Item F7a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
Bulk Item: Yes
February 17,2000
No X
Division: Growth Management
Department: Marine Resources
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of the ftrm with the top-ranked proposal to enter into contract negotiations with the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to designlbuild/operate a Wastewater Treatment System for Key Largo.
ITEM BACKGROUND: In September 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved the advertising of a Request for
Proposals (RFP) to Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate a wastewater treatment system to serve Key Largo. Under the
leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with assistance from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, a fmal RFP package was prepared and advertised.
The attached staff memorandum provides a description of: the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) established to review proposals
received in response to the RFP and to recommend to the BOCC the top-ranked ftrm; and the recommendation of the TEP and
Growth Management Division staff.
The TEP recommends that: (1) if it is in the best interests of the County to pursue the design, construction and operation of a
large wastewater treatment serving most of Key Largo with over 12,200 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDD) that the County enter
into contract negotiations with Ogden Water Systems, Inc.; and, (2) ifit is in the best interests of the County to pursue the design
and construction of a small neighborhood system serving 600 to 1,500 EDUs, that the County enter into contract negotiations
with Daniels ContractinglCPH Engineers.
At this time, the Growth Management Division staff believes that the Ogden proposal for a larger system for Key Largo is the
better proposal for the BOCC to pursue further for several reasons. First, it is highest ranked proposal in terms of both technical
and adjusted score (adjusted by cost). Second, it would result in signiftcant cost savings to the County and property owners in
Key Largo compared to a smaller system. Third, the draft Master Wastewater Plan calls for an eventual regional system for Key
Largo by the combining of smaller neighborhood systems, which could be accomplished in a less costly manner, if the system
were constructed as one large project.
After the Growth Management Division staff briefs the BOCC on the TEP's recommendations, representatives from the ftrm of
Ogden Water Systems, Inc., have been asked to make a presentation to the BOCC on the ftrm's proposal. The Board of County
Commissioners will then be asked to take public input and approve recommending the ftrm of Ogden'Water Systems, Inc., for
entering into contract negotiations with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Approval to advertise a Response for Proposals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the ftrm of Ogden Water Systems, Inc.
TOTAL COST: $59.8 million (approximate)
BUDGETED: Yes
No
X
COST TO COUNTY:
undetermined
APPROVED BY: County Attorney
N fA OMB/Purchasing
NfA
Risk Management
NfA
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
anagement
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Timothy J. McGarry, A
DOCUMENTATION: Included
X
To follow
Not required
DISPOSITION:
Agenda Item #:
:J - F7cL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Growth Manageme251L{
DATE: February 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Recommendation of Firm to Design/Build/Operate
a Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System
Overview
At its February 17, 2000, meeting, the Board of County Commissioners will be
asked to approve the firm of Ogden Water Systems, Inc., to enter into contract
negotiations with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to design/build/operate a
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System. In the next item on the agenda, the
Board of County Commissioners will be asked to approve a resolution that
requests the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to enter into contract negotiations
with this recommended firm.
The Ogden Water Systems' proposal received the highest score from the
Technical Evaluation Panel in terms of both technical score and overall adjusted
score (cost per equivalent dwelling unit divided by final technical score) among
the four firms responding to the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Prior to the BOCC deliberating on this action, representatives from the firm of
Ogden Water Systems, Inc. will make a presentation to the Commission and
answer questions. Mr. Dick Smith, a member of the Technical Evaluation Panel,
and a wastewater engineer will also be available to assist the Commission on
any technical issues.
Technical Evaluation Panel
A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was established under the leadership of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide technical assistance in
evaluating the proposals. The panel consists of wastewater engineers and other
representatives from EPA, Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Florida Department of Health, South Florida Water Management District, Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority, and Monroe County. The combined wastewater
experience on the panel was over 150 years. [A list of panel members is
provided as an enclosure with TEP Coordinator's recommendations letter to the
County Administrator (Attachment One)]
C:\DOCUM ENT\Wastewater\apprrfp.doc
The TEP was charged to review, evaluate, and score the proposals submitted by
responding firms and to recommend to the County the firm with the lowest
adjusted score to receive the contract award.
Proposal Evaluation Process
The Technical Evaluation Panel developed specific point criteria for the technical
evaluation of each proposal. The broad scoring ranges for each technical
category were established in the RFP Package.
Four firms, submitting a total of seven proposals, responded to the RFP in
October 1999. Each firm provided a technical and a cost proposal. The cost
proposals were not opened until December 16, 1999. In their cost proposals,
the firms were required to keep monthly operating and maintenance costs at no
more than $35 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU)1 and had to guarantee their
price proposal for design/build for a period of 180 days from the date of the
opening of the cost proposals (June 13, 2000).
All the firms' technical and cost proposals were deemed responsive to the RFP
by the TEP after close consultation with the County Attorney and County Director
of OMB.
These seven proposals were first initially evaluated by the TEP and a series of
follow-up questions were prepared by TEP members. Each firm was requested
to provide their responses to these specific questions in writing prior to their
interviews. Each firm was then interviewed and their final technical scores
prepared by the TEP in mid-December 1999. During the interview session,
Daniels Contracting Company requested that one of their two proposals be
withd rawn.
After the technical scores were recorded, the cost per EDU was divided by the
firm's technical score to provide an adjusted score. The firms were then ranked
by this adjusted score, the lower the number the better the score. [The adjusted
scores for each proposal are in an enclosure with the letter (see Attachment
One) to the County Administrator from the TEP Coordinator.]
The TEP decided that although the six proposals for all four firms were still
responsive, it would only further interview the firms with the two top adjusted
scores for their proposals: Ogden Water Systems, Inc., and Daniels Contracting
Company/CPH Engineers. [A brief description of each of the firm's proposals is
provided in Attachments Two and Three.] The two firms were given a list of
1 Equivalent dwelling unit is the typical flow measure in gallons per day per residential unit. It is
used to standardize the measure of non-residential flows with residential flows.
C:\DOCUMENT\Wastewater\apprrfp.doc 2
questions prepared by the TEP and requested to provide written responses to
the TEP prior to final interviews to be conducted in January 2000.
Final interviews were conducted in January after which the TEP prepared its final
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. These
recommendations are contained in the TEP Coordinator's letter to the County
Administrator (Attachment A).
TEP Recommendations
Although the Ogden Water Systems, Inc.'s proposal had the highest adjusted
score of all six proposals, the TEP believed that it should give the County an
option as to which of the two top-rated firms to enter into negotiations. A majority
of the panel members believed that this approach was appropriate considering
that the proposals were dissimilar in terms of service area size and total costs,
which were policy decisions for the County Commission.
Furthermore, Daniels/CPH was not interested in expanding the size of its project,
nor was Ogden interested in reducing the size of its project. Therefore, the TEP
has recommended both firms as the top-candidates for consideration.
If the County wants a large system, the TEP recommends entering into contract
negotiations with Ogden Water Systems, which proposes to design/build/operate
a wastewater system for a lump sum of $59.8 million serving over 12,000 EDUs
in Key Largo between Tavernier Creek and MM 106. The cost per EDU for this
system is $4,905. Under the Ogden proposal, the firm would not only design
and build the system, but operate the system under contract with the County
(Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority).
If the County wants to proceed with a smaller system, the TEP recommends
Daniels Contracting Company/CPH, which proposes to design/build a smaller
wastewater system serving Hot Spots in Key Largo between MM 104 and MM
106. The project is for a system serving from 666 to 1505 EDUs. The proposed
cost of the full system serving 1505 EDUs is $12.5 million with a per EDU cost of
$8,330. Under the Daniels proposal, the FKAA either would have to operate the
system or enter into an additional contract with an operating firm.
In addition to its basic recommendations, the TEP has provided the BOCC with
general critical issues concerning both proposals and specific critical issues
related to each firm's proposal in an enclosure to the TEP Coordinator's letter to
the County Administrator (Attachment A). The TEP strongly recommends that
these issues be pursued during any subsequent contractual negotiations.
Furthermore, the TEP recommends that the County (FKAA) enlist expert
technical assistance to help the County with contract negotiations and
construction management.
C:\DOCUMENT\Wastewater\apprrfp.doc 3
Staff Analysis
In evaluating the two proposals and the County's needs, the Growth
Management staff believes that the SOCC should pursue the Ogden Water
System, Inc. (Ogden) proposal at this time for several reasons. First, the Ogden
proposal is the most highly rated of all the proposals evaluated by the TEP in
terms of technical merit and adjusted score. The adjusted score is based on
dividing the technical score by cost per EDU.
Second, although the total project cost of the Ogden proposal is the significant of
$59.8 million, the cost per EDU is $4,905. This proposed EDU cost is
significantly lower than all the other proposals, having both smaller or similar
sized systems.
At this level of costs per EDU, depending up the monthly charges for operations
and maintenance (O&M), the need for public subsidy becomes less necessary
possibly allowing the County to reallocate some or all of its limited available
Federal/State grant funds and infrastructure tax revenues earmarked for the
Federal Emergency Management Administration Unmet Needs Program to
wastewater projects requiring more assistance, because of much higher EDU
costs. As an example, for the Little Venice project (574 EDU) in Marathon, the
current estimated per EDU cost is approximately $12,400 of which $4,700 must
paid for by each EDU connected to the system; however, the monthly O&M
charges, as can be expected with a much smaller system, are significantly higher
than the O&M monthly charge of less than $16 per month in OWS's cost
proposal for the much larger Key Largo project. [The County has earmarked
approximately $9.0 million in Federal/State grant funds and 304 Fund revenues
for the two Key Largo Hot Spots contained within the proposed service area of
the Ogden project.]
Third, the draft County Master Wastewater Plan calls for the eventual
implementation of a regional wastewater treatment system between Tavernier
Creek and MM 106 in Key Largo. As called for in the County's Plan, a phased
system of smaller community and neighborhood systems would be constructed
and eventually linked together to form a regional system with a single
wastewater treatment facility. The construction of a regional system at this time
would result in costs savings compared to incrementally building and combining
smaller community systems into one larger system over time.
As for the other TEP recommendations, concerning critical issues that should be
considered and pursued during contract negotiations and the need for outside
expert technical assistance to help negotiate the contract and for construction
management, the staff believes these should be included in the resolution
C:\DOCUMENT\Wastewater\apprrfp.doc 4
requesting the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to enter into contract
negotiations [next agenda item].
Staff Recommendations
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
recommendation of the firm of Ogden Water Systems, Inc., to enter into contract
negotiations with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to build/design/operate a
wastewater treatment system for Key Largo.
Attachment One - Letter to County Administrator with TEP Recommendations
Attachment Two - Ogden Water System, Inc. Project Description
Attachment Three- Daniels Contracting Company/CPH Project Description
C:\DOCUMENT\Wastewater\apprrfp.doc 5
ATTACHMENT ONE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL
~\'\~V ;'f-4;o,.
.:$ ....4".
j ft ~
.., '-' :z:
i. Wet .~
\: ~
"'.I:t, PRCf\f:,(f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAl CENTER
51 F'ORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
February 10.2000
Mr. James L. Roberts
County Administrator
l\fonroe Count\'. Florida
5100 College Road
Srock Island
Key \Vest, Florida 33040
Dear Mr. Robens:
As you know, Monroe County requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(BPA) Region 4, in partnership with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
establish a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to reviEW.' and evaluate proposals submitted in
response to Momoe County's Request for PropoSals (RFP) dated September 9, 1999. A TEP
contact list is enclosed for your infonnation. The title of the RFP is "Design;Build or
Design/Build/Operate a Wastewater Treatment System(s) to Serve Key Largo." Language in the
RFP was clear that any proposal must include the hookwups present within the designated hot Spot
(approximately 600 equivalent 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 ....-vith the respondent
whose proposal is judged by the TEP and the County to be the most advantageous to the County.
in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in the RFP. Seven technical proposals were
submitted to the County on October 29. 1999 and six cost proposals were submitted on
November 12,1999.
The TEP completed a detailed review of the technical proposals and determined that all
technical proposals were responsive. Therefore, all seven technical proposals were subjected to a
further comprehensive evaluation process by the TEP. The next step in the evaluation process
was the oral presentations by the respondents to the RFP. To facilitate these presentations, the
TEP 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 of technical questions
. and to hear the oral presentations from the respondents. Based on the written responses and the
oral presentations, the lEP determined 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 was 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
presentations/interviews.
lntemet Addre$$ (URL) . http://www.epa.gov
~edlRecyclabi. . Print~ WIll VogeIabIe Oil8ased Inks on R8Cyd9cl Piper {MInImUm 30"10 PostCOOiWllen
2
The cost proposals were opened on December 16, 1999 at the County offices on Stock Island
and were distributed to the members of the TEP. The TEP determined that all COst proposals
were responsive. 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 the County on December 28, 1999
and a copy is enclosed for your records.
Based on the adjusted scores and ranking, the TEP determined that only the two top-ranked
respondents (Ogden Water Systems. Inc. and Daniels Contracting Company/CPR Engineers)
should participate in the final phase of the process of review. Therefore, the TEP only re\;ewed
the cost proposals submitted by Ogden and Daniels/CPH. 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 presentationsimterviews were completed to discuss specific issues raised
during the presentations and make the final determination regarding the YEP's recommendation to
lVlonroe County.
Based On the TEP's comprehensive review of the technical and cost proposals and the
additional information presented by the respondents to the TEP, the lEP makes the following
recommendation to Monroe County with the understanding that the enclosed list of critical issues
must be satisfactorily addressed:
l.lfMonroe County detennines that it is in the County's best interest to pursue the
design, construction and operation of a large wastewater treatment system to serve the
entire Key Largo area from mile marker 91 to 106 (over 12,000 EDUs). the TEP
recommends that the County enter into contractual negotiations mth 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 wastev.rater treatment system to serve 600 to
1,500 EDDs in the designated "hot spot" area of Key Largo, the TEP recommends that
the County enter into contractual negotiations ""ith Daniels/CPR.
As noted above, the TEP did raise specific issues concerning both proposals. These critical
issues are 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 TEP recommends that the County enlist expert technical assistance
to help the County with contract negotiations and to provide construction management services to
give the County an independent evaluation of the project Construction. Further, the YEP
recognizes the uniqueness of the wastewater management systems proposed by the respondents.
The County should be aware of the limited experience in design. construction and operation of
such unique wastewater management systems. The County should take this into account during
,."",.,." - ,............~;..~; ....,I!I
'Ill""". ""'I'~""'I"'"11
...
;>
Finally, Jim. your staff members at the Stock Island offices were very helpful to myself and the
TEP during the process of review and I would like to extend my personal thanks to each of them
for their support. Special thanks are due to John Carter and Lisa Cherry who went above and
beyond the nonna! call of duty 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
--------------
MONROE COUNTY~ FLORIDA
W ASTE\\' A TER TRE.<\ Tl\fENT SYSTEM(S) REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
TECHNICAL EVALUA TION PANEL (TEf) CO~T ACT LIST
Rick Alleman
South Florida 'Vater l\Ianagement District
MS 4420
3301 Gun Club Road
\Vest Palm Beach~ Florida 33406
E-mail: riek.aflemaniiUs"..md. ~()V
Telephone: (561) 682-6716
Fax (561) 682-6442
Richard 'V. Smith
Bureau of 'Vater Facilities Funding
.Florida Department of Environmental Protection
I Twin Towers Office Building, l\tIS 3505
2600 Blair Stone Road
T alfahassee, Florida 32399-2400
E-mail: richard.smitbttnden.state.fl.lIs
Telephone: (850) 488-8163
FAX (8S0) 921-2769
Paul Booher
Water and Oosite Sewage Program
Florida Department of Health
1311 'Vinewood Boulevard
Building #5, Room 217
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
E-mail: paulboobernudoh.state.fl.us
Telephone: (850) 488-3920
Fax (850) 922-8473
James C. Reynolds
Deputy Executive Director
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
1100 Kenoed)' Drive
Key West, Florida 33041-1239
, E-mail: irevnoJdStltfkaa.eOftl
Telephone: (305) 296-2454
Fax (305) 294-5683
I
Kerry G. Shelby
Assistant Director of Administration
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authorit)'
1100 Kenned)' Drive
Key 'Vest, Florida 33041-1239
E-mail: kshelb..*@fkaa.com
Telephone (305) 296-2454
Fax (305) 292-3211
Lavon 'Wisher
Public Financial l\'Ianagement
10100 Deer Run Farms Road
Suite 201
Ft. :Myers, Florida 33912
E-mail: .wisheJir~pllblicf.m.com
Telephone (941) 939-3009
Fax (941) 939-1220
Timothy J. McGarry, MCP
Monroe County Growth Management Division
Suite 410
2i98 Overseas Highway
Marathon, Florida 33050
E-mail: tmcgarrv@mail.state.f1.us
Telephone (305) 289-2517
Fax (305) 289-2854
Bob Freeman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, 'Vater Management Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
E-mail: freeman.hoblO)epa.~ov~
Telephone (404) 562-9244
Fax (404) 562-9224
John Harkins
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Water Management Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
E-mail: harkins.jobn~epa.gov
Telephone (4040 562-9245
Fax (404) 562-9224
2
J o)"ce E. Hudson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters (l\fC 4204)
401 1\1: street, S\V
\Vasbington, D.C. 20460
E-mail: buds()n.iovce(;Uena.e-ov
Tclephone(202) 260-1290
Fax (202) 260-182i
James F. KreissJ
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MS GiS
26 West Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
E-mail: kreissl. iamesav.epa.~ov
Telephone (513) 569-7611
Fax (513) 569-7585
COORDINATOR CONTACT LIST
Fred McManus - TEP Coordinator
I l...~.J:r1Ji"(l,'\m.'t"J:~!lLB.gt9r.tihr A "MCU
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
E-mail: mcmanu!;.fred@epa.g-ov
Telephone (404) 562-9385
Fax (404) 562-9343
"
.:>
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
DESIGNlBUILD OR DESIGN/BOILD/OPERATE A WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Compan)' Number of ED Us Cost per EDU Total Cost
Azurix - Primary 600 $16,042.00 $9,611,447.15
Azurix - Alternate # 1 9,254 $12,937.46 $118,247,740.00
Azurix - Alternate #2 I I, 182 $14,145.77 $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.
R.J. Sullivan Corp. 639 $14,600 $9,329,400.00
SIJM?vfARy OF COST PROPOSALS
~10NROE COtJ"NTY, FLORIDA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
DESIGN/BUlLD OR DESIGN/BCTI..D/OPERATE A WASTE\VATER TREAT1:1EN"T
SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Company Cost per EDD Final Technical Score Adjusted Score"
Azurix - Primary $16,042.00 72.16 222.31
Azurix - Alternate #1 $12,937.46 68.33 189.33
.A..zurix - Alternate #2 $14,145.77 69.74 202.83
Daniels Contracting $10,511.00 78.69 133.57
Co. ~ SBR
Ogden Water $4,905.00 83.17 58.97
Systems, Inc.
R.J. Sullivan Corp. $14,600 72.80 200.54
ADJUSTED SCORES FOR RESPONDEN1S TO RFP
"'Formula for Adjusted Score: Cost per EDU .;.. Final Technical Score = Adjusted Score
Note: Daniels Contracting Co. chose not to submit a cost proposal for the ZeeWeed alternative.
RESPONDENTS RANKED BY ADJUSTED SCORE
I. Ogden Water Systems, Inc. - 58.97
2. Daniels Contracting Co. - SBR - 133.57
3. Azurix - Alternate #1 - 189.33
4. RJ. Sullivan Corp. - 200.54
5. Azurix - Alternate #2 - 202.83
6. Azurix - Primary - 222.31
Monroe County, Florida
Wastewater Treatment System(s) Request for Proposals (RFP)
General Critical Issues for Both ResDondents
1. Financial and performance guarantees and penalties.
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 delays and other site complications.
4. Restoration of private property.
5. Street resurfacing beyond patching.
6. County responsibilities for work on private property.
7. Prohibition on installing any 'or' for a future connection 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 I . Traffic-bearing vacuum pit lids.
12. Equipment and materials selection and approval process.
13. Contingency for alternative sludge disposal.
14. The proposals will remain valid for a period of 180 days from the date of the cost opening.
Cost proposals will expire on June 13, 2000.
15. County responsibilities for structuring the fmancing of the project.
Critical Issues for Daniels Contractin~ CompanviCPH Enszineers
1. Two-phase (I,505 EDUs) project to maximize the service area and minimize cost per EDU.
1
Critical Issues for O~den \Vater Systems. Inc.
1, 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 of alternative disposal options (deep well versus "other").
4. COSts and responsibilities associated with effluent reuse, if that is to be added to the base
project.
5. 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 rehabilitated.
ATTACHMENT TWO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OGDEN WATER SYSTEMS, INC.
Firm's Office Location: Ogden Water Systems, Inc. (OWS) is based in Fairfield, New
Jersey. Ogden proposes to subcontract with several firms to design and construct the
wastewater treatment plant and collection system. The firm proposes to operate the
facility with its own staff.
Approach: OWS's proposal is for the design, build and operation of a Key Largo
Wastewater Treatment System. Ownership of the wastewater treatment facilities and
lands is to be conveyed to the County in order to use tax-exempt financing for the
project. OWS proposes to enter into a 20-year renewable agreement with the County to
operate the system.
The treatment plant is to be operational within 30 months of contract execution with a
majority of residences within the service to be on line at that time. Another six months
will be required to complete the connection of remaining residences and businesses.
Service Area: The proposed area in Key Largo to be served by the project includes all
the area from Mile Marker 106 (intersection of US 1/State Route 905) toTavernier Creek
(MM 90). The system's proposed service area contains an estimated 12,200 equivalent
dwelling units (EDU), which include both residential and non-residential uses.1
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities: OWS proposes to construct a 3.0
Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) wastewater treatment facility at MM 93.9, Oceanside on
a 16.1 acre tract. The facility will utilize Sequence Batch Reactor technology, consisting
of three separate units, which will produce an effluent treatment level of 5 mg/l
(Biological Oxygen Demand), 5 mg/l (Total Suspend Solids), 3 mg/l (Nitrogen), and 1
mg/l (Phosphorus) as required by Florida law.
The treated wastewater effluent is to be injected into a Class V deep injection well. A
back-up injection well will also be provided on site. Residual waste (sludge) will be de-
watered and transported to Miami-Dade County for landfilling.
As described by OWS, the wastewater treatment plant is anticipated to treat an average
daily flow of 2.04 million gallons. The maximum average daily three-month flow is
anticipated to be about 110 percent of average daily flows.
Although not included in its base price proposal, OWS has provided an option for water
reuse, which would increase the overall costs of the project.
Collection System: OWS proposes to use vacuum sewer technology for its collection
system, similar to what has been proposed for the Little Venice Community in Marathon.
This technology relies on use of shallow trenching and small diameter piping and permits
I Note: EDU is the average typical flow measured in gallons per day from a single residential
dwelling unit. To calculate the EDU values for non-residential uses, this average gallons per day
figure is divided by the total flows expected from the business or industry.
waste flow to be pumped uphill. It relies upon vacuum stations to transport waste flow to
the wastewater treatment facility. Dwelling units will be connected to the collection
system through a vacuum sewer valve pit. Waste stored in these pits is emptied into the
collection system when the waste volume reaches a specific level.
Included in the OWS proposal is the decommissioning of all existing on-site residential
wastewater treatment systems and the connection of individual residences to the sewer
system. Approximately 3 homes will be connected to each vacuum pit.
Capital Costs: OWS proposes to construct the entire system for $59.8 million, which
includes the wastewater treatment plant, collection system, disposal of effluent and
residual wastes, decommissioning of on-site systems and hook-ups to residences,
engineering and design, and land.
This proposed capital cost for the project results in a cost of $4,905 per EDU. [The
$4,905 is the total cost of the system divided by the number of ED Us or households. It
is not the proposed hook-up fee for the system, nor does it include any interest costs
resulting from the financing of the system improvements.]
Hook-Up and Monthly Fees: The actual hook-up fees and monthly costs to residents
will depend upon how the debt is to be serviced, interest rate of the bonds, financing
length of the bonds, and the application of any grants to write down capital costs. These
issues will be addressed during contract negotiations, if OWS is awarded a contract by
the Board of County Commissioners.
ATTACHMENT THREE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DANIELS CONTRACTING COMPANY
Firm's Office Location: Daniels Contracting Compnay is based in Lake Mary, Florida.
In conjunction with CPH Engineers, Inc. and CPH Constructors, LLC., Daniels proposes
to design and build a wastewater treatment plant and collection system.
Approach: Daniels' proposal is for the design and build of a Key Largo Wastewater
Treatment System. The ownership of the wastewater treatment facilities and land will be
conveyed to the County. The County (FKAA) will be responsible for operating the
system.
The wastewater treatment system is to be operational within 30 months of contract
execution. Both phases of the project will be completed and system operational at that
time.
Service Area: The proposed area in Key Largo to be served by the project includes the
following subdivisions and adjoining commercial areas: (Phase One) Lake Surprise;
Sexton Cove; and Largo Highlands; and (Phase Two) Jelsena Trust; Ocean Isle
Estates; Paradise Cove; Riviera Village; and Key Largo Mobile Homes. The system's
proposed service area contains an estimated 1505 equivalent dwelling units (EDU),
which include both residential and non-residential uses.1
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities: Daniels proposes to construct a
250,000 gallons per day (GPD) wastewater treatment plant on a 1.63 acre parcel, at MM
105.4, Oceanside. The treatment facility will utilize Sequence Batch Technology which
will produce an effluent treatment level of 5 mgll (Biological Oxygen Demand), 5 mgll
(Total Suspended Solids), 3 mgll (Nitrogen), and 1 mgll (Phosphorus) as required by
Florida law.
The treated effluent is to be disposed of through a 90 foot injection well. A back-up
injection well will also be provided on site. Residual waste (sludge) will be transported
to Martin County for land application.
As described by Daniels, the wastewater treatment plant is anticipated to treat an
average daily flow of approximately 218,000 gallons. The maximum average daily three-
month flow is anticipated to be about 120 percent of the average daily flow.
Daniels did not provide a reuse option in its proposal.
Collection System: Daniels proposes to use vacuum sewer technology for its
collection system, similar to what has been proposed for the Little Venice Community in
Marathon. This technology relies on use of shallow trenching and small diameter piping
I Note: EDU is the average typical flow measured in gallons per day from a single residential
dwelling unit. To calculate the EDU values for non-residential uses, this average gallons per day
figure is divided by the total flows expected from the business or industry.
and permits waste flow to be pumped uphill. It relies upon vacuum stations to transport
waste to the wastewater treatment facility. Dwelling units will be connected to the
collection system through a vacuum sewer valve pit. Waste stored in these pits is
emptied into the collection system when the waste volume reaches a specific level.
Included in the Daniels proposal is the decommissioning of all existing on-site residential
wastewater treatment systems and the connection of individual residences to the sewer
system. Up to 4 homes will be connected to each vacuum pit.
Capital Costs: Daniels proposes to construct the entire system for $12,536,650 which
includes the wastewater treatment plant, collection system, disposal of effluent and
residual wastes, decommissioning of on-site systems and hook-ups to residences,
engineering and design, and land.
This proposed capital cost for the project results in a cost of $8,330 per EDU. [The
$8,330 is the total cost of the system divided by the number of ED Us or households. It
is not the proposed hook-up fee for the system, nor does it include any interest costs
resulting from the financing of the system improvements.]
Hook-Up and Monthly Fees: The actual hook-up fees and monthly costs to residents
will depend upon the financial mechanism to fund the debt, interest rates, financing
length, application of any grants to write down capital costs, and the entity with
responsibility for operating the facility. These issues will addressed during contract
negotiations, if Daniels is awarded a contract by the Board of County Commissioners.