of January 24, 2013 as amended.


NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

3. January 31, 2013 Special MeetingAction: Approved

On a motion, and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterAuthority approved the minutes of January 31, 2013 as amended.


NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None

RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

4. Approve Amendment to Contract for Executive Director Services with the City of Monterey toInclude Licensed Professional Engineer and Authorize Increase of Insurance Premiums asRequired (Action)Action: Approved


5/100




Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to the item indicating the appointed Executive Director BillReichmuth is a licensed professional engineer and risk managers for the member cities haverecommended increasing the Authoritys Special Liability Insurance Policy (SLIP) to cover theMPRWA in the event of litigation. In order to obtain the increased SLIP, an amendment to theagreement to include the professional designation is needed and additional funding not toexceed $3,000 will be required and would be paid through the budget line item contingency

fund. President Della Sala opened the item for public comment and with no requests to speak,closed public comment and brought the discussion back to the Authority for a motion.

On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Rubio and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the amendment to the contract forExecutive Director Services with the City of Monterey to include Licensed ProfessionalEngineer in the designation and authorized an increase of insurance premiums, not to exceed$3,000.



5. Approve and Authorize the President to Execute an Agreement to Form the MontereyPeninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee Together with California-AmericanWater Company, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and the County ofMonterey and Appoint the Water Authoritys Representative to Said Committee(Discussion/Action)Action: Discussed and Approved

Della Sala introduced the item as written in the staff report. Executive Director Reichmuthacknowledged staff who worked diligently on this project. He clarified that the attachment in thepacket is not the final agreement but that some non substantial word changes have beenrequested by Cal Am legal counsel. Mr. Reichmuth recommended approval of the agreementtoday and again at a future meeting if changes are significant. Legal Counsel Freemanrecommended that the Authority approve the document as written and appoint representativemembers at this meeting.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Nelson Vega expressed concern thattoo much effort was used to be collegial and he cautioned that with the proposed agreementthe Authority will have less power. He commended the Authority for making unprecedentedprogress and creating trust in the community that the project will move forward. Doug Wilhelmexpressed concern that there is no oversight after the facility is constructed and requestedincorporation before adoption.


6/100




Bill Hood expressed frustration that specific concerns he provided to the Authority have notbeen incorporated, and the document does not allow the Authority any control over the project.He encouraged revising the document as it does not provide adequate cost control and Cal Am,being a regulated utility, has no incentive to control costs. He also cautioned about involvementwhich would lead to becoming the lead agency for CEQA. Lastly, he cautioned the Authorityabout the potential changes Cal Am is making as the history of this negotiation has shown CalAm has substantive concerns and the public has allowed the concerns to overrule what their

needs are. He said exercising more control will not hurt Cal Am but will reduce waste andprotect the rate payers.

Sue McCloud appreciated all the efforts to include many public comments in the document. Shebrought up the following concerns about the draft agreement:

Questioned if the Authority reached out to the Desalination Manager in Sand City Expressed concern for continuity from the four proposed members of the Governance

Committee due to term limits, and recommended returning to an advisory committeestructure

Questioned how the MPRWA representative will be able to speak for all six cities Discouraged the ability to vote by proxy without hearing full discussions Expressed Concern nothing in the document addresses financing yet many decisions

will impact finances

George Riley questioned the term of the Governance Committee of 40 years and questioned ifthe intent was for the Authority to also have a 40 year life. Second, he questioned what pre-construction entailed and was concern that the phase would not be accessible to the public.With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment and staffresponded to public comments.

Director Pendergrass welcomed questions from the Authority regarding the Sand CityDesalination facility as well as working with Cal Am and he indicated they always pushed for apublic-private partnership and have a positive relationship and working experience with theplant. He indicated he is willing to provide information to the TAC, Authority Directors and theMPWMD, if requested.

President Della Sala responded to Mrs. McClouds comments indicating that the appointedGovernance Committee representative could speak for the Authority with direction provided bythe Authority and would be required to get approval on substantial issues prior to voting. Thefinancing aspect is still being developed and investigated and the Authority will be taking aposition on financing in the near future. He then spoke to Mr. Riley's comments about the 40year agreement term and said by the time the water is flowing, this organization will disband.

Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to Mr. Hoods question and indicated that three CEQA attorneysreviewed the document to keep the CPUC as lead agency, and to keep from making largedecisions that will help delay the project. He acknowledged that delay is an issue and the goalis to steer a course that will provide oversight over all categories. What the Authority does nothave oversight over, the CPUC does. Also, it was made to be a Brown Act agency compliantwith the Public Records Act as a way the public can participate and to ensure transparency.

The Authority discussed some of the known unsubstantial changes and discussed the length ofinvolvement for the Authority. The Directors agreed that there should be no need for theGovernance document and oversight once water is flowing.


7/100




On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Authorized the President to Execute anAgreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance CommitteeTogether with California-American Water Company, the Monterey Peninsula WaterManagement District, and the County of Monterey:

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Talmage,Della SalaNOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

President Della Sala opened public comment for selecting a Director to act as the Authorityrepresentative for the Governance Committee. Nelson Vega suggested it be Mayor Della Sala,because he represents the largest population, has the necessary expertise, and would be anexcellent choice. With no further requests to speak, public comment was closed.

Director Rubio offered his services to the Governance Committee and noted that SupervisorPotter was appointed to the committee from the Board of Supervisors. Alternate DirectorTalmage nominated President Della Sala indicating that continuity is critical and cannot beoverstated. Director Edelen spoke to Director Rubios experience but in the interest of continuitynominated President Della Sala.

On a motion, and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterAuthority appointed Vice President Burnett as the Primary representative to the GovernanceCommittee and President Della Sala as the alternate representative.



6. Review the First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and RecommendExecution by Member Cities and the County of Monterey to Add the County of Monterey as aMember of the Water Authority and to Make Other Modifications to the Agreement(Discussion/Action)Action: Discussed and Approved

Legal Counsel Freeman presented the report and indicated that the agreement presentedincluded two amendments; inclusion of Monterey County as a representative member to theAuthority and deleting the requirement to have an Authority Director to be the Chair of the TAC.He then clarified that voting on this document does not ensure it will happen but will allow theCalifornia Attorney General to respond to the submitted letter regarding a conflict of interest,then the agreement must be circulated to each member agency for signature of approval. Theapproval requested today is to authorize the two changes to the document and then circulateamong member agencies


8/100




President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Tom Rolwey thanked Legal CounselFreeman and spoke to his excellent work then asked for a tentative time table for approval. Billhood expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Authority then spoke to the purpose of theJPA agreement. Appointing the Fifth District Supervisor as a representative with the Countywould cause a conflict due to his other affiliations. The conflict does not have to be an actualconflict of interest, but a potential conflict and does not believe the amendment addresses theconflict, but instead is a duplication of powers. Nelson Vega indicated it is important to have

County participation because representation for the unincorporated areas is needed. Hecautioned that the Authority wait until the Attorney General responds. He then acknowledgedDirector Burnetts participation at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District meeting.Having no more requests to speak, public comment was closed.

Mr. Freeman responded to Mr. Hood's request regarding the County participation indicating theaction taken tonight is just to approve and allow circulation of the changes and further statedthat the County will not participate without the opinion of the Attorney General. Mr. Freemanthen answered questions from the Board.

On a motion by Director Burnett, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,

the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Amendment and Circulation ofthe First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement:



7. Update on Member City Approval of Increased Member Contributions for FY 2012-13(Information)Action: Received Update

Executive Director Reichmuth indicated this item was a reminder to the Member Cities aboutthe Authoritys budget adjustment and requested that any city that has not approved theincrease please do so in the near future. Director Rubio acknowledged that the City of Seasidehas approved the budget adjustment. Sand City and Del Rey Oaks are still outstanding.

8. Approve Future Meeting Dates (Discussion/Action)Action: Approved

President Della Sala opened to public comment and had no requests to speak.

On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the followingvote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Presented FutureMeeting Dates;


9/100





NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None

RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT

With no more business to come before the Authority, President Della Sala Adjourned themeeting at 9:58 p.m.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority Chuck Della Sala, MPRWA President


10/100


11/100

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, March 14, 2013COUNCIL CHAMBERSFEW MEMORIAL HALL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk of the Authority

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala Called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.



President Della Sala invited reports from Directors and Staff. Vice President Burnett noted thatStaff is working with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Coastal Commission tocoordinate permits for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). He thenconfirmed that Cal Am had submitted their application to City of Marina for the test well projectand he has requested Congressman Farr to assist with coordination of all of the State andFederal permitting agencies that will be involved. Legal Counsel Freeman informed theAuthority and the public that next Governance Committee meeting is on Wednesday, March30,, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. and staff is currently forming an agenda distribution list and anyone

interested to be included in distribution should contact Arlene Tavani at www.mpwmd.net.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comments for items not on the agenda. George Rileyquestioned a recent conference call regarding the process of the California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC) evidentiary hearings and the schedule for witness testimony. Hequestioned the legitimacy of a comment about settlement discussions and informed theAuthority that they should anticipate litigation. Nelson Vega spoke about recent Monterey CityCouncil meetings and is concerned there is no consensus. He then requested the Authority bein communication with The State Water Resources Control Board requesting an extension tothe Cease and Desist order, in the event the MPWSP stalls. President Della Sala clarified that

Council Members are also citizens and have the right to speak their position at any time. VicePresident Burnett commented that staff and Directors are reaching out to the SWRCB but doesnot think the timing is ripe for requesting and extension.

Jim Cullem questioned the location of the MPWSP facility and specifically questioned the right-of-way assessments. He asked if the Directors had considered requesting first rights of refusalfor the public right away then suggested working with the Transportation Agency of MontereyCounty (TAMC). Executive Director Reichmuth responded that discussions are being facilitatedand TAMC is in the appraisal process to determine fair market value. The land was purchasedwith State Lands funds, and currently there is no objection for pipeline utilization. Rick Riedlindicated that portions of the land are owned by the City of Seaside and encouraged


12/100

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, March 14, 2013


Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, March 14, 20132

discussions to include the City. Sue McCloud encouraged the televising of the Governancemeetings to ensure access to the public and also requested clarification between the differentBoards and their responsibilities, so there is not duplication of efforts. Lastly, she encouragedthe ability to have information distributed earlier so it could be reviewed by the public prior tothe meeting. Vice President Burnett responded that staff will work to determine theresponsibilities for the different Boards.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES


Action: Continued to Next Meeting


Action: Approved as Amended

On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Directors Pendergrass, and carried by thefollowing vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the mintues ofFebruary 28, 2013 as amended

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio,Della Sala


AGENDA ITEMS

3. Review and Provide Recommendations on Cal Am Draft Outline of RFQ and List of Qualifications andSelection Criteria

Action: Recommendations Provided

Vice President Burnett presented the item and reported about the comments made at the GovernanceCommittee meeting regarding the proposed Request for Qualifications (RFQ). He qualified that underCategory B1 of the Authority adopted policy agreement, the Governance Committee can make arecommendation and if Cal Am chooses not to follow, they need to provide written documentation. VicePresident Burnett then spoke to the outline in the packet, and to the time frame provided by Cal Am.They are currently talking with eight qualified firms. The RFQ will be issued by the April 1,, 2013 tonarrow the field from eight to four firms. In June, 2013 the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be releasedwith a 90 day response time, and the winning firm will be selected. Vice President Burnett then read alist of changes to the document suggested by the Governance Committee and the Directors discussed.

Executive Director Reichmuth added that this will likely be a design-build contract, which reduces theliability to Cal Am and leaves it with contractor. Also, the extent and type of State and Federal fundsused will determine if prevailing wages are required. Vice President Burnett answered questions fromthe Directors


13/100




Director Rubio spoke to the prevailing wage requirements and requested the RFQ to include compliancewith Federal and Local requirements regarding prevailing wage. Director Edelen disagreed andexpressed it will drive the cost up to the consumer. He added that considerations for energy efficiencyand LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) should only happen as long asit does not increase the costs of water. Director Pendergrass questioned hiring a firm before theCalifornia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) makes a decision and supported Director Rubiosrequest. Vice President Burnett clarified if Cal Am utilizes public funding; the project would be required

to employ only prevailing wage workers.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Doug Wilhelm spoke to Director Pendegrasscomment and encouraged developing a critical path and a schedule, including a safety factor. NelsonVega spoke in support of Director Edelen's comment indicating cost is the most important factor and thatmost of the people on the peninsula don't earn paid a prevailing wage and the goal should be to havethe best value for the dollar spent. Jim Cullem questioned how much more the construction would cost ifprevailing wages were required and requested that criteria be added to the RFP to includemaintainability and adaptability of the facility, noting that processes might be very efficient, but might notbe easy to maintain. He also requested the firm be required to be able to design to emergingtechnologies to make it less costly to operate in the future. With no more requests to speak, PresidentDella Sala closed public comment and brought the discussion back to the Board to provide

recommendations on the RFQ.

The following recommendations were made:

1. Consider eliminating the requirement for LEED design, but maintain requirements for energyefficiency to the extent that it delivers real savings to customers.

2. The maintainability and adaptability of the plant over time, that is open to new technologies

4. Report from Cal-Am Regarding Test Well Design, Development and PermittingAction: Update Provided by Cal Am Water Representative

Cal Am Water Representative Catherine Bowie discussed changes that have occurred since the lastAuthority update. She reported that four of the six required permits have been submitted; the StateLands Commission and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary are outstanding. Construction ofthe test wells is on track to begin in November 2013 and the project is on track to meet the currentconstruction schedule. Ms. Bowie then answered questions from the Authority.

Vice President Burnett added that with respect to the City of Marina application, it has not yet beenapproved due to an agreement with the Sierra Club. The permit requires any applicant requesting aNegative Declaration Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have approval from the Sierra club. VicePresident Burnett has been working with Marina Mayor Delgado with respect to this requirement.Congressman Farr is assisting with coordinating with the federal agencies for alignment of interest toexpedite the permitting processes.

President Della Sala opened the item to public comment and had no requests to speak.

5. Receive Report on First Governance Committee Meeting and Provide DirectionAction: Recommendations Provided


14/100




Vice President Burnett reported on the first meeting of the Governance Committee and indicated thelargest agenda item was discussion of the RFQ. He reported that he was elected as Chair of theGovernance Committee and will be working on agenda management to determine appropriate timing ofdecisions. Also discussed was the timeline for the Ground Water Replenishment(GWR) project, and theCommittee agreed to send a letter requesting the CPUC to hold a workshop on the issue in the future.

Director Pendergrass questioned the status of support and progress of the GWR project and indicated

that the MPWSP is impacted because the GWR project will determine the ultimate size of the MPWSPfacility that will need to be built. President Della Sala reminded the Directors and public that this body isin support of GWR but is working with the timeline to get it online at the same time the desalinationfacility. If that is not feasible, the Authority would support a larger desalination facility.

MRWPCA Director and TAC Member Keith Israel have identified the following criteria that will beneeded for the GWR to be successful:

1. Course complete and certify an EIR2. Water rights are secured for the recycled water project3. Public support from groups4. Cost estimate should be less than

5. Time estimate no later than January 20176. Permit status is consistent with schedule7. Receive SRF Funds8. Complete preliminary design9. Commitment to purchase water

Director Kampe assumed that GWR would be a preferred substitute for desalinated water, but requestedto see that the confirmation of the cost factors is comparable or less than that of desalinated water. VicePresident Burnett confirmed that cost would be less than $300 per acre foot from the well head andnoted the TAC will take up the item again on March 18, 2013.

President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Nelson Vega thinks there is overemphasis of

the GWR as it will come as a price and encouraged the Authority to continue to focus on which facility isthe lowest cost and produces the highest volume of water. Catherine Bowie spoke to answer somequestions asked previously about the timeline to hire the design build contractor indicating the decisionto hire the prior to the CPUC decision will assist with the ability to obtain the Coastal Commission permit,three months earlier. President Della Sala followed up by asking; in the event Cal Am was able to hire adesign build contractor prior to the CPUC decision being released, how much would the ratepayerswould be at risk. Ms. Bowie responded that the only projects the firm would be tasked with is workingtoward obtaining permits and does not know if any public funds would be at risk. With no furtherrequests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.

Vice President Burnett also reported on discussions of procurement of alternative power by theGovernance Committee and indicated he will contact the Monterey Regional Waste Management

District to begin discussions of opportunities and will report back.

6. Review of Mid-Year Budget and Projections for Remainder of Fiscal YearAction: Discussed and Recommendations Provided


15/100




Executive Director Reichmuth gave a brief overview indicating the report is informational and staff isseeking direction prior to adoption of the budget for Fiscal year 2013-14. Clerk Milton provided detailsabout current obligations still pending, the proposed changes for the next fiscal year and requestedfeedback from the Authority. The Authority discussed the need for additional public outreach in additionto televising Authority meetings to include items such as increased web presence, educational materials,press releases and more.

President Della Sala opened the item for comments from the public. Nelson Vega spoke in support ofincreased public outreach and suggested an effective tool to use for outreach would be a comparison tothe user water bill. He encouraged Authority to spend funds to ensure the public is informed prior to thewater rates increasing. Sue McCloud suggested giving a bonus to the contractor for finishing ahead oftime and a penalty for not completing on time. She also proposed an idea of utilizing students fromCalifornia Polytechnic Institute and their design team to assist with the design work to save cost. DaleHeikus requested caution with public outreach as the public is very skeptical. He said the Authority holdsmany meetings, produces many reports, and has many discussions, but should begin outreach onlywhen there is something significant and unmistakable that can prove the project has moved forward.With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.

Director Edelen requested that public relation efforts be focused on energizing the public to support the

projects and not to publicize the successes of the Authority.

Director Kampe clarified what public funds can be spent on for public outreach, but agrees to the needfor outreach. He indicated the focus should be informing about the best course for best results for thewater users on the Peninsula. As a comprehensive approach, there must be education on all theprojects and elements including, GWR, ASR, backup plans, Contingency plans and the Local SmallWater Projects. He encouraged the program to be diligent, to make information as accurate andavailable as possible. In the absence, it undermines what the Authority and other agencies are trying aretrying to do.

Vice President Burnett suggested using their positional influence as mayors, if provided with acost effective tool, such as a position statement, presentation or brochure that could be

istributed at meetings, events, or functions. Director Rubio spoke against a focused publicoutreach campaign indicating that the Authoritys position is monitoring and advising andcannot be seen as trying to sway public opinion. Any project should be tasked with thecommunity outreach and describing their project to the public. President Della Sala requestedhat staff propose a public outreach program including the associated costs, at the 20K 40K

level and to allow the Authority to make an informed decision.

7. Review Rebuttal Testimony Submitted To California Public Utilities Commission for Application (A- 12-04-019) and Provide DirectionAction: Discussed and Recommendations Provided

Vice President Burnett spoke to the item and highlighted the most relevant sections as it pertains to theAuthority adopted Position Statement. He reported that Cal Am is working toward meeting the conditionsand also agreed to add an eighth condition, the consideration of tax principles. Cal Ams rebuttaltestimony included a large focus on the requirement that Cal Am accept public funding, and Cal Am staffpresented reports from several outside financial and tax experts who pointed out the challengesassociated with public contributions. Chair Burnett provided an update on each of the conditions as setforth below, and then answered questions from the Directors.


16/100




1. The summary on condition one, we are working though, have had some success, recognize theoverall framework, but will take tremendous work to come to an agreement.

2. Adoption of a Governance Agreement: Agreement has been signed and the committee isoperational.

3. Electricity Rates: Addressed in Rich Svinland's testimony. Meetings will be forthcoming with theMonterey Regional Waste Management District, and the Governance Committee will assist. CalAm Water has agreed with the condition in principle.

4. Surcharge 2: General testimony is in support of conditions for utilization that funds can only beapplied to tangible assets that do not leave stranded costs.

5. Subsurface Wells: Point to the CEQA process as the way to justify compliance with the condition.6. Alternative Intake Strategies: Still in progress. Cal Am understands the need for contingencies,

but is not currently planning on fully developing the contingencies as we stipulated.7. SRF Financing: No report at this time.8. Address Sea Level and Coastal Erosion: Issue will be covered in the Environmental Impact

Report (EIR), the main infrastructure will be behind the dunes and safe from those factors.

President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Dale Heikus expressed caution withregard to finance and the availability of public funds. He requested the Authority try to identifyways to lower the project risk before using public funds, including the development of a risk

assessment. Nelson Vega questioned the status of a water purchase agreement and spoke toMr. Heikus comment that there will always be risk. With no further requests to speak, PresidentDella Sala closed public comment.

Executive Director Reichmuth responded to Mr. Heikus comment by referring him to review thetestimony of Mr. Linlam, which was included in the Agenda Packet. The testimony lists theprinciples for utilization of public funds. He suggested reviewing pages 92, 93, and 94 to help toexplain the financial issues.

Director Kampe spoke to the adopted condition for the development of a contingency plan andencouraged Cal Am to not lose sight of that. He expressed that the testimony of the hydrologistTim Durbin was notable, due to the uncertainty of the productivity of the slant wells but there is

still a need for alternate sourcing.

ADJOURNMENT

With no more business to come before the Authority, President Della Sala Adjourned themeeting.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority Chuck Della Sala, MPRWA President


17/100


Agenda Report

Date: April 11, 2013

Item No: 3.

08/12

FROM: Prepared By: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Receive Report from The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and

The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Regarding The Ground

Water Replenishment Project (Israel, Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation given by TAC Members Stoldt andIsrael will take place at the meeting.


18/100


19/100


Agenda Report


Item No: 4.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding The Status of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water

Management District Back Up Projects (Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation given by TAC Member Stoldt willtake place at the meeting.


20/100


21/100


Agenda Report


Item No: 5.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Report on Second Governance Committee and Provide Direction

(Burnett)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation will take place at the meeting.

ATTACHMENT:

Cal Am Request for Qualifications for Design Build Firms Desalination Plant FinalVersion


22/100


23/100

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECTDESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE - REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Desalination Infrastructure

April 1, 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

DESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

Request for Qualifications fromProspective Design-Build Entities

April 1, 2013

Pacific Grove, California


24/100



April 1, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 12. Utilization of Women, Minority, And Disabled Veteran Owned Business

Enterprises and Local Contractors/Suppliers ............................................................. 22.1 Utilization of Women, Minority, and Disabled Veteran Owned Business Enterprises .... 22.2 Utilization of Local Contractors and Suppliers .............................................................. 3

3. Project Overview ........................................................................................................... 33.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 33.2 Project Background and Objectives ............................................................................. 33.3 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 4

3.3.1 Brine Conveyance Pipeline ................................................................................... 53.3.2 Salinas Valley Desalinated Water Return Pipeline ................................................ 53.3.3 Desalination Plant ................................................................................................. 53.3.4 Desalinated Water Conveyance ............................................................................ 7

4. Schedule Summary ....................................................................................................... 7

5.

Submission Instructions and Requirements ............................................................... 8

5.1 Instructions .................................................................................................................. 85.2 Submission Requirements ........................................................................................... 9

5.2.1 Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 95.2.2 Experience ...........................................................................................................125.2.3 Interview ..............................................................................................................19

6. Selection Criteria ......................................................................................................... 197. Other Rules and Procedures ...................................................................................... 20

7.1 CAW Rights and Procurement Conditions ..................................................................207.2 Expenses of the Design-Build Entities.........................................................................217.3 Use of Information.......................................................................................................217.4 Confidential Information ..............................................................................................21


25/100



April 1, 2013

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A Design-Build Entitys Proposal ManagerExhibit B Questionnaire

1. Declaration2. Design-Build Team

a. Design-Build Entityb. Design Consultantsc. Specialty Consultantsd. Construction Subcontractors

3. Licensure4. Financial Information5. Safety6. Insurance7. Termination/Failure to Complete; Violations; Claims, Arbitration and LitigationExhibit 1 General Statement of Bank Credit

Exhibit 2 Bonds and InsuranceExhibit C Experience

Project Profiles Design-Build EntityProject Profiles Engineer of RecordProject Profiles General ContractorProject Profiles Other Team Members

Exhibit D Ineligible FirmsExhibit E Illustrative list of PermitsExhibit F Guarantor Acknowledgment Form


26/100



April 1, 2013

Page 1 of 21

1. Introduction

Project: DESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

To: PROSPECTIVE DESIGN-BUILD ENTITIES

Subject: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A QUALIFIED FIRM TO DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCT THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECTDESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE (RFQ)

This RFQ is being issued by California American Water in anticipation of the issuance of arequest for proposals (RFP) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project DesalinationInfrastructure (Project). Design-Build Entities interested in submitting proposals in response tothe anticipated RFP must submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) in response to this RFQ.The SOQ must be received by California American Water (CAW) no later than 4:00 p.m.Pacific Time on Wednesday, May 1, 2013, at the following address:

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER511 FOREST LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100

PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950Attn: Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel

CAW is expected to shortlist and request Proposals for the Project from the four (4) highestscoring Design-Build Entities that submitted SOQs in response to this RFQ, but reserves theright to request proposals from more or less entities as deemed appropriate by CAW in its solediscretion. An RFQ point scoring evaluation will be completed to short-list the Design-BuildEntities that will proceed into the RFP phase.

The following capitalized terms shall have the meanings identified below:

Design-Build means a project delivery method in which both the design and construction of aproject are procured from a single entity.

Design-Build Entity means a partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that is able toprovide appropriately licensed design, construction, and commissioning. For purposes of thisRFQ to the extent a Design-Build Entity is intending to utilize a contractor or subcontractor todeliver a significant component of the services, information regarding such contractor orsubcontractor must be provided as if such entity were part of the Design-Build Entity.

Desalination Infrastructure means the desalination plant and the facilities located within thedesalination plant site that are used to create potable water from either an ocean source water,

brackish source water or a combination thereof, and appurtenant facilities needed to dispose ofbrine to the brine discharge infrastructure, dispose of wastewater (i.e. process water andsanitary discharge), and any needed facilities that may be required to prevent export of nativeSalinas River Groundwater Basin water.

The firms listed in Exhibit D have been involved in the analysis of the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) and will not be allowed to participate as part of any Design BuildEntity in any capacity.


27/100



April 1, 2013

Page 2 of 21

Immediately upon receipt of the RFQ, each Design-Build Entity interested in participating in theRFQ process shall (1) designate one individual as its Proposal Manager who will be responsiblefor all communications during the RFQ process, (2) shall complete EXHIBIT A, Design-BuildEntitys Proposal Manager, attached to this RFQ, and (3) e-mail the completed form to Lori

Girard, Corporate Counsel, California American Water, at [email protected]. Pleaseidentify the e-mail in the subject line as: MPWSP RFQ Exhibit A.

The Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager shall be the single point of contact for questions,inquiries, clarifications, and correspondence (including RFQ and RFP addenda) during theentire RFQ and RFP process. Any substitution of Design-Build Entitys Proposal Managerduring the RFQ and RFP process shall be made in writing to CAW.

This Project budget is estimated to be within a range of $70,000,000 to $100,000,000.

The Project is a significant component of the MPSWP described in Section 3.0 below. CAW, theMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the Monterey Peninsula Water ManagementDistrict, and the County of Monterey have formed an oversight committee (GovernanceCommittee) to help ensure efficient and effective public input into the development andoperation of the MPSWP. The Governance Committee was formed pursuant to agreement ofthe Governance Committee members dated March 8, 2013 (Governance CommitteeAgreement).

Additional information concerning the Project history, site conditions, background technical andenvironmental compliance documents, procurement, the Governance Committee Agreement,and public outreach are available on the project website at www.watersupplyproject.org.

2. Utilization of Women, Minority, And Disabled Veteran Owned BusinessEnterprises and Local Contractors/Suppliers

2.1 Utilization of Women, Minority, and Disabled Veteran Owned BusinessEnterprises

CAW acknowledges the contributions of women, minority and disabled veteran businessenterprises (WMDVBE) to Californias economy, in part, through California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC) General Order 156. In accordance with General Order 156, CAW iscommitted to promote and facilitate full participation in these programs. Please also refer to the2012 Annual Report to the CPUC on Diversity and Inclusion. This report can be found on theproject website.

CAW has established a combined WMDVBE participation goal for the Project of twenty-one andone-half percent (21.5%) of the contract price.

Each Proposer will be required to prepare and submit a WMDVBE Subcontracting CommitmentUtilization and Reporting Plan (WMDVBE Utilization Plan) as part of its response to the RFP.The WMDVBE Utilization Plan is a written commitment to contract with Women OwnedBusiness Enterprises, Minority Owned Business Enterprises, and Disabled Veteran BusinessEnterprises that have been certified through the CPUCs Supplier Clearinghouse, as part of theProject.


28/100



April 1, 2013

Page 3 of 21

CAW will require that the Design-Build Entity monitor and report the continued implementationof the WMDVBE program goals, as stated in the WMDVBE Utilization Plan, throughoutperformance of the contract.

2.2 Utilization of Local Contractors and Suppliers

CAW and the local stakeholders acknowledge the benefit that the local community receivesthrough utilization of local contractors, laborers, and suppliers.

The Design-Build Entity will be required to prepare and submit a Local Resources Utilizationand Reporting Plan (Local Resources Utilization Plan) as part of its response to the RFP. TheLocal Resources Utilization Plan is a written commitment to contract with local contractors,subcontractors, sub-consultants, vendors, suppliers, and labor forces.

CAW will require that the Design-Build Entity monitor and report the continued implementationof the Local Resources Utilization Plan throughout performance of the contract.

3. Project Overview

3.1 Introduction

CAW submitted an application to the CPUC for the MPWSP in April 2012. As part of thisapplication, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared by the CPUC pursuant tothe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR will analyze and assess thepotential environmental impacts of a proposed new water supply project for the MontereyPeninsula. The water supply is needed to replace existing surface and groundwater supplies.The MPWSP will produce desalinated water, convey it to the existing CAW distribution system,and increase the systems use of storage capacity in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. TheProject consists of several distinct components: a source water intake system consisting of slant

wells; a 9.6 million gallons per day (MGD) desalination plant; a brine discharge system;product water conveyance pipelines and storage facilities; and an aquifer storage and recovery(ASR) system. In addition, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (PCA) ispursuing a 3,500 acre foot per year (AFY) groundwater replenishment (GWR) project that if itis implemented will reduce the size of CAWs proposed desalination plant from 9.6 MGD to 6.4MGD.

The CPUC, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, is actively working on the EIR and expects toissue a Draft EIR in July 2013, followed by a Final EIR (FEIR) in November 2013. With theFEIR date approaching, CAW would like to have the Desalination Infrastructure design-buildteam in place so as to begin the design and permitting of the Desalination Infrastructure as soonas possible upon issuance of the FEIR. A final order from the CPUC approving the entire

MPWSP is expected in January or February of 2014.

3.2 Project Background and Objectives

CAW has served the Monterey Peninsula since it acquired properties from California Water &Telephone Company in 1966. CAWs Monterey service area is located in the semi-arid centralCalifornia coastal area that is entirely dependent on local rainfall for its water supply; importedwater is not an available option. By reason of its geography and rainfall patterns, the area isprone to severe droughts. Wells located along the Carmel River that draw water from the


29/100



April 1, 2013

Page 4 of 21

Carmel River Aquifer are the primary source of water for CAW. An additional source of waterfor CAW is a network of eight wells located in the Seaside Basin, which CAW shares with anumber of users and purveyors. The CAW Monterey service area, also known as the MontereyDistrict, includes six incorporated cities, the Monterey Airport District, the unincorporated areas

of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley, and Pebble Beach, and other unincorporated areas inMonterey County. The City of Marina, unincorporated Castroville, and other areas ofunincorporated Monterey County lie north of the CAW service area. The proposed water supplyis needed to replace existing supplies that are constrained by recent legal decisions affectingthe Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin water resources: State Water ResourcesControl Board (SWRCB) Order No. WR 95-10 (Order 95-10); and, the Monterey CountySuperior Court adjudication of water rights in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Both rulingsreduce CAWs use of its two primary sources of supply for the Monterey District and provide themost immediate impetus for the MPWSP. In addition, in October 2009, the SWRCB issued aCease and Desist Order (CDO) claiming that CAW had not complied with Order 95-10requiring CAW to terminate unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River, and that thesediversions constitute a trespass of water. The CDO imposed a deadline of December 31, 2016for CAW to reduce by approximately 70% its diversion of water from the Carmel River. TheMPWSP is the result of a multi-year planning effort that has considered several differentproposed projects and various related documents. Since 1989, several options have beenproposed that proponents have hoped would meet the water supply needs of the MontereyPeninsula and address the impacts on the Carmel River underlying Order 95-10, as well as theSeaside Basin adjudication. The objectives that were considered during development of theMPWSP projects are as follows:

Satisfy CAWs obligations to meet the requirements of Order 95-10; Diversify and create a reliable drought-proof water supply; Protect the Seaside Groundwater Basin for long-term reliability; Protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply;

Minimize water rate increases by creating a diversified water supply portfolio; Minimize energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of water

delivered to the extent possible; Provide facilities that can accommodate sea level changes; Explore opportunities for regional partnerships; and Provide flexibility to incorporate alternative water supply sources, such as GWR.

3.3 Project Description

The Design-Build entity will be asked to provide all necessary permitting, engineering andconstruction services to bring the Desalination Infrastructure on-line as close as possible to theCDO deadline of December 31, 2016. The paragraphs below contain a narrative description of

the nature and composition of the facilities that are included as part of this procurement. Pleasenote that certain permits that relate to the entire MPWSP, such as the Coastal DevelopmentPermit, will not be the responsibility of the Design-Build Entity, however, certain information fromthe Design-Build Entity will be required to assist CAW in obtaining such permit. Refer to ExhibitE for an illustrative list of permits. The Design-Build Entity will not finance, own, operate ormaintain the Project.

The desalination plant will be required to achieve specified performance standards duringacceptance testing and for a warranty period following acceptance. The warranty period is


30/100



April 1, 2013

Page 5 of 21

expected to be for a period of time in excess of one year. The specific standards that will berequired will be set forth in the RFP. A portion of the technical evaluation points under this RFQwill be dedicated to the demonstrated ability of the Design-Build Entitys facilities to meetrequired performance standards. Design-Build Entities are informed that the RFP will seek the

best proposals as evaluated over the life cycle of the Project. The evaluation of proposalssubmitted pursuant to the RFP will take into account capital costs as well as anticipatedelectricity, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs.

For detailed information on the project description, estimated costs, and project size pleaserefer to the Attachments in the Supplemental Testimony of Richard C. Svindland which can befound under the Download area of the project website.

3.3.1 Brine Conveyance Pipeline

The Brine Conveyance Pipeline is needed to convey brine or concentrate from the desalinationplant to the headworks of the PCAs outfall, where it will mix with effluent from PCAs RegionalTreatment Plant (RTP) and be discharged to the ocean through the existing outfall diffusers.For this Project, the Design-Build Entity is to assume the pipeline terminates at the fence line ofthe desalination plant property.

3.3.2 Salinas Valley Desalinated Water Return Pipeline

The Return Pipeline is needed to convey desalinated water to the Salinas Valley GroundwaterBasin. For this Project, the Design-Build Entity is to assume the pipeline terminates at the fenceline of the desalination plant property.

3.3.3 Desalination Plant

The desalination plant is to be constructed on an approximately 46 acre site of currently vacant

and disturbed land owned by CAW located west of the RTP and adjacent to Charles BensonRoad. For most of the site, ground elevations range from 90 feet to 114 feet above sea level.Structures and facilities at the site would consist of the following: feedwater receiving tanks; pre-treatment process; filter backwash supply system; waste washwater storage and settling basin;desalination process; post-treatment process and chemical systems; brine storage tanks;desalinated water storage tanks and pumping station; and non-process facilities.

The following sections describe in concept each of these facilities:

Feedwater Receiving Tanks

Feedwater will be pumped from the feedwater intake wells directly to two above-ground

feedwater receiving tanks at the desalination plant site.

Pretreatment Process

Feedwater from the feedwater receiving tanks will be piped directly to pressure or gravitymultimedia sand filters for removal of small particles that could otherwise foul the downstreamcartridge filters and/or reverse osmosis (RO) membranes.


31/100



April 1, 2013

Page 6 of 21

Filter Backwash Supply System

The filters will be backwashed periodically (approximately once per day) using process filtrateas backwash supply.

Waste Backwash Storage/Settling Basin

Waste from the backwashing process will flow from the filters by gravity to a basin.

Desalination Process

RO is a molecular separation process that uses semi-permeable membranes to remove salts insaltwater and produce desalinated water (which is also called product water or permeate).Pretreated seawater is forced at very high pressures through the membranes, and the watermolecules, smaller than almost all impurities, including salts, are selectively able to passthrough the membranes. The remaining impurities and residual water are discharged asconcentrate, which is commonly called brine.

Post-Treatment and Chemical Systems

Hardness, alkalinity, and pH of the product water would be adjusted after the RO process toprotect piping and plumbing materials and to make the water more compatible with the othersources of supply in the CAW system. Facilities will be included at the desalination plant to addcarbon dioxide (to adjust alkalinity), followed by re-hardening (the addition of calcium), andaddition of sodium hydroxide (to adjust pH). Sodium hypochlorite will also be added fordisinfection.

Brine Storage Basin

If there is an interruption of brine discharge, brine would be diverted to a lined open basin on thedesalination plant site. This storage will provide time for the plant to remain in operation for ashort period to allow plant personnel to adjust or cease production and for system personnel toincrease production from other sources (ASR wells, Seaside wells, Begonia Iron RemovalPlant).

Desalinated Water Storage Tanks and Pumping Stations

Following post-treatment, desalinated water would flow by gravity to two on-site storage tanks,called clearwells.

Non-Process Facilities

A building to house visitor reception, offices, restrooms, locker rooms, break rooms, conferencerooms, control room, laboratory, equipment storage and maintenance area, and electricalservice equipment for the adjacent Desalination/Post-Treatment/Chemical Building is required.

Power Supply

Power to the MPWSP intake wells and desalination plant would be supplied by the existingpower grid and no new power plant or other industrial emissions sources would be constructed.


32/100



April 1, 2013

Page 7 of 21

The Governance Committee Agreement, however, contemplates that subsequent to theCPUCs issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, the GovernanceCommittee may issue decisions concerning procurement of alternative (non-Pacific Gas &Electric) energy supplies for the Project, including but not limited to waste-to-energy, so long as

such decisions result in lowering the Projects estimated unit price for power. Thus, in additionto the planned Pacific Gas & Electric connection, there is the potential for an additional powersupply for the Project.

3.3.4 Desalinated Water Conveyance

CAW Supply

Desalinated water will be pumped by the desalinated water pump station at the desalinationplant into a 36-inch diameter product water pipeline. For this Project, the Design-Build Entityshould assume the pipeline terminates at the fence line of the desalination plant property.

4. Schedule Summary

The following table is a summary of the anticipated timeline for the events in the RFQ and RFPprocess (all of which are subject to change at CAWs sole discretion):

RFQ Process Due Date Due Time (all Pacific)

Published date April 1, 2013 N/A

Briefing Conference Call (not mandatory) April 12, 2013 11:00 am

Written questions due April 15, 2013 5:00 pm

Distribute answers to written questions April 19, 2013 5:00 pm

Submit SOQ May 1, 2013 4:00 pm

Interviews (if desired by CAW) May 6 May 24, 2013 TBDShortlist Notification May 31, 2013 5:00 pm

RFP Process Approximate Date Due Time

RFP and Draft DB Contract issued to short-listedentities

June 17, 2013 TBD

Mandatory RFP Pre-proposal conference July 9, 2013 TBD

Meetings with proposers to discuss technicalissues

July 9 July 12, 2013 TBD

Meetings with proposers to discusslegal/contractual issues

July 15 July 18, 2013 TBD

Proposer comments on DB Contact and writtenquestions due

July 31, 2013 TBD

CAW issues revised DB Contract and distributesanswers to written questions

August 16, 2013 TBD

Project Proposals due September 17, 2013 TBD

Proposal Interviews September 30 October3, 2013

TBD


33/100



April 1, 2013

Page 8 of 21

Selection of preferred proposer October 9, 2013 TBD

Final DB Contract and all proposals toGovernance Committee for recommendation

October 21, 2013 TBD

Agreement Execution November 15, 2013 TBD

5. Submission Instructions and Requirements

5.1 Instructions

As part of the procurement process, it is important to maintain the same firms and personnelidentified as part of the SOQ when submitting a proposal in response to the RFP. Therefore,any Design-Build Entity (firm) or team members (key personnel) listed and proposed in the SOQmust be listed by the Design-Build Entity in the Proposal submitted during the subsequent RFPprocess. Design-Build Entities must submit requests to substitute teams and team members forgood cause to CAW in writing for approval. Design-Build team and team member substitutionrequests will cause CAW to re-evaluate a Design-Build Entitys SOQ and may cause CAW to

rescind a Design-Build Entitys invitation to participate in the RFP process, and possibly offer aninvitation to participate in the RFP process to another Design-Build Entity.

All prospective Design-Build Entities must complete EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire set forthin this RFQ. Design-Build Entities not completing EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire, will not beevaluated under EXHIBIT C Experience, as set forth in this RFQ, and their SOQ will notbe further evaluated.

Questions: Any questions arising during the RFQ process must be submitted in writing byemail to:

Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel

Email: [email protected] no telephone calls.

Please identify the e-mail in the subject line as: MPWSP RFQ Questions. Written questionsshould be submitted by the due date and time as required in the Schedule Summary tableabove. Questions received after the date indicated may not be considered. Copies of all thequestions CAW chooses to answer, and the answers to those questions, will be distributed bythe date indicated in the Schedule Summary table above, in a written clarification document toall Design-Build Entities Proposal Managers that have properly submitted Exhibit A.

Except as outlined above, prospective Design-Build Entities or anyone receiving the RFQ, shallnot contact, discuss with, or inquire of any CAW employee, any ineligible firm, County of

Monterey, official, representative or staff member, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authorityofficial, representative, technical advisory committee member or staff member, or MontereyPeninsula Water Management District official, representative or staff member on any matterrelating to the Project, the MPWSP or this procurement process; provided, however, Design-Build Entities may contact, discuss with, or inquire of any permitting agency, including thoseidentified above, about the Project or the MPWSP but only for the limited purpose and within thelimited scope of obtaining information relating to the permitting requirements for the Project.This requirement is to ensure the integrity of the procurement process. Failure to comply with


34/100



April 1, 2013

Page 9 of 21

this requirement may result in immediate disqualification from the procurement process.Information obtained outside this RFQ process cannot be relied upon as accurate.

The completed SOQ package which shall include one (1) original 3-ring binder and five (5)Compact Discs (CDs) each with an electronic file copy in PDF-format must be received by:

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATERAttention: Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel511 FOREST LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100

PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950

4:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, May 1, 2013

The SOQ shall be limited to a five (5) double-sided page Executive Summary (10 pages total)plus an Appendix containing the information as requested in this RFQ. The SOQ shall bewritten on 8.5 x 11 inch paper with font size no smaller than 10-point and no larger than 14-point. All exhibits, forms, resumes, and project experience should be included in the Appendix.

The electronic file copy shall be one compiled PDF document for ease of distribution. If file sizeis restrictive (>10 MB), the PDF may be split into no more than three (3) separate PDFdocuments.

No faxed copies will be accepted. Submittals shall be provided in sealed packaging that isclearly marked with the Design-Build Entitys firm name, address, contact person(s), and phonenumber, as well as "Statement of Qualifications for Design-Build of the Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project Desalination Infrastructure.

Submittals received after the specified time and date will not be considered and will be returnedunopened to the sender. THIS SUBMISSION DEADLINE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.

5.2 Submission Requirements

5.2.1 Questionnaire

Design-Build Entities must complete and submit the declaration and qualifications as describedin detail in the attached EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire. If the Design-Build Entity submits aquestionnaire that is incomplete, CAW reserves the right to request additional information fromthe Design-Build Entity or to reduce the evaluation score.

The SOQ Evaluation Team will evaluate the Questionnaire for completeness, conformance toproject requirements, safety records, and history of violations, claims, arbitration and/orlitigation. A general description of the questions is provided below:

1. Declaration: The Design-Build Entity shall declare that the information provided in theQuestionnaire has been prepared using reasonable diligence and is true and completeto the best of the signers knowledge.

2. Design-Build Team: Identify firms proposed by the Design-Build Entity to be part of theDesign-Build Team. Each responding Design-Build Entity must submit qualifications (asdescribed in EXHIBIT C - Experience) for firms, including: a General Contractor,appropriately licensed in California, as well as an Engineer of Record, a Process Design


35/100



April 1, 2013

Page 10 of 21

Lead, an Electrical Design Lead, a Design Project Manager, and a CommissioningManager, all of which must also be appropriately licensed in California. In addition, theDesign-Build Entity should submit qualifications for other firms and the qualificationseach brings to the team, or any other notable design consultant(s), each appropriately

licensed in California. These or combinations of the above disciplines may be providedby a single firm or by several firms.

3. Licensure: Submission of evidence demonstrating possession of all required licenses,registration, and credentials that are required to design and construct the Project inCalifornia.

4. Financial Information: Submission of evidence, including financial statements, thatestablishes that the Design-Build Entity has the capacity to perform the work under theProject and to obtain all required payment and performance bonding as identified inEXHIBIT B - Questionnaire. To this end, the Design-Build Entity may propose tosupplement its financial strength by proposing a parent or affiliate company Guarantor toguarantee all of the obligations of the Design-Build Entity under the design-buildcontract. A Design-Build Entity will not be pre-qualified pursuant to this RFQ based onfinancial information provided by an entity that will not have a contractual relationshipwith CAW (either through the design-build contract or through a parent companyGuaranty Agreement). Accordingly, a parent company guaranty will be required if aDesign-Build Entity chooses to submit financial information for pre-qualification from anentity other than the entity proposed to serve as the Design-Build Entity under thedesign-build contract with CAW.

All of the financial information provided in Exhibit B for the Design-Build Entity shall alsobe provided for the Guarantor, including a Guarantor Acknowledgment Form as set forthin Exhibit F signed by a representative of the Guarantor who is authorized to sign suchform and to commit the Guarantor of its obligations contained in the Guarantor

Acknowledgment. A Certificate of Authorization (Attachment 1 to the GuarantorAcknowledgment) attesting to such authorization must also be submitted. If theGuarantor is a partnership, the Guarantor Acknowledgment shall be signed by one ormore of the general partners. If the Guarantor is a corporation, an authorized officershall sign his or her name and indicate his or her title beneath the full corporate name.If the Guarantor is a joint venture, an authorized representative of each firm in the jointventure shall sign a separate Guarantor Acknowledgment. Anyone signing as an agentmust file with it legal evidence of his or her authority to execute such GuarantorAcknowledgment. If there are multiple Guarantors, each shall be jointly and severallyliable and each shall enter into an independent Guaranty Agreement. If the Guarantoris a joint venture, each member firm of the joint venture shall independently execute theGuaranty Agreement.

It is CAWs preference that the Design-Build Entity or, if applicable, the Guarantor be asufficiently capitalized United States entity. If either the Design-Build Entity or theGuarantor is other than a United States entity, the respondent shall describe anyprocedural or substantive limitations on the ability of CAW to enforce the DB Contract orGuaranty Agreement against the Design-Build Entity or the Guarantor, as applicable.For purposes hereof, a United States entity is one that is incorporated domestically orotherwise duly organized under the laws of the United States.


36/100



April 1, 2013

Page 11 of 21

5. Safety: Submission of evidence indicating safety performance of the Design-BuildEntity. Refer to EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire for specific questions relating to safety.

6. Insurance: Submission of evidence that establishes that the Design-Build Entity has thecapacity to obtain liability insurance, Workers Compensation, and errors and omissionsinsurance, and other insurance requirements as identified in EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire.

7. Termination/Failure to Complete; Violations; Claims, Arbitration and Litigation:Submission of information and details concerning all of the items listed below. For someitems listed there are specific references to California law. In addition to providingresponses for such items with respect to California law, please also respond with respectto similar laws and regulations in states other than California and countries other thanthe United States of America.

7.1 Any bid, performance or payment bond called or a surety company required tofinish work, on any project by any member of the Design-Build Entity on or afterJanuary 1, 2003.

7.2 Construction or design claims or litigation with alleged damages totaling morethan five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) against any member of theDesign-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003.

7.3 Violations of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, as provided inPart 1 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 5 of the Labor Code, settledagainst any member of the Design-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003.

7.4 Violations of federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, those lawsgoverning the payment of wages, benefits, or personal income tax withholding, orof Federal Insurance Contributions Act withholding requirements, state disability

insurance withholding, or unemployment insurance payment requirements,settled against any member of the Design-Build Entity on or after January 1,2003. For the purposes of this sub-clause, only violations by a Design-BuildEntity member as an employer shall be deemed applicable, unless it is shownthat the Design-Build Entity member, in his or her capacity as an employer, hadknowledge of his or her subcontractor's violations or failed to comply with theconditions set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 1775 of the Labor Code.

7.5 Information and details that the Design-Build Entity or its members, any officer ofthe Design-Build Entity or its members, or any employee of the Design-BuildEntity or its members who has a propriety interest in the Design-Build Entity, hasever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or

completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation oflaw or a safety regulation on or after January 1, 2003.

7.6 Violations of the Contractors State License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing withSection 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code), excludingalleged violations or complaints, on or after January 1, 2003.

7.7 Conviction of any member of the Design-Build Entity of submitting a false orfraudulent claim to a public agency on or after January 1, 2003.


37/100



April 1, 2013

Page 12 of 21

7.8 Violations of environmental laws or environmental compliance conditionsresulting in issuance of a Notice of Violation or other action on or after January 1,2003.

7.9 Violations of prevailing wage or other labor laws on or after January 1, 2003.

7.10 Declaration that the Design-Build Entity will comply with all other provisions oflaw applicable to the Project, including, but not limited to, the requirements ofChapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the LaborCode.

CAW, when requested by the Design-Build Entity, shall use reasonable efforts to hold inconfidence any information provided in response to items 7.1 to 7.9, above. Notwithstandingthe foregoing, CAW will not be responsible or liable in any way for any losses that the Design-Build Entity may suffer from the disclosure of information or materials to third parties.

5.2.2 Experience

Each Design-Build Entity must complete and submit its experience as described below and inthe attached EXHIBIT C - Experience. The Design-Build Entity, its team, and key personnelexperience will be evaluated by the SOQ Evaluation Team and allocated points for the relativemerit of written data and responses to the following sections.

1. Design-Build Team:a. Organizational Chartb. Firm Profiles

2. Personnel Resumes:a. Key Design-Build Entity Management Personnel Resumesb. Key Design Team Personnel Resumes

c. Key Construction Team Personnel Resumes3. Project Profiles:

a. Design Experienceb. Construction Experience

4. Project References5. Project Approach

Submit evidence that establishes the Design-Build Entity and the Design-Build team (firms)have completed, or demonstrate the capability to complete, projects of similar size, scope, orcomplexity, and that proposed key personnel have sufficient experience and training tocompetently manage and complete the design and construction of the Project.

Submit any evidence that establishes the Design-Build Entity, the Design-Build team (firms) andkey personnel have completed projects with any of the following characteristics:water/wastewater facilities; water/wastewater facilities in California; desalination facilities andrelated infrastructure; facilities with SCADA systems; facilities with post-treatment for corrosioncontrol and stability; energy efficient facilities; sustainable green design facilities; and/orextensive/complex permitting requirements.


38/100



April 1, 2013

Page 13 of 21

Submit evidence that projects designed, built and/or commissioned (or operated if a Design-Build-Operate project) by the Design-Build Entity have successfully passed acceptance testingand have performed following testing in accordance with expected performance standards.

Submit evidence of the Design-Build Entitys experience obtaining regulatory approvals forsimilar projects.

Submit evidence of the Design-Build Entitys experience commissioning similar projects.

Submit evidence of the Design-Build Entitys experience addressing issues of maintainabilityand adaptability of the facility over time to new technologies or processes.

If the Design-Build Entity does not submit all necessary information, CAW reserves the right torequest additional information from the Design-Build Entity or to reduce the evaluation score.

Firm Profiles, Personnel Resumes, and Project Profiles must clearly identify the relevance ofspecific project experience to the requirements of the proposed Project.

The information provided must clearly identify the relevance of each example in regard to therequirements of the Project. The Design-Build Entity should provide specific project-relatedexperience and individual team histories in Design-Build delivery, relevance of size, scope, andcomplexity. In order for a project to qualify as relevant, the information submitted mustdemonstrate that the teams or the individual key personnels involvement with the project beganat the initial stages and extended through completion and acceptance of the project by theowner. If applicable, provide examples of projects the team members and key personnel havepreviously completed together.

1 Design-Build Team:

A. Provide an organizational chart as part of the Appendix demonstrating the proposedmake-up of the participants in the Design-Build Entitys team. The organizational chartassists the evaluators in understanding how the team envisions working together. TheRFP phase will include the development of a detailed management plan. Theorganizational chart will be scored based upon its clarity in identifying the key teams andkey personnel, and in describing the relationships between the team members duringdesign, construction, and commissioning. Identify the firms in the Design-Build Entityand their anticipated contractual relationship. List major sub-consultants andsubcontractors on the team.

B. For the Design-Build Entity and for each team member listed in EXHIBIT B -Questionnaire, submit firm profiles with company history and significantaccomplishments, providing evidence that establishes the firm has completed ordemonstrates that the firm has the capability to complete projects of similar size, scopeand complexity to the proposed Project. Submit any evidence that establishes theDesign-Build Entity and the team members have completed projects with any of thefollowing characteristics: water/wastewater facilities; California water/wastewaterfacilities; desalination facilities and related infrastructure; facilities with SCADA systems;facilities with post-treatment for corrosion control and stability; energy efficient facilities;sustainable green design facilities; and/or extensive/complex permitting requirements.The profile for the Design-Build Entity shall be limited to eight (8) double-sided pages.


39/100

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECTDESALINATION INFRAS

mprwa regular meeting agenda packet 04-11-13.pdf

Documents