HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2010-08-09 #WAGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 9, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David N. Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Sean P. Crumby P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION
OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6047 authorizing
preparation of an 2010 Update to the Urban Water Management Plan and
authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement for Sharing Consultant Cost
for 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The California Water Code 10644 (a) requires water suppliers (including
wholesalers), either publicly or privately owned, that provide water for municipal
purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre -feet
annually to submit an updated Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the
Department of Water Resources at least once every five years; in years ending in
five or zero. This year the UWMPs are not due until July 1, 2011 (six months
later) due to the recent adoption of SBx7 -7 - 20% by 2020 conservation
requirement. The UWMP describes the service area, including the demographic
factors, water sources, reliability planning, water use provisions, supply and
demand comparison provisions, and water demand management measures.
Accordingly, The City of Seal Beach prepared its first Urban Water Management
Plan in 2000. This plan was adopted by the City Council on May 29, 2001. The
Plan included as water demand management measures the sixteen Best
Management Practices (BMP's) adopted by California Urban Water Conservation
Council (CUWCC) that were also approved by the Council at the time of
authorization of the Orange County Sanitation District Cooperative Projects
contracts. The Urban Water Management Plan has been updated and adopted
by the City Council again in 2002 and 2005. These two successive updates have
met the required schedule and incorporated legislative updates from the State.
Agenda Item W
Page 2
It is again time to update the UWMP for water suppliers. The Municipal Water
District of Orange County ( MWDOC) has taken a leadership role with preparation
of this update for all of the agencies that are included within their region. It is an
appropriate action for MWDOC to undertake as some of the items incorporated
into the UWMP include management of the Groundwater Basin that the agencies
share.
MWDOC solicited proposals for preparation of the UWMP for all 30 participating
agencies. Two qualified firms elected to submit proposals. Of those two firms
MWDOC recommended the firm of Malcolm Pirnie to the 30 agencies to prepare
the UWMP. At the last Water Manager's meeting attended by the Director of
Public Works, Malcolm Pirnie was voted to be the winning firm. Malcolm Prinie
was not only the most qualified firm, but also the lowest in cost. Having the
UWMP prepared by one consultant for multiple agencies will reduce cost to all of
the agencies and provide uniformity within all of the reports.
Of the 30 agencies invited to participate in sharing consultant cost for preparation
of the UWMP, 22 agencies have elected to move forward with the group. The
previous three studies were prepared by the firm of AKM Consulting Engineers.
Public Works staff contacted AKM Consulting Engineers regarding this update.
AKM did not provide a proposal to prepare the UWMP stating that they could not
compete with a cost of $29,222.00. If approved, the City of Seal Beach will pay
the funds to MWDOC, whom will manage the contract. Staff from the City's
Water Division of Public Works will work intimately with MWDOC on preparation
of the Urban Water Management Plan. Staff will bring the UWMP back to the
City Council for approval prior to completion of the report.
City Manager David Carmany has had a professional relationship with Malcolm
Pirnie since 2000. According to their website, http: / /www.pirnie.com /, Malcolm
Pirnie, a wholly -owned subsidiary of ARCADIS -US, is one of the largest firms in
the U.S. focused exclusively on environmental issues. For more than 100 years,
they have provided environmental engineering, science and consulting services
to over 5,000 public and private clients.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Malcolm Pirnie has submitted a proposal for $29,222 for updating of the UWMP
to MWDOC. Funds will be programmed through account number 017 -900-
44000, Water Enterprise Contract Professional Services. (Budget Amendment
No. 11- 02 -01)
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended City Council adopt Resolution No. 6047 authorizing
preparation of an 2010 Update to the Urban Water Management Plan and
authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement for Sharing Consultant Cost
for 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sean P. Crumby P.E.
Director of Public Works
Attachments:
NOTED AND APPROVED:
David N. Carmany
City Manager
A. Resolution No. 6047
B. Agreement for Sharing Consultant Cost for 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
C. May 3, 2010 MWDOC Selection of Consultant Team Staff Report
D. July 15, 2010 - MWDOC Invoice for 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6047
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF URBAN
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts by resolution authorizing preparation
of a 2010 Update to the Urban Water Management Plan. Malcolm Pirnie has
submitted a proposal for $29,222.
Section 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement for sharing
consultant cost for the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal
Beach at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of August , 2010 by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6047 on file in
the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at
a regular meeting held on the 9th day of August '2010.
City Clerk
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP -Final 5 -28 -10
AGREEMENT FOR SHARING CONSULTANT COSTS
FOR 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of 2010, by
and between:
1. MWDOC
2. City of Anaheim
3. City of Buena Park
4. City of Fullerton
5. City of Garden Grove
6. City of La Palma
7. City of Orange
8. Serrano Water District
9. City of Seal Beach
10. City of Tustin
11. Yorba Linda Water District
12. East Orange County Water District
13. City of Fountain Valley
14. City of Newport Beach
15. City of Santa Ana
16. Mesa Consolidated Water District
17. City of San Clemente
18. El Toro Water District
19. South Coast Water District
20. Moulton Niguel Water District
21. City of San Juan Capistrano
22. Santa Margarita Water District
23. City of Brea
24. City of La Habra
25. Laguna Beach County Water District
(collectively "Participating Agencies" and individually "Participating Agency ") and the
Municipal Water District of Orange County ( "MWDOC "). The Participating Agencies and
MWDOC are also collectively referred to as "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, under California Water Code section 10621, subdivision (a), the
Participating Agencies are required to update their respective Urban Water
Management Plan ( "UWMP ") at least once every five years, on or before December 31
in years ending in five and zero; and
WHEREAS, this year water agencies have an additional 6 months, or until July
1, 2011, to update their respective UWMP; and
WHEREAS, each Participating Agency intends to prepare a separate 2010
UWMP for submission by July 1, 2011; and
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP —Final 5 -28 -10
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies share many water supply characteristics,
including water sources, regional water management agencies, location, climate history,
and demographics; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Water Code section 10620, subdivision (d)(2),
the Participating Agencies wish to coordinate the preparation of their 2010 UWMPs in
the interest of reducing preparation costs; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies and MWDOC desire to cooperate with
each other to obtain economies of scale and thereby reduce preparation costs for each
of the Participating Agencies; and
WHEREAS, MWDOC and the Participating Agencies have jointly prepared and
agreed to a Scope of Work that was incorporated into a Request for Proposals that was
sent to a number of competent Consulting Firms, two of which submitted proposals
which were reviewed by a working group of the Participating Agencies who
recommended selection of Malcolm Pirnie as the successful consultant to prepare
Urban Water Management Plans for the Participating Agencies, and
WHEREAS, MWDOC and its staff are willing to coordinate this process, including
the issuance of a Request for Proposal as described above, the review of proposals
received, the selection of a consultant, the preparation and administration of a
professional services agreement with the selected consultant; and the administration of
the cost sharing provisions of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment of money as set forth
below and the mutual promises of the Parties hereto, it is agreed:
1. Engagement of Consultant and Administration of Consultant Agreement
MWDOC shall award a professional services agreement for the work identified in
the Request for Proposals to Malcolm Pirnie ( "Consultant Agreement "). MWDOC
shall use its standard professional services agreement form for the Consultant
Agreement and require appropriate types and limits of insurance coverage. Each
CGL policy shall identify MWDOC, the Participating Agencies, and their directors,
officers, agents, employees, attorneys, consultants and volunteers as additional
insureds, or be endorsed to identify these parties as additional insureds using a
form acceptable to MWDOC. Coverage for additional insureds shall not be
limited to vicarious liability. The Consultant Agreement will require the
consultant's insurer(s) to waive all rights of subrogation against MWDOC, the
Participating Agencies, and their directors, officers, agents, employees,
attorneys, consultants and volunteers. The Consultant Agreement will require
consultant to ensure that its subconsultants, if any, provide similar insurance
coverage.
2
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP — Final 5 -28 -10
1.2 MWDOC shall coordinate all aspects of the proposed work with the selected
contractor and communicate with each Participating Agency, regularly and
upon request of the Participating Agency, regarding the status and substance
of its 2010 U WM P;
1.3 MWDOC shall make payments to the Consultant for progress payments as
work proceeds. MWDOC shall withhold 10% of each progress payment in a
retention fund until such time as every Participating Agency has notified
MWDOC that it is satisfied with the final UWMP prepared for it by Consultant.
1.4 Each Participating Agency shall provide all documents, information and
assistance requested by the selected contractor during the performance of
the Consultant Agreement.
2. Cost Sharing by Participating Agencies.
2.1 MWDOC shall:
2.1.1 Collect from each Participating Agency upon execution of this Agreement
the full amount of the portion of the total cost allocated to that Participating
Agency in the selected contractor's proposal, as attached in Exhibit A;
2.1.2 Inform each Participating Agency of any proposed extra work under the
Consultant Agreement that relates to preparation of that Participating
Agency's 2010 UWMP and that would result in an increase in that
Participating Agency's payment under this Agreement. MWDOC and the
affected Participating Agency must both approve such extra work before
MWDOC will notify Consultant to proceed on the work.
2.1.3 Be responsible for making progress payments directly to consultant from
funds paid to MWDOC by Participating Agencies (see section 1.3).
2.1.4 Prepare a final accounting and distribute any remaining funds collected
from the Participating Agencies back to the Participating Agencies or
make a final billing payment to Participating Agencies where there are
funds due.
2.2 Each Participating Agency shall:
2.2.1 Pay to MWDOC upon execution of this Agreement the full amount of the
portion of the total cost allocated to that Participating Agency in the
selected contractor's proposal, as attached in Attachment A;
3
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP — Final 5 -28 -10
2.2.2 Pay to MWDOC, upon approval of any extra work under the Consultant
Agreement that relates to preparation of its 2010 UWMP, the full amount
owed for the approved work. Each Participating Agency shall bear all
costs associated with extra work it approves.
3. Accounting
Upon request of any Participating Agency, MWDOC will provide copies of the
selected consultant's payments requests invoices and MWDOC's payment
records.
4. Independent Contractor
Any consultant engaged by MWDOC on behalf of the Participating Agencies
as contemplated in this Agreement will not be a party to this Agreement and
will not be an employee or agent of MWDOC or any of the Participating
Agencies, either as a result of this Agreement or as a result of a professional
services agreement between MWDOC and the consultant. Any consultant
engaged as contemplated in this Agreement will be an independent
contractor to MWDOC.
5. Warranty and Indemnification
MWDOC shall use its best efforts in administering the Consultant Agreement,
but makes no representations, guarantees or warranties to the Participating
Agencies as to the quality or timeliness of work product provided by the
selected contractor pursuant to the Consultant Agreement. The Participating
Agencies, and each of them, shall indemnify MWDOC, its directors, officers,
employees and agents against, and will hold and save them harmless from,
any and all actions, claims, penalties, obligations or liabilities, in law or in
equity, of every kind or nature whatsoever, that may be asserted or claimed
by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other
organization arising out of or in any manner directly or indirectly connected
with the 2010 UWMPs prepared pursuant to the Consultant Agreement. As
between the Participating Agencies, any costs associated with the indemnity
and defense obligations set forth in the previous two sentences shall be the
financial responsibility of each Participating Agency based on the same pro
rata basis as the allocation of costs set forth in Section 2.1.1 herein and
Exhibit A hereto. In the event MWDOC, its directors, officers, employees and
agents are made a party to any action or proceeding filed in connection with a
challenge to any 2010 UWMP prepared pursuant to the Consultant
Agreement, the Participating Agency whose 2010 UWMP is challenged shall
provide a complete defense to MWDOC, its directors, officers, employees and
agents and shall reimburse MWDOC for all costs and expenses incurred as a
result of the action or proceeding, including reasonable attorney's fees.
4
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 LIMP - Final 5 -28 -10
6. Notice
Any notice or communication required to be given under this Agreement shall
be in writing and effective when deposited, first class postage prepaid, with
the United States Postal Service addressed to the contracting Parties as
follows:
Notices to Parties
If to:
1. MWDOC
Kevin P. Hunt, General Manager
Municipal Water District of Orange County
18700 Ward St.
P.O. Box 20895
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
2. City of Anaheim
Thomas Wood, City Manager
City of Anaheim
City Hall East, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
3. City of Buena Park
Rick Warsinski, City Manager
City of Buena Park
6650 Beach Blvd.
Buena Park, CA 90622
4. City of Fullerton
Chris Meyer, City Manager
City of Fullerton
303 W. Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92832 -1775
5. City of Garden Grove
Matthew Fertal, City Manager
City of Garden Grove
P.O. Box 3070
Garden Grove, CA 92842
6. City of La Palma
Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
City of La Palma
7822 Walker Street
La Palma, CA 90623
7. City of Orange
John Sibley, City Manager
City of Orange
P.O. Box 449
Orange, CA 92866
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP — Final 5 -28 -10
8. Serrano Water District
David Noyes, General Manager
Serrano Water District
18021 Lincoln Street
Villa Park, CA 92861 -6446
9. City of Seal Beach
David Carmany, City Manager
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
10. City of Tustin
William Huston, City Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
11. Yorba Linda Water District
Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager
Yorba Linda Water District
1717 E. Miraloma
Placentia, CA 92870
12. East Orange County Water
Lisa Ohlund, General Manager
District
East Orange County Water District
185 N. McPherson Rd.
Orange, CA 92869
13. City of Fountain Valley
Ray Kromer, City Manager
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
14. City of Newport Beach
Dave Kiff, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
15. City of Santa Ana
David Ream, City Manager
City of Santa Ana
P.O. Box 1988, M -24
Santa Ana, CA 92702
16. Mesa Consolidated Water
Paul Shoenberger, General Manager
District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
1965 Placentia Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -3420
17. City of San Clemente
George Scarborough, City Manager
City of San Clemente
100 Avenida Presidio
San Clemente, CA 92672
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP —Final 5 -28 -10
18. El Toro Water District
Robert Hill, General Manager
El Toro Water District
P.O. Box 4000
Laguna Hills, CA 92654
19. South Coast Water District
Michael Dunbar, General Manager
South Coast Water District
31592 West Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
20. Moulton Niguel Water
Robert Gumerman, General Manager
District
Moulton Niguel Water District
27500 La Paz Road
P.O. Box 30203
Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 -0203
21. City of San Juan Capistrano
Joe Tait, City Manager
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
22. Santa Margarita Water
John J. Schatz, General Manager & General
District
Counsel
Santa Margarita Water District
P.O. Box 7005
Mission Viejo, CA 92690
23. City of Brea
Tom O'Donnell, City Manager
City of Brea
1 Civic Center Circle
Brea, CA 92821
24. City of La Habra
Don Hannah, City Manager
City of La Habra
P.O. Box 337
La Habra, CA 90633 -0337
25. Laguna Beach County
Renae Hinchey, General Manager
Water District
Laguna Beach County Water District
P.O. Box 987
Laguna Beach, CA 92652
7. Jurisdiction and Venue
In all matters concerning the validity, interpretation, performance, or effect of
this Agreement, the laws of the State of California shall govern and be
fA
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP — Final 5 -28 -10
applicable. The Parties hereby agree and consent to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of the State of California and that venue of any action
brought hereunder shall be in Orange County, California.
8. Joint Drafting
All parties have participated in the drafting of this Agreement. The Agreement
may be signed in counterpart to facilitate processing.
9. Severabilitv
If any provision of this Agreement shall be held illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable, in whole or in part, the legality, validity, and enforceability of
the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby.
10. Entire Agreement
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the
subject matter hereof; and the Parties have made no agreements,
representations, or warranties, either written or oral, relating to the subject
matter hereof that are not set forth herein. Except as provided herein, this
Agreement may not be modified or altered without prior written approval from
both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have hereunto affixed their names as of the
day and year thereinafter written, which shall be and is the effective date of This
Agreement.
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP - Final 5 -28 -10
Execution of Agreement by Parties
1. MWDOC
Date
By:
Kevin P. Hunt, General Manager
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Daniel J. Payne
General Counsel
2. City of Anaheim
Date
By:
Thomas Wood, City Manager
City of Anaheim
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
3. City of Buena
Park
Date
By:
Rick Warsinski, City Manager
City of Buena Park
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
4. City of Fullerton
Date
By:
Chris Meyer, City Manager
City of Fullerton
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
5. City of Garden
Grove
Date
By:
Matthew Fertal, City Manager
City of Garden Grove
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
6. City of La Palma
Date
By:
Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
City of La Palma
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
WC
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
7. City of Orange
Date
By:
John Sibley, City Manager
City of Orange
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Dave DeBerry
City Attorney
8. Serrano Water
District
Date
By:
David Noyes, General Manager
Serrano Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
General Counsel
Joel Kuperberg
9. City of Seal
Beach
Date
By:
David Carmany, City Manager
City of Seal Beach
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
11
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
10. City of Tustin
Date
By:
William Huston, City Manager
City of Tustin
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
11. Yorba Linda
Water District
Date
By:
Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager
Yorba Linda Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
General Counsel
Arthur Kidman
12. East Orange
County Water
Date
District
By:
Lisa Ohlund, General Manager
East Orange County Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
General Counsel
Joan Arneson
12
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
13. City of Fountain
Valley
Date
By:
Ray Kromer, City Manager
City of Fountain Valley
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
14. City of Newport
Beach
Date
By:
Dave Kiff, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
15. City of Santa Ana
Date
By:
David Ream, City Manager
City of Santa Ana
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
13
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
16. Mesa
Consolidated
Water District
Date
By:
Paul Shoenberger, General Manager
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Robert Anslow
General Counsel
17. City of San
Clemente
Date
By:
George Scarborough, City Manager
City of San Clemente
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
18. El Toro Water
District
Date
By:
Robert Hill, General Manager
El Toro Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Gil Granito
General Counsel
14
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
19. South Coast
Water District
Date
By:
Michael Dunbar, General Manager
South Coast Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Betty Burnett
General Counsel
20. Moulton Niguel
Water District
Date
By:
Robert Gumerman, General Manager
Moulton Niguel Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Patricia B. Giannone
General Counsel
21. City of San Juan
Capistrano
Date
By:
Joe Tait, City Manager
City of San Juan Capistrano
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
15
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
22. Santa Margarita
Water District
Date
By:
John J. Schatz, General Manager & General Counsel
Santa Margarita Water District
23. City of Brea
Date
By:
Tom O'Donnell, City Manager
City of Brea
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
24. City of La Habra
Date
By:
Don Hannah, City Manager
City of La Habra
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
City Attorney
16
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP
25. Laguna Beach
County Water Date
District
By:
Renae Hinchey, General Manager
Laguna Beach County Water District
Approved as to Form:
Date
By:
Paula Meyer
General Counsel
17
Cost Sharing Agreement for 2010 UWMP - Final 5 -28 -10
ATTACHMENT A
For Development of Urban Water Management Plans for 2010
Itemized Time and Materials Cost Allowance (Contingency Items) Total
♦0$ aJ0
Q
s ♦o° °e ♦g vma o °tom a�aa °r c O ayy�
♦oa a� ♦0 tico ♦0g
bo° oo ♦ ye auti acm ♦oa 0g`' v�`° a4i
aa♦ a♦♦° 09 ti's° A•o oRQ�.Q cmQ o° c°° ono
ti °4. ca♦ �°° tlt°� ♦r0a 6 ° �♦ e ° Z °pr 0 ° ��t'�oaa `�oa�oo�QO
o 4
yak Q� G & ce �° 06- TP ��` a aF of a't` ca1�
CIO 0 ♦ S m ♦ eQ ♦ 5 ♦ ti ♦ p 0• �,
G� o° F y♦\oa
0�a °,a ♦•a of °ca °ra o° ora °oa o$ y �A� �
♦Q ♦mo♦Fo°j y�G ♦♦ ~,m° ♦.r ♦mc�`� ♦- r ca a AmO
Budget Groupings of Agencies
Base Cost
♦ra?��o as aati J s Q a� ,a � oON,
as 1h
♦ o -410
• •
1.
MWDOC
$25,207
0
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$37,943
• •
2.
Ci of Anaheim not art of MWDOC
$16,486
0
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,222
3.
City of Buena Park
$16,486
0
$2,724 $3,004
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$32,226
4.
Ci of Fullerton not a art of MWDOC
$16,486
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,222
5.
City of Garden Grove
$16,486
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,222
6.
City of La Palma
$16,486
0
R$900
$2,724 $3,004
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$32,226
7.
City of Orange
$16,486
0
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,222
8.
Serrano Water District
$16,486
0
$2,724 $3,004
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$32,226
9.
City of Seal Beach
$16,486
0
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,222
10.
City of Tustin
$16,486
0
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,222
11.
Yorba Linda Water District
$16,486
$2,724 $3,004
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$32,226
12.
East Orange County Water District*
$19,986
$2,724 $3,004
$1,908
$3,172 1 $1,032
$3,000
$35,726
OCWD Groundwater
Aciencies with Recycled Water
13.
City of Fountain Valley
$17,095
$ 900
j $2,724 j $0
$1,908
$3,172 1 $1,032
1 $3,000
$29,831
14.
City of Newport Beach
$17,095
$ 900
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,831
15.
City of Santa Ana not a art of MWDOC
$17,095
$0
$0 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$0
$23,207
16.
South County
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Aciencies with Recycled Water
$17,095
$ 900
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,831
17.
City of San Clemente
$16,850 m
$ 900
$2,724 1 0
1 $1,908
1 $3,172 1 1,032
$3,000
$29,586
18.
El Toro Water District
$16,850
$ 900
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,586
19.
South Coast Water District
$16,850
$ 900
$2,724 $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$29,586
20.
Moulton Niguel Water District
$16,850
$ 900
$2,724---F- $0
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$0
$26,586
21.
City of San Juan Capistrano
$16,850
$ 900
$2,724 $0
$0
$0 $1,032
$3,000
$24,506
22.
Santa Mar arita Water District
$16,850
$ 900
$2,724 $3,004
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$32,590
Non-OCWD
Groundwater Aciencies
1
City of Brea
$17,177
$ 900 1
$2,724 1 $3,004 1
$1,908 1
$3,172 $1,032
1 $3,000
1 $32,917
24. CiLY of La Habra 1 $17,177
South County Aciencies Recycled Water
$ 900
$2,724 $3,004 1
$1,908
$3,172 $1,032
$3,000
$32,917
without
25. I La una Beach ounLv Water District 1 $16,241
Total
$ 900 1
$3,004 1
$1,908 j
$3,172 1 1,032
1 $3,000
1 31,981
r*1 East Oranae County Water District's Based Cost is $3.500 more due to the fact that
the UWMP will
include both its wholesale and
retail 7nne_
i &I
ACTION ITEM
May 3, 2010
TO: Planning & Operations
(Directors Royce, Barbre, Clark)
Item No.
FROM: Kevin Hunt Staff Contact: Karl Seckel/
General Manager Harvey De La Torre
SUBJECT: Selection of a Consulting Team to assist in the development of
MWDOC's and participating client agencies' 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Directors to authorize the General Manager to enter into a
professional service contract with Malcolm Pirnie to assist in the development of MWDOC's
and participating Client Agencies' 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and authorize the
General Manager to enter into Agreements with various agencies for cost - sharing this effort.
Depending on the number of participating client agencies, the contract amount can range
up to $775,068 with all agencies participating and including 100% of the allowance for Time
and Materials additions.
DETAIL REPORT
The California Water Code 10644 (a) requires water suppliers (including wholesalers),
either publicly or privately owned, that provide water for municipal purposes to more than
3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre -feet annually to submit an updated
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the Department of Water Resources at least
once every five years; in years ending in five or zero. This year the UWMPs are not due
until July 1, 2011 (six months later) due to the recent adoption of SBx7 -7 - 20% by 2020
conservation requirement.
Budgeted amount: $35,000 for MWDOC UWMP; the
potential total cost for the MWDOC UWMP is
Budgeted (Y /N): Yes $37,943. The total contract amount potential is
$775,068 with all of the costs being reimbursed from
other agencies except for the MWDOC UWMP.
Action item amount: Line item:
Fiscal Impact (explain if unbudgeted):
MUNICIPAL
WATER
DISTRICT
OF
ORANGE
COUNTY
ACTION ITEM
May 3, 2010
TO: Planning & Operations
(Directors Royce, Barbre, Clark)
Item No.
FROM: Kevin Hunt Staff Contact: Karl Seckel/
General Manager Harvey De La Torre
SUBJECT: Selection of a Consulting Team to assist in the development of
MWDOC's and participating client agencies' 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Directors to authorize the General Manager to enter into a
professional service contract with Malcolm Pirnie to assist in the development of MWDOC's
and participating Client Agencies' 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and authorize the
General Manager to enter into Agreements with various agencies for cost - sharing this effort.
Depending on the number of participating client agencies, the contract amount can range
up to $775,068 with all agencies participating and including 100% of the allowance for Time
and Materials additions.
DETAIL REPORT
The California Water Code 10644 (a) requires water suppliers (including wholesalers),
either publicly or privately owned, that provide water for municipal purposes to more than
3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre -feet annually to submit an updated
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the Department of Water Resources at least
once every five years; in years ending in five or zero. This year the UWMPs are not due
until July 1, 2011 (six months later) due to the recent adoption of SBx7 -7 - 20% by 2020
conservation requirement.
Budgeted amount: $35,000 for MWDOC UWMP; the
potential total cost for the MWDOC UWMP is
Budgeted (Y /N): Yes $37,943. The total contract amount potential is
$775,068 with all of the costs being reimbursed from
other agencies except for the MWDOC UWMP.
Action item amount: Line item:
Fiscal Impact (explain if unbudgeted):
Action Item
While many of MWDOC's client agencies are in process of preparing their 2010 UWMP
either internally or by using a consultant, a number of agencies have asked MWDOC to
facilitate a joint effort to retain one consulting firm to assist in updating their UWMP.
MWDOC staff was also exploring the option of seeking a consultant to help update our 2010
UWMP.
Based on this joint interest and the potential of saving costs through economies of scale,
with the participation of 10 to 20 retail agencies, MWDOC led the effort in soliciting a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for a single consultant to assist in developing UWMPs for
retail agencies and MWDOC.
On March 7, 2010, MWDOC sent out its Final RFP describing the arrangement of
participating agencies and MWDOC, the scope of work, number of tasks, and other
essential requirements. Among the requirements was a pre - proposal meeting (held in
February) for consultants interested in submitting a proposal. The purpose of the meeting
was to allow consultants the opportunity to ask questions on the RFP so they may have a
better understanding of what is type of services and workload is expected. Eleven
consulting firms attended the pre - proposal meeting and were eligible to submit. At the pre -
proposal meeting, the amount of time to be invested by MWDOC staff in completing our
normal tasks associated with the UWMP preparation was emphasized, including:
• Data collection from all agencies
• Retail level demands
• Levels of conservation
• Local supplies
• Local projects
• Work with OCWD on BPP Projections
• Work with future ocean desalination supplies
• Review of information from MET's UWMP
• Completion of the Reliability Analysis taking into account MET's reliability
• Compliance with SB -7 20% reduction by 2020.
• Water Use Efficiency BMP Reporting
On March 24, MWDOC received two proposals — Malcolm Pirnie and Psomas /CH2MHill. It
is staff's understanding that a number of consultants did not submit because of (1)
competition from other firms who had previous experience working on a number of UWMPs
in Orange County; and (2) the staff time required to complete up to +20 UMWPs while
meeting other obligations made it difficult to commit a solid team. Fortunately, both
Malcolm Pirnie and Psomas proposals met all of the requirements of the RFP and
demonstrated well - qualified teams with experience in writing and preparing UWMPs. The
differences between these two proposals were in their approach and understanding of
MWDOC staff involvement and assistance.
Malcolm Pirnie's approach was geared toward efficiency and partnership with MWDOC and
the Client Agencies. They focused on utilizing MWDOC staff to provide much of the key
information such as data collection, reliability analyses, and 20% by 2020 conservation
information. Based on this understanding of assistance and their focus on efficiency,
Malcolm Pirnie developed a very aggressive proposal price per agency type.
Page 2
Action Item
Psomas' approach followed their experience of preparing UMWPs and the necessary
workload to develop a quality UMWP. Although they understood MWDOC staff would
provide much of the data and key information, they assumed that much of the technical
information would still require further analysis and review by the consultant. This was
illustrated by the amount of hours per task which affected their pricing per agency type.
Below is a summary table comparing the consultant's proposal price per agency category:
Consultant's Price Summary per Agency Category
After reviewing the proposals from a quality perspective and because of the pricing
difference in the two proposals MWDOC staff met with each consultant separately to ensure
that each consultant clearly understood the RFP's scope of services and to discuss the type
of technical assistance MWDOC staff would provide. This meeting occurred prior to the
meeting with the Selection Committee made up from the Participating Agencies. From
these discussions, both consultants felt very comfortable with their proposal and their
approach. It is important to note that Psomas /CH2MHill did concede that are a few areas
within their proposal may be be reduced to provide greater cost efficiency (no specific
negotiations on the amount occurred). However, MWDOC staff did not feel that these
potential reductions would get to the same pricing levels as proposed by Malcolm Pirnie.
There also was a discussion of their price list associated with additional tasks (See attached
"Itemized Time and Material Cost Allowance chart") that agencies could request to be
added on to their base price in cases where additional services are required.
Based on the meeting with the consultants, MWDOC staff moved forward with the Selection
Committee. The Selection Committee was made up of representatives from nine client
agencies' and MWDOC, to review and discuss the proposals. The general consensus from
the committee was that both consultants provided strong proposals that demonstrated that
they were well qualified to complete the necessary work. Although Psomas provided a well
thought -out proposal with past experience of developing UWMP within Orange County,
The Selection Committee composed of staff representatives from the Cities of Fullerton, Fountain Valley, La Habra,
Tustin, Newport, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, Moulton Niguel Water District, and South Coast Water District
Page 3
Malcolm Pirnie
Psomas /CH2MHill
UMWP Category
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 15
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 15
Agencies
Agencies
Agencies
Agencies
MWDOC
$25,207
$85,096
OCWD Groundwater Agencies
$17,354
$16,486
$36,354
$34,354
OCWD Groundwater Agencies
$17,995
$17,095
$40,194
$38,194
with Recycled Water
South Orange County Agencies
$17,737
$16,850
$43,525
$42,525
with Recycled Water
Non -OCWD North County
Groundwater Basin Agencies
$18,081
$17,177
$45,228
$44,728
South OC Agencies without
Recycled Water
$17,096
$16,241
$37,325
$36,825
After reviewing the proposals from a quality perspective and because of the pricing
difference in the two proposals MWDOC staff met with each consultant separately to ensure
that each consultant clearly understood the RFP's scope of services and to discuss the type
of technical assistance MWDOC staff would provide. This meeting occurred prior to the
meeting with the Selection Committee made up from the Participating Agencies. From
these discussions, both consultants felt very comfortable with their proposal and their
approach. It is important to note that Psomas /CH2MHill did concede that are a few areas
within their proposal may be be reduced to provide greater cost efficiency (no specific
negotiations on the amount occurred). However, MWDOC staff did not feel that these
potential reductions would get to the same pricing levels as proposed by Malcolm Pirnie.
There also was a discussion of their price list associated with additional tasks (See attached
"Itemized Time and Material Cost Allowance chart") that agencies could request to be
added on to their base price in cases where additional services are required.
Based on the meeting with the consultants, MWDOC staff moved forward with the Selection
Committee. The Selection Committee was made up of representatives from nine client
agencies' and MWDOC, to review and discuss the proposals. The general consensus from
the committee was that both consultants provided strong proposals that demonstrated that
they were well qualified to complete the necessary work. Although Psomas provided a well
thought -out proposal with past experience of developing UWMP within Orange County,
The Selection Committee composed of staff representatives from the Cities of Fullerton, Fountain Valley, La Habra,
Tustin, Newport, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, Moulton Niguel Water District, and South Coast Water District
Page 3
Action Item
Malcolm Pirnie focused more on cost efficiency and the utilization of MWDOC staff
assistance which many on the committee felt were the objectives of selecting a single
consultant. Malcolm Pirnie also relied on the 2005 plans and commented that the 2010
plans were an "update" and that we were not starting from scratch. Based on their review
of the proposals, the Selection Committee unanimously recommended Malcolm
Pirnie.
Professional Service Contract with MWDOC and the participating Client agencies
Staff recommendation is to proceed with a single contract with Malcolm Pirnie for all
Participating Agencies who elect to proceed in the process. The prospective list has a
potential of 25 agencies including Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana and MWDOC.
MWDOC staff and Legal Counsel have developed a DRAFT Cost Share Agreement for
consideration by all of the agencies. The plan at this point is to solicit formal commitments
for participation by all of the agencies. Any agencies that elect not to participate will be
dropped from the group.
Attached is the draft Agreement for review and input. Attachment A has the estimated total
cost per agency, including the Time and Materials allowances.
The list of potential agencies includes:
1. MWDOC
2. City of Anaheim
3. City of Buena Park
4. City of Fullerton
5. City of Garden Grove
6. City of La Palma
7. City of Orange
8. Serrano Water District
9. City of Seal Beach
10. City of Tustin
11. Yorba Linda Water District
12. East Orange County Water District
13. City of Fountain Valley
14. City of Newport Beach
15. City of Santa Ana
16. Mesa Consolidated Water District
17. City of San Clemente
18. El Toro Water District
19. South Coast Water District
20. Moulton Niguel Water District
21. City of San Juan Capistrano
22. Santa Margarita Water District
23. City of Brea
24. City of La Habra
25. Laguna Beach County Water District
Page 4
1
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
24.
25.
City of La Habra $17,177
Laguna Beach County Water Distri t $16,241
$426,628
$15,740
$15,740
$348,440
Total
$37,943
$29,222
$32,226
$29,222
$29,222
$32,226
$29,222
$32,226
$29,222
$32,226
$32,226
$32,226
$29,831
$29,831
$29,831
$29,831
$29,586
$29,586
$29,586
$29,586
$29,586
$32,590
$32,917
$31,981
$775,068
Itemized Time and
Materials Copt
List of Potentially Interested MWDOC C ieAl ABRies
Budget Groupings of Agencies
Base Cost
(Contingency)
MWDOC
$25,207
$12,736
City of Ik6i'b*b180 (df Urban Water Management
Plans for 2010
MWDOC)
$16,486
$12,736
City of Buena Park
$16,486
$15,740
City of Fullerton (not a part of
P111YPOCI
$16,486
$12,736
City of Garden Grove
$16,486
$12,736
City of La Palma
$16,486
$15,740
City of Orange
$16,486
$12,736
Serrano Water District
$16,486
$15,740
City of Seal Beach
$16,486
$12,736
City of Tustin
$16,486
$15,740
Yorba Linda Water District
$16,486
$15,740
East Orange County Water District
$16,486
$15,740
City of Fountain Valley
$17,095
$12,736
City of Newport Beach
$17,095
$12,736
City of Santa Ana (not a part of
MWDOC)
$17,095
$12,736
Mesa Consolidated Water District
$17,095
$12,736
City of San Clemente
$16,850
$12,736
El Toro Water District
$16,850
$12,736
South Coast Water District
$16,850
$12,736
Moulton Niguel Water District
$16,850
$12,736
City of San Juan Capistrano
$16,850
$12,736
Santa Margarita Water District
$16,850
$15,740
City of La Habra $17,177
Laguna Beach County Water Distri t $16,241
$426,628
$15,740
$15,740
$348,440
Total
$37,943
$29,222
$32,226
$29,222
$29,222
$32,226
$29,222
$32,226
$29,222
$32,226
$32,226
$32,226
$29,831
$29,831
$29,831
$29,831
$29,586
$29,586
$29,586
$29,586
$29,586
$32,590
$32,917
$31,981
$775,068
MUNICIPAL
1�', ✓, WATER
DISTRICT Y
�4
�s
ORANGE
f
r
ziCOUNTY
b
DATE: July 15, 2010
TO: Urban Water Management Plan Participating Agencies:
1. Municipal Water District of Orange County, Karl Seckel
2. City of Anaheim, Rick Shintaku
3. City of Fullerton, Lorrie Lausten
4. City of Garden Grove, Raquel Manson
5. City of La Palma, James Tsumura
6. City of Orange, Sonny Tran
7. City of Seal Beach, Sean Crumby
8. City of Tustin, Vicky Kim
9. Yorba Linda Water District, Ken Vecchiarelli
10. East Orange County Water District, Lisa Ohlund
11. City of Fountain Valley, Mike Green
12. City of Newport Beach, Craig Justice
13. City of Santa Ana, Steve Worrall
14. Mesa Consolidated Water District, Barry Carlson
15. City of San Clemente, Nathan Adams
16. El Toro Water District, Mike Grandy
17. South Coast Water District, Larry Fregin
18. Moulton Niguel Water District, Matt Collings
19. City of San Juan Capistrano, West Curry
20. Santa Margarita Water District, Dan Ferons
21. City of Brea, Ron Krause
22. City of La Habra, Thom Coughran
FROM: Karl W. Seckel
SUBJECT: Invoice for 2010 UWMP Contract with Malcolm Pirnie
Most of you have already executed the Cost Sharing Agreement for Preparation of the
2010 UWMP's. MWDOC has Malcolm Pirnie under contract and the work is starting. In
accordance with the contract, we are invoicing each Participating Agency for the full
amount of the contract as included on the Attachment A/Exhibit A reproduced below.
Also attached for your accounting folks is an invoice from MWDOC for processing the
payment request. Please process this for payment at your earliest convenience. If you
have not executed the contract as yet, please hold onto this invoice until such time as
you are authorized to pay.
Please call or email with any questions you might have. Thanks for your help and
participation in this project.
ATTACHMENT A/ EXHIBIT A
For Development of Urban Water Management Plans for 2010
Itemized Time and Materials Cost Allowance (Contingency Items)
Total
SIP
oQ i!
a
o
0%'*
a
rY a° o°
�
m
ycc
♦ ay
° °,
N0�a°� a�
�.Q
gy`0t �e`'
,,�'�
°�aA
aaa �a,�o °�° o�� �G°
a� Cp� -.0 CPO p G°� °
°
0
4�
Bud et Grou in um of A encies
, •
1.
MWDOC
$25,207 --11
$900 1
$2,724 $0
1 $0 1
$0
$1,032 1
$0 1
$29,863
•
W-aterAnencies
2.
itv of Anaheim not part of MWDOC
$16,486
$900
$2,724 $0
$1,908 1
3,172 1
1,032 1
3,000 1
$29,222
3.
City of Fullerton not a part of MWDOC
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$0
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,222
4.
City of Garden Grove
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$0
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,222
5.
City of La Palma
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$3,004
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$32,226
6.
City of Orange
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$0
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,222
7.
City of Seal Beach
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$0
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,222
8.
City of Tustin
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$0
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,222
9.
Yorba Linda Water District
$16,486
$900
$2,724
$3,004
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$32,226
10.
East Oran a CouW Water District"
$19,986
$900
$2,724
$3,004
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$35,726
11.
City of Fountain Valley
$17,095
$300
$0
$0
$1,908
$0
$1,032
$1,000
$21,335
12.
City of Newport Beach
$17,095
$900
$2,724
$0
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,831
13.
Citv of Santa Ana not a part of MWDOC
$17,095
$0
$0
$0
$3,172
$1,032
$0
$23,207
14.
Mesa Consolidated Water District
$17,095
$900
$2,724
$0
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,831
15.
City of San Clemente
$16,850
$900
$2,724
$0
t1908
$0
$1,032
$0
$21,506
16.
EI Toro Water District
$16,850
$900
$2,724
$0
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,586
17.
South Coast Water District
$16,850
$900
$2,724
$0
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$29,586
18.
Moulton Ni uel Water District
$16,850
$900
$2,724
$0
$3,172
$1,032
$0
$26,586
19.
1 City of San Juan Capistrano
$16,850
$900
$2,724
1 $0
1 $0
$0
$1,032
$3,000
$24,506
120.
1 Santa Maroarita Water District
$16,850
$900
$2,724
$3,004
1 $1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$32,590
o
o A.-
21.
Ci of Brea
$17,177
$900
$2,624
$0
$0
$3,172
$1,032
$0
$24,905
22.
for
Cit of La Habra
�.•
$17,177
$900
$2,724
$3,004
$1,908
$3,172
$1,032
$3,000
$32,917
1.1 East Oranae Countv Water District's Based Cost is $3.500
more due to the fact that the UWMP will include both
its wholesale and
retail zone.
MUNICIPAL
WATER
DISTRICT
OF
dIRANGE
COUNTY
Customer
P.O. Box 20895
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
Phone: (714)963 -3058
Fax: (714)964 -9389
Name City of Seal Beach
Street 211 8th Street
City Seal Beach State CA ZIP 90740
Attn: Accounts Payable /Sean Crumby
Invoice No. 13878
INVOICE
Date 7/16/2010
Due Date Upon receipt
Description
Amount
2010 Urban Water Management Plan Contract with Malcolm Pirnie
$ 29,222.00
Total Amount Due
$ 29,222.00
Cust #: 380
GLA #: 4340 2000 21
Charge Cd:
Amount: $29,222.00
Please direct your inquiries to the Accounting Department.