 All right, looks like we're getting on. Roberta, did I get on okay? Yeah, I can see you. Well, when you had your video and I can see you and I can hear you for just fine. All right, thank you. Thank you. And I'm not sideways, I hope. Nope, straight up and down. Oh my gosh, what a lucky Monday. Okay, catching a bit. Morning. Good morning, Dan. Morning, Dan. Morning, Mr. Dwaynes. Good morning, Mr. Walsh. How are you? Great, it's good to see you. Great seeing you. It's been some time. It has been. Are we waiting for anybody else, Jennifer? Lisa's on vacation, right? That's a good question. I thought she accepted, but Roberta. He is traveling, she's out of the country. She was going to join, she could, but if we had a quorum, she wasn't necessarily going to join. So, Chair Galvin, I would say it's your call. If you want to go ahead and get started, all the staff is here and ready. Have everybody else? We do. All right, well, let's go ahead and call the meeting from the contract review subcommittee to order and ask for a roll call, please. Yes, Chair Galvin. Here. Do you remember Paddenfork? Or normal? Here. Just a reminder to mute your phones and microphones when you're not speaking. We'll now move through the agenda. Item number two is public comments. So we're taking public comments on item two. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aether, do we have anyone? Never seen any public comments. Thank you, we'll move to new business. Item 3.1, Director Burke. Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the subcommittee. Item 3.1 is a purchase order for laboratory equipment for our Laguna Environmental Lab. And Robert Wilson, our laboratory supervisor, will be making the presentation. Morning, Mr. Wilson. Morning, let me share my screen here. And just checking you can see the slide screen. All right. So yeah, I'm the laboratory supervisor. I'm gonna be talking about the replacement of our inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. I'm gonna call it the ICPMS from here forward because that's definitely a mouthful. So just a bit of history. The Laguna Environmental Laboratory was established in 1968 and realistically, its major function was the physical and chemical measurement of wastewater. Back then, it was really focused on the OD, TSS, pH, conventional pollutants. The permits weren't what they are today and just kind of getting the information that the plant needed for its operation. In 2000, it did expand to have a broader scope of analytical testing. This was with the addition of advanced instrumentation. Senator Wilson needed to meet increasing regulatory discharge permit requirements that included pollutants like metals and bulk organic compounds. And we needed that advanced instrumentation to be able to do that. The ICPMS provides our metal analysis and this is actually in order of who is served. The largest groups that are served. So operation and environmental clients really does make the largest amount of samples that we get. Plant operations to make sure that the influence that we're receiving, the influence that we're discharging for reusing is being treated appropriately. Environment compliance making sure that the discharges that are coming to our system are in compliance with our local limits. After that, we have water quality for drinking water, reclamation or reuse. Different special projects that come up and in stormwater. And depending on the use, the ICPMS can really help be a way of fingerprinting a pollutant. So we have something unknown in stormwater per se and we put it on the ICPMS to kind of get that fingerprint of what's coming into the plant. This is extremely important during the 2017 Tufts Fire. We needed that data rapidly as we're trying to identify issues in our systems. And having the ICPMS on site really helped us get that information as quickly as possible and the information up to senior management to make decisions. It wasn't used in the 2020 Tufts Fire based on the data provided in the 2017 Tufts Fire. The GCMS, which was purchased last year, really provided the bulk of the data for the Tufts Fire. In terms of maintenance, our staff really does perform basic and moderate maintenance on equipment. It's Walter, the analyst that operates the ICPMS. They do all the stuff that's needed to make sure glassware is functioning correctly. He's checking the torch there on the plasma torch, pulling the shroud off. But then when things get a bit more complicated, we use full spectrum for our advanced maintenance. So that's if there's an issue with a board, circuit board or something with the software, they can go in and provide that maintenance. But it's really been the combination of staff and full spectrum that has helped push these instruments to the end of their service life, making sure that they are giving us the data they need. One issue we are coming into is that as they're aging, it's more difficult to find parts for the equipment and then they rely on older operating systems of windows that are no longer supported by Microsoft. And then even finding PCs that support older operating systems are increasingly difficult. So this is what we would like to replace it with. It's the Agilent 8750 series. It's a direct replacement for the 7500 series ICPMS. The direct replacement is important because it reduces downtime as staff is already familiar with the equipment. Not only was it the maintenance aspect that's part of the familiarity being important. It's the demonstrations of capability. The state requires that each analyst that operates a piece of equipment demonstrates that they're able to operate that equipment. And that demonstration capability takes a significant amount of time if you switch it out for a new piece of equipment that an analyst doesn't familiar with. So using Agilent, the direct replacement 8750 will help the analyst be able to bring the instrument up to speed quickly so we can put it in the service students and later. We did, in our market research, we did contact other laboratories and everyone seems to be standardizing on the Agilent equipment. One reason for this is that the Agilent equipment can meet the data quality need for precision and accuracy and every lab is looking to try to get as low as possible to meet those permit limits that I was talking about earlier. In terms of budget, the equipment purchase and shipment cost is $180,000 and this is a one-time purchase that includes all additional items for instrument startup and installation. It does include a trading discount for the existing equipment of $87,000. It's not clear and unlikely that another manufacturer provides us trading for the Agilent equipment. So it's a cost savings for the city and it is included in our 21-22 operation maintenance budget. And with that, I'm open to any questions that you all would have. Thank you. Board Member Walsh, any questions or comments? Yes, Chairman Galvin, just a comment. I appreciate the presentation and it appears to me this is similar to information technology organization standardizing on something like this code networking where they're gonna stick with the same brand, same equipment manufacturer in order to standardize and to take advantage of the existing training. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, I would agree. This seems like a kind of a no-brainer of if the existing equipment is at its end of its useful life and we've got the opportunity not only to replace it with a similar piece from the same manufacturer, but also get a discount makes perfect sense to me. Thank you. Any other comments, Board Member Walsh or staff? If not, I'll open it up for public comments on item 3.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine. Secretary Aether, do we have anything? We have no public comments. Okay. Board Member Walsh, if you'd like to make a recommendation that we approve and recommend to the full board the acquisition of this piece of equipment, I'll be happy to second it. Thank you, Chairman Galvin. I'd like to make a motion with respect to item 3.1 that the contract subcommittee recommend of the full board waiver of competitive bid and the purchase of equipment as presented. And I'll second that. May we have a roll call vote please? Chair Galvin. Aye. Board Member Walsh. Aye. Great. That'll take care then of item number 3.1. Thank you again, Mr. Wilson. We will move now to item 3.2. And I believe Mr. Wilson, you're on that one as well. I am, yes. So, yeah, this is our professional service agreement with full spectrum group. I mentioned them briefly in the last presentation. In the last presentation, I talked about the need for the advanced instrumentation, the differences that we do have different instruments from varied vendors, which have varied levels of maintenance needs. And like I mentioned, staff does perform these minor or moderate maintenance requirements. But we do need somebody to come in and provide more of the heavy lift when it's a circuit board, something that's really beyond our staff's ability to deal with. Like I said in our last presentation, this analytical testing has advantage for the center of the water and it meets increasing permit regulatory discharge permit requirements. Using our analysts, we do have the ability to sell some of this information out. But the problem with something out, samples of the turnaround time is generally significantly longer. And when you're trying to get those results back, as soon as possible, especially for special projects or in the case of the class fire, you may not have that time. You need that information as soon as possible. And then we have more confidence with our team members doing analysis, because we can talk directly to the analysts and make sure that we have a full understanding of what's being analyzed and the information coming from the end strength. Importance of maintenance schedule is pretty obvious, but it does prevent extended equipment downtime, reduces uncertainty when all the full results are used for reasonable potential for compliance with regulations and prevents catastrophic failure. One of the reasons we are able to keep our equipment running to its end of the service life is because we have been on top of our maintenance. Each one of my analysts has a logbook that has all the service that they've done since the start of that instrument. It's something that they're all proud of and are happy to show me when I'm doing information for presentations or just about the instrument in general. And that tension to maintenance is what helps us get to where we're at today. Full spectrum is who we are recommending. They are local, the only local provider of this level of maintenance, and they can provide on-site emergency repair within 48 hours. This is important because if we were to go a different route we could contract with each individual manufacturer, but that requires that we pack up the instrument and ship it to them, potentially resulting in damage of shipping. And then if it's a site-specific issue, something that's here at LEL, the shipping it to the manufacturer wouldn't identify that problem. So full spectrum will actually come into our building and provide that service. They do have the accreditation we need for the service level that they can provide. And they provide service to multiple and multiple laboratories including governmental, environmental, life sciences, biotech and petroleum. This gives them a breath of experience with problems that we may not know about and so they can come in to identify issues that are just unknown and something that our staff are struggling with. In terms of budget, it's a five-year contract with amount of $251,000 and it's to be broken up into those five years and invoiced individually for each year. It includes a 6% discount for the five-year agreement and it is included, the first payment is included in 21, 22 O&M budget and then the future payments will be included in future O&M budgets. And with that, I'll open the questions or comments. Thank you. Board Member Walsh, any questions or comments? No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I'm fine with it. I know we've been using full spectrum and they've been giving us good service. So if there's no further comments, we'll open it up for public comments on item 3.2. Through us to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha, do we have anyone? We know public comments. Okay, Board Member Walsh, would you like to make a motion? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that the contract subcommittee of Board of Public Utilities recommend to the Board of Public Utilities engagement and agreement with full spectrum group for the maintenance of equipment as presented in item 3.2. And a waiver of the competitive bid. And waiver of competitive bid for the reasons provided, thank you. Great, I'll second that. We have a roll call vote, please. Chair Galvin. Aye. Board Member Walsh. Aye. Great, that takes care of item 3.2. Thank you again, Mr. Wilson. We'll now move to item 3.3. Director Burke. Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the subcommittee. Item 3.3 is an amendment to our project work order with Corolla engineers for our UV disinfection project and Tracy Dwayness, our supervising engineer, will be presenting this presentation. Good morning, Mr. Dwayness. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Galvin, members of the subcommittee. My name is Tracy Dwayness, supervising engineer with Capital Projects Engineering. Today I bring before you the introduction of design project work order amendment number three for Corolla engineers as it relates to the Laguna treatment plant disinfection improvement project. I just wanna be clear that if you can see my presentation, that tastes great. So today, nor this morning, I'll just briefly go over a project history, bring folks up to speed with where we are with the design, go more detail for the need for amendment number three as well as bring forth the recommendation to the committee. So the disinfection project spans the footprint more or less of the entire plant from east to west, north to south. Looking back in 2012, the plant was derated to box me 48 and a half million gallons per day by the division of drinking water. At that point, the plant had end to this day had insufficient wastewater disinfection capacity. So it further demonstrated the need that the existing infrastructure has seen its useful look. Now it's over 20 or two decades old. This project will replace the existing UV located on the south end with a new UV system just do west. It will provide new Calgon UV ultraviolet technology to the plant. It will provide approximately 70 million gallons of dehydrolic capacity. The project further will provide an on-site diversion pumping and distribution system that will provide operational flexibility for the plant to reroute 35 million gallons per day of non-compliant or off-spec water from this location to what is called flow equalization basin. From then it gets retreated. Project will also install a new hypochlorite just do west, excuse me, east of the existing UV. It would also install a new one megawatt electrical load center station just east of the hypochlorite to provide electrical needs of the project as well as will install a new construction trailer at the south end of the plant to accommodate instruction oversight staff. So looking at the timeline relative to Corolla, if you will, in early 2016, staff brought before the board and was awarded their original project work order in January 2016. From that point, they proceeded with the design in early 2017. They submitted 35% design level plans. From that point, they were put on hold with the direction of the city to redirect their efforts in a value engineering study. I'll go over that in more detail later. Staff brought before the board an update both in summer and fall of 2018 as well as in the summer of the 2019 study session. Shortly thereafter, staff brought before a recommendation to award their original contract known as project order number one. That occurred in the summer of 2019. Board approved that. Originally, there was a plan system commissioning in the fall of 2019 was the original date. Bond sale, this is inaccurate. Bond sale actually occurred in the winter of 2020. So that I apologize, this information is wrong, 2020. But since 2019, Corolla has been ongoing with design efforts past two years with an intent to award the construction contract in winter of 2021 followed by three years of construction. So just a brief history of the design for the project is subsequent to the derating in 2012, city pursued additional experts on the subject matter of our existing UB at the time. We acquired four pre-design analysis. Those earlier analysis focused on the treatment capacity, operational maintenance planning and just the various treatment alternatives at that time. I'm shortly after that, followed an extensive charrette effort in 2014, city engaged with the industry experts at the time on UB including Corolla, Hayes and GHD, Brown, Caldwell, Merrick, Smith, they all collectively between the city and these experts was a collective solution to vet a thorough problem solving effort that focused on this infection issues facing the plan. Some of the parameters were just health and safety, capital lifestyle costs, regulatory, operational. In the end, it ultimately identified both the near and long-term alternatives for the plan. Following that effort, another additional seven technical mammograms by the city between 2015, 2016 that will focus more on the UB parameters such as water quality, also the feasibility of providing sidestream hypochloride and a on-site diversion system. So since that point, 2016, Corolla has been ongoing with design or their efforts have been redirected with it. Diving more into the actual project work order amendment. 2016 was their first amendment for the value of 2.1. This was a competitive, very competitive selection process the city undertook, Corolla was chosen mainly due to their unparalleled expertise in the UB design. And as I indicated earlier, those efforts were put on hold just shortly thereafter, they submitted their 35 at the direction of executive staff to redirect their efforts to analyze and engage in a value-engineering study. So that study focused mainly to reconsider if there are any more economical disinfection options available. They considered the full capacity UB versus a partial smaller UB system with the supplemental hypochloride. The review looked at design criteria, UB system, capabilities, limitations, and it took into risk operational regulatory and cost consideration. And ultimately the UB did confirm that the UB replacement that it was on slated for in the original 35% design was the most effective solution. And in the end was the best value of the city. So Corolla brought before amendment number one to reflect those efforts, the redirection efforts directed by the city to capture the value engineering work, as well as to reflect the significant delay in the design as a result of the 2017 Tubbs fires as well as just project changes and scope that's creeped from their original work. So that amendment came forth that approved for 1.6. Just recently, staff brought before amendment number two for engineering services during construction for 2.1. This effort is typically always included in the design agreement. It captures the designers efforts through bidding and through construction. It never was captured in early as project work orders. Staff knew it would need to be at some point and hence was amendment number two. Today is amendment number three for a value of $750,000. So when we look at amendment number three, we look at the project restart, if you will, at 2019. That was when the VE ended project order number two started. We'd like to look at 2019 as really the restart of the project reboot, if you will. And that reboot was based off the findings and the results of the design criteria was revised to capture the results. But in the end, it resulted in several unforeseen factors that contributed really to the evolution of what is currently the final review design. Additional unforeseen efforts were required and we'll go into that. The original, the original 35% design level stage, majority of that could not be utilized. Coupled with the fact that a majority of the plant staff that had been originally involved in the 35% design level have even retired or have moved on and left the city, leaning itself to new staff to provide new comments and new direction. So when we look at their amendments, it's focused basically on two tasks. Task one covers an extra duration of essentially two additional years of project management that wasn't an unanticipated original project order covered just one and a half. Task one covers that over extension time. But for the most part, the significant costs come in, what is deemed as their task five and six, which is the change or additional scope brief, if you will, or change to the UV and diversion design. The additional design cemeterals that captured their overall change incorporated new design criteria related to the process layout. And specifically with the UV, the change was a reduction from six UV channels to five. So further, there was significant differences of change to the structural canopy design for both the hypochlorite structure, which changed from a full to partial canopy as well as the structure over the actual UV facility the entire structure was lowered and took an account for major modifications to the overall overhead frames system. Task five and six also included the addition of a temporary construction power plan, the original plan did not incorporate that. My intent was to put the onus on the contractor. There was a change in thought for the purposes of efficiency, temporary control construction plan now is incorporated into the plan. That was an ad as well as significant permanent power distribution changes resulted from the design cemeterals. The original design tasks, city forces, city staff to do the programmable logic control programing by city forces. The new plan puts the onus on the contractor. And with that, there was also additional connection points at the plant that changed the SCADA design. The scope, the original scope, the utility was much less or the new, as we proceeded with design, the relocation efforts was much larger than anticipated and affected the utility planning, demolition planning. So that was a scope change. Through the process dealing with Calgon, Calgon's MOU was put on hold and staff will bring before you the amendment to that MOU specific to the equipment, but with putting them on hold and through the renegotiation efforts that contributed to new submittals and new coordination efforts that needed to be incorporated into the final design as the most. Further significant changes were to the hyper, the sodium hypochlorite design, mainly the pumping design change from a diaphragm to a progressive cavity type design. There was additional modifications to the dosing points. These all resulted in, with specific to the sodium hypochlorite, changes to the electrical instrumentation design, all of us changes to the trailer, construction trailer were necessary, partly in fact, partly due to response to COVID, changes to workspace requirements were needed. And since 2019, the city has an ongoing project as well that's in the same area known as the flood protection project. Since 2019, that design has been more refined and getting closer to the final design layout that was not completely known at the time because both these projects are adjacent to one another and if not overlap physical space at times as well as have overlapping construction schedules. There was a significant effort to coordinate between the two to minimize any significant delays or impacts that may be seen by both contractors. So as part of that, a revision to the pump station and onsite stormwater collection was needed as well as the main access to the plant revisions were required subsequent to coordination with the flood wall. Since the reboot of 2019, if you will, the city has engaged with professional consultant Somos provide construction and inspection services. City thought it would be prudent to engage them to provide a third party review of the current design. They did do that. They provided results, but with that, there was additional design revisions and coordination efforts required a parole as well as additional geotechnical investigative work. So to break down their fee, it's specific to just task one and task five through six, task one for over project management duration is a request for seven additional 75,000. And the bulk of the amendment lies with them task five and six, which is 675,000 for a total of three quarters of a million dollars. Add that to the original project work order of 4.4 million brings the total design contract to 5.2. For purposes of the next slide, we did not include engineering services during construction and I'll show you that. The total engine, total construction costs are projected at 37 million for the disinfection portion and 13 million for the diversion system for a total of 50 million. Add that to that approximately 17 and a half million for what we consider as total project delivery costs, which include design, engineering services during construction, CM inspection fees, in-house labor overhead and overall contingency for a estimated total project costs 67 and a half million. So with the amendment, it would bring the total design to 5.2, which is approximately 10.4% of the total construction. So slightly over the city's goal, but still within what we see as the 2020 CIP benchmark range. You're also to further drill down and look at their cost of approximately a little under 13,000 per sheet, stills within the city goals of what's assumed and what's appropriate. So in just overall, this project will be the largest we've seen since the Geyser installation in early 2000s. It will be the largest install in the US as well as along in the whole world. When you look at the UV technology industry, on average is increasing between now and 2027 at the rate of approximately 20%. So we feel very comfortable with the direction we're going, with the manufacturer that we chose. So next steps, the board will see in various forms, one through the subcommittee again, and then for formal approval, the UV Calgon's member in of understanding, both for the amendment to their agreement. So if you will, the MOU is a binding agreement between the supplier and the city. That will guarantee a fixed cost, which that cost will be disclosed in the construction contract for all contractors to evenly, evenly, competitively get on. So the board will see that, those efforts very soon here, will need to be executed and approved prior to bidding the project. But we do anticipate both the contract documents and the advertising of the contract to occur sometime in the fall of 2021. Followed by construction anticipated in winter of 2021, excuse me, but the ward of the contract in 2021 and spring of 2022. Now we anticipate a notice to receive. So with that, it is the recommendation by the transportation and public works department and the water department that the contract review subcommittee support $750,000 amendment to project work order under the master professional service agreement with Rolo engineers, Walnut Creek or professional engineering services for disinfection improvement projects for a total contract not to exceed $5,138 and $254. And with that, I would love to answer any questions. Just best like. Thank you, Mr. Dwaynes. Board member Walsh questions, comments. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just comments, the extensive description of the history of the scope of work for this project and the importance of the project certainly helps us recommend the actions the staff is proposing to us. Just curious, Mr. Dwaynes, with these changes in scope and the additional monies that Corolla has or will expend, how did that impact what our initial estimate was for the actual construction costs? Chair Galvin, I don't have that of the original cost available. I will need to follow up with you. I apologize. That's okay, no problem. All right, I would just be curious. I don't remember what the original contract estimate was, but obviously with some change in the scope and the design, I would expect that the estimates for construction costs have gone up and I will continue to, but so if you could get back to me on that. I will, most definitely. All right. With that, we'll open it up for public comments on item number 3.3. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine. Secretary Aitha. We have no public comments. All right, Board Member Walsh, would you would like to make a motion on the recommendation? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move that the contract subcommittee, the Board of Public Utilities, recommend to the full Board of Public Utilities contract amendment to be a project work order for the agreement with Corolla Engineers of Walnut Creek, provide professional engineering services for the Disinfection Improvement Project for an amount not to exceed $5,138,254. The amount by 750,000. And I will second that. Or Secretary Aitha, may we have a roll call vote, please? Chair Gennon. Aye. Board Member Walsh. Aye. Okay, passes unanimously. We'll make that recommendation to the full Board. Thank you, Mr. Drainis. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Director Burke, I don't think we have a new business or anything else. So at this point, we will adjourn the meeting of the contract review subcommittee and enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Galvin. Thank you, Director Burke.