Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout028-2017 - Sanitary - Evaluation of planning for treatment facilityAGREEMENT q TH THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into thisl I day of March, 2017, by and between the City of Richmond, Indiana, a municipal corporation acting by and through its Board of Sanitary Commissioners and its Stormwater Management Board (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Donohue & Associates, Inc. 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 820, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor"). SECTION I. STATEMENT AND SUBJECT OF WORK City hereby retains Contractor for the Evaluation and Facility Planning of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Treatment Systems Project. City sent a Request for Qualifications on September 6, 2016 seeking the assistance of engineering consultants to complete an evaluation, preliminary engineering and design related to aeration, roughing towers and intermediate clarifiers at the Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Request for Qualifications is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". The Professional Services Proposal of Contractor is contained in Exhibit "B", which Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Agreement. Contractor shall provide all professional engineering services for the Evaluation and Facility Planning of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Treatment Systems project as set forth above. Exhibit "B" also includes the Donohue & Associates, Inc. billing rate for this Project. The work from Contractor shall generally be related to aeration, roughing tower and intermediate clarification modification and improvements for the Project. Should any provisions, terms, or conditions contained in any of the documents attached hereto as Exhibits, or in any of the documents incorporated by reference herein, conflict with any of the provisions, terms, or conditions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be controlling. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, material, equipment, and services necessary for the proper completion of all work specified. Contractor's services shall be performed in accordance with the standard of professional practice ordinarily exercised by the applicable profession under similar circumstances at the same time and in the locality where the services are performed. Professional services are not subject to, and Contractor does not provide, any warranty or guarantee, express or implied. Contractor shall submit statements or bills monthly. No performance of services shall commence until the following has been met: 1. The City is in receipt of any required certificates of insurance; 2. The City is in receipt of any required affidavit signed by Contractor in accordance with Indiana Code 22-5-1.7-11(a)(2);and 3. A purchase order has been issued by the Purchasing Department. SECTION II. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of the City of Richmond. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, competent supervision of the work. Contract No. 28-2017 Page 1 of 6 SECTION III. COMPENSATION City shall pay Contractor a sum not to exceed One Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($195,000.00) for complete and satisfactory performance of the work required hereunder. The monies paid to Contractor are based upon an hourly fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", and attached with this Agreement. The monies paid to Contractor shall be paid 60% by the Richmond Sanitary District and 40% by the Stormwater Department. SECTION IV. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective when signed by all parties and shall continue in effect until no later than December 31, 2018. Notwithstanding the term of this Agreement, City may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part, for cause, at any time by giving at least thirty (30) working days written notice specifying the effective date and the reasons for termination which shall include but not be limited to the following: a. failure, for any reason of the Contractor to fulfill in a timely manner its obligations under this Agreement; b. submission of a report, other work product, or advice, whether oral or written, by the Contractor to the City that is incorrect, incomplete, or does not meet reasonable professional standards in any material respect, provided that Contractor was notified in writing of deficiencies, given ten (10) working days to cure deficiencies and failed to remedy such deficiencies. c. ineffective or improper use of funds provided under this Agreement; d. suspension or termination of the grant funding to the City under which this Agreement is made; or e. unavailability of sufficient funds to make payment on this Agreement. In the event of such termination, the City shall be required to make payment for all work performed prior to the date this Agreement is terminated, but shall be relieved of any other responsibility herein. This Agreement may also be terminated, in whole or in part, by mutual Agreement of the parties by setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. SECTION V. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE Contractor agrees to obtain insurance and to indemnify the City for any damage or injury to person or property or any other claims to the extent caused by Contractor's negligent conduct or performance or non-performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as rendering the Contractor liable for acts of the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Contractor shall as a prerequisite to this Agreement, purchase and thereafter maintain such insurance as will protect it from the claims set forth below which may arise out of or result from the Contractor's negligent operations under this Agreement, whether such operations by the Contractor or by any sub -contractors or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts the Contractor may be held responsible. Coverage Limits Page 2 of 6 A. C C E. Worker's Compensation & Statutory Disability Requirements Employer's Liability $100,000 Comprehensive General Liability Section 1. Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate Section 2. Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence Comprehensive Auto Liability (if applicable) Section 1. Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each person $1,000,000 each occurrence Section 2. Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence Comprehensive Umbrella Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 each aggregate F. Errors & Omissions Insurance $1,000,000 per claim $2,000,000 aggregate SECTION VI. COMPLIANCE WITH WORKER'S COMPENSATION LAW Contractor shall comply with all provisions of the Indiana Worker's Compensation law, and shall, before commencing work under this Agreement, provide the City a certificate of insurance, or a certificate from the industrial board showing that the Contractor has complied with Indiana Code Sections 22-3-2-5, 22-3-5-1 and 22-3-5-2. If Contractor is an out of state employer and therefore subject to another state's worker's compensation law, Contractor may choose to comply with all provisions of its home state's worker's compensation law and provide the City proof of such compliance in lieu of complying with the provisions of the Indiana Worker's Compensation Law. SECTION VII. COMPLIANCE WITH INDIANA E-VERIFY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Indiana Code 22-5-1.7, Contractor is required to enroll in and verify the work eligibility status of all newly hired employees of the contractor through the Indiana E-Verify program. Contractor is not required to verify the work eligibility status of all newly hired employees of the contractor through the Indiana E-Verify program if the Indiana E-Verify program no longer exists. Prior to the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide to the City its signed Affidavit affirming that Contractor does not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in accordance with IC 22-5-1.7-11 (a) (2). In the event Contractor violates IC 22-5-1.7 the Contractor shall be required to remedy the violation not later than thirty (30) days after the City notifies the Contractor of the violation. If Contractor fails to remedy the violation within the thirty (30) day period provided above, the City shall consider the Contractor to be in breach of this Agreement and this Agreement will be terminated. If Page 3 of 6 the City determines that terminating this Agreement would be detrimental to the public interest or public property, the City may allow this Agreement to remain in effect until the City procures a new contractor. If this Agreement is terminated under this section, then pursuant to IC 22-5-1.7-13 (c) the Contractor will remain liable to the City for actual damages. SECTION VIII. IRAN INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES Pursuant to Indiana Code (IC) 5-22-16.5, Contractor certifies that Contractor is not engaged in investment activities in Iran. In the event City determines during the course of this Agreement that this certification is no longer valid, City shall notify Contractor in writing of said determination and shall give contractor ninety (90) days within which to respond to the written notice. In the event Contractor fails to demonstrate to the City that the Contractor has ceased investment activities in Iran within ninety (90) days after the written notice is given to the Contractor, the City may proceed with any remedies it may have pursuant to IC 5-22- 16.5. In the event the City determines during the course of this Agreement that this certification is no longer valid and said determination is not refuted by Contractor in the manner set forth in IC 5-22-16.5, the City reserves the right to consider the Contractor to be in breach of this Agreement and terminate the agreement upon the expiration of the ninety (90) day period set forth above. SECTION IX. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION A. Pursuant to Indiana Code 22-9-1-10, Contractor, any sub -contractor, or any person acting on behalf of Contractor or any sub -contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of this Agreement, with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment, because of race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry. B. Pursuant to Indiana Code 5-16-6-1, the Contractor agrees: That in the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement of any subcontract hereunder, Contractor, any subcontractor, or any person acting on behalf of Contractor or any sub -contractor, shall not discriminate by reason of race, religion, color, sex, national origin or ancestry against any citizen of the State of Indiana who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; 2. That Contractor, any sub -contractor, or any person action on behalf of Contractor or any sub -contractor shall in no manner discriminate against or intimidate any employee hired for the performance of work under this Agreement on account of race, religion, color, sex, national origin or ancestry; 3. That there may be deducted from the amount payable to Contractor by the City under this Agreement, a penalty of five dollars ($5.00) for each person for each calendar day during which such person was discriminated against or intimidated in violation of the provisions of the Agreement; and 4. That this Agreement may be canceled or terminated by the City and all money due or to become due hereunder may be forfeited, for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this section of the Agreement. Page 4 of 6 C. Violation of the terms or conditions of this Agreement relating to discrimination or intimidation shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement. SECTION X. RELEASE OF LIABILITY Contractor hereby agrees to release and hold harmless the City and all officers, employees or agents of the same from all liability which may arise in the course of Contractor's performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. The City hereby agrees to release and hold harmless the Contractor and all officers, employees or agents of the same from all liability which may arise in the course of City's performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. SECTION XI. MISCELLANEOUS This Agreement is personal to the parties hereto and neither party may assign or delegate any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. Any such delegation or assignment, without the prior written consent of the other party, shall be null and void. This Agreement shall be controlled by and interpreted according to Indiana law and shall be binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns. This document constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, although it may be altered or amended in whole or in part at any time by filing with the Agreement a written instrument setting forth such changes signed by both parties. By executing this Agreement the parties agree that this document supersedes any previous discussion, negotiation, or conversation relating to the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. The parties hereto submit to jurisdiction of the courts of Wayne County, Indiana, and any suit arising out of this Contract must be filed in said courts. The parties specifically agree that no arbitration or mediation shall be required prior to the commencement of legal proceedings in said Courts. By executing this Agreement, Contractor is estopped from bringing suit or any other action in any alternative forum, venue, or in front of any other tribunal, court, or administrative body other than the Circuit or Superior Courts of Wayne County, Indiana, regardless of any right Contractor may have to bring such suit in front of other tribunals or in other venues. Any person executing this Contract in a representative capacity hereby warrants that he/she has been duly authorized by his or her principal to execute this Contract. In the event of any breach of this Agreement by Contractor, and in addition to any remedies, Contractor shall be liable for costs incurred by City in its efforts to enforce this Agreement, including but not limited to, City's reasonable attorney's fees, to the proportionate extent that Contractor is determined to be in breach of this Agreement. In the event that an ambiguity, question of intent, or a need for interpretation of this Agreement arises, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties, and no presumption or burden of proof shall arise favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. Page 5 of 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Richmond, Indiana, as of the day and year first written above, although signatures may be affixed on different dates. "CITY" THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA by and through its Board of Sanitary Commissioners By: Sue Miller, President Date: 41r �o^/7 "CITY" THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA by and through its Stormwater Management Board 13 g SA ns, President , Vice President Miller, Member Date: y _ 6o 1- 17 APPROVED: Eravid M City of R Date: ((q' , . -.1 v. nd. Indiana "CONTRACTOR" DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Printed: Cra P_ W. Brunner Title: President Date: -� 9 Page 6 of 6 of n DAVE SNOW °s Mayor WILLIAM N. HARRIS ' Director CITY OF RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION 2380 LIBERTY AVENUE•RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374 PHONE (765) 983-74509FAX (765) 962-2669 September 7, 2016 Donohue & Associates Attn: Steve Gress, P.E. 101 West Ohio, Suite 820 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Re: Request for Qualifications Aeration, Roughing Tower and Intermediate Clarifier Modification and Improvement Project The Richmond Sanitary District is seeking the assistance of an engineering consultant to complete an evaluation, preliminary engineering and design related to aeration, roughing towers and intermediate clarifiers at the WWTP. Please review the attached RFQ and, if interested in this work, please present a response as outlined. Additionally, if you are interested and submit a response, you will be scheduled for an interview by the selection team on October 7`h at 9:30am. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, �'Iijah W. Welch, P.E. District Engineer Richmond Sanitary District EXHIBIT 'A' - Page 1 of 4 Richmond Sanitary District Request for Qualifications Aeration, Roughing Tower and Intermediate Clarifier Modification and Improvement Project The Richmond Sanitary District is seeking the assistance of a professional engineering consultant (Herein after referred to as ENGINEER) to complete preliminary engineering, analysis and design related to the following: 1. Aeration a. Replace existing course bubble diffusers with fine pore aeration b. Blower replacement and upgrade to higher efficiency model c. Blower building ventilation d. SCADA operational control (DO or other) e. Aeration influent flow control 2. Roughing Tower and Intermediate Clarifier Rehabilitation and/or Abandonment 3. Final Clarifier Rehabilitation 4. Concrete evaluation and rehabilitation 5. Sludge Draw/Drain modification to Circular Primary Clarifiers 6. SCADA and Metering Respondents to this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) shall comply with the terms and conditions contained herein. This RFQ is composed of six (6) parts as follows: Part 1 — Background Part 2 — Information Available from the Richmond Sanitary District Part 3 — Proposed Preliminary Scope of Work Part 4 — Deliverables Part 5 — Form and Content of your Response to RFQ Part 6 — Submittal Requirements Part 1: Background Previous audits and evaluations of the WWTP have identified rehabilitation projects as well as projects that could include potential energy and operational savings. The intent of this project is to mix needed repairs and upgrades with those items that can produce these savings. While it is likely obvious that we move from course bubble to fine bubble aeration, there are more questions related to if RSD should remove or rehabilitate the roughing towers based on cost and future dry and wet weather treatment needs contained within the CSO LTCP. Further evaluation is expected to help make these decisions. Part 2: Information Available from the Richmond Sanitary District 1. As -built WWTP plans 2. Operational and lab data 3. CSO LTCP (w/updates) The RSD, within the capabilities of the facilities and staff, may also provide additional testing and metering as requested. Part 3: Proposed Preliminary Scope of Work The scope of work identified here is preliminary in nature and is expected to be refined through discussions with the consultant who is chosen for this project. The following is a general scope that shall be included as part of the ENGINEER's work as well as a brief description of the background and/or reason for the upgrade being considered: EXHIBIT 'A' - Page 2 of 4 Aeration a. Complete evaluation of the aeration basins to determine the best alternative for changing from course bubble to fine bubble aeration and assess needs for other required repairs or upgrades. The existing basins are all course bubble and a significant portion of the existing heads have fallen off. b. Complete evaluation of the blowers to determine the best alternative for upgrading to one or multiple high efficiency blowers. RSD currently has two 800 HP blowers and a single 500 HP blower, some of which have been re -built or partially rebuilt recently. A single 800 HP blower is the unit in typical operation, but RSD has seen some success in using the 500 HP blower during night-time hours without detrimental impacts to treatment. c. Evaluate blower building ventilation and determine recommended upgrades. The blower building currently cannot expel enough hot air during certain times to keep the blowers cool enough during operation. d. Evaluate and determine best approach to SCADA operational control for the aeration basins (DO or other) that could be utilized to maximize operational and energy efficiencies. No current control exists. e. Evaluate and determine best options for flow control to aeration trains 1-9. The nine existing aeration trains are all fed from a single influent channel. The influent channel is fed at its middle point, thus pushing most flow and loading to the center aeration trains and allowing only a small amount of wastewater to flow to the outermost trains. Existing influent valves for trains 1-7 are not operational and do not allow each train to be removed from service. Trains 8 and 9 are controlled with influent gates. The train 9 gate does not completely seal. The drain valves for levels A and B are in unconfirmed condition, but are expected to be stuck in the open position. 2. Roughing Tower and Intermediate Clarifier Rehabilitation and/or Abandonment — Evaluate the need and cost effectiveness of the existing roughing towers and derive an overall plan for how this infrastructure (Roughing Towers and Intermediate Clarifiers), in whole or in part, should fit into the WWTP treatment process. The WWTP has two roughing towers. One tower is not operational and the other tower has a limited amount of flow feeding it. The flow into the "semi - operational" tower is directed into one location as the arms are no longer rotating or functional. There are three circular intermediate clarifiers and four rectangular clarifiers. Two of the circular intermediates are operational, whereas all other intermediate clarifiers are not functional. 3. Final Clarifier Rehabilitation — Evaluate the components of the four circular final clarifiers and determine needed appropriate rehabilitation. 4. Concrete Evaluation and Rehabilitation — Inspect concrete within the WWTP and determine areas where more in-depth evaluation is needed and develop a rehabilitation and/or replacement schedule for failing concrete. Inspection and evaluation will likely involve interior inspection of tankage and channels. 5. Sludge Draw/Drain for Circular Primary Clarifiers — Develop and evaluate alternatives to install drains and/or modify the existing sludge draw lines for the four primary circular clarifiers so each tank could be drained and taken out of use without requiring all liquid to be sent to the mix tank. Under typical dry weather operation, two of the clarifiers are empty and are then filled and used for equalization and treatment during wet weather. The tanks currently have to be drained by sending all liquid through the sludge draw lines, thus disrupting the equilibrium and operation of the mix tank. 6. Miscellaneous SCADA and Metering — Evaluate existing SCADA hardware/software and develop schedule and plans to add additional SCADA monitoring and metering components. This shall, at a minimum, include all meters and communication for all piping and flows that enter the mix tank (scum lines, sludge lines, WAS, make-up water, etc.), flows from the primaries to the roughing towers, and digester gas flow metering. Preliminary engineering estimates shall be completed for each individual upgrades. All projects shall include analysis of applicable treatment and life cycle costs and for alternative options and equipment. EXHIBIT 'A' - Page 3 of 4 Additionally, all analysis should include consideration of the approved CSO LTCP and concepts associated with wet weather treatment both included in the approved plan (and draft UAA) as well as those that could allow us to treat flows in a way to no longer require the UAA. Part 4: Deliverables The following deliverables, at a minimum, shall be provided in report form and would be required at the completion of this preliminary phase of this project evaluation: I . Details of the evaluation of each scope item above, complete with a list of applicable alternatives, lifecycle cost analysis and ultimate recommendation. 2. Preliminary figures and drawings identifying details of the recommended alternative. 3. Preliminary engineering estimates and payback analysis for each of the recommended individual upgrades. 4. Recommended phasing of work (if applicable) 5. Recommended Scope of Work required to complete the final design for all upgrades. All of the above information shall be prepared and delivered in hard copy and electronic versions. Part 5 — Form and Content of your Response to RFQ Respondents to this RFQ shall submit a response which shall be organized and include information as follows: Section 1 — Company Introduction identifying at a minimum all parties involved in response to the RFQ. Section 2 — Project Understanding identifying at a minimum the respondent's understanding of the Scope of Work. This section should also include a discussion of respondent's technical abilities, competencies, and methodologies expected to be used for evaluation as well as comments upon the Scope of Work as contained in this RFQ. Section 3 — Estimated project schedule and availability to begin work. Section 4 — Project Team identifying the key staff members of the respondent's firm who will be dedicated to the project, including a description of each member's roles and responsibilities on this project. Resumes shall be provided for each key staff member. Section 5 — Related Project Experience identifying no more than five (5) of your most recent past projects. The information shall include at a minimum, a description of the work, the client's name, the client's contract representative and telephone number and the schedule within which the engineering and design work was completed. PART 6 — SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Seven bound copies of your response shall be submitted to the Richmond Sanitary District no later than 12:00 noon Friday, September 30, 2016. Submittals shall be delivered to: Richmond Sanitary District Attn: Elijah Welch 2380 Liberty Avenue Richmond, IN 47374 A pre -proposal WWTP tour may be requested by the consultant and will be coordinated based on WWTP staff schedules. Questions shall be directed to Elijah Welch at c�\cich_n or 765-983-7483. EXHIBIT 'A' - Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT B PART I PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF SERVICES/TIMING A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Professional engineering services to complete an evaluation, preliminary engineering, and a facility plan with recommendations for design related to the activated sludge aeration system, roughing towers, intermediate clarifiers and final clarifiers at the Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The facility plan report is to be generally prepared in the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) format prescribed by the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA) for possible funding by a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan in the future. The prepared facility plan report will not include PER chapters that are specific requirements for Indiana SRF funding, and are not applicable to facility planning. A description of the proposed WWTP systems and evaluation tasks that the facility planning effort is to focus upon is as follows: 1. Activated Sludge Aeration a. Complete evaluation of the aeration basins to determine the best alternative for changing from coarse bubble to fine bubble aeration and assess needs for other required repairs or upgrades. The existing basins all have coarse bubble aeration and a significant number of the diffusers have fallen off. b. Complete evaluation of the blowers to determine the best alternative for upgrading to one or multiple high efficiency blowers. Richmond Sanitary District (RSD) currently has two 800 HP multi -stage centrifugal blowers and one multi -stage 500 HP blower, with one of the 800 HP blowers out of service due to a failed motor. A single 800 HP blower is typically used during the summer, but RSD has seen some success in using only the 500 HP blower during night-time hours and during the winter without detrimental impacts to treatment. c. Evaluate blower building ventilation and determine recommended upgrades. The blower building currently cannot expel enough hot air during certain times to keep the blowers cool enough during operation. d. Evaluate and determine best approach to SCADA operational control for the aeration basins (dissolved oxygen or other) that could be utilized to maximize operational and energy efficiencies. No current control exists. e. Evaluate and determine best options for influent flow control to aeration banks 1-9. 1) The nine existing aeration trains are all fed from a single influent channel. The influent channel is fed at its middle point, thus pushing most flow and loadings to the center aeration trains and allowing only a small amount of wastewater to flow to the outermost trains. 2) Existing influent valves for trains 1-7 are not operational and do not allow each train to be removed from service. Trains 8 and 9 are controlled with influent sluice gates and the train 9 gate does not completely seal. The drain valves for levels A and B are in unconfirmed condition. Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 1 of 13 2. Roughing Tower and Intermediate Clarifier Rehabilitation and/or Abandonment a. Evaluate the need and cost-effectiveness of the existing two roughing towers and derive an overall plan for how this infrastructure (Roughing Towers and Intermediate Clarifiers), in whole or in part, should fit into the WWTP treatment process. 1) The WWTP has two roughing towers. One tower is not operational and the other tower has a limited amount of flow feeding it. The flow into the "semi -operational' tower is directed through one set of arms into one linear location as the four arms on it are no longer rotating. 2) There are three circular intermediate clarifiers and four rectangular clarifiers. Two of the circular intermediate clarifiers are operational, whereas all other intermediate clarifiers are not currently functional. 3. Final Clarifier/Sludge Thickener Rehabilitation a. Evaluate the components of the four circular final clarifiers and determine needed appropriate rehabilitation. 1) All of the final clarifier drives, as well as both sludge thickener drives, are leaking oil. 2) The final clarifier "pipe organ" type sludge removal mechanisms are subject to clogging problems. 4. Concrete Evaluation a. Inspect concrete within the WWTP from the discharge of the primary clarifiers into the aeration influent channel through the final clarifiers, and the sludge mixing and thickening system, to determine areas where more in-depth evaluation is needed; and develop a rehabilitation and/or replacement schedule and construction cost opinion for the failing concrete. 5. Sludge Draw/Drain for Circular Primary Clarifiers a. Develop and evaluate alternatives to install drains and/or modify the existing sludge draw lines for the four primary circular clarifiers so each tank can be drained and taken out of use without requiring all of the liquid to be sent to the mix tank. 6. SCADA and Metering a. Evaluate existing SCADA hardware/software and develop schedule and plans to add additional SCADA monitoring and metering components. This shall, at a minimum, include all meters and communication for all piping and flows that enter the mix tank (scum lines, sludge lines, WAS, make-up water, etc.), flows from the primary clarifiers to the roughing towers, and digester gas flow metering. b. Meet with the system integrator being utilized by the District so that we can review and evaluate current/ongoing SCADA upgrades at the Richmond WWTP by the system integrator. This review and evaluation will performed to ensure that the current/ongoing upgrades will complement and/or work with the SCADA system improvement recommendations to be developed under this scope of services. Page 2 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 2 of 13 7. Evaluate alternatives for increasing activated sludge wasting to maintain a desirable MLSS concentration without having to perform temporary pumping and thickening/dewatering operations. a. Investigate alternatives to eliminate drain pump discharge dilution of return and waste activated sludge. b. Evaluate feasibility of biosolids thickening upgrades if elimination of drain pump discharge dilution water is not sufficient to provide adequate waste activated sludge capacity. 8. Evaluate continued FOG Reactor Operation Impact on Aeration Blower Sizing. 9. Perform a consideration of approved CSO LTCP Concepts to treat CSO flows in a Way to No Longer Require Use Attainability (UAA) Preparation. a. Review selected concepts at the WWTP in the LTCP to determine if a UAA is necessary, and consider other concepts such as design of facilities complying with IDEM Nonrule Policy Document Water-016 and/or high rate treatment and disinfection of CSO discharges. b. Evaluate alternative use of existing intermediate rectangular clarifiers to potentially increase the WWTP peak flow capacity by increasing the final clarifier capacity. 10. Inspect and evaluate structural and undermining issues along the east and south walls of the original bio-filter for the grease reactor odor control system. This bio-filter is located along the west retaining wall and south access stairway to the Laboratory Building. Based on our inspection and evaluation, develop and evaluate alternatives to resolve the structural and undermining issues. 11. Develop and evaluate alternatives for adding a mixing system to each of the two primary anaerobic digesters. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES Services to be provided by the Consultant for this Project under this Agreement are as follows: 1. Project Management a. Assign Steve Gress as the Project Manager who will coordinate Project activities and will be the principal liaison between the District and Consultant. b. Prepare a Project work plan containing the project background, project goals and objectives, task based project scope, project schedule, listing and schedule of deliverables. Page 3 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 3 of 13 c. Provide monthly progress reports to the District to document services performed and schedule status. This is typically performed as part of the monthly project invoicing routine. 2. Facility Plan Development a. Phase 1— Plant Assessment 1) Kickoff Workshop and Data Gathering Consultant will conduct a kickoff workshop to introduce team members to the District and review the project work plan to confirm the goals and objectives of the planning effort. Consultant will also request at this workshop needed data on the WWTP facilities and operational records that have not been previously obtained. Notes documenting the workshop will be prepared and electronically distributed. 2) Planning Period Flows and Loadings During this step, the population, flows and loadings on the WWTP will be projected for a 20-year planning period in accordance with Indiana SRF guidelines. Based on the projected flows and loadings, a request will be sent to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for a waste load allocation to propose WWTP effluent limits if it is found that the existing design average flow rating for the WWTP will need to increase. 3) Regulatory Landscape After IDEM responds to the submitted waste load allocation request and provides proposed WWTP effluent limits, Donohue will discuss imminent and potential future regulatory requirements with appropriate representatives from IDEM, and potentially EPA Region V in an effort to predict future regulatory requirements. These discussions will focus on both wastewater treatment and CSO issues. The predicted near- and far -term regulatory requirements and emerging regulatory issues will be summarized in a technical memorandum. Consideration of approved CSO LTCP concepts at the WWTP to treat CSO flows in a way to no longer require Use Attainability (UAA) preparation will be performed as part of the Regulatory Landscape scope of services. 4) Technical Memorandum No. 1— Plant Assessment This memorandum will summarize the WWTP historical information and existing conditions, projected future flows and loadings, and summarize the near- and far -term regulatory requirements and document emerging regulatory issues if input has been received from IDEM and EPA Region V by the time this technical memorandum is prepared. This memorandum will also review the approved CSO LTCP wet weather treatment project concepts not yet implemented along Page 4 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 4 of 13 with other concepts that would allow CSO flows to be treated in a way no longer requiring that a UAA be performed. Up to seven (7) copies of the draft Technical Memorandum will be submitted to the District for review. 5) Plant Assessment Workshop Review the Technical Memorandum No. 1 information with the District during this workshop, and incorporate District's comments into subsequent work. b. Phase 2 — Improvements Identification 1) Plant Needs and Alternatives Brainstorming Workshop (may immediately follow plant assessment workshop) Consultant will take the findings from Phase 1 to identify and develop specific potential plant improvement alternatives, and conduct a Plant Needs and Alternatives Brainstorming Workshop with the District to begin the Improvements Identification Phase. The primary purpose of this workshop is to discuss potential alternatives that address current, near -term, and long-term plant improvement opportunities for the WWTP systems and the evaluation tasks, upon which the facility planning effort will focus. At the conclusion of this workshop, Consultant will generate a list of alternatives determined to be worthy of detailed evaluation. These "short-listed" alternatives will be carried forward to the next steps in the process where they are developed further. This workshop will be tailored to provide information and receive input and feedback from the District's Engineering and WWTP staff. 2) Develop the alternatives generated in the brainstorming workshop to address the previously outlined WWTP systems and evaluation tasks in this Agreement Exhibit. 3) Technical Memorandum No. 2 — Improvement Alternatives Based on the findings and developed alternatives in this phase, Consultant is to prepare a memorandum that provides sufficient technical criteria for the District to select what specific improvements are to be analyzed in Phase 3. Up to seven (7) copies of the draft Technical Memorandum will be submitted to the District for review. 4) Improvement Alternatives Workshop During this workshop Consultant will discuss the developed alternatives and determine which of this alternatives or variations of the developed alternatives proposed during the workshop to analyze in greater detail. c. Phase 3 —Alternatives Analyses Page 5of12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 5 of 13 1) Alternatives carried forward from the Improvement Alternatives Workshop will be analyzed in detail to generate an evaluation of their cost (i.e. construction, operation, and maintenance), operational performance, maintenance requirements, and constructability. These analyses will include: a) Hydraulic Modeling Utilize plant/process flow diagrams, develop a hydraulic model of the imbalances and bottlenecks. b) Biological Modeling field information and flow data to focus areas to identify hydraulic Utilize a commercially available biological simulation model to quantify and document partial or complete biological activated sludge unit process growth kinetics for the WWTP. During the kickoff workshop the consultant will tour the WWTP to gather background knowledge and identify flow streams that require sampling and analysis to better develop the model. The Consultant will prepare a draft monitoring program for the WWTP by the District to accomplish the following sampling and testing activities: • Consultant will recommend phosphorus and nitrogen sampling and testing activities to be added to the facilities' regular operations monitoring program. • Consultant will recommend additional sampling and testing for two separate periods of a two week special monitoring program by the District. These separate periods will be summer months and winter months. This program will provide the necessary data to fully characterize the influent wastewater at the facility for model setup. ii. Consultant will review the draft monitoring program with the District's plant and laboratory staff and then incorporate the District comments and prepare a final version of the monitoring program. A final version of the monitoring program will be delivered in electronic format. iii. Consultant will receive electronic data files: • For available operating and performance data related to influent quality, flow rates, performance monitoring, aeration rates, RAS pumping rates, etc. • From the special monitoring program and then prepare summary tables displaying average, minimum, and maximum values for each of the sampling parameters. Compare these values with default model values. Page 6 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 6 of 13 iv. Prepare influent characteristic input tables for use with the biological process simulator program for the facility. These tables will be used for setting up biological process models of the facilities. V. Model Setup and Evaluations: • Evaluate historic influent flows and loadings to the plant from 2014 to present along with the monitoring program data. This data will be used to set up the framework of the influent characterization for the model. • Evaluate historic operations data from 2014 to present along with the special monitoring program data and receive input from the operations staff to setup the framework of the existing plant simulation and calibration. • Develop a steady state model of the existing facility with a focus on the roughing towers and activated sludge treatment train using the biological process simulator program. • Calibrate and validate the model using special monitoring and historic operations data along with input from the staff on operating strategies. • Perform an operational analysis of the alternatives for secondary treatment. c) Structural Investigations Consultant's structural engineers are to perform non-destructive assessments of desired concrete structures at the plant, and if needed, recommend and supervise on -site testing of concrete structures. Any on - site testing of concrete structures would be contracted for and performed directly for the District. d) Control System Evaluation Provide an evaluation of existing plant control systems as compared to current technologies that are commonly used in the wastewater treatment plant sector. e) Mechanical Systems/Equipment Evaluations Evaluate mechanical equipment and systems as identified during Phase 2 activities that need to be upgraded, which includes the HVAC systems in the Blower Building. f) Construction, operating and maintenance cost opinions will be developed for each of the alternatives to determine lifecycle costs, present worth values, and return -on -investment values where applicable. The costs, as well as non -monetary evaluation criteria developed by the District and Consultant, will be considered in an objective fashion to determine the Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 7 of 13 alternatives that will be recommended for phased implementation. To perform this quantitative comparison, a weighted scoring method will be used that allows each individual criterion to be scored, but also allows the relative importance of each criterion to be considered. 2) Technical Memorandum No. 3 —Alternatives Analyses and Selection Based on the findings from the Improvements Analyses Phase, Consultant will generate the Alternatives Analysis and Selection Memorandum which documents the evaluation and assessment findings for the focus areas into individual sections to facilitate easy selection, grouping and promotion of the various focus areas. The alternatives identified from Phase 2 will be conceptually developed and evaluated for the purposes of comparing and screening alternatives. Alternatives at this stage will be developed to a conceptual level of detail, with approximate sizing and order -of -magnitude cost estimates. A quantitative comparison of the alternatives against both economic and non -economic criteria will be included to select the alternatives that appear to offer the most promise. Up to seven (7) copies of the draft Technical Memorandum will be submitted to the District for review. 3) Alternatives Analyses and Selection Workshop Consultant will review the conceptual development of the alternatives and the draft qualitative evaluation results with the District. The purpose of this Workshop is to also solicit preferences and direction from the District, and ultimately establish consensus on which alternatives should be eliminated from further consideration. Alternatives that are not eliminated will be identified and advanced for prioritization. Following this Workshop, Technical Memorandum No. 3 will be finalized for inclusion in the Facility Plan. d. Phase 4 — Improvements Prioritization 1) Implementation Phasing Plan At the completion of the Alternatives Analyses and Selection Workshop, the selected alternatives will be defined. Together, these selected alternatives constitute the recommended Facility Plan to implement. The District may, however, decide this plan should be implemented in phases. The determination of which elements to immediately implement and which elements may be required at a later date, such as when specific growth and development milestones occur, will be addressed in a Technical Memorandum. The Technical Memorandum will establish schedules and discuss key implementation issues for the recommended plan. It will likely include the following two types of schedules: a) For improvements or activities to be immediately undertaken, develop a detailed planning schedule showing specific major activities such as design, Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 8 of 13 IDEM construction permit application review, bidding, construction, and start-up. b) For improvements or activities that will be phased over time, develop a planning roadmap that shows those activities, their estimated costs, projections of when they are anticipated to be needed, and factors that serve as "triggers" for their implementation. 2) Budget Distribution Plan The respective budgetary costs for the prioritized improvements plan items will be grouped by plant upgrade construction phases for funding/budgetary purposes for use by the District and its financial consultants. 3) Technical Memorandum No. 4 — Improvements Prioritization The Phase 3 selected improvements carried forward and ranked from the Alternatives Analyses and Selection Workshop will then be grouped by project priority based on their respective costs (construction, operation, and maintenance), functional urgency, return-on-investment/present worth rank, operational performance impact, maintenance requirements, and constructability. These priority groupings will create the basis for defining funding needs for plant improvements during the planning period. Up to seven (7) copies of the draft Technical Memorandum will be submitted to the District for review. 4) Improvements Prioritization Workshop Consultant will work with the District to review, discuss and determine the grouping, timing and budgeting of WWTP improvements over the planning period. Following this Workshop, the Technical Memorandum will be finalized for inclusion in the Facility Plan. e. Step 5 — Facility Plan Development 1) Prepare Facility Plan The Facility Plan (that can later be converted into a PER if the District elects to pursue an Indiana SRF loan) will be compiled and edited from the previously prepared Technical Memoranda, along with an Executive Summary in the IFA PER format. This Executive Summary and edited Technical Memoranda will constitute a large portion of a future PER for tasks performed under the proposed Scope of Services for this Project. The Facility Plan will include the following chapters: a) Executive Summary b) Chapter 1— Project Location Page 9 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 9 of 13 c) Chapter 2 — Current Situation d) Chapter 3 — Future Situation e) Chapter 4 —Evaluation of Alternatives f) Chapter 5 — Evaluation of Environmental Impact This chapter will only address flood plain and groundwater information for this project and none of the other negative environmental impacts that IFA requires to be analyzed in a PER. g) Chapter 6 —Selected Plan This chapter will include a summary of selected improvements and estimated costs plus a project implementation schedule. h) Figures and appendices associated with the above chapters 2) Develop Design Scope of Services As a separate deliverable, Consultant will develop the engineering scope of services for design of the WWTP improvements or the first phase if the District decides to implement the project in phases. The estimated design and construction phase engineering fees for the first phase and all subsequent phases will be included in the Facility Plan. 3) Project Deliverables Workshop Consultant will conduct and document a workshop with the District to review, discuss and finalize the draft Facility Plan, and design scope, so that the finished product may be distributed to the District and appropriate stakeholders. Up to seven (7) copies of the draft Facility Plan will be submitted to the District for final review. 4) Work Product Communication After all Project work products are finalized, Donohue will perform the following tasks associated with effectively communicating the Facility Plan to the District and its stakeholders: a) Update Facility Plan incorporating the workshop review comments for final review by the District. b) Deliver up to seven (7) printed and one (1) Adobe PDF electronic copy of the final Facility Plan, which incorporates the District's final review comments to the District. c) Present to District Board, City Council and Public as requested by District. Page 10 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 10 of 13 5) If the District proposes to apply for an Indiana SRF loan to fund the selected improvements, Consultant will assist the District in preparing and submitting an Indiana SRF Loan Application based on information in the prepared Facility Plan. Conversion of the Facility Plan to a PER and completing the other IFA requirements for a PER would be performed as an additional service if SRF loan funding is pursued by the District. 3. Deliverables In addition to the previously identified deliverables for each step of the Facility Plan development, the project deliverables are to also include electronic copies of the following documents developed during the performance of services for this project: a. AutoCAD drawing files b. Biological simulation model files c. Excel spreadsheet files d. Electronic PDF copies of final report and other documents as appropriate C. PROJECT TIMING 1. Consultant shall be authorized to commence the Services set forth herein upon execution of this Agreement. The Project schedule in weeks after agreement execution are as follows: Richmond WWTP Facility Plan Preparation Project Schedule Weeks after Notice to Proceed Phase No. Task Description Start Complete 1 Plant Assessment 0 9 2 Improvements Identification 10 13 3 Improvements Analyses 14 31 4 Improvements Prioritization 32 35 5-1 Facility Plan Development 1 36 1 44 2. Consultant's services under this Agreement will be considered complete when Consultant has delivered to District the Facility Plan with final review comments incorporated and made presentations on the final Facility Plan as requested by the District. PART II DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES A. In addition to other responsibilities of District set forth in this Agreement, District shall: 1. Identify a person authorized to act as the District's representative to respond to questions and make decisions on behalf of District, accept completed documents, approve payments to Consultant, and serve as liaison with Consultant as necessary for Consultant to complete its Services. Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT 'B' - Page 11 of 13 2. Furnish to Consultant copies of existing documents and data pertinent to Consultant's Scope of Services, including but not limited to and where applicable: previous facility plan and PER studies; design and record drawings for existing facilities; monthly reports of operation in Microsoft Excel format; equipment operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals; property descriptions; land use restrictions; surveys and topographical survey information; geotechnical; and environmental studies or assessments. 3. District shall be responsible for all requirements and instructions that it furnishes to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, and for the accuracy and completeness of all reports, data, programs, and other information furnished by District to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant may use and rely upon such requirements, instructions, reports, data, programs, and information in performing or furnishing services under this Agreement, subject to any express limitations or reservations provided by District applicable to the furnished items. 4. Provide to Consultant existing information regarding the existence and locations of utilities and underground facilities. 5. Provide Consultant safe access to premises necessary for Consultant to provide the Services. 6. Inform Consultant whenever District observes or becomes aware of a Hazardous Environmental Conditions that may affect Consultant's Scope of Services or time for performance. PART III COMPENSATION, BILLING AND PAYMENT A. Compensation for the work as defined in the Scope of Services (Part 1) of this Agreement shall be in accordance with Consultant's standard charge -out rates in effect at the time the Services are performed. Routine expenses will be billed at cost and subconsultant costs will include a 10% markup. The total cost for these services and expenses will not exceed $195,000. B. Consultant will bill District monthly, with net payment due in 30 days. C. Consultant will notify District if Project scope changes require modifications to the above -stated contract value. Services relative to scope changes will not be initiated without written authorization from the District. Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT S' - Page 12 of 13 Donohue & Associates, Inc. 2017 Billing Rates Engineer/Specialist IX $240 Engineer/Specialist VIII $225 Engineer/Specialist VII $205 Engineer/Specialist VI $185 Engineer/Specialist V $170 Engineer/Specialist IV $155 Engineer/Specialist III $140 Engineer/Specialist II $125 Engineer/Specialist 1 $110 Technician II $90 Technician 1 $80 Administrative Assistance III $80 Administrative Assistance II $70 Administrative Assistance 1 $60 Notes: Labor charge -out rates are for normal work week. Billing rates are in effect for 2017 and may be adjusted annually to reflect labor cost increases. Mileage is billed at the current IRS stipulated rate. Printing and reproductions are billed at cost. EXHIBIT'B' - Page 13 of 13 Released: October 14, 2016