Item B
.-.~~-~~-~~ IMU ~~;~~ ~K~WIM n~l. U~V.
.:S~::. 28'::J 2854
p.el
'"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA fTEMSUMMARY
Meeting Date:
Bulk Item: Yes
Miltch 31, 2000
No X
Division: Growth ManaRemcm
Department: Marine Resources
AGENDA ITEM WORDING; Briefing by Technical Evaluation Panel on process for recommclldati~offi-;:;(O---.
desjglllbuild/operate a Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System.
ITF.M BACKGROUND: III early February 2000. the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), establi~;der the le;dershi',)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, completed its review, evaluation, and scoring of seven I>roposals received
from four qualified engineering finns to design/build or design/build/opemte a wastewater treatment sY!item for Key
Largo. At its February 17,2000, meeting the Board of COUllty Commissioners con!iidercd the recommendaliOlls of the
TEP and approved f'KAA entering into contract negotiations with the top-ranked firm of Ogden Water Systems, Inc. At
that meeting, the Board of County Commissioners also expressed its desire to discuss in more detail with members of tlw
TEP the selection process and the merits of the top-ranked firm's proposal. On March 15, 2000, Ihe Board of County
Commissioners approved SCheduling a special meeting with the members of the TEP.
On March 31. 2000. members of the TEP will be present to answer questions from COlllmissioners cOl1ceming the
selection process, the top.ranked firm's qualifications, and other issues pertinent to the panel's recommendations. Prior to
a question and answer period, the TEP Coordinator, Mr. Fred McManus with the U.S. Environment.,1 Protection Agency.
will provide a briefing on the selection process. Enclosed wilh this agenda package are the fOllowing background
m~terials: (I) detailed chronology of selection process; and (2) FebrUAry 10, 2000, letter from TEP Coordinator to Coumy
Adminislrator containing TEP's reconlmendations.
l>REVlOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Approved top-ranked firm to enter illlo contractual ncgotia'io~~s with rhe
FKAA on February 17,2000; and approved special March 31, 2000, meeting with TEP on March 15, 2000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NfA
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
x
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
APPROVED RY: Counly AlIorney N fA OMB/Pmchasing
Risk Management
NfA
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:___.
Timo
_._---~.---.........
DOCUMENTATION: Included
x
To follow Notl'equired
Agenda lIem #, --A-
DISPOSITION:
MAR-23-00 THU
..... ft ....
'~'
\, ,'/
~t "fI(CJ\t.<J'
17:~9 GR0WTH MGT. DIV. 30~ 289 2854
UNrrEDSTATESF.~RgNMENTALPROTECnONAQENCY
RGGION 4
AlL~"'M F!:DERI\L CENTER
8' ~ORSYTH STREEi
ATLANTA. GEORGIA S0303-8HO
P.02
FebrualY 10, 2000
Mr. James L. Roberts
County Administrator
~lonroe County. Florida
5 100 College Road
Stock Island
Key West, Florida 33040
Dear Mr. Robens:
As you know, Monroe County requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A) Region 4, in partnership with the Florida Depanment of Environmental Protection.
establish a Technical EvaJuation Panel (TEP) to review and 6valuate proposals submitted in
response to Monroe County's Request for PropOSals (RfP) dated September 9, 1999. A. TEP
contact list is encloS&d ior your information. The title of the RFP is "Design/Build or
DesignlBuildlOperate a Wastewater Treatment System(s) to Sel\'e Key Largo," Language in the
RFP was clear that an}' proposal must include the hook-ups present within the designated hot SpOt
(approximately 600 equival~nt development units), but may include additional surrounding area
hook-ups in the Key Largo area. as required to make the project cost-effective and feasible. The
RFP states that the County anticipates entering into contractual negotiations with the respondent
whose proposal is judged by the TEP and the Count}' to be the most advantageous to the County.
in accordance v.ith the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Seven tecl1nical proposals were
submitted to the County On Oetober 29. ] 999 and six COSt proposals were submitted on
l\ovember 12, 1999.
The YEP completed a detailed re\;ew of the technical proposals and determined that aU
technical proposals were responsive. Therefore~ aU seven technical proposals were subjected to a
further comprehensive evaluation process by the IEP. The next step in the evaluation process
was the oral presentations by the respondents to the RFP. To facilitate these presentations. the
YEP developed a list of technical questions/interview topics for all respondentS based on the
TEP's review of the technical proposals. The TEP met on December 7-9, 1999 at the Monroe
County offices on Stock Island to review the written responses to the list oftechnica1 questions
and to hear the oral presentations from the respondents. Based on the \Witten responses and the
oral presentations, the TEP dotennined that all respondents should remain on the list of most-
qualified proposers and that all cost proposals should be opened by the County. In addition, a
final technical score \Vas calculated for each technical proposal by combining the original proposal
score and the score based on the results of the written responses and the oral
presentltionslintet'\iews.
In.me' Addreu (URI.). h~:llwww.ep~ggv
fleGyalMIRMy~ .PIIIlIed INIIl Vogel'" 0I8ued ....on F*VCIId p,,* ~ IO"~ ~5UIftiN)
~~ THU lB-ee GReWTH MGT_ DIV.
MAR-23-vv - 2
305 2B9 2854
p.e3
The cost proposals were opened on December 16, 1999 at the County offices On Stock Island
and were distributed to the members oithe TEP. The lE.P det~ed that all COSt proposals
were responsive. Using the COSt per equivalent development unit (EDU) provided br the
tespondentg in their cOst proposals. an "adjusted score" was calculated for each respondent by
dividing the cost per EDU by the final technical score. This information, including a ranking of
the proposals based on the adj\lSted scores was submitted to the Count\. on December 28. 1999
and a copy is enclosed for your records. .
Based on the adjusted SCOtes and ranJcin& the TEP determined that only the Wo.O top~ranked
respondents (Ogden Water Systems. Inc. and Daniels Contracting Company/CPH Engineers)
should participate in the final phase of the process of review. Therefore, the TEP only re,iewed
the cost proposals submitted by Ogden and DanielslCPH, The TEP completed its detailed and
comprehensive review of the cost proposals submitted by Ogden and Daniels/CPH and, based on
that review, developed a list of questions/interview topics for these two respondents. The TEP
met on January 25.27. 2000 at the Monroe County offices on Stock Island to review the written
responses to the list of questions and to hear the oral presentations from the respondents. The
TEP met after the oral presentations;mterviews "'-"eI'C completed to discuss specific issues raised
during the presentations and make the final detennination regarding the TEP's recommendation to
f\\onroe County
Based on the TEP's comprehensive review of the technical and cost proposals and the
additional information presented by the respondents to the YEP. the TEP makes the following
recommendation to Monroe County with the understanding that the enclosed list of critical issues
must be satisfactorily addressed:
1. If Monroe County determines tha.t it is in the County's best interest to pursue tho
design, construction and operation of a large wastev,ater treatment s)'stem to serve the
entire Key Largo area from mile marker 91 to 106 (over 12.000 EDUs). the TEP
recommends that the Count)' enter into contractual negotiations with Ogden.
2. If Monroe County determines that it is in the County's best interest to pursue the design
and construction of a small neighborhood wastewater treatment system to serve 600 to
1,500 EDUs in the designated "hot spot" area of Key Largo, the TEP recommends that
the County enter into contraCtual negotiations ",,;th Daniels/CPR
As noted above, the TEP did raise specific issues concerning both proposals. These critical
lssues llre enclosed for the County's review and consideration and the TEP strongly recommends
that the County pursue and resolve these critical issues during any subsequent contractUal
negotiations. In addition. the 'ffiP recommends that the County enlist expert technical assistance
(0 help the County with contract negotiations and to provide constnIction management services to
give the County an independent evaluation of the project construction. Funher. the TEP
recognizes the uniqueness of the wastewilter management systems proposed by the respondents.
The County should be aware of the limited experience in desisn, constnaction and operation or
such uniqu.e wastewater management systems. The County should take this intO account during
,.".,.~- ,.._....;....,,,,,.
""tI"JI'" "1II1t ~"''','' I'"~
~D.V~ ~~V~ln I-'~I.
U.I. V.
..:'llt::lO Lt:S":1' Lt:S:::l4
P.84
3
Finally, Jim, you(' staff Inembers at the Stock Island offices were very helpful to myself and the
TEP during the pr..... of review and I WOuld JiI:. 10 extend my p....nal tlwllcs to each of 'hem
for their suppon. Special thanks are due to John Carter and Lisa Cherry who Went above and
beyond the normal call of dut:. to assist me with the logistics associated \\ith scheduling and
conducting the oral presentations/interviews at your offices on Stock Island.
If you have any questions conCerning any of the above or the enclosures. please do not hesitate
to contact me at (404) 562-9385.
Sincerely,
~j~
Fred McManus
TEP Coordinator
Enclosures (4)
cc: Technical Evaluation Panel
Nora Williams. County Commissioner
John Caner. Director OMB
-........____e .._.
18:01 GR0WTH MGT. DIV.
I"IHI<-Z3-00 THU
MONROE COt~lY, FLORmA
WASTE\\' ATER t'RE.'-Tlln:NT Sl'S1'EIIf(S) REQt.'EST l'OR PROPOSALS (ll.fPl
30:5 289 2854
P.05
TECRNrCAl_:EV AI ,VA TION P.~NE:L fTlP) CO~7 ACT UST
Rick Alleman
South FJorida "'ater ^,Ianagemenr District
MS 4420
3301 Gun Club Road
West paJm )leacb, Florida 33406
E-mail: ricl.::.alJeman:tilsfWnld.l'()\'
TeJephone: (561) 6'2-6716
Fax (561) 682-6442
Richard W. Smith
Bureau of Water Facilities FUDding ?
Florida Department of Environmental PrOlettion
Twin Towers Office Building, l\IS 3505
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
E-mail: riclJard..smirM1JdeD.sr2re. fl. Ul
Telephone: (850) 488-8163
FAX (850) 921-2769
/
PnuJ Booher
\\-'~uer and ODsite Se,,'age Program
FJorida Department olliealth 1
1311 'Winewood Boulevard
BuiJdinl #5, R.oom 217
Tallahassee., Florida 32399-0700
E-mail: DaDlboOlrcrraLdolt.slatt.f1.us
Telephone: (850) 488-3920
Fax (850) 922-8473
James C. Reynolds
Deputy Executive Director
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
I 1 00 I{enn~~' Drive
Key West, florida 33041-1239
E-mafJ: ire\'nnld~~fkaa.~~1U
Telephone: (305) 296-2454
Fax (305) 294-5683
(
v
1
MRR-23-00 THU 18:02 GR0WTH MGT. DIV.
Kerry G. Shelby
Assistant Director of Administration
Florida Ke)"s Aqueduct Authorir,'
11 00 KeDDed~' Drive
Key ""est. F1()rid~ 33041-1239
E-mail: ksbelb..~fk.aa.com
Telephone (305) 296-2454
Fa~ (305) 292-3211
/ ~;o
Lavon Wisher
Public Finantial ManAgemeDt
10100 Deer RUD F~rms Road
Suite 20 I
Fl. Myers, Florida 33912
E-mail: ,\\'isht.rl@publiefm.eom
Telephone (941) 939-3009
Fax (941) 939.1220
Timothy J. McGany, AICP
Monroe County Growth Management Dh'isioll
Suite 410
2i98 Oveneas Highway
Marathon, Florida 33050
E-mail: !mU.Am.ltUmaihtate.fJ. U~
Telephone (305) 289-2~1j'
Fax (305) 289-2854
Bob Freeman
U.S. Environmental Protection AgeDC}'
Region 4, Water ManacemeDt Division
61 Fors~.th Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
E-mail: t'reeman.bob(QJ.epa.iov~
Telephone (404) 562-9244
Fax (404) 562-9224
J/
John Harkins
U.S. Environmcntal Protection Agenq'
Region 4. Water Management Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 .
E-mail: harkins.iobn(Q)epa.~o\'
Telephone (4040562-9245
Fax (404) 562-9124
2
L'
305 289 2854
P.06
,~
..-1
&O.QL ~~QW'n "'~I. U~V.
~~;:) """t:S~ """t:S;:)'''I
t-"."'f
Jo~.ce E. Hud,oQ
U.S. EllvironmCQtaI ProttttioD AgeDt:).
Beadquarten (Me 4204)
40 I l\f street, S\\:
'Vashini:ton. D.C. Z0460
E-mail: IrndtoD.j~rte.~~Da.~ov
Telephone (202) 260-1290
Faz (202) 26o..182i
James F. Kreiss'
U.S. Environll1eDtaJ Protection Aeen~'
MS G7S
26 \\,'est Martin Luther KiDe. Jr. Drive
CinciUDati. Ohio 45268
E-mail: kreissl.iames(i)eDa.;ov
Telephone (513) 569-7611
Fax (513) 569-1585
COORDINATOR CONTACT LIST'
Fred McManus - TEP Coordinator ,/
11~~..F.rlJ;~'lm..n~tLB.etMVhl' j,.t/MOIl.
61 F ol'S)'th Street
A tJaara, Georgia 30303
E-lDaiJ: mtmaDul.fred@~pa.PDV
Telephone (404) 562-9385
Fa;r (404) 562-9343
"^
~
~~ I"U .I.0.t:J~
....f"'It 0..... 'M '.'u I _ j,J.I. V.
':''''::l :<!t:J."
:<!t:J::l4
p.es
MONROE CQl~y, ELDRIDA
REQUEST FOR PROPOS..u.S (lU"p)
DESIGN/BUILD OR DESIGNI.tlLll.D/OPERA 11: A W ASTEW A'IER TREA1'ME<'-'T
SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Compan~' Number ofEDl.;s Co,t per EDt: Total Cost
Azwix - Primary 600 $16,042.00 $9,611.447.15
Azurix - Alternate # I 9,254 $12.937.46 SJ 18.247,740.00
Azurix - AJlemate #2 11,182 $J4,145. n $158.178.008.00
Daniels Contracting 666 $10,511.00 $7,000,326.00
Co. - SBR
Ogden Water 12,200 $4,905.00 $59,841,000.00
Systems: Inc.
RJ. SuIIivan Corp. 639 S14,600 $9,329,400.00
SUMMAR.Y OF COST PROPOS_~
Ilr"'I~-'..::;Jo-VV IMU J.O;t:J,:)
L.rc:o~.,., .......1. UJ.V.
.3~::> Lt:s'::"
Lt:s'::)q
'-.t:]I~
!\fONROE COUNTy. nORmA
REQUEsT FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
DESIGN /BUILD OR. DESIGNlBL'lLD/OPERAIE A W.\STEW AIER TREA TlIJE.'>'T
SYSTSM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Com pan)' Cost per EDU Fillal Technical Score Adjusted SCOre-
Azurix - Primary $16.042.00 72.16 222.31
Alurix - Alternate HI $12.937.46 68.33 189.33
Azurix - AJternate #2 $14,145.77 69.74 202.83
Daniels Contracting SI0.SJ 1.00 78.69 133.57
Co. - SBR
Ogden Water $4,905.00 83.17 58.97
Systems, Inc.
RJ. Sullivan Corp. $14,600 72.80 200.54
ADJUSTED SCORES FOR RESPONDEl\.,.S TO RFP
"Fofmula for Adjusted Score: CoSt per EDU..;. Final Technical Score = Adjusted Score
Not.: Dani.Js Contracting Co. chose DOl to submit. COst Proposal for the Z"Woed ai_live.
1. Ogden Water Systems. Inc. - 58.97
2, Daniels COntracting Co. - SBR. - 133.57
3. Azurix - Alternate # 1 ~ 189.33
4. R.J. Sullivan COIl>. - 200.54
5. Azurix. Alternate #2 - 202.83
6. Azuri,. - Primary - 222.31
RESPONDENTS RANKED BY AD]{;STED SCOR&
I~~ ~O.D~ U~~~'n
,...... ,. U .I. V .
..."''''
~~~ Lt:S;:)q.
..... I '"
Monroe County, Florida
WasteWater Treatment System(s) Request for Proposa.ls (R.FP)
1. Financial and performance guarantees and penalties.
General Critical Issues for Both Re~onden~
2. Schedule for SUbstantial construction completion for core service area and remainder of
project.
3. Schedule for site selection. evaluation of suitability of site, provision for environmental
mitigation, and COst responsibility for project delay! and other site complications.
4. Restoration of private propert}'.
5. Street resurfacing beyond patching.
6. County responsibilities for work on private property.
7. Prohibition on instaJlirtg any "1"" for a nUW'e COMection to the wastewater collection system.
8. Extent of the excess (over existing need) design capacity.
9. Odor Control at major lift stations and vacuum stations as well as the treatment plant.
10. Service area boundaries regardless ofEDU count.
) 1 T raffie-bearing vacuum pit lids.
12. Equipment and materials selection and approval process.
13. Contingency for alternative sludge disposal.
14. The proposals win remain valid for a period of 180 days from the date of the COst opening.
COst proposals wilJ expire on June 13, 2000.
15. County responsibilities for structuring the fmancing of the project.
CTirica) Issues fo( Daniels Contracting Con,panv/CPH Enltin~ers
1. Two-phase (1 ,50S EDUs) project to maximize the setvice area and minimize COSt per EDV.
-- -- .,....... ....~.IIt.lI_ ~,.....~_.,., .........
u.&.v.
'::>0;:) Lit5"::' Lit5::::>ct
~. 1 1
2
Critical Issues fot O~en Water S\'stem~. Inc.
I. County! s role in procuring equipment and material, if sales tax exemption is to be achieved
2. County's responsibilities in procuring project sites.
3. Permitting ofaJtemative disposal options (deep well versus "Other").
4. COStS and responsibilities associated with effluent reuse, i{that is to be added to the base
project.
S. Costs and responsibilities associated with affordable housing, if that is to be added to the base
proJect.
6. Existing collection sewers that are to be reha.bilitated.
Ud/~~/UU U~.~~ r~~ ~O~~u~O
rLhl~l~ 1 j~" ucr 1 .
l(!,JU':
Monroe County, Florida - Request for Proposals (RFP)
Wastewater Treatment System(s) to Serve Key Largo
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) - Review Process and Sehedule
Odober 29,1999 - Technical proposals submitted to Monroe County and transmitted to EPA
Region 4.
November 2,1999 - Proposals were transmitted to members of the TEP.
November 10, 1999 - Completed responsiveness review and determined that all seven (7)
technical proposals were responsive. Based on responsiveness checklist.
November 16, 1999 - Financial advisors completed their fmancial analysis and submitted results
to TEP Coordinator. The TEP Coordinator completed the respondent reference checks via
telephone.
November 17, 1999 - The TEP Coordinator notified the TEP of the results of the reference
checks and the fmancial analysis.
November 19,1999 - Members of the TEP completed and transmitted their technical evaluation
score sheets and suggested interview questions to the TEP Coordinator.
November 22,1999 - Based on the first phase of the review process and input provided by
Monroe County, the TEP determined that all respondents should remain on the list of most-
qualified proposers. However, all proposals were determined to be deficient to one extent or
another.
November 23,19'99 - The respondents to the RFP were notified that all proposals had been
determined to be lesponsive. A list of technical questions/interview topics were transmitted to
each respondent. The work products of the TEP (evaluation score sheets, interview questions,
information on credit worthiness/financial issues, and reference information) were transmitted to
Monroe County.
November 29, 1999 - Monroe County and the TEP Coordinator established an interview
schedule for the respondents. Monroe County provided public notice for the scheduled
interviews.
December 3, 199~) - Respondents submitted their responses to interview questions to the TEP
Coordinator and Monroe County.
December 7, 1999 - The TEP met at the Monroe County offices on Stock Island to review the
answers to interview questions and prepare for interviews.
. ~"""'J.'U V.I.;......
I4!:J u,)
2
December 8-9, 1999 - Respondents made oral presentations to the TEP at the Mom-oc County
offices on Stock Island. The TEP asked follow-up questions. Based on the written responses
and the oral presentations, the TEP determined that all respondents should remain on the list of
most-qualified pr(:posers and that all cost proposals should be opened by the County.
December 10, 19~.9 - A fmal technical score was calculated for each proposal by combing the
original technical proposal score and the score based on the results of the written responses and
the oral presentations/interviews.
December 16, 19~.9 - The cost proposals were publicly unsealed by the Monroe County Director
of OMB at the County offices on Stock Island. Cost proposals were distributed to the TEP.
*See cost proposal sununary.
December 27, 1999 - The TEP financial advisors completed their responsiveness review and
determined that all cost proposals were responsive. Based on cost proposal responsiveness
checklist.
December 28, 1999 - Using the cost per equivalent development unit (EDU) provided by the
respondents in their cost proposals, an "adjusted score" was calculated for each respondent by
dividing the cost per EDU by the final technical score. This information, including a ranking of
the proposals based on the adjusted scores, was submitted to Monroe County. *See fmal adjusted
scores and ranking.
January 4, 2000 - the TEP determined that the cost proposals for only the two top-ranked
proposals should be reviewed. Therefore, only Ogden Water Systems, Inc. and Daniels
Contracting Company/CPH engineers would participate in the fmal phase of the review process.
January 7,2000.. The TEP completed a detailed review of the cost proposals submitted by
Ogden and Daniels/CPH and developed a list of questions/interview topics for each respondent.
January 10,2000 - The TEP coordinator transmitted the list of questions/interview topics to
Ogden and Daniels/CPR.
January 12, 2000 - Monroe County and the TEP Coordinator established an interview schedule.
The County provided public notice for the scheduled interviews.
January 20, 2000 - Ogden and Daniels/CPH submitted their responses to interview questions to
the TEP Coordinator and the County.
January 25, 2000 - The TEP met at the County offices on Stock Island to review the answers to
interview questions and prepare for interviews.
U~/,~,VU U~.~~ rnA ~o~~~~o
rLt\l'\il'\i ll'\i~ Uc.r J. .
IgfUIf
3
January 16-17, 1000 - Ogden and Daniels/CPH made oral presentations to the TEP at the
COWlty offices on Stock Island. The TEP asked folJow-up questions.
The TEP met after the oral presentations/interviews were completed to discuss specific issues
raised dwing the presentations and make the final determination regarding the TEP's
recommendation to Monroe COWlty.
February 10, 2000 - TEP letter with recommendations. and critical issues transmitted to Monroe
County Administrator Jim Roberts.