 Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting of the contract review subcommittee to order. We may have a roll call, please. Board Member Grebel. Here. Board Member Baden-Fort. Here. And Chair Galvin. Here. Okay, let the record reflect that all board members are present. Just a reminder to the committee members, there's only three microphones that can be on at the same time, so please mute your microphone when you're not speaking. Item two on our agenda is public comments. We'll now take public comments on item two. You're in the room, please move to the microphone and wait for the timer to appear. See no one rise. That'll take care of public comments. We'll now move to item 3.1. Director Burke. Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the subcommittee. Our only item for the meeting today will be a progressive design build contract for the Lana trunk rehabilitation phase one contract number C02403. And making the presentation will be Rachela Mayeda, Associate Civil Engineer. Welcome, Ms. Mayeda. Good afternoon, Chair Galvin and Board Members Baden-Fort and Grable. My name is Rachela Mayeda and I'm an Associate Civil Engineer with the Transportation and Public Works Department. Today I'm here to discuss the award of a progressive design build contract for the Lana trunk rehabilitation phase one project, contract number C02403. During this presentation, I'll start off with a little bit of project background. I'll provide a brief refresher on what design build is. I'll discuss a form of design build called progressive design build. I'll touch on how the process of securing a design build team went. I'll discuss the project cost and schedule and conclude with a recommendation. Looking at the map on your right towards the bottom of your screen, you can see the Laguna treatment plant. Todd Road is at the top and Lana Road runs north to south between the two. That green line indicates where we have approximately 8,100 linear feet of 66 inch sewer pipe improvements that'll be rehabbed using trenchless technology. Along that stretch of pipe, we'll rehabilitate 12 manholes and in order to do this work, we anticipate needing to set up a bypass pumping system that can convey up to 20 million gallons per day. The pumping system will need to cross both Todd and Lana Roads, some private property, and will require 24-7 monitoring. And then primarily because of the bypass pumping system, we do expect needing permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and then also the County of Sonoma. We expect that one of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife permits will take an extensive amount of time and effort because we have both protected plant and animal species in the project area. For compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, we expect that we will need an initial study mitigated negative declaration. So to describe what design build is, I first wanna provide a brief reminder on how we typically deliver projects through design bid build. So on the left, you can see we, the owner, have a contract with a designer who may hire other consultants to develop and design the project. We then get construction-ready documents from those designers and put the project out to bid to contractors. The city then goes into contract with a builder or a contractor to construct the project. In design build, however, we have a team that's made up of the designer, the consultants, and the contractor from the start of the project, and then they all work together as a unit. We originally selected design build for this project because we've seen lining projects in the past where a consultant designs the bypass pumping system only to later have the contractor completely reconfigure the system and sometimes add a cost savings to the city. So since the bypass pumping system can sometimes be about half of the total construction cost, any savings or additional costs incurred during construction could be pretty significant. So ultimately we thought it would be in the city's best interest to have the contractor, the designer, and the environmental staff all collaborating as a team from the start of the project. Progressive design build is a form of design build and California Senate Bill 991 was passed in September of 2022 and authorized local agencies to use progressive design build for certain water and wastewater projects. And the team structure you saw in the previous slide still applies to progressive design build. So now I wanna kinda touch on what design build is again as a basis for describing what progressive design build is. So in design build, we start off with project scoping. We then go into the 30% design. After that, we go through the procurement process of procuring a design build team. And during this phase, interested design builders would provide us a proposal that includes the cost of engineering services as well as the cost of construction. At that time, we would then go into contract with a design builder for both phases of work and they would finish the design and do the construction. And this delivery method is really good for projects where the scope can be clearly defined early on in the design process. In progressive design build, again, we start with the scoping but then we actually go directly into procuring a design build team. As part of their proposal, they would provide us just the cost of engineering services not the cost of construction. So at that time, we would then go into contract for the design services phase. The design builder would then take the project to around 75 to 90% design and then provide us with a construction cost. At that time, if we cannot agree on a construction cost, the design build team would still be required to finish the design of the project and then we could take those plans and put them out to bid as we normally would with design bid build. If city staff do approve the construction cost and we can come to an agreement with the design build team, we would then present this to the board as a contract change order for approval. If the board approves, the contract would be amended to include the cost of construction at that time. And progressive design build is a really good delivery method for when the scope of the project may change as the design progresses. So the main difference between design build and progressive design build is when the construction cost gets determined and when that gets included into the contract with the design build team. We opted to change to progressive design build after that Senate bill was passed because we realized there were just too many unknowns associated with the bypass pumping system. So input from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or findings from CEQA as well as cooperation from private property owners could all significantly change the layout of the bypass pumping system which would significantly change the cost of construction. Once we are under contract for the cost of construction then the design build team would finish the design and construct the project. To select a design build team, we began the process with issuing a request for qualifications. Interested design builders provided their statements of qualification and we then pre-qualified or short-listed qualified teams. The request for proposals was then issued only to those teams that we pre-qualified. We received proposals and a selection committee ranked those proposals and I am here today discussing the contract award. We received a total of six statements of qualification and we actually felt that all six teams were qualified to do the project. So all six teams did receive the request for proposals. Four of those teams provided proposals and then all of those were scored based on their responsiveness to the RFP, their proposed design and permanent approach and their capacity and approach to deliver the project as well as their pricing schedule. And I just wanna point out here that this can be a potential advantage of design build. You get to select the consultant and the contractor based on their qualifications and experience, not just their fee alone. Each selection committee then reviewed and ranked the proposals on their own and then we all met as a team to discuss each of the design builders and we unanimously decided to move forward with SAK Construction and Corrollo Engineers. SAK and Corrollo provided the shown cost estimate for the engineering services or design services phase of the project, totally in about $1.3 million. It's anticipated that the total project cost will be approximately $15 million and this includes the cost of construction as well as soft costs. And that includes the cost shown in the top table as well as inspection and construction management services, permitting and administrative fees, contingencies and then also in-house labor and overhead. The majority of this project has already been funded and the remaining amount is programmed in our year one CIP budget for fiscal year 2024, 2025, which the Board and Council will be seeing later this year. Looking now at the project schedule and starting at the top row, project management will be ongoing throughout the duration of the project. Pre-construction services are those services provided by the contractor during the design phase of work and that would include things like doing constructability reviews and scheduling reviews as well as providing a cost estimate. That work would begin this summer and go into next spring. The design will begin shortly after the contract award and go into early spring of 2025. Permitting and SQL will begin after the preliminary design is complete. And then construction services will begin in March of 2025. And at the beginning, this will mostly consist of procuring materials as well as doing submittals and the majority of any ground-disturbing work actually will not begin till around mid-June. It is recommended by the Transportation and Public Works Department in Santa Rosa Water that the Contract Review Subcommittee recommend the Board of Public Utilities approve a progressive design bill contract C02403 in an amount not to exceed $1,302,657.45 with SAK Construction LLC of Rockland, California plus an additional 10% contingency amount of $130,265.75 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,432,923.20. Thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the presentation. Open it up for any committee member questions. Go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I'm new to this committee. So I would love to just learn a little bit about in terms of the progressive design bill because it seems like on the one hand there's obviously lots of benefits there. Does that, part of the Senate bill mentioned and other things is that bypass some of the previous California public contract code and the invitation for bid process, you can do it all in one instead of going back as a notice, an invitation for bid. And as the phases come, you can keep it together in one sort of progressive bid. So my question on that then would be because I know we've discussed this in the past when we do design builds, do we get even fewer respondents when we put out a notice for that? I think it just maybe depends on the project and what kind of industry there is for the specific project type. For this project, I think we were a little surprised that we did receive a total of six interested design builders. And we were really happy about that. We did receive proposals from across the country actually. So we got some good interest with this project. That's relatively high for what we use it, right? Cool. Okay. Thank you. Sounds great. The only question I have, if you know I'm curious, six of them went through the qualification process and only four bid, do we know why the other two didn't submit proposals? Yeah. So one of them, at least one of them, let me know why and they thought they weren't going to be competitive for this project. They thought that their method to doing rehab of this kind wasn't going to be competitive with say what we're more used to, which is that CIPP lining rehabilitation. So we got some other different types of rehab methods that maybe they just thought they wouldn't be competitive for this project. One more wonky question. When these respondents were bidding on the CEQA costs, was there much variation? I'm just curious, was there much range of variation in what their estimated CEQA and permitting costs were? Cause obviously we have the native plants and the species and other things, but then you bring in the cultural resources and other things that sometimes are very hard to estimate on these projects, right? Did we see a big range there or were they pretty tight? That I don't remember, but I can follow up with you if you'd like to see actual numbers on that. All right, if there are no other questions, I'll entertain a motion to approve the recommendation. Move to approve the recommendation. Second. All right, we have a motion and second. Before we take a vote, we'll open it up for public comment on item 3.1. If you're in the room, please move to the microphone and wait for the timer to appear. See no one rise. We'll close the public comments and go for our roll call vote, please. Board Member Grebel. Aye. Board Member Bauman-Fort. Aye. And Chair Galvin. Aye. And that passes unanimously. Very good, that concludes our agenda for today's meeting. Thank you all for being here and we are adjourned.