HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2020-066 Wastewater Treatment Plant Update; Consulting Services with RH2 Engineering, Inc.A RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. R-2020-066
authorizing an agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc to provide
engineering and consulting services associated with the 2022
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan update
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima Wastewater Division requires engineering and consulting
services associated with the 2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan update, and
WHEREAS, the Facility Plan update must be prepared by a licensed Professional
Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima Wastewater Division representatives have complied with
the provisions of RCW 39 80 which concerns the procurement of engineering and architectural
service by a city; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Division used the City procedure for Contracting for
Architects and Engineers, and
WHEREAS, RH2 Engineering, Inc has the necessary expertise and experience to
perform and provide the required engineering consulting services and is willing to do so in
accordance with the attached agreement, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to enter into
an agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc for engineering and consulting services associated
with the 2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan update, now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached and
incorporated contract with RH2 Engineering, Inc , in the amount of Four Hundred Sixty -Three
Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($463,400) for engineering and consulting services associated
with the 2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan updates
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16nd day of June, 2020
ATTEST
Sonya ClaaL e, City Clerk
/J7oQP
Patricia Byers,,Mayor
f
1
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEM ENT
Item No. 4.D.
For Meeting of: June 16, 2020
Resolution authorizing an agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. to
provide engineering and consulting services associated with the
2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan update
Scott Schafer, Director of Public Works
David Brown, Assistant Director of Public Works
Mike Price, Wastewater/Stormwater Division Manager 249-6815
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
The 2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan will update information from the 2004 Facility
Plan regarding existing deficiencies and projected system expansion and renewal requirements.
The Plan will provide the City of Yakima with an updated wastewater treatment capital
improvement plan, including development and population triggers, for the orderly renewal,
expansion and upgrade of the wastewater treatment systems. The Plan will require City Council
adoption. The 2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan will be incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plans and the General Sewer Plan as required by WAC 173-240-050.
The Wastewater Division complied with the provisions of RCW 39.80 and City of Yakima Policy
ADM 2-800 Contracting for Architects and Engineers in selecting RH2 Engineering, Inc. as a
qualified consulting firm to perform the required services. The terms of the Agreement would be
in an amount not to exceed $463,400. (See attached Agreement with Exhibits A - Scope of
Services, Exhibit B — Fee Estimate, and Exhibit C — Fee Schedule). The Facility Plan update is
budgeted in Wastewater Capital Fund 478.
ITEM BUDGETED: Yes
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Public Safety
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution
ATTACHMENTS:
2
Description Upload Date Type
D Resolution 5/27,2020 Resolution
D Contract IN/ Exhibits A. 3. and C 5/27/2C20 Contract
For City of Yakima Use Only:
Contract No.Amo--CJCj S
Project No. '1 /-
Resolution No.g- .Oao'OI!
SOQ No.
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AND
RH2 Engineering, Inc.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this I U day of ,» \C- , 2020, by and
between the City of Yakima, Washington, a municipal corporation with its principal office at 129 North
Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. with
its principal office at 22722 290h DRIVE SE, SUITE 210, BOTHELL WA 98021, hereinafter referred to as
"ENGINEER"; said corporation and its principal engineers are licensed and registered to do business in the
State of Washington, and will provide Engineering services under this Agreement for Wastewater Treatment
Facility Masterplan on behalf of the City of Yakima, herein referred to as the "PROJECT."
WITNESSETH:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain the ENGINEER to provide engineering services for design and
construction of the PROJECT, as described in this Agreement and subsequent Amendments thereto; and
WHEREAS, ENGINEER represents that it has available and offers to provide personnel with
knowledge and experience necessary to satisfactorily accomplish the work within the required time and that
it has no conflicts of interest prohibited by law from entering into this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and ENGINEER agree as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
1.1 The above recitals are incorporated into these operative provisions of the Agreement.
SECTION 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.0.1 ENGINEER agrees to perform those services described hereafter. Unless modified in
writing by both parties, duties of ENGINEER shall not be construed to exceed those
services specifically set forth herein.
2.0.2 ENGINEER shall use its best efforts to maintain continuity in personnel and shall assign,
RICHARD L. BALLARD as Principal -in -Charge throughout the term of this Agreement
unless other personnel are approved by the CITY
2.1 Basic Services: ENGINEER agrees to perform those tasks described in Exhibit A, entitled "SCOPE
OF WORK" (WORK) which is attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement as if fully set
forth herein.
2.2 Additional Services: CITY and ENGINEER agree that not all WORK to be performed by
ENGINEER can be defined in detail at the time this Agreement is executed, and that additional
WORK related to the Project and not covered in Exhibit A may be needed during performance of
this Agreement. CITY may, at any time, by written order, direct the ENGINEER to revise portions
of the PROJECT WORK previously completed in a satisfactory manner, delete portions of the
PROJECT, or request that the ENGINEER perform additional WORK beyond the scope of the
PROJECT WORK. Such changes hereinafter shall be referred to as "Additional Services."
Page 1
2.2.1 If such Additional Services cause an increase or decrease in the ENGINEER'S cost of, or
time required for, performance of any services under this Agreement, a contract price
and/or completion time adjustment pursuant to this Agreement shall be made and this
Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly.
2.2.2 Compensation for each such request for Additional Services shall be negotiated by the
CITY and the ENGINEER according to the provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, and if so authorized, shall be considered part of
the PROJECT WORK. The ENGINEER shall not perform any Additional Services until so
authorized by CITY and agreed to by the ENGINEER in writing.
2.3 The ENGINEER must assert any claim for adjustment in writing within thirty (30) days from the date
of the ENGINEER's receipt of the written notification of change.
SECTION 3 CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 CITY -FURNISHED DATA: The CITY will provide to the ENGINEER all technical data in the CITY'S
possession relating to the ENGINEER'S services on the PROJECT including information on any
pre-existing conditions known to the CITY that constitute hazardous waste contamination on the
PROJECT site as determined by an authorized regulatory agency.
3.2 ACCESS TO FACILITIES AND PROPERTY. The CITY will make its facilities reasonably
accessible to ENGINEER as required for ENGINEER'S performance of its services and will provide
labor and safety equipment as reasonably required by ENGINEER for such access.
3.3 TIMELY REVIEW: The CITY will examine the ENGINEER'S studies, reports, sketches, drawings,
specifications, proposals, and other documents; obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counselor,
accountant, auditor, bond and financial advisors, and other consultants as CITY deems
appropriate; and render in writing decisions required of CITY in a timely manner. Such
examinations and decisions, however, shall not relieve the ENGINEER of any contractual
obligations nor of its duty to render professional services meeting the standards of care for its
profession.
3.4 CITY shall appoint a CITY'S Representative with respect to WORK to be performed under this
Agreement. CITY'S Representative shall have complete authority to transmit instructions and
receive information. ENGINEER shall be entitled to reasonably rely on such instructions made by
the CITY'S Representative unless otherwise directed in writing by the CITY, but ENGINEER shall
be responsible for bringing to the attention of the CITY'S Representative any instructions which the
ENGINEER believes are inadequate, incomplete, or inaccurate based upon the ENGINEER'S
knowledge.
3.5 Any documents, services, and reports provided by the CITY to the ENGINEER are available solely
as additional information to the ENGINEER and will not relieve the ENGINEER of its duties and
obligations under this Agreement or at law. The ENGINEER shall be entitled to reasonably rely
upon the accuracy and the completeness of such documents, services and reports, but shall be
responsible for exercising customary professional care in using and reviewing such documents,
services, and reports and drawing conclusions there from.
SECTION 4 AUTHORIZATION, PROGRESS, AND COMPLETION
4 1 In signing this Agreement, CITY grants ENGINEER specific authorization to proceed with WORK
described in Exhibit A. The time for completion is defined in Exhibit A, or as amended.
SECTION 5 COMPENSATION
5.1 COMPENSATION ON A TIME SPENT BASIS AT SPECIFIC HOURLY RATES: For the services.
described in Exhibit A, compensation shall be according to Exhibit C - Schedule of Specific Hourly
Rates, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, on a time spent basis plus
reimbursement for direct non -salary expenses.
Page 2
5.1.1 DIRECT NON -SALARY EXPENSES: Direct Non -Salary Expenses are those costs
incurred on or directly for the PROJECT including, but not limited to, necessary
transportation costs, including current rates for ENGINEER'S vehicles; meals and lodging;
laboratory tests and analyses; printing, binding and reproduction charges, all costs
associated with other outside nonprofessional services and facilities, special CITY -
requested and PROJECT -related insurance and performance warranty costs; and other
similar costs. Reimbursement for Direct Non -Salary Expenses will be on the basis of actual
charges plus a reasonable markup, not to exceed ten percent (10%) and on the basis of
current rates when furnished by ENGINEER. Estimated Direct Non -Salary Expenses are
shown in Exhibit B
5.1.1.1 Travel costs, including transportation, lodging, subsistence, and incidental
expenses incurred by employees of the ENGINEER and each of the
Subconsultants in connection with PROJECT WORK; provided, as follows:
• That a maximum of U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE allowed cents
per mile will be paid for the operation, maintenance, and depreciation
costs of company or individually owned vehicles for that portion of time
they are used for PROJECT WORK. ENGINEER, whenever possible,
will use the least expensive form of ground transportation.
• That reimbursement for meals inclusive of tips shall not exceed a
maximum of forty dollars ($40) per day per person. This rate may be
adjusted on a yearly basis
• That accommodation shall be at a reasonably priced hotel/motel.
• That air travel shall be by coach class, and shall be used only when
absolutely necessary.
5 1.2 Telephone charges, computer charges, in-house reproduction charges, first class postage,
and FAX charges are not included in the direct expense costs, but are considered included
in the Schedule of Specific Hourly Billing Rates.
5.1.3 Professional Subconsultants. Professional Subconsultants are those costs for
engineering, architecture, geotechnical services and similar professional services
approved by the CITY. Reimbursement for Professional Subconsultants will be on the
basis of actual costs billed plus a reasonable markup, not to exceed ten percent (10%) for
services provided to the CITY through this Agreement. Estimated Subconsultant costs are
shown in Exhibit B.
5.2 Unless specifically authorized in writing by the CITY, the total budgetary amount for this PROJECT
shall not exceed FOUR HUNDERED SIXTY-THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS
($463,400). The ENGINEER will make reasonable efforts to complete the WORK within the budget
and will keep CITY informed of progress toward that end so that the budget or WORK effort can be
adjusted if found necessary. The ENGINEER is not obligated to incur costs beyond the indicated
budget, as may be adjusted, nor is the CITY obligated to pay the ENGINEER beyond these limits.
When any budget has been increased, the ENGINEER'S excess costs expended prior to such
increase will be allowable to the same extent as if such costs had been incurred after the approved
increase, and provided that the City was informed in writing at the time such costs were incurred.
5 3 The ENGINEER shall submit to the City's Representative an invoice each month for payment for
PROJECT services completed through the accounting cut-off day of the previous month. Such
invoices shall be for PROJECT services and WORK performed and costs incurred prior to the date
of the invoice and not covered by previously submitted invoices. The ENGINEER shall submit with
each invoice a summary of time expended on the PROJECT for the current billing period, copies
of subconsultant invoices, and any other supporting materials determined by the City necessary to
substantiate the costs incurred. CITY will use its best efforts to pay such invoices within thirty (30)
days of receipt and upon approval of the WORK done and amount billed. CITY will notify the
ENGINEER promptly if any problems are noted with the invoice CITY may question any item in
an invoice, noting to ENGINEER the questionable item(s) and withholding payment for such
item(s). The ENGINEER may resubmit such item(s) in a subsequent invoice together with
additional supporting information required.
Page 3
5.4 If payment is not made within sixty (60) days following receipt of approved invoices, interest on the
unpaid balance shall accrue beginning with the sixty-first (61) day at the rate of 1.0% per month or
the maximum interest rate permitted by law, whichever is less; provided, however, that no interest
shall accrue pursuant to Chapter 39.76 RCW when before the date of timely payment a notice of
dispute is issued in good faith by the CITY to the ENGINEER pursuant to the terms of RCW
39.76.020(4).
5.5 Final payment of any balance due the ENGINEER for PROJECT services will be made within forty-
five (45) days after satisfactory completion of the services required by this Agreement as evidenced
by written acceptance by CITY and after such audit or verification as CITY may deem necessary
and execution and delivery by the ENGINEER of a release of all known payment claims against
CITY arising under or by virtue of this Agreement, other than such payment claims, if any, as may
be specifically exempted by the ENGINEER from the operation of the release in stated amounts to
be set forth therein
5.6 Payment for any PROJECT services and WORK shall not constitute a waiver or release by CITY
of any claims, right, or remedy it may have against the ENGINEER under this Agreement or by law,
nor shall such payment constitute a waiver, remission, or discharge by CITY of any failure or fault
of the ENGINEER to satisfactorily perform the PROJECT WORK as required under this Agreement.
SECTION 6 RESPONSIBILITY OF ENGINEER
6 1 The ENGINEER shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical adequacy and accuracy,
timely completion, and the coordination of all plans, design, drawings, specifications, reports, and
other services furnished by the ENGINEER under this Agreement. The ENGINEER shall, without
additional compensation, correct or review any errors, omissions, or other deficiencies in its plans,
designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services. The ENGINEER shall perform its
WORK according to generally accepted civil engineering standards of care and consistent with
achieving the PROJECT WORK within budget, on time, and in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and permits.
6.2 CITY'S review or approval of, or payment for, any plans, drawings, designs, specifications, reports,
and incidental WORK or services furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve the ENGINEER
of responsibility for the technical adequacy, completeness, or accuracy of its WORK and the
PROJECT WORK. CITY'S review, approval, or payment for any of the services shall not be
construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or at law or any cause of action
arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
6 3 In performing WORK and services hereunder, the ENGINEER and its subcontractors,
subconsultants, employees, agents, and representatives shall be acting as independent
contractors and shall not be deemed or construed to be employees or agents of CITY in any manner
whatsoever. The ENGINEER shall not hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of
CITY by reason hereof and will not make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right or
privilege applicable to an officer or employee of CITY. The ENGINEER shall be solely responsible
for any claims for wages or compensation by ENGINEER employees, agents, and representatives,
including subconsultants and subcontractors, and shall save and hold CITY harmless therefrom.
6.4 INDEMNIFICATION.
(a) ENGINEER agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its elected and
appointed officials, agents, officers, employees, and volunteers (hereinafter "parties
protected") from (1) claims, demands, liens, lawsuits, administrative and other
proceedings,(including reasonable costs and attorneys' fees) and (2) judgments,
awards, losses, liabilities, damages, penalties, fines, costs and expenses of any kind
claimed by third parties arising out of, or related to any death, injury, damage or
destruction to any person or any property to the extent caused by any negligent act,
action, default, error or omission or willful misconduct arising out of the Engineer's
performance under this Agreement. In the event that any lien is placed upon the City's
property or any of the City's officers, employees or agents as a result of the negligence
or willful misconduct of the Engineer, the Engineer shall at once cause the same to be
dissolved and discharged by giving bond or otherwise.
Page 4
(b) CITY agrees to indemnify and hold the ENGINEER harmless from loss, cost, or expense
of any kind claimed by third parties, including without limitation such loss, cost, or expense
resulting from injuries to persons or damages to property, caused solely by the negligence
or willful misconduct of the CITY, its employees, or agents in connection with the
PROJECT.
(c) If the negligence or willful misconduct of both the ENGINEER and the CITY (or a person
identified above for whom each is liable) is a cause of such third party claim, the loss, cost,
or expense shall be shared between the ENGINEER and the CITY in proportion to their
relative degrees of negligence or willful misconduct and the right of indemnity will apply for
such proportion.
(d) Nothing contained in this Section or this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability
or a right of indemnification in any third party.
6.5 In any and all claims by an employee of the ENGINEER, any subcontractor, anyone directly or
indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, the
indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation
on the amount or types of damages, compensation, or benefits payable by or for the ENGINEER
or a subcontractor under workers' or workmens' compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other
employee benefit acts. The ENGINEER specifically and expressly waives its immunity under the
Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51, RCW. Such waiver has been mutually negotiated by the
ENGINEER and the CITY.
6 6 It is understood that any resident engineering or inspection provided by ENGINEER is for the
purpose of determining compliance with the technical provisions of PROJECT specifications and
does not constitute any form of guarantee or insurance with respect to the performance of a
contractor. ENGINEER does not assume responsibility for methods or appliances used by a
contractor, for a contractor's safety programs or methods, or for compliance by contractors with
laws and regulations. CITY shall use its best efforts to ensure that the construction contract
requires that the contractor(s) indemnify and name CITY, the CITY'S and the ENGINEERS officers,
principals, employees, agents, representatives, and engineers as additional insureds on
contractor's insurance policies covering PROJECT, exclusive of insurance for ENGINEER
professional liability.
6.7 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS. In soils, foundation, groundwater, and other subsurface
investigations, the actual characteristics may vary significantly between successive test points and
sample intervals and at locations other than where observation, exploration, and investigations
have been made. Because of the inherent uncertainties in subsurface evaluations, changed or
unanticipated underground conditions may occur that could affect total PROJECT cost and/or
execution. These conditions and cost/execution effects are not the responsibility of the
ENGINEER, to the extent that ENGINEER has exercised the applicable and appropriate standard
of professional care and judgment in such investigations.
SECTION 7 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
7.1 The general PROJECT schedule and the budget for both the entire PROJECT and its component
tasks shall be as set forth in this Agreement and attachments. The project schedule and
performance dates for the individual tasks shall be mutually agreed to by the CITY and the
ENGINEER within fifteen (15) days after execution of this Agreement. The performance dates and
budgets for tasks may be modified only upon written agreement of the parties hereto. The
performance date for tasks and the completion date for the entire PROJECT shall not be extended,
nor the budget increased because of any unwarranted delays attributable to the ENGINEER, but
may be extended or increased by the CITY in the event of a delay caused by special services
requested by the CITY or because of unavoidable delay caused by any governmental action or
other conditions beyond the control of the ENGINEER which could not be reasonably anticipated.
7.2 Not later than the tenth (10) day of each calendar month during the performance of the PROJECT,
the ENGINEER shall submit to the CITY'S Representative a copy of the current schedule and a
written narrative description of the WORK accomplished by the ENGINEER and subconsultants on
Page 5
each task, indicating a good faith estimate of the percentage completion thereof on the last day of
the previous month. Additional oral or written reports shall be prepared at the request of the CITY
for presentation to other governmental agencies and/or to the public.
SECTION 8 REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
8 1 All internal WORK products of the ENGINEER are instruments or service of this PROJECT. There
shall be no reuse, change, or alteration by the CITY or others acting through or on behalf of the
CITY without written permission of the ENGINEER, which shall not be unreasonably withheld and
will be at the CITY's sole risk. The CITY agrees to indemnify the ENGINEER and its officers,
employees, subcontractors, and affiliated corporations from all claims, damages, losses, and costs
including, but not limited to, litigation expenses and attorney's fees arising out of or related to such
unauthorized reuse, change, or alteration; provided, however, that the ENGINEER will not be
indemnified for such claims, damages, losses, and costs including, without limitation, litigation
expenses and attorney fees were caused by the ENGINEER's own negligent acts or omissions
8.2 The ENGINEER agrees that ownership of any plans, drawings, designs, specifications, computer
programs, technical reports, operating manuals, calculations, notes, and other WORK submitted
or which are specified to be delivered under this Agreement or which are developed or produced
and paid for under this Agreement, whether or not complete, shall be vested in the CITY.
8.3 All rights to patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets owned by ENGINEER (hereinafter
"Intellectual Property") as well as any modifications, updates or enhancements to said Intellectual
Property during the performance of the WORK remain the property of ENGINEER, and ENGINEER
does not grant CITY any right or license to such Intellectual Property.
SECTION 9 AUDIT AND ACCESS TO RECORDS
9.1 The ENGINEER, including its subconsultants, shall maintain books, records, documents and other
evidence directly pertinent to performance of the WORK under this Agreement in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied. The CITY, or the
CITY'S duly authorized representative, shall have access to such books, records, documents, and
other evidence for inspection, audit, and copying for a period of three years after completion of the
PROJECT. The CITY shall also have access to such books, records, and documents during the
performance of the PROJECT WORK, if deemed necessary by the CITY, to verify the ENGINEER'S
WORK and invoices.
9.2 Audits conducted pursuant to this section shall be in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards and established procedures and guidelines of the reviewing or auditing agency.
9.3 The ENGINEER agrees to the disclosure of all information and reports resulting from access to
records pursuant to this section provided that the ENGINEER is afforded the opportunity for an
audit exit conference and an opportunity to comment and submit any supporting documentation on
the pertinent portions of the draft audit report and that the final audit report will include written
comments, if any, of the ENGINEER.
9.4 The ENGINEER shall ensure that the foregoing paragraphs are included in each subcontract for
WORK on the Project.
9.5 Any charges of the ENGINEER paid by the CITY which are found by an audit to be inadequately
substantiated shall be reimbursed to the CITY.
SECTION 10 INSURANCE
10.1 At all times during performance of WORK, ENGINEER shall secure and maintain in effect insurance
to protect the CITY and the ENGINEER from and against all claims, damages, losses, and
expenses arising out of or resulting from the performance of this Agreement. ENGINEER shall
provide and maintain in force insurance in limits no less than that stated below, as applicable. The
CITY reserves the rights to require higher limits should it deem it necessary in the best interest of
the public. If ENGINEER carries higher coverage limits than the limits stated below, such higher
Page 6
limits shall be shown on the Certificate of Insurance and Endorsements and ENGINEER shall be
named as an additional insured for such higher limits.
10.1.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Before this Agreement is fully executed by
the parties, ENGINEER shall provide the CITY with a certificate of insurance as proof of
commercial liability insurance and commercial umbrella liability insurance with a total
liability limit of the limits required in the policy, subject to minimum limits of Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence combined single limit bodily injury and property
damage, and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate. The certificate
shall clearly state who the provider is, the coverage amount, the policy number, and when
the policy and provisions provided are in effect. Said policy shall be in effect for the
duration of this Agreement. The policy shall name the City, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds. The insured
shall not cancel or change the insurance without first giving the CITY thirty (30) calendar
days prior written notice The insurance shall be with an insurance company or
companies rated A-VII or higher in Best's Guide and admitted in the State of Washington.
Subcontractors: If subcontractors will be used, the same terms and limits of coverage will
apply and a certificate will be required per the instructions above. In lieu of a certificate,
contractor may provide confirmation in writing from their insurance broker that their
insurance policy does not contain a subcontract exclusion or one relating to the work of
others.
10.1.2. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance.
a. If ENGINEER owns any vehicles, before this Agreement is fully executed by the
parties, ENGINEER shall provide the CITY with a certificate of insurance as proof of
commercial automobile liability insurance and commercial umbrella liability insurance
with a total liability limit of the limits required in the policy, subject to minimum limits of
Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence combined single limit bodily injury
and property damage. Automobile liability will apply to "Any Auto" and be shown on the
certificate.
b. If ENGINEER does not own any vehicles, only "Non -owned and Hired Automobile
Liability" will be required and may be added to the commercial liability coverage at the
same limits as required in that section of this Agreement, which is Section 10.1.1 entitled
"Commercial General Liability Insurance".
c Under either situation described above in Section 10.1.2. a. and Section 10.1.2.b.,
the required certificate of insurance shall clearly state who the provider is, the coverage
amount, the policy number, and when the policy and provisions provided are in
effect. Said policy shall be in effect for the duration of this Agreement. The policy shall
name the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees, and
volunteers as additional insureds. The insured shall not cancel or change the insurance
without first giving the CITY thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. The insurance
shall be with an insurance company or companies rated A-VII or higher in Best's Guide
and admitted in the State of Washington.
10.1.3. Statutory workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by state
law.
10.1.4. Professional Liability Coverage. Before this Agreement is fully executed by the parties,
ENGINEER shall provide the CITY with a certificate of insurance as proof of professional
liability coverage with a total liability limit of the limits required in the policy, subject to
minimum limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per claim, and Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000.00) aggregate. The certificate shall clearly state who the provider is, the
coverage amount, the policy number, and when the policy and provisions provided are
in effect. Said policy shall be in effect for the duration of this Agreement. The insured
shall not cancel or change the insurance without first giving the CITY thirty (30) calendar
Page 7
days prior written notice The insurance shall be with an insurance company or
companies rated A-VII or higher in Best's Guide If the policy is written on a claims made
basis the coverage will continue in force for an additional two years after the completion
of this Agreement.
Failure of either or all of the additional insureds to report a claim under such insurance
shall not prejudice the rights of the CITY, its officers, employees, agents, and
representatives there under The CITY and the CITY'S elected and appointed officials,
officers, principals, employees, representatives, volunteers and agents shall have no
obligation for payment of premiums because of being named as additional insureds
under such insurance None of the policies issued pursuant to the requirements
contained herein shall be canceled, allowed to expire, or changed in any manner that
affects the rights of the CITY until thirty (30) days after written notice to the CITY of such
intended cancellation, expiration or change
SECTION 11 SUBCONTRACTS
11 1 ENGINEER shall be entitled, to the extent determined appropriate by ENGINEER, to subcontract
any portion of the WORK to be performed under this Agreement.
11.2 Any subconsultants or subcontractors to the ENGINEER utilized on this PROJECT, including any
substitutions thereof, will be subject to prior approval by CITY, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld Each subcontract shall be subject to review by the CITY'S Representative,
if requested, prior to the subconsultant or subcontractor proceeding with the WORK. Such review
shall not constitute an approval as to the legal form or content of such subcontract. The ENGINEER
shall be responsible for the architectural and engineering performance, acts, and omissions of all
persons and firms performing subcontract WORK.
11 3 CITY does anticipate ENGINEER subcontracting with any additional persons or firms for the
purpose of completing this Agreement.
11.4 The ENGINEER shall submit, along with its monthly invoices, a description of all WORK completed
by subconsultants and subcontractors during the preceding month and copies of all invoices
thereto.
SECTION 12 ASSIGNMENT
12 1 This Agreement is binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto This
Agreement may not be assigned by CITY or ENGINEER without prior written consent of the other,
which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. It is expressly intended and agreed that no third
party beneficiaries are created by this Agreement, and that the rights and remedies provided herein
shall inure only to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement.
SECTION 13 INTEGRATION
13 1 This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and ENGINEER as to those matters
contained herein No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect
to those matters covered herein This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing
signed by both parties
SECTION 14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14 1 This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of Washington
Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in Washington State If any part of this
Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null, and void
insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the remainder of this Agreement shall be in full force and
effect. Venue of all disputes arising under this Agreement shall be Yakima County, State of
Washington
SECTION 15 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT and NONDISCRIMINATION
Page 8
15 1 During the performance of this Agreement, ENGINEER and ENGINEER's subconsultants and
subcontractors shall not discriminate in violation of any applicable federal, state and/or local law or
regulation on the basis of age, sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, marital status,
disability, honorably discharged veteran or military status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or any
other classification protected under federal, state, or local law. This provision shall include but not
be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, advertising,
layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, selection for training, and the
provision of services under this Agreement. ENGINEER agrees to comply with the applicable
provisions of State and Federal Equal Employment Opportunity and Nondiscrimination statutes and
regulations.
SECTION 16 SUSPENSION OF WORK
16.1 CITY may suspend, in writing by certified mail, all or a portion of the WORK under this Agreement
if unforeseen circumstances beyond CITY'S control are interfering with normal progress of the
WORK. ENGINEER may suspend, in writing by certified mail, all or a portion of the WORK under
this Agreement if unforeseen circumstances beyond ENGINEER's control are interfering with
normal progress of the WORK. ENGINEER may suspend WORK on PROJECT in the event CITY
does not pay invoices when due, except where otherwise provided by this Agreement. The time
for completion of the WORK shall be extended by the number of days WORK is suspended If the
period of suspension exceeds ninety (90) days, the terms of this Agreement are subject to
renegotiation, and both parties are granted the option to terminate WORK on the suspended portion
of Project in accordance with SECTION 17.
SECTION 17 TERMINATION OF WORK
17.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, if the other party materially breaches
its obligations under this Agreement and is in default through no fault of the terminating party.
However, no such termination may be effected unless the other party is given: (1) not less than
fifteen (15) calendar days written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, of
intent to terminate; and (2) an opportunity for consultation and for cure with the terminating party
before termination Notice shall be considered issued within seventy-two (72) hours of mailing by
certified mail to the place of business of either party as set forth in this Agreement.
17.2 In addition to termination under subsection 17.1 of this Section, CITY may terminate this Agreement
for its convenience, in whole or in part, provided the ENGINEER is given: (1) not less than fifteen
(15) calendar days written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to
terminate; and (2) an opportunity for consultation with CITY before termination.
17.3 If CITY terminates for default on the part of the ENGINEER, an adjustment in the contract price
pursuant to the Agreement shall be made, but (1) no amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit
on unperformed services or other WORK, and (2) any payment due to the ENGINEER at the time
of termination may be adjusted to the extent of any additional costs or damages CITY has incurred,
or is likely to incur, because of the ENGINEER'S breach. In such event, CITY shall consider the
amount of WORK originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination,
whether that WORK is in a form or of a type which is usable and suitable to CITY at the date of
termination and the cost to CITY of completing the WORK itself or of employing another firm to
complete it. Under no circumstances shall payments made under this provision exceed the contract
price. In the event of default, the ENGINEER agrees to pay CITY for any and all damages, costs,
and expenses whether directly, indirectly, or consequentially caused by said default. This provision
shall not preclude CITY from filing claims and/or commencing litigation to secure compensation for
damages incurred beyond that covered by contract retainage or other withheld payments.
17.4 If the ENGINEER terminates for default on the part of CITY or if CITY terminates for convenience,
the adjustment pursuant to the Agreement shall include payment for services satisfactorily
performed to the date of termination, in addition to termination settlement costs the ENGINEER
reasonably incurs relating to commitments which had become firm before the termination, unless
CITY determines to assume said commitments
17 5 Upon receipt of a termination notice under subsections 17.1 or 17.2 above, the ENGINEER shall
(1) promptly discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise), and (2) deliver
Page 9
or otherwise make available to CITY all originals of data, drawings, specifications, calculations,
reports, estimates, summaries, and such other information, documents, and materials as the
ENGINEER or its subconsultants may have accumulated or prepared in performing this Agreement,
whether completed or in progress, with the ENGINEER retaining copies of the same.
17.6 Upon termination under any subparagraph above, CITY reserves the right to prosecute the WORK
to completion utilizing other qualified firms or individuals; provided, the ENGINEER shall have no
responsibility to prosecute further WORK thereon.
17.7 If, after termination for failure of the ENGINEER to fulfill contractual obligations, it is determined
that the ENGINEER has not so failed, the termination shall be deemed to have been effected for
the convenience of CITY. In such event, the adjustment pursuant to the Agreement shall be
determined as set forth in subparagraph 17.4 of this Section
17.8 If, because of death, unavailability or any other occurrence, it becomes impossible for any key
personnel employed by the ENGINEER in PROJECT WORK or for any corporate officer of the
ENGINEER to render his services to the PROJECT, the ENGINEER shall not be relieved of its
obligations to complete performance under this Agreement without the concurrence and written
approval of CITY. If CITY agrees to termination of this Agreement under this provision, payment
shall be made as set forth in subparagraph 17.3 of this Section.
SECTION 18 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
18.1 In the event that any dispute shall arise as to the interpretation of this Agreement, or in the event
of a notice of default as to whether such default does constitute a breach of the Agreement, and if
the parties hereto cannot mutually settle such differences, then the parties shall first pursue
mediation as a means to resolve the dispute. If either of the afore mentioned methods are not
successful then any dispute relating to this Agreement shall be decided in the courts of Yakima
County, in accordance with the laws of Washington. If both parties consent in writing, other
available means of dispute resolution may be implemented.
SECTION 19 NOTICE
19.1 Any notice required to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be directed to the party at
the address set forth below Notice shall be considered issued and effective upon receipt thereof
by the addressee -party, or seventy-two (72) hours after mailing by certified mail to the place of
business set forth below, whichever is earlier.
CITY: City of Yakima
2220 East Viola Avenue
Yakima, WA 98901
Attn: Dana Kallevig, Utility Project Manager
ENGINEER: RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
22722 29TH DRIVE SE, SUITE 210
BOTHELL, WA 98021
Attn: RICHARD BALLARD
Page 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their
respective authorized officers or representatives as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF YAKIMA
c 0' Alex Meyer off - Interim . i' Manager
z Printed Name:. Al elK ata-ge,E14.0-W
-
U
ok t' vn
0 Title City Manager
5
RESOL
Date: — UJ � 0)-v
Attest c `( 16-M
City Clerk
Signature
Printed Name:
Title )
Page 11
STATE OF WASHINGTON
) ss.
COUNTY OF YAKIMA
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared
before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was
authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the CITY MANAGER of the CITY OF
YAKIMA, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
Dated:
Seal or Stamp
(Signature)
Title
Printed Name
My commission expires:
Page 12
STATE OF WASHINGTON
) ss.
COUNTY OF YAKIMA
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that r, .-L-1 - 1..- 17 64- is the person who
appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that
he/she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the -pt (r�`fb/- of
i of ' L rLt.. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes
mentioned the instru ent.
Dated:
Seal or Stamp
MYRA C SACHS
Notary Public
State of Washington
My Commission Expires
November 13, 2021
(Signnature)f cry
Title
Printed Name
My commission expires: r f i
Page 13
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work
City of Yakima
Wastewater Treatment Facility Master Plan
February 2020
Background
The City of Yakima (City) intends to complete a master plan for the Wastewater Treatment Facility
(WWTF) it owns and operates. The previous planning documents that will be reviewed and included
where applicable for the current planning work are as follows:
• 2004 WWTF Facilities Plan by Black and Veatch;
• 2011 Engineering Report by Pharmer Engineering for the Struvite Recovery System;
• 2011 Amendment to the 2004 WWTF Facilities Plan by Tom Coleman to include basin
improvements to facilitate enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) and nitrification
and denitrification;
• 2011 WWTF Facilities Plan by Pharmer Engineering for the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) industrial waste pretreatment system;
• 2013 Engineering Report by Ridolfi, Inc., for the outfall improvements as part of the larger
Gap to Gap floodplain restoration project; and
• The 2014 facility planning effort for the WWTF that was undertaken by the City, but not
finalized.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-060 establishes the requirements for Engineering
Reports for domestic wastewater treatment facilities. These documents further reference the US
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan,
EPA-430/9-76-015 and 40 C.F.R. § 35.2030, which identify additional requirements for facility plans.
Additionally, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Criteria for Sewage Works
Design (Orange Book) summarizes the requirements for both Engineering Reports and Facility Plans.
The additional requirements for a facility plan allow for the projects identified in the plan to be
available for federal funding through the EPA.
The document produced by this planning effort will meet the requirements of a Facility Plan (Plan)
and will be referred to as such herein. In general, the Plan will complete the following tasks:
• Review and coordinate previous planning documents with new information from WWTF
analyses and information from operators and stakeholders.
• Review and plan for methods to meet current and future regulatory requirements and
policies.
14
• Summarize current and future municipal and industrial flow and loading as estimated in the
General Sewer Plan (GSP), which is currently being completed separately.
• Calculate and establish basic design criteria for current and future WWTF processes.
• Provide alternatives analyses for proposed improvements and recommend the preferred
alternative for each.
• Estimate project costs and develop a comprehensive capital improvement plan (CIP) for a
20-year planning horizon.
• Provide a comprehensive financial analysis.
• Provide sufficient detail to allow the City to proceed with the development of construction
contract documents for each project described in the Plan without substantial changes, with
the exception of large projects that may require an additional predesign effort.
• Coordinate with other local agency planning efforts or documents in regard to the Plan.
• Submit to Ecology for review and approval of the Plan.
An initial outline of the Plan shown below was used in developing this Scope of Work. During the
planning process, reorganization of the Plan can occur as mutually agreed to by the City and RH2
Engineering, Inc. (RH2).
• Executive Summary
• Chapter 1— Introduction
• Chapter 2 — Service Area and Planning Data
• Chapter 3 — Regulatory Requirements and Discharge Permit
• Chapter 4 — Current and Projected Wastewater Flow and Loading Conditions
• Chapter 5 — Evaluation of Existing WWTF
• Chapter 6 — Liquid Stream Alternatives Analyses
• Chapter 7 — Solids Handling System Alternatives Analyses
• Chapter 8 — Electrical and Control Systems Analyses
• Chapter 9 — Summary of Recommended Improvements and Capital Improvement Plan
• Chapter 10 — Implementation and Financing
• Appendices as required
The Plan will be submitted to Ecology for review and approval.
Task 1— Project Management
Objective: Monitor the scope of work, schedule, and budget and provide monthly invoices. Manage
the project records and RH2 project team.
15
Approach:
1.1 Prepare, monitor, and update the project schedule on a monthly basis.
1.2 Review work performed for consistency with this Scope of Work, monitor budget, prepare
monthly invoices, and provide City staff with periodic project status and budget updates via
email.
1.3 Maintain and store project records. Manage the RH2 team members and subconsultants.
Prepare and execute subconsultant contracts.
Assumptions:
• All project records will be maintained and filed electronically only. Files shared with the City
will be saved and maintained on a shared platform available to the City.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Monthly invoices documenting progress of work completed and earned value compared to
contract value.
• Project records maintained and stored electronically on a shared platform available to City.
• RH2 and subconsultants project team coordination.
Task 2 — Workshop Attendance and Coordination
Objective: Provide attendance at workshops as described in the following subtasks.
Approach:
2.1 Attend project kickoff workshop.
• Attend one (1) project kickoff workshop with the City. Prepare an agenda and minutes for the
workshop. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff members will attend this workshop.
2.2 Attend GSP workshops.
• Attend two (2) workshops with Akel and the City to review relevant planning information
from the GSP that will be included in the Plan. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff members
will attend these workshops.
2.3 Attend CIP development and financial analysis workshops.
• Attend one (1) workshop with City staff to review the proposed improvements identified
during the site investigations and analyses of the facilities. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff
members will attend this workshop.
• Attend two (2) workshops with City staff to review the alternatives analyses completed in
Tasks 7, 8, 9, and 10 for the proposed improvements and recommended CIP list. It is assumed
that two (2) RH2 staff members will attend each workshop.
• Attend one (1) workshop with City staff and FCS GROUP to review the financial analysis
completed in Task 12. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff members will attend this workshop.
16
2.4 Attend Plan review workshops.
• Attend one (1) workshop with the City and Ecology staff at Ecology's Central Regional Office
in Union Gap, Washington to review an early draft of the Plan from Task 13. It is assumed that
two (2) RH2 staff members will attend this workshop.
• Attend two (2) workshops with City staff to review the compiled drafts of the Plan from Task
13. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff members will attend each workshop.
• Attend one (1) workshop to present the final draft of the Plan from Task 13 to the City Council
and the public. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff members will attend this workshop.
• Attend one (1) workshop to review the final draft of the Plan from Task 13 with Ecology. It is
assumed that two (2) RH2 staff members will attend this workshop.
Assumptions:
• The workshops noted are assumed to be coordinated, scheduled, and led by RH2. Meeting
agendas and minutes will be provided by RH2 for all workshops.
• All coordination related to the current three -party agreement is assumed to be completed by
the City as part of the GSP development.
• A detailed description of the work necessitating each workshop is described in the subsequent
tasks below.
• Additional meetings or workshops can be completed using the Contingency if needed.
Provided by the City:
• Attendance at all workshops listed and meeting location, unless noted otherwise.
• Coordination, as necessary, related to the three-party'agreement.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Attendance at all workshops listed.
• One (1) final copy of the agenda and one (1) final copy of the minutes in PDF format for each
workshop.
Task 3 — Agency Coordination, Regulatory Review, and Environmental Permitting
Objective: Coordinate with agencies as applicable for the Plan development and regulatory review,
and complete permitting efforts.
Approach:
3.1 Provide coordination with Ecology.
• Periodically coordinate with Ecology via phone calls and email correspondence during the
development of the Plan.
• Review and summarize the City's current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Include a copy of the NPDES permit in the Plan appendices.
17
• Review and summarize current and expected future regulatory requirements related to the
NPDES discharge permit, biosolids permit, and air quality permit (if applicable). Summarize
the regulations for laboratory accreditation that apply to the City's WWTF.
3.2 Provide coordination with other agencies and stakeholders.
• Periodically coordinate by phone calls and email correspondence with other agencies or
stakeholders as required during the development of the Plan.
3.3 Assist the City with compliance for the State Environmental Review Process (SERP).
• Coordinate with Ecology's Environmental Review Coordinator and the City's Planning
Department regarding SERP compliance.
• Prepare a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist that discusses the capital
improvements and associated environmental impacts and addresses applicable federal
crosscutters. Incorporate City review comments and finalize the SEPA Checklist for City
submittal. It is assumed the City will process the SEPA Checklist, including issuance of a
determination, publication and agency comment, and addressing comments as needed.
Include copies of the completed SEPA Checklist, determination, affidavits of publication,
agency comments and responses, etc. to satisfy the SEPA component of SERP.
• Prepare Cost Effectiveness Analysis documentation, which is assumed to include pertinent
cost estimate and alternatives analysis documentation from the efforts detailed in Tasks 7
through 11 in this Scope of Work. The Cost Effectiveness Analysis documentation is part of
SERP compliance, and to the extent the City desires to pursue the SERP ahead of securing
funding, RH2 will utilize information prepared as part of the Plan to satisfy this component.
This subtask assumes a total of eight (8) hours to complete the work described.
• Compile public participation documentation, which is a requirement for SERP compliance.
Pertinent public participation documentation from the project stakeholder coordination
detailed in Task 2 will be included. Additionally, it is assumed the City will provide an
opportunity for public participation in alternatives selection (e.g., public or Council meeting,
mailers, website outreach, etc.), recording public and project stakeholder feedback and
providing RH2 with pertinent documentation for inclusion in the SERP. To the extent the City
desires to pursue SERP completion ahead of securing funding, RH2 will utilize information
prepared as part of this Plan and/or provided by the City through City -led efforts to satisfy
this component. This subtask assumes a total of eight (8) hours to complete the work
described.
• Prepare the SERP Cover Form and documentation for compliance with Ecology requirements.
Include copies of the SERP documentation in the Plan appendices.
Assumptions:
• City will be involved in all coordination efforts with agencies and will be included in all
correspondence and communications.
• Subtask 3.1 is assumed to be limited to a total of twenty (20) hours for the tasks described.
18
• Subtask 3.2 is assumed to be limited to a total of sixteen (16) hours for the tasks described.
• General coordination with the City is included in individual subtasks elsewhere in this Scope of
Work.
• Other agency or stakeholder coordination is assumed to primarily include information
gathering and gaining a general understanding of the Gap to Gap floodway restoration
project by Yakima County, Yakima Greenway Foundation, and adjacent property owners as it
relates to the planned improvements to the WWTF.
• Coordination with other agencies or stakeholders such as other departments within the City,
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), or the Yakama Nation is assumed to be limited to the
environmental review process. Significant involvement of groups beyond this list was not
assumed for the development of this Scope of Work.
• The NPDES permit is assumed to be issued during 2020. If substantial changes to the permit
affect the Plan development, additional services can be established by amendment if mutually
agreeable to the City and RH2. A dilution zone study may be required during the next permit
cycle; this effort is not included in this Scope of Work.
• The SEPA Checklist and SERP documentation will be used to prepare the existing environment
descriptions in the Plan.
• The SEPA Checklist will address the 14 elements of the environment, as well as applicable
federal crosscutters, to facilitate SERP review, which is intended to address both the SEPA
process and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This Scope of Work does
not specifically include preparation of a NEPA Environmental Assessment or similar document,
which may be needed to satisfy funding requirements and/or if specific projects trigger a
federal nexus (i.e., federal funding is obtained, a federal permit is required, or a project is
proposed on federal land). Since the requirements of NEPA documentation vary with the
funding agency or federal lead agency, it is recommended that this process be completed
when triggered through one of the above mechanisms.
• The cost estimates prepared in Tasks 7 through 11 will be utilized to meet requirements for
SERP.
• Public participation coordination, meetings, etc. to satisfy the SERP public participation
requirements will be completed by the City. RH2 has not included effort to assist the City in
this capacity. It is assumed the City will provide required public participation documentation
to RH2 for completion of the SERP.
Provided by the City:
• SEPA determination, publication, and agency review coordination.
• Signed copy of the final SEPA Checklist, determination, affidavits of publication, agency
review, comments, and responses, as applicable; all of which will be included with the SERP
documentation.
19
• Public participation coordination and documentation for inclusion with the SERP
documentation.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Coordination with agencies on a limited basis.
• Draft and final SEPA Checklist in PDF format.
• SERP documentation, to include the SEPA process documentation, cost effectiveness analysis
documentation, and applicable Ecology forms, in PDF format.
Task 4 — Collect and Review Relevant Planning Information
Objective: Collect and review existing information required for developing the Plan. Review and
summarize planning information derived from the GSP that is currently being completed by Akel.
Approach:
4.1 Prepare and provide a list of existing information needs to the City.
4.2 Review previous planning documents listed in the Background of this Scope of Work and
other information provided by the City.
4.3 Review previous construction contract documents for pertinent improvement projects
completed at the WWTF.
4.4 Collect and review the WWTF municipal influent, effluent, and process data and the industrial
pretreatment system influent, effluent, and process data from the City. Collect and review
industry Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data from the City.
4.5 Review the GSP and summarize the 10-year and 20-year population projections for both the
City and sewer service areas that comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) from the
GSP.
Assumptions:
• RH2 will rely upon the accuracy and completeness of data, information, and materials
generated or produced by the City or others in relation to this Scope of Work.
Provided by the City:
• Previous planning documents and existing information.
• Construction contract documents for major projects completed at the WWTF.
• Tabulated electronic WWTF and industrial pretreatment system influent, effluent, and
process data and industry DMR data.
• Industry surveys or other information useful in projecting industrial system growth.
RH2 Deliverables:
• One (1) list of data and existing information needs in Microsoft (MS) Word format.
• Coordination with the City on data collection and review of data and planning documents.
20
Task 5 — Analysis of Wastewater Flow and Load
Objective: Summarize the current and projected municipal and industrial sewer system flows and
loads from the GSP. Establish these values for use in the existing WWTF facilities analyses.
Approach:
5.1 Analyze, tabulate, and trend pertinent existing WWTF municipal influent, effluent, and
process data for the last five (5) years.
5.2 Analyze, tabulate, and trend pertinent existing WWTF industrial pretreatment system
influent, effluent, and process data for the last five (5) years and assess current utilization of
the UASB and ancillary components.
5.3 Project municipal system flow and loading rates based on population projections from the
GSP for the 20-year planning horizon for the WWTF. Include the portion of infiltration and
inflow (1/I) as indicated by the GSP. Summarize peaking factors established by review of
current WWTF data.
Assumptions:
• The data compilation and analysis necessary to complete the current and projected flow and
loading will be based on current WWTF influent data and population projections made by Akel
in the GSP.
Provided by the City:
• Tabulated WWTF influent, effluent, and process data in electronic format.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Tables with the calculated flow rate and water quality loading projections for review with the
City in PDF format.
Task 6 — Site Investigations and Evaluation of Existing Facilities and Processes
Objective: Assess the condition and age of the existing WWTF facilities and identify potential
deficiencies. Analyze the performance, current and future capacity, and regulatory criteria
capabilities of the existing treatment processes and identify potential deficiencies.
Approach:
6.1 Perform site investigations.
• Perform WWTP site investigations to assess the condition of existing facilities, processes,
equipment, and other items necessary to develop a list of recommended improvements.
Attend four (4) site investigations with City staff. It is assumed that two (2) RH2 staff member
will attend each investigation.
6.2 Perform a liquid stream evaluation.
• Review each unit process to identify minor and major potential deficiencies to be rectified by
a CIP project. Analyze and summarize information collected during site investigations to
establish the necessary improvements based on the following:
21
o Age of components and expected useful life.
o Process performance, and current and future capacity based on guidance of the
Orange Book, Manual of Practice (MOP) 8, and other applicable references. Where
applicable, perform hydraulic analyses, solids loading calculations, or other analyses
as necessary to evaluate capacity.
o Applicable regulatory criteria or codes that relate to each unit process.
o Considerations for odor control or other ancillary systems impacted by the process.
• Evaluate the potential for water reuse as part of the liquid stream analyses.
• Develop recommendations for Aeration Basin operating strategies to be tested during the
Plan development to help inform the assessment of the current performance capabilities of
the activated sludge system and the future capacity of the system based on applicable
performance criteria. The results of the testing will be used to aid in the analyses of
mechanical and structural modifications that may be required to meet future needs.
6.3 Perform a solids handling system evaluation.
• Review each unit process to identify minor and major potential deficiencies to be rectified by
a CIP project. Analyze and summarize information collected during site investigations to
establish necessary improvements based on the following:
o Age of components and expected useful life.
o Process performance and current and future capacity based on guidance of the
Orange Book, MOP 8, and other applicable references. Where applicable, perform
hydraulic analyses, solids loading calculations, or other applicable analyses to
evaluate capacity.
o Applicable regulatory criteria that relate to each unit process.
o Considerations for odor control or other ancillary systems impacted by the process.
6.4 Perform an industrial pretreatment system evaluation.
• The existing industrial pretreatment system, which became fully operational in 2014,
includes:
o Influent screening;
o Influent pH adjustment chemical feed system;
o An influent pump station;
o A two -cell UASB system with additional tank compartments for influent equalization
and sludge storage;
o A UASB process control building with the associated pumps, piping, and chemical feed
systems; and
o As currently designed, provisions for adding a third UASB reactor tank.
22
• Review each UASB system component condition and performance capabilities to determine
which, if any, deficiencies need to be addressed through CIP projects. If current and/or
anticipated future industrial wastewater loading is approaching, or will exceed, the design
loading of the two -cell UASB system, a CIP cost estimate will be developed for adding the
third UASB cell in the space provided, including any necessary upgrades and/or modifications
to the existing mechanical systems located in the UASB Process Control Building.
• More recently, WWTF operating staff have observed and experienced excessive
accumulations of grit -like material in the UASB equalization tank. Under this Subtask, it will
be necessary to determine the source(s) and to better characterize the grit or other solids
that are accumulating in the equalization tank so that alternatives for addressing the issue
can be evaluated under Task 9.
6.5 Perform an electrical and control evaluation.
• Provide a basic review of the majority of the WWTF electrical, automatic control, and
telemetry system components that were not otherwise reviewed during the analyses of
individual processes, including the primary electrical service, back-up power supply, electrical
distribution equipment, motor control centers, control panel hardware and wiring,
communications equipment, and instrumentation.
• Provide a basic review of arc flash considerations for the WWTF and recommend either a
specific or plant -wide arc flash analysis, short circuit, and protective device coordination
study as a CIP project, as necessary.
• Provide a basic review of the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) network
configuration, security, hardware, and wiring.
• Review the SCADA system software relative to industry standards and recommend
improvements as necessary for reduced license fees, increased support, operational
improvements, etc.
6.6 Perform other investigations or evaluations.
• Provide a limited structural conditions assessment for areas of known concern to the City,
which are assumed to include the following:
o Primary clarifiers.
o Aeration basins, specifically the structures adjoining the mixed liquor channels.
6.7 Summarize the major necessary CIP projects for the WWTF as identified in the previous
subtasks, including the available alternatives for each.
Assumptions:
• The City will conduct sampling and laboratory testing for use in verification of any new
aeration basin operational scenarios.
23
• The City will conduct or arrange for the required laboratory testing to better characterize the
grit solids accumulating in the UASB equalization tank. The City will conduct surveys of the
industrial users to determine the source(s).
• Multiple site visits will be necessary to complete this work.
• A detailed conditions assessment of each facility, including specific code review, life, and
safety considerations, is not provided as part of this Scope of Work, but can be added by
amendment if mutually agreeable by the City and RH2.
• The limited structural condition assessment will include visual observation of the above -grade
components and interior walls of basins as exposed during the site visit. This assessment will
be used to identify and prioritize areas of concern and addition to the CIP for further
evaluation. No destructive testing or instrument -assisted investigations or excavations will be
used during this limited assessment, and structural calculations or desktop evaluations will
not be conducted.
• Review of the 2020 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 820: Fire Protection in
Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities (NFPA 820) is included as it relates to specific
processes or areas of concern for the City. A site -wide review of all spaces within the WWTF
with regard to NFPA 820 is not provided as part of this Scope of Work but can be added by
amendment if mutually agreeable by the City and RH2.
• Odor control measures will be considered for each potential improvement for inclusion in
applicable CIP projects. A comprehensive site -wide odor control evaluation is not provided as
part of this Scope of Work but can be added by amendment if mutually agreeable by the City
and RH2.
Provided by the City:
• Attendance at and access for all site investigations.
• Review of the summary of the major CIP projects and alternatives.
• Sampling and laboratory testing.
• Laboratory testing to characterize the grit solids accumulating in the UASB equalization tank
and surveys of the industrial users to determine the source(s).
RH2 Deliverables:
• Attendance at all site investigations.
• Photographs, measurements, and other forms of documentation collected from site
investigations in PDF format.
• Summary of the major CIP projects, including applicable alternatives, in PDF format for review
by the City.
24
Task 7 — Liquid Stream Alternatives Analyses
Objective: Perform alternatives analyses for major CIP projects that address the performance,
capacity, and regulatory criteria deficiencies of the existing liquid stream treatment processes
identified in Task 6.
Approach:
7.1 Perform an alternatives analysis for liquid stream improvements that include multiple options
including, but not limited to, the following:
• Summarize environmental considerations and impacts to the public, including odor, noise, or
other parameters.
• List permitting considerations.
• Analyze effects to the WWTF hydraulic profile caused by any of the proposed improvements.
• Perform planning -level BioWin modeling for analyzing liquid stream alternatives, if
applicable.
• Analyze the hydraulic and solids loading capacity afforded by each improvement and the
effect on the overall WWTF capacity.
• Construct simple 3D AutoCAD models of existing structures or facilities where necessary to
analyze alternatives or potential improvements.
• Provide planning -level layout drawings or schematics for use in comparing the footprint and
orientation of each option.
• Analyze operational flexibility provided by each improvement for alternate modes of
operation.
• Evaluate life -cycle costs, including design and soft costs, construction cost, life -cycle costs
related to electrical load, polymer usage, maintenance, and other considerations, and salvage
value.
7.2 Summarize the analysis of each possible alternative and provide to the City for use in
comparing the qualitative and quantitative criteria for each alternative. Review the analysis
with the City and establish the recommended alternatives. List the recommended alternative
for each improvement to construct a CIP.
Assumptions:
• The level of planning effort assumed during the development of this Scope of Work was based
on discussions with the City regarding the portions of the liquid stream process that are
currently identified as requiring significant improvement in the planning period. Some known
lesser improvement projects and additional minor projects may be identified during the
WWTF evaluation that are not expected to significantly change this Scope of Work. Major
improvement projects identified during the Plan development beyond those listed below may
necessitate an amendment to this Scope of Work as mutually agreed to by the City and RH2.
25
o Primary influent flow split improvements.
o Primary clarifiers and tankage refurbishment.
o Aeration basin optimization, diffuser replacement, and structural repair.
o Blower building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) improvements.
o Secondary clarifier flow splitter/isolation improvements and clarifier enhancements.
o Additional secondary clarifier.
• Where applicable, hydraulic, AutoCAD, or other models produced will be produced at a
planning or preliminary level of detail for use only in comparing alternatives.
Provided by the City:
• Review and input on alternatives analyses.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Analyses of major liquid stream improvements alternatives in PDF format.
Task 8 — Solids Handling System Alternatives Analysis
Objective: Perform alternatives analyses for major CIP projects that address the performance,
capacity, and regulatory criteria deficiencies of the existing solids handling treatment processes
identified in Task 6.
Approach:
8.1 Perform an alternatives analysis for solids handling system improvements that include
multiple options including, but not limited to, the following:
• Summarize environmental considerations and impacts to the public, including odor, noise, or
other parameters.
• List permitting considerations.
• Analyze the hydraulic and solids loading capacity afforded by each improvement and the
effect on the overall WWTF capacity.
• Construct simple 3D AutoCAD models of existing structures or facilities where necessary to
analyze alternatives or potential improvements.
• Provide planning -level layout drawings or schematics for use in comparing the footprint and
orientation of each option.
• Analyze operational flexibility provided by each improvement for alternate modes of
operation.
• Evaluate life -cycle costs, including design and soft costs, construction cost, life -cycle costs
related to electrical load, polymer usage, maintenance, and other considerations, and
salvage value.
26
8.2 Summarize the analysis of each possible alternative and provide to the City for use in
comparing the qualitative and quantitative criteria for each alternative. Review with the City
and establish the recommended alternatives. List the recommended alternative for each
improvement to construct a CIP.
Assumptions:
• The level of planning effort assumed during the development of this Scope of Work was based
on discussions with the City regarding the portions of the solids handling system that are
currently identified as requiring significant improvement in the planning period. Some lesser
improvement projects also known and additional minor projects may be identified during the
WWTF evaluation that are not expected to significantly change this Scope of Work. Major
improvement projects identified during the Plan development beyond those listed below may
necessitate an amendment to this Scope of Work as mutually agreed to by the City and RH2.
o Solids handling portion grit removal system improvements.
o Primary sludge pumping system improvements.
o Scum pumping system improvements.
o Return Activated Sludge (RAS)/Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) pump station
improvements.
o Future Dissolved Air Floatation (DAFT) and centrifuge' replacement and/or
improvements.
o Improvement of centrate management to allow the lagoon closure.
o New primary digester.
• Where applicable, hydraulic, AutoCAD, or other models produced will be produced at a
planning or preliminary level of detail for use only in comparing alternatives.
Provided by the City:
• Review and input on alternatives analyses.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Analyses of major solids handling system alternatives in PDF format.
Task 9 — Industrial Pretreatment System Alternatives Analyses
Objective: Perform alternatives analyses for major CIP projects that address the condition,
performance, and/or capacity of the existing UASB industrial pretreatment system identified in
Task 6.
Approach:
9.1 Perform an alternatives analyses for addressing the grit accumulation problem in the UASB
equalization tank including, but not limited to, the following:
27
• Adding a grit removal process unit to the industrial waste flow stream within the WWTF site.
This will involve an analyses of available grit removal technologies and locations where such
facilities could be installed.
• Requiring the industrial users to install grit removal equipment at their facilities.
9.2 Provide planning -level layout drawings or schematics for use in showing the footprint and
orientation of the expansion of the UASB with a third reactor tank.
9.3 Provide planning -level layout drawings or schematics for use in showing the footprint and
orientation of various alternatives for the addition of a grit removal process for the industrial
wastewater flow within the WWTF site.
9.4 Evaluate life -cycle costs, including design and soft costs, construction cost, and life -cycle costs
related to UASB system expansion and the addition of a grit removal process unit, if
applicable.
Assumptions:
• Where applicable, hydraulic, AutoCAD, or other models produced will be produced at a
planning or preliminary level of detail for use only in comparing alternatives.
• The determination of capital costs associated with increasing the flow and loading design
capacity of the UASB treatment system will be limited to the addition of a third UASB reactor
tank in the space provided and any associated modifications and/or upgrades needed for the
mechanical systems located in the existing UASB Process Control Building. This would increase
the current design capacity by approximately 50 percent. If and when the projected industrial
wastewater flow and loading will exceed 150 percent of the current design capacity, a more
comprehensive analysis of alternatives for expansion of the industrial pretreatment system
will need to be undertaken.
• To the extent that there are deficiencies identified in any of the existing industrial
pretreatment system components (such as screening, pumps, chemical feed systems, or heat
exchangers), capital improvement costs will be developed for refurbishing or replacing those
components in kind.
Provided by the City:
• Review and input on alternatives analyses.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Analyses of major UASB industrial pretreatment system alternatives in PDF format.
Task 10 — Electrical and Control Systems Analyses
Objective: Perform analyses for major CIP projects that address the deficiencies of the existing
electrical and control systems. Where multiple options are applicable, provide alternatives analyses
for various options.
Approach:
28
10.1 Perform alternatives analysis for electrical and control system improvements that include
multiple options. Quantitative analysis shall include review of capital and life -cycle costs, as
well as effects to capacity and concurrence with established design criteria. Qualitative
analysis shall include effects on operations, flexibility for maintenance, alternative
operations, and other parameters as determined by the City.
Assumptions:
• Where applicable, hydraulic, AutoCAD or other models produced will be produced at a
planning or preliminary level of detail for use only in comparing alternatives.
Provided by the City:
• Review and input on alternatives analyses.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Analyses of major electrical and control systems alternatives in PDF format.
Task 11— Summary of Preferred Alternatives and Recommended Improvements
Objective: Select the recommended alternatives as identified by the City and identify the design
criteria for the major CIP projects. Recommend CIP projects that address the condition and age
deficiencies of the existing WWTF facilities. Develop a CIP for the improvements.
Approach:
11.1 Summarize the recommended improvements in a draft CIP. For each project, include the
following:
• A list of the major elements and considerations for design and construction of each
recommended improvement project.
• Planning -level site, building, or equipment layout plans or schematics to illustrate each
improvement and include the improvement in a WWTF process flow diagram.
• Summary of environmental and permitting considerations.
• Preliminary hydraulic and solids treatment capacity and pertinent design criteria.
• Design life of each improvement and summary of considerations for future expansion.
11.2 Provide a recommended improvements schedule based on overall feasibility of
implementation for review by the City. Prioritize the projects based on City input.
Prioritization will be completed yearly for 0 to 5 years, then in lump sum increments for the
6- to 10-year, and 11- to 20-year periods.
11.3 Evaluate future staffing needs at the WWTF to account for operation and maintenance
(O&M) of new facilities to be constructed as part of the improvements.
Assumptions:
• All figures are intended for planning -level use to generally illustrate the recommended
improvements.
29
• This does not include a full staffing study for the WWTF that is inclusive of all existing and
future staffing needs. If required, a full staffing study can be completed by an amendment to
this contract.
Provided by the City:
• Input on project prioritization.
• Input on current staffing levels.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Summary of the recommended improvements and the draft CIP in PDF format.
Task 12 — Draft Facility Plan Chapters and Appendices
Objective: Prepare initial drafts of chapters, figures, and appendices for review by the City
throughout the development of the Plan.
Approach:
12.1 Prepare an Executive Summary of the Plan, including the following:
• A description of the purpose of the Plan.
• An overview of the existing sewer system.
• A description of how the Plan has been coordinated with the City's most recent GSP and other
relevant planning documents.
• A summary of the key elements of the Plan, including regulatory permits and changes,
wastewater flow and loading analyses, WWTF facilities evaluation and deficiencies, and
capital improvements.
12.2 Prepare an introduction chapter of the Plan, including the following:
• A description of the sewer system ownership and management identifying a contact person
and address.
• An overview of the existing sewer system as adapted from the GSP.
• A description of the purpose and goals of the Plan.
• A list of related plans and studies from Task 4.
• A description of major CIP projects that have been completed in the last 10 years at the
WWTF.
• A summary of the content of each chapter of the Plan.
• A list of abbreviations used in the Plan.
• Existing site plan, existing site aerial, existing WWTF design criteria, and existing process flow
diagram figures.
30
12.3 Prepare a chapter and figure(s) describing the service area and summarizing planning data,
including the following:
• A description of the existing sewer system from the GSP. Obtain a copy of the service area
agreement from the City and include in the Plan appendices.
• An overview of adjacent sewer systems as described in the GSP.
• An inventory of related planning documents to provide a summary of the impacts or
constraints on improvements or expansion of the WWTF site and outfall location, including
the Gap to Gap floodplain restoration project.
• A summary of the effects of existing and projected land use patterns on the sewer service
area population as described in the GSP. Include a summary of the impacts or constraints on
the sewer service area as listed in the GSP.
• Inclusion or references to pertinent GSP figures of the City's existing and projected sewer
service areas, the City's existing sewer system, adjacent sewer system service areas, a
location map of the City's existing WWTF, and the land use within the sewer service area.
12.4 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to regulatory and discharge
permit requirements, including the following:
• Descriptions of the environment at the existing WWTF site and any other sites or utility
corridors proposed for development as part of the improvements presented in the Plan.
• A summary of agency and stakeholder involvement during the Plan development.
• A summary of current and expected future regulatory requirements related to the NPDES
discharge permit, biosolids permit, and air quality permit (if applicable).
• A list of laboratory accreditations.
12.5 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to current and projected flow
and loading conditions, including the following:
• A summary of applicable information from the current GSP.
• Analyses of WWTF municipal current and projected flow and loading.
• Analyses of industrial pretreatment current and projected flow and loading.
12.6 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to the evaluation of the
existing WWTF and individual processes, including the following:
• A summary of the investigations and evaluations for the liquid stream, solids handling system,
industrial pretreatment system, and electrical and control systems to outline performance,
current and future capacity, and regulatory criteria for each system.
12.7 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to the alternative analyses
for each proposed improvement to the liquid stream process, including the following:
• A summary of the major components, considerations, and criteria for each alternative.
31
• A comparison of the qualitative and quantitative criteria for each alternative.
12.8 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to the alternative analyses
for each proposed improvement to the solids handling system, including the following:
• A summary of the major components, considerations, and criteria for each alternative.
• A comparison of the qualitative and quantitative criteria for each alternative.
12.9 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to the alternative analyses
for each proposed improvement to the industrial pretreatment system, including the
following:
• A summary of the major components, considerations, and criteria for each alternative.
• A comparison of the qualitative and quantitative criteria for each alternative.
12.10 Prepare applicable chapter(s), figure(s), and appendices related to the alternative analyses
for each proposed improvement to the electrical and control systems, including the following:
• A summary of the major components, considerations, and criteria for each alternative.
• A comparison of the qualitative and quantitative criteria for each alternative.
12.11 Prepare a chapter summarizing the recommended improvements and CIP list, including the
following:
• A list of the recommended alternatives for each improvement project.
• A summary of the major components, considerations, and criteria for each recommended
project.
• A project implementation schedule to accompany the CIP list.
• Current and future staffing considerations relative to the CIP.
12.12 Prepare a chapter summarizing implementation and financing. Coordinate with and review
the financial analysis summary produced by FCS GROUP as a subconsultant to RH2. Format
the document for consistency with other chapters, and incorporate it in the Plan.
Assumptions:
• RH2 will rely on existing electronic AutoCAD drawings for use in an electronic AutoCAD base
map development inclusive of below -grade site utilities. A survey is not included as part of this
Scope of Work.
• FCS GROUP will complete the detailed rates analyses and classifications update directly for
the City, separate from this contract.
• RH2 will provide the individual, or sets, of the initial drafts of chapters, figures, and appendices
for review at intervals as requested by the City.
• The SEPA Checklist and SERP documentation included in Task 3 will be used to prepare the
existing environment description(s).
32
Provided by the City:
• Review comments for initial drafts of each chapter and applicable figures in MS Word format.
• Survey data if required for electronic AutoCAD base map development.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Initial drafts of chapters, figures, and appendices in MS Word and PDF format for City review.
• Coordination with FCS GROUP regarding the financial analysis.
Task 13 — Compile and Present Draft Plan
Objective: Prepare a compiled preliminary draft of the Plan for City review based on initial review
comments. Prepare materials for presentation at meetings with the City Council and the public.
Prepare a compiled final draft of the Plan and submit it to Ecology.
Approach:
13.1 Develop a cover, title sheet, and table of contents for the Plan.
13.2 Provide a compiled preliminary draft of the Plan with appendices, updated as required by all
initial City review comments, to the City for review and comment.
13.3 Prepare a final draft of the Plan by revising the preliminary draft of the Plan to address the
City's review comments. The final draft will be presented for City Council and public review.
Update the final draft as appropriate with any additional comments or edits.
13.4 Create a copy of the compiled final draft of the Plan, which has Professional Engineer stamps
and signatures, with appendices, in PDF format. Print and bind three (3) sets of the compiled
final draft of the Plan, which has Professional Engineer stamps and signatures, in three-ring
binders. Submit the printed and bound copies of the Plan and a PDF of appendices to Ecology
for review and comment. It is assumed the printed sets will only contain the appendices in
PDF format on a USB drive.
Assumptions:
• Meeting and workshop attendance related to this Task is summarized in Task 2.
Provided by the City:
• Review comments on the compiled preliminary draft Plan in email or PDF format.
RH2 Deliverables:
• One (1) compiled preliminary draft copy of the Plan and appendices in PDF format.
• One (1) compiled final draft copy of the Plan and appendices in PDF format.
• Compiled final draft of the Plan — one (1) copy in PDF format and three (3) printed and bound
sets in three-ring binders with appendices on a USB drive.
Task 14 — Agency Review Revisions
Objective: Revise the final draft of the Plan per Ecology review comments and prepare the final Plan.
33
Approach:
14.1 Prepare a final Plan by revising the final draft of the Plan to address Ecology review
comments. Update the cover, title sheet, and table of contents for the final Plan. Add a copy
of Ecology's review comments to the Plan appendices.
14.2 Prepare a response letter to Ecology summarizing how each comment was addressed and the
location of the associated revisions in the final Plan. Provide a draft of the response letter to
the City for review and comment. Revise the draft response letter to address the City's review
comments. Submit the final response letter to Ecology and provide a copy to the City.
14.3 After Ecology approval is received Create a copy of the final Plan, which has Professional
Engineer stamps and signatures, with appendices in PDF format. Print and bind three (3) sets
of the final Plan, which has Professional Engineer stamps and signatures, in three-ring
binders. Provide the printed and bound copies of the Plan and a PDF of appendices to the
City. It is assumed the printed sets will only contain the appendices in PDF format on a USB
drive. Print three (3) sets of only the revised pages and/or figures and submit them to Ecology
along with a PDF of the final Plan with appendices on a USB drive.
Assumptions:
• The number of review comments are difficult to predict and highly variable. An initial
allocation of fifteen (15) hours has been included in Task 14.1 for revisions to the Plan chapters
and figures to address Ecology review comments. This allocation is based on typical levels of
review comments received by Plan efforts. If an unusual number of comments are received,
or the scope of the comments are excessive, RH2 will coordinate with the City to determine
the next steps. This may include a Scope of Work Amendment to address the comments or use
of the Contingency.
Provided by the City:
• Review comments on the draft response letter to Ecology in email or PDF format.
RH2 Deliverables:
• One (1) draft copy of the response letter to Ecology in PDF format.
• Final response letter to Ecology — one (1) printed for Ecology and one (1) printed copy for the
City.
• Final Plan — three (3) copies in PDF format with appendices on a USB drive for Ecology, three
(3) copies in PDF format with appendices on a USB drive for the City, and three (3) printed
and bound sets in three-ring binders for the City.
• Revised Plan pages and/or figures — three (3) printed sets for Ecology.
Task 15 — Contingency
Objective: Provide additional engineering services for the project, not currently identified in this
Scope of Work, as requested by the City. A lump sum amount of $15,000 is allocated as a contingency
fund.
34
Schedule
The work is expected to take approximately twenty-one (21) months to complete from Notice to
Proceed. This schedule is contingent upon the GSP flow and loading projections being completed
during the third quarter of 2020. The schedule is also contingent upon timely reviews of the draft
plan by the City and.Ecology. With an approximate Notice to Proceed date of June 3, 2020, RH2
anticipates work to be complete by June 2022.
35
1
EXHIBIT B
Fee Estimate
City of Yakima
Wastewater Treatment Facility Master Plan
Feb-20
Refresh bescription
Total
Hours
Total Labor
Total Subconsultant
Total Expense
Total Cost
Classification
Task 1 Project Management
99
$ 19,723
$
$
1,277
$ 21,000
Task 2 Workshop Attendance and Coordination
117
$ 25,708
$
$
4,162
$ 29,870
Task 3 Agency Coordination, Regulatory Review, and Environmental Permitting
85
$ 16,273
$
$ 1,147
$ 17,420
Task 4 Collect and Review Relevant Planning Information
72
$ 13,424
$
$ 1,186
$ 14,610
Task 5 Analysis of Wastewater Flow and Load
69
$ 12,330
$
$ 750
$ 13,080
Task 6 Site Investigations and Evaluation of Existing Facilities and Processes
415
$ 77,743
$
3,300
$
3,787
$ 84,830
Task 7 Liquid Stream Alternatives Analyses
212
$ 38,305
$ 1,845
$ 40,150
Task 8 Solids Handling System Alternatives Analysis
212
$ 38,305
$
$ 1,825
$ 40,130
Task 9 Industrial Pretreatment System Alternatives Analyses
61
$ 11,027
$
7,700
$ 693
$ 19,420
Task 10 Electrical and Control Systems Analyses
112
$ 19,961
$
$ 1,039
$ 21,000
Task 11 Summary of Preferred Alternatives and Recommended Improvements
226
$ 39,757
1,100
$ 2,043
$ 42,900
Task 12 Draft Facility Plan Chapters and Appendices
226
$ 39,514
$
40,700
$ 2,296
$ 82,510
Task 13 Compile and Present Draft Plan
73
$ 11,727
$
$ 2,393
$ 14,120
Task 14 Agency Review Revisions
35
$ 5,317
$
$ 2,043
$ 7,360
Task 15 Contingency
74
$ 13,605
$
$ 1,395
$ 15,000
PROJECT TOTAL
2088
$ 382,719
$ 52,800
$ 27,881
$ 463,400
36
EXHIBIT C
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
2020 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES
RATE LIST
RATE
UNIT
Professional I
$144
$/hr
Professional II
$157
$/hr
Professional III
$171
$/hr
Professional IV
$184
$/hr
Professional V
$196
$/hr
Professional VI
$212
$/hr
Professional VII
$227
$/hr
Professional VIII
$235
$/hr
Professional IX
$235
$/hr
Control Specialist I
$130
$/hr
Control Specialist II
$141
$/hr
Control Specialist III
$155
$/hr
Control Specialist IV
$168
$/hr
Control Specialist V
$178
$/hr
Control Specialist VI
$191
$/hr
Control Specialist VII
$206
$/hr
Control Specialist VIII
$214
$/hr
Technician I
$106
$/hr
Technician II
$118
$/hr
Technician III
$135
$/hr
Technician IV
$145
$/hr
Technician V
$157
$/hr
Technician VI
$172
$/hr
Technician VII
$187
$/hr
Technician VIII
$196
$/hr
Administrative I
$72
$/hr
Administrative II
$83
$/hr
Administrative III
$98
$/hr
Administrative IV
$118
$/hr
Administrative V
$138
$/hr
CAD/GIS System
$27.50
$/hr
CAD Plots - Half Size
$2.50
price per plot
CAD Plots - Full Size
$10.00
price per plot
CAD Plots - Large
$25.00
price per plot
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11"
$0.09
price per copy
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14"
$0.14
price per copy
Copies (bw) 11" X 17"
$0.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 11"
$0.90
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 14"
$1.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 11" X 17"
$2.00
price per copy
Technology Charge
2.50%
% of Direct Labor
Mileage
$0.575
price per mile
(or Current IRS Rate)
Subconsultants
10%
Cost +
Outside Services
at cost
Rates listed are adjusted annually
EXHIBIT C
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
2021 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES
RATE LIST
RATE
UNIT
Professional I
$148
$/hr
Professional II
$161
$/hr
Professional III
$175
$/hr
Professional IV
$189
$/hr
Professional V
$201
$/hr
Professional VI
$217
$/hr
Professional VII
$233
$/hr
Professional VIII
$241
$/hr
Professional IX
$241
, $/hr
Control Specialist I
$133
$/hr
Control Specialist II
$145
$/hr
Control Specialist III
$159
$/hr
Control Specialist IV
$172
$/hr
Control Specialist V
$182
$/hr
Control Specialist VI
$196
$/hr
Control Specialist VII
$211
$/hr
Control Specialist VIII
$219
$/hr
Technician I
$109
$/hr
Technician II
$121
$/hr
Technician III
$138
$/hr
Technician IV
$149
$/hr
Technician V
$161
$/hr
Technician VI
$176
$/hr
Technician VII
$192
$/hr
Technician VIII
$201
$/hr
Administrative I
$74
$/hr
Administrative 11
$85
$/hr
Administrative III
$100
$/hr
Administrative IV
$121
$/hr
Administrative V
$141
$/hr
CAD/GIS System
$27.50
$/hr
CAD Plots - Half Size
$2.50
price per plot
CAD Plots - Full Size
$10.00
price per plot
CAD Plots - Large
$25.00
price per plot
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11"
$0.09
price per copy
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14"
$0.14
price per copy
Copies (bw) 11" X 17"
$0.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 11"
$0.90
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 14"
$1.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 11" X 17"
$2.00
price per copy
Technology Charge
2.50%
% of Direct Labor
Mileage
$0.575
price per mile
(or Current IRS Rate)
Subconsultants
15%
Cost +
Outside Services
at cost
Rates listed are adjusted annually
EXHIBIT C
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
2022 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES
RATE LIST
RATE
UNIT
Professional I
$151
$/hr
Professional 11
$165
$/hr
Professional III
$180
$/hr
Professional IV
$193
$/hr
Professional V
$206
$/hr
Professional VI
$223
$/hr
Professional VII
$238
$/hr
Professional VIII
$247
$/hr
Professional IX
$247
$/hr
Control Specialist I
$137
$/hr
Control Specialist 11
$148
$/hr
Control Specialist III
$163
$/hr
Control Specialist IV
$177
$/hr
Control Specialist V
$187
$/hr
Control Specialist VI
$201
$/hr
Control Specialist VII
$216
$/hr
Control Specialist VIII
$225
$/hr
Technician I
$111
$/hr
Technician II
$124
$/hr
Technician III
$142
$/hr
Technician IV
$152
$/hr
Technician V
$165
$/hr
Technician VI
$181
$/hr
Technician VII
$196
$/hr
Technician VIII
$206
$/hr
Administrative I
$76
$/hr
Administrative II
$87
$/hr
Administrative III
$103
$/hr
Administrative IV
$124
$/hr
Administrative V
$145
$/hr
CAD/GIS System
$27.50
$/hr
CAD Plots - Half Size
$2.50
price per plot
CAD Plots - Full Size
$10.00
price per plot
CAD Plots - Large
$25.00
price per plot
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11"
$0.09
price per copy
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14"
$0.14
price per copy
Copies (bw) 11" X 17"
$0.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 11"
$0.90
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 14"
$1.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 11" X 17"
$2.00
price per copy
Technology Charge
2.50%
% of Direct Labor
Mileage
$0.575
price per mile
(or Current IRS Rate)
Subconsultants
15%
Cost +
Outside Services
at cost
Rates listed are adjusted annually
Contract Supplemental Agreement
Supplemental Agreement
Number: 1
Organization and Address:
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
22722 29th DRIVE SE, SUITE 210
BOTHELL WA 98021
Original Contract Number:
2020-095
Execution Date of Supplement:
October 7, 2020
City Engineering Project Number: N/A
Completion Date of Supplement:
JUNE 2022
Project Title:
WASTEWATER TREATEMENT FACILITY
MASTERPLAN
Maximum Amount Payable this Supplement:
$14,534
Maximum Total Amount Payable for the
Agreement:
$477,934
Section 11.4: Supplemental Agreement
The City of Yakima, Washington desires to supplement the contract agreement entered into with RH2
ENGINEERING, INC. and executed on JUNE 16, 2020 by Resolution No. 2020-066 and identified as
Contract 2020-095. All provisions in the basic contract remain in effect except as expressly modified by
this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
Section 11.1: Scope of Services
The additional work to be performed as part of this Supplemental Contract is to review the draft Permit
and Fact Sheet documents and discuss these items with the City. Then a follow-up meeting with the
Department of Ecology (Coleman Miller and Erik Van Doren) will need to take place. RH2 will also provide
comments and meeting attendance during the public review process for the permit documents. See
Exhibit A for a complete description of the work.
Section 11.3: Compensation
Payment for this supplemented work, as shown in Exhibits B and C, is not to exceed $14,534. This
agreement increased the value of the overall contract to a combined total of $477,934.
If you -concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign the appropriate
spaces below and return to this office for final action
By: Richard L. Ballard, Director
Consultant Signature
City Manager
i\0V . 5o, goof)
CITY CONTRACT NO:
RESOLUTION NO:
Date
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work
Amendment No. 1
City of Yakima
Wastewater Treatment Facility Master Plan
October 2020
Background
The City of Yakima (City) has been awaiting an updated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for several years. Recently, the City was provided with a draft copy of the
City of the Yakima WWTF Draft NDPES Permit and Fact Sheet by the Washington State Department
of Ecology (Ecology) for review. RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) was asked by the City to review the draft
documents and provide comments so the City can develop a response to Ecology. Ecology asked for
City comments prior to September 30th, so that they can formally publish the draft. A couple of major
items requiring comment are the reference to pending Lower Yakima River Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL), or "straight to implementation" strategy, and the Facility Design Criteria. The TMDL
language paraphrased above is used only within a single short paragraph in the Fact Sheet. The
implications of a TMDL are very significant. The Facility Design Criteria was derived directly from the
2004 B&V Facilities Plan and does not include the capacity of the UASB, which went online in 2014.
Task 1— Review Draft NDPES Permit and Fact Sheet
Objective: Review the draft NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet documents and discuss these items with
the City. Attend a follow-up meeting with Ecology (Mr. Coleman Miller and Mr. Erik Van Doren) to
discuss comments.
Approach:
1.1 Review Draft NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet. Prepare and provide review comments to the City.
1.2 Attend meeting with Ecology and the City to discuss comments.
1.3 Provide support to the City in the subsequent public draft permit issued for final comment and
response to Ecology if needed. RH2 will review the Draft NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet published
publicly by Ecology and work with the City on any additional comments. RH2 will attend, via
videoconference, up to two additional meetings with the City and/or Ecology, and RH2 will
attend one additional meeting, in person if necessary, for public hearing or other type of
meeting.
Assumptions:
• This Scope of Work includes the review of draft documents. Depending on the results of the
draft review, there may be further work related to changes to the permit, and implications of
the permit modifications to the work in the Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan. This future
work is unknown at this time and is not included in this Amendment No. 1.
1
10/2/2020 1:05.27 PM 1:\DATA\YAK\20-0063\00 CONTRACT\ AMENDMENT NO. 1\AMEND 1_SOW_YAKIMA WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN.DOCX
City of Yakima
Wastewater Facility Plan
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Provided by City:
• Draft NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Comments on Draft NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet.
• Attendance at meeting with Ecology and the City.
2
10/2/2020 1:05.27 PM 1:\DATA\YAK\20-0063\00 CONTRACT\ AMENDMENT NO. 1\AMEND 1_SOW_YAKIMA WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN.0OCX
EXHIBIT B
Fee Estimate
Amendment No. 1
City of Yakima
Wastewater Treatment Facility Master Plan
Sep-20
Total
Description
Total Labor
Total Expense
Total Cost
Hours
Task 1 Review Draft NDPES Permit and Fact Sheet
60
$ 13,536
$
998
$ 14,534
1.1
Review Draft Documents and Provide Comments to City
14
$
3,196
$
80
$
3,276
1.2
Attend meeting with Ecology and City to discuss comments
6
$
1,316
$
33
$
1,349
1.3
Provide Limited Support to City for Response to Comments on NPDES Permit
40
$
9,024
$
886
$
9,910
PROJECT TOTAL
60
$ 13,536
$ 998
$ 14,534
J\D a\YAK\20-0063\00Co„..,<<\A.,en. rn ,,,N. 1\Am n1_FEE_Y.km.W.,.,w. rF, Ro,.., 10/2/2020 1:07 PM
EXHIBIT C
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
2020 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES
RATE LIST
RATE
UNIT
Professional 1
$144
$/hr
Professional II
$157
$/hr
Professional III
$171
$/hr
Professional IV
$184
$/hr
Professional V
$196
$/hr
Professional VI
$212
$/hr
Professional VII
$227
$/hr
Professional VIII
$235
$/hr
Professional IX
$235
$/hr
Control Specialist I
$130
$/hr
Control Specialist II
$141
$/hr
Control Specialist III
$155
$/hr
Control Specialist IV
$168
$/hr
Control Specialist V
$178
$/hr
Control Specialist VI
$191
$/hr
Control Specialist VII
$206
$/hr
Control Specialist VIII
$214
$/hr
Technician I
$106
$/hr
Technician II
$118
$/hr
Technician III
$135
$/hr
Technician IV
$145
$/hr
Technician V
$157
$/hr
Technician VI
$172
$/hr
Technician VII
$187
$/hr
Technician VIII
$196
$/hr
Administrative I
$72
$/hr
Administrative II
$83
$/hr
Administrative III
$98
$/hr
Administrative IV
$118
$/hr
Administrative V
$138
$/hr
CAD/GIS System
$27.50
$/hr
CAD Plots - Half Size
$2.50
price per plot
CAD Plots - Full Size
$10.00
price per plot
CAD Plots - Large
$25.00
price per plot
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11"
$0.09
price per copy
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14"
$0.14
price per copy
Copies (bw) 11" X 17"
$0.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 11"
$0.90
price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 14"
$1.20
price per copy
Copies (color) 11" X 17"
$2.00
price per copy
Technology Charge
2.50%
% of Direct Labor
Mileage
$0.575
price per mile
(or Current IRS Rate)
Subconsultants
15%
Cost +
Outside Services
at cost
Rates listed are adjusted annually
Contract Supplemental Agreement
Supplemental Agreement Organization and Address:
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
Number: 2 22722 29th DRIVE SE, SUITE 210
BOTHELL WA 98021
Original Contract Number: Execution Date of Supplement:
2020-095 April 1, 2022
City Engineering Project Number: N/A Completion Date of Supplement:
December 31, 2022
Project Title: Maximum Amount Payable this Supplement:
WASTEWATER TREATEMENT FACILITY $0
MASTERPLAN
Maximum Total Amount Payable for the
Agreement: $477,934
Section 2.2: Additional Services
The City of Yakima, Washington desires to supplement the contract agreement entered into with RH2
ENGINEERING, INC. and executed on JUNE 16, 2020 by Resolution No. 2020-066 and identified as
Contract 2020-095 All provisions in the basic contract remain in effect except as expressly modified by
this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
Section 5.2: Compensation
This agreement is a date extension only. The total contract value of the overall contract is $477,934.
Section 7.1: Project Schedule and Budget
The project schedule is modified from being completed by March 31st 2022, to be completed by December
31, 2022 as detailed in Exhibit A.
If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign the appropriate
spaces below and return to this office for final action.
By: Richard L. Ballard, Director By: R_Ci)Prt- litur'i-'l3Or-
Consultant Signature city Manager
,, Date
CITY CONTRACT NOOf: 0 C)—U 9 . tJAr9P
��
RESOLUTION NO:" �� sv 0.(4,
Exhibit A
RH2 has made steady and continuous progress on developing the City of Yakima's Wastewater
Treatment Facility Master Plan As noted in the original contract's Exhibit A section on Project Schedule,
RH2's schedule was contingent upon receiving the GSP flow and load projections in the third quarter of
2020, and on timely interactions with staff at Ecology. Due to the need of the City's consultant on the GSP
to verify City population and flow projections and obtain/verify projections from the City's customers of
Moxee and Terrace Heights, the final projections were actually provided to RH2 at the end of the first
quarter of 2021. RH2 and the City were also involved with extended discussions with Ecology on the next
NPDES permit and potential updates to water quality effluent regulations Obtaining responses from
Ecology was extended due to office closures and staff shortages at Ecology related to the COVID-19
pandemic. Finally, RH2 was originally using data only through 2020, but because of potential impacts of
COVID-19 on flow and loading data, Ecology staff requested that Cities consider not using data in 2020.
RH2 updated the evaluations to also include data from the City through 2021. RH2 is working towards
completion and approval of the WWTF Master Plan by the end of 2022.