HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2606-6505CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, August 10, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
13.Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C24189086 with Carollo Engineers, Inc.,
to Increase the Contract Amount by $551,755 for a Revised Total Not-to-Exceed Amount
of $3,294,529, and to Extend the Contract Term by Six Months through December 2027,
for the Long Range Facilities Plan Update for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(WQ-19002); CEQA Status – Not a Project
1
0
2
3
6
1
0
2
3
6
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: August 10, 2026
Report #:2606-6505
TITLE
Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C24189086 with Carollo Engineers, Inc., to
Increase the Contract Amount by $551,755 for a Revised Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of
$3,294,529, and to Extend the Contract Term by Six Months through December 2027, for the
Long Range Facilities Plan Update for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (WQ-19002);
CEQA Status – Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their
designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C24189086 with Carollo Engineers, Inc.
to increase the contract amount by $551,755 for the Long Range Facilities Plan Update
supported by the Plant Repair, Retrofit, and Equipment Replacement project (WQ-19002), and
to extend the term through December 2027. The revised total contract amount is not-to-exceed
$3,294,529, including $2,995,026 for Basic Services and $299,503 for Additional Services.
BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which provides
wastewater treatment and disposal services to Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University. The RWQCP is currently
implementing major capital projects recommended in the 2012 Long Range Facility Plan (LRFP)1
following Council’s acceptance of the LRFP on July 2, 2012.2 These capital projects are in various
stages of design and construction.
On June 10, 2024, the City Council approved a $2,742,774 contract (No. C24189086) with
Carollo Engineers, Inc., to prepare an LRFP Update (LRFP-U) to guide RWQCP infrastructure
1 Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, 2012;
2 City Council, July 2, 2012; Agenda Item #7; SR# 2914,
1
0
2
3
6
1
0
2
3
6
investments and process improvements over the next 50 years.5 The LRFP-U also evaluates
potential use of a portion of the adjacent Measure E site for future biosolids facilities, as
directed by City Council on April 3, 2023.6
The existing contract term runs through June 30, 2027, and the original contract includes
$2,493,431 for Basic Services and $249,343 for Additional Services. Key tasks include: 50-year
treatment capacity evaluation and process modeling; update to the Biosolids Facilities Plan,
including Measure E site analysis; RWQCP workspace planning; facility condition assessments;
development of a 50-year capital improvement program; cost-of-service analysis; and a final
LRFP-U report.
ANALYSIS
Since the City Council approved the original contract in June 2024, the scope of work for LRFP-U
has expanded beyond what was anticipated. The RWQCP is concurrently undergoing or
planning several major capital projects, including the Secondary Treatment Upgrades, the
Advanced Water Purification System, the Headworks Replacement, and the Gravity Thickener
Improvements. Coordinating the LRFP-U with these ongoing projects required substantially
more review of project documentation, as well as supplementary biological process modeling
to forecast how the future upgrade of the secondary treatment process would affect the
resulting solids projections and process capacity evaluations for the 50-year planning horizon.
Staff recommends that City Council approve Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to add funds to
the contract to address the following additional efforts:
Expanded facility condition assessments covering several additional onsite and offsite
facilities not included in the original scope.
Additional effort to compile and verify equipment and piping information to support the
facility condition assessment, including extensive review of historical design documents,
O&M manuals, facility plans, and as-built records to confirm equipment capacities.
Additional feasibility analysis for biosolids management alternatives at the RWQCP or
the Byxbee Park site, including site layouts, life-cycle costs, evaluation criteria scores,
and sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the results.
Additional alternatives analysis, prioritization, and documentation associated with a
substantially greater volume of recommended capital improvement projects across the
50-year planning horizon than originally anticipated.
5 City Council, June 10, 2024; Agenda Item #6, SR#2405-2993,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82887&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
6 City Council, April 3, 2023; Agenda Item #12; SR #2302-0942,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82279&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=ead8a87e
302-0942
1
0
2
3
6
1
0
2
3
6
Expanded public and partner agency engagement, including consultant support for
biosolids public meetings held in May 2025, July 2025, and February 2026. This level of
presentation support was not anticipated in the original scope and requires additional
consultant services reflected in the amendment.
The amendment would increase the Basic Services budget by $501,595, from $2,493,431 to
$2,995,026, and the Additional Services budget by $50,160 (10% contingency), from $249,343
to $299,503. The revised total contract amount is not to exceed $3,294,529.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This project is funded through the RWQCP partner-funded structure, with costs shared by the
City and its regional partners consistent with established partner agreements and related
amendments. Palo Alto’s share of this project is approximately 38%, with the remaining 62%
funded by the partners based on wastewater flows and strength contributions.
Funding for this contract is included in the Fiscal Year 2027 Adopted Capital Budget for the
Wastewater Treatment Fund Plant Repair, Retrofit, and Equipment Replacement Project (WQ-
19002). No additional budget appropriation is required at this time. Use of this professional
services contract is more efficient than performing the work with City staff because the work
requires specialized expertise in wastewater treatment and biosolids technologies, and
advanced biological process modeling that is not available within existing staff capacity.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
City management has been kept informed through the RWQCP Monthly Strategies and
Challenges Meetings, and partner agencies receive updates through quarterly meetings. Public
and partner-agency engagement for the LRFP-U includes public workshops/meetings, Finance
Committee meetings,9 City Council meetings, and partner-agency presentations. Project
updates and public involvement opportunities are also shared through the RWQCP Capital
Improvement Program website, Uplift Local, and the Sustainability e-Newsletter.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) because the LRFP-U is an administrative planning activity that will not result in
direct or indirect physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4)).
The LRFP-U will inform planning for future facilities at the RWQCP, and environmental review
will be performed during the development of resulting projects, as necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment No. 1 to Contract C24189086 with Carollo Engineers, Inc.
APPROVED BY:
Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer
9 Finance Committee, Nov 4, 2025; Agenda Item #1, SR#2508-5132,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83790&dbid=0&repo=PaloAltoff Report 2508-5132
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 1 of 41
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C24189086
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.
This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C24189086 (the “Contract” as
defined below) is entered into as of August 10, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC., located at
2795 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598-1601 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are
referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto
for the provision of updating the Long-Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant (RWQCP), as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to (1) extend the contract term
by 6 months, from June 30, 2027 to Dec 31, 2027; (2) expand the scope of service to include
additional engineering services for biosolids management analysis, infrastructure condition
assessments, coordination with concurrent capital improvement projects, and stakeholder
engagement activities; and (3) increase the total not-to-exceed compensation by $551,755,
including $501,595 for basic services and $50,160 for additional services, for a new total not -to-
exceed amount of $3,294,529.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of
this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C24189086
between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 10, 2024.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment
shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December
31, 2027, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 2 of 41
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for
performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C,
entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the
maximum total compensation shall not exceed Two Million Nine Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand
Twenty-Six Dollars ($2,995,026). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-
1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at
no cost to the CITY.
Optional Additional Services Provision
In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not-to-
exceed compensation amount of Two Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Three Dollars
($299,503) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation
for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in
Exhibit C, shall not exceed Three Million Two Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred
Twenty-Nine Dollars ($3,294,529), as detailed in Exhibit C.
“Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper
completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at
Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the
maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT
shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in
this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and
authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task
Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance
and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on
whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in
Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.
To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project
Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY
(defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall
become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task
Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth
for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional
Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of
compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for
any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 3 of 41
SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are her eby amended or added, as
indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby
incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, AMENDED, REPLACES
PREVIOUS.
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
d. Exhibit “C-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES”, AMENDED, REPLACES
PREVIOUS.
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the
Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this
Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 4 of 41
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed
this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
__________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney or designee
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.
By:________________________
Name: Rick Chan
Title: Senior Vice President
By:________________________
Name: Anne E. Prudhel
Title: Executive Vice President
Attachments:
EXHIBIT A, “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS
EXHIBIT B, “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS
EXHIBIT C, “COMPENSTATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS
EXHIBIT C-1, “SCHEDULE OF RATES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 5 of 41
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shall provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described
in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s
preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding
a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public
contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONSULTANT’s
participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be
limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. CONSULTANT shall cooperate
with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this
project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans
or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services.
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Palo Alto (City) is requesting proposals from consultants to perform an update to their
Long Range Facilities Plan (2012) for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP; Plant). The
update will be known as the Long Range Facilities Plan Update (the Project). For this Project, the
CONSULTANT shall provide engineering and other required services during all phases of the Project,
as authorized by the City.
II. BACKGROUND
General
The City owns and operates the RWQCP, which treats wastewater from a total of six partner
agencies (Partners), including the City. The RWQCP has a permitted dry weather capacity of 39
million gallons per day (MGD), annual average treated flow of 16 to 18 MGD, and a wet weather
capacity of 80 MGD. In 2012, a Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) was completed to identify the
needs at the RWQCP for continued, compliant operations. To date, several of the needs identified in
the 2012 LRFP have resulted in projects that have either been completed or are underway. They are
as follows:
• Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility (completed in 2019)
• Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation and Electrical Room Upgrade (in construction
and expected to be completed in June 2024)
• Secondary Treatment Upgrades (in construction and expect to be completed in June 2028)
• 12kV Power Distribution Upgrades – Phase 1 (in construction and expect to be completed in
June 2024)
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 6 of 41
• 12kV Power Distribution Upgrades – Phases 2-7 (expect to issue NTP for construction in
August 2024)
• Advanced Water Purification System (in design)
• Joint Interceptor Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 (design completed; construction scheduled
for summer 2024)
• Outfall Project (on hold)
• Headworks Replacement Project (in advanced planning)
Space Planning
The existing Administration Building was originally constructed in 1975 as a recycled water process
and pumping facility and subsequently expanded in 1992, 1995, and 1998 as a staff building and
pretreatment lab. The existing Operations Building was originally constructed in 1972 and houses
laboratory testing stations and equipment, offices, a large lunchroom, and locker rooms. Per the
LRFP, the need for a new building was identified to house Operations, Administration, Engineering,
Watershed Protection, IT, and Solid waste staff, as well as to provide a new laboratory.
Subsequently, in 2017, RWQCP staff revisited the LRFP siting analysis which resulted in the
identification of the project as a new, 2 story building which would house the laboratory,
environmental services staff, and be located along the western periphery of the RWQCP (adjacent
to the secondary clarifiers). Building costs were higher than budgeted and the Plant canceled the
project to reevaluate alternatives.
The City also intends to construct and/or repurpose workspaces for RWQCP staff to meet future
staffing levels, workspace upgrades and safety/code updates. There are several predefined
workspace alternatives to be used independently or in aggregate to meet the Plant’s workspace
needs, including:
• Buy 1900 Embarcadero Road and remodel for some or all groups.
• Buy 2415-17 and/or 2425 Embarcadero Way, demolish existing structure and a build tech
services building for some or all groups.
• Renovate and repurpose the Administration Building.
• Renovate the Operations Building for at least the Operations group.
• Build a technical services building, that includes a lab function, engineering, technology, and
watershed protection groups
• Construct a “lab only” building, that includes the laboratory, laboratory appurtenant spaces,
and lab staff workspaces.
• Build a “mothership” adjacent to new lab only building, consisting of Operations,
Engineering, Technology, and Watershed Protection groups.
• Build a tech services building next to new lab only building, consisting of Engineering,
Information Technology, and Watershed Protection Group.
The Plant’s preference is for the Operations Group to remain in the existing Operations Building,
provided that alternative is favorable or similar in comparison to other alternatives costs.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 7 of 41
The workspaces need to include the programmed areas defined in Attachment B – Exhibit A (Space
Needs Analysis), including:
• A primary point of entry of Plant visitors;
• An Operations staff and control room, equipped with SCADA monitoring and control system;
• Sufficient exterior space for motor vehicle parking and bike storage;
• Integrated security systems; and
• Sufficient common areas for large conferences, small meetings, meals (preparation and
dining); note that the Admin Building has been repurposed for conference, training, job
walk meetings with a large number of attendees, and all-hands meetings and meals; the
repurposed Admin Building seems to be meeting the space planning needs the large
gathering space needs without the need for these larger spaces to be placed in a more
expensive new building (e.g., the former mothership concept of the prior staff building
planning).
Biosolids Facilities Plan
In 2014, the City developed a Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP) to evaluate and recommend a biosolids
technology to replace incineration and a biosolids disposal plan for review and approval by City
Council. The 2014 BFP can be found at link below1. The BFP recommendation was to construct a
Phase I sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility which is now in operation. A future Phase II
facility was to include anaerobic digestion facilities including thermal hydrolysis processing (THP) of
biosolids followed by mesophilic anaerobic digestion (MAD) with a combined heat and power (CHP)
facility to utilize the biogas. This recommendation was based on a combination of economic and
non-economic factors emphasizing energy production, greenhouse gas reduction, capital cost, and
life-cycle cost.
The THP/MAD/CHP alternative was further developed in a Preliminary Design Report in 2015. This
report can be found at link below2. With further project definition and design development, the
estimated capital cost for the selected alternative increased from $57M to $71M. This revised cost
estimate, coupled with the complexity of operating a new THP facility, led to the decision to
abandon the THP/MAD/CHP project in early 2015. The design of the dewatering and truck loading
facilities proceeded in 2015 and the new facility was operational in early 2019.
Since completion of the BFP and Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility, there have been several
new developments in the industry that warrant revisiting the previous recommendations and
updating the BFP. These include:
1 City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/environmental-
compliance/water-quality/2010-rwqcp-master-planning/parwqcp-biosolids-facility-plan-final.pdf
2 City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61625
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 8 of 41
• The City has completed the new sludge dewatering and truck load -out facility and the
incinerators have been decommissioned.
• Recent legislation in California is driving new regulations that impact biosolids disposal
options, organic waste management options, as well as short-lived climate pollutants
(including methane) and other air emissions from wastewater treatment facilities.
• Several technologies that were nascent at the time of the BFP have advanced with recent
installations and operational history in California. These include the Lystek low-temperature
alkaline hydrolysis process and the Bioforcetech drying and pyrolysis process.
• A BFP 2019 update that re-evaluated long-term biosolids management and energy recovery
alternatives. The ultimate outcome for the near-term was to continue hauling and treating
dewatered sludge at regional treatment facilities which would handle beneficial reuse. This
update can be found at link below3.
• The City has awarded a five-year contract for offsite biosolids processing. A new five-year
contract will be in place by April 1, 2024 for a term of April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2029.
• The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has adopted a Nutrient Watershed
Permit and is moving toward regulating total nitrogen in effluent discharged to the San
Francisco Bay. This has led to a reassessment of the recommendations of the LRFP and the
City has decided to replace the aging Fixed Film Reactor (FFR) facilities with a biological
nutrient removal (BNR) process. This will result in a change in solids production rate (about
34% more WAS and 10% more total sludge) and solids quality and potential future
dewatering side-stream treatment requirements.
• Wastewater flows have decreased and waste strength has increased due to water
conservation measures and a drop in infiltration and inflow into sewers over the long-term.
The Biosolids Facility Plan needs to identify a layout and siting concept for near- and long-term
solutions, within the Plant fence line and/or at the Measure E site, adjacent to the Plant’s southeast
boundary. The Measure E site is owned by the General Fund and is former parkland. If authorized
by Council, the Measure E site could be used by the Wastewater Treatment Fund for a biosolids
facilities process (i.e., “an environmental technology” as defined in the Measure E language). City
Council has the option to rededicate some or all of the Measure E site as parkland at any time.
However, this LRFP Update is an important study to help City Council decide whether it is beneficial
for the City to use the Measure E site for use for a future biosolids technology, and Council is likely
to defer any decisions on park rededication until completion of this study. The 2019 Biosolids
Facilities Plan update only analyzed biosolids technology facilities inside the plant fenceline because
the technology evaluation did not dictate the need for supplemental land. This study, at the
direction of Council, will be evaluating the Measure E site in addition to land inside the plant
fenceline.
3 City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/water-quality-control-
plant/sludge-dewatering-building/finaldraft_palo_alto_bfp_update.pdf?t=47012.05
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 9 of 41
III. INITIAL PROJECT DEFINITION
A successful Long Range Facilities Plant Update will address the RWQCP key issues and meet the
RWQCP long term goals.
Key Issues (in no particular order):
Schedule
o The City needs to make RWQCP layout and space planning decisions as soon as
possible. The Biosolids Facility Plan Update and the Workspace Planning tasks need
to occur first and findings from these tasks need to be used by the City before the
conclusion of the complete Long Range Facility Plan Update.
• Existing Conditions and Capital Improvements:
o Project Location: The RWQCP is located within a flood plain, adjacent to the San
Francisco Bay, a baylands park, a closed landfill, and an active airport. Associated
conditions, including but not limited to, flooding, sea level rise and related rising
shallow groundwater conditions (see City of Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Vulnerab ility
Assessment section 8.2.5.2 for anticipated inundation and depth to groundwater
changes in future decades, and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/sealevelrise), miscellaneous fill, young bay mud, and
temporary and permanent facility height restrictions need to be considered.
▪ The RWQCP is located adjacent to light-industrial and commercial
properties. Temporary and permanent aspects of the Project
implementation, including traffic, noise, dust and odors need to be
anticipated and mitigated.
▪ The RWQCP is located over “bay mud” and miscellaneous fill. Geotechnical
investigations are required to understand soil conditions and seismic criteria.
All current Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) utilize deep, drilled piles as part
of the foundation system for structures, including equipment pads.
o Reliability: The RWQCP is critical infrastructure, required to be staffed and operate
through extreme events and future conditions (including anticipated sea level rise,
changing shallow groundwater conditions, and potential 100-year flood event;
seismic events, and mechanical and power failures) with minimal impacts.
o Costs: The Plant needs to understand the initial and long-term costs associated with
proposed improvements and the costs/risks of no improvement alternatives to
ensure the best value for the Partners is programmed.
o Project Prioritization and Sequencing: To the greatest extent possible, the City
needs to understand its infrastructure’s risk of failure and consequence of failure.
Capital improvement projects need to be developed to minimize infrastructure
failure harming public health, property, and the environment. Consideration also
needs to be given to the space and resources available to complete projects and the
logical sequencing of related projects (related by process or related by area).
Projects should be phased as needed to align with resources, including funding.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 10 of 41
o CIP Constructability: Staging, laydown, and parking constraints need to be
considered when defining projects.
• Identification and Allocation of Costs
o Operations and Maintenance Costs: To ensure fair cost allocations to the Partners
of the Plant based on flow and strength components of the wastewater, the City
needs to understand the total cost components of its reoccurring services, including
administration, operations, maintenance, and contractor/vender services.
o Capital Cost (Debt) Shares: The City assigns to each Partner a proportion of the
capital costs associated with each major project. The City needs to review their
existing methodology for assigning costs and to evaluate alternative methodologies.
The City favors a methodology that is fair, transparent, and appropriately detailed.
• Spatial Considerations: The Plant has had the same property line and footprint since 1972.
Over that time, the Plant has utilized the available footprint to adapt to its operations and
infrastructure to meet community and regulatory drivers; the Plant has expanded its
wastewater treatment capacity and recycled water production, reduced its ons ite air
emissions, and improved effluent water quality. The fixed footprint has made it challenging
to implement capital improvement projects and major maintenance activities while meeting
all the Plant’s high standards and regulatory requirements (e.g., issues with staging,
laydown, parking, and maintenance of screening and buffer lands). The Plant may have the
opportunity to acquire adjacent properties and relocate some Plant staff groups outside the
existing Plant footprint. The Plant needs to understand and quantify the
benefits/opportunities of acquiring a new property. A significant part of the consideration is
the planning-level costs for the several building construction and renovation alternatives,
listed in Task 3.
• Biosolids Facilities and Management: Due to the changing disposal requirements and
evolving opportunities and technologies, the City needs to again update their Biosolids
Facility Plan (BFP). The plan, Biosolids Facility Plan Update, needs to: evaluate biosolids
disposal options, onsite treatment opportunities, and opportunities for regional
partnerships; identify improvement projects required at the Plant and associated estimated
costs and greenhouse gas emissions; and identify planning level layout(s) and space
requirements. The BFP Update needs to include a 30-year planning horizon.
Long Term Goals (in no particular order):
Prior to the 2012 Long Range Facility Plan, a long-term Goals Study was conducted with extensive
input from the community, other stakeholders, and Plant staff. That effort identified 18 goals to
guide RWQCP activities. Fundamentally, the long-term goals remain the same and are the basis for
the Long Range Facilities Plan Update. The long-term goals for the RWQCP are listed below.
• Meet Future Capacity Needs
• Meet or Exceed Regulatory Requirements
• Minimize or Eliminate Toxins in the Influent
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 11 of 41
• Minimize Energy Consumption and Maximize Energy Life Cycle Efficiency
• Minimize or Eliminate Potentially Hazardous Chemical Usage
• Minimize or Eliminate Total Release of Toxins to the Environment
• Minimize Impact on Ecosystem
• Minimize Impacts on Community, Including Neighboring Communities
• Minimize or Justify Financial Impacts on Ratepayer
• Involve Stakeholders in the Decision-Making Process
• Immobilize or Beneficially Reuse Persistent Toxins
• Take Leadership Role in Promoting Beneficial Reuse and Environmental Enhancement
• Maximize Worker Safety
• Maximize Recycled Water as a Supplemental Water Source
• Minimize the Plant’s Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Address Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and Changing Shallow Groundwater Conditions
• Minimize Recycled Water Salinity
IV. CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES (BASIC SERVICES)
The CONSULTANT’s scope of work shall include the tasks described in the following sections. The
CONSULTANT shall not perform work on a task prior to an explicit approval by the City to proceed
with work for that specific task.
City anticipates the CONSULTANT’s work to proceed as follows with adjustments as needed by the
CONSULTANT where mutually agreed to with the City:
Step 1: Update population and load projections for new planning horizon (50 -year) (Task 4)
Step 2: After Step 1, Specific Facilities Plans for Workspaces and Biosolids
1. Workspace Planning Facilities Plan (Task 3)
2. Biosolids Facility Plan Update (Task 2)
Step 3: In parallel with Step 2
1. Cost of Service Assessment for Operating and Capital Cost Allocations (Task 7)
Step 4: After Step 1 and parallel or after Steps 2 & 3, investigate existing RWQCP condition and
process needs (Task 5)
Step 5: After Step 4, Key assessments of capital assets and site planning (Task 6)
Step 6: After Step 5, Updating recommended projects and prioritization list with new Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimates (Task 8)
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 12 of 41
Task 1 – Project Management
Task 1.1 – Invoicing/Project Controls
Provide necessary administration, project controls, quality assurance and professional oversight of
the Project and the CONSULTANT's subconsultants to ensure the Project remains on schedule,
remains within budget, maintains continuity of information, and satisfies the requirements of the
CONTRACT.
Prepare and distribute a Project Management Plan (PMP) for City’s record. Within the PMP, include
the baseline schedule, budget, spending projection, contacts/subcontracts and procedures. Include
a Project Directory with roles and contact information and a Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Plan.
Prepare and submit monthly invoice packages to the City. Billing period shall include the full
calendar month and not overlapping two separate Fiscal years (i.e., not to combine June and July
invoices). If reimbursable incurred, include a summary table listing the subject matter/ personnel
name, date, purpose and associated expenses; label each receipt with a numerical number. Include
a progress report with invoices to document progress. Progress reports shall include, for each task,
a summary of work and budget status, including authorized amount, current billing, billed to date,
amount remaining, and percent spent.
Provide monthly progress updates specifying, for each task, work accomplished, key action items,
key decisions, upcoming workshops and deliverables, workshops and deliverables to date ,
outstanding issues, potential changes, and schedule updates. Identify and mitigate potential budget
overruns.
Prepare, maintain, and update the status of Project schedule for City’s review and comments.
Identify and mitigate schedule changes.
Task 1.2 – Kick-Off Meeting
Facilitate a hybrid (in-person/virtual) meeting at the initiation of the Project (Kick-Off Meeting),
with the City Project Manager and City staff to discuss overall project coordination, data collection,
and project schedule. Walk the Project site. Provide meeting attendees with an agenda seven (7)
calendar days in advance of the date of the meeting. Provide meeting attendees with summary
minutes and electronic copies of any supplemental materials used during the meeting no later than
fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the meeting.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 13 of 41
Task 1.3 – Project Progress Meetings
Conduct virtual (via phone or web conference services) Project Progress Meetings with City Project
Manager, twice a month. The frequency of Project Progress Meetings can be decreased at the City’s
discretion.
Deliverables:
• Draft and final Project Management Plan.
• Baseline project schedule with milestones.
• Agenda and minutes for kick-off meeting.
• Monthly invoices, including monthly Progress Reports.
• Monthly Progress Updates.
• Periodic updates on Project Schedule.
Assumptions:
• The kick-off meeting will be attended by up to five Carollo staff and up to two Jacobs staff.
The kick-off meeting will be a hybrid meeting, with some staff attending in person an d
others attending virtually and will have a 2-hour duration. In-person attendees will walk the
project site after the kick-off meeting.
• Monthly progress updates will be provided before the monthly project progress meetings.
• Project progress meetings will be attended by up to two Carollo staff and one Jacobs staff.
Meetings will be virtual and have a 1-hour duration.
• Quality assurance and professional oversight of Project tasks will be performed under
individual task budgets.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Task 2 - Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP) Update
Task 2.1 - Update Background Information
The RWQCP currently co-thickens primary sludge and WAS in gravity thickeners and dewaters
thickened sludge in belt filter presses. Dewatered cake is hauled for offsite processing by Synagro
and Lystek.
Collect up to 5 years of available data on current solids (primary sludge, WAS, thickened WAS and
primary sludge, and dewatered cake) quantities and characteristics (flow, total solids concentration,
volatile solids concentration). Assess gravity thickener and belt filter press current operations
(operating schedule, duty/standby units), process performance (hydraulic and solids loading rates,
polymer dose, solids capture rate, and thickened and dewatered solids concentration).
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 14 of 41
Assess current solids handling operating costs (power use, polymer use, operations and
maintenance labor, equipment maintenance) and end-use costs to establish the baseline “do-
nothing” solids processing alternative.
Review previous biosolids evaluations including the 2012 Long Range Facilities Plan, the 2014
Biosolids Facility Plan, and the 2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update.
Develop draft BFP update priorities and evaluation criteria and methodology to be used in the
biosolids alternatives screening and evaluation. The evaluation criteria and methodology used in
the 2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update will be used as a starting point for this BFP Update;
CONSULTANT will review and modify as needed, with input from the City.
Conduct a kickoff workshop with Plant staff to review and confirm the draft BFP Update priorities,
evaluation criteria and methodology, the current solids quantities, the current solids processes
performance, and current solids handling and end-use costs. Draft a BFP Update Background and
Introduction Technical Memorandum (TM) for the City’s review and comment. Incorporate City’s
comments in the final BFP Update Background and Introduction TM.
Task 2.2 – Develop Baseline Solids Projections
The BNR/MABR secondary treatment upgrades, projected to be in service in 2028, are expected to
result in a substantial change in solids production rate (about 34% more WAS and 10% more total
sludge). This change in solids production rate and primary sludge to WAS ratio is expected to affect
the gravity thickening and belt filter press dewatering performance.
The BFP Update will be based on a 30-year planning horizon. CONSULTANT will use the primary
sludge and WAS loading projections (pounds per day) and volatiles solids concentrations (%VS) from
the BioWin model developed in Task 4.3 and thickening and dewatering process performance
assumptions to develop annual average and maximum month solids projections (primary sludge,
WAS, thickened primary sludge and WAS, and dewatered cake) for use as the basis of sizing
potential future solids processing facilities and off-site management options. CONSULTANT will use
the existing thickening and dewatering performance criteria from Task 2.1 as a baseline and modify
them based on expected changes in performance criteria from the BNR/MABR upgrades.
Task 2.3 – Regulatory Requirements and Trends
Review regulatory review chapters of previous biosolids evaluations including the 2012 Long Range
Facilities Plan, the 2014 Biosolids Facility Plan, and the 2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update.
Review current and expected future regulations, including:
• Federal, state, and local regulations applicable to existing and potential future solids
processing and beneficial reuse.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 15 of 41
• Regulations on short-lived climate pollutants (Senate Bill 1383) and emerging contaminants
of concern: plastics/microplastics and PFAS.
• Regulations relating to air emissions from digester gas treatment, flares, boilers,
cogeneration, drying, and gasification/pyrolysis (since alternatives to be evaluated in Tasks
2.4 and 2.5 may include anaerobic digestion and thermal processes).
• Regulations on sea level rise and related shallow groundwater change adaptation, as
applicable.
Conduct a Basis of Planning workshop with Plant staff to review the solids projections developed in
Task 2.2 and the regulatory requirements and trends developed in Task 2.3. Draft a Regulatory
Requirements and Trends TM for the City’s review and comment. Incorporate City’s comments in
the final Regulatory Requirements and Trends TM.
Task 2.4 - On-Site Solids Processing and Off-site Management Alternatives Screening
Evaluate potential on-site solids processing and off-site management alternatives. CONSULTANT
will review the alternatives developed in the previous biosolids evaluations including the 2012 Long
Range Facilities Plan, the 2014 Biosolids Facility Plan, and the 2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update.
On-site solids processing alternatives may be sited at the Measure E site, immediately adjacent to
RWQCP (see staff report below for more information)4. The City Council has authorized that the
Measure E site can be used as a potential future biosolids processing facility. Evaluate the latest
developments for established and emerging technologies. Potential on-site solids processing
alternatives include:
• MAD (mesophilic anaerobic digestion) with recuperative thickening
• TAD (thermophilic anaerobic digestion)
• TPAD (Two-Phase Anaerobic Digestion)
• MAD with THP (Thermal Hydrolysis Process)
• Low Temperature Alkaline Hydrolysis (Lystek International, Inc.)
• Drying / Pyrolysis (Bioforcetech Corporation; Aqualine)
• Gasification (this alternative is expected to be eliminated due to need for wood chip
addition)
• Thermal Drying
• Greenhouse Solar Drying
CONSULTANT will take into consideration the possibility of using mechanical thickeners (such as
rotary drum thickeners) immediately downstream of the gravity thickeners or blend tank to
increase the solids concentration and reduce the required downstream biosolids facility footprint.
CONSULTANT will evaluate expected impact of digestion on downstream dewatering performance.
4 City of Palo Alto, April 3rd, 2023, SR 2303-1145 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-
minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2023/sr-2302-0942.pdf
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 16 of 41
Coordinate with the City to develop a list of up to five (5) off-site management alternatives for the
City of Palo Alto. Off-site alternatives may be speculative. Potential off-site management
alternatives include:
• San Jose WPCP Public Private Partnership (P3) imported feedstock opportunity
For each on-site and off-site alternative, evaluate high-level advantages, disadvantages, recent
installations, relative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (including for the processes and required
trucking/hauling), and relative capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. For
greenhouse solar drying and other large footprint alternatives, estimate footprint requirements to
determine if there is sufficient space at the RWQCP and Measure E site for these processes.
Conduct an On-Site and Off-Site Solids Alternatives Screening Workshop with City staff. At the
workshop, use the screening evaluation criteria and methodology established in Task 2.1 to screen
the options down to up to five (5) alternatives for alternatives development and analysis (“selected
alternatives”).
Task 2.5 - Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Develop the selected alternatives identified under Task 2.4. Focus on a comparative evaluation and
identify major differences between alternatives that align with the evaluation criteria identified in
Task 2.1. Develop planning-level capital and life-cycle cost estimates and non-economic evaluations.
Incorporate input from stakeholders, including input obtained in public meetings, in development
of evaluation criteria and weights.
Evaluate compliance with and flexibility to meet anticipated future regulatory requirements.
Develop quantitative GHG emissions. Include in the GHG analysis the changing regulatory landscape
that requires future sludge hauling trucks to be electric by 2036; evaluate hauling GHG emissions
for two scenarios: current diesel trucks and future electric trucks.
Consider the spatial requirements of the selected alternatives and prepare a preliminary site layout
plan for each, including trucking routes. Include required appurtenances for each alternative.
Provide key parameters for each alternative, including height, area, and operations and
maintenance areas.
Assess the feasibility of siting each alternative within the existing RWQCP site boundary or at the
Measure E site, including development of site layouts, capital and life-cycle cost estimates, and
evaluation criteria scores for each siting option.
Conduct a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the alternatives evaluation findings under
varying future biosolids market conditions, regulatory scenarios, and evaluation criteria weights .
Draft an Alternatives Development and Evaluation TM for the City’s review and comment. In
addition to documenting the findings of this task, include a description of the solids projections
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 17 of 41
developed in Task 2.2 and of all alternatives considered and the basis for the initial screening
conducted in Task 2.4. Conduct an Alternatives Development and Evaluation workshop. Incorporate
City’s comments in the final Alternatives Development and Evaluation TM.
The City has determined that alternatives involving food waste receiving, microturbines, fuel cells,
compressed biogas vehicle fueling and compressed biogas for pipeline injection will not be included
in the evaluation.
Task 2.6 - Recommended Biosolids Alternatives(s)
Collaborate with the City to identify a recommended biosolids alternative. If the preferred
alternative is speculative, also provide a non-speculative recommended biosolids alterative.
For the recommended biosolids alternative(s), develop:
• Process flow diagram
• Nutrient removal strategy (including struvite, side-stream treatment)
• Ancillary facility requirements
• Preliminary site layout and square footage / acreage requirements
• Constructability issues
• Beneficial reuse and final disposition of residuals
• Estimated capital costs
• Estimated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
• Estimated GHG emissions
o For trucking alternatives, consider emissions for both diesel and electric vehicles
• Risk management and mitigation strategy
Develop a draft Recommended Biosolids Alternative(s) TM detailing the recommended
alternative(s). Conduct a Recommended Biosolids Alternative(s) Workshop. City’s review comments
on the draft Recommended Biosolids Alternatives TM will be incorporated into the final
Recommended Biosolids Alternatives TM.
Prepare a slide deck of technical support materials and exhibits for future City Council and partner
agency presentations, detailing the BFP Update findings and recommendations. Target a 20-minute
length of presentation. Incorporate two cycles of City’s review comments.
Task 2.7 - Biosolids Facility Plan Update
Provide a draft Biosolids Facility Plan Update, compiling the TMs developed in the preceding
subtasks. The BFP Update will include an Executive Summary of the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. Conduct a workshop to review and discuss the draft BFP Update with City Staff.
Incorporate City’s comments and provide a final BFP Update.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 18 of 41
Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops:
o BFP Kickoff
o Basis of Planning Workshop (covering solids projections and regulatory
requirements and trends)
o Biosolids Alternatives Screening Workshop
o Alternatives Evaluation Workshop
o Recommended Alternative(s) Workshop
o BFP Update Review Workshop
• BFP Background and Introduction TM, draft and final versions.
• Regulatory Requirements and Trends TM, draft and final versions.
• Alternatives Screening and Evaluation TM, draft and final versions and comment log.
• Recommended Biosolids Facilities Alternative(s) TM, draft and final versions and comment
log.
• Biosolids Facility Plan Update, draft and final versions, and comment log
• Recommended Biosolids Facilities Alternative(s) presentation materials for future City
Council and partner Agency presentations, two drafts and one final version.
Assumptions:
• Workshops will be attended by up to five Carollo staff and up to three Jacobs staff.
Workshops will be virtual and have a 2-hour duration.
• Cost estimates will be developed consistent with AACE Class 5.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Task 3 - Workspace Planning
Task 3.1 – Confirmation of RWQCP’s Workspace Vision, Needs and Constraints
Review background information including preliminary design documents, record drawings, LRFP
and other available documentation to understand site constraints and initial space and area
requirements for Plant staff. Review of the background information will focus on the following:
• Sites for new or leased buildings located off the Plant site that were identified in the RFP.
• Existing Administration building.
• Existing Operations Building
Conduct a kickoff meeting and up to two follow-up meetings to confirm and finalize the
vision/purpose/uses, the requirements/restrictions for siting the facilities, by Group (up to three
meetings total).
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 19 of 41
CONSULTANT will summarize the updated vision/purpose/uses, space and needs requirements in a
TM (Vision, Needs and Constraints TM, draft and final) to define the program requirements for the
Plant’s workspaces and related facilities.
Task 3.2 – Workspace Concept Development and Evaluation
Develop a series of initial workspace concepts for Plant workgroups, excluding Operations and
Maintenance workgroups. Each concept will either be a standalone predefined workspace
alternative or a combination of the predefined workspace alternatives. Provide a short narrative
describing the concept and planning level capital cost estimates. Conduct a workshop to review the
initial concepts with the City, characterize the potential advantages and disadvantages, and screen
the series of initial concepts to result in up to three favorable concepts.
Develop the three favorable concepts, as determined by the City, including site layout schematics,
schematic building elevations, other graphical representations (e.g., adjacencies), and planning
level costs. Conduct a workshop to present the two favorable concepts, refine the associated
advantages and disadvantages, and solicit City feedback to select one preferred concept.
Develop a draft Workshop Concept Development and Evaluation TM detailing the initial workshop
concept screening, the three favorable concepts, the planning-level project life-cycle costs, key
long-lead considerations (e.g., land acquisition, permit requirements) and findings (the preferred
concept). Provide a discussion on the possible ways to phase alternatives to incrementally meet the
City’s needs over the planning horizon. Collaborate with the City to identify a recommended
alternative. Incorporate the City’s comments on the draft TM, workshop, and presentations in the
final Workshop Concept Development and Evaluation TM.
Prepare technical support materials and exhibits for City Council and partner agency presentations.
Target a 20-minute length of presentation. Incorporate two cycles of City’s review comments.
Task 3.3 – Preliminary (10%) Design for Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
Reference record drawings, visit the site, and review available documentation to understand site
constraints, existing building layout, and geotechnical conditions for the existing (1) Administration
Building and (2) Operations Building.
• Operations Building:
o Develop two layout alternatives drawings to accommodate the Operations Group,
SCADA/Control room, SCADA Development Cubicle/Area, and upgraded Server room
on second floor, bathroom/change room/mud room and locker room on first floor,
and a kitchen/lunchroom.
o In collaboration with the City, select a layout for the 10% design of the
rehabilitation.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 20 of 41
• Administration Building:
o Develop two layout alternatives to accommodate a multipurpose space that can be
utilized as a large meeting/gathering area for all-hands meetings, project pre-bid or
pre-proposal conferences, trainings, community outreach meetings, as well as a
private office, SCADA Development work area and miscellaneous training and tour
sessions.
o Note that the Administration Building will be for common spaces only (no
programmed workgroup areas).
o In collaboration with the City, select a layout for the 10% design of the
rehabilitation.
• For both buildings, develop a 10% Design Package:
o Develop the design criteria for the building and identify major elements of the
rehabilitation required to meet applicable codes (e.g., seismic upgrades, sea level
rise adaptation).
o Identify major building support systems requiring upgrades (e.g., HVAC) during
buildings’ design life.
o Update the project life cycle costs and project implementation schedule.
o Identify any data gaps that will require additional, future investigations.
o Develop 10% design drawings.
Conduct a workshop to present the 10% Design Package and solicit City feedback. Incorporate City’s
comments from the draft design package and workshop in the final design package.
Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops and meetings:
o Vision, Needs and Constraints Kickoff Meeting.
o Up to two additional Vision, Needs and Constraints Meetings.
o Workspace Concepts Screening Workshop.
o 10% Design Review Workshop.
• Vision, Needs, and Constraints TM, draft and final versions.
• Workshop Concept Development and Evaluation TM, draft and final versions and comment
log.
• Workspace Planning presentation materials for future City Council and partner agency
presentations, two drafts and one final version.
• 10% Design Package for Operations Building and Administration Building rehabilitations,
draft and final versions and comment log.
Assumptions:
• Workshops will be hybrid (in person and virtual) and attended by up to three Jacobs staff (in
person) and one Carollo staff (virtually). Workshops will have a 2-hour duration.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 21 of 41
• Cost estimates will be developed consistent with AACE Class 5.
• New workspace construction should have a minimum design life of 50 years.
• Renovated workspaces need to include life-cycle costs to have comparable useful life as new
workspace construction.
Task 4 – Background and Baseline Information
Task 4.1 – Wastewater Flow and Load Projections
Collect and summarize up to 5 consecutive years of Plant influent wastewater flows and
characteristics. Determine the historical Average Day Dry Weather, Average Day Wet Weather,
Maximum Month, and Peak Day Wet Weather flow and load conditions.
Develop population forecasts and expected per capita wastewater flows and loads for each Partner
Agency in coordination with Partners’ planning efforts. These forecasts will consider the following
information from the Partners:
• urban water management plans
• census data
• ABAG projections
• sewer master plans
• planning department projections
• other population projections formally adopted by each Partner Agency
Population forecasts and per capita wastewater flow and load projections will also be informed by a
questionnaire developed by the CONSULTANT to determine each Partner Agency’s expected 2075
flow and load projections for City’s review and distribution. CONSULTANT will compile and analyze
questionnaire responses, attend up to six (6) City coordinated meetings with each Partner Agency,
and compile meeting information.
Based on historical flows and loads, population forecasts, and expected flow and load projections
for each Partner Agency, develop Average Day Dry Weather, Average Day Wet Weather, Maximum
Month, and Peak Day Wet Weather flows and loads for the year 2075.
Task 4.2 – Recent and Ongoing Plant Improvements
Summarize the major and minor capital improvements completed and underway at the Plant since
the 2012 Long Range Facilities Plant. Perform one (1) site visit and meet with Plant staff to verify
equipment rating of critical equipment, as needed. CONSULTANT shall not rely solely on record
information. Based on record information and site verification of critical equipment rating,
CONSULTANT will summarize the design criteria of the current and planned facilities, to be used in
Task 4.3.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 22 of 41
Task 4.3 – Process Modeling, Capacity Assessment, and Solids Projections
The City will provide the EnviroSim Associates BioWin process model to the CONSULTANT to use.
The process model was developed by Brown & Caldwell after completion of the Secondary
Treatment Upgrade project design. The CONSULTANT will use the wastewater flow and load
projections developed in Task 4.1 and the design criteria for recent and ongoing plant
improvements developed in Task 4.2 to update the process model, as needed.
CONSULTANT will use the model to develop primary sludge and waste activated sludge (WAS)
loading projections for the 30-year planning horizon to be used in Task 2 (Biosolids Facility Plan
Update). These primary sludge and WAS load projections will be based on the Plant’s planned
treatment process.
CONSULTANT will conduct a capacity assessment of existing Plant processes based on the 2075
projections developed in Task 4.1 and the design criteria determined in Task 4.2. CONSULTANT will
compile a matrix of all major treatment processes and their capacities. Based on the capacity
assessment, CONSULTANT will identify capacity limitations and capacity-driven expansion needs
over the next 50 years. CONSULTANT will allocate capacities by Partner Agency allocation, according
to the information tabulated in Task 7.2 and compare allocated Partner capacities with future
projections to identify exceedances.
The updated BioWin simulator inputs and results will be shared with the City for future use.
Task 4.4 – Regulatory, Environmental and Community Constraints
Review Plant’s current NPDES permit. Conduct a workshop with the Plant’s Regulatory Group staff
to discuss current and potential future regulatory requirements. This task will include the following
topics:
• Current and Potential Future Regulatory Requirements
o Monitoring and Effluent Water Quality
o Air Emissions Quality (except for potential future biosolids processes, which will be
covered in Task 2.3)
o Environmental Compliance Laboratory TNI Requirements
o Pretreatment
• Community Goals and Concerns
• Regional Trends, Studies, and Opportunities
• Emerging Contaminants of Concern (specifically, ones that could require a project or change
in Plant operations during the planning horizon)
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 23 of 41
Task 4.5 - Development of Evaluation Criteria and Methodology
Develop the criteria for the evaluation of existing infrastructure and potential improvements. The
evaluation criteria and methodology used in the 2012 LRFP will be used as a starting point for this
LRFP Update; CONSULTANT will review and modify as needed, with input from the City. Evaluation
criteria may include:
• Planning-level capital, operational, and maintenance cost (including life cycle costs)
• Estimated staffing requirements/costs
• Redundancy, reliability, and longevity
• Ease of operation and safety
• Ease of maintenance
• Modifiable – to increase capacity, link with a process change, etc.
• Environmental considerations: e.g., release of nitrogen to the bay, etc.
• Carbon footprint minimization, especially through in-plant energy use reduction and energy
recovery
• Impacts on adjacent land uses (e.g., visual, odors, height, noise, traffic, etc.)
• Treatment capacity and physical size, layout, footprint, and elevation impacts
• Performance and usage history
• Risk Factor (determined by Risk of Failure and Consequence of Failure)
• Constructability
Recommend a weighting/prioritization of criteria, or an alternative evaluation methodology. City to
approve of final methodology.
Draft a Basis of Planning TM summarizing the findings from Tasks 4.1 to 4.5 for the City’s review and
comment. Incorporate City’s comments in the final Basis of Planning TM.
Deliverables:
• Partner Agency’s flow and load questionnaire, draft and final versions.
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops/ meetings:
o Flow and Load Projections, Recent Plant Improvements, and Regulatory and
Community Constraints Workshop.
o Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Workshop.
o Capacity Limitations and Recommended Projects Workshop.
• Basis of Planning TM, draft and final versions.
Assumptions:
• The site visit to confirm capacity information will be attended by up to three Carollo staff.
• Workshops will be attended by up to four Carollo staff. Workshops will be virtual and have a
2-hour duration.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 24 of 41
Task 5 – Existing Plant Infrastructure and Process Assessment
Task 5.1 – Desktop Analysis
Perform a desktop analysis of existing Plant infrastructure and assess the current processes
(including but not limited to the list below). Use industry guidelines, project team experience, and
City staff input to establish expected useful life estimates by classification. Install date and
equipment and asset size/capacity information to be provided by the City to support the desktop
calculation. Where data is lacking or insufficient, approximate install date from record drawings for
original construction and from upgrade/expansion projects. Note th e age, capacity, and estimated
remaining useful life of the subject infrastructure in a TM. Identify data gaps in the desktop analysis,
make recommendations for infrastructure in need of field condition assessment (investigations),
and prepare a draft Field Investigations Plan.
• Onsite Infrastructure
o Dual Media Filters
o Secondary Clarifiers
o Primary Sedimentation Tanks
o UV Disinfection
o Sludge Dewatering and Truck Loadout (including Sludge Blend Tank)
o Effluent Outfall
o Chemical Storage
o Yard Piping
o Recycled Water Facilities
o W4 (Plant Water) Pumps and Power Distribution
o Electrical Facilities
o Hazardous Material Storage Facility
o Compressed Air System (compressors and lines)
o Gravity Thickeners
o Equipment Room
o Warehouse
o Chlorine Building
• Offsite Infrastructure
o Renzel Marsh and Appurtenances
o Matadero Creek saltmarsh pump
o Golf course recycled water pipeline and pump station
o Joint Intercepting Sewer (60” / 72” diameter)
▪ Pipeline Analyses
▪ Metering Station
▪ Approximately 2,364 feet out of 9,000 linear feet of the joint intercepting
sewer closest to the Plant will be rehabilitated (via CIPP) in summer 2024.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 25 of 41
▪ Future rehabilitation of the remaining and upstream portions of the Joint
Intercepting Sewer.
▪ Flow Meters
o Partner Agency Flowmeters
o CPA/MV recycled water pipeline
Conduct a workshop with Plant staff to review the draft Desktop Analysis TM and the draft Field
Investigations Plan and to coordinate investigations with Operators. Incorporate the City’s
comments from the workshop and the draft Field Investigations Plan in the final Desktop Analysis
TM and Field Investigation Plan.
Task 5.2 – Sea Level Rise and 100-Year Flood Adaptation
The CONSULTANT will review the following reference documents to identify paths forward to
improve plant’s resiliency against sea level rise and 100-year flood events:
• City of Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy (March 2019)5
• City of Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (June 2022)6
• The Plant’s LiDAR topography.
Based on the references, the Consultant will identify the projected flood elevation in the short‐term
(2030), mid‐term (2050), and long‐term (2100). The consultant will identify key sea level rise and
flood criteria, including sea level rise elevation, flood depth, and inundation duration with City staff.
The Consultant will interview staff and analyze previous Plant CIP projects to understand the
current timeline of equipment replacement and the cost premium of raising assets as they reach
the end of their useful life, as well as the potential long-term impacts to site access under this
strategy.
The CONSULTANT will develop at least three alternatives for adaptation of the RWQCP over the
planning horizon. Adaptation strategies included in these alternatives shall consider the feasibility,
economic impacts, and environmental consequences of various mitigations that may include both
natural and engineered adaptation alternatives and/or operational changes, including raising the
foundation of critical equipment as they reach the end of their useful life; installing flood doors for
existing building; and/or constructing a perimeter flood wall. The Project study area shall focus on
City-owned infrastructure located within the boundaries of the RWQCP but shall also consider site
access routes under future conditions. The CONSULTANT will collaborate with City staff through
workshop(s) to review and finalize the measures to be included in each alternative.
5 City of Palo Alto. 2019. Sea Level Rise Adaptation.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/sustainability/sea-level-rise/slr-adaptation-
policy_web.pdf?t=71340.78
6 City of Palo Alto. 2022. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/environmental-compliance/sea-level-
rise/palo-alto-sea-level-rise-vulnerability-assessment-june-2022-062822-linked-final.pdf
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 26 of 41
Based on the final alternative concepts, the CONSULTANT will then develop a cost estimate and
qualitative cost‐benefit analysis of each potential alternative, highlighting the recommended
alternative, based on long-term costs of implementation, assuming no outside funding. The
CONSULTANT will develop a reasonable implementation schedule for each alternative. Develop a
50-year timeline for each alternative, indicating the percentage of the Plant’s assets that would be
protected each year, based on the projected flood elevations. As sume that no regional solutions
(regional levee) are implemented during the subject period. For all alternatives:
• Estimate the conditions and assumptions that would be required to operate the Plant
during an inundation event (if operation is possible).
• Estimate the impact inundation would have on the Plant’s ability to receive, treat, and
properly discharge the Plant influent.
• Estimate the extent of damage, including cost impact, to City’s asset for baseline condition
(do nothing) and for each alternative.
• Estimate the requirements to bring the Plant back to fully operational following an
inundation event.
• Estimate the cost to implement each alternative using a present worth analysis.
Facilitate a workshop to present the analysis to City staff. Based on the results of the workshop, the
CONSULTANT will prepare a Climate Adaptation Plan TM. The TM will summarize the recommended
climate adaptation requirements, detail the potential alternatives for meeting the Plant’s
requirements, and include graphics/figures for each alternative, including mapping of projected
inundation areas at the planning horizons and the alignment and elevation of any protective
measures considered. Provide the City staff two drafts for comments. For each draft log and
respond to comments. Prepare a final TM.
Task 5.3 – Field Investigations
Following the City’s explicit approval, execute the Field Investigations Plan. Coordinate, oversee,
manage, and provide the services required to assess the condition and capacity of existing
infrastructure. Based on the findings from the desktop analysis (Task 5.1) and the field investigation
results, develop a list of recommended improvements to be implemented over the next 50 years.
Submit a draft TM describing the field investigation methods, findings, and recommended
improvements from the field investigation results. Conduct a workshop with Plant staff to review
the findings from the field investigations and associated recommended improvements. Incorporate
the City’s comments from the workshop and the draft Field Investigation Findings TM in the final
Field Investigation Findings TM.
Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops:
o Sea Level Rise and Flood Criteria Workshop
o Climate Adaptation Alternatives Screening Workshop
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 27 of 41
o Climate Adaptation Alternatives Evaluation and Recommended Alternative(s)
Workshop
o Desktop Analysis Findings and Field Investigations Plan Workshop.
o Field Investigations Plan Findings and Recommended Improvements Workshop.
• Climate Adaptation Plan TM, two drafts and final versions.
• Desktop Analysis TM, draft and final versions.
• Field Investigations Plan, draft and final versions.
• Field Investigation Findings TM, draft and final versions and comment log.
Assumptions:
• Field investigations will be performed by up to five Carollo staff and up to five Jacobs staff.
• Workshops will be attended by up to five Carollo staff and up to three Jacobs staff.
Workshops will be virtual and have a 2-hour duration.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Task 6 – Identification, Evaluation, and Recommendation of Alternatives/Improvements
Task 6.1 – Draft Recommended Improvements
Compile the recommended improvements from Tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 into a comprehensive draft list
of foreseeable capital improvement projects to be implemented over the next 50 years. For
reference, below is an initial list of anticipated projects. Additional projects shall be identified by
the CONSULTANT based on their findings from Tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5.
• Primary Sedimentation Tanks
• Secondary Process
o Clarifier Equipment Enhancements (e.g., Passavant hydrograv Adapt System;
flocculation)
o Clarifier Reconfiguration (e.g., square to round; deeper)
o 7th Clarifier (planning)
o Selective WAS Thickening
o RAS Lines
o MABR (second phase of implementation)
• Filtration Process
o Dual Media Filter Rehabilitation or Replacement
• UV Disinfection
• Sludge Dewatering and Truck Loadout (including Sludge Blend Tank)
• Effluent Outfall
• Chemical Storage
• Electrical Distribution
o Arc Flash Study
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 28 of 41
• Recycled Water System
• Warehouse
o Expansion (Identify whether additional storage space is needed for projected future
construction projects.)
o Improvements (e.g., controlled facility, security, climate controls)
• Workspaces
o Align with conclusions from Task 3, as applicable
• Repurposing and Recovery of Retired Process Area
o Fixed Film Reactors (Superstructure will be decommissioned following completion of
Secondary Treatment Upgrades Project in 2028. Note that City is interested in
evaluating whether the decommissioned fixed film reactors’ structure can be used
as warehouse storage or as space for future treatment process.)
o Incineration Building
o Chlorine Building
• Gravity Thickeners
• Biosolids Facilities
o Align with conclusions from Task 2, as applicable
• Miscellaneous
o Recycle water line replacement
o Hypochlorite tank and appurtenances replacement
o Low voltage and communication system improvements (including fiberoptic
network and public address system improvements)
Conduct at least two workshops with Plant staff to review and amend the project list. For each
project, determine with the City if an evaluation of alternatives (e.g., technologies; location;
capacity) is appropriate at this stage and if future alternatives analyses are required.
Coordinate with the regulatory group, including conducting a workshop as needed, to determine
applicable regulatory requirements for air quality and water quality compliance. Determine if
additional projects are needed based on the regulatory review.
For each of the capital improvement projects, determine which projects sho uld be grouped,
develop capital cost estimates, and prioritize projects to develop a reasonable implementation plan.
Compile these projects into a draft 50-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). For each project,
provide the following details:
• Name
• Description, capacity, and estimated useful life of the facility and major assets
• Project development/definition steps
• LRFP Update to implementation schedule
• Estimated capital cost
• Estimated operations and maintenance cost
• Regulatory requirements
• Necessary sea level rise and changing shallow groundwater adaptations
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 29 of 41
• Projected start of construction (year) and construction duration
CONSULTANT will review Plant data, metered utility data, chemical costs, trucking costs, etc. and
consult with Plant staff to estimate the O&M costs associated with each process (including recycled
water facilities).
Develop a draft Recommended Improvements TM.
Task 6.2 – Final Recommended Improvements
Conduct at least one workshop with Plant staff to review the draft Recommended Improvements.
Incorporate City’s comments from the draft Recommended Improvements TM and the workshop
comments in the final Recommended Improvements TM.
Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops:
o Project Identification Workshop.
o Project Prioritization and Sequencing Workshop.
o Recommended Improvements and 50-year CIP Workshop.
• Recommended Improvements TM, draft and final versions and comment log.
• Schematic of recommended improvement projects overlaid on an aerial image of the Plant
with keynotes and legend.
• 50-year CIP Excel Model.
Assumptions:
• Workshops will be attended by up to five Carollo staff and up to three Jacobs staff.
Workshops will be virtual and have a 2-hour duration.
• Cost estimates will be developed consistent with AACE Class 5.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Task 7 – Cost of Service Analysis
Task 7.1 – Operations and Maintenance Cost Allocation
Perform a Cost of Service Analysis for the Plant’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs.
Allocate/proportion the estimated O&M costs from Task 6 based on each Partner Agency’s
respective flows, loads, or other identified allocation parameters (as applicable).
Identify the share of O&M expenses for each process allocable for cost recovery from wastewater
flow, BOD, suspended solids (SS), ammonia (NH3), and other parameters as warranted (e.g. some
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 30 of 41
O&M costs may be equitably recovered based on the share of capacity owned by each member
agency). The goal will be to determine cost recovery allocations for each Plant process for equitably
recovering O&M costs from the City and its partner agencies.
Review how flow and load data is currently sampled and analyzed. Identify and evaluate options for
establishing a consistent basis for measuring and determining wastewater flow and loadings for
future O&M cost allocation. Consult with Plant staff and partner agencies to gain input and facilitate
agreement regarding future flow and loading measurement.
Identify alternative approaches for using the flow and loading data for O&M cost allocation. For
example, use of rolling multi-year data to help smooth annual changes in cost allocations, or
evaluation of cost allocation based on the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) assigned to
each agency.
Conduct a survey of other regional and comparable multi-agency wastewater treatment plants for
purposes of identifying how other agencies a) measure flows and loadings for allocating costs to
member agencies, and b) apportion O&M and capital cost to their member agencies.
Discuss how other comparable regional wastewater treatment facilities collect data and allocate
O&M costs. As warranted, develop up to three alternative methods each for allocating O&M costs
based on different combinations of allocation factors and assumptions of data availability for
relevant allocation factors and assumptions of data availability for relevant allocation factors, which
could include flow information, loading information, number of customers or other allocation
factors identified as relevant to developing an efficient and equitable allocation approach. The
following background context will be used to guide selection of appropriate allocation factors to
include in the alternative methods:
Partners like Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos began using strength components in
the cost of service by agreement on January 14, 1980 with an effective start date of July 1,
1980. This approach was formalized with EPASD in 1989 and Stanford and Los Altos Hills in
1986. The cost components are set at 34% flow, 22% ammonia (NH3), 22% total suspended
solids (TSS), and 22% chemical oxygen demand (COD). The allocations may be altered
“based upon actual cost data derived in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and upon agreement of all parties hereto.” The City will use the results of this task
to establish the cost data per generally accepted accounting principles to potentially change
the allocation of total costs to be billed on annual basis for each of the six agencies and to
potentially alter how data is collected for support of this calculation. City staff will handle
Partner agreement changes and be supported by the CONSULTANT.
Compare the existing and alternative methods, including the impact of the various options on costs
allocated to the partner agencies for O&M costs during a future budget year, such as FY 2025, that
would be selected in collaboration with the City. Evaluate alternatives to current sampling
practices used to generate load data. Make preliminary recommendation on cost allocation
approach. Finalize recommended approach after discussion with the City of advantages and
disadvantages of the approaches evaluated.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 31 of 41
Draft an Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service TM Section. Facilitate a workshop to present
the findings. Incorporate City’s comments from the draft Operations and Maintenance Cost of
Service TM Section and the workshop comments in the final Cost of Service Analysis TM.
Task 7.2 – Capital Cost Allocation
Perform a Cost-of-Service Analysis for the Plant’s Capital Costs. Review the Plant’s current allocation
of capital costs (debt) to the Partner Agencies as capacity shares. Partners established current fixed
capacity shares in about April 1985 as follows:
MAXIMUM FLOW CAPACITY RIGHTS EXPRESSED IN ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOW
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Los
Altos
Mountain
View
East Palo Alto
Sanitary District
Stanford
University
Los Altos
Hills
Palo
Alto Total
3.80 15.10 3.06 2.11 0.63 15.30 40.00
FIXED CAPACITY SHARE OF CAPITAL ASSETS FOR DEBT SERVICE SHARE
Los
Altos
Mountain
View
East Palo Alto
Sanitary District
Stanford
University
Los Altos
Hills
Palo
Alto Total
9.47% 37.89% 7.64% 5.26% 1.58% 38.16% 100%
Provide examples of capital cost allocations by other, comparable regional wastewater treatment
plants.
Evaluate alternative capital cost allocation approaches, such as different mixes of allocation factors.
Estimate the share of capital costs that would be allocated to the partner agencies in up to three
alternative allocation approaches. The alternative approaches will use different combinations of
allocation factors, such as capacity ownership, current and/or projected future wastewater flow,
BOD, SS and NH3 and other factors such as number of customers, as warranted, to allocate costs of
the major capital projects to the partner agencies. Incorporate input from Plant staff. The goal will
be to determine an equitable approach for allocating the costs of the major capital improvement
projects to each partner agency. After consultation with Plant staff, make recom mendation for
capital cost allocation approach from among the ones evaluated, and identify the resulting costs for
each partner for currently identified capital projects based on the recommended allocation
approach.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 32 of 41
Draft a Capital Cost of Service TM Section. Incorporate City’s comments from the draft Capital Cost
of Service TM Section and the workshop comments in the final Cost of Service Analysis TM.
Provide the City with a user-friendly Excel model of the proposed O&M and Capital cost allocation
tables and projections. The model will be developed with input from Plant staff and will be
designed to be easy to modify and update.
Task 7.3 – Presentation Materials
Prepare a slide deck of technical support materials and exhibits for future City Council and Partner
agency presentations, detailing the Plant’s cost of service analysis method and Partner allocations.
Provide each agency with a projection of its allocated O&M costs for the future budget year
selected for the cost of service analysis in Task 7.2. and its allocated share of capital projects based
on the selected methodology for capital cost allocation. Make content suitable for general audience
understanding. Target a 20-minute length of presentation. Incorporate two cycles of City’s review
comments.
Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops:
o Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service Allocation Workshop.
o Capital Cost of Service Allocation Workshop.
• Draft Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service TM Section.
• Draft Capital Cost of Service TM Section.
• Final Cost of Service TM.
• Cost of Service presentation materials for future City Council and partner agency
presentations, two drafts and one final version.
• Cost Allocation Excel Model.
Assumptions:
• Workshops will be attended by up to one BWA staff, up to one Jacobs staff, and up to one
Carollo staff. Workshops will be virtual and have a 2-hour duration.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Task 8 – Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report
Task 8.1 – LRFP Update Report
Prepare a draft and a final Long Range Facilities Plan Update report that incorporates the findings
from Tasks 2 through 8. Clearly note assumptions and append calculations. Submit a draft table of
contents to the City for approval. The following shall be included in the report:
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 33 of 41
• Executive Summary
• Summary of the planning process in general (including evaluation criteria and methods)
• Characterize the existing conditions, including:
o Characterization of waste streams
o Existing plant assessment and deficiencies
o Environmental setting and land uses
o Regulatory, Environmental, Financial, and Community Opportunities and Challenges
• Project Development
o Present and future requirements, needs, and opportunities
o Selection of most promising alternatives
o Evaluation of alternatives
o Life cycle costs
• Recommended Projects
o Identify each Partner’s capacities by project, as applicable.
o Present tables and figures that show projects by type (e.g., driver (increased
capacity, regulatory, and/or rehabilitation); flow, load, or flow and load), assumed
construction start year, assumed midpoint of construction, assumed useful life,
preliminary size and location, etc.
• Financial plan
o Identify costs in aggregate and by Partner allocation.
o Present project costs in both present value and in the assumed dollar value in the
year of the construction start.
As directed by the City, prioritize the completion of Task 2 and Task 3 and summarize those findings
prior to completion of the LRFP Update report.
All project recommendations, including recommended capital projects from Tasks 2 and 3, shall be
ultimately incorporated into the report’s recommended projects and finance plan. As needed,
reorganize and restructure the TMs developed in Tasks 2 to 7 to develop a cohesive and streamlined
LRFP Update report.
Task 8.2 – Presentation Materials
Prepare technical support materials and exhibits for City Council and partner agency presentations.
This presentation will compile previous presentation sections developed in Tasks 2, 3, and 6. Make
content suitable for a general public audience. Incorporate two cycles of City’s review comments.
Task 8.3 – Presentation Support
Support City staff with presentations to each partner agency, including an overview of the Long
Range Facilities Plan Update, the cost of service methodology, and the capital cost allocated share
methodology. Support City staff with presentations for public workshops on topics related to this
scope of work.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 34 of 41
• Presentation for public workshops (2 day and 1 night meetings, in-person)
• Presentation to Utilities Advisory Commission, Finance Committee, and Palo Alto City
Council (3 night meetings, in-person)
• Presentation to Mountain View Council (1 night meeting, in-person)
• Presentation to East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Engineering Committee and Board of
Directors (1 day meeting and 1 night meeting, in-person)
• Presentation to Los Altos City Council (1 night meeting, in-person)
• Presentation to Los Altos Hills Town Council (1 night meeting, in-person)
• Presentation to Stanford University staff (1 day meeting - virtual)
• Presentation to all partners (3 day meetings - virtual)
In-person support at a presentation shall include a member of the CONSULTANT’s project
management team. Other staff or subconsultants may support the presentation of the LRFP Update
through virtual technology.
Deliverables:
• Draft Table of Contents for Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report.
• Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report, draft and final versions and comment log.
• Presentation materials for City Council and partner agency presentations, two drafts and
one final version.
Assumptions:
• Presentations will be attended by up to one Carollo staff in person, up to two Carollo staff
virtually, up to two Jacobs staff virtually, and up to one BWA staff virtually. Presentations
and Q&A will have a 2-hour duration.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.
Task 9 – Additional Stakeholder Engagement & Presentation Support
Prepare technical support materials and provide presentation support for stakeholder engagement
activities beyond those identified in Task 8. This task addresses expanded public and stakeholder
engagement needs that may arise as the project progresses, including but not limited to
preparation and coordination of presentation materials responsive to partner agency requests for
additional stakeholder or commission meetings.
Deliverables:
• Presentation materials for additional stakeholder engagement meetings, one draft and one
final version per meeting
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 35 of 41
Assumptions:
• Presentations will be attended by up to two Carollo staff in person or virtually, as applicable;
presentations and Q&A will have a 2-hour duration
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format
Consultant shall not charge to this Task without prior authorization from the City's Project Manager.
V. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the
City. The CONSULTANT, at the City Project Manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written
proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and
CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such
services. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated
and agreed to in writing by the City Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of
the of the services. The additional services include, but not limited to, the following:
• Additional technical supports associated with unforeseen conditions encountered during
construction.
• Any additional work related to this Project, as requested by the City Project Manager, which
is not in Basic Services.
VI. TIME OF COMPLETION
The project is budgeted for an estimated start date in the third quarter 2024, with a total duration
(Task 1 – 9) of 36 months.
VII. OTHER PROVISIONS
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described
in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s
preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding
a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public
contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONSULTANT’s
participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be
limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. CONSULTANT shall cooperate
with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this
project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or
specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services.
END OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 36 of 41
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of
days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased
by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all
work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed
schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to
proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY.
Milestones
Completion
Number of Days/Weeks (as specified below)
from NTP
1. Task 1 – Project Management 155 weeks
2. Task 2 – Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP)
Update
123 weeks
3. Task 3 – Workspace Planning 74 weeks
4. Task 4 – Background and Baseline
Information
50 weeks
5. Task 5 – Existing Plant Infrastructure and
Process Assessment
50 weeks
6. Task 6 – Identification, Evaluation, and
Recommendation of
Alternatives/Improvements
140 weeks
7. Task 7 – Cost of Service Analysis 149 weeks
8. Task 8 – Long Range Facilities Plan Update
Report
155 weeks
9. Task 9 –Additional Stakeholder
Engagement & Presentation Support
155 weeks
Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements.
(This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or
agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)
The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in
Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of
Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term
as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 37 of 41
EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for Services performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall
be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget
amount for each task set forth below.
CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the
tasks or categories listed below, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including
any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any,
per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this
Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional
Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
TASK NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 (Project Management) $153,810
Task 2 (Biosolids Facility Plan Update) $555,462
Task 3 (Workspace Planning) $656,665
Task 4 (Background and Baseline Information) $264,826
Task 5 (Existing Plant Infrastructure and Process Assessment) $391,906
Task 6 (Identification, Evaluation, and Recommendation of
Alternatives/Improvements)
$415,125
Task 7 (Cost of Service Analysis) $139,364
Task 8 (Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report) $262,668
Task 9 (Additional Stakeholder Engagement &
Presentation Support)
$150,000
Sub-total for Services $2,989,826
Reimbursable Expenses (if any) $5,200
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses $2,995,026
Additional Services (if any, per Section 4) $299,503
Maximum Total Compensation $3,294,529
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 38 of 41
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative
support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying,
telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary
business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not
reimbursable expenses hereunder.
Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be
reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be
reimbursed are: Travel/Mileage up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $5,200.
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified
as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for
reimbursement of travel and meal expenses.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual
cost.
All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this
section, shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 39 of 41
EXHIBIT C-1
SCHEDULE OF RATES
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 40 of 41
Subconsultant: Jacobs Engineering, Inc.
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Page 41 of 41
Subconsultant: Bartle Wells Associates
Docusign Envelope ID: 1A2F36FF-9300-8949-831F-201DEA2395A0