Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRexburg Headworks RFP_Bid Summary_2024-01-05 Technical Memorandum To: Jared Gundersen, Justin Beard, Rexburg City From Eric Sahm, Justin Logan, Aqua Engineering Date December 22, 2023 CC Keith Davidson Subject Headworks Equipment RFP – Summary of Proposals INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document summarizes AQUA’s review of the proposals that were received in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for headworks equipment for the Rexburg City WWTP Headworks Building. A summary of the proposals received is provided, followed by a detailed breakdown and comparison and our proposed scoring based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP documents. Proposals were received for the following bid items: 1) One (1) 6 mm fine screen 2) Two (2) screenings washer/compactors with sluice screenings collection system 3) One (1) grit removal system 4) One (1) grit washing mechanism 5) One (1) septage reception station Huber was the only manufacturer to provide bids for the screen and washer/compactor. The screen package costs $288,011.58 including controls or $186,621.58 without controls. These controls costs include controls for the associated washer/compactor units. The two washer/compactors have a total package cost of $354,290.28. The City already has two Huber step screens and operating staff preferred Huber equipment as they are familiar with their operation and maintenance, and have reported good performance from their existing units. Pricing for the screens and washer/compactors is in line with other proposals we have seen for similar equipment. Note that all Huber equipment is listed as BABA compliant without any additional cost adder. Huber and Hydro International provided proposals for grit removal and grit washing equipment packages. Both proposed systems appear to meet or exceed the design requirements listed in the RFP. Huber’s equipment package cost for grit removal is $246,210.95, $124,000 less than Hydro’s offering at $370,470.17. However, the Huber system has higher installation costs due to the required larger concrete chamber and the need to access grit augers and pumps at the bottom of the structure, essentially requiring an accessible “basement.” A detailed comparison of the estimated capital installation costs is provided in the evaluation below. Huber’s grit washer package is $178,908.69, which is less than Hydro’s grit washer equipment listed at $223,772.09. As outlined in the RFP, the City may select different manufacturers for each piece of grit removal equipment. JWC and Huber submitted proposals for the septage reception station. JWC’s equipment package is $147,387.00, $28,000 less overall than Huber’s system at $175,774.60. The costs are close enough that careful review of other evaluation criteria is merited to help identify the best overall value for the City. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 2 of 24 The following sections compare relevant information from the proposals and are intended to assist the City in their final evaluation, scoring, and selection of equipment. Each proposal was evaluated for the criteria listed in the RFP document as follows: operability, installed capital cost, O&M costs, experience, materials of construction/quality, lead time, local service, warranties, references, and owner’s preference. Where only one proposal was received for a specific bid item, individual scores are not provided, but a summary of our observations is still furnished for reference. FINE SCREENS AND WASHER/COMPACTOR EQUIPMENT The RFP required one (1) 316 WW construction 12 MGD capacity step screen. The RFP was open to any supplier with comparable step-screen equipment, with the intent to match the existing two step screens as closely as possible in terms of functionality, operation, maintenance, and performance. The RFP required two (2) 316 SS construction washer/compactor units capable of handling all screenings from at least two duty screens. Only Huber submitted proposals for the screen and washer/compactor equipment. The proposed screen and washer/compactors appear to meet the design criteria, specifications, and intent of the RFP. The washer/compactor package also includes a stainless-steel sluice system that is compatible with the screens and washers. Following is a breakdown of Huber’s bids for the screen and washer/compactor. Note that the original bid amounts presented here include 6% sales tax which is not applicable and will be removed from the final award amount. Table 1A: Summary of Huber step screen proposal pricing. Bid Item Huber - 6MM Step Screen One Screen Unit $185,361.14 Submittals $9,276.58 Controls $107,473.40 Recommended Spare Parts $2,634.10 Cost Adder for BABA Compliance $-0- Total Cost w/ Controls $304,736.22 Total Cost w/o Controls $197,262.82 Taxes included? Yes BABA Compliant? Yes Table 1B: Summary of Huber washer/compactor proposal pricing. Bid Item Huber – Washer/Compactor Two Washer/Compactor Units & Sluice $353,207.90 Submittals $18,590.28 Controls (Included w/ Screen) $-0- Recommended Spare Parts $3,255.26 Cost Adder for BABA Compliance $-0- Total Cost w/ Controls $375,053.44 Total Cost w/o Controls $375,053.44 Taxes included? Yes BABA Compliant? Yes December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 3 of 24 The screen requires a 3-foot-wide channel with at least 10-feet of upstream channel length past the pivot point of the unit. The maximum upstream water depth is 3.5-feet, meaning the actual channel would likely be 4.5 to 5 feet deep. This screen appears very similar to the City’s existing equipment, with a higher (12 MGD vs 10 MGD) rated capacity. The older units may handle 12 MGD, but this would need to be confirmed with Huber. The proposed screening equipment and washer/compactors appear to meet the design criteria and intent listed in the RFP. The proposal appears mostly complete, though some minor information regarding estimated annual operating costs (power and labor) were not provided. The proposal did not specify lead times for submittals or fabrication – but these were later confirmed with Huber as 4-6 for submittals and 30-34 weeks for equipment delivery upon release for fabrication. In reviewing control options with the City and the electrical engineer, it was determined that furnishing controls through a 3rd party supplier would likely reduce the cost and provide a better overall system to incorporate the new screen, new washer/compacts, sluice, and two existing screens. The following subsections summarize AQUA’s review of the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP on which awards will be based. Scoring was not provided for the screen and washer/compactors as only one submittal was furnished. Operability This category considers items such as performance, ease of maintenance/access, and other items related to access and day-to-day operation of the system. The proposed screen is rated for 12 MGD and appears to meet the design criteria and intent of the RFP. The City currently has 2 Huber step screens installed and staff has generally positive feedback regarding ease of maintenance and operability. Maintenance intervals and requirements for the new unit would be comparable to the existing two screens. The screen can pivot out of the channel to facilitate access to submerged wear components and allow for quick inspection and washdown of the equipment and concrete channel. The drive motor and other components sit out of the channel. With all three units installed, the new headworks will have a peak hour capacity of 20-22 MGD with one screen offline. The washer/compactors may be a bit larger than the units currently installed, but would have similar maintenance and operation. Installed Capital Costs This section considers equipment cost and other factors like footprint (impacting building size) and other installation costs. The new screen requires 3-foot-wide by 5-foot-deep channels. The overall recommended channel length is not specified but appears to be 13-14 feet long. Preliminary layouts of the headworks expansion would include four equally sized channels. Two channels would house the City’s existing screens, the new screen would be installed in a third channel, and the fourth channel would provide bypass and space for a future fourth unit. The new washer/compactors will likely be installed in the existing headworks building and therefore won’t have a significant impact on construction capital cost. The costs provided in the proposals are in line with our expectations for this equipment. O&M Costs Specific O&M costs for power consumption and wear parts were not provided in the submittal. The drive motor is relatively small (2 HP), and wash water requirements are 48 gpm when actively washing. The washer/compactor units include 5 HP drive motors and require 16 gpm when during wash cycles. The sluice itself does not include any motors but can require up to 135 gpm when operating. The actual water requirement is likely lower, but the installation should accommodate this flow. Overall power costs are December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 4 of 24 small relative to other large equipment at the plant; wash water demand is moderate when considering the sluice, but is typical for a sluice-style collection system. A schedule for wear parts is not provided, but the included spare parts package is $2,634 for the screen and $3,255 for the compactor and sluice, which represents the parts that most commonly require replacement. Experience As stated, the City currently has Huber equipment and has generally positive feedback. Huber has a good reputation worldwide with decades of experience manufacturing wastewater equipment. AQUA has no concerns with Huber’s experience and reputation with regards to quality and service. Materials of Construction All exposed, metallic components of the screens are 316 SS and include Huber’s pickling/passivation process which provides further protection. Materials of construction are appropriate for the application and environment. Lead Time Lead time for submittals is listed as 4-6 weeks, which will help expedite design. The reported lead time for fabrication is 30-34 weeks upon release for fabrication. It will be critical to ensure that the installation contractor releases the equipment as soon as possible. Local Service Huber has local representatives and service staff located in Utah and Idaho. Huber has included one (1) trip with 4 days for startup and training services. Warranties The warranty meets the requirements in the specification, namely 12 months from startup or 18 months from delivery, whichever comes first. References Huber did not provide a specific list of references for the proposed equipment. The proposal did include the company’s history and background. As the City currently has similar Huber equipment and Huber is a well-known, established manufacturer, specific references seems like a less critical in this case. Owner Preference Operating staff preferred to match their existing Huber screens as closely as possible. Thus, as long as pricing and scope appear reasonable to the City, the proposed Huber screen package aligns with the City’s plans and intentions. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 5 of 24 GRIT REMOVAL AND WASHER EQUIPMENT The RFP separated bids for the grit trap and grit washer equipment, allowing each piece of equipment to be considered on its own merit. Selecting all grit equipment from a single supplier would simplify design, coordination, and startup, but each piece is evaluated individually here. The RFP allowed for multiple styles of grit removal equipment including aerated plate settler (Huber – Grit Wolf); stacked, non-mechanical chambers (Hydro International); and traditional vortex style chambers. The RFP required the grit chamber to handle a peak hydraulic flow of at least 24 MGD. Other criteria are less firm, with the RFP requesting information on performance, namely removal efficiency for various mesh sizes of grit at different flow rates. Huber and Hydro International submitted bids for their respective grit removal and washing equipment. No vortex grit removal system was submitted. The Huber and Hydro grit removal systems are fundamentally different, and summarizing each supplier’s approach is merited prior to comparing the proposals. Huber’s system requires a 34’x10’x13.5-foot-deep chamber that houses a series of parallel, inclined plates. The chamber is also aerated. Screened wastewater enters the channel and passes up through the lamella plates. Grit settles during this upward flow path and deposits at the bottom of the chamber. Aeration helps separate organics from the grit and keeps organic particulate matter suspended. A screw auger installed at the bottom of the chamber conveys grit to a grit pump installed next to the chamber’s bottom. The system includes a blower for aeration (included in the package), lamella plates, screw auger, and grit pump. The bottom of the discharge end of the auger must be accessible for the auger drive motor and grit pump maintenance. For Rexburg, this would involve a basement area adjacent to the grit chamber. The lamella and other critical components include 304 SS construction with 316 SS anchors. The system also includes a grease/FOG skimming system that removes floating grease to a separate surface mounted discharge point. The Huber unit has many installations in Europe, but experience and references in the US are limited and very recent. The oldest US installation is listed from March 2021 in Michigan. In terms of grit removal performance, the information provided indicates that the system would meet and exceed criteria in terms of grit removal size and efficiency. A comparison of grit removal efficiency is provided in Table 2. Hydro’s system includes a series of stacked funnel-shaped trays housed in a 16-foot square by 20-foot- deep concrete chamber. No drive motors or other mechanisms are involved with the grit chamber itself. Flow enters the chamber and is evenly split between the trays. Grit settles to the bottom of each tray and is funneled to the bottom of the chamber. De-gritted water flows up through the chamber and over the effluent weir. Settled grit is pumped from the bottom of the chamber to the grit washer, the pump can be installed above the chamber bottom elevation as long as the pump’s suction inlet is below the water surface in the chamber. The base bid includes 304 SS components, with a cost adder for 316 SS. The base bid and recommendation includes 10 trays that can handle up to 25.4 MGD. A cost adder for a 13-tray system was also offered, improving the system’s removal efficiency at peak flow rates and increasing the overall maximum flow capacity of the system. Removal efficiency for 10 and 13 tray systems are summarized in Table 2. Note that the extra trays could be added in the future; the 10-tray system meets the design criteria summarized in the RFP. If higher peak capacity and/or better performance at high flows is desired by the City, it is more cost effective to install the extra trays now. The Hydro system has a smaller footprint and lower installation cost with less concrete and access to the lower portion of the chamber is not required. The system is simpler operationally compared to the Huber unit that has multiple mechanical elements. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 6 of 24 Table 2: Comparison of grit removal efficiency. Grit Removal Efficiency HUBER GRIT WOLF HYDRO INTERNATIONAL Comparison for 95% Removal Efficiency 10 Trays 13 Trays Max Flow for 200 mesh (75 micron) removal 5.4+ MGD 11.2 MGD 14.6 MGD Max Flow at 140 mesh (106 micron) removal 13.0+ MGD 19.2 MGD 25.0 MGD Max Flow at 120 mesh (125 micron) removal 24.0+ MGD 25.4 MGD 30+ MGD Either system would provide improved grit removal performance at design average daily flow (5.4 MGD); high removal efficiency is provided by either system for typical peak day (8.1 MGD) and peak hour flows (13 MGD) as well. The target 95% removal efficiency drops from 200 mesh to 140 and even 120 mesh at very high flows, but these events are extremely rare. In essence, either system would remove less finer material (e.g. 200 mesh grit) during extremely high flows. A moderate decrease in removal efficiency on rare occasions would not present a significant impact to the WWTP, and the ability of the system to at least handle extreme high flows while providing some grit removal is sufficient. As both systems would provide desired results, meaning other factors such as installation cost, operability, and experience will direct the City’s selection. Note that the original bid amounts presented here include 6% sales tax which is not applicable and will be removed from the final award amount. Table 3: Cost comparison summary of proposed grit removal equipment packages. Bid Item Huber Hydro International Grit Removal Equipment (304 SS Components) $244,916.00 $365,962.00 Submittals $13,010.15 $18,523.00 Controls – Included w/ Grit Washer Equipment $-0- $-0- Recommended Spare Parts $2,276.85 $7,102.00 Cost Adder for BABA Compliance $-0- $-0- Total Grit Chamber Cost $260,203.00 $391,587.00 Taxes included? Yes Yes BABA Compliant? Yes Yes Cost Adder for 316 SS Components Not Specified $26,680.00 Cost Adder to Add Trays for Additional Capacity Not Specified $24,293.00 Cost Deduction to Remove Performance Testing Not Specified -$30,000.00 Cost Deduction to Remove Spare Pump Not Specified -$23,379.00 The cost for the Hydro equipment ranges from $338,208 for a 10-tray, 304 SS system with no shelf-spare grit pump and no field verification/testing, to $448,366 for a 13-tray system with 316 SS components and a shelf-spare pump. Based on feedback from City staff and the supplier, the preferred options for the Hydro system are a 304 SS 10-tray grit trap with the spare grit pump and without the performance testing. The total net award amount for this preferred configuration is $361,587.00. Removing applicable taxes yields a final net award amount of $340,470.17. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 7 of 24 Huber and Hydro submitted bids for grit washing equipment as well. Both grit washers are similar in appearance and function. Grit enters the larger, bowl-shaped grit stirrer chamber where a mixer/agitator arm stirs grit from the grit pump. The mixing/agitation chamber separates organic material from grit and represents a key difference between a grit washer and a grit classifier. Cleansed grit settles to the bottom of the mixing chamber. An inclined auger conveys grit from the bottom to the discharge chute/bagger system. The grit is washed as it is convoyed along the auger to removal any residual organic material. Typically, grit washers, as opposed to grit classifiers, provide a clean, less objectional grit material at the discharge point. Typical washed grit has less than 10% moisture content with over 95% of organics removed. Huber has many grit washers installed throughout the United States, many with 20+ years in operation. Hydro’s grit washer is newer and has fewer references. As noted in the RFP, the City may select different grit removal and grit washer manufacturers. Accordingly, the grit removal and grit washer proposals will be evaluated independently. AQUA is aware of multiple installations that include grit removal and grit washer equipment from different suppliers. However, there are benefits to coordination, startup, programming/integration, and troubleshooting if both pieces of equipment are furnished by the same vendor. If different vendors are selected, the City will likely furnish controls independently and coordinate with both suppliers to ensure that the entire system functions together as intended. A summary of the costs provided in the proposals is provided in Table 4. Note that the original bid amounts presented here include 6% sales tax which is not applicable and will be removed from the final award amount. Table 4: Cost comparison for proposed grit washer equipment. Bid Item Huber Hydro International Grit Washer Equipment $172,397.17 $205,314.00 Submittals $13,436.85 $15,507.00 Controls* $79,900 $91,569.00 Recommended Spare Parts $3,002.98 $15,447.00 Cost Adder for BABA Compliance $-0- $28,648.00 Total Grit Washer Cost w/ Controls $268,737.00 $356,485.00 Total Grit Washer Cost w/o Controls $188,837.00 $264,916.00 Taxes included? Yes Yes BABA Compliant Yes Yes (w/ adder) Cost Adder for 316 SS Construction Not Specified $25,815.00 The following subsections summarize comparisons for the 10 evaluation criteria listed in the RFP on which awards will be based. Each section includes a scoring matrix to facilitate tracking of review and scoring for each category. Operability This category compares items such as process performance, ease of maintenance/access, and other items related to access and day-to-day operation of the system. As described above, the two options are quite different in terms of their functionality in the grit removal chamber. The Huber system includes a 1.0 HP blower to aerate the grit chamber, a 2 HP grit screw auger, a 2 HP pump for the grease skimmer system, as well as a 0.75 HP drive motor for the skimmer mechanism in addition to the grit pump. The lamella plates can be lifted individually for inspection and cleaning, allowing the girt system to continue operation December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 8 of 24 during routine cleaning and maintenance. As stated, the bottom of the chamber must be accessible to service the grit auger and associated drive motor. The Hydro International chamber itself has no moving or motorized/mechanical components and relies on flow velocity and the shape of the stacked chambers to remove and direct grit to the bottom of the chamber. Grit is pumped from the bottom with a grit pump to the grit washer unit. The grit pump is typically installed adjacent to the grit washer. Fluidizing water is directed to the bottom of the chamber to facilitate operation of the grit pump. With no mechanical parts in the chamber, this system is simple to operate. The chamber should be bypassed and inspected occasionally to ensure that the trays are clear of debris and fouling. Unless two grit chambers are installed, grit removal must be bypassed during these inspections. Overall, the Hydro system appears much simpler to operate and maintain. The performance of both systems appears comparable and each meets the required specifications. The Huber unit offers the advantage of the grease skimmer mechanism as well as allowing for continued operation during routine inspection of the lamella. However, unless grease removal in the headworks is of particular concern to the City, the added complication of operating the Huber system may not be warranted. Occasional bypass of the grit system as required by the Hydro package is not overly concerning for downstream equipment or processes. Regarding the grit washers, the Hydro International washer is similar to Huber’s; both utilize a stirring mechanism in addition to the screw mechanism. Washed grit is relatively clean and dry with low organic content. The performance of the washer units appears comparable. The following tables provide AQUA’s preliminary assessment of operability. Grit Trap Assembly Operation Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 3 4 12 Hydro Int. 5 4 20 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 4 20 Hydro Int. 5 4 20 Installed Capital Costs This section considers equipment cost and other factors like footprint (impacting building size) and installation costs. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 9 of 24 Preliminary installation costs for the Huber system is estimated at $360,000 including $191,000 for concrete and excavation (including the accessible basement for the grit auger and pump), $104,000 for mechanical installation, and another $65,000 for electrical installation and integration. The cost estimate accounts for more concrete for the larger basin and basement, more mechanical components including a blower, plate lamella/frames, and the screw auger/trough. Installation costs for the Hydro system are estimated at $181,000 including $112,000 for concrete and excavation, $59,000 for mechanical installation, and $10,000 for electrical installation and integration. A summary of equipment, installation, and total capital expense for the grit removal equipment is provided in Table 5. Table 5: Cost comparison of total installed capital costs for proposed grit removal systems. Bid Item Huber Hydro International Base Equipment Package $260,203.00 $391,587.00* Concrete $157,528.70 $112,797.04 Excavation & Haul-off/Disposal $33,433.33 $20,160.00 Mechanical Installation $104,000.00 $58,650.00 Electrical Installation & Integration $65,000.00 $10,000.00 Total Installation Capital Expense $620,165.04 $573,034.04 * City’s preferred package is $361,587.00 While Hydro’s equipment package is more expensive, the estimated total installation cost is less than that for the Huber system. Huber requires a larger overall footprint and access to the lower (14’ deep) portion of the chamber. The Hydro system is more compact. The grit pump and washer units have similar footprints. Huber’s grit washer package is less expensive. Grit Trap Assembly Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 3 5 15 Hydro Int. 4 5 20 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 5 25 Hydro Int. 4 5 20 For comparison, the total equipment package cost for the Hydro International grit chamber paired with the Huber grit washer is $660,324.00. As controls would likely need to be furnished by a 3rd party, and therefore removed from this scope, the anticipated net equipment package price is $580,424.00. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 10 of 24 O&M Costs The maintenance and repair aspect of the grit removal systems is not high, with Huber likely requiring the most time and materials due to the auger and blower components. Huber grit removal may use more energy due to the blower and auger motors, but the Hydro system utilizes fluidizing water and operates the grit pump frequently or even continuously compared with intermittent operation with Huber. Both Huber and Hydro recommend periodic cleaning of the grit removal elements, which requires 3-4 hours. The grit washing equipment is very similar, and expected O&M costs would not vary significantly. Huber’s and Hydro’s grit washer will have slightly higher energy costs compared to the City’s existing grit classifier as they include 2 drive motors. The difference in energy is estimated at less than $300 per year. However, these units will yield less material for disposal (better organic washing) and less odors grit to handle. Grit Trap Assembly Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 3 12 Hydro Int. 5 3 15 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 3 15 Hydro Int. 5 3 15 Experience Both suppliers are represented by established and reputable manufacturers. The Huber Grit-Wolf has limited US installations, with the oldest domestic installation from March 2021. Huber does list several international installations. The HydroCell equipment has been installed and operating in the US at some locations for 12+ years. AQUA has worked with Hydro International on other applications and has formed a positive relationship with their staff. The Huber grit washer has been utilized for many years in the US, including several installations in Utah. Some Hydro International grit chambers have been coupled with Huber grit washer, as Hydro has not always offered a comparable performing piece of equipment. Hydro’s proposed washer appears very similar to the Huber equipment, but they have fewer installations and less experience compared to Huber. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 11 of 24 Grit Trap Assembly Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 2 4 8 Hydro Int. 4 4 16 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 4 20 Hydro Int. 3 4 12 Materials of Construction All exposed, metallic components of the grit trap assemblies are 304 SS; a cost adder for 316 SS was provide by Hydro International. Huber has stated that 316 SS is an option, though no formal price was submitted. As the systems are fundamentally different in their approach, direct materials comparison is not particularly useful in this case. However, in general, the overall quality of the materials offered appears comparable and suitable for the application. Any differences noted are due to the nature of the equipment (plates versus stacked cells versus traditional fluidizing/vortex mechanisms). The hydro cell does not have any interior moving parts or mechanical equipment associated with the trap. The grit washers are also similar materials of construction, with Huber offering a pickling process for stainless steel materials which yields higher quality finished products. Grit Trap Assembly Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 3 12 Hydro Int. 4 3 12 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 3 15 Hydro Int. 4 3 12 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 12 of 24 Lead Time Huber’s lead time is 30-45 days for submittals and 210-240 days for fabrication and delivery. Hydro listed 127 days for submittals and 210 days for fabrication. The longer submittal lead time could impact design/bidding schedule. If Hydro is selected, effort should be made to shorten the submittal lead time or at least provide adequate design information to allow detailed engineering to proceed as scheduled. Further input from Hydro indicates a 6 to 8-week lead time which is more inline with expected timelines. Grit Trap and Washer Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 1 5 Hydro Int. 5 1 5 Local Service Both proposals are from sales representatives with local (Salt Lake City, UT) offices which have proven to be supportive and responsive on past projects. Regarding startup services, the included service does vary, with Huber offering a total of 4 days over 2 trips and Hydro International 8 days over 4 trips. Note that some of Hydro’s travel time is dedicated for performance confirmation. If performance confirmation is removed from the scope (a noted $30,000 price deduction), the anticipated trips would be 2 trips over 6 days. Huber has a strong service presence in the US. Specific experienced for the Grit Wolf may be limited, but given our experience with Huber’s local support, our expectation is that their local service would be acceptable any product they are offering domestically. Conversely, Huber has multiple grit washer installations with good service and track records. The Hydro-International grit washer is relatively new with fewer installations, but our interactions with their company and local representatives has been generally positive. Grit Trap Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 2 8 Hydro Int. 4 2 8 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 2 10 Hydro Int. 5 2 10 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 13 of 24 Warranties The warranties are the same, namely either 12 months from startup or 18 months from delivery, whichever comes first. However, Huber did add a bonus 5-year service contract which includes semi-annual site visits, replacement/wear parts, and 24/7 customer support over a 5-year period. In addition, Huber provides a 10-year warranty on the grit screw and liner, though this is a feature unique to their system. Warranties for the grit washer equipment both meet the RFP requirements of 12 months from startup or 18 months from delivery. Grit Trap Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 4 20 Hydro Int. 3 4 12 Grit Washer Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 4 16 Hydro Int. 4 4 16 References All proposals listed multiple references in addition to a complete installation list. Hydro International had very positive reviews, including from installations that had vortex or aerated grit chambers previously installed. Operators noted improved capture rates, especially for finer material. One location noted that bearings on the Hydro washer required attention every 18-24 months, but stated that the effort was not excessive. Huber only has a few active domestic installations for the Grit Wolf system. We have been unable to communicate with these domestic or international references. Regarding the Huber grit washer, all contacted references had very positive reviews for the system, citing very low maintenance and good performance in terms of clean grit with low organic content. Hydro International has fewer references with less experience, but the feedback was generally positive. Grit Trap Assembly Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 3 2 6 Hydro Int. 4 2 8 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 14 of 24 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 2 10 Hydro Int. 4 2 8 Owner Preference Accounting for the above-listed factors, operators’ observations from site visits, review of proposals, and other factors, this section reflects the City/Operators’ overall preference for equipment. Grit Trap Assembly Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 2 5 10 Hydro Int. 5 5 25 Grit Washer Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 5 25 Hydro Int. 4 5 20 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 15 of 24 Final Evaluation Use these tables to compile the scores for each category above: Table 6A: Preliminary scoring summary for grit removal equipment proposals. Evaluation Criteria For Grit Removal Equipment Final Score = (Points x Weight) Huber Hydro International (and Relative Weight) Points Score Points Score Operability (4) 3 12 5 20 Installed Capital Cost (5) 3 15 4 20 O&M Costs (3) 4 12 5 15 Experience (4) 2 8 4 16 Materials of Construction / Quality (3) 4 12 4 12 Lead Time (1) 5 5 5 5 Local Service (2) 4 8 4 8 Warranties (4) 5 20 3 12 References (2) 3 6 4 8 Owner’s Preference (5) 2 10 5 25 TOTAL SCORE 108 141 Table 6B: Preliminary scoring summary for grit washer equipment proposals. Evaluation Criteria For Grit Washer Equipment Final Score = (Points x Weight) Huber Hydro International (and Relative Weight) Points Score Points Score Operability (4) 5 20 5 20 Installed Capital Cost (5) 5 25 4 20 O&M Costs (3) 5 15 5 15 Experience (4) 5 20 3 12 Materials of Construction / Quality (3) 5 15 4 12 Lead Time (1) 5 5 5 5 Local Service (2) 5 10 5 10 Warranties (4) 4 16 4 16 References (2) 5 10 4 8 Owner’s Preference (5) 5 25 4 20 TOTAL SCORE 161 138 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 16 of 24 SEPTAGE RECEPTION EQUIPMENT Huber and JWC submitted proposals for septage reception packages. Both packages are rated to treat 400 gpm from septage trucks, meeting the requirements of the RFP. Each includes a rock trap, 316 SS tank to house the screen/auger equipment, control panels and reception keypad/card reader assemblies. The two packages are similar in many ways, with some moderate variation in their respective implementation. Huber does not typically include or recommend an inline grinder ahead of the septage screen whereas JWC lists this as a featured advantage of their system. Grinders at septage reception stations can be useful, but grinding material ahead of a screen can reduce the screen’s effectiveness, allowing more material to pass downstream. The usefulness of a grinder ultimately depends on the nature of the raw material being dumped at the station. As an option, space could be left to accommodate a grinder without it being installed initially, or the grinder could be removed and replaced with a spool if it proves unnecessary or unhelpful. The screening tanks are similar in function, in that a screened barrier removes material from flow before it continues to the main WWTP headworks. Screenings are conveyed along an auger where they are washed, compacted, and dried prior to discharging. Note that the original bid amounts presented here include 6% sales tax which is not applicable and will be removed from the final award amount. Table 7: Cost comparison summary of proposed septage reception equipment packages. Bid Item Huber JWC Septage Reception Station $161,076.59 $145,735.00 Submittals $13,578.65 $-0- Controls $95,458.30 $30,104.00 Recommended Spare Parts $1,119.36 $1,652.00 Cost Adder for BABA Compliance $-0- $-0- Total Septage Reception Cost w/ Controls $271,232.90 $177,491.00 Total Septage Reception Cost w/o Controls $175,774.60 $147,387.00 Taxes included? Yes Yes BABA Compliant? Yes Yes Operability This category compares items such as process performance, ease of maintenance/access, and other items related to access and day-to-day operation of the system. Both systems include a rock trap, required instrumentation, 316 SS tank, screen, integrated washer/compactor, and screenings bagger system. The JWC system includes a grinder which may offer advantages in certain circumstances. From an operability perspective, both systems appear similar in their approach and function. Input from existing JWC installations had both positive and negative input on the grinder. Two installations have a grinder and seem to like it – they haven’t operated without a grinder. One installation does not have a grinder and recommended not installing the grinder as it just added maintenance cost and effort for them with not much noted benefit. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 17 of 24 Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 4 16 JWC 4 4 16 Installed Capital Costs This section considers equipment cost and other factors like footprint (impacting building size) and installation costs. Both units have comparable footprints, and overall installation costs would not vary significantly. The JWC may require a bit more installation cost to accommodate the auger. The Huber package is $31,000 more than the JWC package. Accounting for controls, the Huber package is over 50% more ($95,000) than JWCs. Based on feedback from the City and electrical engineer, it is recommended that controls be included with this award and package. Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 3 5 15 JWC 5 5 25 O&M Costs The Huber system uses less electricity, primarily due to the lack of a grinder. JWC provided a more detailed breakdown of regular wear items and maintenance parts. Again, JWC’s average maintenance costs are higher as they account for the grinder. Removing the grinder from consideration, annual power and maintenance costs appear more comparable. The following scores reflect higher costs associated with the grinder, but it may present a fairer comparison to remove the grinder from this analysis. The Huber equipment requires more instantaneous wash water volume (52 gpm versus 10-15 gpm for JWC), but the total daily required volume may not vary as much. Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 3 12 JWC 3* 3 9 * This score accounts for higher energy and maintenance costs associated with the grinder. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 18 of 24 Experience Both suppliers are represented by established and reputable manufacturers. Huber and JWC provided an extensive list of installations going back 15+ years. We are more familiar with JWC’s equipment in this regard, but no concerns with experience or installations is noted for either party. Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 4 20 JWC 5 4 20 Materials of Construction All exposed, metallic components of the septage tank and screen assemblies are 316 SS. Enclosures are either NEMA 4X or NEMA 7 for classified areas and both suppliers seem well experienced in building packages appropriate for the environment. Huber does provide a pickling/passivation process on their stainless-steel components which improves durability. No other major differences or advantages were apparent. Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 5 3 15 JWC 4 3 12 Lead Time Lead time for submittals is comparable at 28-42 days for JWC and 6 weeks for Huber. Fabrication time is shorter for JWC (112 days) versus Huber (210-240 days). Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 3 1 3 JWC 5 1 5 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 19 of 24 Local Service Both proposals are from sales representatives with local (Salt Lake City, UT) offices which have proven to be supportive and responsive on past projects. Regarding startup services, both list 2 trips with 4 total days as included. There do not appear to be any Huber units close to the Rexburg area, so knowledgeable technicians may be located farther away. This score could be adjusted if Huber provides more local references. Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 2 8 JWC 5 2 10 Warranties The warranties are the same, namely either 12 months from startup or 18 months from delivery, whichever comes first. However, JWC offers an additional warranty, up to 3 years, for $16,500 per year. The City should discuss if the additional warranty should be included in the award. Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 4 16 JWC 5 4 20 References All three responses from JWC references had very positive feedback. Two of the 3 responses included grinders and reported minimal issues with it and thought it protected their screens better. The third installation no longer operates with a grinder as they felt it wasn’t helping and was just another wear item to maintain. They have been happy with the performance with the grinder removed. Two Huber references were contacted. At one site, they feel the equipment operates as intended, but mentioned it had some issues. There were some issues with sizing and the installation that are not directly caused by Huber’s equipment, but they said they may investigate a different option when the time for replacement comes. The second reference was very positive and strongly endorses Huber. They mentioned the card reader failed after four years, likely due to high temperatures at the site. December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 20 of 24 Septage Reception Equipment Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 4 16 Hydro Int. 4 4 16 Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 4 2 8 JWC 5 2 10 Owner Preference Accounting for the above-listed factors, operators’ observations from site visits, review of proposals, and other factors, this section reflects the City/Operators’ overall preference for equipment. Septage Reception Supplier Points Weighted Value Score Huber 3 5 15 Hydro Int. 5 5 25 Final Evaluation Use these tables to compile the scores for each category above: Table 8: Preliminary scoring summary for septage reception equipment proposals. Evaluation Criteria Septage Reception Station Final Score = (Points x Weight) Huber JWC (and Relative Weight) Points Score Points Score Operability (4) 4 16 4 16 Installed Capital Cost (5) 3 15 5 25 O&M Costs (3) 4 12 3 9 Experience (4) 5 20 5 20 Materials of Construction / Quality (3) 5 15 4 12 Lead Time (1) 3 3 5 5 Local Service (2) 4 8 5 10 Warranties (4) 4 16 5 20 References (2) 4 8 5 10 Owner’s Preference (5) 3 15 5 25 TOTAL SCORE 128 152 December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 21 of 24 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The scores presented herein are based on our review and feedback from City staff after reviewing proposals, site/installation visits, conversations with references, and analysis of the information provided. The intent of the scoring process and review is to assist the City in identifying equipment that meets their needs and expectations while providing good overall value, quality, and reassurance to City staff and operators of a properly functioning system. Screen & Washer/Compactors Only Huber submitted a bid for the screen and washer/compactors. The equipment meets the design criteria and intent of the RFP and will closely match the City’s existing equipment. The proposed price for the screen and washer/compactor equipment was withing our expected range. AQUA recommends awarding the screen, sluice, and washer/compactors. Regarding controls, the two existing screens will need to be incorporated into the overall control regime with the new screen, new washer/compactors, and new sluice. Review with the project electrical engineer indicates that a 3rd party supplier will likely be able to provide a more complete control system for lower cost than that presented in the proposal. Accordingly, the following award is recommended for these bid items: * Controls listed at $107,473.40 - current recommendation is to have 3rd party furnish controls. Equipment 174,869.00$ Submittals 9,267.58$ Controls - Not Awarded*-$ Spare Parts 2,485.00$ BABA (Included)-$ Total Award Amount 186,621.58$ Bid Item #1 - Step Screen Huber SSF-HE 3000x7 26/6 - 316 SS (x1) Equipment 333,215.00$ Submittals 18,590.28$ Controls - Not Awarded -$ Spare Parts 2,485.00$ BABA (Included)-$ Total Award Amount 354,290.28$ Huber WAP L 2 (x 2 Units) Bid Item #2 - Washer/Compactors December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 22 of 24 Grit Trap & Washer Regarding grit removal equipment, the Hydro International system has lower estimated installation costs and offers much simpler operation relative to the Huber proposal. Both systems indicate grit removal superior to that provided by the City’s existing vortex grit trap. As Huber has relatively few domestic installations, the City is less inclined to consider this option. In addition, Huber has higher estimated overall installation capital costs and more complex operation. The Hydro system appears to offer a better overall option for the City in terms of installed capital cost and ease of operation. As stated, the City intends to keep the second (shelf spare) grit pump as part of Hydro’s package. The option to remove performance verification testing is recommended (a $30,000 reduction in cost). The upgrade in capacity (to a 13-tray system) and 316 SS do not appear necessary for this application. Accordingly, the following award is recommended for the grit trap: * Decisions for optional adders and deductions include: no 316 SS addition, keeping the spare pump, removing performance testing, and keeping the 10-tray system. The Huber grit washer is less expensive and represents a historically good, reliable product. Hydro’s offering looks similar in form and function, but is more expensive. Hydro also has less experience and fewer installations than Huber. As both systems would function similarly, the less expensive Huber unit appears to offer a better value to the City. AQUA is aware of several installations where a Huber washer has been combined with a Hydro (or other) grit trap. Controls will likely function better, be less expensive, and easier to incorporate if furnished by a 3rd party. Accordingly, the following award is recommended for the grit washer bid items: Equipment 345,247.17$ Submittals 18,523.00$ Controls - Not Awarded -$ Spare Parts 6,700.00$ BABA (Included)-$ Total Base Package Amount 370,470.17$ Upgrade to 316 SS 25,169.81$ Remove Spare Pump (22,055.66)$ Remove Performance Testing (30,000.00)$ Upgrade to 13 Tray System 22,917.92$ Net Cost Change (30,000.00)$ Total Award Amount 340,470.17$ Bid Item #3 - Grit Trap Hydro 10-Tray HeadCell Unit (x1) Cost Adders and (Deductions)* December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 23 of 24 * Controls cost is $79,900.00. Given that grit removal and washer are by different parties, recommend 3rd party supplier for controls (also likely less expensive). Septage Reception Finally, the JWC and Huber septage systems appear suitable for the intended application. Both systems include controls with keypad/card reader function. The JWC system includes a grinder while Huber does not typically include or recommend a grinder. The JWC system is less expensive even with the included grinder. Feedback for the JWC equipment was more readily available and positive. Feedback for Huber has been limited so far (though efforts continue), with moderately positive reviews from the single reference that responded to our inquiry. The Huber reference did not recommend their software or controls. JWC indicates that Blackfoot has an installation available, and a site visit there is encouraged. Feedback from Blackfoot operators is positive. Given the price difference and the positive feedback from JWC installations, the JWC system appears to offer the best value. Input from City staff and the electrical/controls engineer indicate that including the controls portion for this equipment is recommended. Accordingly, the following award is recommended for the grit washer bid items: Equipment 162,638.84$ Submittals 13,436.85$ Controls - Not Awarded*-$ Spare Parts 2,833.00$ BABA (Included)-$ Total Award Amount 178,908.69$ Bid Item #4 - Grit Washer Huber Coanda Grit Washer RoSF4 - 3 (x1) Equipment 128,051.89$ Submittals 10,000.00$ Controls 28,400.00$ Spare Parts 1,558.49$ BABA (Included)-$ Total Award Amount 168,010.38$ Bid Item #5 - Septage Reception JWC SRS3235-XE Honey Monster (x1) December 22, 2023 Headworks Equipment RFP Summary Page 24 of 24 Next Steps The City intends to seek formal approval from the City Council prior to issuing Notics of Award and Purchase Orders to selected suppliers. Based on the City’s schedule, this will likely take place on January 17, 2024. Per the RFP language, the City would pay directly for submittals, with the remaining contract assigned to the installation contractor. The following table provides a summary of the total costs and breakdown of submittal costs versus deferred costs. These costs have been adjusted to reflect removal of the 6% sales tax that was part of the original bid pricing. Submittal Cost Remaining to (Direct from City)Assign to Contractor #1 - Screen 186,621.58$ 9,267.58$ 177,354.00$ #2 - (2) Washer Compactors 354,290.28$ 18,590.28$ 335,700.00$ #3 - (1) Grit Removal System 340,470.17$ 18,523.00$ 321,947.17$ #4 - (1) Grit Washer 178,908.69$ 13,436.85$ 165,471.84$ #5 - (1) Septage Reception Station 168,010.38$ 10,000.00$ 158,010.38$ TOTAL 1,228,301.10$ 69,817.71$ 1,158,483.39$ Total CostBid Item