HomeMy WebLinkAboutSLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29_RedactedSOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS
PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS LIST
CONTACT FIRM MAILING ADDRESS
Rob Natoli, P.E.Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
Kelye McKinney West Yost
Larry Ernst, PG, CHg Wood Rodgers
SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS
POSSIBLE CONSULTANTS LIST
CONTACT FIRM MAILING ADDRESS
Sonny Lunde, P.E.Brown & Caldwell
Ed Wallace, P.E.Northwest Hydraulics
Larry Ernst, PG, CHg Wood Rodgers
Tim Williams, PE Kennedy Jenks Consultants
Katie Ross-Smith, PhD
Edmund Tarter, P.E.
Shelley Read
SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS
ENGINEERING SERVICES
PROJECT :SLXNGS; WLXNGS
RFP EVALUATION & SELECTION CRITERIA
1
PROXIMITY: Rank the Project Team in terms of proximity to or familiarity
with the area and regulatory agencies in which the project is located.10
2
CAPACITY/CAPABILITY: Rank the Project Team in terms of capacity and
capability of the firm, including sub-contractors, to perform the work,
including any specialized services, within the given time limitations.15
3
NEEDS/SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE: Rank the Project Team in terms
of project needs and the specialized competence(s) of the firm.25
4
EXPERIENCE: Rank the the project team in terms of its proven
experience in well restoration, aquifer testing and groundwater treatment
system design.
20
5
APPROACH: Rank the project team in terms of its approach including
evidence of understanding of scope of work, project needs, limitations and
requirements.30
TOTAL 100
Rank the proposals using the following criteria using a 1 to 10 grading scale with 10 being
the highest. Enter your scores on the accompanying scoring sheet using the product of your
score to provide on the Scoring Sheet would be 7 x 10 = 70.
SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29Criteria 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS REVIEWED BY (initial): RL
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REVIEW SCORING SHEET
COMPANY
Ca
r
d
n
o
,
I
n
c
.
SCORE
1 PROXIMITY (10 Pts.)
1a Team Members proximity to District Service Area 5 5 5 5 4
1b Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Active 3 1 1 2 2
1c Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Completed 2 2 2 2 2
2 CAPACITY/CAPABILITY (15 Pts.)
2a Project Team Member Number and Expertise Specified 5 5 4 4 5
2b Organization Chart Matches Project Team Description 4 4 4 4 4
2c Manpower Estimate- Aligns with Approach 6 6 6 5 6
3 NEEDS/SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE (25 Pts.)
3a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 5 4 3 3 5
3b Field Survey Methods 5 4 3 2 5
3c Geomorphology/Hydrologic Analysis 5 5 5 4 5
3d Asset Management 5 4 4 3 5
3e GIS; Information Management Systems (IMS)5 4 4 4 4
4 EXPERIENCE (20 Pts.)
4a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 4 3 3 3 4
4b Geomorphology- Stream Classification 4 4 3 3 4
4c Three relevant projects (4 pts per project)12 10 9 9 12
5 APPROACH (30 Pts.)
5a Consultant/District Coordination Plan Described 5 5 5 5 5
5b FS Data Collection Methods Explained 5 4 3 3 5
5c CCTV Pipe Rating/Non-Destructive Testing Specified 5 5 4 3 4
5d Potential Benefits Specified 6 5 4 3 6
5e Number of field surveys (expected)5 5 2 3 4
5f Schedule aligns with RFP Section 8 constraints 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL SCORE 100 89 78 74 95
Y Y Y Y
Only 20 field sites inspected with 10 detailed Proposal had many proofreading errors, Logical approach, relevant experience, clear
CRITERIA
RECOMMEND (Y/N)
COMMENTS
X:\Projects\Wastewater\STPUD Stream Xings\2021 Pipeline Xngs\RFP\Review\SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS REVIEWED BY (initial):TRC
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REVIEW SCORING SHEET
COMPANY
Ca
r
d
n
o
,
I
n
c
.
SCORE
1 PROXIMITY (10 Pts.)
1a Team Members proximity to District Service Area 5 5 4 4 4
1b Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Active 3 3 2 1 3
1c Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Completed 2 2 1 1 2
2 CAPACITY/CAPABILITY (15 Pts.)
2a Project Team Member Number and Expertise Specified 5 5 4 3 4
2b Organization Chart Matches Project Team Description 4 4 4 3 4
2c Manpower Estimate- Aligns with Approach 6 5 4 4 5
3 NEEDS/SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE (25 Pts.)
3a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 5 4 4 4 5
3b Field Survey Methods 5 5 3 1 3
3c Geomorphology/Hydrologic Analysis 5 4 3 1 5
3d Asset Management 5 4 3 3 5
3e GIS; Information Management Systems (IMS)5 5 5 1 4
4 EXPERIENCE (20 Pts.)
4a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 4 4 4 3 4
4b Geomorphology- Stream Classification 4 4 3 2 4
4c Three relevant projects (4 pts per project)12 12 4 4 12
5 APPROACH (30 Pts.)
5a Consultant/District Coordination Plan Described 5 4 4 3 4
5b FS Data Collection Methods Explained 5 4 5 3 4
5c CCTV Pipe Rating/Non-Destructive Testing Specified 5 5 5 5 5
5d Potential Benefits Specified 6 6 6 5 6
5e Number of field surveys (expected)5 4 4 4 5
5f Schedule aligns with RFP Section 8 constraints 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL SCORE 100 93 76 59 92
N Y
Good local contacts, 1850 hours. Technical
layout. Did not pick up on proposed count. Good, but less relevant experience in Tahoe,
Numerous typos, high hour estimate (2300+),
limited understanding of project. Highly
focused on condition assessment, limited
mention of stream morphology - unclear of
for local projects. Minor disconnect between
CRITERIA
RECOMMEND (Y/N)
COMMENTS
X:\Projects\Wastewater\STPUD Stream Xings\2021 Pipeline Xngs\RFP\Review\SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS REVIEWED BY (initial):SMC
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REVIEW SCORING SHEET
COMPANY
Ca
r
d
n
o
,
I
n
c
.
SCORE
1 PROXIMITY (10 Pts.)
1a Team Members proximity to District Service Area 5 5 3 4 5
1b Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Active 3 2 0 3 0
1c Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Completed 2 2 2 2 2
2 CAPACITY/CAPABILITY (15 Pts.)
2a Project Team Member Number and Expertise Specified 5 3 5 1 5
2b Organization Chart Matches Project Team Description 4 2 4 1 4
2c Manpower Estimate- Aligns with Approach 6 4 5 5 5
3 NEEDS/SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE (25 Pts.)
3a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 5 5 5 4 5
3b Field Survey Methods 5 3 3 2 5
3c Geomorphology/Hydrologic Analysis 5 4 4 1 5
3d Asset Management 5 2 4 2 2
3e GIS; Information Management Systems (IMS)5 1 5 5 4
4 EXPERIENCE (20 Pts.)
4a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 4 4 3 2 3
4b Geomorphology- Stream Classification 4 3 3 1 4
4c Three relevant projects (4 pts per project)12 9 8 9 12
5 APPROACH (30 Pts.)
5a Consultant/District Coordination Plan Described 5 2 4 2 5
5b FS Data Collection Methods Explained 5 3 5 5 5
5c CCTV Pipe Rating/Non-Destructive Testing Specified 5 5 2 2 4
5d Potential Benefits Specified 6 2 2 1 4
5e Number of field surveys (expected)5 5 2 4 3
5f Schedule aligns with RFP Section 8 constraints 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL SCORE 100 70 73 60 86
CRITERIA
RECOMMEND (Y/N)
COMMENTS
X:\Projects\Wastewater\STPUD Stream Xings\2021 Pipeline Xngs\RFP\Review\SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS REVIEWED BY (initial): IB
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REVIEW SCORING SHEET
COMPANY
Ca
r
d
n
o
,
I
n
c
.
SCORE
1 PROXIMITY (10 Pts.)
1a Team Members proximity to District Service Area 5 4 2 3 2
1b Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Active 3 1 1 1 3
1c Lake Tahoe Basin Projects - Completed 2 2 3 2 2
2 CAPACITY/CAPABILITY (15 Pts.)
2a Project Team Member Number and Expertise Specified 5 3 3 1 5
2b Organization Chart Matches Project Team Description 4 4 3 2 4
2c Manpower Estimate- Aligns with Approach 6 5 3 3 4
3 NEEDS/SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE (25 Pts.)
3a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 5 3 3 4 5
3b Field Survey Methods 5 5 2 3 4
3c Geomorphology/Hydrologic Analysis 5 5 2 1 5
3d Asset Management 5 1 1 1 5
3e GIS; Information Management Systems (IMS)5 3 4 4 5
4 EXPERIENCE (20 Pts.)
4a Utility Pipeline Condition Assessments 4 2 3 3 4
4b Geomorphology- Stream Classification 4 4 2 1 4
4c Three relevant projects (4 pts per project)12 9 6 10 12
5 APPROACH (30 Pts.)
5a Consultant/District Coordination Plan Described 5 2 4 3 4
5b FS Data Collection Methods Explained 5 5 4 3 3
5c CCTV Pipe Rating/Non-Destructive Testing Specified 5 3 3 3 4
5d Potential Benefits Specified 6 4 3 3 5
5e Number of field surveys (expected)5 4 1 2 3
5f Schedule aligns with RFP Section 8 constraints 4 2 4 4 4
TOTAL SCORE 100 71 57 57 87
Y
Weak on ND Testing methods and
experience; Stroing on stream channel
morphology assessment; unclear how field
surveys would be coordinated with District
CCTV Inspections; Field Surveys; 2-man crew
for 35 Days for 203 sites (600 hours) = 5.5
sites/day (~ 33 % of Total = ~1,850) ; Project
team size/expertise = 2.3 (efficient)
Org Chart Members does not match
ManPower Estimate (missing hours for AM
Team Member); Team Size/Expertise = 2.3;
heavily weighted on data evaluation; Total
Hours = 1158 hours; Field Surveys = 224 hrs
(20 sites) ~11.2 hrs/site (~ 20% of Total
Hours).
Org. Chart lacks sufficient detail; Weak on
Stream Channel Morph; Lacks resume
decription for key team members (hydrologist,
survey crew lead, GIS, AM); Project team
size/expertise = 7 (inefficient); Total Hours =
2,330; Field Survey = 1,116 (90 sites) ~12.4
hrs/site (48% of Total Hours).
V. Strong Project Team; Pipeline Conditions
Assessment, Stream Morphology
Assessment; AM, GIS. Total Hours = 1464
Hours; Field Survey 412 Hours; 40 sites;
~10.3 hrs/site (~28% of Total Hours); Project
Team size/expertise = 3 (efficient)
Average Cost per Site at $300,000 Budget Level 1,478$ 15,000$ 3,333$ 7,500$
CRITERIA
RECOMMEND (Y/N)
COMMENTS
X:\Projects\Wastewater\STPUD Stream Xings\2021 Pipeline Xngs\RFP\Review\SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 8/26/2026
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
UTILITY PIPELINE CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS
PROPSAL RANKINGS (1 = Low; 4 = High)
Cardno, Inc.
Carollo Engineers,
Inc.Farr West Engineering
Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants
Reviewer 1 3 2 1 4
Reviewer 2 3 2 1 4
Reviewer 3 4 2 1 3
Reviewer 4 2 3 1 4
Reviewer 5 3 3 1 4
TOTAL SCORE 15 12 5 19
FIRM
SLXNGS_RFP_2021.06.29 10 8/26/2026